The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-08 00:00:00

SUPPLEMENT TO THE LONDON

GAZETTE OF FRIDAY.

LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN'S-OFFICE, HOC/1E OF LORDS,

FEB. C, 1841.

Notice is hereby given, that, in consequence of the
fitting up o: and appropria ion of the present House of
Peers for the trial of the Earl of Ca digan on the 16th
instant, the usual number of orders of admission on such
occasions cannot be issued from this office.

By order of the House of Lords, the issue of tickets
is confined to the Lords, who will each receive one
ticket, upon personal application for the same at tiiis
office, between the hours of ten and five, on 'rueslay,
Wednesday, or Thursday, the 9th, 10th, and 11th Joys
of this instant February.
By order of the House of Lords, no person to be ad-
ulated about the Throne, except such Peers of Szot-
land and Ireland as do not sit in the House, Minor
Peers, and the Eldest Sons of Peers ; and that each
person, to be so admitted, be provided with a ticket for
such admission upon personal application for the same
to the LDrd Great Chamberlain, at this office, be-
tween the hours of ten and live, on Tuesday, Wed-
neslay, or Thursday, the 9th, 10th, and 11th days of
this instant February.
No person, whatsoever, except Lords of Perlia•
merit, will he admitted to be present in the House of
Lords, at the said trial, without a ticket from the Lord
Great Chamberlain.
The doors will be opened at half past nine o'clock.
(Signed) WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBY.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE..

MANCHESTER.-FRIDAY EVENING.

The fifteen forfeits for the Cheater Cup neither seem
to have acted as an impetus to business, nor to have ad-
vanced the position of any particular horse. This morn-
ing ti to 1 against Bloomsbury was laid, but offered so
freely that 7 to 1 was asked for, to " some money ;'' 11 to
1 to a small sum was laid v. Gallipot ; 100 to 3 accepted
on Trustee; 100 to 8 was offered in an influential quarter
sgaicst Retriever, and 100 to 6, bar three. No one would
lay 4 to I against two, which the party (supposed to be
connected with the " trial horse " of 1839) are evidently
anxious to accept. 20 to 1 was laid against Queen Bce ;
500 to 20 offered against Sir George ; and 500 to 10
taken on Lugwardine, wanted by the same partyjon Mar-
gai%•t, to 5 Tilo field was freely ott.A-ed to be backed
against 7—fake 9, or give 10 and '• bar the crack; 400
to 100 would have been accepted that the winner is at
Middieham.
THE DEHBY.—We did cot hear a bet Inzcle ; 16_10.1
is offered on the field, 500 to 30 v. Eringe, 18
V.
SDuu‘kite
n,
28 to 1 the Knight of the Whistle, 35 to 13t0
against
b
of Wellingto 30 to 1 v. Wallah, 1,000 to
Erinengardis (effered), 4 to 1 would be taken on Scott's

.ot.
THE OAKS —lO 10 1 V. Lampoon,taken to a round

ur last

......-____ _
WALSALL ELECTION.--THE ANTI-CORN-
LAW LEAori.:.— We know there are many persons who
doubted the wisdom of the interference to which we have
alluded, but who determined to suspend their judgment
u
the
resultcontest would;oer ving, that if the
Leaguenil the
were successful, prove
they
were
right : if unsuccessful, there could be no doubt that they
were wrong.. We, however, aro not disposed to put the
tteerreina ri n o f
question upon that issue. So tar as the result of the elec-
tion goes, the League have failed , • but we cannot say that
their object has not been to a great extent answered, for
they have sustained the contest, on which they very rashly
entered, with a degree of energy and perseverance
which
commanded the respect of all parties ; and, although
they failed, as we were pretty
b pure,
eve and indeed pre-
dicted, that they would, e •ry everybody must allow that
their defeat has not be en a discreditable one. Mr.
Smith was opposed by a candidate who had not
only finished canvassing the electors before he arrived, but
who had been closely watchicg the borough for eighteen
months before, with a view to contesting it on the next
vacancy, and had cousequently paid the most unremitting
attention to the registration, which was most shamefully
neglected be Mr. Finch and his friends. From state-
ments made to us on the subject, we have no doubt that an
advantage far exceeding the amount of the 27 votes by
which Mr. Gladstone eventually carried his election, was
gained at the last revision, by filling the register with
Tories who had no right to be upon it, and striking out
Liberals whose names ought to have been retained.
Under all these unfavourable circumstances, for Mr.
Smith to poll within 27 votes of his opponent showed
very extraordinary strength, and proved that, with a little
attention to the register, and a fair start at the time of
election, the issue of the contest would have been alto-
gether different.--,Manchester Guardian.
PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.—An
account of the not public income and expenditure for the
year ending the sth day January, 1841, has just been
H of
laid before the
ome of C.:mmuns, from which it appears
that the total revenue amounts to 47.567,565/. 125. lid.,
and the expenditure to .19,161,5361.8 a. IV., leaving a
deficiency of 1,593,970/. Ida. 4d.
/7' s ~

/

%Q/.
~ l~

L;

LONDON:
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1841.

Though differing in opinion from Mr. WAR-
BURTON on the right of property, we rejoiced that
he spoke out boldly on Friday week, and gave
the world to know what are the principles which
guide the gentlemen at Westminster. Both his
opinions and his boldness are shared by Mr.
MACAULAY, who denied, on the debate on copy-
right on last Friday, that property was a natural
right, but who sail, using language such as we
have frequently used, that " to deprive authors
of their natural right should be looked upon a.:
an act of legal plunder." Of course, he would
extend the principle to all men as well as authors,
and would admit, that to deprive the labourers
or the manufacturers of their natural right to buy
and sell, or trade with whom they please, as is
done by the Corn-law, not for the benefit of the
State, but for the sake of enriching the aristo-
cracy, is the worst description of legal plunder.
Fortified then by the high authority of one of the
law-makers themselves, we shall have even less
repugnance than hitherto to describe the con-
duct of those who make laws to take property
from one class to Ove it to another, as legal
plunder.
But Mr. MACAULAY 1101(18 "that property is
the creature of the law;" he denies, like Mr.
WARBURTON, a natural right of property, and at
the same time, with something of the simplicity
of the Tory Post, he objects to a metaphysical
discussion in the House of Commons of the
origin of property. IVe are not surprised that
the Right Hon. Gentleman should take this line,
because we recollect that he put forth similar
opinions at Edinburgh, with a view to silence the
Chartists, in which he by no means succeeded.
We should be unjust if we allowed Mr. MAcAu-
:AY, any more than the Post, to escape from an
uvestigation of this subject by alleging that any
4,n-;.liniticn of property may serve for the House

of Commons, or by referring to the authority of
PALEY that property is the creature of law.
We had occasion to show on Thursday—in an
article on the proposed reform of the jurisdiction in
equity—that the great end of all our institutions
Is to administer justice ; and as about nine-tenths
of the business of the Courts relates to property,
it follows that the great object of our laws is to
protect property. A much greater number of
laws, too, is made in relation to property than in
relation to persons. Thus it may be unhesita-
tingly affirmed that the great mass of our insti-
tutions relate to property, and it is equally un-
seemly in the Post to tell us that on such a sub-
ject the Parliament may be contented with the
brief, vague, and incorrect definition of BLACK-
STONE, and in Mr. MACAULAY to base an elabo-
borate argument on a definition of property,with-
out an attempt to prove it, which he knows is
contrary to that of our best writers. Considering
the right of property to be the key-stone of all
social institutions, we shall endeavour to show
that Mr. MACA ULAY'S assertion, that property is
the creature of law, is erroneous.
We quoted a passage from Mr. LOCKE on
Thursday, which expressly states that " the chief
end of men's uniting into commonwealths, and
putting themselves under Government, is the
preservation of their property, to which, in the
state of nature, there are many things wanting."
That great philosopher, then, admits that
property existed antecedent to Government and
antecedent to human law. It was not to have a
right of property created, but to preserve their
property previously in existence, tb the preser-
vation of which, not to the creation of which, in
Mr. LOCKE'S opinion, there are many things
wanting in a state of nature, that men united under
Government. If men have no natural rights,
and if property be not one of them, they are
altogether at the mercy of the law-maker, who,
instead of having to make his laws, as BLACK-
STONE says, to accord with the laws of nature,
will have no other guide for his conduct than his
own wild imaginations or dreaming fancies.
Mr. MAcAtaAv says expediency, or public

utility, is the basis of the legal right of property.
But how could the utility or the expediency of
a law be ascertained, before it was made?
Every day convinces us that legislators know
little or nothing before-hand of what will
be the effects of any enactment. They
must have waited for the experience of
the laws creating property before they could,
from such a motive, have passed them. They
could have known nothing of public utility and
of public expediency, when they made laws
establishing property. In fact, the theory of
expediency or public utility is a modern inven-

tion, brought forward by interested men to justify
existing institutions, and was wholly unknown to

those who took possession of the soil by the sword,
and made laws, as was stated in the Edinburgh
Review, by the sword to sai.poi t their possession.
Public good and general expediency are con-
venient names, behind which landlords and
others hide the most selfish motives ; but they
are not very easily appreciable by the highest
faculties with which any human being was ever
endowed, and certainly are not to be measured
by the herd of hereditary ignoramusses,
plodding lawyers, cunning merchants, and un-
licked youths, the younger sons of the nobility,
who compose our Legislature. We must prefer
Mr. LOCKE'S opinion of the origin of the right of
property to that of Mr. MACAULAY, and Mr.
LocKE's opinion is as follows :
" Every man," be says, " has a property in his own
person that nobody has any right to but himself. The
labour of his body and the work of his hand are his pro-
perty. Whatsoever, then, be removes out of the state
that nature hath provided and left it in, he bath mixed his
labour with it and joined to something that is his own, and
thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed
from the common state nature bath placed it in, it bath by
this labour something annexed to it that excludes the com.
mon right of other men. For the labour being the unques.
tionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have
a right to what that is joined to—at least, where there is
enough and as good left in common for others."

" Be that is nourished by the acorn he picked up under
an oak, or the apple he gathered from the trees in the
wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. No-
' body can dory but the nourishment is his. I ask, then,
when they began to be his? When ke digested? Or
when he eat, or when he boiled ? Or when be brought
them home? Or wheu be picked them up? And,
it is plain, that if the first gathering made them not his
nothing else could. That labour put a distinction between
them and common, that added something to them more
than nature—the common mother of all—had dune, and
so they became his private right."
" Thus the law of reason makes the deer that In-
dian's who bath killed it; it is allowed to be his
goods who bath bestowed his labour upon it, though
before it was the commen right of every one. And
amongst those who are accounted the civilised part of
mankind—Who have made and multiplied laws to deter-
mine property—this original law of nature for the begin.
ning of property in what was before common, still takes
place; and by virtue thereof, what fish any one catches in
the ocean—that yrrat and still remaining common if man.
kind,—or what ambergris any one takes up here, is, by Me
labour that removes it out of the common state nature left
it, made his property who takes that pains about it."
" But the chief matter of property being now," lie goes
on, " not the fruits of the ccrth and the beasts that sub-
sist on it, but the earth itself as that which lakes
and carries with it all the rest, I think it plain that
property in that too is (ought to be ?) acquired
as the former. As much land as a man tills,
plants, cultivates, and can use the products of, so much
is his property. He, by his labour, does, as it were,
-inclose it from the common.l-

According to Mr. LOCKE, then, labour, which
ADAM SMITH calls the only original purchase-
money of all wealth, is the source of the natural
right of property ; that the existing right
of property does not correspond thereto, with
all its laws of succession, is no proof, as
Mr. MACAULAY seems to consider it, that such a
right has no existence, but merely that the exist-
ing right of property requires some revision, in
order to be brought into harmony with the natu-
ral right of property. It suits bread-taxing
landowners, pension-eating sinecurists, and tithe-
fed priests to contend that there is no natural right
of property, because that is a convenient theory
for their exactions ; but the industrious classes
cannot admit it, without justifying all that legal
plunder of which they now incessantly com-
plain. They may admit, indeed they must ad-
mit, that the right of the landowners to re-
ceive an additional rent from taxing the
bread of the poor, that the right •of the
tithe-owner to receive a large portion of
the produce of other mens' industry, and the right
of the pensioner to be maintained out of the
taxes, are all created by the law, and, therefore,
they must admit, so far as these rights are
called a right of property, that the rights of pro-
perty is created by the law ; but that right of
property the industrious classes are prepared to
assert, whatever Mr. MACAULAY may say, is
neither expedient nor useful.!

Of Civil Government, book ii., dap. 5, sec. 28.
Of Civil Government, book ii., chap. 5, sec. 30.

The public may find pleasure in perusing Mr.
GILBART'S graphic description, inserted in an-
other part of The Sun, of the tactics which should
be pursued by Joint-stock and Private Banks, in
opposing the formation of one National Bank of
Issue, should such a project be entertained. We
have heard too much of the evil consequences of
the contest in the United States between the
Banking power and the Government, to wish
for any such contest in England; but, supposing
it to arise, Mr. GILBART'S tactics seem well cal-
culated to make the issue doubtful for the Go-
vernment.

We beg our readers not to suppose that by
inserting Mr. GILBART'S remarks we assent to
all his conclusions_ Like other men, he speaks
for himself and his own interest; and we
no more wish to see Joint-stock bankers
making laws for the community than laud-
lords. Our laws must not be made to give
predominancy to those who, as we stated the
other day on Mr. HARDCASTLE'S authority, hav-
ing before stated it on our own, receive interest ,
on their debts. It ought never to be forgotten
that a banker's promise to pay on demand, by
which
he pretends to assist trade, is, in fact, a
loan from the public. Now, the law must on no
account be made to give privileges and immu-
nities to such borrowers. The power of borrow-
ing ought on no account to be limited by law,

• •
, ,
P.°, 4 .4 td,
• „
' irtik •
• for. 431..

unt