The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-04 00:00:00

gtie

LONDON:
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1841.

The Lords did not meet yesterday.

In the Commons a new writ was moved for St.
Albans in the room of the Hon. Mr. GRIMSTON,
who has accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, and
who is going, report says, into the Church. He
is tired of being a Legislator.
_ _

A few petitions were presented, but the only
business done was the passing a resolutioE
moved by Lord Jolt:sr RUSSELL, and con-
curred in by all parties, of praise for the
distinguished and exemplary manner in which
JOHN RICKMAN, the late Clerk Assistant to the
House, had performed his duties during a long
attendance at the table." It is alike honourable
to the Commons and Mr. RICKMAN that they
have paid this Well-deserved tribute to merit,
which, though in a comparatively humble sta-
tion, was of the most exalted character.
The Report of the Committee of Supply was
brought up, and the House adjourned.

It is a common thing for timid friends and
alarmed foes to complain of the heat and violence
of the total and immediate repeal party. Even
Mr. ALCOCR, we see, who has otherwise em-
braced our cause with so much good sense, re-
proaches the Anti-Corn-law party with extreme
and violent opinions. We must take leave,
therefore, to remind that gentleman, and to re-
mind our timid friends and our alarmed oppo-
nents, that the Corn-law faction refuses, and has
long refused, in the most insulting manner, to
make the smallest concession to the_unem_iir
unemployed
and half-starved people. Session after session,
before the present agitation began, did the
bread-taxers, and they do still, resist the attempts
to allow foreign corn to be ground in bond. For
a considerable Period they resisted the efforts of
the shipping interest to allow our shipping to be
supplied with foreign produce; and even last
session, after they had in the wantonness of
power treated the Anti-Corn-law men with the
greatest contumely, they united to throw out the
Bill for allowing foreign flour to be imported into
Ireland, though their conduct on that occasion
was justly characterised by Mr. WARLEY as
inflicting the use of unwholesome food and
typhus fever on the people. Now, con-
sidering the determined manner in which the
bread.taxers have maintained their monopoly,
repelling with unflinching severity every attempt
to break through it in the slightest degree; con-
sidering, too, how the law to levy the tax was
originally passed, almost at the point of the bay-
onet, and certainly in open defiance of the in-
sulted masses ; and, above all, considering the
nature of the tax, nothing can be expected from
those who oppose it but the most sweeping, un-
sparing, and vehement condemnation.
What is the tax? A law to take away the
property of the industrious classes, and give it to
the idle owners of rent, a law to pare down the
loaves of the poor, at d trarismute the bread
filched, by the honolred and revered means of a
law, into gewgaws, jewels, and luxuries for rae
rich. It was well observed a few days ago by the
Morning Post, that production is not every thing,
the distributiou, of wealth is of importance.
It is nit *ant. The Legislature cannot
by its pareltiotent decrees make a blade of grass
or an ear dwbeat gi ow ; it has no influence, ex-
ceptitubsoctly, over production, which it impedes;
SallatkialssaLthst tt eau. do, is to distribute

the wealth which is produced differently from
the distribution made by nature and justice.
The Corn-law directly alters the distribution of
wealth, and indirectly, by depriving industry of
its reward, impedes production. It alters the dis-
tribution in the most scandalous.and unjust man-
ner. It is a swindling violation of the industri-
ous man's right of property. To be tender to
such an Act is to do that which the law punishes,
to compound a felony. Those who entertain a
solemn conviction that the law is as we have de-
scribed it—unjust--would be false to themselves
and their own opinions, if they spoke of the bread-
tax and the bread taxers in any other language
than that of the severest moral reprobation.
For them to compromise the matter—to be ac-
cessory to half a felony—would be to share the
guilt they denounce. They would be worse than
their opponents, for they would sin against con-
viction. They have not done the cause of un-
taxed bread any injury, its compromising friends—
who have deprived the contest of the sanctity of
moral feeling, and degraded it into a huckstering
bargain—have inflicted on it many severe injuries.
They have given arms into the hands of our
'opponents, and they are to blame that the bread-
tax is not before now triumphantly repealed.
They have made it a question of more or less, of
what it costs to raise wheat here and elsewhere,
and have killed the enthusiasm which lived in
the hearts of the people.

If it could be shown that the people had made
the law, and thereby created the legal rights
which have grown from it, if it could be proved
that they had been ever passive under it, that
might be some reason for saying that they had
been particeps critninis, and were not justified in
throwing all the loss of undoing their own act on
their coadjutors in guilt. But the original law was
passed by a borough-mongering Parliament, in
which the people were not represented, and over
which they could exercise no influence. It was
altogether the work of the landlords, and the
effect of undoing the wrong should fall only on
them. The people remonstrated loudly against
it in 1815, and have never neglected to remon-
strate against it since, at every fitting opportunity.
It is too much, therefore, now to ask them to
be moderate in their efforts to throw off this in-
cubus, and to tell them they must continue to
bear part of it for the sake of good-fellowship
with the landlords. It is too much to tell them
they ought to speak kindly and lady-like to
those who fleece them; that it is their duty to
bear oppression meekly, and turn, spaniel-like,
a beseeching eye to those who kick and spurn
them. Nothing was ever yet won from unprin-
cipled avarice by supplication; but it is essentially
timid, and much may be gained from its fears.
We hold those Corn-law repealers who tell us
to be moderate in our demands and respectful in
our language, however well intentioned, to be
ignorant of the nature of the contest and the
means of victory. Our best friends are those who
speak the boldest, and who, in reply to the " No
Surrender" of the bread taxers, incessantly and
uncompromisingly demand the total and imme-
diate repeal.

The administration of justice, the settling of
disputes, and preventing quarrels between indi-
viduals, the substitution of a calm decision by a
third party for the feuds of passion, or the wild

justice of revenge, is undoubtedly the chief busi-
ness of every Government in relation to its own
subjects, if not its sole business. We remember,
in fact, that Lord BROUGHAM, in that celebrated
speech of his on law reform, pronounced some-
where about 1828, affirmed, quoting some writer
even still more celebrated than himself, that the
whole end and aim of all our institutions was to
get twelve honest men and true into a jury-box,
and get from them fair and honest decisions.
We may from this statement come to a short and
compendious conclusion, that the Government
which neglects to provide means for the adminis-
tration of justice, which allows them to be per-
verted or corrupted, whatever else may be its
merits, is really worthless. It does not answer
the object for which all Governments are formed
and submitted to, for which taxation is borne,
and by which restraints are justified—namely,
the upright administration of justice between
man and man. The end of its existence is not
attained, it must be called barren, like a childless
woman, whatever her accomplishments.

For many years the Reformers and Radicals,
the BROUGIIAMS, HARVEYS, and HUMES, have
declared that such was the constitution of our
Courts, and such the neglect of our Legislature,
that justice was not, and could not be, done be-
tween man and man. Nay, Lord BROUGHAM went
so far in the celebrated speech we have referred

to, as to assert that the law, instead of being a
staff and a shield to innocence, was a two-edged
sword, which frequently smote those it should
protect. Nor does it seem, after twelve years of
all kinds of reform, to be improved in its charac-
ter. The night before last the ATTORNEY-GENE-
RAL—who has of late been distinguished by his
zeal against Chartists, who do not reverence the

law, and publishers of books which are not agree-
able to the parsons, and which ignorant Jury-
men condemn as blasphemous—decribed our
Courts of Equity as denying redress and denying
justice in all cases which come within their juris-
diction of a less value than 1001. In these remarks
he was borne out by every other person who
spoke on the subject, and such cases were men-

tioned as differences or disputes between partners,
in which there was no means of obtaining re-
dress. Nay, it was expressly said by the Learned
Gentleman, that unless the sum in dispute were

large, above 1001., no one but a madman would
think of applying to the Court for redress. It is

impossible to pronounce a more severe censure on
the Legislature than to prove, while it has been
busy year after year devising restrictions on
our industry, and inventing means of enriching
its members, that it has neglected to provide for
the due administration of justice.

All these, however, may be supposed to be the
complaints of ignorant Radicals or of dema-
gogues aiming at power by promoting public dis-
content. Conservative writers and speakers who
profess to adore all our institutions, and who
are ready to sho-ot, hang, or drown all those
who question their unparalleled excellence, ttlay
say that the representation is not true, that there
is nothing wrong, and that the administration of
justice is, like every thing else, perfect under the
best of landlordocracies. In particular, if they
are true to their creed, and to the traditionary
praise of our institutions, they will assert that
the House of Lords, the last Court of Appeal,
in all cases is the fittest, as it is the noblest, tri-
bunal that ever lICAA invented, worthy to control
and correct the fallible judgment of all weaker
men, and to put on Radicals and Reformers the
curb of law and reason. Now let the reader, then,
note the following description of that perfect
tribunal, not spoken by HENRY BuouGium, or
DANIEL W. HARVEY, or Mr. O'CONNELL, Orally
politician of principles verging towards demo-
cracy, but spoken by that sound 'Conservative
lawyer and statesman, the past Tory Lord Chan-
cellor of Ireland, perhaps the future Tory Lord
Chancellor of England, Sir EDWARD BURTEN-
SHAW SUGDEN. Speaking of the House of Lords
he said, and his observations are equally severe
on the Court of Privy Council—

The composition of the House of Lords as a
Court of Appeal was a great anomaly. It owed
its establishment to a train of unforeseen circum-
stances ; its jurisdiction was denied in late times by that
House, in the strongest terms, and to the extent of
committing persons who sought its protection ; and
though it was ultimately established, they were content
to leave their authority in the state they found it. What
esnald be more absurd than that the decrees of a Judge,
whowaa. competent to the performance of his task,
should be reversed by a body of Peers, who were en-
tirely
ignorant of every matter relating to the adminis-
tration of the law ? Had this practically been the
' the Oaring absurdity of the practice would have
'mulcted it intolerable ; but the great body of the
Peers acquiesced in the decision of the Lord
Chancellor ; and he was, in fact, the sole
Judge of Appeals in the House of Lords. It was
right, therefore, to consider the qualifications Daces-

nary for the performance of the functions of Lord
Chancellor. It sometimes happened that circumstances
might render it expedient that that office should be filled
by a person not possessed of the greatest share of equity
law, who might have to learn the law which he was
called on to administer, on whose judgments no de-
pendence could be placed, not en account of any fault
of the individual so filling the office, but because, pre-
vious to his appointment, his attention had been en-
tirely engrossed by matters foreign to the study of that
law which he was called on to administer ; and it
might happen, as it sometimes had happened, that he
might decide on a case without calling in the assistance
of the other Judges. All appeals from the
Court of Chanccry must be appeals to him-
self. This, of itseif, was a most alarming fact. If a
Judge in the Court below was called on to re-hear a
cause, as that cause would not be carried to another
tribunal, he might change his opinion without any im-
pugning of his judgment, as other circumstances might
have been brought to his knowledge ; but in a case of
appeal from his judgment to a Superior Court, unless it
was a case of some obvious slip, it would be contrary to
human nature to expect that he should reverse his
own decision. His authority being impugned before
his Peers, he had every motive and every feeling to
affirm his own decision. He was, in fact, to all in-
tents and purposes, a party in the cause. If a Judge
had a pecuniary interest in a cause he was not per-
mitted to sit in judgment on it ; and whilst character
and high station were of any value—whilst self-loie
was an actuating motive in the human breast, the Lord
Chancellor, sitting as the Judge of Appeals in the House
of Lords, would have a much stronger motive than
any pecuniary one could possibly bo to affirm
his own decision. The ancient Grecian had ap-
pealed from Philip drunk to Philip sober ; but
appeals from the Court of Chancery to the House
of Lords were appeals from Philip sober to Philip drunk
—appeals from a Judge uninfluenced by any motive, with
all his passions slumbering, to the same Judge actuated
by the strongest possible motives, the passion of self-
love, to support his own previous judgment.
That, reader, is a Conservative's opinion of the
highest Court of Appeal, and yet that same
Conservative would prosecute any man, if
he had the power, and his fellow Conser-
vatives around him would yell with delight
at his malicious achievement, who should speak
of that Court out of Parliament in that honest
language of indignation which such a miserable
imposition, and such a sad piece of humbug de-
serves. And what is the remedy which this
Conservative lawyer proposes? Positively a
greater humbug still. He would appoint two
Judges, called Assistants, to help the LORD
CHANCELLOR, which assistants, unless they hap-
pen to be Peers, are not to have votes, but only to
give their opinions, which may be expected, when
there is no motive or interest to counteract
it. To have some influence over the body
of Peers, entirely ignorant of law, who
now set aside the decision of learned Judges,
the LORD CHANCELLOR, a judge of great weight,
necessarily a Peer, and.surrounded with all the
circumstances which give a man influence with
the Peers, presiding, too, over their legislative
deliberations, can perhaps guide the votes of the
unlearned Peers ; but his authority cannot be
possessed by any assistant Judges. They will
lessen his power, and excite doubts of his deci-
sions, but they will not procure respect for their
own. The number of Law Lords of late intro-
duced into the House of Lords, who have
taken part in judicial cases, has neither added
to the weight of its decisions, nor the respect of the
suitors. Little bickering-8 and wrangling have
taken place which partake of the legislative
rather than the judicial character of the assembly.
Such evils will be increased by Sir EDWARD SUG-
DEN'S two journeymen Judges, and his plan is a
greater humbug than he has shown the existing
scheme to be, because it will lessen none of
its evils, and saddle the country with consider-
able expense.

It is high time that our Legislature should
look into this subject. At present, its most im-
portant duties are neglected, and will be till the
administration of justice be rendered cheap and
sure. From what the lawyers have already done
for the community on this point, it is plain that
the reform 'of the Courts must not be left to
them. If laymen do not take up the question,
all the alterations made by the lawyers will most
certainly tend to increase their business, autho-
rity, and emoluments.

There is no more important right than, that of
property. "We have Mr. LOCKE'S authority,"
it has been remarked, for saying—others, as
CICERO, having said the same thing before—" That
the great and 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." We might expect, therefore,
that the Legislature should be particularly clear,
precise, and definite in its enactments about pro-
perty, and so it undoubtedly would be if it had
any clear notion of that right and its own duties.
But the long predominance. of Toryism, which is
at once ignorant and arbitrary, has made the Le-
gislature disregard all kind of principles, and be
satisfied with declaring as law the self and the
selfish will of a majority. Of this kind of Tory-
ism we have an example in apaper on Tuesday.
Mr. WARBURTON having asserted the foolish
and ultra-Tory opinion, in the House of Com-
mons on Friday evening, that there are no na-
tural rights, which places all mankind at the
mercy of legislators, as ignorant and wicked
as our landlords, the Post tells us, in some com-
ments on the subject, that, "for Parliamen-
tary purposes, BLA CKSTONE'S brief account of
the right of property may serve." What his
brief account is, we put at present out of the
question ; we quote the phrase to show how, in
the opinion of the Tories, the Legislature may
content itself with any sort of definition of
this most important right, which may answer
its present purpose, and save it from the trouble
of thinking. It is not to consider what is true
and what is good, not to concern itself with ab-
stract truths—another phrase for vast masses of
experience expressed by a single sentence—but
is to rest satisfied with any and every miserable
subterfuge which the hour may bring forth.
TTie brief account of the right of property
given by BLACKSTONE ought not to suffice for
Parliamentary purposes, for till Parliament is
fully and thoroughly aware of the exact bounds
of that right—till it has attained precise and clear
ideas on the subject, it will very likely go on
making laws to violate it, like the Corn-law, and
to plunder the industrious poor for the behoof of
the idle rich. As BLACKSTONE says, though he
himself had no very clear idea of the source and
limits of the right of property, for he opines " it
is probably founded in nature," "men are so
pleased with possession that they are afraid to
look back to the means by which it was acquired,
as if fearful of some defect in their title ; or at
least they rest satisfied with the decision of the
laws in their favour, without examining the
reason or authority upon which those laws have
beenbuilt." This is what the Legislature now does.
Considering that amongst those who rest satisfied
are the law-makers themselves, considering too,
, that they are one and all, of necessity, in posses-
sion, this passage is a remarkable one, as it
shows that they acquiesce in their own decrees
for their own advantage, without ever inquiring
whether those decrees are conformable to right
oamb e nt o
and justice, and without therefore having formed
nye d
i cleare n c
though
susete the
thatootbhpeieynyiothnaerem, to
readycompel
to their
always it is the duty of other
halter and the bayonet.
While we agree with the Post in repudiating
Mr. WARBURTON'S philosophy, we feel grateful
to him for calling attention to the subject, by
blurting out in the House of Commons, and so
making known to the whole world, the abomi-
nable principle on which law-makers act, "though
few or none of them have the honesty to give
their thoughts and their deeds a tongue.
They proceed on the supposition that man has
no natural rights, and no correlative natural
duties, and so they make laws to create rights,
and impose duties. That is the great object and
sum of legislation. A reasonable public writer,
adopting the opinion of the Post, that Mr.
WARBURTON was in error, would have readily
taken the opportunity to place a correct view

• • - • :44•'• 4, •
Ari 11.... P
:717 ' •