The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-30 00:00:00

Let us grant that property has, if not always,
for a long period been the sign of representation ;
but then let us look at the circumstances of so..
ciety when it was established, and at the present
circumstances of society, and we may discover
whether it were reasonable then and reasonable
now.

When this principle of our Constitution was
established, society consisted mainly of four
classes, the great barons or landowners, the
smaller franklins, the landowners—serfs, and free
inhabitants of towns. To give the serfs the fran-
chise, would have been absurd ; the barons had
it by right of their swords or as a feudal privilege ;
and as the serfs did not own property, and,
above all, not property in land, the possession of'
that was held .to be the sign of a freeman. The
franchise, then, was not conferred on the
property, but the property was held to
be a sign of freedom, and freedom was en-
dowed with the franchise. We deny, there-
fore, that property was the original principle
of representation, it was freedom ; but, as in
other cases, the sign of freedom, property, has
become of more importance than the thing signi-
fied ; and freedom is trampled under foot that
property may be exalted.

A principle similar to that which made our
ancestors assume property as the test of free-
dom in the counties, operated in making them
select the residents of towns, or the freemen of
corporations, as voters. They were emphatically
enfranchised and emancipated as compared to
the landlords' serfs, and it was not the possession
of a 101. house, or a house of any size, that gave
the man a vote, but his quality of a freeman,
contributing to the burdens of the town. We
maintain, therefore, in opposition to the assertion
that property has always been the basis of our
representation, that it was not property, it was
freedom, (as con tradistinguished from serfdom),
of which the possession of property was an in-
fallible sign.

The Tories are very fond of adhering to the
wisdom of our ancestors. We wish they would
adhere to it according to the spirit, which giveth
life, not according to the letter, which killeth.
At present serfdom is abolished. We are all
equally free. Property, instead of now being a
sign of freedom, is a sign of power and oppres-
sion. It enslaves poverty. Our ancestors, who
acted on circumstances, and were not bound, as
we are, by the dead words of their predecessors,
were they in our situation,would infalliblyestablish
the representation on the basis of population,
with a view of enabling poverty to resist being
enslaved by capital. Our Tories all talk about
it, and yet insist, like the Times, on capital
and property being exclusively represented.
Nay, they resist every attempt to give a re-
presentative to the present race of freemen as
a violation of the wisdom of our ancestors.

Want of modesty in a woman is not half so
offensive as a wanton display of party or na-
tional prejudices by a Judge on the bench. In
civil cases this is sufficiently disgusting ; in
criminal trials it is absolutely revolting. Without
any wish to palliate the dreadful crime of which
three Irishmen were capitally convicted at the
Glasgow Assizes, on Friday, we call the atten-
tion of our readers to some remarks made on the
occasion by the Lord Justice Clerk, the chief
Criminal Judge in Scotland. Before quoting
the words, it may be proper to mention a strange
feature of the trial. Three or four accomplices
were examined, and the evidence was considered
conclusive, whereupon the public prosecutor
simply asked a verdict of guilty against all the
prisoners, on an intimation being made by Mr
PATRICK ROBERTSON, the Counsel for the un-
happy men, that he would not avail himself of the
privilege of addressing the Jury in their behalf,
hut leave their case in the hands of the Court and
Jury. This certainly was a strange departure
from the English practice, and from what,
hitherto, we believed was the universal practice
in Scotland. When three of the principal wit-
nesses were accomplices, and to a certain extent
guilty of the crime which they were called to
prove against their countrymen, there were
sufficient grounds at all events for the Counsel
addressing the Jury, without throwing up his
briefs, and deciding the fate of the men at once.
Lord MONCRIEFF summed up very fairly, but,
possibly owing to the circumstance mentioned)
judged it prudent to make the following re-
marks:—

" These men are strangers in our country ; they are of a
different religion from us ; and I dare say it may be in their
imaginations that they are not in safe hands with us ; but
they know little either of the judicial seat here, or of a
British Jury, or a Scottish Jury especially, if they think there
is the slightest chance that they shall not lie dealt with with
the same impartiality as if they were of our own country, of
with such
our own religion."
Possibly this is true, but prejudice often gives
agubiidaes ttohtehe judgment ; and no man could eon-
Bider himself fairly tried if his jurors were imbued
~dsraaidwhnis
seLnotridme
jnutsstaicse thcolseerkw.hiTelhleszmioewdinto
his remarks, the first part of which certainly
g
oiasfi,.
sufficientlye‘atis
a characterr me, intelligible—the other reminds us
bLyordShH.p,AK,SIPIA
happyaE :
crime by no means rare in anothel part of her Alaj
rare ineeed in this part of her All e
st
toy
,s say,d ovi
ne ri y.
justiceaaicios oceomluita nbsh
eeayrrsaectt,
eohbuean have
crime
murder, es
is,
theand tom 0 carryr e un
eit x
aintoi
Majesty's dominions, but it is a
nions, from which these three prison haved lately issued; and
nocfotuhraatgzu
themnt ry, atro, dn
enter many.
theict they see exhibited
izintzoeactshuisiomzstßfouutl
thitirreiss
I am too much afraid that the prisoners
escapes from
irnestshedis
r uty.in
country, the more necessary is it that it should
with the arm of the law. The Jury have done
regard to this case ; and, painful as that duty is, it only
for us to do eur duty to the country, in order toceremrs
„ot era
from crimes of a similar description in all time coming."
This was pronounced in Glasgow—in a place
notorious for the most alarming combination
that ever existed, for murders but a short
time back that made the blood run cold,
and possibly in the presence of Sheriff ALI-
SON, who, in his evidence before the Com-
mittee of the House of Commons, drew such
a frightful picture of society in that very dis.

for the laws of GOD. Their gross and grievous
inconsistency may perhaps be accounted for by
some blindness to the consequences of their own
assertions and principles, or it may be referred
to arrant and wilful hypocrisy ; but on either
principle they proclaim themselves the dire ene-
mies of popular rights, and the champions of the
abominable principle that the work of man's
hand is more worthy of estimation than man
himself. The Tories contend that property is
to be represented and man not.
But while they give this great power into the
hands of the capitalists, or into the hands of men
of property, they seem to look to some regula-
tions to be made by capital which will prevent it
encroaching on poverty. They first invest capital
with unlimited power over labour, by placing
legislation exclusively in the hands of the former,
and then they expect that it will make laws to
restrain its own wishes and desires. They remind
us of the Right Hon. Gentleman referred to by
Mr. BURKE in his speech on Mr. Fox's India Bill :
That is, he would appoint the old offenders to correct the
old offences; and he nould render the vicious and the foolish
wise and virtuous by salutary regulations. He would appoint
the wolf a. a guardian of the sheep , but he has invented a cu-
rious muzzle, by which this protectin4 wolf shall not he able to
open his jaws above an inch or two at the utmost. Thus his
work is finished.
Mr. BURKE was not disposed, like Tory Jour-
nalists, to place the power of controlling abuses in
the hands of those to serve whose interest they
originate. He added—
But I tell the Right Hon. Gentleman that controlled depra-
vity is not innocence, and that it is not the labour of delin-
quency in chains that will correct abuses. Will those gentlemen
of the direction animadvert on the partners of their own guilt ?
Never did a serious plan of amendment of any old tyrannical
establishment propose the authors and abettors of abuses as the
reformers of them.
Our Tories, however, would confine the power
of restraining the tyranny of capital in the hands
of capital itself. We accuse them less of malig-
nancy than ignorance. They are led astray by
false analogies, by a reference to words instead
of things, and they deem themselves to be main-
taining a principle while they are perpetuating
an abuse. They say, in common with many
Whigs, that property has always been the prin-
ciple of representation in England, and they
only propose to preserve the principle of the
Constitution.