The Sun.
London, England, 1833-12-04 00:00:00

to other markets for a supply of the goods which
we now furnish, and consequently would convert
a temporary into a permanent cessation of their
own labour. As some of our staples are chiefly
consumed abroad, the trade of the country would
thus be paralyzed, not only in the exports of our
manufactures, but in all that colonial and foreign
produce for which they are usually exchanged.
The Derby masters, in announcing the objects
of the Trades' Union, sufficiently point out
their dangerous tendency :
" To regulate the price and bouts of labour," say they,
" to abolish piece work, and to substitute day work in lieu
fit (thus placing the industrious and skilful upon the
same level with the idle and unskilful workmen), to dic-
tate to the masters whom they shall or shall not employ,
and the number of apprentices or learners they shall be
allowed to take, and, in case of disobedience to the man-
date of the Union, to withdraw his work people simul-
taneously from the service of the party disobeying, and to
prevent any other workmen from enterine hi, employ, are
notoriously the ohjccts and practice of the Trades' Union."
They have endeavoured to counteract this
declaration by agreeing among themselves not
to employ any members of the union, and al-
though the present inconvenience of the struggle
must be great, we have no doubt that it will
soon be terminated by an amicable compromise.
—Times.

At the Anniversary Dinner of the Essex and
Colchester True Blue and Conservative Club,
at Colchester, on Tuesday last, `lr. Alexander
Baring made a violent anti-reform and anti-
free-trade speech. Speaking of the Reform Bill,
he said " he could see nothing in the important
change which could benefit the country; he was
no enemy to change, if it could be brought
home to his understanding that any benefits
were likely to result from it ; but he opposed
it on principle, when he found it would nol
benefit the country. The present Parliament
was constituted for Revolution ; it was framed
on the basis of Revolution." This sentiment
was loudly cheered by the meeting. What does
Mr. Baring mean when he says that the present
Parliament is constituted for Revolution ? Does
he mean by Revolution, the overthrow of the
existing institutions of the country by physical
force ? It would be strange if the inclination of
the people to recur to physical force should b
strengthened by the knowledge that the Re-
form Bill has placed within their reach
the means of redressing their grievances by
the working of the Constitution. But Mr.
Baring calls the fair working of the Reform
Bill Revolution. By the Aristocratic Revolu-
tion of 1688, the Oligarchy have been enabled
to corrupt every institution of the country, and
one encroachment on popular rights has followed
another so closely, that the contemplation of the
mass of abuse is sufficient to fill the stoutest-
hearted Reformer with dismay. As the physical
force resides necessarily with the people, it be-
came at last prudent to prevent the possibility of
any recurrence to such force, by making Parlia-
ment in reality what it was only in name. Down
to the passing of the Reform Bill, no measure
which in the slightest degree struck at the power
of the Oligarchy could possibly be carried. Par-
liament was an instrument in the hands of the
Oligarchy to plunder the people by excessive
taxation; and all that the people possessed was
the power of returning a few Members who
could raise their voice against the evil. This Par-
liament was constituted for Revolution in the
sense in which Mr. Baring uses the word ; but it
was Revolution towards Oligarchy. The Reform
Parliament has given to the people an instru-
ment by which they may, in time, strip the
Aristocracy of all the privileges which they have
usurped, that may be found unjust and incom-
patible with the interest of the community. If
this be revolution, then revolution is a good
thing. In human affairs tliere is a constant
progression. The difference between ihe period
before, and after the Reform Act, is merely
this, that the progression is now towards good,
whereas before it waE. towards evil. The Oli-
garchy are yet in possession of many of the
strong holds of abuse ; but the Reform Bill will
enable the people gradually to dispossess them.
Some impatient persons are dissatisfied with the
Reform Bill, because all abuses are not at once
remedied under it. They would even put to
hazard all that we have obtained, rather than
submit to any temporary postponement of the
measures on which they have set their heart. Mr.
Baring, however, knows that the revolution, as he
terms it, though slow, is sure. In the struggle with
the privileged classes, and all those interested
in the perpetuation of abuses, the people will
acquire additional knowledge, and be better
fitted for the prudent enjoyment of what they
succeed in obtaining. It is not well that every-
thing should be obtained per saltum. We
shall he obliged to struggle with a party yet
sufficiently powerful to compel us to prove our
title to what we demand ; and we ought not to
obtain our demands on any other terms. It
has been said that the only oracle consulted by
Mr. Baring is the breeches-pocket. When he
was the representative of a trading town, all his
indignation was directed against the landowners.
He is now only alive to the distresses of the
landowners. We remember well when a cry of
indignation burst from the House of Commons
against him, such as we never heard in the House
either before or since. He was arguing against
the Corn Bill, and he contrasted the splendid
mansions, the sumptuous establishments, and the
luxurious mode of living of the landowners of
this country, with the comparative poverty of the
landowners of the continent, who, so far from living
like great feudal Barons, were obhged to live in an
obscure manner in some city or town. This
difference was, he said, the first thing which
struck every Englishman on leaving his own
country. If the landowners could have crucified
him at that time, they would have done so. But

the contrast is not greater between the English
and Continental landowners, than between the
Mr. Baring of that day, and the Mr. Baring of
this :—He said,
" The agriculturists maintained all the rogues of the
country—they maintained all the poor—they kept up the
gaols—the proceedings of justice, and the whole machinery
of domestic government were raised and kept up at the
expense of the land—and surely they were entitled to some
allowance for that. He must say there was danger, and
he would venture to predict, as certain as any one conse-
quence ever resulted from any one act, that if protection
were taken from agriculture, it would bring down a cer-
' tain revolution in this country.—(Hear, and cheers.) Yet
such were the doctrines entertained by Cabinet Ministers
—they did not, perhaps, at once declare their sentiments,
but they sent out men for the purpose, as might be
ev.nced by Mr. Poulett Thomson, of the Board of Tiade.
He was not awace that at any time such conduct had been
practised by any Government. They had enemies—
enemies in high places."

We are no advocates for any measures calcu-
lated to produce confusion in the country.
When changes are effected, they ought to be
effected in such a manner as to cause the least

possible injury to existing interests. 'Though
Mr. Baring's statement as to the burdens borne
by the landowners is exaggerated, even if it were
true, it is only just that these burdens should be
borne by the land. It is well known that land
never was absolute property in this or any other

country. The land of every country belonged
originally to the nation, and it was granted to
individuals on the condition of defending the
country against external enemies, and preserving
order at home. The whole burdens of the
country, down to a comparatively recent period,
were in fact borne by the land. No change of
occupants can vitiate the original covenant be-
tween the State and the occupants of the soil ;
and it is, therefore, absurd in landowners to
complain of the burdens thrown on the land.
The people have much better reason for com-
plaint that the landowners have thrown burdens
from their own shoulders and fixed them on the
shoulders of others. They might as well com-
plain of tithes as complain of the other
burdens borne by land. But though land-
owners are not entitled to hold the
language of Mr. Baring, we are far from
wishing for any change which should effect
any great revolution in their fortunes. Reduc-
tions of rent, however, to some extent are inevi-
table ; and Mr. Baring may call such reductions
revolution if he pleases ; but it will require
more than his ingenuity to show how they can
be prevented. Mr. Baring is too good a tac-
tician to allow Ireland to pass without notice :
" Look (he says) to the proceedings of O'Connell, using
the worst scurrility any person could put into English,
and he actnally collecting at every church door, money
for the avowed purpose of agitation—openly and confess-
edly collected for agitation ; and then behold our Govern.
ment truckling to him—doing only what be permitted
them—and cashiering the honest Protestants of the
country.__( Hear, hear,) If that conduct was to pro-
ceed, it would be expelling the Protestants from those
parts of the country where their numbers were small, and
tinally exterminating Protestantism in that country alto-
gether. He should be sorry at any time to sound reli-
gious alarm for political purposes, but it was impossible to
look at Ireland and not see that that was the case; and
the only solution of it was, that a party was sscrificin!
everything for party purposes and party power.—(Hear)."
Would Mr. Baring wish to make a second
conquest of Ireland, in order to give stability to
the Protestant Church Establishment ?—Morn-
big Chronicle.
The Beer Bill, as we anticipated from the
moment it was introduced into Parliament, is
working the most baneful effects among the pea-
santry of England. Ample and melancholy
evidence do every assizes afford to its fatal effi-
cacy in demoralising the rural population, and
extending the contagion of evil example, and its
consequent crimes. The country is studded
with the hovels of dissipation which the worst
characters in society may open, without any of
the guarantees of good conduct which are re-
quired of the licensed victualler. The unlimited
increase of public-houses was restrained by its
being imperative on the applicant to produce
testimonials to character, and to show that the
house for which he asked a license was required
for the public accommodation. We entreated
the Legislature to introduce these or equivalent
restraints into the Beer Bill, whatever change
they might think fit to make in the power of
licensing; or if not, that at least they would
add a clause to prevent the beer being drunk on
the premises, which would oblige the labourer
to take it home to his family, and thereby
escape the sottish habit of tippling, and the evil
association to which he is now exposed, in
those obscure dens of rustic intemperance,
where thieves and poachers " most do con-
gregate," and where the simple peasant, who
goes to refresh himself after his labours, is
too often tempted and tutored into crime. The
environs of towns and villages in many parts of
England absolutely swarm with beer shops, while
in less populous places they deform and defile
the landscape every where. At the corners of
woods, on the lonely common and the wild
heath, they are to be seen, the haunts of these
characters that love secrecy and seclusion, and
who lay the traps and snares of vice for the rural
population of the vicinity as assiduously as some
of them lay other traps and snares for the game
of the neighbouring preserves. Many are the
victims which are offered up to our angry laws
on every circuit, and whose ruin has been the
beer shop, which make the Legislature in some
degree responsible for their crimes. It has
placed the temptation in their way—it has widely
disseminated the materials of demoralization.
We have, from time to time, remarked on the
cases of persons whose initiation in crime has
taken place in the beer shop, and Who have
stepped from that vicious rendezvous into
guilty enterprize and a prison. We must still
go on, as occasion offers, until the country
is relieved from this moral curse, although it
may be held to be a libel deserving of a State
prosecution to endeavour to bring the Beer Act
into contempt ! A new instance of the baneful
effects of the beer•shop system has occurred at
the Hertford Assizes, where three men, named
George Copps, Georp,e Hall, and James Biggs,
have been convicted of a highway robbery, and
left for execution, by Mr. Justice Gaselee,
without hope of mercy. It appears both the
prosecutor, who is a gamekeeper, and the pri-
soners were all drinking together in the beer-
shop, whence the latter followed the former on
his going away, and, having followed him into
a field, knocked him down, beat him with their
fists, and one of them drawing a clasp-knife,
such as all labourers have to cut their bread
and cheese with, pretended to be about to cut
his throat, which, no doubt, they might have
done if they had any real intention of doing it,
for nobody interrupted them ; but they were not
so bloodthirsty as to take that course of silencing
for ever the only witness of their crime. The
prosecutor was able to walk home afterwards, so
that although he had been ill-treated, he received
no blow that disabled him. Some money was
taken from him—we are not told how much,
and his watch was demanded, but it is not said in
the report of the trial whether it was taken or not.
It appears there was no moon on the night in
question, but the prosecutor stated on the trial
that die starlight was sufficient to enable him to
know the faces of his assailants. Two witnesses,
however, swore that they heard the prosecutor
say that he did not, on the night of the robbery,
know the men who had attacked him, but that
he identified them on seeing them next day. It
behoves Courts of Justice, even where the most
heinous of all crimes are charged, to be very
cautious how they take human life on the evi-
dence of a solitary witness to identity; however
positively he swears, more especially when the
crime has been committed by night, without a
moon, and when the mind of the prosecutor has
been under circumstances of great alarm and
confusion. Fatal mistakes have occurred in this
way. The records of the criminal history of this
and other countries afford melancholy proofs of
the fallibility of human evidence under such
circumstances. But supposing the guilt of these
men had been placed beyond all doubt, we still
think their crime is not one which, taking the
whole of the circumstances into consideration,
ought to be visited with the extreme penalty
of the law. The culprits are the victims of
a demoralizing system, which the Legisla-
Lute itself unfortunately established. The Beer

Shop Bill has every where spread the :snares
of crime throughout the country, and our penal
laws exterminate a considerable portion of the
victims that are caught in them. It is stated
by the Chaplain of the Preston House of Cor-
rection, that of 189 offenders of all classes,
there were 116 who attributed their crimes to
the temptations held out to them by the alehouses
and beer shops. It is frightful to think how the
Legislature has, by one stupid and unfortunate
measure, assisted the march of demoralization.
But we forewarned our rulers and Parliament at
the time of the moral and social consequences
of it. Another circumstance fit to be taken into
consideration is that the three men, if really the
guilty persons, had it in their power to silence
effectually the only witness of their crime, who
was the prosecutor. He was alone against
three—they had him on the ground. It was a
lonely place—they had clasp-knives with them,
such as all peasants carry—they were uninter-
rupted. They made a threat of killing him
indeed, but surely, if in earnest, they could
easily have effected it. They beat him it is
true—but when they left him lie was able to
walk home. If the judicial authorities are
satisfied of their guilt, let them be severely
punished ; but is it right or consistent with
public policy to take their lives, and thereby
instigate other robbers to take the dread-
ful precaution of getting rid of the evidence of
an inferior crime by the commission of a greater
one ? We would advise all persons who take
an interest in the reform of criminal justice, to
look into the little and excellent work of Mr.
Woolrych, the barrister, entitled " The History
and Results of Capital Punishments in Eng-
land," in which the hopelessness of extirpating,
or of materially diminishing the crime of robbery
by the gallows is practically demonstrated. We
have left ourselves no room, at present, to make
any extracts, hut the facts and tables which the
author adduces, are worthy the attention of all
Legislators. We would also suggest to those
in authority the perusal of a small pamphlet,
containing " Observations on the case of David
Gulliford and Benjamin Bartlett, executed in
May, 1832, at lichester, for an assault and
robbery," ascribed to the pen of Sir Edward
Strachey, Bart., who, we believe, has served the
office of High Sheriff of the county of Somer-
set. He truly observes that our code has not
yet attained the proper standard of reason and
humanity—that it is still blackened by cruel pe-
nalties, opening lay far too many vistas to the
gallows. Why, we ask, persevere in those
human sacrifices against which public feeling
revolts, and which produce only spectacles of
blood that are barren of all moral consequences.
—Morning Herald.
The Corporation Commissioners have met
with some severe rebuffs and stubborn obstruc-
tions, and they are yet destined to endure other
and deeper mortifications of the same kind. It
would be a disgrace to the character of England
and of Englishmen if this prediction should not
be verified. A Ministerial Contemporary of
last night quotes our testimony to the triumphant
manner in which the Corporation of Liverpool
have passed the ordeal of this illegal inquisition,
as a proof that Corporations who have acted
honestly have nothing to fear from the inquisi-
tion, and no motive to resist its proceedings.
The logic of our Contemporary is that of a
drowning man who eagerly catches at a straw.
The Liverpool Corporation, we believe, -had
nothing to fear from an inquisition into their
conduct; few of the Corporations of England,
compared with their whole number, had, we
believe, anything to fear from any inquiry,
however severe, into their conduct, in the
management of the trusts confided to them ;
but bthe Liverpool and every other Corpo-
ration bad much to fear from that derelic-
tion of their duty, into which too many of
them have fallen, in recognising an illegal autho-
thy. The proneness of individuals to succumb
to illegal oppression, in cases where their sepa-
rate interests are concerned, is a characteristic of
human nature, which first suggested the esta-
blishment of incorporations of citizens, and
which has in all ages imparted to them whatever
value they have possessed. They must be ca-
pable of acting upon general principles ; they
must be habitually and constantly jealous of the
establishment of dangerous precedents; they
must always be prepared to act in bold and con-
temptuous disregard of the feelings by which
individuals may be tempted to bend to arbitrary
power, or, so far from being valuable and useful
institutions, they become a mere incumbrance
upon the action, and a revolting excresence on
the face of society. To talk of the danger to
existing Corporations, from the few and insigni-
ficant instances of delinquency, which an illegal
inquisition has been enabled to detect, is mere
nonsense. The real danger with which they are me-
naced arises from no other source than the servile
submission to the mandates of illegal authority,
into which so many of their number have been
betrayed. To this argument, and to no other,
will any man worthy of the name of a statesman
resort, when he means to aim a deadly blow at
Corporations. We are told of " the utter want

of motive on the part of such Corporations as
duly fulfil their trusts to avoid the inquiry of the
Corporation Commissioners;' but we have, we
think, suggested the highest motive upon which
rational men can act, not merely to avoid but to
resist such inquiry, namely, that resistance is the
duty of Corporations. We are entitled to assume,
for nobody that we can hear of pretends to dis-
pute, that the corporation Commission is
illegal ; and is it to be pretended in England at
this day, that illegal authority of any kind is not
a dangerous and mischievous thing, independ-
ently of the object to which it is diiected, or that
it is not the duty of all, with whom it comes
in contact, o resist it to the utmost of their

power ? We hope the time is not yet come
when submission to illegal power can he condu-
cive to the welfare of English society. The
case which can justify it must be extreme.
There must be no other possible remedy for the
evils complained of, and those evils must be not
only incapable of any other cure, but intolerable
to human patience, before the citizens of a free
State, can be justified in submitting, in expecta-
tion of their mitigation of extinction, to illegal
and arbitrary authority. Do the abuses of our
municipal corporations, in the most exaggerated
view of them that can be taken, present such a

case ? These questions and remarks, we shall
be told, are common-places. Unquestionably
they are so. Oppression and misrule ha7e been
so familiar to mankind that all the topics which
can be urged to induce a community either to
submit to them or to resist, have long been ex-
hausted. It is a common-place also to say that
popular institutions afford a better guarantee for
a nation's happiness and welfare than any
despotism, however mild or well conducted.
And this common-place must be despised
and rejected by all those who advise the
corporations of England to submit to the