The Sun.
London, England, 1842-09-30 00:00:00

nie

LONDON:
FRED tY MORNING, SEI"rEMBEIZ 30, 1842.

The election of Lord Mayor took place yes-
terday. Mr. T. Woon was excluded, and Mr.
• Alderman HUMPHERY is Lord Mayor. Last
year there was a fierce contest for the
Mayoralty, and Mr. HARMER was rejected. In
his case a poll was demanded, and the Livery
returned his opponent. This year there has been
no contest for the Mayoralty, but Mr. Alderman
T. Woon, after being elected in Common Hall,
has been set aside by the Aldermen. In both
cases the Alderman
.in rotation is set aside—in
the one it is the act of the Livery, in the other
that of the Aldermen. If the Livery should be
displeased that their present decision is not con-
firmed, they must remember that, last year,
they violated the principle of rotation, and
alighted a gentleman by withholding an honour
that was fairly his due.
Although it was supposed that the Court of
.Aldermen was not favourable to Mr. HARMER,
it did not openly interfere in the election. The
Churek,party opposed him, a part of the Press
assailed him, and the Livery were induced to
.reject him. This year the Court of Aldermen
..:• seernwto have decided the whole matter. There
the charge Was Tude against Mr. Alderman T.
' 'Woou, there a full investigation was declined,
• 'and by that Court, after the Livery had elected
'.him, was rejected. The cases, then, are essen-
., titaly different, but betwixt them there is one
similarity.
Both individuals were rejected in consequence
of whisperings against their characters. Mr.
HARMER was rejected on account of the religious
opinions of his paper : Mr. Alderman T. Wool)
is cast cut on account of imputations on his moral
character ; at least we know no other reason,
for his alleged want of wealth is an idle pretext.
Both were below the standard ofCity purity, and
not thought worthy to till the civic chair.
On that ground those two gentlemen were kept
out of the Mayoralty, and we may expect every
succeeding year a more rigorous scrutiey into the
life and conduct of every candidate for time
Mayoralty. A kind of inquisition was brought
to bear against Mr. HARMER; it is now brought
to bear on Mr. Alderman T. WOOO, and will lie
brought to bear on any other candidate fur the
Mayoralty. A new criterion of civic worth is set
up. That a man ha, served his fellow-citizens
as Sheriff and Magistrate will ay..il him nothing,
unless his private conduct he a-6reeable to the
Purists. The election to the civic chair, to the
great delight, we presume, of ail young Alder-
men, will henceforth be determined by an inqui•
sition into private character.
How the Lhrery may like the .':onduct of the
Aldermen we pretend not to say.. The Court
has, however, to some extent, usurped the tune-
Lions of the Livery. It decided, heft, cre the elec-
. Lim), against Mr. Alderman T. Woc.D, and re-

fused to concur in the vote of the Livery. It
has taken the election into its own hands. We
do not accuse it of party motives, fur Mr. Alder-
man HUMPHERY belongs to the same party as
Mr. Alderman Woon. The former, indeed,
seems to have no repugnance to oust his friend.
A spirited man would have declined being the
nominee of the Court of Alderman in opposition
to the will of the Livery.

In the eloquent address of M. DE LAMARTINE,
which appeared in our Paper of Wednesday,
there is an observation which, though not new,
deserves now to be impressed on the public for
the sake of its consequence. After describing
the " universal monarchy of intellect, commerce,
industry, and thought," as " nigh and certain,"
he said " the world is changing, and becomes
more and more industrial and democratic. The
one must follow the other." According, there-
fire, to M. DE LAMARTINE—who 18 not by birth
or opinion a democrat, but one of the aristocracy
of France, professing ultra-Conservative opi-
nions—democracy is gaining ground in society, in
consequence of the increase of industrial (by
which we understand manufacturing) occupa-
tions, and bringing about, in conjunction with
commerce, a universal monarchy of intellect and
thought. _

In substance M. DE LAMARTINE agrees with
M. DE TOQUEVILLE, another of the French aris-
tocracy, who has been at some pains to demon-
strate the Inevitable progress of the democracy,
and to influence statesmen rather to guide
than resist it. Both speak in accordance
with facts which had previously been in-
terpreted and explained in the same sense by
many English writers, particularly SMITH, who
dwelt on the influence of commerce to raise up a
middle class, and make the aristocracy barter
their power for the indulgences which commerce
supplies. The raising up of a middle class is a
step towards democracy, and the general fact
which is thus established by the concurrence of
these writers—that commerce and industry are,
in their nature, hostile to aristocracy, and carry
in their train the ascendancy of democracy and
the monarchy of intellect—teems at this time
with much instruction.

We have never argued the Corn-laws as a
mere question of high and low prices, or as a
contest between agriculture and manufactures ;
we have always treated it as a question of power
between the Few and the Many. The Corn-law,
like the new Poor-law, was avowedly passed to
preserve in the hands of their then possessors
the estates of the aristocracy. It was intended,
as Lord GREY avowed, when he said, in reference
to it, that he would " stand by his order," and,
as Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL naively confessed/
to secure the ascendancy of the landed gentry'
Consistently with their avowals, we find their press
continually overflowing with diatribes against in-
dustrial or manufacturing occupations, denounc-
ing the use of machinery, anathematizing our
town population, and consigning, in their
thoughts and wishes, half the democracy and
their business to annihilation. The Corn-law,
therefore, had and has a far more impor-
tant aim and scope than merely keeping up
prices and rents ; it is intended to keep down
democracy, at whatever cost to the industry, the
commerce, and the peace of mankind. W hen
we see, as we elsewhere notice, signs of a some-
what better spirit growing up amongst the landed
gentry, we almost regret to refer to such a topic;
hut the consequence made apparent by the
writers we have referred to, that in endeavour-
ing- to keep down the democracy the Legislature
keeps down industrial occupations, and cheeks the
ascendancy of intellect and thought, is by far
too serious for us to allow any considerations to
guide our pen but those of truth and duty.
It is such a novelty to find law-makers pro-
fessing themselves quite unable, like the Duke
of ItuTLAND, to " form any judgment of the
effects of the laws" they nevertheless ordain,
teat we again refer to this expresssion of the
Duke's; and, with a view to make such amiable
modesty more general than at present amongst
his class, we propose to point out sonic of the
consequences of their legislative efforts to keep
down the democracy. At present, both the agri-
cultural and manufacturing districts swarm with
people earning from s. to 12s. a week, or in al-
inosithe lowest state of destitution. Whether
they be influenced
~by demagogues, or by the
facts of their condition, at the same time that
they are extremely poor, they are extremely
discontented. The most ultra kind of political
democracy is their creed, and they are nearly
Chartists to a than. It is perfectly clear, there-
fore, that the aristocracy have completely failed
to. put down, or keep in check, the democracy,
though it is to be apprehended they have made
it fierce, intractable, and dangerous.. At the
same time, the conduct of the aristocracy has
given just occasion for such severe comments,
that, in spite of old associations, and the posses-
sion of means to dazzle the lower classes, they
are, we believe, no longer loved, and no longer
feared. In fact, their privileges and power are
endangered ; while their wealth is lessened,
from the necessity to maintain an ex-
pensive police, by the great number of poor
and discontented there is in the land.
But What would have been the moral conse-
quence of their having allowed industrial occu-
pations free scope? It is calculated that the
mechanical power possessed byEngland is equal to
perform the work of several hundred millions of
human beings as they worked about a century
ago. In other words, the productive power
of the people of England has increased, within a
century, thirty-fold. Machinery has come more
and more to the aid of man, and has worked for
him. An increasing proportion of the commu-
nity is in consequence enabled to live without
any or without much personal and irksome toil.
The more machinery supplies the place of
manual labour, the greater will be the increase
of the easy and opulent classes; and
those who live without irksome toil will
be comparatively numerous and powerful. So
striking is this effect of machinery, that weknow
some persons • who believe that it is calculated
gradually to put an end to all mere labourers for
wages, and convert all men into capitalists using,
and living by the produce of, machinery. At
present the owners of machinery or capitalists
are amongst the most influential supporters of
the aristocracy; and the more the use of ma-
chinery is extended, the more numerous will be
the upper classes, and the more elevated the
general level of society.
Now, . in agriculture few machines are em-
ployed ; the proportion of manual labourers to
the value produced is far greater in agricultural
than in manufacturing labour ; and, by
trying to prevent the increase of manu-
factures, and to promote the increase of agri-
culture, the law has tended to increase the num-
ber of agricultural labourers, and to lessen the
amount of machinery and the number of machine
owners. It has discouraged the growth of an
opulent class, and has expressly encouraged the
growth of destitute and ignorant men, who are
now the most formidable opponents of the aris-
tocracy. To what extent machinery would have
come into use, both in agriculture and manu-
factures, had there been a perfectly free trade in
food, it is impossible to say ; but we feel assured
that it would have been much more in use than
at present, and that, though it might not, and
Would not, have prevented the comparative de-
clension of the landowners, by raising up many
to their level, it would have multiplied through-
out society the m'Adle and easy classes, lessened.
the number of the destitute labourers, and re-
moved all fears of a violent change. The presenr
fearful condition•
of the working classes of Eng-
land is the cohs
equenee of laws, of which, when.
they were Passed,
,
the law-makers, like the Duke
of were wholly
time effects but w unable to appreciate
hiell we now know have, con-
trary to the intent'
1911, weakened and endangered
the power of the • ' •
dristocracv.
It is to be apprehe d
n ed that the aristocracy,
in spite of this experience, Nvill persist in their
ehdeavourstochecktheprogressoftndus
try,in the
vain hope of checking the progress •
of democracy.
Theywill attempt, also, to keep intellect in sub-
mission. They act in general f• loin precedent, i

and all precedents must, from the progress'of so-
ciety, be drawn from times less skilful and less
enlightened than the present. The vast deve-
lopment of human power by means of ma-
chinery, to which we have adverted, is of modern
date ; and hence it must happen, without any evil
intention on the part of the Legislator, but
merely from following precedents, that his laws
will be hostile to the progress of manufacturing
industry. This view leads to the conclusion that
those persons who, like Sir R. PEEL, have
risen from the bosom of commerce and then be-
come the partisans of aristocracy—the followers
of precedents which were laid down, and of
opinions which were formed before machinery
came much into use—must, even unwillingly,
and perhaps without knowledge, in supporting
the aristocracy, act in hostility to the spe-
cies of industry which was the source of their
own and their families' greatness. Commerce or
manufactures and democracy going together, ac-
cording to M. DE LAMARTINE, it is impossible
to direct any blows at democracy, as Sir R. PEEL
does on behalf of the aristocracy, without also
aiming at commerce and manufactures. Yet
Sir R. PEEL, inconsistently, still Professes to ho-
nour manufactures.

We have heard it stated that the long-established
and wealthy firm of Baring, Brothers, and Co., have
returned their profits to the Income-tax Commission-
ers, on the average of the last three years, at less than
1501., and that they have requested the proper autho-
rities to send clerks to examine their books and
ascertain the correctness of the returns. This strange
circumstance is attributed to their dealings with some
of the repudiating states of America. It cannot, how-
ever, affect the stability of the house, for some of the
partners are known to be the richest merchants in the
world, but there are thousands of reputed rich firms
in this country which could not afford to make such a
return.

We regret to have to announce the premature de-
cease of Sir Michael O'Loghlen, Baronet, the Irish
Master of the Rolls, which melancholy event took
place last evening, about six o'clock, in George-street,
Hanover-square. Sir Michael was in his fifty-third
year, and was appointed to his judicial office by the
Liberals, about six years ago, and the Bench has never
been occupied, in that country nor in England, by a
man of more unimpeachable integrity, or brighter
qualifications as a lawyer. He was born in the year
1789, and married in 1817. • He has left a family of
several children. His disease was abscess of the heart.

LITERATURE.
EDRIC THE FORRESTER.