The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-04 00:00:00

lite _suit,

LONDON:
WEDNESDAY MORNING. MAY 4, 1842.

The House of Commons decided last night, by 287
to 49 votes, that the unrepresented classes should not
be heard at the bar, to explain their grievances. The
House, of course, knows better than the people what
they suffer, and the cause of their sufferings. It needs
not their advice and counsel. It is of itself all suffi-
cient. It refused, therefore, to hear their complaints.
At the same time, it was comparatively respectful
towards the petitioners. There was a period when the
petition would not have been received ; but the number
of the petitioners commanded respect. The next time
the people approach the House, it will probably be
with five or ten millions of signatures, and then what-
ever they demand, may, perhaps, be granted.
In the course of the debate, Mr. ROEBUCK made
an allusion to a well-known individual, whom we will
not name, but of whom Mr. ROEBUCK is not likely
so to have spoken out of the House of Commons. The
gentlemen are, perhaps, rivals. Mr. ROEBUCK, be-
sides being very insulting, was described by Mr. Dux-
COMBE to have committed a great mistake. We
presume the world will hear something more of the
matter.

The Chartists may congratulate themselves on
having attracted public attention. Their petition is
generally noticed, and both Whig and Tory Journals
have undertaken to controvert their arguments, or
expose the absurdity of their demands. Great good
will arise. At present it is a subject of general con-
gratulation amongst the Liberal Journals, that PEEL'S
Tariff, and PEEL'S Corn-law, by touching the farmers'
pockets, are rousing them to consider questions of
political economy, from which it is expected they will
ultimately arrive at sound conclusions. In like man-
ner, the Chartist petition, by touching the political
fears of the upper classes, is compelling them to over-
haul their political theories, and, in the end, will lead
them to adopt the truth, and do justice to the people.
It has, for example, been long held in theory that
Government, which practically and historically we
know was founded on ignorance, usurpation, and
conquest—the first laws, as it was once expressed in
the Edinburgh Review, (perhaps by Mr. MACAULAY,
the defender of flogging,) having been written by the
sword—it has long been held in theory that Govern-
ment is intended to promote the general benefit, the
greatest happiness of the greatest number, and not to
promote the aggrandisement of or give wealth and
security to, particular classes. Whether the Govern-
ment answers that noble theoretical purpose or not
can never be decided by those who "administer
it, nor by any particular classes on whom it may
confer special benefits. On that point the authority of
Whigs and Tories, and of the priesthood, who are en-
dowed and supported, go for nothing. It can only be
decided by the opinions or the governed, who alone
can form an opinion, by feelin''K the action and opera-
tion of the Government throuegillout their existence,
whether or not it answers the assig end.
Nor can the power of judging o, that be, by any
possibility, taken away from the
Inuit_ `.trade. The pe-
titioners in question are of opinion tha t our Govern-
ment has not answered this end. They point to the
unrepresented masses whose wishes have been stifled,
and whose opinions the laws would fair I suppress.
They point to a so-called Christian episcopal gorged
• with wealth, and to a starving people - They
poipt to a vast national debt, incurred for' purposes
wholly foreign to their happiness, which i 'heir in-
dustry must annually pay. They point to a regal
splendour, raised by taxes on those, w. 11° re-
ceive twopence-halfpenny per day per head
for irksome toils ; and, comparivg the pis Wessimill of
the Government with the actual results c n the cm.:o:
in unity, they justly conclude that the C 'rovernmen'
has
not answered the end for which, aceor ding to the
theory, Government exists.
Now, it is because Government is said t( 0 serve this
sublime purpose, that writers on morals a ad Pvern-
ment have concluded that therefore the F ewe tfier
bound to obey it. Allegiance is the
ive fluty ;oe
e
p:otection ; and where no protectionc°is
en—wher
.
starvation is inflicted—allegiance is no Div The persons who have signed the Nation
her a duty
ta
have come practically to the conclusion kPe tition,
That any form of government which fail
purposes-for which it was designed, and e ►to effec,t the
and completely represent the whole pef toes not Ailly
compelled to pay taxes to its support and
resolved upon by it, is unconstitutional,
ought to be amended or:resisted tia,blerea the law's
a°arel,an
and
Their language and conduct have
who have hitherto contended the in startled those,
for the principle that the Governmen ost strenuously
is
promote the public welfare, and thaf t instituted to
6e .community

at large, to whom they daily address their lucubra-
tions, are the only persons to judge if the Government
answer that end. Being startled, they at once throw
the whole theory overboard, and revive the almost for_
gotten and long since exploded doctrines of Divine
right. They essay to re-establish the weakened
power of Government over the minds of the multi-
tudes by such doctrines as this :
That Governments do not rest their authority on the
consent of the people, but simply on their own established
existence--that the powers that be have a claim upon
our allegiance because they are,—and that we, born
under their authority, receiving, before we have the
power to express assent or dissent, the benefits of their
protection, through our whole lives as unable to dis-
claim as they are to withdraw those benefits, and finally-
specifically commanded by that authority from which
both they and we derive all such rights as either of us
possess to pay them. honour and obedience, are thus
morally and religiously bound to accept such a definition
of our rights as is given us by the Constitution under
which we live ; and within these limits only, to exert our-
selves for the development of all of its beneficial, and the
extirpation of its pernicious principles.
It is now ascertained that the great constitutional
doctrine of co-extensive existence of representation
and taxation is not borne out by the present condi-
tion of society. It is found also that the Govern-
ment cannot stand the test of promoting the public
welfare ; and therefore refuge is taken in the asser-
tion that we are all born under the authority of the
landlords, and that we are all commanded, by that
POWER which is superior to all human authority to
pay them honour and obedience, and accept from
them such laws as they think fit to enact, and
such rights as they, not the ALMIGHTY, think pro-
per to bestow on mankind. The conduct of the
petitioners has at once brought to the test the most
approved political theories, and overthrown them by
a touch. At once public writers give them up, and
tell the people, that they did well enough " as long
as they were confined to the drawing-rooms and lec-
ture-rooms of the aristocracy ;" but directly the
people appeal to them, these public writers take re-
fuge in that blind obedience and in that Divine right
which our ancestors, over and over again, practically
refuted. That the petition of the people has already
provoked these results will be an immense benefit to
them in future. A more solemn discussion, and one
going to the very foundation of political society, than
any Sir R. PEEL provoked by his Tariff and his In-
come-tax, has been already kindled by the National
Petition.

It will not do for writers to play any longer with
principles. They are now found to be a two-edged
sword; and those who profess the principle that Go-
vernment is for the benefit of the millions, will have
to demonstrate its benefits to them, in spite of the
daily and unceasing evils it inflicts on them, or give
up the theory, and acknowledge that Government is a
usurpation. We have before now stated that Pusey-
ite doctrines had a political origin. They sprang
from the conviction that neither the Church nor the
State, as now constituted, can bear investigation on
the principles of the Reformation and Revolution.
Puseyism is now extending its domain from the
Church, where it has established the Divine right of
the Bishops, to the State, where it seeks to establish the
Divine right of the landlords. In the progress of society
the knowledge that was confined to drawing-rooms and
aristocratic lecture-rooms, has spread, like other
luxuries, over the humbler classes. This is the age of
diffusion. Doctrines, as well as Manchester and Sheffield
ware, have become common to the multitude. Hence
there is no alternative but either to re-establish the
principle of Divine right in politics, or concede great
alterations to the demands of the people. The Tories
prefer the doctrine of Divine right, and the claim
now put forth by the people has forced them to avow
their slavish creed. The authors of the Income-tax
and the Corn-law demand on principle the most
abject submission from the people, and assure them
that by some authority they are morally and religi-
ously bound to accept poverty, slavery, and starvation,
from the landlords.

We are glad to see that Lord HOWICK last night
gave notice that he would move, on going into Com-
mittee on the tariff, that there should be no new
differential duties imposed on articles from the colonies
and other countries, and that in those cases where
such differential duties already exist, they shall not
be increased. The Noble Lord is also to move that
the duty on foreign coffee shall be 7d. instead of 8d
That proposed reduction will leave the colonists with
all their present protection, and will simply lower the
price of coffee without taking sixpence from the
revenue. It will be a proper complement to Mr
LABOUCHERE'S well-meant reduction of the sugar
duty, which meets we think with extensive support
from the public, and we hope that both motions wi I
be successful.