The Sun.
London, England, 1842-09-08 00:00:00

terest holds a powerful sway in the human bosom,
schemes to suppress or curb it, which stop short
of annihilating the subjects of the emotion, only
call into existence courage or skill to attain the
end desired.

The Magistrates of Staffordshire imply by
these proceedings, that the people over whom
they have mounted guard, have, either from
passion or interest, a disposition to disorder and
turbulence. They take no means to search into
the cause of that disposition and remove it. They
proffer no extension of trade by demanding the
removal of restrictions, no extension of liberty
by sharing with the people some of their own
privileges; they simply resolve to organize a
new force to repress the consequences of that
disposition. What will be the result ? Why,
the people will arm themselves in secret against
this new power. They, too, will have their ap-
pointed positions; they will communicate with
one another; they will elect officers; they will
collect weapons; and when they think the time
favourable, they will again break loose. The
use of force oh the one side is begetting the use
of force on the other; every day the evil is ag-
every day sees the feelings of hosti-
gravated ;
litv between the classes embittered ; and if
neither set the example of concession and conci-
liation, the evil must go on increasing till we are
involved in actual war, and neither life nor pro-
perty will be safe. Perhaps the upper classes
generally, and in particular the Magistrates,
will consider in time to what all this arming and
all these military preparations inevitably tend ;
and, if they are wise, they will conclude that
their monopolies and exclusive privileges arc not
worth the price which they are likely to pay for
them.

With the proceedings we have narrated, the
meeting did not close, and the Noble Earl inti-
mated a pretty strong disposition to follow out
the Tory doctrines, and adopt some plan fro•
making the masters pay higher wages. The
report says—

Earl Talbot said, there was only one other resolution
to be submitted to the meeting. It was to the effect, that
while the Magistrates were determined to adopt all pos-
sible means to protect life and property, they earnestly
appealed to the masters in the mining and manufacturing
districts to remove all just grounds of complaint on the
part of the men; and the Magistrates further pledged
themselves to be at all times ready to investigate and
punish all cases of oppression or illegal conduct which
could be maintained against employers. [The resolution
was a very strong and stringent one.]
Mr. Buller confessed he did not like the proposed re-
solution. He thought it would be an unjust and unwar-
rantable interference of the Magistrates between masters
and men .

The exact words of the resolution are not

given ; the Noble Lord is said to have torn it
up, so that no copy could be obtained, but it seems
consistent that those who have passed laws to
keep up the price of food, should also endeavour
to keep up the wages, which they do not pay.
That is a cheap way of showing their considera-
tion for the working classes. They have checked
trade, and involved the country in great calami-
ties, and they cannot possibly believe that they
are to blame. No, it is a few " butties," and a
few masters, who will not pay more wages than
they can help, who are the cause of all the dis-
tress and all the discontent. By not tolerating
their exactions, the Staffordshire Magistrates
vindicate their own character, and show them-
selves keenly alive to the public welfare.

We have been reminded by the JoOnal des

Debats, that Sir R. PEEL, on the last day of the

session, said—

If he distrusted the power of the Legislature to provide an
immediate remedy for the distress, was it not his duty
to abstain from encouraging expectations which neither he
nor the Legislature might have the power of gratifying?
The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) assumed that the
Legislature could provide the remedy, but if he, in the
exercise of his best judgment, entertained a doubt upon
that point, that the Legislature had the power, by any
measure it could adopt, to afford relief to the distress
which prevailed in most parts of the country—at least
to afford that immediate mitigation to which the Hon.
Gentleman referred, was it not his duty to abstain from
encourging expectations that might never be realised?

Sir ROBERT PEEL, then, is convinced that the
Parliament cannot help the people quickly and
effectually. He holds it up to the country as im-
potent to effect the good which the people
expect and demand of it. To shirk the some-
what awful responsibility he has taken on him-
self, he vilifies the legislative power. He joins
with the Radicals acd Chartists in holding up
the Parliament to public contempt, as impotent
and imbecile. We might suppose that he had
been reading Dr. CHANNING'S late work, to
which we hare already referred, for Dr. CHAN-
NING says—

" The grand good of popular institutions is liberty,
or the protection of every man's rights to the full, with
the least possible restraint. Sovereignty, wherever
lodged, is not a thing to be proud of, or to be stretched
a hand's breadth beyond need. If lam to be hedged in on
every side—to be fretted by the perpetual presence of
arbitary will—to be denied the exercise of my powers, it
matters nothing to me whether the chain be laid on by
one man or many, by king or people. A despot is not
more tolerable for his many hands." "I want as little
government as consists with safety to the right of all. I
wish the people to govern no further than they must.
I wish them to place all checks on the Legislature,
which consists with its efficiency. I honour the passion
for power and rule as little in a people as in a king. It is
a vicious principle, exist where it may."
Dr. CHANNING, like Sir R. PEEL, has a whole-
some distrust of.the power of legislation, even
when exercised by the sovereign people them-
selves ; and like Sir ROBERT, he plainly implies
that it cannot, by merely exerting a strong will,

achieve the welfare of society. Dr. CHANNING'S
distrust of legislation by a democracy is indeed
largely shared by many amongst ourselves ; and
. _

✓
we are told by a Whig journal, that " Govern-
ment on a mere numerical basis is anar-

chical." But how will the Chartists look
on these doctrines of the inefficiency of
legislation, which men of all parties are now
putting forth ? Will they not suspect that they
are invented to damp their ardour in the pursuit
apolitical power? For centuries that has been
exercised by the upper classes, without a doubt
of its efficiency to attain their own ends ; but
now when the democracy is struggling with a
possibility of success for a share of it, it is sud-
denly found out that legislation can do little or
nothing, and that the less society has of it,
whether it be ordained by a democracy or a king,
the more society will flourish. We are afraid
that the democracy will everywhere regard this
opinion as invented to turn them from their pur-
suit, and that it may find a less ready welcome
to them than it deserves.

It seems to us, we must remark, somewhat in-
consistent in Sir R. PEEL, and well calculated to
cool the zeal of public functionaries, to be at
once tenacious in upholding existing laws, and
expressing a mean opinion of the power of legis-
lation. Can all its past decrees be excellent,
and be enforced at whatever cost, while its
present decrees can effect at best only a trifling
benefit? We are inclined to believe with
Sir ROBERT PEEL that legislation can do
very little for the public welfare, and
With Dr. CHANNING that it should be circum-
scribed as much as possible. With respect to
the public distress, there is another alternative
from which great benefits might pcssibly flow.
Free trade implies the absence of legislative
restrictions, and when Sir R. PEEL said legisla-
tion could do nothing to mitigate distress, did he
mean that the abolition of legislation would
be equally inefficacious ? What, if in this par-
ticular case the country should not require new
laws, but that some existing laws should be
abolished? The abolition of a law is not legisla-
tion, and might be effected without the consent
or action of Parliament. Thus it is not incon-
sistent to believe that legislation cannot help us,
and that abolishing a law—the. Corn-law, for ex-
ample—might. At any rate, as Sir R. PEEL
says he cannot help the people, and they are
well convinced they can help themselves, they
' ought to be allowed to try. That is what we ask
fi)r them under the name of free trade. It im-
plies nothing more and nothing less than the re-
moval of the heavy and iron hand of the Legis-
lature—which Sir ROBERT PEEL says cannot re-
lieve the distress, which it has nevertheless
caused—from the national industry.

We received Dutch papers last night of the
6tli instant, but with the exception of accounts
received from Batavia of earthquakes in the
Molucca Islands, and the breaking out of the