seemed about to be invested with the FULL SOVEREIGNTY of a brave and generous people.” Black Dwarf. Jan. 1, 1818. One more quotation from the same author of a later date : "We can do nothing singly. We must march in concert. The plan of obtaining possession of the waste lands should be connected with the penny subscriptions. To amass money would do little good. It should be well applied. If we filled our chests with cashe it would be useless there; and if we were foolish enough to take paper securities, we might only collect air bubbles, to burst ere they were touched. Let us endeavour to obtain the soil-some place whereon to stand, and to tell tyranny it is our own. A patriotic society, a joint-stock company, for redeeming the constitution of our country, will not be among the most unpopular, or least profitable of speculations." I may conclude these extracts, with a specimen of the manner that calamities are touched upon by these men, than which none more distressing in a private view, or in a public one more serious and deplorable, were ever visited upon the human kind; together with an attempt to throw ridicule upon those indisputably good acts of the government which it was in vain to persuade honest men to blame, or even call in question: WHAT'S THIS? My Dad is no better, my Daughter is dead, Which you must all deplore from the tail to the head; I have fully agreed with Joe, Louis, and Spain, They never shall flog the poor blackeys again; We must build some more Churches and Chapels, and then, Now what is it that these writers so loudly profess to call for -reform in parliament. On this head, indeed, it is by most persons agreed, that some alterations might be made for the better, with regard to the more equal representation of the country; and thus far the theme is plausible enough, and received without any feeling of suspicion or mistrust. Many a sober mind will listen to what they urge, because it has been acknowledged by greater and better men than they, that something should be done. They, however, do not rest here. They look to no steps to improvement; no cautious care, no experienced wariness is their's; they would have all done and undone in a moment, at one fell swoop, a deep, unsparing, radical reform. Reform is indeed an old story; the corresponding society that complimented the wild French legislators of 1792, were advocates too for parliamentary reform:,but in these days our modern pleaders leave them far behind, and with an audacity that knows no limits, openly expose to the world schemes of ignorance and artifice, which they might with better sagacity have kept concealed. A symptom of compliance with some reasonable and intelligible plan for reform, has in latter times shown itself on the part of the legislature. And what is the immediate consequence on the conduct of this party? They instantly took the alarm, fearing (with the usual measure of patriot zeal) nothing so much as the success of their own cause. The object once granted, their clamor must cease, and their importance (nay, even in many instances their chief mode of support) infallibly destroyed. A new ground therefore was chosen, a new explanation made to their claims, and a fresh demand appeared, which, while it defied any hopes of concession, has, at least, laid bare the naked merits of their cause to every man in the United Kingdom that dares think for himself. Radical reform is now explained by two other phrases, universal suffrage and annual parliaments: now universal suffrage means that all men (turned of twenty-one) whether possessing property or not, should have the same and equal votes in the choice of representatives in the House of Commons. Let us examine the subject more closely, and with better lights than these writers can afford us. We read in the pages of one of the first writers (historical or political), which the last century has bequeathed to us, the following passage: "Man born in a family is compelled to maintain society from necessity, from natural inclination, and from habit. The same creature, in his farther progress, is engaged to establish political society, in order to administer justice; without which there can be no peace among them, nor safety, nor mutual intercourse. We are therefore to look upon all the vast apparatus of our government, as having ultimately no other object or purpose but the distribution of justice, or in other words, the support of the twelve judges. Kings and parliaments, fleets and armies, officers of the court and revenue, ambassadors, ministers and privy counsellors, are subordinate in their end to this part of administration. Even the clergy, as their duty leads them to inculcate morality, may justly be thought, so far as regards this world, to have no other useful object of their institution." I The more we reflect on these words the more we shall be convinced of their truth. Now what is justice-but the securing to every man his own, or, in other words, his property and the sole object of the whole array of political government, is to preserve this from foreign or internal rapine. It is clear, therefore, Hume's Essays, Part i, v. if the security of property be the end of government, that property, instead of number, must be made the basis of national representation; and this alone can be considered as giving a man the right to become one of the governors, or to choose those who shall be so. In truth there can be no reason (if men without property are to choose) why they should not vote at once by themselves or their representatives, that the possessions of those who have, should be divided amongst those who have not: and without doubt, unless more expeditious modes of proceeding should occur, they would do this. As to annual parliaments, the question is somewhat different; the unceasing commotions and ill-will which would necessarily grow out of a struggle so constantly renewed, would be for many years at least, a fearful evil. This might perhaps be partially avoided by voting by ballot, or some such other plan as has been elsewhere put in execution: though it is to be doubted whether this change be in any way desirable, or whether it is to be wished that the unsteadiness of popular outcries should have so direct an influence upon the operations of our legislature as they would thus possess. Supposing the best, it is a hazardous scheme to propose vague substitutions for those laws and customs under which we have so long and so happily florished. To remove what is well, to tamper thus with our well-tried constitution, upon the recommendation, of such empirics, would be, in a true Sangrado style, drawing off an ounce of our pure blood, and letting in a flood of hot water. upon But we may ask, is it merely ignorance of political matters that is to be charged to these writers? do they really think themselves employed in disseminating schemes for the public good? are these demagogues then so pure ? are their present emoluments nothing? their hopes nothing? or, to sum all in one question, do these men, who are wiser than their fellows, and seek to enlighten the public mind-do they really seek to live for the people, or the people? Even the quotations before-mentioned are too plain, they speak out too openly, to allow us any room to doubt of their intentions, or to allow them any means of denial. The question is, not whether this plan or that be more beneficial to the country, but shall factious men, whose talents are, it is true, beyond their condition in life, shall they have an opportunity of raising themselves to wealth and power, though the blood and fortunes of millions be thrown into the hazard-or shall things go on as they now are? Shall untried men get the upper hand, or shall tried men be continued in the upper ranks of society? Shall men, whose modes and manners of action bespeak a want of principle, become our masters in life and fortune, or those who have in their several societies given so many, and such indisputable proofs of their real wish to serve their poorer brethren, and to render them, as far as the conditions of humanity will admit, happy and independent? In a word, shall all that unites together the frame of society and morality be at once dissolved? and shall we idly seek to get rid of the inconveniences that nature herself has imposed upon our condition, merely in order to glut the rapacity of those that provoke the struggle? Let every reader answer for himself: as for this party I denounce them to the honest world. There are those, no doubt, who will discredit all that is here brought forth, upon the ground of the apparent impossibility of the success of such schemes. Of practicability or impracticability I am silent. But after all, what is public government, or public power, but public opinion. If then these people (and they write well) succeed in persuading the nation that they and they alone are their real friends, all is then in their power; they have the work of confusion in their hands. The conspiracy of Despard, or of Brandreth, or of many others, aimed no blow comparable to this. If their wildest plans had been really carried into execution, and their murderous efforts met with success, would a revolution have been effected?- -no; not in one case more than another. A day or two of disorder, a few hours of confusion might have ensued, but matters would in all human probability soon have recovered their train as before the wishes and feelings of the body of the people so far from being changed, would rather have been horror-struck at the sight of so many acts of cold-blooded iniquity, and been confirmed in their attachment to order from seeing the atrocities that attend the want of it.-Once, however, persuade the public_mind that things as they exist are wrong, and the work is done. There then remains no fixed point to which (under the best circumstances) even the recovery of themselves could lead them back, no steadying principle to regulate the turn of things. A change in the public mind is a revolution, it is a change in government in principles, in form, in religion; it is all in all. But suppose them to attain success even in a less degree; suppose the public mind should be affected even only so far as to be prepared for change; if they should succeed no farther than to create expectation instead of a desire of a new order of things, it would be but a poor bungling proficient in political matters, that could not introduce his schemes when and where he pleased." Let us regard for a while the probability of seduction under existing circumstances. Apart from the hireling mob, there is a class of men unconnected with political life, unused to the chicanery and intrigue of faction: they are men in a comfortable condition of life, who gain their livelihood in an honest calling, and give their thoughts, no more than becomes them as British subjects, to points of political interest. They are, for the most part, thinking men, and from their habits of intercourse with the busy world, have acquired no small stock of common sense and sagacity; their leisure time after the toils of the day, is filled up pleasantly enough with the duties and enjoyments of domestic life; they read but little, and chiefly on that day when these journals and papers are so largely and profusely circulated; such therefore come to hand and are attended to. And when they see arguments so well placed and so speciously arranged, assertions so dauntlessly made and so plausibly supported, can we be surprised if their confidence in their rulers should be something staggered? Or when they see so many calumnies go forth uncontradicted to the world, can we be surprised that they should be in time persuaded to believe them? One more question: Whom may we include in this class?—The great body of trade and agriculture; in fact, the main support of the wealth, the probity, the honor, the independence of our nation. There is no rational man who, when he casts his eye upon the poll book for Westminster at the late general election, or that of the city of London, or that of the borough of Southwark, can suppose that the vast body of men then professing to support the cause of universal suffrage and annual parliaments, were actually plotting against the interests of their country! No one can suppose that as tradesmen they could wish to see rapine and lawlessness prowling about their doors, or suspected that universal suffrage must lead to universal spoliation. No one can turn over the list of names, but must believe they acted at the moment sincerely, and did what they were prompted by their consciences to do, under the influence of these self-interested propagators of evil. But this happened in the head and metropolis of the country; London, Westminster, and Southwark for that time all held the same language: nor indeed did the contagion stop here, but was spread in a greater or less degree to most of the large towns and cities of the kingdom. It is true, indeed, that in these situations the sower of sedition finds a soil ready prepared for his purpose: all large and commercial cities are naturally the nurseries of democratic sentiment; and as our metropolis is the largest and most commercial in Europe, it will be found to contain the greatest share of this feeling in its internal composition. Where commerce and trade abound, failures and disappointments will be nu |