The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-19 00:00:00

men supported existence by the mutual interchange
of their. products of industry. The button-bur-
nisher could not live upon the burnishing of a but-
ton, unless he could exchange it for bread; nor
could the ploughman, or the producer of bread,
clothe himself with the product of his labour, un-
less be could exchange it for cloth. To break up a
wonderful machinery of this kind was to create uni-
versal anarchy and bloodshed, and to bring on with
this something like universal ruin and destruction,
more cruel among the weaker classes than among
the stronger themselves. The French people waded
through torrents of blood, and for what? By the
downfall of Napoleon they had gained a feature of
constitutional liberty; but what did it amount to?
At this very moment, he was sorry to declare, that
out of 30,000,000 of inhabitants, which France
contained, only 80,000 possessed the power of re-
tu: ping Members to the Frerch House of Commons.
The misery which the French people underwent in
obtaining their very limited representation was greater
than almost any recorded in the history of nations;
and if such misery was created by the breaking up of
their social system, not a tenth part 'so complicated
as our own, what would be the dreadful misery
every man must sustain, be he rich or be he poor, if
ever the complicated and wonderful machinery of
English society was suffered to break up ?—(Cheers.)
To return to Universal Suffrage. In America, the
freest and happie't country' on the face of the earth,
universal suffrage did not exist in any one of the
estates. They had all exceptions, either founded on
parish relief, or as being paupers, soldiers, slaves,
and minors, with many other exceptions. Not only
did not universal suffrage exist in any country of the
present world, but it never did exist in any country
recorded in history. The Greeks and Romans, the
bravest nations of antiquity, gave the elective fran-
chise to only about one person in five at the very
most. He (Mr. A.) did not wish to disparage uni-
versal suffrage, annual Parliaments, and vote by
ballot; it. was possible there might be something
good inlhem ; but it was possible there might be some-
th'ng dangerous in them.—(Cheers.)—All he could
say was, that he thought it was not prudent to claim
them. And why should he, when the undeniable
Constitution under which their fathers flourished
was open to them ? The Marquis of Blandford's
Bill, if passed, would secure immense privileges for
the people. It would restore the glorious system
under which the lower classes of the people were
undeniably happy and free. He would read to them
the great provisions of that Bill, and give a faint
description of the liberties which it would restore
to the country. This it did by merely repealing
Acts of Parliament which had been passed when
the people were asleep, and had no watch dogs—
no political councils—(Cheers)—during the last
150 years. But before he shewed them the solid
benefits which the Marquis of Blandford's Bill
would restore to them, he wished to give them an-
other glimpse of the evils which anarchy would
bring upon them. A state of tyranny was the inevit-
.able result of a state of anarchy. It was not pos-
sible, indeed, for a state of society like theirs, when
once broken tip, to settle down again by any other
means than that of force. When masses of men
broke loose from their ancient habits and modes of
thinking, every man with a head upon his shoulders
had an opinion of his own—(Cheers)—and he had
an equal right to have his own opinion regarded as
that of his neighbour. Here then were 20,000,000
of opinions, passions, prejudices, and interests,
which could not possibly be reconciled but by force.
—(Cheers.)—Then, as in the case of Cromwell
arid Napoleon, the strongest soldier became the
strongest man ; and he with the sharpest sword, or
the mast delusive tongue, laid the country prostrate
under the rule of a rod of iron.—(Cheers.) Nor
was it to be wondered, that a rod of iron should suc-
ceed the rule of anarchy; for when men were worn
by the calamities which anarchy produced, they
gladly submitted to despotism, in the hopes that it
might
.aave.them from more frightful evils. To re-
turn to-the-Marquis of Blandford's Bill—the object
of tlii,ViskirOche was about to propose—the Union
mustaanairs mind, that justice and strict legality
were the' foundations of all real strength. Their
own Shakspeare had laid this down as a principle in
his inimitable language—
" Thrice i% he armed, that bath his quarrel just,
And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel,
Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted."

They had their quarrel just; they stood upon
ground where no power could resist them, and from
which no law and no force could dislodge them.—
Their strength was in their unanimity and in the
justice and legality of their cause. They made
no attack upon any of the sacred establishments
of the country; they made no attack upon their
venerable Church ; they made no attack upon
the House of Lords; they made no attack upon
the Throne of their beloved King—may God
restore him to health—(A dead silence)—they
only made an attack upon the people's own
House, where they contended their rights were not
represented. And how should they be represented,
constituted as that was ? Lord Grey offered to
prove, on oath, before the House of Commons, that
200 persons returned the majority of that House;
and in it there were 117 officers in the army and
navy. Noss', he had the highest respect for those
gentlemen in their individual capacities ; he de-
aired, if upon trial for his life, he should prefer
being tried by a Jury of officers of the army to any
other description of men; but these gentlemen were
all men actuated with human passions, and it was
not possible for them to give an unbiassed vote,
where their own interests and feelings were deeply
interested. Sir R. Wilson, for instance, a noble,
gait and high-minded officer, had been cashiered
ant,
by the arbitrary mandate of the Ministry, without
a Court-martial, merely because he dared to inter-
fere in the business of the late Queen. Every
officer was liable to the same fate ; 'and, therefore,
it was no disparagement to their integrity to say
they were not fit representatives of the people.
What, then, did the Marquis of Blandford's Bill re-
store to them ? He could tell them ; first, it dis-
missed all placemen from the House of Commons.
Secondly, it cut off all the rotten boroughs, and re-
lieved the King from his 300 royal pensioners ; for,
most assuredly, at present they divided the royal
prerogatives with him.—(Cheers.) Thirdly, it abo-
lished the qualification of freehold property; at pre-
`sent, there were not, perhaps, twenty men in Bir-
mingham who had got that freehold qualification.
Fourthly, it repealed the Septennial Act. Fifthly, it
broke down expenses attending elections, and gave
the elective franchise to every householder in the king-
dom liable to pay poor rates. Here it was important
to observe, that it was an undeniable constitu-
tionai law that representation and taxation must go
together; and he had the authority of Lord Bland-
ford to declare to them, that in case that Bill passed
into a law, it would be impossible to continue levy-
ing taxes which pressed upon the working classes of
the country. The rich would be compelled, as of
old, to pay all taxes, at they ought to do ; or, if
they refused, hey would be thrown upon the other
horn of the dilemma, and be compelled to give re-
presentation to the lower classes upon their own
constitutional conditions.—(Cheers.The lower
classes, therefore, under any circumstances, would
gain much by Lord Blandford's Bill; they would
either gain representation, or freedom from taxation.
—(Cheers.)—And he would declare, if the repre-
sentation were refused, the taxation must be abo-
lished, and one-tenth part of the saving the lower
classes would thus experience would enable every
one of them to obtain the elective franchise. Mr.
Attwood, in allusion to what had been said of the
late Duke of Richmond supporting Universal
Suffrage,strotigly-'eVaracterised the subsequent con-
doct
,Of'fli*t. Nobleman, declaring that his advocacy
"O't 'Reform was.a mere clap-trap for the people, arid
'....' ' dictated by spleen and selfishness. Immediately
afterwards he was taken into power, and was the
immediate instrument of seeking the blOod'ot Hornel
'• ' Toblie iiirtrchernisright men, who went otdy two-
Ithiiihrof•ttioNiay.le had himself formerly professed
0 - "td, ,:„ tificicliisiefii;Mr. Attwood strongly reenm-
' ',IiS, eitl-siiilSiiieran -AO the laws—union, harmony,
itt_ 4;1)0%40 the' and then he did not
~.. ~ ...
_ /