The Sun.
London, England, 1837-12-18 00:00:00

PUBLIC MEETING TO PETITION

FOR THE BALLOT.

(Abridged from the Sheffield Independent of Saturday.)
On Thursday noon a numerous meeting was held in the
Town Hall, called by the Master Cutler, on the requisition
of a number of respectable inhabitants, to petition Pariiament
for the Ballot. It was generally understood that our excel-
lent Member, Mr. Ward, would be present ; and it had also
been announced by the Working Mens' Association, that an
amendment would be proposed, praying for Universal Suf-
frage and Annual Parliaments, in addition to the Ballot, to
be supported by Mr. Feargus O'Connor. Soon after twelve
o'clock, Mr. O'Connor and his friends made their appearance.
On the arrival of the Master Cutler, he was unanimously vote
into the Chair, on the motion of Mr. Palfreyman and Mr.
Bramley, and, in a few words, he opened the business of the
meeting.
Mr. Bftasmav then read notes from John Parker, Esq ,
M. P., and B. Sayle, Esq.
Mr. BRAMLICY also read an extract of a letter which he
had received from Mr. Ward, in which he said he hoped to

arrive at Sheffield by the hour of meeting. Mr. Bramley
said Mr. Ward had not yet arrived, but was expected every
moment.—( Loud cheers.)
Mr JOillUk WIGFULL moved the first resolution. For
many years they had indulged great anticipations of reform ;
and it seemed to him that there must be some great defect

that disappointed their hopes. Their Legislators were com-
posed too much of the higher classes, who were ignorant of
the wants of the poor. He hoped that tlae Ballot would re-
move that defect, and give the people a fairer and better re-
presentation. Unfortunately, too much power had been
placed in the hands of the agriculturists, who had been com-
pelled to vote for their landlords. But in the boroughs, if a
man occupied property to the value of 1,0001. a year, it gave
him no vote fur the county. The agricultural tenants were
compelled to Tote for their landlords, by a fear of losing their

livelihood. He thought that it would be the better course to
obtain the Ballot first—(Cheers)—and bring on afterwards
the other great questions which they had in view.—(Cheers.)
England was yet in her infancy, if Englishmen did their duty.
He moved, " That it is the duty of the Legislature to take
immediate and effectual means to prevent the gross intimida-
tion and corruption which so notoriously prevail in the elec-
tion of Members of Parliament."

Mr. Du did not consider that the Ballot ought to be a
party question. Whether a man were Whig, Tory, or Ra-
dical, if he were an honest man, and disposed to do his duty,
he was interested in the Ballot.—( Cheers.) He seconded the
resolution.

Mr. EBBNEZIZIt ELLIOTT said—Master Cutler and Fellow
Townsmen I—we are met ostensibly to petition for the Ballot,
but really to talk about Lord John Russell's decla: ation against
Reform. lam not sorry for that declaration ; it is an honest
one ; it enables me for the first time in my life, to believe a
Whig.—{ At this moment Mr. Ward entered the meeting, and
was hailed with a burst of the most enthusiastic applause.]—l
cannot think that any sincere advocate of the Ballot will oppose
my amendment, for a proposal to extend the suffrage as the best
means of obtaining the Ballot, because the existing constituen-
cies would demand it for their protection. But, by demanding
our long-withheld rights, we are told we shall brine. the Tories
into office. Are they not in office ? What is a Whig but a Tory?
—(" No, no," and cheers.) And what is a Tory but a wolf ?
( Cheers.) The difference between them is, that your Whig wolf
is dressed in hen's feathers, and has a sheep's heart in his bosom,
with a serpest's cerebellum for a brain. Your Tory is a
straightforward robber and cut-throat, greedy as a shark, blind
as a bolt. But your Whig (the still swine) always reminds
me of Cobbett's description of the old sow in a bean-field
" She creeps," says he, " on her hams, into the centre of the
field, where, if any one finds her, he wonders how the devil
she got there, for there seems to he no road for such a beast.
Adjusting her height to that of the crop, she squats, with the
points of her ears precisely on a level with the bean-tops,
while she crunches both swads and beans, and never wants
water, for they aro both meat and drink to her," just as office
is to an Aristocrat. But if the owner of the beaus finds her
poaching on his manor, Lord of mercy, what a fuss she
makes tip she gathers her fat carcase, with a tremendous
grunt, as if she was the injured party, and away she waddles,
with her big belly, and many a peck of beans in it, imitating
to the life the chaste, insulted dignity of an injured Whig
matron, or my Lord Melbourne himself 1 Now, why should
we not tell the truth of such people as these? Will they keep
you ? Don't you earn your own living ? Wo are neither
beggars nor robbers, hut unfortunate feeders of both ; and I
am determined to feed the robbers no more : for Russell, the
Reformer, has declared that his Reform humbug is a final
measure, and that the idlers, who cannot live without robbing
the industrious of twc-thirds of their earnings, shall still be
the British Government. I therefore declare—as a Member
of the Working Men's Association—that we will be satisfied
with no measure of reform, that does not take the hands of

the aristocracy out of our pockets, put an end to the armed
cowardice of their insolence, fill the army with men of the
people, and open to them a clear road for promotion. For
what is Russell's speech and confession but a manifesto of the
whole aristocracy, that they rely on the Pretorians whom we
pay, and whom they cannot pay? What care self-sustained
men for fine folks who are beggars self-declared?—or for fine
beggars, who are robbers self-proclaimed? See to what a
condition they have brought this country. Have they not
placed our most solemn duties in opposition to each other? It
is scarcely three years since I sat in that jury box, and found
poor creatures guilty of crimes, though too probably they
were mere victims of criminals in high places, who make the
law that makes the criminality, which they arc always
eager to sentence. But if I had then misgivings, if I
did not then sacrifice every victim brought before me,
but acquitted a poacher or two, who happened to
think that God's hares were not the squire's, could I
now—after Russell's dying confession, that his pullet is a
goose, and his rogue a fool, and that rogue's law shall be law
for ever—could I now, with a safe conscience, find victims
guilty of crime, while the victimizers, the true criminals, are
nbcl
,Rvaeaugli
hl s geas
dreanlrltyc,
to sit
documentaryi
declarationfandisiet orn robbery btabb naeeytrvyibodaost
evidence,
naea
carl shall
es s
commentary
cei
certain
juryman,rdbt
aet i
ai
ilia we ?tot
eater
will r o
not only at large, and living in splendour, but declaring that
; take if
n at
itm
again
-
s
owtf hheoPmam, r
al an
yamd h eaa nps kt e
nwith
Russell's declaration as a commentary on them, and ask Lord
Wharncliffe, or any other bread.tax eater who may happen toLord
preside here, how he can expect me to find the victims of a
caste guilty of the crime of poverty, while he knows, as well
as I do, that during the last twenty years of their lives they
have been robbed of two-thirds of their earnings by one law of
their victimizers ? " No, Lord Wharncliffe ! •No, Squire
Walker!" I will say, " I cannot find them guilty. I
have already heard in this Court the groans of broken-
hearted mothers, wives, sisters, torn from sacrificed sons,
husbands, brethren—groans which resound in my soul like a
voice of accusation—and I seem to see the victims stand-
ing before the eternal Judge, hiding their eyes with their
hands, and reluctantly saying, Yes, Father, this poet
of the poor found us guilty of crime, though his principles
ought to have taught him that we were only victims of state-
criminality I' Lords and Squires I is it not enough that you
take from the poor their privilege of out-door relief, while you
retain the horrible law by which you rob thorn of two-thirds
of their earning (and but for which robbery they would want
no relief at alp—is not this enough, without expecting me to
send them to Botany Bay ?" Russell's declaration has turned
me from the error of my ways, and determined me to advocate
short reckonings and the Suffrage for all. Let there be no
more legislation for classes. We ask no favour, we demand
our rights. As a member of the Working Men's Association,
representing them on this occasion, and deputed by them to
express here their sentiments and my own, I move an amend-
ment, not written by me, but by a working man, who, though
' robbed by the aristocracy of two-thirds of his earnings, yet gets
an honest living • a proof how well Englishmen might live,
if they had fair play. I move, I say, " That the landowners
and capitalists now monopolize representation in both Houses
of Parliament, in manifest injustice to the working classes.
Is is, therefore, the opinion of this meeting, that a petition be
sent to the Legislature, praying for an extension of the Suf-
frage to all classes of her Majesty's subjects, in order that all
may have equal justice; for Vote by Ballot, in order that the
voter may be enabled to exercise his right with independence ;
and for shortening the duration of Parliaments, that the re-
presented may have an efficient controul over their represen-
rtivos."

Mr. GILL rose to second the resolution with extreme plea-
sure. The aristocracy of wealth and power had absorbed the
representation, and the rights of labour were neither directly
nor indirectly protected. It was in the power of a few fa.
voured individuals to controul the circulating medium, and at
any moment throw out of employ thousands of the population.
Ought this state of things to exist, and they not raise their
their voices in opposition to such a system? He considered it
the duty of every man engaged in procuring the necessaries of
life, to declare himself against a system which Mr. Elliott had
said. took from the producer two-thirds of his produce, but
he maintained, robbed him, in one shape or another,
of nine-tenths. Whether they looked to the representatives
of towns or of counties (and as they were more connected
with
the town representation, he should notice first the
position in which they stood), they found all classes in
society naturally divided into two—the productive and
the unproductive classes. It was the interest of the un-
productive to screw all they could out of the productive
classes, and the more of their labour they could
force from
them, the more they aggrandised themselves. The result of
the present position of society was to engender discord, to set
man against man, and make a hell of this world. Let them
look at the streets, and say whether the present state of so-
ciety had not a tendency to make the world a hell. He could
sec nothing else. The capitalists of the country were produc-
ing misery, and the Ballot would only protect. them agains,
the just indignation of the exasperated people. The Ballot.
with the extension of the Suffrage, would be universal pro-
tection : it would protect every man in the exercise of
t • lit ,

Mr. PALFREYMAN had not intended to take so early a part
in the proceedings of the meeting, but for the amendment
proposed by his zealous friend, Mr. Elliott, whose zeal some-
times, as he himself admitted, went beyond his knowledge.—
( Disturbance.) I know that we shall yet fight in the same
ranks for years to come. He thinks that the glorious result
to which we look is near. I fear it is yet at a distance. The
amendment of Mr. Elliott has been ably seconded by one of
the working class, though sprung from an origin he seems
not very fond of. I beg to say one or two words in reference
to some proceedings before holding this meeting. Lord J.
Russell's declaration was startling to all persons friendly to
liberal opinions, and those who hare been in the habit of bring-
ing great questions before the public, as connected with the
cause of Reform, did not think it right that the town should
be silent. They considered what was the most prominent
subject that could be brought forward ; and in the exercise
of their judgment and discretion, they deemed the Ballot
the most important ; and, therefore, the requisition, ema-
nating in some degree from Mr. Bramley and himself as
officially connected with the Reform Association, was
handed round among the Reformers. And lam glad to
find that my friend Mr. Elliott was one of those who
signed it. What has brought a change over the spirit of his
dream I cannot tell; but it is clear that when the requisition
was signed he thought the Ballot important, and I attribute it
to his poetic imagination that ho no longer thinks so. To
us, and to all the requisitionists, the Ballot is only important
inasmuch as it is connected with the great cause of the people
—the cause of Reform--the ultimate extension of the Suf-
frage, and the shortening of the duration of Parliaments.—
( Cheers.) The only question about which we differ is at
which end to begin. I think that the proposers of the amend-
ment are attempting to put in the thick end of the wedge
first.—( Cheers, and " No, no.") I say, Yes, yes ; but I
think that when we have got the Ballot—when we have

got the matter once betWoen the rollers, we shall ne-
cessarily draw all connected with it through. With
the supporters of the amendment, I agree that the Ballot
might be injurious, unless the other two questions
should be carried after it. But it has been said
that the Ballot would protect the electors from the " virtuous
indignation of the non-electors." What ! if a man gives a
conscientious vote (and the only way of enabling all men to
do so is, to let them vote so as it may be unknown to all ex-
cept themselves and their Creator)—what I if a man has given
a conscientious vote, is he for one moment to be subjected to
what you call " virtuous indignation ?"—( Cries of " Yes," and
" No.") What I can that be virtuous indignation which
would control a man contrary to the dictates of his own con-
science ?—( Cheers.) That virtuous indignation ? Oh, no
Never prostitute the name of virtue so I Never say that an
individual, whether rich or poor, whether mechanic or land-
lord, working man or Peer, ought to have control over the
conscience of another. Every man has a right to vote freely,
but he is morally bound to exercise that right so as to be sub-
servient to the good of the community at large. If we had
the Ballot, do you think we should have seen, at the last elec.
Lion, the agricultural tenants brought in droves to the Corn
Exchange, with two or three Magistrates at their head, half-a-
dozen Parsons by their side, and a score landlords' agents about
them. There was one Parson Magistrate, with good fat capon
lined, who actually entered the booth to superintend the de-
livery of their votes ; and at the risk of incurring his personal
displeasure, I called on the deputy returning officer to order
him out.--( Cheers.) I think our immediate object should be
to obtain the Ballot to protect the electors. Is it right that
the electors should be subject to the control of one body or
another ? Do we not agree that the influence of Tory land-
lords and of the Whigs should be put an end to ? Mr.
Elliott has imbedded me in the immortal amber of his verse

as a Radical, and as such I am quite as ready as he to put
an end to the plunder of the old sow among the beans.
Mr. Beam,. read Lord Brougham's letter, and argued that
the amendment was founded not on any imaginative theories
of Mr. Elliott, but on the principles laid down by Lord
Brougham. The amendment was drawn up by a workman.
The population of this borough was 95,000; yet, out of the
30,000 adults, it contained not more than four or five thousand
possessed of the franchise ; and in many places, such as Ro-
therham, Barnsley, and Chesterfield, even the 101. tenantry
did not possess the franchise. In the elections of the two
first reformed Parliaments, bribery and intimidation were
not nearly so active as in the last, yet they did not find that
those Parliaments bad been materially better than the7pre-
sent. While such a place as Melton could counterbalance the
votes of the representatives of Sheffield—while the electors
were yearly undergoing diminution, from frivolous objections
and the death of freemen, he thdught it clear that the suffrage
was the most important question. lam not, he said, opposed
to the Ballot. I would vote for it more than the gentlemen
opposite.—(Disapprobation.) I am mistaken in saying that
they:would vote against the Ballot, but they would ♦ote against
the extension of the suffrage.—( Mr. Bramley—How do you
know that ?) Well, I hope not ; but if they oppose the
amendment, they arc voting against the extension of the
Suffrage.—( No, no.)
Mr. WARD stepped forward amid tremendous cheering.
He said, as there is a stranger present who is come here on
purpose to attend this meeting, and as I am here under a large
responsibility, while he has none, I think myself fairly entitled
to call upon him to precede rae, because if there be any ne-
cessity for me to set myself right with you, I ought to have
the advantage of reply.—( Loud cheers.)
Mr. FEARGL'S O'CONNOrt—( Cheering)—denied that he was
a stranger, or that he was without responsibility. Lord John
Russell had declared the finality of the Reform Bill, but ho
was there to oppose the only measure that could give it
finality ; the measure which would draw a line of complete
demarcation between wealth anti industry. Having relieved
the electors of all responsibility by the Ballot, Members of
Parliament would next say to those electors, we have relieved
you from your responsibility ; now we must be relieved too,
by introducing the Ballot into the House. The Ballot, with
the present suffrage, would be protection for the improper dis-
posal of votes ; the Ballot, with Universal Suffrage, would be
a general protection against interference with a privilege.
Under the Ballot, the agricultural voter would not vote dif-
ferently from now, because the enfranchised were divided into
two classes, the manufacturing and the agricultural, and the
agricultural /voters were guided by the Corn Laws, and not
by their consciences. He had now been called a Tory
Radical, but, during the three years he sat in Parliament,
he had always supported democratical principles, and, after
every Session he had ♦isited his constituents, pledged to
resign, if they disapproved of his conduct. The Ballot,
without the Suffrage, would be the cart without any horse
at all. What was the Ballot worth to working men, while
they had no vote to protect ? The working men of Yorkshire
and Lancashire were waiting to catch the echo from that room.
They were told that they were too ignorant for the Suffrage,
but they were too well educated for the Ballot. If they were
ignorant, five votes each would be readily given them ; but
since they possessed the knowledge necessary to defend their
rights, the rich would not give it. They had clamoured for
the Reform Bill ; were they a particle better for it?—
(" Yes," " no.") Did they earn more money ? Had they

better protection for their labour, and was there less protec-
tion for the public plunderers ?—( Cheers.) Parliament had
now sat three weeks, and excepting the stand made by Mr.
Wakley, in which he had been backed by the Gallant Member
for Sheffield—(Cheers)—what had been done? Year after
year parties were becoming more venomous. While these par-
ties were contending, it was impossible that the interest of the
nation should be protected, and the Ballot would only widen
the schism and increase the breach. The people were about to
be marshalled, throughout Yorkshire and Lancashire, and the
amendment now proposed would be carried in every assem-
bly of working men. He was called a Tory Radical, but
if the Tories came into power, he would oppose them more
than he now opposed the Whigs. The Reform Bill was
the fulfilment of the Whig pledges, yet it had grievously dis-
appointed the hopes of the people, and now the Whig march
was a short step forward, and two long steps backward. Let
them vindicate their own rights, and vote for the amendment.
So long as they had not the right, those who had it were their
masters, and not their servants. Luxury and wealth were in-
creasing ; but the comforts of the people did not increase.
What he wanted, was, that the science of legislation should
advance, and improvement be progressive. He was not with-
out responsibility. lie had come that day from Bradford,
where he was at a meeting till one o'clock in the morning.
He had attended meetings at Leeds and Dewsbury, and he
was preparing to attend meetings that would be held through-
out the North of England.
Mr. WARD said—Gentlemen, I thought that, in the
present position of affairs, it was desirable that there
should be a strong expression of opinion on the new
position assumed by the Government ; and I was re-
joiced to see, whet the notice of this meeting reached me,
on Monday, that my friends at Sheffield, with the energy and
practical good sense that distinguish them, have not suffered
the appeal of Lord John Russell to remain unanswered. Mr.
Elliott dwelt with great force upon the iniquity of the Corn
Laws. Is there a single person present who does not enter-
tain the same sentiments upon that subject ? I have voted for
their Repeal, or I should never have had the honour to stand
in my present position ; and no man who would support those
laws is fit to be the Representative of a manufacturing com-
munity like this. The Pension List, too, has been adverted
to, which we have got rid of, thank God, so that it forms now
no difficulty. I should have had faith in the Ballot without
the Reform Bill ; but I have no faith in the Reform
Bill without the Ballot. The foundation of my hope in the
Reform Bill was, that it would bring the Ballot, but I never
believed that it would do so till the last moment, and that mo-
ment has arrived. When I looked at the conduct of the Go-
vernment, I found every thing to be in conformity with the un-
derstanding that this should be an open question for amicable
discussion. Lord (Spencer, in 1825, declared himself
.for
the Ballot. Sir John Hobhouse was one of its earliest ad-
vocates ; and let us hope, that as Westminster has been dis-
appointed in its expectations as to one of its Members,
the other will maintain his consistency on this question.
Mr. Poulett Thompson was the pledged advocate of the Bal-
lot. Ament.,r the Lortis of the Treasury there were three
other individuals pledged to it. I had a right therefore, to
think that when the question was mooted, it would receive a
full and fair discussion, and that it would not be opposed or
made the ground of a quarrel. This feeling was confirmed
by the speech of Lord John Russell at Stroud. At a dinner
after his election, he laid down the line of distinction between
the Tories and the Reformers as strongly as Mr. O'Connor
could have done. He declared that he himself was a Re-
former in the broadest sense of that term, which a thinking
man could adopt, and that he wished the country to advance,
add not to stand still. In the speech which contained this
-trong expression of opinion, he told us that in the framing of
the Morin Bill, the Ballot was at one time a part of that tne2-
sure ; that the Committee who prepared the Bill for the Cabinet
proposed the adoption of the Ballot, and to shorten the duration
of Parliaments from seven years to five ; with this in my hand,
- tnd sentiments like these, expressed in a speech delivered so re
cently as the 28th of July last, and intended to influence the elec-
tions; I had a right to suppose that opposition\ to the Ballot

would never be made a Government question, and that, in
common with other Radical Reformers who advocated the
Ballot, short Parliaments, and the extension of the Suffrage,
I might with consistency support the Government. On the
last occasion when the Ballot was discussed, 17 Members of
the Government abstained from voting; and the language
held by Lord John Russell, Lord Howick, and others, was of
this character—that, although they objected to the system of
secret voting, yet if the shameful attempts at bribery ann
intimidation which had disgrased the elections in so many in-
stances, were persevered in, they must be put down, without,
the Ballot, if they could—but with the Ballot, and by
the Ballot if other means were found impracticable. That
was the state of the question between the earnest Liberals
and the Government at the commencement of the Session.
On the first, night, the Member for Finsbury made a mo-
tion comprehending all the great questions included in the
amendment of to-day. I told him in private, and after-
wards publicly, in the House, that I objected to the course
he was taking, as imprudent—as unfair to the very
questions themselves, and as unfair to. the country.—(Hear,
hear ) You arc not to conceive that in the House of Com-
mons there are only twenty men favourable to the extension
of the Suffrage and the Ballot; I believe that on Mr.

Grote's motion we shall divide nearly two hundred; but on
the occasion of Mr. Wakley's amendment there prevailed a
very strong desire that the first address to the Queen from
her first Parliament should be unanimous. I therefore think
Mr. \Vakley might have reserved the questions for future dis-
cussion whith great advantage, when many other Members
would have been ready to support him. But there was no-
thing in his amendment, or in the speeches in support of it, to
warrant or excite the strong feeling which appears to have
influenced the mind of Lord J. Russell, and led him to com-
mit a double wrong ; for his speech was unfair to his true and
disinterested supporters, the Radical Reformers, between whom
and the Ministry he erected a wall of principle that had never
before existed, converting those which had been questions of
time and expediency into questions of principle, in such a
manner as to render it as unpalatable as possible to those
who feel as I do. I could not then, and I cannot now under-

stand what could induce him to appeal from the town consti-
tuencies, by whose aid the Government have done everything
that they have been able to accomplish, to those landed inte-
rests, which have opposed him from the first day of his Minis-
try, and by whose votes he stands judged and condemned at
the pre:ent hour. The deep regret and disappointment which
I have now expressed, I uttered in the House of Commons,
where I was the first man to denounce Lord John Russell's

declaration, to which it is impossible Mr. Feargus O'Connor
could be more strongly opposed than I. I consider that, if

persevered in, it must be destructive of the hopes of the Libe-
ral party for that progressive amelioration of our institutions,
which they had connected with the continuance in office of
Lord Melbourne's Government. I expressed my feelings at
that time in terms which I do not regret, and of which I can-
not retract one syllable. I expressed my conviction that
if the declaration of Lord John Russell was to be con-
sidered the act of the Cabinet, there must be an end of

the alliance which we had endeavoured to preserve, and my
belief that there are but two courses now open.
The Honourable Gentleman who last addressed you has
asked what difference there is between the Ballot now and

liefore Lord J. Russell's declaration ? There is every possi-
ble difference. Before, we thought it might Le gradually
carried ; now, Government is against it, if we are to consider
the declaration of Lord John Russell as an avowal of the sen-
timents of the Government. Those who feel the absolute
necessity for a further progress of Reform—those who, like
myself, do not consider that a final measure—those who ac.

. -
knowledge no principle of finnlity, but think that our institu-

tions must go on improving with y the increase of intelligence,
see but two courses to pursue. One is that recommended by
the Birmingham Political Union and Sir William Moles-
worth, of direct and open hostility to the Government, and
which, I presume, would also be recomnended by this gentle-
man who has preceded me. The other, which I consider to
be by far the wiser hnd more practical course, is to bring the
opinion of the country to bear upon the Government, and
force them back out of the false position which they have
taken up.—( Cheers.) It is our duty to consider these two
courses in the general aspect of political affairs, and not
to be led away by vague declamation. Having read with
great attention the address of Sir William Molesworth to the
electors of Leeds, I cannot give my adhesion to his policy.
I cannot see that it would be wiser or better to destroy the
Government, which the combination of 10 or 20 Members

might do ; and I think it would be more wise, more practica-
ble, and of more advantage to express with becoming energy our
opinions, and a common determination to make our future sup-
port contingent upon their adherence to those professions
w Lich have earned for them the favour of the liberal constitu.

envies. It is not a matter of indifference whether WQ are to

have a Whig or a Tory Government. I cannot look back on
the occurrences of the past week without feeling that, not-
withstanding the false position of the Ministry, there is a great
distinction between them and the Tories. We all recollect

those feelings of odium and just indignation with which,
for many years, we regarded the Pension List, and if you
only look at the last division in the House of Commons,

_
you will be forced to admit that there is a considerable
difference between the men who hold themselves answerable

to public opinion, and those who, if they had had a majority
of only one, would have prevented a revision of the pen
sions, and have compelled you to satisfy what they called
the vested 'rights of those pensioners. Travel across the

Irish Channel-, and you will there find a great deal of differ-
ence between the Whig and the Tory. Recollect the recent
exhibitions they have made in both Houses of Parliament. In
the Lords, we tind the Duke of Newcastle presenting a peti-
tion for the repeal of the Catholic Relief Bill ; and, in the
Commons, you have the lamentable exhibitions of the Gallant
Colonels Verner and Percival, to contrast with the manly beha-
viour of one whom you all respect and love--I mean Lord
Morpeth.—( Loud cheers.) See how gallantly he met and
put down every charge against the Irish Government ; and
ask yourselves whether it is desirable that the principles of
Colonels Verner and Percival should again be predominant in
Ireland, and whether you would not, in that case, regret ton
late the loss of such men as the Earl of Mulgrave and Lord
Morpeth. Without sacrificing English objects to Ireland,
let us not sacrifice Ireland without a certainty of obtaining
English objects. Would those objects be any nearer if we had
a Tory Government ? Should we be one whit nearer the at-
tainment of English objects if we were to replace the present
Ministry by a Tory Government? I think not; and when I
am told that it is a matter of indifference whether we have the
Tories in office or not, I am reminded of the old address of a
Member to the Speaker—
" I hear a lioi in the lobby roar—
Say, Mr. Speaker, shall we bar the door?
Or shall Ire rather let the lion in,
And try if we can turn him out again ?" (Laughter.)

I must confess that I have sufficient timidity and caution not
to wish to see the Tory lion again rampant. Are we, then,
to submit to Lord John Russell's repudiation of us, and to the
rejection of those principles which have hitherto gained him
our support ? The proof that we are not willing to submit to
this, is that you are here to-day, and I am here to address you.
Let us give time for the operation of public opinion, and ex-
press our sentiments unequivocally and decidedly, and if Lord
John Russell has mistaken, (as I believe he has most lament-
ably) the state of public opinion on three points which he has
confounded together; if has mistaken, as I am convinced he
has, when he is shown his mistake, I am sure he will be the
last man to set his private wish against the national judgment.
For the present I do not retract what I said in the House of
Commons. when I said he had signed his death-warrant as a
Liberal Minister; and whatever respect I may retain for him
as our old champion. (for I do not forget, though others may the
service which he has rendered,) whose name is identified
with almost every victory the popular cause has gained, and
mingles with our proudest recollections, still he is but an
individual, though powerful and essential, I believe, to the
existence of the present Government. As yet we have no
declaration from the Government that it identifies itself with
his sentiments, and no declaration from the Cabinet, pledging
itself to the principles which lie has laid down. I therefore
do not consider, and I say it not lightly or unadvisedly, that
the course of the Goverment will be decided till the discus-
sion of Mr. Grote's motion on the 15th of February, which I
shall have the honour of seconding.—( Loud cheers.) We
must press on in our course, step by step successively, for no-
thing can be done in this country by sudden jumps and starts.
—( Cheers.) Successive steps will be our best means for the
attainment of a full and free representation, which I am as
sincerely desirous to accomplish as any of those who have
addressed you. Lord John Russell has pledged himself to
the fullest extent to the improvement of the machinery of
the Reform Bill. Who can explain what that means,
or what it may be made to mean under the influence
of public opinion? It not only involves the abolition
of the harassing and vexatious clauses connected with
the registration, but it may involve the restoration of the Re-
form Bill to the state in which it was originally prepared. I
hope, that we may, with honour and propriety, and justice to
the people, once more set our shoulders to the wheel, and, for
some years longer, support Lord Melbourne's Administration.
I now come to the question more particularly before the
meeting : whether we shall combine in one amendment the
ameliorations we think necessary in our system, or separate
them, and bring to bear, on one of these questions, the
largest possible mass of public opinion. To me, the ques-
tion is indifferent ; I am prepared to support them alt.—
( Hear, from the supporters of the amendment.) I beg that I
may not be misunderstood. (It was hero intimated that the
amendmeat was for Universal Suffrage.) I am for a large ex-
tension of the Suffrage, but I am not prepared for, the
abstract proposition of Universal Suffrage. (Me, 'Ward
was here called upon to say why.) I am calted upon to
state my reasons against Universal Suffrage. I aid so at the
election ; and I shall be glad to have a ecemenlcation on the
subject with any of you at another time. I say I am not pre-
pared to go to the extent of Universal Suffrage ; but I am
prepared to make a large addition to the present constituency.
I look to the Ballot to give a free expression to the feeling of
the constituency, whatever that feeling may be. But Mr.
O'Connor tells you that the Ballot would make a monopoly,
and that it would be used against you, and cause your per-
petual exclusion. [f I thought that, I would join Mr.
O'Connor in his pilgrimage. I would go with him throat:li
the West Riding and Lancashire, and denounce as heartily
RS he, so infamous an encroachment on the privileges of the
people. But I advocate the Ballot, I)eQ,ause I believe it will
be the road to every thing else, It s the key that will unlock
to all those that are excluded the paetale of the Constitution.
—( Cheers. ) The rialto', would give a full expression to
the will of the eleetors ; and if I did not believe that that
would by favourable to the Iprogress of popular institu-
tions, I iehoulcl indeed despair. The Ballot would be the
first step to your own enfranchisement. It is the step in
support of what the greatest mass of opinion can now be en
listed ; but if, instead of practical measures, we urge abstract
principles, we shall alienate many of these who would go with
les as far as an/ politiekan (lf present dad, eaceptin4 a very

small minority who themselves arc involved in doubt and dif-
ficulties. What I want is a strong and powerful expression
fram the town of Sheffield.—(Cheers.) The question has
been asked, whether, if you petition for the Ballot, you will
be any nearer to carrying it than if your petition included other
subjects ? I say, yes ; because the Lords have a concurrent
jurisdiction in the one case, and not in the other. The
moment the Ballot is carried by the House of Commons,
there is a right which we shall be prepared to assert, that it
belongs to that House to declare in what manner its
Members shall be voted for. I believe the House of
Commons is competent to resolve without the concurrence
of the Lords, that it will not recognise those returned
as Members, unless they are elected by secret voting.
The true sense of the thinking and intelligent majority, the
Ballot alone can give us. lam willinty to join issue on these
terms. Let the hundreds of thousands of Conservatives, of
whom Sir Robert Peel speaks, crowd to the poll, and register
their votes. That will not change my opinion. It rests on
this foundation—that we must widen the basis of our popular
institutions, by giving freedom to every voter; and when that
is done, the Government will freely represent the wishes and
interests of all classes. But if the decision of the country be
against me, I abide still by the principle. You will always
find me the advocate of equal rights and equal laws, to every
portion of the empire, and always struggling for the greatest
happiness of the greatest number, without regard to petty in-
terests, or to the parties or persons who may happen to be in
power.—(The Hon. Member concluded amidst enthusiastic
cheering.)
After the gas had been lighted, the CHAIRMAN put the
amendment, and then the orginal motion, to the vote. There
was a large show of hands for the amendment, which Mr.
O'Connor, Mr. Duffy, and Mr. James Ironside, who stood
together in front of the bench, hailed with loud cheers, as if
they had gained the day. For the original motion, however,
there was a decided majority, and the Master Cutler declared
it to be carried. On this, the three persons mentioned, began
to shout in another strain, and a considerable uproar arose.
Mr. BRAMI.LY then moved, and Dr. KNIGHT seconded, the
following resolution :—‘. That in the opinion of this meeting,
the best way of insuring purity of election. and of protecting
the voter in the conscientious exercise of the Suffrage, would
be to allow votes of elections to be taken by way of Ballot ;
that a petition, praying for vote by Ballot, be signed by the
Chairman, on behalf of the meeting, and sent to the House of
Commons ; and that H. G. Ward, Esq., be respectfully re-
quested to present the same."
Mr. JAMES IRONSIDE moved, as an amendment, which was
seconded, that the petition should include a prayer for an ex-
tension of the Suffrage, and the shorter duration of Parlia-
ments.

Mr. PALFRRYWAN deprecated the amendment.
Mr. O'CONNOR could support nothing less than Universal
Suffrage.
The amendment was withdrawn, and the motion carried,
only Mr. O'Connor and about half a dozen others holding up
their hands against it.
The petition agreed to is as follows :
" To the Honourable the Commons of the United King-
dom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assem-
bled. The petition of the inhabitants of Sheffield, assem-
bled at a public meeting, held in the Town Hall, on
Thursday, the 14th day of Dec., 1837, the Master Cutler
in the Chair—

" Sheweth—That your petitioners conceive that the Legis-
-I.tture ought to take immediate Lil effectual means topmost
the gross intimidation and corruption which so notoriously
',reran in the election of Members of Parliament. _

That your petitioners are firmly convinced thrt the best
way of ensuring- purity of election, and of protecting the toter
in the conscientious exercise of the Suffrage, would be to per-
mit rotes to be given in secret.
" Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honour-
able House will be pleased to pass a law, compelling electors,
in future, to give their votes by way of the Ballot.
" And your petitioners will ever pray," &c.