The Sun.
London, England, 1858-10-27 00:00:00

ACCEPTANCES FOR my

Age st lb
Tnaivroment. ' 4' 8.12
Vanden:am:am 8 -8.
Underhand
Poodle
Commotion
Mr. Sykes
Borderer
Riseber •
Fadladeen
Blue Jacket
Special License.
All's Lost
Lifeboat .. .........3 7 1
Ancient Briton 3 6 12
Herne. - -
Gleesinger
Rosati
King of Gipsies •56 12
The'iveights have

REFORM •MEETINGAT NEIVCASTLE-

UPON-TYNE.

On Monday evening a crowded public meeting on
the subject of Parliamentary Reform; in connexion
itUnion, was held at the
LecturtheeNorthernHal. ReformNewcastleui)on:Ty4% Mr. W. Cook
was called to the chair.

It was announced that letters had been received,
expressing approval of the objects of the Union,
from, among others, the members for the borough,
Mr. Headlam and Mr. Ridley,; General Thompson,
M.P., Mr. J. Bright, M.P., Mr. W. J. Fox, M.P.
Mr. Herbert Ingram, M.P. Mr. J. Sturge, Mr. El
Mia,ll, Mr. Malcolm Lewin (late Judge of the Suddur
Court, Madras), arid Mr. Edward S. Pryce, Secre-
tary of the Guildhall Coffeehouse Reform Com-
mittee.

The following is from the pen of General Thomp-
son, M.P. :
" To the Members of the Northern Reform Union.

" Friends, of all denominations,—ln writing to
you, at the request of some of yourselves, it is not
my intention to go over the several questions on
which you have proved yourselves so well able to
examine and to decide, but rather to put together
such points as throw light on the necessity there is
for a united action on your part, in the manner of
those which have been successful in cases it is need-
less to mention. To which may be added notices of
what look like the openings for carrying it forward
with success. And _ here, at once, the broad state-
ment of the case is, that what for brevity, though
not, perhaps, with mathematical precision' may be
called the working-classes, have not their fair share
of influence in the composition of the political ma-
chine, nor the influence it would be for the general
interest to give them. And these underground or
overlaid classes, possessing vast numerical strength
and rising fast in knowledge—which is power—are
upheaving the mould like the biggest born of
earth' at the creation, and showing unmistakeable
signs that statesmen andpoliticians, if such there be
must, before long, consent to take them into the ac-
count. And here I advise you to firmly penetrate
yourselves with the weak point of the fallacy under
which multitudes of well-meaning. men act against
your leading object. They say, it is important that
there should be security for wealth ; that wealth
should have its enjoyment, and as the means tothat,
its, influence ; that knowledge, too, as gained in the
higher walks of study, and in the opportunity for
actual political exercise, should have its sway. All
this they say, and truly. It is quite true that the
rich man should have the benefit of his riches in
the market, and that the wise man who, in some
way or other, has come by the knowledge of the
means of honourably creating wealth for himself or
others, should have the benefit of his superiority.
So long as they use their money innocently it is all
well ; but nobody upon this has made the discovery
that to give them their due advantages in the mar-
ket it was necessary to keep the poor men out. It
has always been held enough, if the rich man had
the advantage of his riches, and the poor were pro-
tected in their poverty. Yet this is the mistake
which has been made in respect of the suffrage.
The rich man has numberless and blameless ways of
influencing the votes of others, by his example, and
by his power of spreading his opinions. The poor
man has only his one ewe lamb--of saying yes or
no at an election. There is no justice, no truth, in
saying, if you give votes to the poor man, you take
away the power of protecting themselves from the
rich. There will always be only too much reason to
fear that the rich will find the means of employing
their influence and wealthto ill purpose. There may
be limits to the parallel; bull maintain and stoutly
defend, that there is, and always has been, a huge
and monstrous fallacy abroad upon this very point
of the limitation of the suffrage. There isno similar
limitation thought of when men are wanted for the
militia, nor when they are to be taxed at 10 or 11
times the rate of the richer classes by a crafty ap-
plication of what is called indirect taxation. these
things want looking into both ways, and the rich
ought especially to look into them, for it is likely
there is a per tentage of them voting against the
extension of the suffrage, when it is possible that
such an extension would add three to their own
supporters where it would only add two to their
rivals. It is a pity to see men losing by thinking
themselves too knowing. On that interesting point,
the right of sending sealed letters to the Post-office
--I beg pardon, I meant to the ballot-box-3-ou have
an equally good case before you. When the upper
ten thousand vote at the Royal Society, or at courts
martial, they take special care that their vote shall
be by ballot. Among other graces and ornaments
of life, they are well' aware of the importance of that
which consists in taking care of themselves; and
when pressed for further reason, they say, distinctly,
like sensible men as they are, that they do so be-
cause it is for the public good that they should do
it. The officer at a court-martial resigns himself
to giving his vote without declaring it to the pub-
lic, simply from the necessity of sacrificing for the
public good, and not at all because he knows it
would•be convenient for him to be out of the way
of the vengeance of the powerful, or the insulting
temptations of the affluent. And the Government,
where concerned, agrees, upon the plain dictate of
common sense, that man will not give his vote the
better for being bullied into it, nor for being bribed.
But when the question 'is of an honest and poor
man's vote, the rule as it stands says to him open-
mouthed—you shall not vote without the chance of
somebody's having. driven you to it by oppression,
or tempted you to it by lucre of gain ; and for this
last we are particularly tender, for what could be
so contrary to the objects of government as to allow
a rich rogue to pay his money, without the chance
of verifying whether the poor one had earned his
pay ? And here, upon this question of the ballot,
there is a practical misunderstanding abroad, not
altogether unlike what was in the case of rthe suf-
frage. Rich men say to themselves, " What would
become of us all if we had the ballot ?" Whereas
the fact is, that if some of them were to be worse,
some would be better when the accounts were cast
up. If A and B are two rich men, rivals at an elec-
tion, and half of A's men would go over to B
if there was the ballot, and two-thirds of B's
men would go over to A, there is no doubt that
one or other of them would be the better for
the ballot. But, they will say, some good-for-
nothing democrat will step in and oust us both.
It has not been found to be se where there was
opportunity for the experiment. Rich and selfish
men sometimes overshoot their mark in their spe-
culations on the question. And now to apply the
reasons why an infusion of new blood is specially