The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-01-18 00:00:00

MR. SADLER :-THE REFORM BILL.

No one will deny that Mr. Sadler is one of the truest
and most zealous friends of the operative classes. He is
therefore in every sense of the word an honest conserva-
tive. He is not only the fearless opponent of the system
under which the undefended poor, the hard-working arti-
san, and the helpless and unprotected infant are oppres-
sed by the factory tyrants, but he is also the unflinching
advocate of their political rights—those rights which
they enjoyed under the old and condemned constitution
of England, but of which they have been deprived by the
Reform Bill. That Bill, be it borne in mind, has effec-
tually closed the door against the operative mechanic and
labourer. It has excluded them from all participation in
the political franchise, unless they inhabit a house rented
.at ten pounds, and rated to the poor-rates, which rates
roust be paid on or before eight o'clock at night on a par-
ticular day, otherwise the collector's books are closed,
and they are disfranchised. This rental is so high that
not one operative in a hundred, out of London, is able
to afford it. The reform bill is in fact a bill to disfran-
chise the working classes—a bill to qualify the shopkeep-
ers, but to disqualify those upon whom these huxters and
retailers depend for their subsistence, and from whom
they derive those profits out of which they pay that rental
which constitutes them the electors of England. But,
perhaps, we shall be told that the Mr. Sadler who points
out these defects, and advocates the claims of the work-
ing part of the community, was himself an opponent of
the reform bill. We admit this ; but are the people so
doltish, and so incurably stupid, as to believe that every
opponent of that bill must necessarily be an anti-reformer ?
If we mistake not, Mr. Sadler was a reformer, as we and
many others were, at the time when one-half of Lord
John Russell's majority were opposed to reform—when
the Times was opposed to reform—when the Courier was
used to reform—when Burdett sat with his knees in
opposed to reform—when Burdett sat with his knees in
Canning's back—when Lord Brougham, and Lord John
Russell himself declared, that the people were sick of re-
form, and had given it up as a popular fallacy, which had
been indulged into excess, and had produced satiety.
Let us, therefore, hear no more nonsense about the op-
ponents of this absurd and unjust bill being naturally ad
verse to all measures of moral or political improvement.
Under the old system, servitude conferred the suffrage,
avd by this means the working man, the mere journey-
man and labourer, was enabled to acquire the elective'
privilege. A seven years' apprenticeship gave the car-
penter, shoemaker, and other mechanics the freedom of
the corporate towns where they served, and this conferred
upon them the elective privilege. By this means, the
poor as well as the rich—the artisan, as well as his em-
ployer—the tailor that makes the coat, as well as the fine
gentleman who wears it—formed part of the constituency,
and influenced tire elections. But the Russell purge has
entirely disfranchised these poorer persons. Some of
them, it is true, have a life interest in a vote, but their
children, unless they occupy a £lO house, will be for
ever excluded from the electoral body of these kingdoms.
Let us put a case in illustration. There is, we shall sup-
Bose, a gin-shop at the corner of one of the streets in
irmingham, Manchester, or Sheffield, and opposite that
is a coal-shed, and, a little way down the street, a bacon
shop on one side, and a potatoe one on the other. These
persons sell their gin, bacon, coals, and potatoes to the
operative classes who surround them. Their shops and
dwelling-houses attached, paying a higher rent than £lO,
confer upon them the right of voting ; while not one of
their customers, by whom they live,- have a vote. They
generally live in houses rented from £5 to £B, and they
are, consequently, excluded from the franchise. Now
we appeal to every man of sense, if this be not inequality
without justice—disfranchisement on the one side, and
enfranchisement on the other, without a vestige of rea-
son—without merit on the one part or demerit on the
other. It is not only an absurd—it is an iniquitous dis-
tinction. Is it respectability which gives the claim to
the gin-seller ?—is it wealth ?—is it intelligence ?—is it
lOyalty ?—is it utility ?—is it his higher morality, or his
'more rigid attention to his religious duties ? No such
thing. The disfranchised operative is most probably a