The Commonwealth. — 1867-02-09 (London, England)

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1867.  6ontspodttirt.  We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our correspondents.  (To the Editor of the Commonwealth.)  beg leave to offer, through the medium of your columns, the following observations to the millions of unefranchised workmen of Great Britain.  After spending sir months -in colleOetill-g-scheme for settling our little account, our new masters have, through the mouth of our old mistress, made known so much of the principle of their plan as will enable us at once to come to a unanimous decision about it; and as the paragraph in which the stereotyped promise is repeated is not a very long one, it may perhaps be as well to quote it entire, and here it is : " My Lords and Gentlemen,—Your attention will again be called to the state of the representation of the people (?) in Parliament; and I trust that your deliberations, conducted in a spirit of moderation and mutual forbearance, may lead to the adoption of measures which, without unduly disturbing the balance of political power, shall freely extend the elective franchise." Which, as every one must see, in plain English means that for every one admitted within the pale of the Constitution in the interest of labour, justice and humanity, there shall be the same number admitted on the side of wrong, robbery and injustice, so as not to "disturb the balance of political power," in which, practically, that interest alone is represented. Now, does this statement of the intentions of the Government need any further explanation? Is its meaning not as clear as the "stupid" party could make it? Is not their promised elucidation of its meaning on Monday evening next entirely superfluous, and intended to mystify what they have—doubtless unintentionally—made as clear as learning" could make it? or to cajole the "House," chimney pots and all, into the belief that they do not mean anything of the kind they have stated, and possibly the dodge may succeed with the "House," but will it with you? I know it will not. I also know it will not succeed with the Council of the League, nor with a single member of it. Their determination, as I understand it, is not to maintain the present unjust and villainous "balance of power," but to destroy it; and they know that when we understand our rights and duties, every man of us will support them; they know that to deprive a man who lives by useful industry of his vote, and give it to an idler or to a money grubber, or the owner of a palace or a brothel, is a robbery infinitely more deserving of punishment than the act of taking a few sticks to warm one's porridge—a robbery compared with which all other robberies are honest—a robbery the wickedness of which is not exceeded by the crime of murder—a robbery, indeed, in which that crime and all others are intended, included and legalised—a robbery that it is the duty of all who live by honest and useful industry to do their utmost to put a stop to, and it is only required that we should show the base and cowardly perpetrators that the industrial classes know all about it (which if they do not they soon shall), in order to ensure their recognition of the expediency of its speedy discontinuance. Therefore, let every one who suffers or sympathises with those who suffer this injustice do his best to convince the stupid party of the folly and hopelessness of their trying any longer to continue this monstrous wrong and wickedness, by being present, and inducing others to do so, at the mighty demonstration of discontent on Monday next. Arguments are very good things in a set debate, but numbers alone will tell on those who are withholding from us our political rights. Fellow workmen! come, and come in your thousands. J.