66

harmony and happiness of society. defence of his country, were to answer: Men stained with indelible crimes are Why should I risk my life? I have excluded, because they have forfeited" no possession but my labour; no their right by violating the laws to enemy will take that from me; you, which their assent has been given. In-" the rich, possess all the land and all its sane persons are excluded, because they" products; you make what laws you are dead in the eye of the law, because" please without my participation or the law demands no duty at their hands," because they cannot violate the law, because the law cannot affect them; and, therefore, they ought to have no hand in making it.

assent: you punish me at your pleasure; you say that my want of property excludes me from the right of having a share in the making of the laws; you say that the property that I have in my labour is nothing worth; on what ground, then, do you call on "me to risk my life? If, in such a case, such questions were put, the answer is very difficult to be imagined.

In cases of civil commotion the mat-ter comes still more home to us. On what ground is the rich man to call the artisan from his shop or the labourer from the field to join the sheriff's possé or militia, if he refuse to the labourer and artisan the right of sharing in the making of the laws? Why are they to risk their lives here? To uphold the laws, and to protect property? What! laws, in the making of, or assenting to, which, they have been allowed to have no share? Property, of which they are said to possess none? What! compel men to come forth and risk their lives for the protection of property; and then, in the same breath, tell them, that they are not allowed to share in the making of the laws, because, and ONLY BECAUSE, they have no pro-perly! Not because they have committed any crime; not because they are idle or profligate; not because they are vicious in any way; but solely because they have no property; and yet at the same time compel them to come forth and risk their lives for the protection of property!

But, with these exceptions, where is" the ground whereon to maintain that any man ought to be deprived of this right, which he derives directly from the law of Nature, and which springs, as I said before, out of the same source with civil society itself? Am I told, that property ought to confer this right Property sprang from labour, and not labour from property; so that if there were to be a distinction here, it ought to give the preference to labour. All men are equal by nature'; nobody denies that they all ought to be equal in the eye of the law: but how are they to be thus equal, if the law begin by suffering some to enjoy this right and refusing the enjoyment to others? It is the duty of every man to defend his country against an-enemy, a duty imposed by the law of nature as well as by that of civil society, and without the recognition of this duty, there could exist no independent nation and no civil society. Yet, how are you to maintain that this is the duty of every man, if you deny to some men the enjoyment of a share in making the laws? Upon what principle are you to contend for equality here, while you deny its existence as to the right of sharing in the making of the laws? The poor man has a body and a soul as well as the rich man; like the latter, he bas parents, wife and children; a bullet or a sword is as deadly to him as to the rich man; there are hearts to ache and tears to flow for him as well as for the squire or the lord or the loaumonger Jet, notwithstanding this equality, he is to risk all, and, if he escape, he is still to be denied an equality of rights! If, in such a state of things, the artisan or labourer, when called out to fight in

But, the PAUPERS! Ought they to share in the making of the laws? And why not? What is a pauper; what is one of the men to whom this degrading appellation is applied? A very poor man; a man who is, from some cause or other, unable to supply himself with food and raiment without aid from the parish-rates. And is that circumstance alone to deprive him of his right, a right

of which he stands more in need than this right, strip them of another right ? any other man? Perhaps he has, for To say no more of the injustice and the many years of his life, contributed di- cruelty, is there reason, is there common rectly to those rates, and ten thousand sense, in this? What! if a farmer or to one he has, by his labour, contributed tradesman be, by flood or by fire, so to them indirectly. The aid which, totally ruined as to be compelled, surunder such circumstances, he receives, rounded by his family, to resort to the is his right; he receives it not as an parish-book, would you break the last alms: he is no mendicant; he begs heart-string of such a man by making not; he comes to receive that which him feel the degrading loss of his polithe law of the country awards him in tical rights? lieu of the larger portion assigned him by the law of nature.

Here, here is the point, on which we are to take our stand. There are always, men enough to plead the cause of the rich; enough and enough to echo the woes of the fallen great; but, be it our part to show compassion for, and maintain the rights of, those who labour. Poverty is not a crime, and, though it sometimes arises from faults, it is not, even in that case, to be visited by punishment beyond that which it brings with itself. Remember, that poverty is decreed by the very nature of man. The Scripture says, that "the poor shall never cease from out of the land;" that is to say, that there shall always be some very poor people. This is inevitable from the very nature of things. It is necessary to the existence of mankind, that a very large portion of every people should live by manual labour; and, as such labour is pain, more or less, and as no living creature likes pain, it must be, that the far greater part of labouring people will endure only just as much of this pain as is absolutely necessary to the supply of their daily wants. Experience says that this has always been, and reason and nature tell us that this must always be. Therefore, when ailments, when losses, when untoward circumstances of any sort, stop or diminish the daily supply, want comes; and every just government will provide, from the general stock, the means to satisfy this want.

Is it, then, consistent with justice, with humanity, with reason, to deprive a man of the most precious of his political rights, because, and only because, he has been, in a pecuniary way, singularly unfortunate? The Scripture says, "Despise not the poor because he is poor;" that is to say, despise him not on account of his poverty. Why then deprive him of his right; why put him out of the pale of the law on account of his poverty? There are some men, to be sure, who are reduced to poverty by their vices, by idleness, by gaming, by drinking, by squandering; but the far greater part by bodily ailments, by misfortunes, to the effects of which all men may, without any fault, and even without any folly, be exposed: and is there a man on earth so cruelly unjust as to wish to add to the sufferings of such persons by stripping them of their political rights? How many thousands of industrious and virtuous men have, within these few years, been brought down from a state of competence to that of pauperism! And is it just to strip such men of their rights, merely because they are thus brought down? When I was at ELY, in the spring of last year, there were, in that neighbourhood, three paupers cracking stones,on the roads, who had all three been, not only rate-payers, but overseers of the poor, within seven years of the day when I Nor is the deepest poverty without its was there. Is there any man so barba- useful effects in society. To the pracrous as to say, that these men ought, tice of the virtues of abstinence, somerely on account of their misfortunes, briety, care, frugality, industry, and to be deprived of their political rights? even honesty and amiable manners and Their right to receive relief is as per-acquirement of talent, the two great fect as any right of property; and motives are, to get upwards in riches would you, merely because they claim or fame, and to avoid going downwards

to poverty, the last of which is the most "income, or the fruit of your labour, as powerful of the two. It is, therefore," your masters choose to take." This is, not with contempt, but with compas- in fact, the language of the rulers to sion that we should look on those whose every man who is refused to have la state is one of the decrees of nature, share in the making of the laws to from whose sad example we profit, and which he is forced to submit. to whom, in return, we ought to make compensation by every indulgent and kind act in our power, and particularly by a defence of their rights. To those who labour, we, who labour not with our hands, owe all that we eat, drink, and wear; all that shades us by day and that shelters us by night; all the means of enjoying health and pleasure; and therefore, if we possess talent for the task, we are ungrateful or cowardly, or both, if we omit any effort within our power to prevent them from being slaves; and, disguise the matter how we may, a slave, a real slave, every man is, who has no share in making the laws which he is compelled to obey.

But some one may say, slaves arm private property, and may be bought and sold, out and out, like cattle. A what is it to the slave, whether he be the property of one or of many; or, what matters it to him, whether he p from master to master by a sale for a indefinite term, or be let to hire by the year, month, or week? It is, in no case, the flesh and blood and bones that are sold, but the labour; and if you actually sell the labour of man, is not that man a slave, though you sell it for only a short time at once? And, as to the principle, so ostentatiously displayed in the case of the black slave-trade, that

66

man ought not to have a property What is a slave? For, let us not be in man," it is even an advantage to the amused by a name; but look well into slave to be private property, because the the matter. A slave is, in the first owner has then a clear and powerful place, a man who has no property; and interest in the preservation of his life, property means something that he has, health, and strength, and will, therefore, and that nobody can take from him furnish him amply with the food and without his leave, or consent. What- raiment necessary for this end. Every ever man, no matter what he may call one knows that public property is never himself or any-body else may call him, so well taken care of as private property; can have his money or his goods taken and this, too, on the maxim, that "that from him by force, by virtue of an" which is every-body's business is no order, or ordinance, or law, which he body's business." Every one knows has had no hand in making, and to that a rented farm is not so well kept which he has not given his assent, has in heart as a farm in the hands of the no property, and is merely a depositary owner. And, as to punishment and reof the goods of his master. A slave straints, what difference is there, whehas no property in his labour; and any ther these be inflicted and imposed by a man who is compelled to give up the private owner, or his overseer, or by the fruit of his labour to another, at the agents and overseers of a body of proarbitrary will of that other, has no prietors? In short, if you can cause property in his labour, and is, therefore, a man to be imprisoned or whipped if a slave, whether the fruit of his labour he do not work enough to please you; be taken from him directly or indirectly. if you can sell him by auction for a time If it be said that he gives up this fruit limited; if you can forcibly separate of his labour by his own will, and that him from his wife to prevent their it is not forced from him; I answer, To having children; if you can shut him be sure he may avoid eating and drink-up in his dwelling-place when you please, ing and may go naked; but then he must die; and on this condition, and this condition only, can he refuse to give up the fruit of his labour. "Die, "wretch, or surrender as much of your

and for as long a time as you please; if you can force him to draw a cart or wagon like a beast of draught; if you can, when the humour seizes you, and at the suggestions of your mere fears, or

whim, cause him to be shut up in a were a fanciful thing; if it were only a dungeon during your pleasure; if you speculative theory; if it were but an can, at your pleasure, do these things abstract principle; on any of these supto him, is it not to be insolently positions, it might be considered as of hypocritical to affect to call him a free little importance. But it is none of man? But, after all, these may all these; it is a practical matter; the want be wanting, and yet the man be a of it not only is, but must of necessity slave, if he be allowed to have no pro-be, felt by every man who lives under perty; and, as I have shown, no pro- that want. If it were proposed to the perty he can have, not even in that shopkeepers in a town, that a rich man labour which is not only property, but or two, living in the neighbourhood, the basis of all other property, unless he should have power to send whenever have a share in making the laws to which they pleased, and take away as much as he is compelled to submit. they pleased of the money of the shopIt is said, that he may have this share keepers, and apply it to what uses they virtually though not in form and name; pleased to what an outcry the shopfor that his employers may have such keepers would makę ! And yet, what share, and they will, as a matter of course, would this be more than taxes imposed act for him. This doctrine, pushed home, on those who have no voice in choosing would make the chief of the nation the the persons who impose them? Who sole maker of the laws; for if the rich lets another man put his hand into his can thus aet for the poor, why should purse when he pleases? Who that has not the King act for the rich? This the power to help himself, surrenders matter is very completely explained by his goods or his money to the will of the practice in the UNITED STATES OF another Has it not always been, and AMERICA. There the general rule is, that every free man, with the exception of men stained with crime and men in sane, has a right to have a voice in choosing those who make the laws. The number of representatives sent to the Congress is, in each state, proportioned to the number of free people. But as Ay, and experience shows us that it there are slaves in some of the states, always has been the case, The natural these states have a certain portion of and inevitable consequences of a want additional numbers on account of those of this right in the people have, in all staves! Thus the slaves are represented countries, been taxes pressing the inby their owners; and this is real, prac-dustrious and laborious to the earth; tical, open, and undisguised virtual re- severe laws and standing armies to com¬ presentation! No doubt that white pel the people to submit to those taxes men may be represented in the same wealth, luxury, and splendour, amongst way; for the colour of the skin is no- those who make the laws and receive thing, but let them be called slaves, the taxes; poverty, misery, immorality, then let it not be pretended that they amongst those who bear the burdens are free men let not the word liberty and, at last, commotion, revolt, revenge, be polluted by being applied to their and rivers of blood. Such have always state; let it be openly and honestly been, and such must always be, the avowed, as in America, that they are consequences of a want of this right of slaves; and then will come the question all men to share in the making of the whether men ought to exist in such a laws, a right, as I have before shown, state, or whether they ought to do every-derived immediately from the law of thing in their power to rescue themselves nature, springing up out of the same source with civil society, and cherished If the right to have a share in making in the heart of man by reason and by the laws were merely a feather; if it experience.

from it.

must it not always be true, that if your property be at the absolute disposal of others, your, ruin is certain? And if this be of necessity, the case amongst individuals and parts of the community, it must be the case with regard to the whole community.o mogo

"

away its beef, pork, flour, butter, sheep, hogs, and poultry? Should we ever have heard of a surplus-population and a surplus-produce at the same time? Should we ever have heard of taxes, raised for the purpose of getting the working people out of the country, while the lands are half cultivated; and (for I must stop somewhere) should we ever have seen, at the same time, enor❤ mous taxes raised in order to give premiums to the idlers to increase their numbers? No none of these things should we ever have seen; nor any of these corn-laws, combination-laws, or laws about truck, or about STURGES BOURNE, for neither of these things would have found a place in the mind of man.

Such is the foundation of this right, seen Pitt's and Sidmouth's and Casand such are the general consequences tlereagh's dungeoning and gagging of a want of the enjoyment of it; of all Bills? And would our miserable felwhich consequences, the last only ex-low-subjects in Ireland ever have seen cepted, we have already amply tasted laws to shut them up in their houses in this country. If this right had been from sunset to sunrise on pain of transenjoyed in England, should we have portation? Would they ever have seen seen the families of the aristocracy fed any of the scores of horrid scenes of from the pension and sinecure lists; that which that of NEWTONBARRY is only is to say, on the fruit of the people's one? And, should we ever have been labour? Should we have seen men covered with the eternal disgrace of transported for seven years for what is leaving them without poor-laws, while called poaching; that is to say, for thousands upon thousands of them have taking, or attempting to take, wild died from starvation, after having eked animals, and thereby disturb the sports out their existence by feeding on seaof the rich? Should we have seen laws weed and other such things, while the indieting ruin, and, contingently, deports of their fine country were crowded struction of body, on the people, for with ships and steam-boats, carrying turning barley into malt, or gathering hops from their hedges? Should we have seen old men, and even women, harnessed and made to draw carts and wagons like beasts of burden? Should we have seen a law to hang a man for striking another without doing him any bodily harm? ~· Should we have seen Lords GUILDFORD and WALSINGHAM (both of whom voted against the Reform Bill) with four church-livings each, while those who do the duties of the parishes are little better off than labour ing men? Should we have seen the Dean and Chapter of ELY taking away the great tithes of the parish of LEKENHEATH, A VICAR (who has another living) taking away the small tithes, while a curate, with ten children, has seventy- Well, then, if such be the foundation five pounds a year allowed him, and no and nature of this right; if the consehouse to live in, and who digs, like a quences of a want of its enjoyment be common labourer, to raise potatoes as such; and if, with the exceptions abovehis almost only food? Should we have stated, it is clearly a right belonging to seen military and naval academies, for every man, what injustice to attempt to the purpose of educating the children of withhold it even from the small portion the rich, by means of taxes raised on the of working men to whom this REJECTED poor? Should we have seen the magis BILL would have yielded it! And what trates allow, for the maintenance of the impudence, what insolence, to accord hard-working man, not half so much as this right to a tax or tithe-eater, who the subsistence of the lowest common is, only by taxes or tithes, enabled to soldier? Should we have seen that liee in a house of twenty pounds a-year, soldier receive and send his letters while you withhold it from the man postage-free, while the working man is from whose labour come those taxes compelled to pay an enormous tax and those tithes! The bare thought of (besides the cost of carriage) on his let- such insolence awakens indignation that ters? Should we have seen any of sets utterance at defiance! Go, DENMAN ; these things? Should we ever have go to NOTTINGHAM again, and tell them