leaves must be torn out of the accursed Red Book; that the two factions must be put down. These were the principles upon which he was elected. But, we now find him taking a decided part with one of the two factions. We find him exchanging the appellation of honourable friend" with the sons and the notorious tools of Boroughmongers; and that, too, at the very moment, that these his new friends are abusing and calumniating the million and a half of men, who have petitioned for a Reform of the Parliament. He was a witness, an eye and an ear witness, of the conduct of Mr. BROUGHAM at the beginning of last session. He heard him assail the petitioners in the most furious and ferocious and most cowardly He heard him attack Major Cartwright's "little remedies and big blunders." He after wards saw the duplicity of this man exposed from a document in his own hand writing. He saw all the proofs; the clear, the indubitable proofs of this man's insincerity, of his falseness, of his political turpitude; and yet, we since hear him, over and over again, and even ostentatiously, calling this same man his "learned and honourable friend." After this, we may expect to see him, in the language of Scripture," say unto "Corruption, thou art my father;" for, the alliance is now become so very close, that we may almost call it a relationship. And, when the zealous and sincere men in manner. Westminster, and all over the kingdom were subscribing to carry Sir Francis into Parliament; when they were exulting at this great triumph over the two factions, did it ever enter into their minds, that they should see a dinner, held for the avowed purpose of celebrating that triumph, converted into an occasion of eulogizing one of those factions? As to the pretence, that the whigs, or any part of them, have come over to Sir FRANCIS BURDETT's principles, to shew the falsehood of this, what need have we of any proof other than the fact, that the very men, who were eulogized by Sir Francis at this dinner, hold in derision,, and only deride, the prayer of the People for ANNUAL PARLIAMENTS. As to the extent of suffrage, whether it should, as we pray, go the full length of the Duke of Richmond's Bill, or whether it should stop at householders; will any one man of the new "honourable friends" distinctly pledge himself to either? So far from it, that they, one and all, reprobate the idea as wild, visionary, mad, and, if not seditious, most terribly mischievous How, then, are they come over? What is it that entitles them to our champion's praise? What have they done to the People's cause but harm? It was their language, joined to his abandonment, that gagged us. It is, therefore, an instance of superlative impudence in any one to pretend, that this faction, or any part of it, has come No: it is he, who has, as far as any movement has taken place, gone over to their principles and their views; and, though he may flatter himself, that he is at the head of a small detachment of the Whig faction, they will know, that he is now only their underling. over to Sir FRANCIS BURDETT. | been so clearly proved as to leave no room for doubt. DEAN SWIFT talks of the right of annual parliaments as a thing of which no man had ever doubted. SAMUEL JOHNSTON (not the Dictionary Pensioner) has proved the right and the practice beyond all question. MILTON, Mr. Baron MASERES, the late Duke of RICHMOND, and many others, not to mention Major CARTWRIGHT, Mr. FAWKES, and many men, who sen. proofs, over and over again Yet this was one of the “ big blunders,” at which Sir Francis's honourable and most impudent friend, Mr. Brougham, affected to laugh. Instead of quietly and silently, like a set of borough-slaves, submitting to choose a second Mem: ber at the dictation of Sir Francis Burdett, the People of Westmin-are now active, have all given the ster will have a right, and they will be called upon by a sense of duty, to inquire, whether he himself has a fair claim to be re-choThere are matters to be cleared up, which must be cleared up, before he can be re-chosen for Westminster, unless the People of that City are become destitute of all their spirit and their good sense. I, for one, if I am present, will certainly oppose his re-election, unless he come forward and distinctly pledge himself to move for leave to bring in a Bill for a Reform of the Parliament upon the principles of Annual Elections and a right of voting co-extensive with taxation, and restricted only by the natural disqualifications of sex or of non-age, and by those of insanity and criminal infamy. I hope, that the People of West-weighty tax too: I mean the Miminster will never leave any thing litia Service and other compulsory doubtful upon these points again. military and naval service. Take As to annual parliaments, he all these off; leave Sir Francis's himself does not pretend to have men of properly;" leave his any doubt; and, indeed, the exis-" gentlemen of the country," to pay tence of these in former times has all the taxes now raised in money, The extent of the suffrage ought to be co-extensive with taxation, because the very essence, the vital principle, of the Constitution is, that no man shall be taxed without his own consent. If, indeed, the taxes are taken off from the beer, the malt, the hops, the tobacco, the sugar, the tea, the candles, the spirits, the soap, the leather, the salt, the pepper, the iron, the steel, the drugs, the post-letters, &c. then the mass of the People may, with some shew of justice, be denied the right of voting. But, there would, even then, remain a tax, and a most " and to perform the Militia and Sailor's service themselves; and then I agree, that the mass of the People will have less evident grounds for the assertion of their right to vote. But, it will remain for Sir Francis to explain to the People in Palace Yard, or Covent Garden, upon what principles he has wished to deny the right of voting to a very large part of those, who pay almost the whole of the taxes. If we look at the amount of the taxed articles, above enumerated, and at the portion of that amount, which consists of lax, we shall see, that every Journeyman or Labourer pays in taxes more than the amount of one half of his wages, that is to say, of the income from his property, which property consists in his labour. Upon what principle is it, then, that Sir Francis would deny to this man the right of voting? The man is not a house-holder. But what signifies that? He pays the taxes. Must a man be married, in order to have a right to vote, and that, too, at a time, when the schemers are at work to prevent people from marrying? If the Journeyman, or Labourer, pay so large a portion of the taxes, upon what prin ciple, I ask, is it that Sir Francis would deny him the right of voting? I should like to hear this principle explained. I know, that Sir Francis will say, because he has said, that the Journeyman and ديد taxes come out of their wages, and the wages come from the master, or farmer, it is the master, or farmer, who pays the taxes, and not the Journeyman or Labourer. Now, then, if this be the case, it is the farmer who, pays the taxes of Sir Francis himself, for the taxes of the latter come out of rent, and the rent comes from the farmer. Nay, the farmer pays no taxes; for, as his taxes come out of the money that he receives for his corn and his meat, and as this money comes from the Miller and Butcher, the Miller and the Butcher pay all the farmer's taxes. No, faith, for they get the amount of the taxes in the price of the flour and meat that they sell; so that it is the Journeyman and Labourer, and others, who eat the flour and meat that pay the taxes at last. Into this endless round of folly would the argument of Sir Francis lead us. The true principle is, that, be the tax of what nature it may, every man in the country really pays a part of the tax in proportion to the quantity of taxed matter which he consumes, or uses for his own private purposes; and, as the poor man consumes, in proportion to his income, a much larger quantity of this taxed mat. ter than the rich man consumes, the poor man is much more heavily taxed than the rich man. Thus is this favourite doctrine blown into air. But, if this doctrine were as true ourer as it is false, how would it benefit Sir Francis in his project for ex pay no taxes; and that, as the 3 defence of his dominions, but, though all the king's subjects ins clude women, women are not meant so to be included by the law. Women, by law, cannot be Members of Parliament; they cannot be Priests or Bishops; they cannot be Counsellors or Judges; they cannot be Officers by land or sea. The law, by its tending the right of voting to householders, and stopping there 2 If a Journeyman, or Labourer, who is not a householder, pays no taxes, he who is a householder pays no taxes, unless he inhabit a house with five or six windows. Upon what principle, then, is he to havé a vote, while the man who is not a householder is deprived of that privilege In short, this meaning, or, as the lawyers call householder project is too flagrant it, by its intendment, excludes in absurdity to deserve further them, though it says nothing about notice. It is a perfect novelty in them. It is, therefore, mere cathe science of politics; but of so villing to pretend, that we do not low a character as to merit no ap-mean what we say, when we talk pellation higher than that of a riddle. of Universal Suffrage. Insane persons cannot be permitted to vote, However, we are not yet come because the law does not allow to the close of the arguments, on them to do either good or harm, which the People's right to Uni- Their engagements are void, and versal Suffrage rests. And here they can suffer for no crime howlet me observe, once for all, that ever heinous its nature. Men by Universal Suffrage, we have deemed infamous by the law, and never meant, that there should be whose oaths pass for nothing, no exceptions; we have never must also be excluded. Infants meant, that every person should are excluded, because the law vote. Women are by the nature does not bind them in any civil of their situation in life and of contract. But, with these exceptheir character, disqualified, astions, where the disqualification they are in the cases of military is so obviously just, and so conand naval service. Women, from sonant with all the principles and their feminine offices and proper-practices of law, all persons ought ties are so disqualified. It is a to vote; and this extension of the mere shuffle, therefore, to pretend, Suffrage is quite sufficient to justhat, if our Reform be adopted, it tify the epithet Universal; though would be unjust to exclude wo- Sir Francis never saw, I believe, men. The law makes a husband in the Bill, which he was to present, answerable in his estate and in this word Universal. The drawer his person, for all debts and all up of that Bill knew well how to trespasses of his wife. The law express the legal meaning of it. calls upon all the king's subjects to In short, the word Universal is take up arms, in certain cases, in made use of as the best single when out on a Piquet, mistook a string of farmers, at three miles distance, for a whole regiment of American Cavalry, and retreated with his Piquet accordingly. The general (Garth) asked him how he word which presents itself; as Thus, then, let us hope to escape Sir Francis uses the word Bo-carping at words and syllables in roughmongering before Parlia- future, though it is extremely difment; for there are exceptions ficult to make those understand, here. He is not put in by Bo-who are resolved not to act upon roughmongers; but, if upon all the thing to be understood. As such occasions, we were to go into none are so blind as those who do exceptions, our discourse and our not wish to see, so none are so writings would become so encum-dull as those who do not wish to bered, that nobody would long understand. There was an Offi. have patience to listen to the for-cer in the 54th Regiment, who, mer, or to read the latter. So that this cavil at mere words is, and can be, nothing more than a pretext for shuffling out of the thing which is well known to be understood. But, in order to put an end to all doubts on this sub-came to make such a mistake, and ject, why did Sir Francis not pro- his answer was that he was nearpose the Bill. The Bill would sighted. "Let me beg of you, have spoken for itself. It would" then," said the General, "not have shown, that the Reformers," to strain your eyes another time, with their able and venerable" but to wait till the object apLeader at their head, contem- "proaches you." This was a replated neither "little Remedies markable instance of the effects of "nor big Blunders;" but, that a defect in the faculty of seeing; they well knew what they meant, though, in another instance, the and well knew how to express same officer could not see, at the their meaning. Sir Francis Bur- distance of a hundred yards, a dett, and all the rest of us, foraging party that he was ordered have long talked of a Reform to pursue. There is no account. of Parliament; but, we mean ing for such out-of-the-way ca-. a Reform of the Commons' House prices of the senses and the facul only. So that, the whole cause ties; but, let us hope, that, for the may be cavilled at upon this ground, future, it will be clearly underbecause we "do not mean what stood what we mean by the two words Universal Suffrage. 66 we say. This criticism re minds one of the learned washerwoman, who, when, presiding at the tea-table, being asked by another to give her a cup, gave her the empty cup, observing that she had not asked for any tea. Well, then, it will require to be explained by Sir FRANCIS, upon what principle, whether of law, reason, or justice, he can deny this right to the people, while they are all liable to be compelled to take up |