less fellows for not having put their tyrants down.

Lastly, let us put the question to three political classes.

What says the Radical? Just at present very little, because he is anxious to be regarded as "respectable," and is mortally afraid of being indentified with vagabonds, pickpockets, or armed breakers of the law. A few years ago he was not so squeamish. He has forgotten, in sundry recent alliances with the commercial aristocracy, that he, too, ten years ago, was a Chartist nay, that he was one of those who actually originated the movement.

A Tory has a natural respect for a Chartist. A Tory admires straightforwardness he likes to know with what he has to deal. The Chartist, thus far, meets him face to face, and with more feelings of respect than he entertains for Whigs or Radicals. The Tory, too, remembers the old bonds of affection between the gentry and the laboring classes, and that the first seeds of disunion were sown by Whigs and other sham friends of the people, who desired the strong arm of the masses for the purpose of intimidating their rivals. The Tory understands Chartism, and is prepared to grapple with it on its merits. For Chartists he feels a certain degree of political kindliness, for he remembers that in many a contest between Tories and Whigs, or Tories and Radicals, the Chartist electors have ranged on his side, preferring a manly enemy to a false friend.

We are almost afraid to interpret the feelings of the Whigs on this subject. They have mercilessly abandoned their own illegitimate offspring. Never were men more deluded than the working classes were deluded by the Whig leaders during the Reform agitation. Their disappointment, and consequent exasperation, gave birth to those preposterous political demands which are embodied in the "People's Charter." The Whigs avert their faces from the monster they have thus evoked, which is haturally, we are inclined to believe, a mild, wellmeaning monster, not at all disposed needlessly to put forth brute strength. But its unnatural parents have pursued towards it a course which is the refinement of cruelty. They have stung it to exasperation by neglect, unkindness, and calumny, that it might break out into some acts of violence, and so they might have an excuse for crushing it. Because, some eighteen years ago, the Whigs, in order to seize upon the Government, made promises and held out hopes to the working classes which they knew could not be fulfilled, they are now obliged to plunge still deeper into political crime in order to cover themselves. Purposely confounding the honest

66

and peaceful advocates of what is called the 'People's Charter" with some silly demagogues on the one hand, and the thieves and vagabonds of the metropolis on the other, they hope that in the general panic the public will confound them also. The Duke of Wellington and the 200,000 special constables have been their tools on the occasion. They nobly aided in the preservation of order; but because on that occasion the Whig Government did their duty as the High Police of the empire, that is no reason why they should be allowed to escape the consequences of their former misdeeds. It is perfectly natural, however, that the Whigs should hate the Chartists with an excessive hatred.

It was natural that the events of the last few weeks should have induced a strong curiosity in many quarters regarding the principle and its advocates, which succeeded, at least for one day, in throwing the mighty heart of London into a fever. And not being less anxious than our neighbours to see through the results, we set ourselves in earnest to prosecute inquiries, of which we now propose to give an account.

It seems, then, from the best information we can procure, that the "People's Charter" originated with a society called The London Working Men's Association, which was established in June, 1836. The objects of this association are set forth in an address published at the time, and made its appeal to "the fellow-laborers" of the writers "in the pursuit of knowledge and liberty." After expressing their desire to make the principles of democracy as respectable in practice as they are just in theory, by excluding the drunken and immoral from their ranks, they go on to say, that when they contend for an equality of political rights, it is not in order to lop off an unjust tax or useless pension, or to get a transfer of wealth, power, or influence, for a party; but to be able to probe the social evils of the country to their source, and to apply effective remedies to prevent, instead of unjust laws to punish. They urge the avoidance, by every possible means, of holding meetings at public-houses, in the belief that habits and associations are too often formed at these places which mar the domestic happiness and destroy the political usefulness of millions. They recommend the people to meet at each others houses - they urge punctuality in their attendance, as best contributing to union and improvement; and, as an essential requisite, the seeking to obtain a select library of books, choosing those first which would best inform them of their political and social rights. They suggest that, as far as their means will enable them, study should be blended with recreation; and that they should indulge in any rational

amusement (unassociated with the means of intoxication) calculated to soothe their anxieties and alleviate their toils.

The fairer portion of creation, it seems, are not to be excluded from this care. The working men go on to say, that they know not of any means more efficient to compass their object, than to enlist the sympathies and quicken the intellects of their wives and children to a knowledge of their rights and duties; for as, in the absence of knowledge, they are the most formidable obstacles to a man's patriotic exertions, so, when imbued with it, they will prove his first auxiliaries. They recommend the political and moral instruction of wives and children, and their participation in the pleasures as well as in the cares of their position. They believe, that thus instructed, their wives will spurn, instead of prompting them to accept a base election bribe; that their sons will scorn to wear the livery of tyrants; and that their daughters will be doubly fortified against the thousand ills to which the children of poverty are exposed.

This association was the parent of many similar associations throughout the country, the object of all of them avowedly being to educate the working classes in a correct knowledge of their position and rights; while, by the same process, they should be prepared for the exercise of political privileges should they, at some future period, be able to satisfy their fellow-countrymen of their fitness to exercise them. If intentions could guarantee acts, or the present control the future, there would be no good ground of objection to the great majority of schemes for the improvement or regeneration of mankind, because it is very seldom that such plans are not originated by a very high order of motives. In this point of view nothing could be more legitimate than the Working Men's Association, considered as a basis for future movements. The number of similar societies formed in different parts of the kingdom extended to several hundreds.

But to come to the Charter itself. The first step towards the conception and production of this document was taken on the 28th of February, 1837. A public meeting was called on that day at the Crown and Anchor in the Strand, where a petition was agreed to, which was signed by three thousand persons. This petition was drawn up by Mr. William Lovett. It set forth the defects of the existing representative system, according to the notions of the petitioners. It complained that property, and not numbers, should be the basis of the representation; that while the whole population of Great Britain and Ireland was at that time about 24,000,000, the males above twenty-one being 6,000,000, the number of registered electors was only 800,000.

They further complained that 331 members, being a majority of the House of Commons, were returned by 151,492 registered electors, which was in the proportion of one elector to every 40 male adults. The petitioners further analyze the representation, and say, that 15 members of the House are returned by less than 200 electors each, 55 by less than 300, 99 by less than 400, 121 by less than 500, 159 by less than 600, 196 by less than 700, 214 by less than 800, 240 by less than 900, and 256 by less than 1000; many of these small constituencies being divided be tween two members. The petitioners went on to complain that, in the House of Commons there were 205 persons immediately or remotely related to peers of the realm; that the House contained 1 marquis, 7 earls, 19 viscounts, 32 lords, 25 right honorables, 52 honorables, 63 baronets, 13 knights, 3 admirals, 7 lord-lieutenants of counties, 42 deputy or vice-lieutenants, 1 general, 5 lieutenant-generals, 9 major-generals, 32 colonels, 33 lieutenant-colonels, 16 majors, 49 captains in army and navy, 10 lieutenants, 2 cornets, 58 barristers, 3 solicitors, 40 bankers, 33 East India proprietors, 52 placemen, and 114 patrons of 274 church livings; that out of the whole House of Commons there were only 34 members who called themselves Radicals, of whom, the petitioners said, it was questionable whether 10 could be found who were truly the representatives of the wants and wishes of the producing classes.

One pennyworth of bread alone to all this

sack!

The petitioners proposed, as a remedy for these alleged evils, Equal Representation by Electoral Districts, Universal Suffrage, Annual Parliaments, No Property Qualification, Vote by Ballot, and Payment of Members.

This was the germ of the "People's Charter." Mr. Roebuck had been selected to present this petition to parliament; and, by his advice, a meeting was called by the Working Men's Association at the British Coffee-House, in Cockspur street, in, we think, the June following. To this meeting were invited all those members of parliament who were supposed to be favorable to Universal Suffrage. At this meeting there attended Mr. O'Connell, M. P., Mr. Hume, M. P., Mr. Hindley, M. P., Dr. Bowring, M. P., Lieutenant-colonel Thompson, M. P., Mr. Sharman Crawford, M. P., and Mr. Leader, M. P.

The originators of this meeting declared, that they were the more inclined to take some practical step in favor of Radicalism, from the frequent disappointments the cause had experienced. They had heard, they said, eloquent effusions in favor of political equality, from the hustings and the senate-house, suddenly change

members of parliament, or Messrs. Lovett, Hetherington, Cleave, Watson, Moore, and Vincent, working men, amused themselves by picking the pockets of the passers-by, or breaking the windows of the tradesmen's shops or clubs at the West End.

This non-juring test appears to have been applied with success; for, after two nights' discussion, resolutions were agreed to, which those members of parliament signed, and which were afterwards signed by Mr. Wakley, Mr. J. Feilden, and Mr. D. W. Harvey, pledging them to bring in and support a bill for Universal Suffrage, and the other points contended for by the people. By another resolution it was ordered that such bill should be drawn up by Messrs. O'Connell, Roebuck, Leader, Hindley, Thompson, and Crawford, members of parliament, and by Messrs. Lovett, Hetherington, Cleave, Watson, Moore, and Vincent, working men. After considerable delay, arising from the death of William IV., the dissolution of parliament, the engagements of Mr. Roebuck, and other causes, the bill was ultimately prepared. We have looked it over with some care. It is quite as workmanlike a production as any act of parliament. If the Thesigers and the Jervises, the Romillys and the Wortleys, with their "devil" satellites, had been employed to make a simple proposition unintelligible to nine out of ten of those who are to be bound by the law, and to complicate all the details so as to make them extremely useful for the purposes of the legal profession, they could not have succeeded more effectually than the framers of this ambitious piece of prospective legislation. However, it is a very respectable production, that is to say, as compared with other legislative formulæ.

So much for the solemn inauguration of this singular movement. In reference to the popular notions of Chartism and the Chartists, we have made the most diligent search in contemporary records, and we do not find that, on their return to their several homes from the British Hotel, in Cockspur street, any of the Chartists there assembled, either Messrs. O'Connell, Hume, Hindley, Bowring, Thompson, Crawford, and Leader,

The proceedings of the early Chartists seem to have been methodical enough. As soon as the outline of the bill was completed, copies were sent to the different Working Men's Associations and Radical Associations throughout the country. By them many suggestions were made, some of which were adopted; and the whole was accepted as a kind of rallying point for the different Radicals of all shades of opinion. Among oth

hitherto advocated household suffrage, declared for universal suffrage. These men of Birmingham form a distinct class, supporting the Chartists but not identified with them. They are very numerous, but their practical usefulness is much impaired in consequenee of their being imbued with those notions on the currency which Mr. Attwood has spent his life in promulgating.

It was very natural that the working classes should eagerly seize on the Charter. A more seductive proposition could not well be made to them. It was accepted by them at large public meetings, among others, at a meeting of two hundred thousand Radicals at Holloway Head, near Birmingham, Mr. Attwood, M. P., in the chair. There was also a great meeting at Aberdeen, and another at Glasgow. Similar meetings were held in different parts of the country. The first public meeting held in London in favor of the Charter took place in Palace Yard. It was convened by a requisition of electors of Westminster, and the high-bailiff of Westminster was in the chair. From this meeting may be dated the commencement of a great schism between two sections of the Chartists. The first movers were unquestionably men who desired to carry their object, however extreme in itself, by peaceful and constitutional means. They took effectual steps to impress these views on their followers and on the public, and it may reasonably be expected, that had the cause of the people in this respect been advocated from the first in the same spirit, it would have made much greater progress with the rest of the community. Mr. Feargus O'Connor, the present M. P. for Nottingham, is the person upon whom the blame of interrupting this process is principally cast. O'Connell dreaded allowing him to remain in the Repeal camp, from fear lest he should incite the Irish to violence. Mr. O'Connor had previously attracted great attention in the north of England by his agitation against the New Poor Law, in connection with a clerical firebrand of the name

pikes, and pistols without barrels, and guns without locks, to unfold their naked breasts to an armed soldiery? No, when the people made their attack, it would be upon property." In the previous month he had said at Birmingham, "If in the prosecution of the attainment of your just rights one single shot should be fired upon you, I would not give twopence for all the property within twenty miles of Birmingham."

This language offers a striking contrast to the paternal admonitions addressed by Mr. Feargus O'Connor to "his children," under the influence of the 200,000 special constables and the well-disposed military preparations of the Duke of Wellington.

The "moral-force" Chartists charge upon the "physical-force" Chartists the riots at Birming ham and Frost's insurrection in Monmouth. It is, of course, impossible to say how far the infatuated persons, who on those occasions outraged the law, were influenced by such language as that we have quoted. But most rational men would hold the advocates of violence responsible for at least a part of the mischief. What seems to annoy the "moral-force" Chartists most is, that their disciples have been the sufferers whilst the other party have done the wrong. For instance, the "moral-force" Chartists considered that the police had violated the law in preventing a meeting of the people in the Bull-ring at Birmingham, and a declaration to that effect was drawn up and signed by their secretary and leader, the Mr. Lovett of whom we have spoken. Upon this, the law pounces upon Mr. Lovett, prosecutes him, and imprisons him for a year in Warwick gaol. This is the way of the world. Whatever may be our opinion of the political value of the Charter, we must at least draw a line between those who put foward their opinions moderately, and those who would use violence. It did seem rather hard, that the consistent advocate of peaceful agitation should be the victim of the preachers of violence.

Upon this imprisonment of Mr. Lovett we have a word or two to say. The subject has been thoroughly discussed in parliament, and we believe that most men who were not blinded by political passion, considered the treatment of Mr. Lovett and his fellow-prisoner, Mr. Collins (a tradesman at Birmingham, whose offence consisted alone in having taken the seditious document, signed by Lovett, to the printer), a piece of systematic and cowardly tyranny under the forms of the law. We have referred to the petition presented by these persons to parliament, the allegations of which were not denied. appears that they were compelled to suffer, under the gaol regulations, the diet and discipline of felons. It appears that they were stripped, to

It

be examined like felons; that their hair was cropped; that they were compelled to associate with the lowest felons; that they were refused the means of ablution, except in a small tank with several felons, and that their diet was of the most inferior description. The sudden change from that to which they had been accustomed was such, that they were obliged to be removed to the hospital. The only food containing any animal matter was soup, which was administered twice a-week. This soup was served in a wooden tub, to be eaten with a wooden spoon; and both the soup itself and the manner of serving it were so filthy, that, half-starved as they were, their stomachs revolted at it. They were confined in a cell with a brick floor, and were not allowed any covering for their feet except their stockings; yet they were confined in this cell, without fire or candle, during the greater part of twenty-four hours. All their money was taken away, and no food or beverage of any kind was allowed to be brought to them; and they were not suffered to be visited, except by one person for one hour, in the presence of the turnkey, once in a quarter of a year. They were not allowed to write or receive any letter, nor to have any books, except those the chaplain permitted. Even when they were allowed a fire during certain hours of the day, it was in a cell where John Collins and William Lovett were compelled to sleep together in the same narrow bed - the second bed being occupied by a convict. Their diet, for six months, consisted of one pound and three-quarters of good bread, one pound of bad potatoes, tea twice a day, salt, and water. Repeated applications were made to the Home Secretary (who happened, by chance, not to be that member of the Whig cabinet who recommended 100,000 men from Birmingham to march up to London and overawe the legislature on the Reform question), but no attention was paid. At last, however, the magistrates, who were the inferior agents, or tools, so to speak, in this petty tyranny, were forced to admit that they had the discretion to put these two political offenders on the debtor's side of the gaol, but that they did not choose to exercise that discretion. What they refused to justice and common humanity was granted at last by their fears. One of these prisoners discovered that there had been, for a long time, some mismanagement, by which, in the soup served out to the prisoners, there was not more than half the regulation allowance of meat. This discovery operated magically; the visiting magistrates had before, in the discharge of their duty to the country, subjected these prisoners for a political offence to the discipline of convicts. All appeals had been made in vain; but no sooner was a rod, framed of their own neglect,