BjP 
 
 TRACTS FOR TH E i&t 
 
 PEOPLE. 
 
 BY SOSTHENES. 
 
 THOUGHTS 
 
 LATE REVOLUTION IN FRANCE. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 JOSEPH MASTERS, ALDERSGATE STREET, ; 
 
 AND 78, NEW BOND STREET. 
 
 No. 1. Price l$d. each, or 10s. (id, per 100 for distribution. ‘ 
 
same scenes, which have rendered the first French Revolution 
 synonymous with everything that is most calamitous and horrible 
 in human history. 
 
 It may he safely said that there is not a sensible man of any 
 class in France, be he rich or poor, who does not say, in the bit¬ 
 terness of his heart. What enormous fools, what dolts and idiots, 
 what cowards we have been, to suffer this state of things to 
 arise ! But it is non' too late: the thing is done : the mob will 
 not yield up their arms: they are, in fact, the ruling power: a 
 pure democracy, aud something more, must be tried. 
 
 We can compare France in her present state to nothing more 
 '■ fitly, than to a strong man in robust health who should deliver 
 ' ' up his living body to a set of experimental quacks, and allow 
 them to try on him some new system of treatment, before un¬ 
 heard of in this world, in order that the rest of mankind might 
 / ; benefit by the trial. 
 
 If the English people are as wise as they are reputed to he, 
 ; • they will look well to all the circumstances of this famous revo¬ 
 lution, that they may prevent the possibility of anything like it 
 happening here. We are perhaps too apt to think that the cir¬ 
 cumstances of our own country are so different from.those of 
 France, and the temper of our people so unlike, that we have 
 nothing to fear. Many of our circumstances are indeed very 
 j) different, aud deeply thankful ought we to be that at present 
 ~" there exists in the nation a determination to put down disorder 
 j7 and maintain the institutions of the country. Still the English, 
 ^ like other nations, are not exempt from periodical fits of excite- 
 j ment. And there are a good many points of resemblance be- 
 . tween the condition of this country and that of France, which 
 P we shall do well to consider : and there are some evils which it 
 / will be necessary for us to remedy, before we have a right to 
 think ourselves quite secure from revolution. 
 
 Every one knows that the immediate cause of the break up of 
 " the French nation was a reform banquet, which was intended to 
 ') x be held by the liberal party, and was prohibited by the Govern- 
 ment. That is what appears on the surface, but let us look 
 - more closely at the springs of these political events. There 
 ■/. were in the French Chamber of Deputies, as there are generally 
 in our own Parliament, two parties,—the Ins, and the Outs; 
 those who enjoyed power and office, and those who wanted to 
 turn them out aud get in themselves. M. Guizot was at the 
 ' head of the Ins, and M. Barrot at the head of the Outs. Ac- 
 P cording to the then existing constituency M. Guizot’s party were 
 likely to remain in office as long as they chose, and M. Barrot’s 
 party seemed hopelessly excluded. Therefore M. Barrot called 
 out loudly for an alteration or reform in the constituency; and 
 
Ie to accomplish his purpose in the Chaml 
 the perilous expedient of agitating the masses 
 one point in politics that English people 01 
 e closely than this system of agitating the 1 
 luring to accomplish objects by a pressure fro 
 7 one admits that Englishmen have a perfect: 
 
 r opinion upon public measures, and petition 
 
5 
 
 tried in a Court of Justice. This every one must admit was rea¬ 
 sonable ; hut the more violent of the Reformers would not hear 
 of this pacific mode of deciding the question—they resolved that 
 the meeting should take place at all risks, and be attended not 
 only by three thousand persons whose names had been set down, 
 but that ten thousand of the National Guards, and six thousand 
 Students should be present; besides the probability of the whole 
 mob of Paris gathering to the same place. On these accounts 
 the Government declared that the liauquet should uot be per¬ 
 mitted, and now at length the promoters of it gave it up. 
 
 In fact M. Odillon Barrot and his party had got frightened.— 
 Their object was to get up just such an agitation as would oust 
 the Ministry and procure a reform; aud seeing a greater agita¬ 
 tion than they intended, tliev desired to back out of the scrape. 
 But there were others in the background who had very different 
 views. Their object was not to upset the Ministry, but the 
 Monarchy. Barrot and bis party were but tools in their hands; 
 mere men of straw put forward in the front rank; and when they 
 refused to go on, it was necessary to go on without them. 
 
 Though the banquet was given up by the Reformers, the in- 
 
 About midday on Tuesday the 22nd of February, tile mob col¬ 
 lected from all the Faubourgs of Paris, parading the streets, in a 
 menacing and alarming attitude; presently the gamins or young 
 vagabonds began to throw stones at the houses of the obnoxious 
 members of the Government : next they dragged an unpopulai 
 deputy from his carriage, and “ gave him a good shaking.” 
 
 These proceedings, of course, called for the interference of the 
 police. When the police is supported bv the respectable members 
 of the community, they are commonly able to suppress mere mis¬ 
 chievous outrage. But here the middle classes culpably allowed 
 these outrages to go on. So the people began to construct 
 barricades, laying violent hands on omnibuses and carriages of 
 all descriptions, tearing up the pavement, pulling down shop 
 fronts and shutters; and in preventing these outrages, collisions 
 took place between the people and the Municipal Guards. On 
 the next day, Wednesday, the rioting increased, and the National 
 Guards, consisting of the respectable citizens of Paris, were called 
 out. This was the crisis of the movement. Had the National 
 Guard repressed the growing outrages, all might have been saved, 
 for the people were imperfectly armed; whereas the National 
 Guards were well supplied with weapons. In not declaring 
 themselves on the side of order, the National Guards, i.e. the 
 middle classes of Paris, have drawn upon themselves all the 
 responsibility of the Revolution. Whatever it may cost them,— 
 the ruin, the confiscation, the massacre, which it may eventually 
 
7 
 
 muskets and fired a volley upon the mob, by which a good many 
 were killed or wounded. This is the account given in the Times. 
 Some accounts say that the first shot was fired by accident, and 
 broke the leg of the officer’s horse; upon which he gave the 
 command to fire, with the result that has been mentioned. 
 Whichever version be the true one, it is manifest that the first 
 shot was fired in this place by the people, aud the troops sup¬ 
 posing themselves attacked, returned the fire as a measure of 
 self-defence. 
 
 All accounts allow that this incident gave a new turn to the 
 whole affair. The tumult, which was beginning to subside, 
 again broke out with redoubled violence. The dead bodies were 
 placed half naked in carts, and carried by the populace with 
 blazing torches, through the different quarters of the town, 
 amidst the cries of 
 
 “ Mourir pour la patrie _ * 
 
 A sort of phrcnzy and fanaticism was excited by these means, 
 which led to the most fearful results. 
 
 Now, this is a point of the narrative which deserves the closest 
 attention. It is all very well to say it was an untoward accident, 
 a great misfortune, or even a judgment of Providence. But it 
 is not a maxim of sensible men, that things cannot be helped. 
 If these immense mobs had not been got together, this accident 
 would not have taken place—the judgment would have been 
 averted. Therefore, those who got the mobs together were the 
 causes of it. A party in the Chamber of Deputies, as we have 
 seen, for their own objects—be they good or bad, it matters not 
 ■—cause a violent ferment in men’s minds. Their object, proba¬ 
 bly, is no more than to oust their opponents, and get into their 
 places, or, at the best, to gain a favourite political object. They 
 have no notion of utterly subverting society from its very foun¬ 
 dation, and raising a tempest which will render the whole gene¬ 
 ration in which they live turbulent and unquiet, perhaps cost 
 hundreds and thousands of lives. When making preparation for 
 their banquet, and issuing their orders for processions of National 
 Guards and students, and preparing their speeches, and antici¬ 
 pating the applause with which they should he greeted, and 
 the honour which they should gain,—and possibly the advantage 
 too, in stepping into the places of their rivals in power—they 
 little thought that they were doing the devil’s work—preparing 
 a mine which was to explode and convulse the world. 
 
 May we in England be wise enough to profit by this example, 
 and take a lesson which may last us our lives, and inculcate the 
 
same on our children after us. Our own form of government— 
 excellent as it is in many respects—has in it this essential evil, 
 that there is a perpetuai contest for power; and it is always for 
 the apparent advantage of the expectant minority to be raising 
 cavils against those in office, spreading calumnies, accusing them 
 of incompetence, malversation, seeking to excite just so much of 
 popular discontent as shall transfer to themselves the reins of 
 power. This is the game of our Humes and Cohdens. They 
 are continually cavilling and objecting, poisoning the minds of 
 men, raising suspicions and disiikes, causing them to grumble 
 and be dissatisfied. It is unquestionable that there are and must 
 be always abuses and blunders in every government; but this is 
 no reason why the whole system should be condemned, and 
 violently uprooted. Louis Philippe’s government might have 
 been objectionable in many ways. Still, no one can deny that 
 under it the French nation made greater advances in wealth and 
 prosperity than it had ever done before. Never was France so 
 formidable abroad, so prosperous at home. There is no pretence 
 of personal oppression; you hear of no person deprived of life, 
 liberty, or property, under Louis Philippe’s government; there 
 were no Bastilles, or lettres de cachet ; no charge of tyranny. 
 What, then, was the justice of raising against it this violent 
 ferment ? So, at home, we have perfect security of life, property, 
 and liberty, the general system is favourable to the develop¬ 
 ment of the wealth and prosperity of the country. There are 
 blemishes, to which we shall advert presently; but they are not 
 such as can be remedied by a violent excision. We ought, 
 therefore, always to suspect those persons in Parliament, or out 
 of it, who raise cavils, and foster discontent. 
 
 And, especially when such persons appeal to the passions of 
 the people, they ought to be discountenanced and condemned by 
 all honest men. We have had some narrow escapes. Political 
 agitation maybe excited once too often, and men, intending like 
 M. Thiers and Odillon Barrot merely to carry a political point, 
 may one day upset the government, and spread anarchy and 
 blood through the land. 
 
 We ought also to remember that, however fair may be the 
 surface of society, there is always mischief under ground. The 
 power of numbers is always there. A child may drive a herd 
 of oxen day by day to the pasture in safety; but there is always 
 the possibility of some mad excitement arising, and the whole 
 herd, urged by some sudden fury or terror, rushing violently 
 back and trampling him under foot. God has given to beasts 
 an instinct which ordinarily prevents them from resisting the 
 hand of man: so He has given reason to nations, which teaches 
 them that their happiness is to preserve peace, and that the 
 
luse infinite disaster to thern- 
 iell aware of this. Still they 
 itements, which ere now have 
 oe to him who kindles the 
 
 Parisian populace after the incident 
 r the first shot was fired by accident, 
 erous fanatic, or by the deliberate 
 partisan, it resulted in the imme- 
 , and exasperation of the people to 
 
 numbers of the mob prevailed, the palace was taken, and, 
 use the forcible expression of an eye-witness, was “ gutted fro 
 garret to cellar.” Hence they advanced upon the Tuilerii 
 where a large body of troops was gathered amounting to five 
 
 There is little doubt that even at this time the mob mig 
 have been repulsed, if the troops had done their duty. It w 
 almost on the same spot, that on the 12th Yendemiere, 
 the year 1795, Napoleon, with a body of five thousand men, hi 
 calmly awaited the attack of the Parisian populace headed 1 
 their National Guards; and by a well-directed fire of gra] 
 shot, speedily sent them to the rightabout. But on the prese 
 
en to defend the pa] 
 uld not be depended or 
 dilation in the leaders 
 t was that mysterious i 
 the arm of the unjust, 
 nagine, and it is the r 
 Philippe shrunk from 
 i must have flowed in o 
 1 no right. He himself 
 ien raised to the thron 
 feel that the same p( 
 qual right to dethrone 1 
 
 :hrone; and on the adv 
 , and the troops were v 
 
 » the mob entire maste: 
 
11 
 
 tliy servant a dog, that lie should do such things?” Yet some 
 of these men appear sometimes to show the cloven foot. Cobden 
 especially speaks with a bitterness of those above him which 
 indicates a bad spirit, ripe almost for anything. He seems to 
 aspire to be something greater than he is. He has tasted the 
 sweets of popular applause, but finds that though a great man 
 at a public meeting, there are many in the House of Commons 
 who are more than his equal. lie is just the man, iii violent 
 times, to bring tbe influence of the mob to bear on those whom 
 he cannot otherwise get rid of. However, one would not will¬ 
 ingly believe that he or any man would deliberately adventure 
 upon tbe enormous evils which must accompany the overthrow 
 of the English monarchy. Let such persons take warning from 
 the fate of M. Odillon Barrot; let them think of the utter 
 impossibility of saying to what lengths popular fury once 
 aroused will extend. And let them remember that the first 
 leaders of revolution are invariably supplanted by others who 
 with still greater recklessness indulge the popular will. 
 
 The Provisional Government, formed out of the dregs of 
 the Chamber of Deputies, was but a puppet in the hands of the 
 populace. On the first meeting at the Hotel de Ville on the 
 day after the insurrection, they were surrounded by armed men, 
 who, on the least hesitation expressed by them to obey their or¬ 
 ders, threatened to fling them from the windows. This is but a 
 rude type of their subsequent tenure of office. Since that time to 
 the present the Provisional Government has done little more than 
 register the decrees of the armed populace. They are but tools 
 in their hands; they must execute all the extravagances, all the 
 follies,—yes, and it is to be feared, all the crimes which the 
 people bid them. Theirs is indeed a pitiable state. If, as one 
 would fain hope, they placed themselves in their present position 
 from the patriotic motive of saving their country from anarchy; 
 one must most cordially compassionate them. If, on the other 
 hand, it was owing to their secret contrivance that these terrible 
 events took place ; and if, as it has been stated, the list of the 
 Provisional Government was made out, even before the day of 
 the banquet, then it cannot be denied that they will have 
 richly deserved the fate which, if we may judge from the analogy 
 of former times, is probably impending over them, of leading a 
 short, miserable, unquiet life, and falling by an untimely and 
 violent end. We can only hope for better things. 
 
 Now let us pause for a moment to consider the character of 
 these transactions. First the public journals, especially those 
 of Paris, loudly vaunt the bravery and generosity of the Parisian 
 people. The people of Paris, say they, roused to indignation 
 by the tyranny of their rulers, (i. e., in prohibiting a banquet 
 
12 
 
 which the law officers declared to he contrary to the charter 
 made by the people themselves,) rose as one man, discomfited 
 a hundred thousand troops, and then returned quietly to their 
 work, as if nothing had happened. Such was the language of 
 the French journals. But nothing can be more contrary to the 
 facts. The French mob got the better simply because no one 
 resisted them. The National Guards either looked on quietly, 
 or stood between them and the soldiers. The soldiers gave them 
 their arms and ammunition. There was positively no serious 
 opposition to the movement, except from the small body of the 
 Municipal Guards. It may safely he said, judging from all 
 precedent, that the National Guards could, if they had chosen, 
 at any time have put down the insurrection: or even had they 
 kept out of the way, five thousand troops could have done it 
 without the slightest difficulty. The revolution was caused 
 simply and solely by licence being allowed to an exasperated 
 mob of workmen. 
 
 And so far from this revolution being a proof of the bravery 
 of the French people, it is rather a proof of their cowardice. It 
 is quite certain that the vast body of the middle classes altogether 
 disapproved of a republic; hut they had not the nerve or the 
 spirit to check the progress of the mob. The large majority of 
 the Chamber of Deputies succumbed to the tyranny of a 
 hundred or two of armed men who burst into the place where 
 they were sitting: and there is no question that the apparent 
 unanimity with which the republic was hailed, arose not from 
 any general approval of such a scheme, but from the fact that 
 those who disapproved were afraid to express their dissent. It 
 was a reign of terror from the beginning. 
 
 Nor is the generosity of the people more to be commended 
 than their bravery. The only men who opposed them, the 
 Municipal Guards, were butchered without mercy. In one in¬ 
 stance the mob set fire to a guard house opposite to the Palais 
 Royal, containing about a hundred of these unfortunate men, and 
 either shot them as they rushed forth to save themselves from 
 the flames, or burnt them alive amidst the most savage yells. 
 When no further resistance was offered, and none remained on 
 whom to wreak their vengeance, the bloodthirstiness of the peo¬ 
 ple fortunately took a new direction. Any wretch who was 
 caught pilfering was placed on his knees and summarily shot. 
 In one case no less than eight of these miserable creatures were, 
 after a mock trial, thus disposed of. The fact of these mob- 
 executions shows that pillage was extensive, while the summary 
 and illegal mode of dealing with the depredators, indicates far 
 more a love of blood than of justice. What right had these men 
 to massacre thieves? Was there any law to put to death the 
 
13 
 
 stealer of a silver spoon? If Louis Pliilippe had committed 
 such an act of severity, what words would have been sufficient to 
 express the indignation at his cruelty ? 
 
 There was also a disposition in the journals to make light of 
 the mischief done, and the outrages committed. According to 
 some of them, when the fighting was over, the people quietly 
 went hack to their work, and all that was necessary was to set 
 omnibuses on their wheels, and replace the paving stones in 
 their former position. But the shooting of so many thieves is 
 conclusive evidence that considerable pillage took place even in 
 Paris, besides the destruction of printing presses and other pro¬ 
 perty. While, however, they were shooting thieves in Paris, 
 great outrages were being committed in the surrounding dis¬ 
 trict, which spread to the other great towns. Bands of brigands 
 went through the country, committing all sorts of crime with 
 impunity. The house of liaron Rothschild in the neighbourhood 
 of Paris was sacked and burnt to the ground, The chateau of 
 Neuilly was similarly treated. And here a shocking incident 
 occurred. A number of rioters got into the cellars of the cha¬ 
 teau, and being soon in a state of brutal intoxication, began to 
 fight, and inflict savage wounds on each other with the broken 
 bottles. In this shocking state they were unaware of the fire 
 raging over their heads, and to the number of a hundred and 
 twenty were suffocated in the cellars. Besides these attacks on 
 houses, immense damage was done to the railroads—many of 
 the stations and bridges were consumed by fire. At Rouen, 
 when the bridge was burnt, care was taken by the incendiaries 
 that no signal should he given to the approaching train : and 
 had not the engineer fortunately perceived the still smoking 
 embers of the bridge in time, a monster train full of English 
 would have been precipitated into the river. 
 
 All these are very shocking circumstances. The only wonder 
 is that they were not a great deal worse than they were. But 
 even these are sufficient to show that property was not so secure 
 even at the time, as was asserted. Perhaps it was only saved 
 then to be wasted by a slower process of confiscation and exac¬ 
 tion. However, we in England should do well to consider what 
 would be the state of things with us, if similar events occurred, 
 and law and government should be put down. I have the high¬ 
 est respect for the English character, and believe the people 
 generally to be honest and intelligent. Still it cannot be denied 
 that there are amongst us a very great number of thieves and 
 ruffians, who would avail themselves of any disturbance or sus¬ 
 pension of the power of the law, to commit the most fearful 
 havoc. The mischievousness of the mob in London and at 
 
14 
 
 Glasgow, is sufficient evidence of tlie temper of some amongst 
 our lower classes. These things are very unpleasant to dwell 
 on, but they should not be kept back. When we see, even in 
 comparatively peaceable times, the vast number of trials recorded 
 in the public journals, for murders, rapes, assaults, misde¬ 
 meanours, robberies, it is but too manifest that if authority were 
 put down, the most fearful calamities would fall upon multitudes 
 of peaceful families. And this not only in the great towns. In 
 these there would he a sharp contest, aud much destruction and 
 plunder, while it lasted; hut whichever side prevailed, would 
 probably after the contest endeavour to restore order. The 
 great evil to be dreaded would be from bands of plunderers, 
 who would scour the country for pillage like a pack of hungry 
 wolves. No corner of the land would be safe. Even now terri¬ 
 ble scenes of disorder are being enacted in parts of France and 
 Germany. We do not think that the country people in England 
 would rise with such sanguinary ferocity as the French peasantry 
 did in the first revolution, when the cry was, “ guerre aux cha¬ 
 teaux,” (war against the gentlemen’s houses). But we fear there 
 are in a great many places savage and demoralized men, who 
 would band together and commit terrible excesses of every kind 
 against the property and persons of the upper and middle classes 
 who should fall into their hands. Plunderers of this description 
 would have little respect for classes or opinions. Their sole 
 object would be to gratify their love of rapine and excess. Men 
 of liberal politics would fare no better with such persons than 
 conservatives. The middle classes would suffer as much as the 
 upper. The farmer’s homestead or the tradesman’s villa would 
 he as liable to depredation as the gentleman’s seat; perhaps 
 more so, as being more unprotected. In short, if government 
 were upset in England, the most fearful anarchy would prevail 
 throughout the land; and the anarcliv would be increased ten¬ 
 fold by the commercial panic which would at once arise. All 
 our credit would collapse like a punctured balloon—our paper 
 currency would be good for nothing. Property of this kind 
 would cease to exist. The necessary consequence would be that 
 manufactures and trades would conic to a stand, servants would 
 be discharged, the great mass of the working community would 
 be without employment, and consequently without bread. Sa¬ 
 vings hanks would he bankrupt j railroad shares and canal shares 
 worthless. There would be a general scramble for food and 
 gold. The ruin would he much greater in England than in any 
 other country in the world, in proportion to our dependence on 
 credit, and the vast number of our population employed by ficti¬ 
 tious capital. 
 
 The certainty of the occurrence of such a state of things in 
 
16 
 
 Yes—the support of our Sovereign and our institutions, is not 
 only a duty which we owe to her and to our country, but also 
 one that we shall do well to abide by for our own sake. The 
 peculiar judgment which falls on the rebellious and disobedient, 
 is an unquiet, restless, harassed life, accompanied with fearful 
 sufferings and temptations to the most dreadful crimes. But 
 the sure reward of obedience to law, and maintenance of au¬ 
 thority, is a quiet life of peaceful virtue and domestic happiness. 
 
 There is another very important topic which deserves our 
 serious consideration, that is, the duty which we owe to the 
 poor. There can be no doubt that the working classes of Eng¬ 
 land are not in the condition that they should be in, either 
 morally or physically. Whatever danger there may be of na¬ 
 tional disaster arises from this cause. If, therefore, we would 
 ensure domestic peace, we must make without delay some great 
 efforts to improve the condition of the people. Even if we feel 
 ourselves secure against the effects of their lawlessness, still 
 every charitable and generous feeling of humanity ought to urge 
 us to do all we can to remedy the crying evils which abound. 
 
 But on this subject, and on the general condition of the 
 working classes, I hope to speak more at large on another 
 occasion. 
 
TRACTS FOR THE 
 
 PEOPLE. 
 
 BY SOSTHENES. 
 
 COMMUNISM AND CHARTISM. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 JOSEPH MASTERS, ALDERS6ATE STREET, 
 AND 78, NEW BOND STREET, 
 
 No. 2. Price lid. each, or 10s. Ctd. per 100/or distribution. 
 
COMMUNISM AND CHARTISM. 
 
 The recent upsetting of the social system of France, which 
 has already caused so much misery in that country, and is preg¬ 
 nant with every imaginable calamity, was brought about by the 
 agency and instrumentality of about twenty or five-aud-twenty 
 thousand work-people, some of them out of employ, and con¬ 
 sequently wanting bread; others in good employ, and wanting 
 only more tobacco, more brandy, more beer, more money to 
 gratify their excesses, and less work ; others, again, not knowing 
 what they wanted :—these, headed by certain fanatics of Repub¬ 
 licanism, were the instruments by whom the work was done. 
 
 But how, it may well be asked, came it to pass that such men 
 as these were able to accomplish their purpose in a great and 
 wealthy city, and in the face of a numerous army, as well as an 
 armed bourgeoisie —a National Guard consisting principally of 
 the citizens of Paris, who are all ruined, or nearly so, by what 
 has taken place ? 
 
 Simply because the citizens of the middle class took no means 
 to prevent the mischief, and either looked on or helped in the 
 work. And the reason of their acting in this strange manner 
 was partly a political discontent which had been fostered by a set 
 of politicians for their own purposes, and partly sheer cowardice 
 and want of resolution to stand up manfully against outrage. 
 
 So, then, the revolution was caused by the concurrent circum¬ 
 stances of a needy and demoralized populace, and a disaffected 
 and vacillating middle and upper class. It does not necessarily 
 require the concurrence of both these causes to make a revolu¬ 
 tion. Disaffection to a government, dislike of national insti¬ 
 tutions may of itself cause revolution,—as in the case of some 
 of the German States. On the other hand, there may be coun¬ 
 tries in which the condition of the lower classes shall have 
 become so bad, that they shall he able to cause a revolution in 
 spite of the middle classes. And this is the most dreadful revo¬ 
 lution of all. 
 
 In a former Tract* I have adverted to the circumstances 
 which caused the disaffection of the middle and upper classes in 
 France, and have thrown out some cautions against the indul¬ 
 gence of similar factious feelings amongst ourselves. In the 
 present, I propose to treat of the condition of the lower classes. 
 
 It is not to be denied that the condition of the lower classes in 
 this country is anything but what it ought to be; and this not 
 
I 
 
 circumstances of the people. When Parliaments were first 
 assembled, the King issued his writs to certain places to send 
 knights of the shire and burgesses to consult with him on the 
 wants of the nation. And there was often great reluctance in 
 persons so summoned to avail themselves of the right conferred 
 on them. In process of time the privilege was more appre¬ 
 ciated, and defined, and the constituency was fixed by law. 
 Thus has been formed our present constitution, which gives the 
 right of making and amending the laws to the three estates of 
 the realm, including the Commons’ House of Parliament, the 
 members of which are returned by those on whom the law of 
 the land confers this privilege or trust. 
 
 The last great settlement of the constituency was at the time 
 of the Reform Bill in 1831; which was certainly passed with the 
 approval of the large majority of the nation. And by that bill 
 the same principle is recognised, viz. that the right of voting 
 is to be limited, as it always has been in England, and indeed 
 in every other nation, to those on whom the law confers it. It 
 is not a matter of right but of law. The Reform Bill is the law 
 under which we are now living. Of course its provisions may be 
 altered, but any alteration will be made, not with reference to 
 the abstract or philosophical notion of an inherent right of 
 suffrage in each individual, but according to what appears likely 
 to be most advantageous to the interests ~f the country at large. 
 The claim of universal suffrage as a right is evidently quite 
 contrary to the received usages of the English nation for a long 
 course of ages, and opposed to the deliberately expressed wishes 
 of the people at the last settlement of the Reform Bill. 
 
 It is also opposed to the true interests of the country, and 
 subversive of justice between class and class. The Chartists 
 themselves will probably agree in this principle, that the true 
 use of representation is, that the interests of all classes may be 
 duly considered. No one class should be oppressed by the 
 others. The well-being of all should be taken care of. Now' 
 this I am prepared to show would not be the case under a 
 system of universal suffrage. It is manifest that, if all persons 
 had equal votes, the poorer classes, being a great deal more 
 numerous than the richer, would return all the representatives; 
 the richer and middle classes would have no chance of being 
 represented; their votes would be so few in comparison with the 
 rest, that their interests would be set aside. But it is essen¬ 
 tial for the well-being of the nation that property should be 
 protected, not only for the sake of the employers, but the em¬ 
 ployed, the poor as well as the rich. If capital were not pro¬ 
 tected, employment would cease, and society fall into disorder. 
 
lg as it lasts, and then they must all 
 the landlords to lower the rents of 
 ig their own houses pulled down am 
 lent set up by the people are actual 
 f the property of railroads, and ot 
 terms, and for their own use, aj 
 
would be a strange House of Commons in which all the members 
 were Wakleys and Duncombes. 
 
 In every system of human laws or society, there must needs 
 be a large amount of anomalies which should be gradually 
 amended: but we think it may easily be shown that the tendency 
 of the present course of legislation in this country, is to regard 
 not only the interests but even the prejudices of the poor. Let 
 us consider one or two of the most recent measures of Parlia¬ 
 ment. The repeal of the Corn Laws for instance. It was argued 
 that the effect of the old corn laws was to increase the cost of 
 bread to the poor, and keep up the rent of the landlords. Con¬ 
 stant discussions took place on the subject for several years. 
 The advocates of the corn laws contended that it would be dan¬ 
 gerous if this country did not in the main support itself in the 
 great article of food—that if we got our corn from abroad, our 
 own lands would go out of tillaa-e. and our labourers lose their 
 employment; that the home trade would suffer in proportion as 
 the foreign trade was benefited. No one can deny that there 
 was a good deal to be said on this side of the question. Still 
 the arguments of repealers of the corn laws, especially the asser¬ 
 tion that the poor would get tlieir bread cheaper, prevailed. Many 
 even of the landlords voted for the repeal, and it was carried. 
 
 Take another instance. It was found two years ago that the 
 finances were insufficient for the increased expenditure of the 
 country, occasioned principally bv the extension of our empire in 
 different quarters of the world. The Ministry thought it a good 
 opportunity to introduce a new principle of taxation. Many 
 duties which had been levied on articles consumed by the poor, 
 and increased their cost, were taken off, and a tax imposed on 
 incomes above ,£150; so that the entire body of the lower 
 classes escape the burden altogether. Will any one say that the 
 interests of the poor have not been consulted in these important 
 
 But countless other matters might be named in which the 
 interests of the poor are specially attended to. Every class has 
 its advocates in Parliament. The advocates of the poor are lis¬ 
 tened to with marked attention, and laws are constantly passed 
 for the express purpose of relieving them. The Ten Hours’ 
 Bill exempts children under a certain age from that unremitting 
 labour which exhausted their frame, and allowed them no time 
 for improvement of their minds. The law against the truck sys¬ 
 tem secures the working classes against a mode of extortion by 
 which their wages were diminished, and their liberty interfered 
 with. The poor have full power of meeting together and dis¬ 
 cussing their grievances, and ample opportunity of expressing 
 their wishes by petition to Parliament; and when they have made 
 
ae at all. There 
 crisis in our histoi 
 disaffected, and o 
 
TRACTS "FOR THE 
 
 PEOPLE. 
 
 BY SOSTHENES. 
 
 THE SPECIAL CONSTABLE 
 THE CHARTIST. 
 
 A DIALOGUE. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 JOSEPH MASTERS, ALDERSGATE STREET, 
 AND 78, NEW BOND STREET. 
 
 No. 3. Price 1 d. each, or 7s. per 100 for distribution. 
 
the numbers are ten times as great as they really are? You only 
 talk yourselves into a belief that you are a very numerous and 
 important body, and perhaps deceive vour friends in other parts 
 of the country, who on the strength of having as they suppose 
 150,000 men to back them, when there is not the tenth part, 
 might be induced to risk their lives in some rash attempt, and 
 only get themselves into a scrape. Depend upon it “ honesty is 
 the best policy ” in politics as well as other matters. 
 
 Robert. Well: you cannot deny that the Chartist petition 
 ought to have some weight. I suppose there never was such a 
 monster petition got up since Parliaments were held. 
 
 William. So far front thinking that your monster petition 
 has done your cause any good, I believe that the impudence and 
 dishonesty of the whole affair has done more than almost any other 
 circumstance to injure you. Why the thing was a cheat on the 
 face of it. It professed to be signed by five millions six hundred 
 thousand men, which is several hundreds of thousands more than 
 there are in all England. 
 
 Robert. However, there were the signatures of a good many 
 
 William. Yes, and children too. As a specimen, to my cer¬ 
 tain knowledge John Smith’s errand-boy signed it every time 
 he went over London Bridge, and that was five or six times a 
 
 Robert. He ought to have been well whipped for his pains. 
 
 William. There I quite agree with you. Then there was the 
 Duke of Wellington’s name seventeen times; Queen Victoria, 
 Sir Robert Peel, Sir G. Grey, Pugnose, Longnose, Flatnose, 
 Punch, besides a number of vile indecent names not fit to 
 mention. 
 
 Robert. Did it never occur to you, my good friend, that these 
 names must have been written by the enemies of the Chartists 
 who wished to bring discredit on their cause, most likely some 
 policeman or Government spy ? 
 
 William. Certainly, whoever wrote them were no friends to 
 the Chartists. But I should hardly think that Government would 
 take the trouble to do it. No; the truth of the matter appears 
 to be that when petitions are exposed in the street, as this was, 
 every idle vagabond that goes by scribbles on them just what he 
 pleases. Nine persons out of ten probably do not know or care 
 a farthing about the matter, and write down their names, or any¬ 
 thing else that happens to come into their heads for the fun of 
 the thing. The long and short of it is that petitions got up in 
 this way are of no value whatever. For my own part I think 
 Parliament ought to require all persons who sign petitions to set 
 down their address and occupation, so that inquiry may be made 
 as to their identity. As it is at present, one individual may set 
 
6 
 
 down tbe names of a hundred, as appears to have been done in 
 this instance, whole pages being evidently in the same hand¬ 
 writing. But I think that from the exposures made of the mode in 
 which signatures were obtained, and the sort of signatures which 
 were affixed, your monster petition has been shown to be such 
 a monstrous humbug that it lias turned the whole business into 
 ridicule, and I fear has had the effect of fixing a stigma on the 
 very practice of petitioning. So that what is in reality, when pro¬ 
 perly exercised, a valuable privilege, will in future have but little 
 
 Robert. However, after all deductions, you must acknow¬ 
 ledge that a petition signed by such vast numbers of persons 
 ought to have, and must have, a great moral effect. 
 
 William. It does not appear to me that there is any possi¬ 
 bility of knowing what the numbers of the bond foie signatures 
 really were. Instead of being, as it was stated by Mr. Feargus 
 O’Connor, five millions six hundred thousand, the whole num¬ 
 ber of every sort, men, women, and children, was under two 
 millions; and of these a large proportion are ascertained to 
 have been fictitious. Perhaps scarcely a tenth part of the 
 signatures were genuine. But take them at two millions, out 
 of a population of about twenty millions. Then you have the 
 fact that two millions of the population want to have the charter 
 and eighteen millions do not—that is a majority of nine to one 
 against it. I have no doubt that if you fairly polled the coun¬ 
 try, you would find it to be the case—that nine persons out of 
 ten either are opposed to the Charter, or else know and care 
 nothing about it. The whole affair is got up by some busy 
 persons in tbe great towns, who like to be notorious, and find 
 it easier to distinguish themselves by political agitation, than by 
 more honest means. But with all their agitation, they are as 
 far from attaining their object as ever. Why should the con¬ 
 stitution of the country be altered, when not one person in ten 
 desires it. I must say'that I think your appeal to moral force 
 is equally a failure with your appeal to physical force. To 
 endeavour to carry' the charter by the help of pikes and rifles, 
 would be a wicked' and murderous attempt, besides the certainty 
 of its being unsuccessful. Your appeal to moral force shows 
 only that the large majority of the people are against you, so 
 that you have nothing left but to appeal to reason and argu¬ 
 ment. If you, or your leading men, can prove to the country 
 that tEe Charter would be an advantage, and a remedy for tbe 
 evils which surround us, I have no doubt you will succeed, but 
 not otherwise. 
 
 Robert. Well come, if you will listen to argument, I think I 
 may count on bringing you over to my side. 
 
 William. Let me hear some of your arguments. 
 
government by representation is the only just foundation of 
 lolitical power, the only true basis of constitutional lights, the 
 mly legitimate parent of good laws: and we bold it as an indis¬ 
 putable truth, that all government, which is based on any other 
 foundation, lias a perpetual tendency to degenerate into anarchy 
 ar despotism, or to beget class or wealth idolatry, on the one 
 liand, and poverty and misery on the other. "Wilde, however, 
 ive contend for the principle of self-government, we admit that 
 laws will only he just in proportion as the people are enlight¬ 
 ened, on which, socially and politically, the happiness of all 
 must depend; hut as self-interest unaccompanied by virtue, 
 seeks its own exclusive benefits, so will the exclusive and privi¬ 
 leged classes of society ever seek to perpetuate tlieir power, 
 and to proscribe the enlightenment of the people. Hence we 
 are induced to believe that the enlightenment of all will sooner 
 emanate from the exercise of political power by all the people, 
 than by their continuing to trust to the selfish government of 
 the few.” 
 
 William. Then though you admit that “laws will be just 
 only in proportion as the people are enlightened, and that on 
 this, socially and politically, the happiness of all depends,” yet 
 you would place the power in the hands of the people in their 
 present confessedly unenlightened state,—thus, by your own 
 admission, incurring the certain destruction of “ the social and 
 political happiness of all.” This seems rather a blunder. How- 
 
 Robert. “A strong conviction of these truths, coupled as 
 that conviction is, with the belief that most of our social and 
 political evils can he traced to corrupt and exclusive legislation, 
 and that the remedy will be found in extending to the people at 
 large the exercise of those rights non' monopolized by a few, 
 has induced us to make some exertion towards embodying our 
 principles in the People’s Charter. . . It has often been 
 argued that Universal Suffrage, as well as the other essentials 
 for the exercise of that right, could not he reduced to practice. 
 This is therefore an attempt to show the contrary; and we 
 think it would he practically found to be a simpler, cheaper, 
 and better mode of securing to the whole people their elective 
 rights, than the present expensive machinery, by which the rich 
 
William. Well, I confess your argument does not appea 
 very lucid, but, as far as I make out, you consider universa 
 suffrage to he the principal point. Am I right ? 
 
 William. No ^ property qualification, annual parliaments 
 
 selves. So that what we have principally to consider is 
 
 Robert. Well, be it so. 
 
 William. Universal suffrage you consider to be a riaht ? 
 Robert. Ido. 
 
 II illiam. And also likely to be a great benefit, if you could 
 et it? 
 
 Robert. Certainlv. 
 
9 
 
 law or custom has drawn an arbitrary line, and decided that they 
 should not vote before the age of twenty-one. All this con¬ 
 firms the view which I have always been accustomed to take of 
 the franchise, namely, that it is not an inherent personal right, 
 but a privilege or trust conferred by law. The law of the land 
 is, after all, what we must look to to determine the suffrage. 
 It is not a right independently of the law, but one conferred 
 by the law. If it be better for the interests of the country, 
 the franchise may be still further limited by the same power. 
 Are there not any other persons whom you would exclude from 
 the franchise ? 
 
 Robert. Yes, I would exclude insane persons and persons 
 convicted of crime, especially of bribery. 
 
 William. Quite right; no one could object to that. But I 
 am inclined to think that the rule might with advantage be 
 extended further. For instance, there are many persons who, 
 though not absolutely insane, yet act very foolishly and vio¬ 
 lently. There are many reckless improvident persons who 
 squander all their wages in public-houses, and bring their 
 families to ruin : others who if they had the power would pull 
 down the whole fabric of society, and spread anarchy through 
 the land. Such persons as these seem to me as bad as mad¬ 
 men, if not actually so. Then there are many ignorant 
 thoughtless persons who have no right views of their duties and 
 responsibilities; others who would sell their votes for a pot of 
 beer. All these persons would make very bad voters, and had 
 much better be off the list than on it. 
 
labourers certainly have not education and habits of 
 ; sufficient to enable them to form a very profound judg 
 
 political subjects. But then I think the question n 
 
11 
 
 regarded in another point of view. All classes ought to have 
 their interests represented in Parliament. The working classes 
 are at present unrepresented. Give them the suffrage, and they 
 will send representatives who will look to their interests better 
 than they have hitherto been attended to. 
 
 William. That seems to me to be contrary to the principle 
 which you laid down just now, when you said that “ self-interest, 
 unaccompanied by virtue, seeks its own exclusive benefit.” 
 This to be sure you apply to the richer classes, but now as 
 it seems to me, you wish to bring the same objectionable 
 principle into operation amongst the lower classes. Suppose 
 for a moment that all the working classes had votes, and used 
 them with a view to what they considered their own interests; 
 suppose the right of universal suffrage, together with the other 
 five points, which as you say are “ essential to the free exercise 
 of that rightsuppose these to be made the law of the land : 
 well, the working classes being bg far the most numerous, would 
 return all the members, and so the interests of the upper 
 and middle classes would be unrepresented. The members so 
 chosen would proceed to make laws for the supposed benefit of 
 their own class, without any regard to the interests of the other 
 classes, which it cannot be doubted, would cause the greatest 
 confusion and disaster. What we ought always to endeavour to 
 secure, in my opinion, is such a representation as should take 
 care of the interests of all classes. 
 
 Robert. Well, there we shall agree. The very thing that 
 I object to is, that according to the present system the represen¬ 
 tation is all in the hands of the upper and middle classes, and 
 the interests of the working classes are neglected. 
 
 William. And therefore to remedy this evil you would have 
 it all placed, as the Charter would place it, in the hands of the 
 working classes. That is jumping out of the frying-pan into the 
 fire. But I wish you would consider well whether the fact really 
 is as you represent it,—that according to the present constituency 
 the interests only of the richer classes are considered, and the 
 rest neglected. My own impression, judging from the proceed¬ 
 ings in the Houses of Parliament, is that there is every wish and 
 disposition to attend to the interests of the workingclasses, as 
 much as any. I think that, generally speaking, the members of 
 both Houses are most anxious to do all they can to improve the 
 condition of the working classes, and that the course of their 
 policy is mainly directed that way. Look to recent enactments. 
 The repeal of the corn-laws, contrary as the landlords supposed 
 it to be to their own interests, was carried, and that with the 
 consent of many of the landlords themselves, for the express pur¬ 
 pose of giving the poorer classes cheaper food. The exemption 
 of all persons whose income is under ,£150 a year from the in- 
 
TRACTS FOR THE 
 
 PEOPLE. 
 
 BY SOSTHENES. 
 
 SIX NEW POINTS FOR THE 
 CHARTER. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 JOSEPH MASTERS, ALDERSGATE STREET, 
 
 AND 78, NEW BOND STREET. 
 
 No. 4. Price Id. each, or 7s. per 100/or distribution. 
 
SIX NEW POINTS FOR THE CHARTER. 
 
 Address to the Working Classes. 
 
 My Good Friends, 
 
 I am one of those who grieve sincerely to see so many of you 
 in a hail condition, and would willingly do all in my power to 
 help you out of it. 
 
 The present seems to be a favourable time for the accomplish¬ 
 ment of this object. Public attention has been directed to the 
 subject, and there are many persons of all classes, many very in¬ 
 fluential persons, who are ready and anxious to assist in bettering 
 your condition. But it must depend a good deal on yourselves. 
 
 The first thing is to know what your grievances really are; 
 then to consider well how they may be remedied. Keep to these 
 points and do not allow any set of men, for their own purposes, 
 to divert your minds to other matters that have nothing to do 
 with the question. This is an important thing for you to 
 remember. 
 
 It is easy to tell from the very look of many of you as you go 
 about the streets, and from the appearance of your wives and 
 children, that you are very badly off. Many of you have ragged 
 dirty clothes, torn, and not mended. Men who manufacture 
 such immense quantities for other people as you do, ought surely 
 to have good broadcloth for their backs, and good linen under 
 it, and the same for their families. A great many of your chil¬ 
 dren are without shoes and stockings, and can neither read nor 
 write. This ought not to be. Some of you look as if you were 
 half famished. Then again, your houses are bad—ill ventilated 
 and ill drained. You are often much too closely packed together, 
 for your own comfort or health or even decency. 
 
 There are other evils far worse than these, though you your¬ 
 selves perhaps may not feel them so much. I am afraid you will 
 think I am going to preach you a sermon. But, niy good 
 friends, do give a moment’s serious thought to what I am going 
 to say. You all have consciences, and I fear your consciences, 
 at least those of many of you, arc ill at ease. Amidst your earthly 
 privations you do not feel a good hope of a happy futurity. Some 
 of you perhaps doubt whether there will be another world at all. 
 
4 
 
 See now what a dreadful alternative is before you. If there is not 
 another world, all you have to look to is the poor comfortless 
 existence which you have here. If there is another world, the 
 case is ten times worse j at least to those who are so living that 
 they cannot hope for a reward hereafter. What you want most 
 of all is that confident looking forward to happiness hereafter, 
 which shall enable you to bear your present ills patiently, and in 
 so doing you would deprive them of more than half their bit- 
 
 But I will not say more on this subject. Only in enumerating 
 your present evils, I could not omit that which is the greatest of 
 all. However, I intend to confine myself principally to physical 
 grievances. 
 
 Now what is the cause of your physical grievances—your po¬ 
 verty, and bad condition ? It is this. In some cases your wages 
 are low and fluctuating, scarcely enough to live on when you are 
 employed, and sometimes failing you altogether. This arises 
 fiom there being too many of you competitors for the same em¬ 
 ployment. In other cases your wages tie quite sufficient for a 
 decent maintenance, and, if properly managed, enough to keep 
 yourselves and your families in respectability. But you have got 
 into bad habits of spending all you get in eating and drinking 
 and other extravagances. So that when evil times come you 
 have nothing to fall back on. Where this is so, your bad condi¬ 
 tion and squalid appearance is clearly your own fault; in the 
 former case it arises from circumstances over which you your¬ 
 selves have little or no control. I hope, however, that it may 
 be possible to find remedies for all these evils. 
 
 So then the evils of your condition are general poverty, bad 
 clothes, bad houses, sometimes insufficient food, want of instruc¬ 
 tion, improvidence, drunkenness, and let me add (for I must do 
 so) restlessness of mind, discontent, an evil conscience. Con¬ 
 sider well, are not these the principal evils from which you are 
 suffering ? 
 
 I will proceed to consider first the remedies which have already 
 been proposed for your grievances, and then I shall lay before 
 you my own view of the case. 
 
 The remedies proposed by those persons to whom you are 
 most accustomed to listen are the following six points: 
 
 1. Universal Suffrage. 
 
 2. No Property Qualification. 
 
 3. Annual Parliaments. 
 
 4. Equal Representation. 
 
 5. Payment of Members. 
 
 6. Vote by Ballot. 
 
i Koto I must say at once that to 'propose these six points as any 
 remedy for the evils under which you are confessedly labouring, 
 is the most impudent cheat I ever heard of. It is not my inten- 
 ' tion in this address to enter into any discussion respecting the 
 Six Points of the Charter. They may he very good or very bad, 
 or some of them may be good and some bad. All I say is, that 
 they cannot by possibility have any good effect in themselves to 
 improve your physical condition. How can the “ Payment of 
 Members of Parliament ” improve the wages of workmen ? How 
 can “No Property Qualification” give you better houses or 
 coats or shoes ? How can “ Annual Parliaments and Universal 
 Suffrage,”—constant electioneering and voting—make you more 
 provident and sober ? How can “ Vote by Ballot ” cause you to 
 be honester and better, and therefore happier men ? It seems 
 clear to me that these things are in no way calculated to help 
 
 persons who tell you they will do so are only cheating you. Sup¬ 
 pose, however, for a moment, that the Charter, if you could get 
 it, would lead to the improvement of your condition. Still is it 
 1 not evident that it would be much the best way to go at once for 
 I what will really do you good of itself . You are only losing your 
 time in trying to get the Charter. If your condition is not to be 
 mended before you get the Charter, I am afraid you will have to 
 wait long enough for it; for the large majority of the nation is 
 against the Charter. You will never get the Charter without a 
 civil war, and most likely not then, Look at the great agitator 
 “O’Connell, who wasted so many years, and broke down a power¬ 
 ful intellect, in following the ignis fatuus of Repeal, and left his 
 country as wretched and poverty-stricken as he found it. tVhat 
 might not that man have done' if he had devoted his vast ener¬ 
 gies to his country’s real good. JIv advice to you is this, to try 
 and get what will really do you good at once, and not listen to 
 Chartist orators and speechifiers, whose sole object is to make 
 themselves notorious, and get influence among you for their own 
 
 And there is another set of men who are just as bad, perhaps 
 j worse, because they ought to know better. I mean those who 
 j call themselves Radical Reformers, as Hume, Cobden, and Muntz, 
 j These men are very busy just now agitating for “ Household 
 | Suffrage” and Triennial Parliaments.” Have nothing to do 
 > with these half-and-half gentlemen. Better be Chartists at once. 
 The object of these political radicals is to enlarge the suffrage 
 just so much as to get office for themselves. Of dil politicians 
 Hume and bis set are those who have done, and will do, least 
 for the working classes. It is only a few weeks since Mr. Hume 
 voted against even hearing the case of the poor frame-work 
 
6 
 
 knitters.* His principle is to do nothing for the working-classes, 
 but let them take their chance, and starve or not as they may. 
 At any rate it is quite evident that “Triennial Parliaments” and 
 “Household Suffrage ” will never give the working classes what 
 they really want—that is more food, better clothes, better houses, 
 education, provident and sober habits, and self-respect. 
 
 I come back then to what I said before. Don’t be led aside 
 to direct your minds to political privileges which you will pro¬ 
 bably never get, and if you did get them, would do you no good 
 whatever; but petition for what you really want to make your 
 condition easier. 
 
 The sis points which I propose are these: 
 
 1. A General Provident Fund. 
 
 2. Cultivation of Waste Lands. 
 
 3. Colonization. 
 
 4. A good Health-of-Towns Bill. 
 
 5. Good Instruction. 
 
 6. Revision of Taxation. 
 
 I have set these six points down in order, and will now explain 
 what I mean by each of them. 
 
 1. A General Provident Fund. 
 
 One of the greatest evils under which the working classes are 
 suffering is fluctuation in trade—first a brisk demand, then in a 
 few months a glut; high wages one week, and the next perhaps 
 none at all. It is a very harassing and perplexing state of 
 things for the workman, but there is no possibility of preventing 
 it. You might as well attempt to control the winds and the 
 waves. But as the sailor provides against a storm, so as to 
 weather it, though he cannot prevent it, so should we provide 
 against times of bad trade. At present when a workman is re¬ 
 duced to want, he has no alternative but to go to the Board of 
 Guardians: and I am sorry to say that Boards of Guardians and 
 Relieving Officers do not always treat poor workmen so kindly 
 and considerately as they ought to do. To be sure they are 
 spending money levied from people who are often very ill able to 
 pay it; and therefore it is their duty to be as economical as they 
 can. But then they might at the same time be civil and con- 
 
 * See the debate of March 29, 1848, in which Sir H. Halford, Mr. Packe, Sir. 
 Newdegate, and other county members strongly urged that inquiry should be 
 
 for them, and Mr. Hume made a long speech, and voted against the motion, 
 
7 
 
 siderate. However, it is a very unpleasant tiling for an honest 
 working man to have to go before a Board of Guardians; and 
 the way in which I would save him from this degradation 
 (for a degradation it is) is this—I would have a general plan, 
 sanctioned by the Legislature, by which, in good times, a small 
 portion of each man’s wages should be laid by to form a provident 
 fund ; then, in had times, he should receive out of this fund a 
 weekly allowance, which would be his own—earned by his own 
 labour—just as much as if it were a dividend from the Savings’ 
 Bank. This plan is already adopted in respect to the wages of 
 sailors, and has been found to answer perfectly, and I do not see 
 why it should not be tried with manufacturers, or indeed any 
 other class of workmen—but manufacturers more than any, 
 because their employment is more precarious than that of others. 
 Some manufacturers have good wages, some have bad. Those 
 who have good wages will have to lay by a certain portion out of 
 them, as they ought though there were no law to make them do 
 it. In the case of those who have bad wages—only just enough 
 to live upon—their masters must pay the deposit. I would have 
 the law compulsory in all eases. 
 
 2. Cultivation of Waste Lands. 
 
 Why there should he any such thing as waste lands in Eng¬ 
 land, Ireland, or Scotland, when there are hundreds and thousands 
 of unemployed labourers, I never, for the life of me, could see 
 any good reason. There may be legal difficulties, but surely 
 these might and ought to have been removed long ago, for the 
 sake of the great advantages of giving healthy occupation and 
 wholesome food to the multitudes of families who might be 
 profitably employed on lands at present entirely useless. 
 What is the cause’ of the overcrowding of our great cities, the 
 undue competition for employment, the close packing of 
 houses ? What but the continual influx of labourers from the 
 country, who do not find sufficient employment in agriculture ? 
 How greatly must we expect to see this evil increased, when the 
 railroad labourers, amounting at least to 250,000, have done 
 their work, as they will have done before very long 1 What I 
 propose is that the Government, should take the waste lands into 
 their own hands. Landlords have no right to object to such a 
 measure on the score of their own interest, as they have already 
 themselves set aside the claim of the Clergy to the tenth portion 
 of new enclosures. However, let fair compensation be made for 
 any vested interest, and then let the Government take all waste 
 land into their own hands as a great public estate, employing as 
 many hands on them as can be profitably employed, and letting 
 them at a fair rent. There are said to be six million acres 
 
9 
 
 4. Health of Towns. 
 
 This is another matter which must be carried through, as it 
 has already been taken up by Government. There are some 
 selfish people in the towns who are getting up an opposition to 
 it; but the working classes, if they know their own interests, 
 will send up petitions to have the bill passed.* Perhaps some 
 modification might be made with advantage; but a Health of 
 Towns Bill of some sort the country must have, if they would 
 better the condition of the poor. At present it is notorious that 
 the houses of the poor are many of them badly built, badly 
 drained, and badly ventilated. The cause is this. They are 
 often run up by speculators, who build them at the least possible 
 cost, and then make an interest of 15 or 20 per cent., which is 
 unreasonable. The poor have no remedy against this evil; 
 therefore the Government must step in to oblige the builders 
 and owners of houses to make them at least decent and health}'. 
 
 5. Instruction. 
 
 Those amongst you who are not too old to learn ought to be 
 much better instructed in your duties and real interests than you 
 are at present: and your children I should like to see much 
 better brought up than their parents have been. It is quite 
 manifest that private efforts alone are insufficient to secure for 
 the working classes that religious and secular instruction which is 
 essential to their well being; therefore we have a right to call on 
 Government to come forward and assist in this important work. 
 Government has, I think, hit on the right principle upon which 
 this work may be done; that is, by assisting the spontaneous 
 exertions of individuals. But, then, they must assist much move 
 largely than they do, and avoid as much as possible all needless 
 meddling, beyond the giving their assistance and advice. They 
 must not interfere by compulsion, or they will only mar the 
 work instead of helping it. 
 
 6. Revision of Taxation. 
 
 Much good might, I think, be done to the working classes by 
 an improvement in the system of taxation. But I must prepare 
 you to expect that some of my opinions on the subject will 
 appear to you at first sight rather singular. There is a dispute 
 going forward just now about the income tax, between those 
 whose income is derived from property and those whose income 
 is derived from their profession. Persons engaged in trade and 
 commerce seem to stand about half way between these parties : 
 their income is derived partly from the interest of their capital, 
 and partly from their personal exertions. It appears at first 
 * Since this was written the Bill has been advancing. 
 
estroyed. The reason is, because savages 
 latever on their appetite for spirits, and 
 death when they get them; and I fear too 
 itrymen do the same. It is calculated that 
 '"'on sterling are spent by the working 
 dcating liquors! a sum which prudently 
 
FOB DISTRIBUTION. 
 
 TRACTS FOR THE PEOPLE. 
 
 No. 1. THOUGHTS ON THE LATE REVOLUTION IN 
 FRANCE. Price Ud. 
 
 No. 2. COMMUNISM AND CHARTISM. Price l id. 
 
 No. 3. THE SPECIAL CONSTABLE AND THE CHARTIST. 
 A Dialogue. Price 1 d. 
 
 No. 4. SIX NEW POINTS FOR THE CHARTER. Price Id. 
 No. 5. ON THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY. Price Id. 
 
 No. 6. EMPLOYMENT OF THE PEOPLE. Price lid. 
 
 No. 7. THE DESTINY OF NATIONS. Price Id. 
 
 No. 8. THE RED REPUBLICANS. Price Id. 
 
 The above may be had, in limp cloth, price Is. 4d. 
 
TRACTS FOR THE 
 
 PEOPLE. 
 
 BY SOSTHENES. 
 
 ON THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 JOSEPH MASTERS, ALDERSGATE STREET, 
 AND 78, NEW BOND STREET, 
 
 No. 5. Price Icf. each, or 7s. per 100 for distribution. 
 
3 
 
 also a variety of historical facts, which are very interesting and 
 important even when not viewed with immediate reference to 
 religion. It lays before us the origin of those nations which 
 have since overspread the earth; shows us the germs of king¬ 
 doms and empires, and teaches us the principles of those laws, 
 and the source and necessity of those institutions according to 
 which civil society has been formed. 
 
 The first passage which I shall refer to is partly of a religious, 
 partly of an historical character. It is as an historical fact that 
 1 quote it here. When God created the first man and the first 
 woman He said, “ Behold I have given you every herb bearing 
 seed, which is upon the face of the earth, and every tree in the 
 
 which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed.Be fruitful and 
 
 multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it.” * Now with¬ 
 out reference to any religious doctrine implied in these words, 
 we have the fact, which no one I suppose will dispute, that man 
 has a natural right to appropriate to himself the fruits of the 
 earth, and to “ replenish the earth and subdue it,” that is, culti¬ 
 vate it, and make it subservient to his uses. But then the right 
 of man to cultivate the land implies the right of individuals to 
 appropriate to themselves portions of it. When a man has 
 cleared a piece of land of trees, rooted up the thistles and the 
 thorns, and sown his seed in it, surely another has no right to 
 come and take it from him, and it is absurd to think that the 
 same piece of land can he occupied or possessed by two or more 
 persons. If one man sows in it a crop of peas, another cannot 
 come and sow a crop of beans; or if one man has driven his flock 
 to pasture on a hill-side, another must not come and drive.them 
 away, and bring his own flock in their stead. Hence it is evi¬ 
 dent that the very right of “ subduing” or cultivating or using 
 the land, implies the right of exclusive occupancy or possession. 
 
 There can be no doubt that it was in this way in which per¬ 
 sons originally acquired the right of property. In truth we have 
 historical evidence that it was so. There is a very curious pas¬ 
 sage in the history of the patriarch Abraham which so remarkably 
 illustrates the question before us that I will quote it at length 
 and make it the foundation of some further observations. It oc¬ 
 curs in the thirteenth chapter of the book of Genesis : 
 
 “ And Abram went up out of Egypt, he and his wife, and all 
 that he had, and Lot with him, into the south. And Abram was 
 
 very rich in cattle and silver and in gold.And Lot also 
 
 which went with Abram had flocks, and herds, and tents. And 
 the land was not able to bear them that they might dwell toge¬ 
 ther : for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell 
 together. And there was a strife between the herdsmen of 
 
7 
 
 deed: all these] were made sure unto Abraham for a possession 
 in the presence of the children of Heth, before all that went in 
 at the gate of the city. And after this Abraham buried Sarah 
 his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelali before Mamre : 
 the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan. And the field, and 
 the cave that is therein, was made sure unto Abraham for a pos¬ 
 session of a burying place by the sons of Heth.” Who will say that 
 Abraham did not obtain for himself and his heirs a full right to 
 the possession of the cave and the field, and the trees—as he had 
 before to the wells and the grove, and the adjoining pastures ? 
 
 These early incidents are not only interesting but important. 
 We cannot of course, after this lapse of time, trace the exact 
 mode in which each country has been partitioned and appro¬ 
 priated ; but we see plainly, from the tacts which have been 
 noticed, that the right of proprietorship arose by a just and 
 natural process, —first from occupancy, then from labour ex¬ 
 pended in improvement; and that from the original proprietors 
 it lawfully passed by sale or gift to others. 
 
 Another mode was by inheritance. When a man had cleared 
 a forest, or drained a morass, or stocked a pasture—or built and 
 furnished a house, it would surely be a very bad arrangement 
 for the peace of society, that as soon as he was dead, his neigh¬ 
 bours should scramble for the possession of his property. The 
 common sense of mankind has always decided that a man’s pro¬ 
 perty shall descend to his children after him. It is for their fami¬ 
 lies, indeed, in accordance with one of the deepest and holiest of 
 nature’s laws, that most men labour to earn property. Take 
 away from a man the right of giving the fruit of his labour to his 
 children, and you would destroy in him one of the most cogent 
 reasons for exertion and enterprise. 
 
 Besides these there are other less legitimate means of ac¬ 
 quiring property, such as by conquest or confiscation; and such 
 property cannot he said to be rightfully possessed by those who 
 so obtained it. But it would be absurd to say that John Smith 
 has no lawful claim to his cottage and garden, or Squire Oldacres 
 to his estate, because it may possibly be a portion of the land of 
 which one of William the Conqueror’s barons robbed a Saxon 
 thane eight hundred years ago! The present owners came 
 honestly by it, and therefore it is their lawful property. The 
 case of the Church property, violently seized by Henry VIII. 
 and distributed amongst his favourites, is different. Here the 
 exact property unlawfully seized is known, and the lawful owners 
 are known; therefore it ought to be given hack to the Church 
 for the benefit of the people, compensation having been made to 
 the present owners by the nation, because the nation has so 
 long sanctioned their ownership. 
 
10 
 
 to is the fact, that a very large proportion of property is fictitious 
 or evanescent. It is not that there is a certain fixed quantity of 
 property in the world which belongs first to this man and next 
 to that. But property, or capital, which is the same thing in 
 modern phraseology, may almost be said to be created by the 
 industry of man. It is constantly accruing, and is capable of 
 almost indefinite extension and accumulation. Even land in 
 itself is of little or no value until labour has been expended on 
 it. A mere sheepwalk produces but a small amount of wealth, 
 in feet without the sheep it is valueless. It is use and labour 
 that makes the earth valuable, and covers it with useful works 
 and dwellings, and fills the dwellings with goods of all descrip¬ 
 tions, and intersects the land with railroads and canals. Thus 
 does industry, so to speak, create new property. One man shall 
 dam up a stream which before ran on beautiful but valueless, 
 and shall make it the moving power of a mill or manufactory. 
 Another shall convert a waste into a productive garden, or cover 
 it with convenient buildings. Consider particularly the origin 
 of railroads. Railroads are a new property created by the accu¬ 
 mulation of capital. A number of commercial gentlemen club 
 together their profits, and form a railroad company. The work 
 which they construct is so much addition to the wealth of the coun¬ 
 try, and of themselves in particular. But all this creation and 
 boundless increase of wealth depends on security. Without secu¬ 
 rity wealth cannot exist; or if it have already sprung up, withdraw 
 the security and it will speedily melt away, and all the energy 
 and industry expended on it will be valueless. If the manufac¬ 
 turer or the railroad proprietor has no security in the wealth 
 which he has made, and the agriculturist cannot depend on 
 enjoying the harvest which he has raised, the loom will cease, 
 the land will be untilled, the railway will come to a stand still, 
 and all the busy hands now so usefully employed will cease to 
 have wages or food. 
 
 Such, then, is a plain statement of the origin of property, and 
 the necessity of securing it to the owner. 
 
 To some, however, it appears that there is greater difference in 
 property than there ought to be; while some are too rich, others 
 are too poor: this they think ought to be remedied. A calm 
 consideration, will, however, show, that any such scheme, if 
 forcibly adopted, would be unjust and impolitic. First, it would 
 be robbery to take from any man any portion of his wealth, 
 simply because others fancied he had too much. It would he 
 an immoral, unjust act of spoliation. Secondly, it would break 
 in upon the security of property, and so tend to destroy or 
 diminish the general wealth. Thirdly, it would he a check to 
 industry, and a bar to the increase of wealth, to prevent persons 
 
ir 
 
 obtaining as much property as they can; for we have already 
 shown, that to acquire property, generally speaking, is not to 
 take away from others, but to create what did not before exist. 
 
 There is, in truth, this very remarkable circumstance connected 
 with wealth or capital, that whatever a man does with his pro¬ 
 perty, he is sure to benefit the community. (Of course there are 
 immoral ways of spending wealth which do harm, but these are 
 exceptions.) Suppose the capitalist employs bis money in 
 making a railroad, for instance. Almost all of it is expended in 
 the wages of labourers, fees to lawyers, surveyors, engineers, 
 and o-oes to maintain hundreds of families. Suppose he prefers 
 to put his money into the funds, the person who sold him the 
 stock did so for the purpose of obtaining money to spend, no 
 doubt, in some useful manner. Suppose he leaves it in his 
 banker’s bands, then the banker puts it out to some beneficial 
 use. In fact, except by locking up his gold in a box, or 
 burying it in the earth, the rich man cannot help employing his 
 riches beneficially. Society is so ordered that the most selfish 
 man who spends his wealth in mere personal indulgence, who 
 builds costly mansions, furnishes them with every splendour, 
 
 deeply responsible as he is in a moral sense for his selfish appli¬ 
 cation of the wealth intrusted to him; yet so far from enjoying 
 these luxuries at the expense of others, does by his extravagance 
 give employment, and the means of subsistence to vast numbers 
 of industrious labourers and artisans. 
 
 This is the secret of the immense power and wealth of Eng¬ 
 land. The country is full of capital and of rich men; who 
 . spread the wealth which they possess throughout all ranks, 
 
 ' and will continue to do so, so long as wealth is secure. But 
 .. once render property insecure, and the fabric will vanish into 
 l thin air. And no one will know what has become of it. Com- 
 ; merce will cease, manufactories will be shut up, shops will be 
 ; ruined, works of all description come to a stand, gold will be 
 ! buried in the earth, and nothing remain but universal poverty 
 ,• and misery. 
 
 Thus it is evident that the right of property must be main- 
 
 system tumble to the ground. I am very far indeed from 
 affirming that there are not many things that want amending 
 in our social system. All I say is, that if you once render 
 property insecure, you will involve all classes in one common 
 
 I have in former Tracts advocated many measures that seem 
 to me likely to improve the condition of the poor,* measures 
 * See particularly Tract IV. of the series, “Six New Points for the Charter.” 
 
TRACTS FOR THE 
 
 PEOPLE. 
 
 BY SOSTHENES. 
 
 EMPLOYMENT OE THE PEOPLE. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 JOSEPH MASTERS, ALDERSGATE STREET, 
 
 AND 78, NEW BOND STREET. 
 
 A r o. 6. Price Hrf. each, or 10s. (id. pm -100 for distribution. 
 
7 
 
 by those who can get it, and the survivors of the catastrophe 
 shall live on the wreck of the property that shall remain. 
 
 It is remarkable, by the way, that the advocates of the let- 
 alone system, are invariably the promoters of political changes. 
 It almost looks as if they desired purposely to keep the peo¬ 
 ple in the most miserable state, iu order to compass their poli¬ 
 tical objects. 
 
 II. However, people of all classes arc beginning to find out that 
 the principle of leaving things to take their chance can no longer 
 he maintained, without arriving at the catastrophe to which we 
 have alluded. The enormous miseries that have accumulated in 
 the country, have convinced all reasonable men, as well as the 
 sufFerers themselves, that there must be a change of system. 
 And now arises the danger of reaction ; for in the hope of avoid¬ 
 ing the evils that beset us, many are inclined to fly off to the 
 contrary extreme. The wildest speculations have begun to be 
 broached. Schemes have been propounded which, if carried into 
 effect, will break up the whole social system, and bring in uni¬ 
 versal anarchy. One shape in which the reaction has shown 
 itself, is the Socialist or Communist system; a system of uni¬ 
 versal interference,—the exact reverse of the let-alone system. 
 The notion is to do away entirely with personal independence 
 and private interests, and competition, and property, aDd that 
 all persons should live by rule in one community; network¬ 
 ing for themselves and their families, but for the general body. 
 Under this system all things will he changed from what they are 
 at present. There are to be no masters or servants; all are to 
 work for each other. No capitalists or operatives ; the two clia- 
 
 liion,—even wives and children,—according to the views of the 
 extreme followers of this school. 
 
 The Communist or Socialist system is no new invention, but 
 has occupied the brains of enthusiasts in other ages. It is well 
 described by Shakspeare in the Tempest; old Gonzalo says,— 
 
 “ Had I plantation of this isle, my lord, 
 
 And were the king of it, what would I do ? 
 
 I’ the commonwealth I would by contraries 
 Execute all things: for no kind of traffic 
 
 Letters should not be known ; no use of service, 
 
 Of riches, or of poverty ; no contracts, 
 
 Succession, bound of land ; 
 
 No occupation ; all men idle, all, 
 
 And women too; but innocent and pure. 
 
10 
 
 country, and faith, it has been acknowledged as a primary duty, 
 for a man to provide sustenance for his family; to train them 
 up, and advance their interests. No doubt each man is bound 
 to his neighbour by the bonds of charity; but to provide for bis 
 offspring is universally felt to be a far higher claim, than to pro¬ 
 vide for strangers. Home and kindred are the most endearing 
 names. A man who would care little for himself what he should 
 eat, or what he should drink, or wherewithal he should be clothed, 
 will labour night and day to secure the comfort and maintenance 
 of those allied to him by the ties of nature. The greatest exer¬ 
 tions of industry and genius have been made, with the object of 
 promoting the interests and well-being of our children. To 
 labour for the community would be quite a different thing. A 
 man might obey the laws, and do his duty; but where would be 
 the zeal and enthusiasm with which he labours for bis family. 
 All the energy of individual enthusiasm—all that vigour of mind, 
 and undaunted perseverance, which leads to noble deeds and 
 valuable discoveries,—would be lost to the community. Thus, 
 even in an economical point of view, the commonwealth would 
 suffer by this want of a natural spur to energy. The proper 
 way, surely, is for all God's creatures to act according to their 
 respective natures. lie has decreed that bees, and certain 
 other animals, should be Communists, and we admire them as 
 they perform their tasks, and labour for the community of which 
 they are members; but He has endowed men with a variety of 
 character and aspirations after constant progression, and bound 
 them up in families; and for man to attempt to change his 
 nature, and live under the forced uniformity of the labourers in 
 a beehive, would be as absurd and impracticable, as if the bees 
 were to set up as capitalists, and think themselves capable of im¬ 
 proving the structure of their hives and cells, and were to take 
 to themselves each his particular wife, instead of living in the 
 relationship in which the Creator has placed them to their 
 common mother. 
 
 The Communist plan is the extreme type of the constant in¬ 
 terference system. In fact, under it a man would be a mere 
 machine, without individuality, or interest, or liberty, or will of 
 his own. But there are many modes of interference short of 
 this extreme case, which are, more or less, ill suited to men un¬ 
 der any circumstances, much more to those imbued with the 
 prevailing notions of liberty and independence, or even rational 
 and constitutional freedom. Men will not brook interference 
 with their particular pursuits and objects. It is not wholesome 
 for them always to be interfered with; and j et some interference 
 is necessary, in order to remedy the enormous evils of the let- 
 alone system. The question is, what is, and what is not, undue 
 
11 
 
 interference ? And that must be decided according to tlie cir¬ 
 cumstances of each particular case; and if rightly decided, will 
 bring us to our third system, which we have called the jiater- 
 
 III. The paternal system is the mean between the laissez faire, 
 or let-alone system, and the system of constant interference. 
 Its definition or description is this,— to let things alone when they 
 are going on well, and when they are going on ill, to interfere and 
 set them right. This system approves itself to common sense. 
 It is, in fact, the system acted on by the common instinct of 
 
 world with their theories. It is the "principle of all law. So 
 long as men «lo what is right and just of their own accord, there 
 is no need of the interference of the law for the punishment of 
 wickedness and vice; but when the strong oppress the weak, and 
 
 these evils. There have been periods in the llistory of most 
 countries, when the law has been set at nought, and every man 
 has done what was right in his own eyes; and the only rule lias 
 been the maxim of ltob Hoy 
 
13 
 
 neral health of the patient, ami improve it, before a local cure 
 can be effected. A few years back there was a great discontent 
 in the mining districts, in consequence of the Truck system. 
 The master colliers obliged the men, on pain of dismissal, to 
 purchase goods at particular shops, where they paid an exor¬ 
 bitant price for bad articles. The laissez faire economists said, 
 Oh, this is only a private arrangement between the employer 
 and the employed; what have we to do with it? Let them 
 alone, and they will adjust the matter betweeu themselves! But 
 it so turned out that they did not adjust the matter. Great dis¬ 
 contents and breaches of the peace ensued. The colliers refused 
 to work; the iron founders could get no coal; whole districts 
 were in commotion. Here, then, was a case for authority to 
 step in, which it did by an Act of Parliament, and abolished the 
 Truck system; a system in itself essentially unjust. The con¬ 
 sequence is that there has been scarcely any interruption of the 
 peace in those districts ever since. 
 
 The same sort of thing happened with regard to the coal- 
 whippers in London—men who unload the coal vessels. When 
 a vessel came to its station, it was the practice of certain public- 
 house keepers to contract for the unloading it, and to pocket 
 a large portion of the sum which ought to have been paid 
 to those who did the work. The consequence was, that the 
 coal-whippers refused to work, and London might have been 
 unsupplied with coals, the operations of the kitchen suspended 
 throughout the metropolis, and the inhabitants half starved with 
 cold and hunger. But the Legislature interfered, and relieved 
 the coal-whippers from this grievance; and they are now as 
 peaceable and loyal a set of men as any in London. 
 
 It is observable, how very often the discontent of particular 
 classes arises from the interference of middle men, who screw 
 them down, and intercept their wages and profits. Under the 
 let-alone system, the poor have little or no protection against 
 these extortions. The case of the framework knitter is pecu¬ 
 liarly hard. Contrary to the practice in other manufactures, the 
 stocking knitters do not congregate in factories, but work at 
 their homes—which so far is a great advantage. But the griev¬ 
 ance is, that they have to find their own machines, and being 
 too poor to purchase them, they are obliged to hire them at an 
 extravagant price from persons who make a profit of 40 or 50 
 per cent. Here, then, is a case very analogous to the Truck 
 system; and several members of Parliament have called on the 
 Government to interfere. Mr. Ilume and the let-alone econo¬ 
 mists, however, have persuaded them to take no steps to remedy 
 the grievance; and as the poor framework knitters have not the 
 
will not be attended to, unless benevolent persons step forward 
 and move public opinion on their behalf. 
 
 After all, however, local remedies of this sort are generally 
 slow in operation. It is a long time before public attention is 
 so fixed on them, as to insist on their removal. The Ten Hours 
 Bill, which relieved children from their heavy burdens, was many 
 years in forcing its wav through Parliament. The Health of 
 Towns Bill is meeting with much opposition; but there are able, 
 energetic, and charitable men who have devoted themselves to 
 improving the condition of the people, and whose influence is, 
 we trust, daily increasing. 
 
 But the principal evil"to be contended with is not any mere 
 local disorder: a general morbidness exists throughout the whole 
 system. There is an undue accumulation of labourers in our 
 great towns; an excessive development of the manufacturing sys¬ 
 tem. In proportion as this evil is universal, so, in some re¬ 
 spects, is the remedy more easily applied. The evil is the want 
 of employment; the compulsory nlleuess of vast numbers of able 
 bodied men, which is at once the cause of grievous suffering to 
 themselves, and a loss of the value of their services to the com¬ 
 munity. Well, then, is not the remedy obvious ? In whatever 
 way you can devise healthy occupation, and a sufficient mainte¬ 
 nance for any number of the working classes, in like proportion 
 you relieve the pressure from the labour market, —just as a few 
 ounces of blood taken from the arm relieve the whole body 
 from its repletion. The employment of large bodies of men on 
 railroads has been almost a providential circumstance of tempo¬ 
 rary relief. But as this occupation must needs cease ere long, 
 it is most important to find employment elsewhere for our still 
 increasing population. There are many ways in which remune¬ 
 rative employment might be found, if persons of influence would 
 but turn their minds to it in earnest. It is computed that there 
 are no less than 14,700,000 acres of waste land in the United 
 Kingdom; that is to say— 
 
 In England . . . 3,454,000 
 
 In Wales . . . 530,000 
 
 In Scotland . . . 5,950,000 
 
 In Ireland . . . 4,000,000 
 
 In the British Isles . . 166,000 
 
 “Assuming that one-fourth of the quantity might, when re¬ 
 claimed, be brought into annual wheat culture, we have 3,6/5,000 
 
15 
 
 acres so disposable, which, even in the present inefficient state 
 of husbandry, would produce, at thirty bushels an acre, 13,781,250 
 quarters of bread corn,—a supply equal to the necessities of two- 
 thirds of the entire population of Great Britain.”* 
 
 IVhether this he a perfectly accurate computation, or not, is 
 of little moment; every person’s experience and local knowledge 
 will testify that there are very large tracts of land all over the 
 country which are now lying entirely waste and unproductive, 
 and which if cultivated might give employment and food to 
 large bodies of persons. I speak of common lands, not land 
 belonging to individuals. When land belongs to individuals, 
 the probability is, that if it were worth anything, it would be 
 cultivated; hut in the case of commons, there are often legal 
 difficulties in the way which have the effect of preventing the 
 cultivation of very sound and valuable land. Employment and 
 food might be found also in draining large tracts of morass, 
 reclaiming estuaries, establishing fisheries. What we want is 
 some efficient board of management, having authority to set 
 these various schemes on foot, and find employment for the 
 people wherever it may be remunerative. Nor have the Go¬ 
 vernment any excuse for neglecting the promotion of such 
 schemes, on the score of want of funds, because in very many 
 instances, the produce of the undertaking would pay an ample 
 interest on the sum required to effect it. 
 
 Then there is the immense outlet by emigration to the bound¬ 
 less regions beyond the seas, which, if rightly used, might be 
 made to give employment, food, and comfort, to vast bodies of 
 
 But in truth, it may be doubted whether, if this subject were 
 taken up practically and energetically, it would be found that 
 so very much was needed to be done, as first appearance seems 
 to show. Take the case of a single parish by way of illustration. 
 Suppose there is ordinary employment for 100 labourers, and 
 the wages are twelve shillings a week; hut unfortunately there 
 are 105 labourers in the parish. Well, the unemployed five, 
 rather than have no wages, oiler to work perhaps for the inade¬ 
 quate wages of ten shillings a week, and so displace five of those 
 who were before employed at twelve shillings. The five who 
 are displaced are then obliged to consent to labour for ten 
 shillings, and so displace five more. And so this process of 
 deterioration runs the whole round of the parish, and all the 
 labourers in it are obliged to work at insufficient wages; and 
 so become discontented, and in a really had condition. How is 
 this to be remedied ? Clearly, if you could set the five super- 
 
 □f Agricultural! 
 
7 
 
 TRACTS FOR THE 
 
 PEOPLE. 
 
 BY SOSTHENES. 
 
 THE DESTINY OF NATIONS. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 JOSEPH MASTERS, ALDERSGATE STREET, 
 AND 78, NEW BOND STREET. 
 
 No. / • Price 1 d. each, or 7s. per 100 for distribution. 
 
THE DESTINY OF NATION 
 
 Little as tlie religion of Mahomet is in vogue 
 the world, there is one doctrine of that religioi 
 widely prevalent amongst us, and that is a sor 
 belief in destiny. It is a very common feeling 
 that the course"of the world 'has a prescribed d 
 career, which it must r-—"”*• v> '’"' 
 
 “ march of events,” as il 
 they forget that as every 
 
that any disturbance of the governing power can scarcely take 
 place without the most tremendous disruption. Opinions are so 
 equally balanced, the national character so stubborn, the upper 
 and middle classes have so little notion of giving up their pro¬ 
 perty and other advantages without a fight for it, that it is im¬ 
 possible a revolution should he effected in England until after an 
 intense struggle, which shall convulse the whole nation, and 
 subvert society from one end of the kingdom to another. So 
 that they who expect a revolution, must prepare themselves for 
 one of the most terrible description—bloody, entire, anduni- 
 
 There are other persons who imagine that the world is march¬ 
 ing on at a great rate in intellectual improvement. The advance¬ 
 ment in arts and sciences they take to be a proof of a great 
 expansion of the human mind; and they fall into the belief that 
 a generation which can invent railroads and electric telegraphs, 
 must needs have made similar advances in the knowledge of 
 politics, religion, and other moral subjects; forgetting that the 
 two classes of subjects are entirely unconnected; and that a 
 man may be a very good mechanic, yet a very bad politician or 
 
 The believers in “the march of intellect” commonly imagine 
 that the advancing wisdom of mankind will be shown in the 
 development of what is commonly called liberal policy. For 
 instance, free trade measures, they think, will certainly be adopted 
 more and more. They assume that restrictions in such matters 
 are obsolete, and free trade is an advance. They do not consider 
 it-to admit of a question whether freedom of trade is really an 
 advance and improvement or the reverse. It appears not to 
 occur to them that the removal of the regulations, which our 
 ancestors placed on commerce, may be possible a retrogression 
 towards barbarism, instead of an advance in civilization. Cer¬ 
 tainly the nearer nations are to the savage state, the less arc 
 they troubled with restrictions on commerce, the more unfet¬ 
 tered is their trade. I do not, however, wish to express an 
 opinion on this subject. Jly object is simply to give an instance 
 of the hold manner in which the advance of certain principles is 
 set down as a matter not to be questioned; when a previous 
 question might be raised as to whether the movement were 
 not in truth a retrogression rather than an advance. 
 
 To dwell for a moment on more serious matters. A great num¬ 
 ber even of intelligent people speak with apparent approval of the 
 advance of religious liberty; meaning thereby the multiplication 
 of sects and schisms, as if some great improvement were being 
 made in the system of things. They do not stop to inquire 
 whether this very circumstance is not in reality a deterioration 
 
5 
 
 of all that is good and holy—a manifest departure from the 
 spirit of unity inculcated by the Divine Founder of our faith. 
 
 Thus m various departments do men fancy that there is a 
 current of events, whether for good or evil, which will certainly 
 flow on. There is a sort of destinj’, they think, in human 
 affairs, which must run its course; and whether it be an advance 
 or a decline, is equally inevitable. 
 
 Now if this were a mere opinion it would be of small impor¬ 
 tance : men might hold it or not as they thought proper. But 
 it is one of those opinions that have great practical efficacy. As 
 prophecy will often work its own fulfilment, so a strong opinion 
 or expectation of what is about to happen, contributes not a lit¬ 
 tle to the result expected. It operates not only on the minds 
 but on the conduct of most men. Some it encourages, others it 
 paralyses. "When a man is firmly impressed with a conviction 
 that what he hopes and longs for is about to come to pass, he 
 throws himself in' r the stream of events with an abandonment, 
 and sometimes even fanaticism, which makes him do the work 
 of a hundred, surrounds him with adherents and instruments, 
 into whom he infuses his own devotedness, and so a great step 
 is made towards the accomplishment of the object in view. 
 Thus the republicans of Paris have been working with a marvel¬ 
 lous perseverance and faith, until they have accomplished a revo¬ 
 lution. Though comparatively few in numbers, their fanaticism 
 and confidence in their cause have overborne the wishes of the 
 large majority of the nation. It is a great stroke of policy in 
 such persons to create an opinion that what they strive for 
 will surely be effected. The presentiment of coming events 
 is apt to paralyse the good, and indispose them to use exertions 
 for the prevention of what they have been persuaded to think 
 inevitable. And so it comes to pass, that what men consider an 
 inevitable destiny, whether it be in the shape of a revolution or 
 social change, or whether it be merely the advance of a certain 
 policy, is in reality worked out by the enthusiasm and confidence 
 of one party, brought to bear upon the cowardice and faint¬ 
 heartedness of the other. 
 
 IVhat I propose to do in the present paper, is to show from 
 an induction of historical facts, that there is no destiny or cer¬ 
 tain progress in human events; but rather that they are subject 
 to a law of oscillation, that is to say, they move backwards and 
 forwards like the pendulum of a clock, or like the tide of the sea; 
 sometimes one set of opinions is in the ascendant and sometimes 
 the opposite: and that the course which events take in any par¬ 
 ticular age or generation, depends, under Providence, on the 
 exertions of the then existing race of men. 
 
 Now first in respect to liberalism or the reverse, which is the 
 
6 
 
 advance and which the retrogression ? Does history teach us 
 that the tendency of nations is towards monarchy or republican¬ 
 ism ? Looking first at ancient history, we find that large por¬ 
 tions of the earth have for thousands of years been governed by 
 monarchs more or less absolute. The only nations which iu 
 times past stood pre-eminently forward as republics were Greece 
 and Home. Now had the theory been true which supposes that 
 democratic opinions are always on the advance, would not those 
 republics have continued to a’dvance, or at least have maintained 
 their advanced position ? But no, we find that after a short 
 experience of democracy, these states relapsed into monarchical 
 rule. The states of Greece, after countless revolutions and ages 
 of turmoil, succumbed to a foreign yoke. Rome fell into inter¬ 
 nal anarchy, and the effusion of blood was stopped only by a 
 military despotism. Certainly the examples which ancient his¬ 
 tory affords us, furnish no great proofs of either the permanence 
 or advantage of democracy. They rather teach us that demo¬ 
 cracy contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. 
 
 Our own country presents a striking illustration of the prin¬ 
 ciple of oscillation. The absolute power of the Tudors and 
 Stuarts stirred up the opposition of the Puritans, aud ended 
 in the destruction of the monarchy under Charles I. The licence 
 of the Puritans succumbed in its turn to the military tyranny of 
 Cromwell. Then came the reaction of the Restoration, when 
 kingly power was again in the ascendant, again to be abated by 
 the Revolution of 1C8S. We are now under a constitutional 
 monarchy, and long may we remain so. This form of govern¬ 
 ment secures on the whole the greatest amount of good with the 
 least evil. It has in it also the largest element of permanency, 
 for though opinion still vibrates, its oscillations are confined 
 within the narrowest limits; and instead of bringing about vio¬ 
 lent periodical revolutions, show themselves more innocently in 
 the alternate party triumphs of Whigs and Tories. 
 
 France in its recent history exhibits a similar oscillation of the 
 pendulum. The arbitrary power and regal pomp of Louis XIV. 
 and his successor, came to its crisis in the reign of the amiable 
 Louis XVI., when the pent up disaffection of generations burst 
 forth in the eruption of 1789. The reign of Terror, which was 
 the climax of the Revolution, prepared men again for the abso¬ 
 lute power of Napoleon, and for the restoration of legitimacy. 
 Legitimacy again proving a burden to the fickle nation, was 
 replaced by the constitution of lS.'H). That again having gra¬ 
 dually changed its character to more absolute power, was again 
 subverted in 1848 : and now by a fresh turn of the pendulum, 
 Cavaignac and Algerine law are in the ascendant.* 
 
7 
 
 From all this it will he manifest that the notion of the course 
 of events advancing in a regular and uniform order; the idea 
 of human society marching omvard with a fixed destiny towards 
 republicanism, is a theory altogether unsupported by facts. On 
 the contrary, history presents to us a continual succession of 
 oscillations, or backwards and forwards movements. Sometimes 
 
 the theory of oscillation is quite in accordance with the philoso¬ 
 phy of human nature. Those indeed who believe in “ the march 
 of intellect,” in the sense that the human mind is advancing in 
 moral as well as physical science, may consistently hold the doc¬ 
 trine that as the world grows older, men will be more able to 
 govern themselves, and need less of external authority. But 
 the moral or political advancement of the human mind is a theory 
 entirely unsupported by facts. On the contrary, the most ad¬ 
 vanced republicans of Paris are in conduct mere savages, in 
 politics madmen, more fit for strait waistcoats than self-govern¬ 
 ment; and exhibiting no signs whatever that they are ever 
 likely to establish even social order, except under the stern gui¬ 
 dance of authority. The notion of advancement therefore 
 entirely fails both in theory and practice. Change, not advance, 
 is the principle of human affairs; and that such must needs be 
 the case is evident, when we consider their inherent faultiness. 
 The truth appears to be this. In all worldly arrangements there 
 is inherent evil. Han’s nature being itself evil, all his plans and 
 schemes partake of that evil. He is ever endeavouring to escape 
 from it, but cannot. "’There is evil in monarchy. Monarchs are 
 fallible men, and the best cannot always act rightly. Subjects 
 suffer, as they suppose, under control and interference. They 
 see mischiefs and inconveniences which they fancy they could 
 remove if they had power and liberty. They do not consider 
 that to remove the evils under which they labour, might he only 
 to subject themselves to greater. 1 hey long for the removal of 
 present evils, and hope everything from a change. Hence under 
 monarchies which are at all despotic, there is a natural desire 
 and consequent tendency to free institutions. And sometimes 
 such institutions work themselves out gradually, and sometimes 
 they are the effect of a violent revolution. Then comes a reac¬ 
 tion, for free institutions arc equally or even more tainted with 
 the imperfections of man. Men are found unfit for the liberty 
 which they have gained; unable to govern themselves. Confu¬ 
 sion and disorder spring up. Then comes the desire for repose 
 under the shelter of authority. And when this is attained, libe¬ 
 ral opinions begin to work, and the same course is played over 
 again. The fact is that man and everything connected with 
 him is incapable of perfection, and equally incapable of rest. 
 
9 
 
 have retained his crown and head. The first French revolution, 
 like most other similar events, was the result of a series of 
 blunders on both sides. It is true that when passions are ex¬ 
 cited, and the loyalty of a nation corrupted, great evils must be 
 expected to fall on a country. Still the intensity of those evils 
 —the direction which they take, and the final result, depend, 
 under Providence, on the agency and instrumentality of man. 
 There is, perhaps, no period at which a bloody revolution may 
 
 not be averted by skill, and prudence, and courage. It is scarcely 
 too much to say, that, as the calmest state of society contains 
 within it the embers of mischief, which might be fanned quickly 
 into a flame, so the most turbulent and corrupt state may be kept 
 from convulsion for years and generations, and the seeds of evil 
 gradually removed by human vigour and foresight. Thus was 
 the overthrow and captivity of Judah suspended during the 
 reigns of the good Ilezekiah and Josiah. Who knows but that 
 revolution may have been averted from England by the honest 
 and patriotic character of George III. and his advisers, and that 
 the fate of the nation, at this moment, may depend, under Pro¬ 
 vidence, on the courage and prudence of our present rulers? 
 
 What we would particularly impress on the minds of our 
 readers, is this : that we ought never to be secure of continued 
 prosperity; never to despair of the safety of the country; never 
 suppose that safety or ruin is inevitable; never think that 
 we are drawn into the fatal iufluence of the cataract, and must 
 infallibly be precipitated over it. Both history and philosophy 
 teach us that there is no such uncontrollable destiny in human 
 affairs. The sky may look very gloomy; every moment we may 
 expect the bursting of a storm. But how often does the darkest 
 cloud pass away after a few heavy drops have fallen. So when 
 national ruin seems all but arrived, the gloom may gradually 
 subside, and the sun again shine forth. 
 
 There is, however, yet a deeper view of the question. We 
 must not forget that there is an Almighty Ruler at the head of 
 affairs. Whose will is the real arbiter of events. That will, how¬ 
 ever, is not irrespective of human conduct. In the record which 
 we have of Ilis dealings with one nation, which is in truth hut 
 an example of His mode of government of others, we have abun¬ 
 dant evidence that His favour or displeasure, and consequently 
 their happiness or misery, depended on their own conduct. Hear 
 the words of the great founder of the Jewish polity, with which, 
 before his departure, he addressed his people—“ It shall come to 
 pass, if thou slialt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord 
 thy God, to observe and to do all His Commandments which I 
 command thee this day, that the Lord thy God will set thee on 
 
10 
 
 high above all nations of the earth: and all these blessings shall 
 come upon thee and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto 
 the voice of the Lord thy God. Blessed shalt thou be in the 
 city, and blessed in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit of thy 
 body, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle, the 
 increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.. . . The Lord 
 shall cause thine enemies that rise up against thee to be smitten 
 before thy face. . . . The Lord shall establish thee an holy 
 people unto Himself, as He hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt 
 keep the Commandments of the Lord thy God, and walk in 
 His ways. . . . But it shall come to pass if thou wilt not 
 hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to 
 do all His Commandments, and His statutes, which I command 
 thee this day, that all these curses shall come upon thee, and 
 overtake thee. Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed 
 shalt thou be in the field. Cursed shall be thy basket and thy 
 store. Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of 
 thy land; the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. 
 
 . .* . The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation and re¬ 
 buke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until 
 thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly, because of the 
 wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken Me.”* 
 Then follows a dreadfill enumeration of the curses which should 
 overtake them if they persisted in their disobedience. The whole 
 history of the Jewish nation is an illustration of this prophetic 
 sentence; and we have no doubt that the rule of providential 
 government, which is here depicted and recorded, in reference to 
 one people, is the rule by which the Supreme Governor directs 
 the destinies of the world. Human conduct determines His fa¬ 
 vour or disfavour; human instrumentality wdrks out His decrees. 
 At the end of the last century, the French people rose against 
 their riders, overturned their government, and were in conse¬ 
 quence punished with many years of the most grievous suffering, 
 under a reign of terror so grievous and tyrannical, that no man 
 held his life by a day’s tenure. During the same period, the 
 English responded to the voice of their legitimate rulers, and 
 cherished a spirit of loyalty, which bore them comparatively un¬ 
 hurt through one of the most stormy periods of the world’s his- 
 
 The same good spirit, we may trust, is still in the ascendant 
 amongst us, and will again, under God’s good Providence, save 
 us. The difference of the character of the two nations has been 
 strongly marked on two recent occasions on which it has been 
 tested, and the result of the difference of conduct on those two 
 occasions is so manifest and striking, as not only to afford a 
 
confirmation of our theory, hut to furnish a most important 
 practical rule of conduct. On the 23rd of February last, the 
 French people were aware of a threatened insurrection. When 
 called on by authority to suppress it, instead of flocking to their 
 standard, the National Guard of Paris either suffered the popu¬ 
 lace to have their way, or actually joined them in their lawless 
 proceedings. The consequence has been that from that time to 
 the present they have been in constant peril from the spirit of 
 anarchy, which was then allowed to gain the ascendant. Their 
 property has been gradually destroyed, their persons have been 
 exposed to manifold perils. Peaceable citizens have been 
 obliged to leave their occupation and to keep watch and ward 
 for days and nights, and to engage in murderous conflicts with 
 an armed populace; and it is to be feared that their punishment 
 is very far from being yet completed. Never was there a more 
 striking judgment on disobedience and disloyalty. 
 
 Look now at the conduct of the English people on the 10th 
 of April. When similar disturbances were threatened in Lon¬ 
 don, instead of holding back from their duty or countenancing 
 the disturbers of the peace, the citizens of London though per¬ 
 fectly untrained to the use of arms, came forward and offered 
 their services without reserve; and by the mere exhibition of 
 their power, put down the anarchists. There cannot be a ques¬ 
 tion that had the mob gained the upper hand on that day, it 
 would have been the beginning of a series of troubles of which 
 no man could foresee the end. And make what deduction we 
 please on the score of personal interest, selfish fear of the loss of 
 property, and so forth, yet there is no doubt that the leading 
 feature in the movement of the citizens of London on the 10th 
 of April last, was a conscientious obedience to the law, a reso¬ 
 lution to do their duty; and now they are enjoying the reward 
 of their loyalty in comparative safety and security. 
 
 Such is the reward of loyalty for which, blessed be God, the 
 English people are stdl conspicuous. I do not say that they 
 have not many grievous faults, for which God’s judgments may 
 be expected. Their self-indulgence may be corrected by famine, 
 their careless living by the terrors of pestilence. Appropriate 
 chastisements are apportioned to particular sins. Yet it may be 
 safely said that so long as the English people maintain the spirit 
 of loyalty' and obedience to the law, and courage to defend the 
 right, they will be at least exempt from the scourge of revolution. 
 
 There is no destiny in human events, except that which a 
 nation shapes for itself. 
 
TRACTS FOR THE 
 
 PEOPLE. 
 
 BY SOSTHENES. 
 
 THE RED REPUBLICANS. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 JOSEPH MASTERS, ALDERSGATE STREET, 
 AND 78, NEW BOND STREET. 
 
 No. 8. Price Id. each, or 7s.per lOO/oi- distribution. 
 
THE RED REPUBLICANS. 
 
 Since the first bursting forth of the great political convulsion 
 of recent years,—the French Revolution of February last—which 
 has been productive of such wide-spread consequences through¬ 
 out Europe, and bids fair to give birth to others even more im¬ 
 portant,—we have thought it our duty to publish several papers 
 on the social state of both France and England, such as we 
 hoped might tend to place these momentous events before our 
 readers in their true light; and we have reason to believe that 
 they have not been without their use, in directing the minds 
 of many persons to sound and true principles. 
 
 During the progress of the last few months the aspect of 
 affairs has somewhat changed; or rather, the real principles from 
 which the recent disorders have arisen have become more clearly 
 developed. The form in which the revolution of February ap¬ 
 peared, was that of a rooted aversion to a particular dynasty-, 
 which generated in the middle and upper classes a disloyal spirit, 
 and a consequent backwardness to repress the insurrection of 
 the mob, as it was their duty to have done, and as they might 
 have done with ease at first. In our first number, we strongly 
 warned the middle classes of this country against a similar dere¬ 
 liction of duty. We pointed out that, if disorders arose in Eng¬ 
 land, the most frightful calamities would ensue, and that the 
 preservation of the country depended, under God’s good provi¬ 
 dence, on the determination of the middle and upper classes to 
 do their duty, in maintaining the public peace. We joined out¬ 
 voice to those who called on the “ respectable ” classes to stand 
 up manfully for the maintenance of law and order. The result 
 has been what we hoped. The peace has hitherto been preserved, 
 and we trust will continue unimpaired. 
 
 At the same time, we have always expressed our decided opi¬ 
 nion, that it is not enough to repress disorder by the strong arm 
 of the law; but that it is the duty, both of individuals and of 
 government, to do all in their power to remedy the evils which 
 really affect the poorer classes. The evils of which the poor 
 complain are partly real, partly imaginary. While we would 
 strenuously support such measures as may relieve the wants of 
 the people, and give them better food and clothing, and more 
 regular employment at fair wages,—while we recognize the jus¬ 
 tice of the claim of “a fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work,”— 
 we at the same time have done all in our power to refute and 
 discourage those visionary doctrines which are current in the 
 minds of many, respecting the necessity of great political and 
 
h, as, if placed in the hands of an honest and reasonable 
 j, cannot fail of convincing him of the folly of endeavouring 
 better his condition by any such means. In so doing, we 
 e treated the Socialist and Chartist as reasonable men, who 
 ere that the schemes which they uphold are really calculated 
 >enefit the country. We have argued with them as men who 
 ire to respect the rights of others, as well as to obtain what 
 y believe to be their own; and we have no doubt that there 
 many men amongst them of this description,—men who have 
 braced the tenets of Chartism and Socialism, from the honest 
 iviction that such plans, if brought to bear, will add to the 
 fare of their country, and remedy the evils under which it is 
 fering. Such persons, we trust, will read our arguments with 
 :dour, and give them that attention which we believe they de- 
 
 re ; and we would take this opportunity of requesting om 
 
territories, and have committed all sorts of atrocious villanies 
 and rapines. Our own Saxon, Danish, and Norman ancestors 
 are more or less liable to these charges. The conquest of a 
 country is seldom unaccompanied by the most fearful crimes. 
 Almost any army of men, if uncontrolled by authority, will com¬ 
 mit the most savage barbarities in a conquered country. Red 
 Republicanism, properly so called, is the springing up of this 
 rapacious spirit of indiscriminate plunder and violence in the 
 heart of a nation,—the aggression of one part of the community 
 upon the lives and property of their neighbours, without pity or 
 remorse. It is accompanied usually by some wild fanatical no¬ 
 tions of freedom and equality. Ferocious outbreaks of this de¬ 
 scription have taken place in various ages and countries. Wat 
 Tyler’s insurrection in the reign of Richard II. was of this cha¬ 
 racter. 
 
 “ A ragged multitude 
 
 Of hinds and peasants, rude and merciless,” 
 
 rose against the upper classes to plunder and massacre them. 
 The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Treasurer, and others 
 of high rank, fell victims to their rage. It was the intention of 
 the insurgents to massacre the king, the nobles, and all the edu¬ 
 cated classes, especially the lawyers, for whom they had a strong 
 aversion; to burn London to the ground, and divide the country 
 amongst them. In the same times occurred the Jacquerie, in 
 France, when the people in several provinces sacked and pillaged 
 the castles of the nobility, committing the most horrible out¬ 
 rages on the nobles and their families. Similar atrocities pre¬ 
 vailed in different parts of Europe. There was a sort of revolu¬ 
 tionary ferment; an attempt of the lower classes to mend then- 
 condition by the destruction and pillage of those above them. 
 The result of such attempts, if in any degree successful, is like 
 that of the irruption of a horde of barbarians—to utterly destroy 
 public security, render property and life unsafe, break up all do¬ 
 mestic happiness, and throw back civilization by many degrees. 
 
 The most flagrant instance of this spirit in modem times was 
 the French revolution of 1789, of which, in fact, recent events 
 are but the sequel. In 1/89, and the following three or four 
 years, the nobles and middle classes of France, by tbeir selfish¬ 
 ness and cowardice, allowed the mob to get the upper hand, and 
 to run riot through the land. Then was the carnival of Red 
 Republicanism; all the fiendish passions of human nature had 
 their full career. The amiable king and his family were dragged 
 in procession from Versailles to Paris, surrounded by the vilest 
 refuse of the Parisian populace, who carried the gory heads of 
 the king’s guards on poles before his carriage. All, of whatever 
 
7 
 
 sional government (for the government of Louis Philippe was in 
 reality nothing more). No sooner did it assume to itself any 
 real authority, than it again became the object of attack and 
 conspiracy, and was displaced in February last by the same in¬ 
 struments by which it had been first set up,—namely, a brutal 
 and ignorant mob, led on by the Red Republicans. But the 
 Red Republicans did not find the nation ripe for the re-establish¬ 
 ment of a reign of terror. They acquired, however, what was to 
 them of vast importance, the free liberty of preaching their doc¬ 
 trines, and of possessing arms. The clubs established in Fe¬ 
 bruary last were used, like the Jacobin clubs of the end of the last 
 century, as the means of lashing the people into madness, and 
 spreading amongst them the most blood-thirsty principles and 
 atrocious designs., In a very short time, multitudes of demo¬ 
 ralized ruffians were worked up into such a pitch of murderous 
 excitement, as to desire nothing less than to pillage Paris, and 
 massacre all the possessors of property. It was this fiendish 
 fury which burst out on the 27th of June. A great part of the 
 city of Paris was seized by the Red Republicans, and the most 
 extensive preparations made to obtain possession of the govern¬ 
 ment. The fanatics fought with a courage worthy of a better 
 cause. Had they eventually succeeded. Pans and France, in¬ 
 deed all Europe, would have become a pandemonium : pillage, 
 massacre, and civil war, would have overspread the land. But 
 by this time the nation knew the danger with which they had to 
 contend : the upper and middle classes fought manfully for their 
 lives and property, and to save their families from ruin and de¬ 
 gradation. After a four days’ conflict the most cruel and un¬ 
 manly, because it was fought in the midst of a dense population, 
 multitudes of whom were defenceless against its horrors,—at last, 
 when hundreds and thousands of lives had been sacrificed, the 
 government finally prevailed over the Red Republicans, and threw 
 about twelve thousand of them into prison; thence to be brought 
 to trial for the mischief they have done. It was a great triumph 
 to the cause of order: the serpent is scotched, though, it is to 
 be feared, not destroyed; the fiendish spirit is so ingrained in 
 the minds of a large portion of the people, and those who are 
 not infected by it are so fickle, vacillating, and infirm of purpose, 
 that it is impossible to say how soon another struggle may ensue. 
 
 The truth is that the nation is suffering Divine vengeance for 
 then- sin of rebellion; and no sin so surely brings its own punish¬ 
 ment with it as rebellion. Whether their punishment shall he 
 shortened or not, depends probably on the use which they make 
 of the respite afforded them. 
 
 Such is the lesson afforded to us by the passing history of ill- 
 fated France. We must not consider it inapplicable to our- 
 
9 
 
 ministers of the crown at a cabinet dinner; and of the other 
 to seize the Tower of London, and arm the mob from its arse¬ 
 nals. Neither of these conspiracies, had as they were, can be 
 considered as more atrocious and alarming than the conspiracy 
 detected amongst the Chartists within the last few weeks. 
 The object of the conspirators was no less than to set fire to 
 Liverpool, Manchester, and London, and spread rebellion and 
 pillage through the land. The whole thing was so summarily 
 suppressed by the police, and produced so little excitement 
 that we scarcely give it the attention it deserves. It is almost 
 unfortunate that the affair did not make more noise. Even the 
 facts are scarcely known. But they ought to be known, and 
 thought of. It appears that the conspiracy, and the time of 
 its breaking out, had been communicated to the police, who, at 
 a fixed time, repaired to the resorts of the conspirators in such 
 force as to arrest them without difficulty. Eleven men were 
 found in deliberation, and arrested at the Orange Tree public- 
 house, near Holborn. Twelve others were seized at the Angel 
 public-house, Blackfriars-road. Another gang was taken at 
 Blue Anchor-yard, Westminster. These different gangs, in 
 concert with each other, were armed with pikes, tluee-edged 
 daggers, and swords, and provided with fire arms, hall cartridge, 
 hand grenades, tow, turpentine, and other combustibles. Some 
 had provided themselves with breastplates and cuirasses. In 
 short, there is no doubt that there existed a conspiracy of des¬ 
 perate fanatics, whose design was, on that very night, to have 
 issued forth, and under the pretext of making a procession, to 
 have got together a mob of people, assassinated the police, and 
 plundered and set fire to various parts of the metropolis. If 
 their project failed, they expected to have been able to escape 
 in the confusion. If it succeeded, London might have been 
 the scene of a three days’ conflict, and though we may not 
 fear that the insurrection would not have been eventually put 
 down, yet the mischief done mightliave been enormous,—greater, 
 probably, than that which took place at the Lord George Gor¬ 
 don riots in the last century. The same scenes were to have 
 been enacted at Manchester and Liverpool, and other populous 
 places. At Liverpool, the shipping was to have been fired. At 
 Ashton, a gang of conspirators actually issued from their dens 
 into the street, and seized and murdered a policeman, before the 
 authorities were prepared to disperse them. 
 
 These facts ought, we say, to be more considered than they 
 are. They prove, at least, that Red Republicanism exists in 
 England under the assumed name of Chartism. We should be 
 sorry to include all Chartists, or nearly all, under the name of 
 Red Republicans. A great many of the Chartists, no doubt, are 
 honest men, who have been led to believe that they are un- 
 
11 
 
 people. And as the government of this country is virtually 
 based on the constituencies, it becomes the duty of every mem¬ 
 ber of those constituencies—that is, all the influential, educated, 
 and respectable people in the land—to consider themselves, in a 
 great degree, responsible for the acts of the government, and 
 for the way in which the lower classes are dealt with. We 
 must never let the government rest until they have provided 
 for the temporal and spiritual wants of the people. Employ¬ 
 ment and instruction, these are the great desiderata. If the 
 people could obtain them for themselves, or if benevolent indi¬ 
 viduals would do it for them, then there would be no need for 
 government to interfere. But now, since this is not the case, 
 since want and ignorance abound everywhere, it is not safe for 
 any of us to sit with our arms folded. The Red Republicans 
 will surely one day be upon us, if we suffer our lower orders to 
 be uninstructed and unemployed. If charity does not move us 
 to exert ourselves to improve the condition of the people, we 
 must be constrained by fear. What good Christians do from 
 the holy principle of love, worldly men must be forced to do 
 under the penalty of certain ruin. Nay, even good men need a 
 little of this wholesome excitement. Good men are too apt to 
 let things take their course. Good men, while they mourn for 
 the sinfulness that abounds, do not perhaps realize how much 
 the demoralization of the people depends on the neglect of those 
 who ought to do more for them. We are accustomed to think 
 that the poor especially in our great cities are demoralized, and 
 the middle and upper classes are comparatively sound. We do 
 not sufficiently consider that the demoralization of the poor 
 implies a corresponding demoralization of the rich. It is a 
 proof of intense selfishness, carelessness, and ungodliness, that 
 in a country so abounding in wealth as England, the lower 
 classes are not far better looked after, both as regards their 
 temporal and spiritual condition. The fearful condition of 
 foreign nations, and the turbulent state of our own, ought 
 therefore to be taken as warnings, to all who have influence or 
 means, that they must bestir themselves for the improvement of 
 the people amongst whom God has placed their lot. 
 
 What we desire to see are not only pecuniary efforts—though 
 these are essential—but also personal exertions, and a kindly 
 interest for the welfare of the people. We admit that there are 
 many bright examples. There is a vast amount of good done 
 in a quiet unostentatious manner, and God will reward those 
 who do it. Still when we consider the enormous means of the 
 country, the wealth, the talent, the leisure, the various advan¬ 
 tages of the higher classes, and when we contrast with them the 
 misery, the ignorance, and demoralization of so many of the 
 
12 
 
 lower, we feel that no further proof is needed that infinitely 
 more might be done than is done, and that until the country, 
 both government and individuals, is roused to a sense of the 
 necessity of ten times greater exertions than any that have been 
 made hitherto, the nation cannot be considered from week to 
 week in a secure condition. 
 
 We feel that in thus strongly urging upon the rich, the edu¬ 
 cated, and influential, the need of exertion on their part, we 
 may appear to speak as if the blame rested solely on them, and 
 as if we thought that the poor were not equally responsible. 
 But we desire to make no such comparison. On the contrary, 
 we maintain that all classes alike need amendment. If the rich 
 are self-indulgent, so also are the poor, in at least an equal 
 degree. Who can see the beer-shops and gin-palaces which 
 overspread both town and country; who can witness or read 
 the accounts of the scenes which are continually taking place 
 in those dens of iniquity; who can glance at the narratives of the 
 criminal cases that are brought before our magistrates and our 
 judges, without being convinced that the vice and ungodliness 
 of the lower classes has arrived at a pitch, such as England, 
 perhaps, has never before witnessed ? But it is superfluous to 
 enlarge on this painful subject. Our sole object in adverting to 
 it is to show that, while we have to thank God for hitherto 
 preserving us from revolution, we have no right to count on 
 exemption from its horrors, unless we bestir ourselves diligently 
 to remedy the enormous evils which exist. We may boast of 
 the best constitution in the world, of the purest Church, of the 
 noblest aristocracy, the most enlightened gentry, the most res¬ 
 pectable middle classes, and even of the most industrious work¬ 
 men; we may survey with pride the spectacle which has been 
 so recently witnessed, of our beloved Queen, whose personal 
 character we so highly and justly respect, congratulating our 
 nobles and our representatives on the suppression of outrage, 
 the attachment of the nation to its laws, and on the proud place 
 which England occupies as arbitress amongst the nations of the 
 earth. Still with such horrible depravity existing in our streets; 
 while the plague-spot of unchecked demoralization still rankles 
 in the heart of our great and wealthy cities—yes, and we fear 
 in our rural districts also—we have no right to hope that we 
 shall for ever continue exempt from the scourge of revolution, 
 which is but one form of punishment which an offended God, 
 sooner or later, inflicts on a nation which disregards His laws.