SCOTLAND. -A social meeting" of the members and friends of
the Edinburgh Complete Suffrage Union was held on Thursday week, in honour of Mr. Sharman Crawford, and the other Members of Parliament who supported Iris motion for Complete Suffrage in the last session. Mr. John Dunlop, of Brockloch, President of the Association, was in the chair ; and on either side sat Mr. Sharman Crawford, Mr. Joseph Sturge, Mr. ColEns, Mr. Vincent, Mr. Biggs of Nottingham, Provost Henderson and the Reverend Mr. Brewster of Paisley, Mr. Reid and Mr. Pattison of Glasgow, Mr. Tait, Mr. Aytoun, and many other gentlemen of Edinburgh. The room was filled, and a number of ladies were present. The most interesting of the speeches appears to have been Mr. Crawford's. He stated the general objects of the Association— "We want to do away with class-voters, with class-legislators, and with Class-legislation. These are the great evils which the people of this country suffer—these are the evils we desire to remove. The theory of our conatitation is, that the Three Estates, in which the powers of the constitution are vested, should work for the common good of the whole ; and that in order to this, each estate should counteract the evil that is in the other. This is the theory of the constitution ; but when you come to the practice, where is it? The constitution ought to consist of three estates—the Crown, the Lords, and the People. Where is the estate of the People ? Where is the house where the name of the People may be heard ? Is the House of Commons a fair representation of the People ? Well, then, what has become of the constitution now? The landed and the monied aristocracy have swamped the other orders. The People's voice cannot be heard; and the constitution of the country has degenerated into an oligarchical power, which has swamped the power of the Crown and of the People. Our object is to restore the practice of the constitution to its theory. We desire the stability of the Throne by making the Throne conduelTe to the public good. We desire the stability of the Aristocracy, by preventing them from conducting themselves to the injury of the People. Neither of these order!: can be secure unless their interests can be made consistent with the great interests of the people. What is necessary for this purpose, and that which we demand, is a universality of representation * • I meat, that every class should he duly and fairly represented in the House of Commons."
The Tory party, he said, declared themselves hostile to giving the People power ; but the other party opposed to the Complete Suffragists, the Whigs, did them far more injury than their declared enemies
" One class of the Liberal party has set their faces decidedly against any real extension of the suffrages of the people • and their opposition has been par ticularly injurious, because they have hitherto been reckoned among the sup porters of liberty, and yet they now turn round and say that the people are not to be trusted. One of the leading persons in Parliament, who has ex hibited an avowed and open hostility to the extension of the franchise, is, I
regret to say, the right honourable member for this city. [Mr. Crawford here read extracts from Mr. Macaulay's speech in the last session, on the extension of the suffrage ; the substance of which was, that if universal suffrage were granted, property would no longer be secure.] 1 heard these expressions of the right honourable gentleman certainly with deep regret and with deep pain. It certainly pained me to think a man who was raised to offices of honour and of profit on the shoulders of the people, and who had at one time been rather the idol of the people, should thus express himself with regard to the people. He was under apprehension that if the extension of the suffrage were brought into operation property would not be secure, and he sustained his opinion by some rather minute criticism of the Chartist petition. I admit that I thought that petition was injudicious. There were sentiments expressed in it which might be of a doubtful character, but which I am sure were never intended to be understood in the sense they were taken by that gentleman. I ask hint not to condemn the people for the words of a day, but to look to the conduct of the people, and try by that means to discover whether there is any ground for asserting that the people of Great Britain are hostile to the rights of property. He says he would desire to see a military despotism raised to preserve property if the suffrage were granted to the people. Would a military despotism preserve property ? Could all the standing armies they might collect preserve it, if the manes of the people were hostile to it ? I would ask him to look to the sufferings of the people during the past year, and see how they behaved. Have they attacked property—have they injured property, under the aggravated sufferings, when they were tempted to violate their respect for property ? [Cries of No, no! "] Is it fair—is it just—for any man to stand up in the House of Commons—especially a man who professes to support the rights and liberties of the people—and say, that if the people had their due share in the representation of the country, that would be destructive of the rights of property."
Mr. Crawford urged the necessity of obtaining the desired objects by moral and not by physical force. And Mr. &urge enlarged on the same
topic; mentioning Lord John Russell as an example to be avoided., "Two or three years ago, Sir Robert Peel charged Lord John Russell with arming one portion of the population against another; and so he did, I believe, offer arms to those of the middle classes that would have them."
A public meeting was held on Friday night, in Dr. Ritchie's church, in order to give another opportunity to those interested in the Union of
hearing its advocates. The meeting was addressed by Mr. Sturge, Mr. Sharman Crawford, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Collins, Mr. Somers of Dumfries, Dr. Ritchie, and others. The church was crowded.
Mr. Sharman Crawford and Mr. Sturge attended a public meeting in Glasgow Trades Hall, on Monday, and had an amicable conference with the Chartists of the city. In the evening there was a banquet in the City Hall, at which addresses were presented from the local Complete Suffrage Association to the two chief guests. Several Dissenting ministers and Town-Councillors were among the company.
Previous page
