friend Cobbett's motion, and, in my address to the delegates, I
combatted and successfully controverted the _doctrine of exclusion_
which had been so forcibly urged by the chairman, and so ingeniously
supported by Mr. Cobbett. I modestly and with great deference called to
their recollection the language, the irresistible arguments, in favour
of Universal Suffrage, which, in his Register, Mr. Cobbett himself
had published, within one short fortnight of the time in which I was
addressing them. Almost every sentence that I uttered in favour of
Universal Suffrage was hailed by the enthusiastic cheers of the great
body of the delegates. Mr. Cobbett rose to order, and protested in
strong language against my quoting his own words, or any thing he had
previously published, in order to controvert his present proposition.
I therefore forbore to do so again; not from any conviction of its
impropriety or unfairness, but because I wished to conciliate, and
because I was quite clear that my amendment would be carried. I
concluded by asserting the right of every freeman to be represented in
the Commons' House of Parliament, which could only be done by Universal
Suffrage; and on this ground I moved that the word _universal_ should be
substituted for _householder_.
Mr. Hulme seconded the motion, and Mr. Bamford was about to support him,
by refuting Mr. Cobbett's arguments with respect to Universal Suffrage
being impracticable; but before he had concluded his sentence, Mr.
Cobbett rose and said, that what Mr. Bamford had stated had convinced
him of the practicability of Universal Suffrage, and consequently he
should withdraw his motion, and support Mr. Hunt's amendment. The fact
was, that Cobbett plainly saw that his motion would be lost by a
large majority, and he had the policy not to press it to a division. I,
however, insisted upon having the question put, and it was carried
in favour of Universal Suffrage by a majority of twenty to one. The
question of Annual Parliaments was also carried unanimously. Mr.
Mitchell then moved, that votes should be taken by ballot; this was
opposed also by Mr. Cobbett and others, but on a division it was carried
by a majority of more than two to one. When I held my hand up for it,
Mr. Cobbett turned to me and said very earnestly, "What! do you support
the ballot too?" I answered "Yes, most certainly, to its fullest
extent."
These points being decided, and some minor resolutions being passed,
the meeting was adjourned; but, as I afterwards found, only to assemble
again the next day, where the Major was at his post in the chair,
passing various resolutions, which of course I expected would be finally
settled that evening. We were, however, surprised to find that the
meeting was adjourned to the King's Arms, Palace Yard, opposite
Westminster Hall, where it was expected they (the delegates) would
assemble from day to day till the Parliament met. This was thought
by Mr. Cobbett, as well as by myself, to be not only a useless but a
dangerous proceeding; useless, because the main question upon which the
delegates met was settled; and dangerous, because it would be taken
advantage of by the Government, which would construe such meetings,
so continued, into an attempt to overawe the Parliament. Mr. Cobbett
declared he would not go near them again; in fact, he had not attended
the second day; and he added, that they would all be apprehended, for
holding their meetings for an illegal purpose. He and I and Mr.
Hulme all agreed, therefore, that as we had arranged those points to
deliberate upon which we had been assembled, it was very desirable to
dissolve the meeting, but to stir a single step to accomplish this end,
Mr. Cobbett positively refused. Mr. Hulme and myself, however, attended,
and after the Major had got some of his resolutions passed, I moved that
the meeting should be dissolved, and urged my reasons for the measure.
Mr. Hulme seconded my motion, and a warm debate ensued, which was
maintained with great spirit on both sides, for the dissolution was
strongly opposed. However, when the question was put, my motion
was carried by a very considerable majority, and the far-famed
delegate-meeting was dissolved. It is a curious fact that Mr. Cobbett
never noticed these proceedings in his Register.
In the evenings of these meetings, many of the delegates assembled
at the Cock, in Grafton-street, by invitation, to meet Dr. Watson,
Pendrill, and others of the Spenceans. It appears that they were taken
there by ONE CLEARY, an Irishman, who had been an attorney's clerk in
Dublin, and who had contrived to be employed as the secretary of the
Hampden Club, and who, as private secretary of Major Cartwright,
attended the delegate meetings. These private meetings, at the Cock in
Grafton-street, took place unknown to me, and were afterwards made a
pretence for suspending the Habeas Corpus Act; and, strange to relate,
warrants were issued out, by the Secretary of State, against every one
of the persons who attended those meetings, _except_ the said _Cleary_.
The delegates, as we have already seen, were in town; they had brought
up with them petitions, signed by half a million of men, and they were
anxious to place them in the hands of some Member of Parliament, who
would present them and support the prayer of their petitions. But such
a man was not easily to be found. Sir Francis Burdett had promised the
Major to come to town in time to present these petitions, or at least
some of them, as soon as Parliament met; but when he found that the
delegates who had been assembled in his name had declared for Universal
Suffrage, and that the petitions in London likewise mostly prayed for
Reform upon the principle of Universal Suffrage, he declared that he
would not support the prayer of them, neither had he arrived in town on
the day previous to the meeting of Parliament.
On the failure of Sir Francis to come forward, Lord Cochrane had been
applied to by the Major and Mr. Cobbett, to present these petitions;
but he had declined to act in opposition to his colleague, Sir Francis
Burdett; every effort had been tried to induce him to do so, but they
had been tried in vain. At length I hit upon a plan, which I proposed
to Mr. Cobbett. It was this--that on the day when the Parliament met,
I would collect ten or twenty thousand people in the front of Lord
Cochrane's house, which was in Old Palace Yard, and thus cut off his
Lordship's access to the House, unless he would take in some of the
petitions. I shall never forget Cobbett's look. "What!" said he, "would
you besiege the man in his own house?" I answered, that desperate cases
required desperate remedies. "Aye! aye!" said he, "that is very pretty
talking, it is like belling the cat. Suppose such a thing likely to
succeed with his Lordship, how the devil would you contrive to collect
such a number of people there, without his knowing it, so as to avoid
them, if he pleased?" I replied, "leave that to me. If you will go to
his Lordship's house about one o'clock, and detain him at home, by
endeavouring to persuade him to present the petitions, I will undertake
to bring ten thousand people to the front of his house by two
o'clock,"--the House of Commons being to assemble at three. In fact,
there appeared no other alternative; for on the next day the Parliament
was to meet, and we had not yet one single Member of Parliament who
would present our petitions, all being unwilling, because they prayed
for _Universal Suffrage_. After making a hundred excuses, Lord Cochrane
had absolutely refused to present them; at least he refused to
support the prayer of the petitioners. There being no other chance of
accomplishing our purpose, Mr. Cobbett at length adopted my plan, and
agreed to make the attempt as a sort of forlorn hope, and accordingly he
promised to be at his Lordship's house at the time appointed.
I knew that great numbers of people would be collected, in and about
Parliament-street, at that time, to see the Prince Regent go down to
the House, to open the Session of Parliament. I therefore made
an arrangement with all the delegates in town, to meet me at the
Golden-Cross, Charing-Cross, a quarter before two o'clock, and requested
that each man would bring with him his rolls of parchment, containing
the petitions. This they all complied with, and met me at the time
appointed, in number about twenty; it might be more or less. I informed
them that I wished them to march, two and two, down Parliament-street,
into Palace-yard, to the door of Lord Cochrane's house, who I had reason
to hope would present their petitions, and I begged them to follow me.
I then requested my friend Cossens to unroll a few yards of the Bristol
petition, which I took in my hand, and proceeded down Parliament-street,
at the head of the delegates. The people stared at such an exhibition;
and I announced that the delegates were going down to Palace-yard, to
get Lord Cochrane to present their petitions. This information was
received with huzzas, and the people ran forward to communicate the
intelligence to others, so that before we had got opposite the Horse
Guards, we were attended by several thousand people, cheering us as they
went along. When we arrived at the front of Lord Cochrane's house, there
was the largest assembly that I ever saw in Palace-yard, all believing
that his Lordship had undertaken to present our petitions.
I knocked at the door, and gained immediate access to his Lordship, with
whom, as I expected, I found Mr. Cobbett. He asked what was the matter?
I told him that the people had accompanied the delegates, to request
his Lordship to present their petitions; to which he replied, "that Mr.
Cobbett had been using every argument in his power to prevail upon him
to do it, but he could not take such a step without consulting his
colleague, Sir Francis Burdett." A great deal was now urged by us to
induce him to comply, in which we were most heartily joined by his lady,
but all was to little purpose. At length, I led him to the window, and
requested him to address twenty thousand of his fellow-countrymen, and
tell them himself that he refused to present their petitions; for that I
certainly would never inform them of any such thing. Our appearance at
the window drew forth some tremendous cheers. "There," said I, "my Lord,
refuse their request, if you please; but if you do, I am sure that you
will regret it as long as you live. Besides," added I, "I deny the
possibility of your getting from your house, without your previously
consenting to present their petitions." At length we carried our point,
and his Lordship agreed that he would take in the Bristol petition,
which was the largest, the roll of parchment being neatly the size of a
sack of wheat, and containing twenty-five thousand signatures. It was
rolled upon a _bundle of sticks_, tightly bound together, as an emblem
of the strength of an united people. His Lordship also now agreed to
move an amendment to the address, which had been previously drawn up,
in hopes that he might be prevailed on to do so. The moment that his
Lordship yielded to our entreaties, I flew down stairs to the door, and
announced the intelligence to the assembled multitude, who received it
with loud and long continued acclamations, which made Old Palace-yard
and Westminster-Hall ring again. I then proposed that the delegates
should carry his Lordship in a chair, from his house to the door of
Westminster-Hall, if the people would make a passage to allow him to
proceed thither in that way. This suggestion was instantly adopted; an
arm chair was provided and placed at the door, in which his Lordship was
seated, with the Bristol petition and the bundle of sticks rolled up in
it. In this manner he was carried by the delegates across Palace-yard,
myself leading the way; and he was set down at the door of the House,
amidst the deafening cheers of the people, who, at my request,
immediately dispersed in peace and quietness to their homes.
As the Prince Regent returned from opening the Session of Parliament,
some gravel or a potatoe was thrown at his carriage, the window of which
was cracked. This the _Courier_ and the venal press made a great noise
about the next day; and Lord James Murray, who was in the carriage with
the Prince Regent, attended in his seat in the House of Commons, in the
evening, and stated that the Prince Regent had been fired at, on his way
from the House; and the ball had passed through the window of his
coach. This caused a great sensation in the House, and the outrage was
attributed to the Reformers, not one of whom do I believe was present;
at any rate not one of the delegates was there. This greatly assisted
the Ministers to carry their intended measures through both Houses; that
of suspending the Habeas-Corpus Act, and that of passing the Seditious
Meetings Bill.
Lord Cochrane presented the Bristol petition, and moved the following
amendment to the address, which, as a vindication of the conduct of the
Reformers, I will here record.
"That this House has taken a view of the public proceedings
throughout the country, by those persons who
have met to petition for a Reform of this House, and that,
in justice to those persons, as well as to the people at
large, and for the purpose of convincing the people that
this House wishes to entertain and encourage no misrepresentation
of their honest intentions, this House, with
great humility, beg leave to assure his Royal Highness,
that they have not been able to discover one single instance,
in which meetings to petition for Parliamentary
Reform have been accompanied with any attempt to disturb
the public tranquillity; and this House further beg
leave to assure his Royal Highness, that in order to prevent
the necessity of those rigorous measures, which are
contemplated in the latter part of the speech of his Royal
Highness, this House will take into their early consideration
the propriety of abolishing sinecures and unmerited
pensions and grants, the reduction of the civil list, and of all
salaries which are now disproportionate to the services,
and especially, that they will take into their consideration
the Reform of this House, agreeably to the laws and
constitution of the land, this House being decidedly of
opinion that justice and humanity, as well as policy, call
at this time of universal distress, for measures of conciliation,
and not of rigour, towards a people who have made
so many and such great sacrifices, and who are now suffering,
in consequence of those sacrifices, all the calamities
with which a nation can be afflicted."
It is a melancholy subject for reflection, that there was not ONE man to
be found in the House that would even SECOND this amendment, which was
neither more nor less than a true account of the proceedings of the
Reformers throughout the country; and in consequence of this, the motion
fell to the ground without a division. Lord Cochrane continued night
after night to present these petitions, brought up by the delegates; and
the most remarkable event of these times was, that the very night that
Lord Cochrane presented the petition from Bath, which especially pointed
out the enormous sums annually received by their Recorder, Lord Camden,
and which prayed for the abolition of his enormous sinecures; that very
night a message was brought down to the House, and it was announced
by one of the Ministers _that Lord Camden had actually resigned his
enormous sinecure of Teller of the Exchequer_, which did not amount to
less than thirty-five thousand pounds a year. No one will doubt that
this act of his Lordship was occasioned solely by the resolutions and
the petition passed at the Bath meeting. He well knew that Lord Cochrane
had presented the Bristol petition, and had stated in the House that he
had several other petitions to present; and amongst the number that
from Bath, signed by upwards of twenty thousand persons. To prevent,
therefore, the discussion which was likely to arise from the
presentation of this petition, he anticipated the prayer of it, by
resigning his sinecure of Teller of the Exchequer. How often have we
been asked by the tools of corruption, what good was there in holding
public meetings! We have been everlastingly told that these great public
meetings, and the violent petitions passed at them, did a great deal of
harm, but that they never produced any good. What these knaves mean by
this is, that the House of Commons never attended to the prayers
and petitions of the people, and that therefore it was of no use to
persevere in petitioning. This, as far as it goes, is very true; the
House of Commons never did attend to the petitions of the people for
Reform; but yet I boldly answer, that petitioning _has_ done some good;
that the petition of the first Spafields meeting obtained _four thousand
pounds_ from the droits of the Admiralty, for the suffering poor of
Spital-fields and the metropolis. This was some good. Again, I say, that
the petition and the resolutions passed at the Bath meeting, caused Lord
Camden to surrender thirty-five thousand a year to the public. This
alone was some good. Nor must we stop here. Almost all the petitions in
which I was ever concerned, petitioned for the abolition of all sinecure
and useless places, and unmerited pensions; and I always particularly
denounced the sinecures of the late Marquis of Buckingham, the other
Teller of the Exchequer, and prayed and petitioned for its abolition. At
the death of the old Marquis _it was abolished_. Does any man of sense
and candour believe, for a moment, that this would have ever been
done to this hour, if it had not been for the prayers, petitions, and
remonstrances of the people? Here, then, is another saving of upwards of
thirty thousand pounds a year.--Therefore, I say, that the great public
meetings _have_ done a great deal of good; and those who promoted them
have rendered very considerable service to the country, although
they have themselves been the victims of that system of tyranny and
oppression, which, in these two instances alone, has had its plunder
curtailed in more than _sixty thousand pounds a year_. Add to all this,
that the Prince Regent surrendered fifty thousand pounds per annum to
the public exigencies. Will any man say that the Regent would have done
this, had it not been for the great public meetings held in Spafields
and other places? and was this nothing? Again, Mr. Ponsonby resigned his
Chancellor's pension of _four thousand pounds a year_. Is this nothing?
Here I have shown that, within _three months_ of the great meeting first
held in Spafields, and between the second and third meeting which
was advertised, no less a sum than NINETY THOUSAND POUNDS A YEAR was
surrendered for the public exigencies; and was this doing nothing? To be
sure, five persons had been found guilty of rioting on the day of the
second Spafields meeting, and Cashman was sentenced to death; but this
had nothing to do with the meeting itself, which met only for the
purpose of petitioning Parliament, and peaceably separated, after
agreeing to a petition, which was signed by _twenty-four thousand
persons_, praying for Reform, and the abolition of all sinecures, and a
reduction of the public expenditure; which petition had been presented,
and received by the House of Commons, before these _surrenders_ and
resignations of these large sums were made. To be sure, Lord Sidmouth
had delivered in the House of Lords a message from the Prince Regent,
laying before Parliament the famous green bag, full of precious
documents, got up to prove that sedition, conspiracy, and rebellion were
close at hand; and that treasonable practices existed in London, and in
various parts of the kingdom: upon which a committee was appointed by
the Ministers, in both Houses of Parliament, to examine and report upon
the contents of the said bag. The result of this was, that Mr. Evans, of
Newcastle-street, the Spencean, and his son, were arrested on a charge
of high treason!
About this time I received a letter from the Reformers of Portsmouth,
requesting me to attend and preside at a public meeting, which they
wished to hold in or near that town, to petition for Reform. I showed
this letter to Mr. Cobbett, who said, "I know these people; I will
answer that letter for you, and arrange with them all about their
meeting. As you are so much engaged in other matters at this time, I
will take this trouble off your hands, and you will have nothing to
do but to attend the meeting when the day is appointed." This offer I
cheerfully accepted, and I thought no more of the business till I saw it
publicly announced that a meeting would be held on Portsdown-Hill, on
the 10th day of February, _the very day that was fixed for holding the
third Spafields meeting_; and that was done without consulting or saying
a word to me upon the subject, although I was the only person written
to by the people of Portsmouth. It did certainly strike me at the time,
that there appeared to be a good deal of trickery and management made
use of to keep me from this meeting. As, however, I was never jealous of
any one myself, I had no suspicion that my friends were jealous of me,
and I took no notice of it, though I was sorry to find that to the
people who met on Portsdown, _no apology or explanation_ was made for my
absence, or at least for the meeting being held on the day that
I was at Spafields; and I have reason to think that the people of
Portsmouth, who first invited me, were very much disappointed at my not
being present, and that they felt themselves slighted by me, which,
I assure them, was the farthest thing in the world from my wish or
intention.