4 New Parliament. EJuLy, 
Those who have had. power, have, of course, always exercised it. 
The Lords had it, and enforced it under John. In their charter, 
wrested from him, they talk of all, as entitled to certain rights—that 
of not being taxed without their own consent being one of them. But 
whom did they mean by all? Themselves. And again, when the Com- 
mons remonstrated in the reign of Charles—and again, the Lords and 
Commons, on the appointment of William, of whom were they think- 
ing, when they talked of equality of rights—of all? No, no. The 
language of universality has, however, always beguiled the credulous ; 
and it is only by the slow process of growing intelligence the discovery is 
made, that a legislative a// means only a part, and that exclusion from 
the elective franchise is, in fact, exclusion from all share in the go- 
vernment, and all possibility of protecting unrepresented interests. 
With the intelligence grows the power of the people, and now, at 
last, the times are fast approaching, when nothing short of equality 
of rights, strictly, literally, universally, will satisfy the demands of 
that intelligence. 
. This equality of rights consists mainly and pre-eminently in universal 
suffrage. All are members of the community ; all have interests; the 
little is as valuable to the poor, as the much to the rich. In innumerable 
instances, all are comprehended within the enactments of the laws, and 
therefore all have a right to assist in constructing those laws. We put 
this right, not upon the payment of taxes, direct or indirect, because 
taxation may and ought to be so reduced, and might be so levied, as 
altogether to exempt the labouring classes; but though a state of per- 
fect exemption from taxes be just and conceivable enough, exemption 
from the operation of the laws, in a multitude of cases, is not conceivable. 
No individual can completely escape; and every one desires at least 
their protection. Every man may be called upon to aid in the defence 
of his country, and therefore has a right to inquire into the necessity of 
that call. Every man may be tempted into some violation of the law, 
and therefore has an interest in establishing the equitability of that law. 
Every man is exposed to the chances of ruin and wretchedness—to a 
state of pauperism, and therefore is interested in securing a proyision 
for such exigencies. We refer to no ancient law or obsolete custom— 
what does the reason of the thing require? Equality, beyond all 
equivocation ; and therefore nothing short of universal suffrage will meet 
the demands of justice and common sense, will secure the possession of 
rights, and freedom from oppression—the object and purpose for which 
a people submit to social restrictions at all. 
With this claim of universal suffrage, annual parliaments are so 
associated, that, of course, we insist upon their indispensableness. 
Not at all, We see no necessity for such frequent changes. Cireum- 
stances are no doubt continually fluctuating ; but not so rapidly as to 
require annual revisions. The duration is a matter of convention— 
quite a subordinate consideration, and open to discussion. Parliaments 
of two or three years may be superior to annual ones, as we think they 
would be; and as they certainly would be to septennial ones, We care 
not about rights depending upon precedent or prescription—what is 
most conducive to the purposes for which parliament assemble, that is 
best. To insist upon annual parliaments, on the ground that our an- 
cestors once possessed them, is really nonsense. Whether they had 
them or not—what is it to us? The important question is, do we want 
