said they would not do? If he should say this, I say to the people of England, Sir John Hobhouse went further than Household Suffrage. Have not the Whigs refused to go beyond Ten-pound Householders? Ask HIM, gentlemen.

Sir John Hobhouse was in favour of Annual Parliaments-have not the Whigs refused even Triennial Parliaments. Ask him, gentlemen.

Sir John Hobhouse was in favour of the Ballot. Have not the Whigs stoutly resisted the demand twice in the Reformed Parliament? Did not Lord John Russell, the Whig leader, at the suggestion of Lord Stanley, negative the motion in a direct manner, in order, as that petulant Lord observed, to settle the question. Ask him, gentlemen.

That a belief that Ballot was indispensably necessary to good government, formed a part of Sir John Hobhouse's political creed, during the whole time he was member for Westminster, is well known to every one who knows any thing of the parliamentary proceedings of the last fifteen years. Now the contrast that I desire to bring before the public view is, the conduct maintained by Sir John Hobhouse for so many years while out of office, and his proceeding on June 2d, when he formed portion of a Whig Cabinet. While a popular representative-while out of office, he believed that a good representative government could not be obtained without secret suffrage; he acted on that opinion, and supported by openly avowing it. He becomes connected with the Whigs; and, in the first opportunity offered him, he belies the professions of a life, and openly votes against a measure which he had so often and so strenuously asserted was needed for the very existence of good government. Unlike some others, he had not even the modesty to retire-he remained in the house, and, at the command of his new friends, the Whigs, deserted not merely his old friends, the Radicals, but the very opinions by the declaration of which, at other times, he had attained the powerful assistance of the Westminster electors, who made for him a political reputation, through which—and through which alone he has been able to gratify his desire of becoming a Minister. What, we ask, is the palliation of this bold and barefaced apostacy? In what manner does Sir John Hobhouse excuse a conduct which

lays him fairly open to many painful imputations, to which, at this time, I need not further allude? I understand that he considers himself not without an excuse. That which I have heard offered for him is twofold. When asked, on June 2d, he stated, I am informed, that he was not pledged to the Ballot, and should, therefore, exercise his discretion, and vote with the Ministers. The next excuse was, that the large measure of Parliamentary Reform lately attained, absolved him from his former opinions and declarations. He had declared for the Ballot under the old system, but now wished to give the Reform Bill a fair trial. Let us observe on these excuses separately.

All

Sir John Hobhouse says that he is not pledged, and that therefore he followed his discretion. I own myself completely unable There has to understand this doctrine. been much idle talk of pledges, and every barefaced betrayer of his constituents boasts that he is not pledged-that he abhors pledges-that he deems them beneath the dignity of a representative legislator. this is but a wordy warfare. An honest man will deem himself bound by his declared opinions, as closely as if he had given a direct promise. When a man goes before a constituency with an established reputation-and says nothing to show that his opinions have been lately changed, he must be supposed to abide by his reputation. For example, Sir John Hobhouse goes to Nottingham with the reputation of being a friend of the Ballot. The Ballot also is one of the grand leading political questions of the day; he says nothing to make the people of Nottingham believe, that he no longer favours the Ballot-and he is returned. Can he say he is not pledged because he gave no promise? I should really very much like to know what is meant by a promise in this case. If a man is not to be bound by solemn declarations of opinion, his direct promise would appear to me but a slight guarantee. If I write books, if I make speeches containing solemn and deliberate expositions, in order to shew the world that I am a Radical Reformer, would it not be thought dishonest if I were suddenly to turn round, and become a Tory? Would not the dishonesty be yet greater if I, having been trusted because I had so earned my reputation of being a Radical reformer,

violently departed from my former professions? Of what use are such statements of opinion if they bind not? Are they to be deemed only so much idle talk—and are we to suppose, that all the many declarations of Sir John Hobhouse concerning radical reform were mere words and nothing more, because not enunciated in the form of direct promises? Let us put a homely illustration. Supposing a schoolmaster to tell me that he was an inveterate enemy of all system of corporal punishment-and I believing him, send him my children to be instructedwhereupon he on the first opportunity severely flogs them-I now complain of his having deceived me-what would the world think if he were to say-" deceived you indeed-not I. I never made you a promise not to flog your children. I was not pledged to abstain from flogging them, and I used my discretion." Would not the

world say that this was adding another species of dishonesty to deceit? Would not this shallow roguery enhance the criminality of his deceit? Would not all men thereafter deem him utterly untrustworthy? I should like to know in what the case of Sir John Hobhouse differs from that of the schoolmaster.

It may, however, be said that the electors of Nottingham will re-elect Sir John Hobhouse, and thus prove that they have not been deceived. We all know, that in the present state of political parties and of the knowledge of electors, that such a re-election will prove no such thing. It is the fashion of the Whigs to raise a cry of terror about the Tories; and the great object is said to be, to keep the Tories out. We are told not to risk the return of the liberal candidate-not to oppose the one liberal candidate by bringing in another-lest the Tory should come in, on the division of the liberal interest. It is thus that Sir Francis Burdett retained his seat for Westminster, after having departed from important principles advocated in his youth and manhood. But suppose we allow that the electors of Nottingham are really not displeased-is it nothing, I ask, to have rendered uncertain the worth of public professions by political men? Is it no offence to have lowered the standard of political morality ?-and has not the world a right to complain, even though the constituents of Sir John Hob

house be satisfied? Such conduct in private life would be considered immoral; I am at a loss to understand why public morals should be so lax as to permit it; and I cannot but deem him a great offender who thus endeavours to set up a standard of morality in public affairs so degrading and so mischievous that, in private matters, every man, having the slightest pretence to be called honest, would scout and reject it with scorn and indignation.

But the large measure of reform obtained by the Whigs may have absolved Sir John Hobhouse. His opinions respecting the Ballot may have had regard to the then state of affairs, and were not intended to apply to a condition so improved as our present. This can hardly be asserted seriously. Sir John Hobhouse's creed respecting parliamentary reform required a far wider and more searching change than any yet made. Parliaments have not been shortened household suffrage, even, has not yet been attained; and yet we have seen that, in his opinion, a radical reform-the reform that he desired, and bound himself to strive after -required even annual parliaments, and something very like universal suffrage. But if, under this radical reform, this reform requiring a suffrage more extensive than household suffrage and that parliaments should be annual, he still desired the ballot, how does it happen that this measure of the Whigs, falling so short of his proposed and desired change, should make him deem the ballot unnecessary? Radical reform always regarded three things :-first, the time for which the parliament existed; the second, the extent of the constituency; and, lastly, the mode of taking the votes. Sir John Hobhouse desired a radical reform; he gloried in the name of a Radical Reformer; he scorned the name and the company of the Whigs. Nevertheless the Whig reform has so satisfied him, that he is content to forego the most important portion even of his own long cherished and much vaunted radical reform. Is not this sudden satisfaction somewhat suspicious? It comes when he reaches office, and he foregoes his sympathy for the public just when his private interests render such sympathy inconvenient.

There is, however, another excuse for the conduct of Sir John Hobhouse, which, perhaps, his own native modesty would

prevent his using, but which his friends perhaps will employ. It may be said that in the present state of political parties, to support the Whigs is absolutely necessary. Look at Corporation Reform, some will say, would you lose that measure? Is it not necessary then to support the Whigs at a crisis so momentous? In answer to these questions, I would ask Sir John Hobhouse if he considered his support absolutely necessary to sustain the Whigs? Whether, in fact, they would have been any weaker if they had not made the resistance to the ballot a cabinet question? Was there any reason why those of the Administration who had long favoured the ballot should now risk their reputation by suddenly opposing it? Does he think that the moral influence of the whole Administration is strengthened by damaging the character of those who form part of it? Farther, what need was there in this case for the headstrong obstinacy of the Whigs? Suppose Sir John Hobhouse to have had the courage to say before he joined the Ministry, the ballot must be left an open question. Suppose the Whigs to have refused his request, and then suppose him to have declined accepting office, would the Whigs thereby have been weakened? If they had feared such a result they would have yielded to his demand; if they had not, there was no reason for joining them. Oh, but it was necessary to have a liberal infusion in the cabinet. Yes, and you begin by destroying the effect of the said liberal infusion by destroying the characters of the liberal members of the administration. I do not, I confess, put much faith in the expectation, of any advantage to be derived from a compromise of opinion. This sort of compromise always damages the character of the yielding party, and the great interests of morality immediately suffer. We all know the contempt with which the Whigs speak of the Radical party among themselves. There are no terms in the English language expressive of contempt and disgust they do not use respecting us. They speak of having us in their power, and they affect when together, and the Radicals are absent, to laugh at their own influence and contemn our endeavours. It is useless to attempt to keep this a secret. They desire to make tools of us, and they have succeeded in certain We all know the cajolery that was

cases.

played off upon Mr Grote, in order to make him put off his motion, the object of which cajolery was, to retain, if possible, the reputation for liberality on the part of the Whigs by abstaining from bringing it to the test. Mr Grote steadily refused to be thus played with. It is true, the Whigs may hate him for this, but in spite of themselves they must respect his firmness and penetration, while they despise the yielding temper of those who forgot old professions, and supI ported the opposition to the ballot. would here recal to the memory of Sir John Hobhouse then his own prophetic words, which seem to have been uttered in anticipation of his own present conduct.

"I conceive that your representative," said Sir John Hobhouse to the electors of Westminster, "should be a steady opponent of every iniquitous measure of government, but that he should not look to see who is doing duty with him; he should be content that he is performing his own task-performing the task which you sent him to perform. If a man should adopt a different way of thinking, if he should never act in Parliament but when defended by a number, he would do nothing,-he would do worse than nothing, he would acquiesce in the present system of misrepresentation,-he would not stir a finger in the great object of Radical Reform. In attaining this object I see no sort of prospect of any of this famous cooperation which is to do such wonders in parliament. On the contrary, I see that those gentlemen who call themselves moderate reformers have declared by manifesto that they will do nothing while our wild, visionary notions are afloat. These are their words, as I find them in their accredited journal, the Edinburgh Review :- We must reserve for a future occasion such thoughts as have occurred to us on those plans of constitutional reform which might gradually unite the most reasonable friends of freedom, and of which we should not be without hope, that some part might one day be adopted under the conduct of a firm as well as liberal government, and when almost all reformers shall have openly renounced those extravagant opinions which supply the champions of abuse with the most effective weapons.' (Edinburgh Review, Art: Universal Suffrage,' for December, 1818.) Gentlemen, if this is not deferring the intended benefit indefinitively, if it is not adjourning reform sine die, I know First is to not what language is good for. come the union, but only the 'gradual' union of the friends of freedom; but those friends are to be the most reasonable' friends. That

NOTICE. The subject has unavoidably extended beyond a Single Sheet. In future, each subject
will be comprised within the Sheet.

Printed by C. and W. REYNELL, Little Pulteney street, Haymarket.