¿
§§§§:

fºWTIIITTINITIT
*ºtºrºs
|
|
i
. . - - (ARC \º ** , ,
§' ' ' , , , -- *~.. º
*Sºrºſſº º
2 "Nº. -
ſº º º
- 3. º
~. º
º- ~ 2°
C
ſ
{}
U
t
ſº
Q
ſ
O
{}
D
G
ſº
[.
º
º
:
ſ
º
L
º/
º
rº
º
º
#
Touat RIS PENIN5uuMMAM
º ºf *-
ºſcºncuſº.
H
THIS BOOK
FORMS PART OF THE
ORIGINAL LIBRARY
OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHICAN
BOUCHT IN EUROPE
1838 TO 1839
BY
ASA GRAY



IA
567
/ ?/ ?
A § 7
2-3 sz-z-z-zy-erazz-
º %...:"...º.º. º.
7”/s2, … 2. g” “z:x 2772 yºg 423, -º 4/
2^** ****y-, 2- 3%, 4tº,w, "
*z, *zewº, •rg/fºº"// % 42. */ “” *4-y , Sz/
c 2: 27- *r ”-ºv g” ”””” £/
ºr vete (27.2% Z2 *% *:::/64 tº 2./
! -->zz ,”y 2% ºxº~~~~
wº/ö, --, * ~ **2+
- z ~2%-z-z cº,” A-22- . “3°24t.
cº-º- --~ /.4×a &"
V 6/.// : 72%.
... …, z - ºr rºº
2/. ...” * , , , // ~f~~~2. A 2. 22 e.ve 2 29/r tº (9
§s ‘--> We --~~~~ ~22. •ze-~yºf *Mty
2. 2%. ~ ºf ~. ~2 Cºe 24. C = ~~~~~ */ ‘/
ºf (3/4”/ D-e-g 24% 2. • * Mºgº c ----~~~~)
Z, , …, x -izºrºzº; #2 *zgrº
2 y 42-1-y”:/~ c -.” e”/
...” A cºy” zº
O ~27. A. & “ 2. O *2% '4” Zºe/29/
× . .”z º.º.
- r" * § & - ^
--yea gºrgº”.
* º
|
,”
& Arº pººr
g
2,4-tº 7, 2 ºzº
2’ / / ->'






DEFENCE OF THE PEOPLE,
IN
33rply
TO
LORD ERSKINE.

John M'Creery, Printer,
Black Horse Court, London.
." ~. / * ſ / 2^- , ,
~%, ’ - , /Z. & '4%
* • A
A
*,
*
*
DEFENCE OF THE PEOPLE,
IN
REPLY
TO
LORD E R S KINE'S
“Two DEFENCEs of THE WHIGS."


º, @... %24/.cº e < 2– Cſ. *.
cº
“But make you ready your stiff bats and clubs,
* Rome and her Rats are at the point of battle.”
CorioLANus, Act I. Scene I.
LONDON:
PUBLISHED BY ROBERT STODART, 81, STRAND.
\ ºmºmº
1819.
A
LETTER
LORD E R S K IN E, &c.
MY LORD,
I AM one of the deluded multitude who have
been in the habit of devoting the hours they
can spare from their low pursuits to the consi-
deration of public events and public men. My
first interference in politics was unaspiring,
though zealous.—It became the mean condition
and the headstrong nature of one belonging to
the lower orders, and your Lordship will hardly
object to the direction then given to my vulgar
patriotism. AZ 3.
It was on the 9th of November, 1794, that I.
harnessed myself to the carriage of the Honour-
able Thomas Erskine, when that distinguished
barrister was drawn through the streets of the
• B -
4
tº
, ºf
metropolis, amidst the blessings and the tears
of a people whom he had saved from the gripe
of oppression. Your Lordship does not praise
yourself half enough for the exploits of those
days.--It is but a poor description of them to
say, “ that you saved your Brother-reformers
from being hanged.” The English, then, had
but one hope left. Their parliament, instead
of protecting them, lent aid to the tyrants that
conspired their destruction. Nothing remained
but to frighten or corrupt the tribunal which
held the sword over those whom their mock re-
presentatives had delivered bound hand and foot
to the bloody servants of the crown. A com-
plaisant jury would have completed the work of
a treacherous parliament. It was not the exist-
ence of HARDY, which was at stake. If you had
often before fought for victory in this cause, you
then contended for the life of our British liber-
ties. No time, no, nor your Lordship's subse-
quent conduct, shall obliterate your share in the
glorious struggle that gave a breathing-time to
*> gg g g
the last defenders of their country. The con-
gratulations belonged to the rescued prisoner,
but the praise was all your own;–you were the
saviour of the innocent, the restorer of liberty,
the champion of law, of justice, and of truth.
Dazzled by your eloquence—animated by your
courage—sympathizing with your success—your
fellow-countrymen sunk under their admiration,
3
their gratitude, and their joy; and bowed down
before the idol of their hearts.
My Lord, you should have died when you
descended from the triumph of that memorable
day. The timely end, which is the sole pro-
tection against the reverses of fortune, would
have preserved you from that more lamentable
change, which could have been occasioned only
by yourself. Had your life closed with the pro-
cession, you would have gone down to posterity
pure and entire. As it is, your admirers have
nothing left for it, but to separate your early
career from your present state, and to look at
the record of your former exploits as belonging
rather to history than to you. -
Your Lordship has, I know, companions in this
transformation. It was, doubtless, in another
body that the soul of the present opposition leader
incited the electors of Southwark to vote, not for
George Tierney, but for Reform; and, I presume,
that the author of the “Vindiciae Gallicae” looks
upon that spirited performance much in the same
way as the philosopher of old recognized the
buckler, which, in his former state of existence,
he had fought with at the Trojan war.
But however your Lordship may cast into the
shade your former conduct and principles, they
are still public property; nor can the ermine
of the chancellor and the peer be drawn so
tightly about you, as effectually to hide the
B 2 -
4.
noble proportions and natural graces of the
advocate. The gratitude of the people, like the
vengeance of the king, knows no lapse; and if
they are not now chained to your chariot, it is
merely because your Lordship seems at present
somewhat inclined to twist the traces round
their necks. If we complain of you, it shall be
in such a sort as shews we do not forget what
you once were: and if we point to your former
character and career when you were the idol of
the multitude, we shall not, assuredly, awaken
any disagreeable recollections. The excesses
were graceful—they became your time of life,
and the portrait of them will, perhaps, as Lord
Rochester says:– c -
* Please the ghost of your departed vice.”
And, indeed, we have reason to complain,_
why could not your Lordship lie quiet? what, in
the name of your former fame what sent you
simpling at this hour into the field of politics
And, if you would write against your old ad-
mirers, why not keep your secret? Why let it
peep out like the silken-string of some new made
knight, ill concealed at first, then still farther
shown, and, at last, as vanity throws open button
after button, displayed in full ridicule to the con-
fusion of every friend, and the pity of every foe.
And, so your Lordship is, really, the author of
“A short Defence of the Whigs against the Im-
5
putations attempted to be cast upon them during the
last Election for Westminster.” -
We, of the rabble, have not had Cobbett's
grammar amongst us long enough to be very
nice about language; but, methinks, your
Lordship, in endeavouring to weaken the above
imputations, has only weakened your own title- .
page: for the imputations were cast upon the
Whigs: the attempt was not to cast them—the
attempt was to make them stick: you might as
well have said, “A Defence of Lord Sefton and
of Lord William Russell, against the mud at-
tempted to be cast at them.” I do not think
your Lordship is good at a title; let us see
whether or not you are more successful, at what
Goldsmith calls, “working off the body of the
book.” f *
One of my brethren has already made “A
REPLY TO YOUR DEFENCE”—he has hit again
—he has no doubt added to the crimes of the
people, and given your Lordship a fresh proof
of the existence of that “ organized and persever-
ing system of detraction,” of which you so feel-
ingly complain.
We are waiting for an answer to this Reply:
you tell us, that you have “set an example of a
system of defence.” You hint, that you have
vigorously “repelled former calumnies on the
* Defence, &c. p. 24.
6
Whigs.” A fresh demand is made upon your
vigour; as you have begun, you must go on :
the self-elected champion of the party must not
fling away his buckler at the first blow.
In the meantime, I shall take leave to remark
upon such portions of your Defence as the re-
plyer, being occupied upon the main argument,
has left for others of the body of organized de-
tractors; and if, in the course of the discussion,
your own frailties, and those of your friends,
should be exposed, I beg you to recollect, that
it is not I that have drawn them from their dread
abode—your Lordship has been the voluntary
magician who has stepped forth to scare us with
the spectre of another Whig apostate.
According to your Defence, Mr. Hobhouse,
supported by Sir F. Burdett, has attempted to
expose the Whigs “ as a corrupt and proftigate
faction,” apostates from the cause of Reform,
which they had once solemnly pledged themselves to
support—or, “to speak plainly,” has, so you say,
endeavoured to prove “ that a Whig might now be
considered as a term of ridicule or reproach.”
I have looked over Mr. Hobhouse's speeches—
I have looked over Sir F. Burdett's speeches, at
the late Election, and I no where find that either
of those gentlemen called the Whigs a corrupt
and proftigate faction. I dare say they thought
so; but they appear never to have used the
words.-"Arrogant,” “overbearing”—“selfish,”
7
“false,” “boasting,” “interested,” “tricky,”
“ mean,” “shallow,” “deceitful,” “jealous,”
and “impotent,” were, it seems, epithets applied
to your Lordship's friends more than once, and
which seemed to tickle the fancies of the audi-
ence—That they were, some of them, abettors
of the corruptions of Parliament, was also hinted
at—but I know not that in a body they were
ever designated by either the candidate or Sir
F. B. as a corrupt and proftigate faction. Your
Lordship knows the value of words, and should
therefore be exact in your references—But had
the words been used, the inference—the “plain
inference,” as you call it, is not a little over-
strained.—If the Whigs were “corrupt and pro-
fligate,” the word Whig would not therefore be
a term of “ridicule.”—God knows that the party
have done mischief too serious to be the occasion
of a jest—corruption and profligacy are no
laughing matters to the people—the people do
not laugh at them—but the Whigs do.
But your Lordship is not the first honest man
who has been afraid of being laughed at, and it
should seem that self-conviction has told you
that there is something ludicrous in the present
position of the Whigs: as a body they are to O
odious to be matter of joke; but the silly figure
made by some individuals of the party at the
last Election may justify your apprehension.
Indeed, my Lord you cannot imagine any
thing quite so ridiculous as the daily appearance
8
of the natural leaders, (as your Whig journal
calls them) in the face of their natural followers—
A downright, open, impudent, ministerial candi-
date, backed by the consciousness that his double
pots and pay will reward him for the terrors of
the Hustings, and undauntedly struggling with
the storms of unpopularity, is a spectacle not
altogether unworthy the imitation of a certain
class of men, and such as the gods of Downing-
Street may view with rapture.—But had you seen,
and had you heard the Whigs at Covent Garden—
had you seen and heard the representatives of
their noble houses—had you seen or heard the
honourable proposer of the candidate, the pride
of the opposition—had you seen and heard the
honourable candidate himself—all of them smil-
ing, and bowing, and sweating before the people —
wishing to convince them that they loved them,
and were beloved by them—averring that they
belonged to those who had all along done them
so much good, and who would do them so much
good again—protesting that they desired nothing
but the liberty and happiness of their friends and
fellow citizens—that they did not care about
themselves—but were always devoted to the
people only, and to the cause of freedom and
revolution.—Had you, I say, my Lord seen
and heard all this professed courtship and affec-
tion, and had witnessed how they were received—
What hootings—what taunts—what laughter fol-
lowed upon every profession of former faith—
9
upon every promise of future constancy—indeed
you would have doubted your senses—never were
benefactors, friends, lovers, reduced to so piteous
a pleading of their past services and their present
passion.—When the brother of one great family
stept forward to show, as we supposed, how it was
expected that the admirers and tenants of his
house should vote, and to tell of ancient merits,
you would have been reminded of the old beau
Fielding, who, when his mistress was inexorable,
as a last resource, uncovered his bosom, and dis-
played an ugly scar.—The people, like the lady,
preposterously laughed and mocked the veteran
suitor—Indeed his Lordship furnished an inimi-
table addition to Swift's “Mean Figures.”—Had
you still further heard the candidate protesting
to the last, that in spite of the hootings of thou-
sands, he was the only true love of all—that he
was opposed only by a hired few, whose retreat
would leave him the undisputed applauses of the
rational world.—Had you heard this modest con-
fession cheered by the little knot around him,
and by the unbought voices of the Prize-fighters
beneath him—and at the same time half-drowned.
by the scornful shouts and denials of the vast
multitude—had you heard this unaccountable
rejection of the Whig addresses by those whom
they have served and saved, and still will serve
and save, your Lordship might have shuddered at
such blindness and ingratitude; but you would,
H0
you must have smiled at the strange equivocal
appearance of the unfortunate suitors for popular
favor. -
Moreover—had your Lordship seen your ho-
nourable candidate, as I protest I saw him,
bowing complacently to Mr. Hunt, and speaking
from the same board—had you seen all your
honourable and right honourable friends ranging
in a line and confused in a body, with Mr. Gale
Jones and the above gentleman, together with
the band of bludgeon patriots—had you heard
the concordant souls, united in their opposition
to Mr. Hobhouse, and in their hatred of Sir F.
Burdett—united in the hissings and revilings
which were impartially bestowed by the whole
body of the people upon them all—this sight
might, indeed, have recalled you to the better
and brighter days of your party—I do not know
whether your Lordship would have laughed at
this—I do not know whether you would have
been pleased to see the reporter of your own forty
years' friend Mr. Perry, as he was seen, prompt-
ing Mr. Hunt, and regulating the movements of
th; ruffians hired to make a show of popularity—
but I know that I felt no malicious delight in
seeing the Whigs so degraded, so lost and utterly.
abandoned.
However, your Lordship thinks, your Lord-
ship feels, that Whig is become a term of ridi-
I 1
cule.—It is so—not, however, from any thing
said by the Reformers—but from every thing
said and done by the Whigs themselves.
Besides—do look at the Whigs—the scorn and
laughter of a House of Commons, of which the
very door-keepers complain.—Your Lordship
must not think yourself amongst your old friends
and coadjutors.-Indeed, you must forgive me if
I tell you, that I really thought you yourself
had left the Whigs, and that I suspect you are
generously appearing as the champion of those
of whom you know little or nothing—I thought
that the Whigs had pronounced that a weak
lawyer had gone astray, and in mercy had attri-
buted the wandering to his “stars.”—I thought
that your Lordship had repaid the joke by an
equivalent, and had declared your ancient co-
partners and brothers in exile from the court, just
as impracticable and uncompromising, as they are
pleased to charge the Reformers with being.
Surely I cannot be mistaken as to the indi-
vidual; and if I am not mistaken, either your
Lordship, or the opposition, cannot be Whigs;
or Sir F. Burdett was quite right in saying that
no one knows who the Whigs are, or what their
principles are. No small portion of the merit of
the opposition, as stated by themselves, is their
disinterestedness in making no sacrifices for the
sake of court-favor. Your Lordship is not so
enamoured of martyrdom.
12
Your Lordship says, that if a Whig is now
to be considered a term of ridicule or reproach,
we shall “cast into the shade the character of the
Revolution itself.” Not at all—you might as well
say, “ if you laugh at Lord Erskine's green
ribbon, you cannot have any respect for Mr.
Erskine's defence of Hardy.”
Besides, your Lordship must see the extreme
absurdity of supposing that a nation will allow
itself not to judge of men as to their contem-
porary conduct, but as the mere representatives
of those who lived and acted well a century ago.
Perhaps I may not be so great an admirer of
the chief actors in the Revolution of 1688 as
your Lordship; but, supposing me to be so, do
you think that I shall join with you in gazing
with delight on those, who instead of planting
and reaping the laurels of patriotism for them-
selves, snatch the ready made garlands which
hang on the bier of the heroes of the Revolution,
and attach them to their own unhonoured
brows
I tell your Lordship, that the Whigs are
always dealing out names *—you have done so
* It is an old, a favorite Whig trick—in early times the
Whigs were always playing off the word Liberty. Thus Sir
R. Steele endeavoured, says Swift, to impress upon his reader
such weighty truths as these :-That liberty is a very good
thing; that without liberty we cannot be free : that health is good,
and strength is good; but liberty is better than either: that no man
A3
yourself, whether Whig or not. It is impossible
to collect from your Defence of the Whigs, what.
Whigs you mean to defend, they ought to be
certainly the Whigs who were attacked—but
your Defence leaves the persons uncertain.—
Was the Whig to whom you alluded, one who
takes an honor or refuses it 2 Was he one who
“ rides rough shod through Carlton House,” or
one who seats himself in loyal shoe leather at
the dinner table P Was he one who flatters his
Prince, or one who defames him —Are your
Whigs the Whigs who flourished at the West-
minster Election in 1819, or the Whigs who
figured in the Revolution of 1688 P-Were they
the Whigs, who, as your Lordship tells us,”
were accused by others of their own body as Repub-
licans, who sought to introduce anarchy by over-
shadowing the sober and regulated character of our
own Revolution ; ” or were they the Whigs, who,
as your Lordship does in this very Pamphlet,
accuse the Reformers of neither more nor less
than this very crime 2—Were they Foxites, Fitz-
williamites, or Tierneyites?—Were they old or
can be happy without the liberty of doing whatever his own mind
tells him is best : that men of quality love liberty, and common
people love liberty. See “The Public Spirit of the Whigs.” *-,
Surely a Newcastle orator could not have talked more pro-
foundly; it was, is, and ever will be the true language of a
*ENTLEMAN Bonn, as poor Dick Steele called himself. -
* Defence, &c. p. 8.
14
new Whigs 2 friends of revolution, or decriers
of revolution? radical Reformers—moderate Re-
formers—or no Reformers ?—Friends of the
people, and seceders from the parliament; or
haters of the people, and flatterers of the par-
liament? All these after their kind are mentioned
and praised, and it is impossible to know whom
you would particularly defend, unless your
Lordship is pleased with the agreeable variety,
and would defend them all.—In fact it is the
name Whig which you like, and which you would
wish us to like;—it is the name revolution which
you hold up to us, and which you could wish us
always to think of as a name and nothing else;
the pretext of the party for doing nothing, the
plaything of the people to keep them from com-
plaining that nothing is done. * * . . . .
It is, my Lord, notorious that the Whigs have
at different times attached different ideas to this
their favorite word.—They of the late Westmin-
ster election made use of it as a catch-word
against the Reformers. The Foxites of 1793
and 1797 associated it to their radical reform.
In those days the high prerogative writers and
talkers reminded the Whigs “ that their famous”
Revolution was but a mere name, and so far
* “The more revolutions the better,” said a great Whig ;
and the girl at Bartholomew Fair, who got a penny for turn-
ing round a hundred times, said the same thing no doubt.—
See the Examiner, No. 39.
15
from bringing about any material change of
system, was in fact nothing but the preservation
and solemn recognition of the hereditary monarchy
of this Realm, and of all its ancient laws and
government.*”—The author of the Pursuits of
Literature, a book now almost as much forgotten
and laid aside as the Whig principles of 1798,
ventured from his obscurity to whisper this asser-
tion into the ear of Mr. Fox. Whether or not
he was altogether borne out in his statement, is
a question not connected with our present dis-
cussion; but it may be of use to remind your
Lordship, that we of the people do not agree
with you who are descended from the Stuarts f
in thinking that the particular portion, of the
Revolution which is most to be admired, is that
in which there was no revolution.—And that if
you delight to behold in that event the prudence
with which old institutions were preserved, we
are rather pleased with the courage with which
new amendments were hazarded.—You say,
“ our ancestors, at that period, were well aware
“ of the full right of the people to have resettled
“ the whole frame of their Constitution; but
“ they were wise enough to leave every thing
untouched, which in principle and effect had
not failed, and to provide only for the emer-
& 6
& 6
* Preface to Dialogue iv. of Pursuits of Literature. . .
t “My ancestors though of the Stuart family, &c.” Pre-
face, p. vi. . . . *
16
“ gency of a vacant or forfeited throne; by
“ adhering as closely to ancient inheritance as
“ the security of the constitution would admit.
“An alleged defect in this great work, so often
“ in the mouths of Revolutionists, [meaning us,
“ my Lord, the sober-minded Whigs, [meaning
“ your Lordship and Company, consider as
“ decisively characteristic of its wisdom. The
“ people at large were not called upon to act
“ for themselves, as if the whole frame of the
“ ancient government had been dissolved; but
“ writs were sent to the convention parliament
“ to supply the single defect which had taken
“ place.” +
Such are your Lordship's words, and I would
beg you to remark how exceedingly well they
tally with those which I have just before quoted
from the poor terrified enthusiast who pelted
your Lordship, in poetry and prose, with Latin,
Greek, and English, for “the flimsy and puerile
View of the causes and consequences of the
present French war; ” and told you “ not to call
those slaves, and the sons of slaves, who were
better men, and descended from better men,
than yourself.”f
* Defence, &c.
t The Pursuer of literature quoted Demosthenes, which
came, as he thought, pat to his purpose, although he did not
think Mr. Barrister Erskine quite such a “ being as Androtion.”
P. of L. dialogue, iv.
17
Permit me, however, since I am on this sub-
ject, to express my astonishment that your
Lordship should venture to give such an histo-
rical picture of the Revolution, as I find in the
assertion, that this Revölution was happily not
effected by an indignant and enraged multitude,
but “ was slowly prepared by the most virtuous
“ and best informed amongst the higher and
“ enlightened classes of the people, who took
“ prudent and effectual steps for securing its
“ success without bloodshed, being confident of
“ the support of a vast majority of the people.”
Notwithstanding all this slow preparation on
the part of the virtuous and well informed Whig
nobility, it is pretty certain that the Revolution
was finally brought about by the desertion of the
army, which was not contemplated beforehand,
but occurred unexpectedly; but most of all, by
the King's flight.—Even “Lero! lero / lilibulero !”
had perhaps as much to do with the change, as
any or all of the Whigs put together.” I am wil-
ling to believe that it was some better motive
than the wish to play at double or quits with
king James for his 10,000l., that made the Earl
of Devonshire join in the invitation to William ;
but whatever were the motives of the higher and
enlightened classes, it is not entirely to them,
that an eye-witness ascribes the completion of
* See Burnet's History, &c. vol. ii. p. 535.
C
18
the Revolution. Bishop Burnet tells us, that even
when the Prince of Orange first landed, he remain-
ed eight days at Exeter, without being joined by
any of the neighbouring gentry; but that those
of my own class, “THE RABBLE of the people came
in to him in great numbers.” This they did, like
true rabble, in the day of doubts and danger, and
before the army of King James had revolted.—
The same author has another record to the honor
and glory of the same portion of the King's sub-
jects, for he tells us, that in the greatest emer-
gency of the state, when two years after the
Revolution, the restoration of king James was
by no means improbable, the French being
masters of the sea, and England being defended
by only 7000 regular troops, the Jacobites were
prevented from making any head, and “all
England over were kept out of the way, afraid
of being fallen upon by the RABBLE.”f Though
it was harvest time, the people expressed more
zeal and affection for the new government, than
care for their own subsistence.
The Rabble had much greater share in con-
firming the Revolution, such as it occurred, than
your Lordship seems to be aware; and as to the
“single defect,” to supply which, the ancestors
of your Lordship, and of your Lordship's friends,
* Burnet, as above.
t Burmet's History, &c, vol. iii. p. 75.
19
prepared, as you say, the Revolution. I must
repeat my astonishment at such an assertion from
a man,who though in his youngerdays he modestly
confessed he had not the talents of a Statesman,”
must still be expected to be tolerably acquainted
with history. It was not the single defect of a
vacant throne, that brought about the invitation
of William Prince of Orange. The throne was not
vacant, it was not at all intended that the throne
should be declared vacant; the only point to be
considered relative to the throne, was the birth
of the Prince of Wales.—I refer you to the De-
claration which the Prince of Orange signed and
sealed on the 10th of October, and published on
his landing.—A single defect indeed t “What
did the declaration set forth P all the numerous
violations of the laws of England, both as to
religion, civil government, and the administra-
tion of justice; the invasion of the right of
petitioning, and particularly the packing of Par-
liaments, these cannot be called a single defect,
nor was the change of dynasty the remedy pro-
posed. “ The States of the United Provinces
said the truth, when they affirmed that the King
was not gone to England on design to dethrone
the late King.”f—No | The Prince of Orange
* See P. of L. dialogue iv. and “View of the Causes and
Consequences of the present French war.”
t King William III. Memorial, &c. Somers's Tracts, vol.
xi. p. 107. -
C 2
20
might indeed look for an eventual Crown for his
wife, in case king James's son was set aside, but
the proper and effectual remedy which he pro-
posed for redressing the growing evils, was a
Parliament that would be lawfully chosen, and
should sit in full freedom.*
I am willing to grant to your Lordship the
fact, that it did not come into action, at the
Revolution, to re-model the frame and constitution
of Parliament; but I think I have said enough
to show, that the multiplied defects of misgovern-
ment, (not the single defect) were to be remedied
by an uninfluenced parliament. Let me add,
that King William, after having obtained the
Crown, did make it his boast, that he had called
together a free and fair Parliament, without the
least interference in elections.t-I have learnt
from Lord Grey, “ that one of the principles
asserted at the Revolution, was, that a man ought
not to be governed by laws in the framing of
which he had not a voice, either in person or
by his representative.”f
* The 16th, 19th, and 20th, paragraphs of the Prince of
Orange's Declaration all refer to the Free Parliament, which
was to remedy every thing. See the Jacobite Answer to this
Declaration, published when the Prince landed. See Somers's
Tracts, vol. ix. p.286. -
t See the above cited Memorial. Somers's Tracts, vol. xi.
p. 107.
f Parl. Debates, 1793, May 6th.
21.
Your Lordship gives as a reason for this non-
reform at the Revolution, that “the Crown had
not then originated the system, nor acquired the
means of a corrupt influence in the House of
Commons.”
Here I must remark, that supposing your
assertion to be true, you throw all the odium of
the corruption on the Whigs, who were acknow-
ledgedly the masters for so large a portion of the
70 years following the Revolution; and supposing
it to be true, you also prove nothing against
Reform, by saying it was not resorted to at the
Revolution, as you tell us that the evil which
Reform is to remedy has arisen since the Revo-
lution. -
But your Lordship goes too far in saying, that
Parliamentary Reform did not come even into
view at the Revolution. It would have been
strange, indeed, if the great Borough-proprie-
tors, concerned in the Revolution, had sacri-
ficed the very means by which they hoped to
hold the King in their power; and, according-
ly, we do not hear of the first, or either of the
early ministries of William III. having resorted
to any measure, by which the control of the
People could be increased, and organized, and
secured, and the influence of the aristocracy
diminished and reduced to its due bounds. Had
* Defence, &c. p. 5.
22
the Devonshires and the Danbys done this, in-
stead of heaping honours and emoluments upon
their own houses, the worthy Mr. Walter Fawkes
would not have been able to say, that the
Revolution was a bill of fare, without a feast. *
But though these great Whigs kept Parlia-
mentary Reform out of view as much as they
could, yet it was in view ; and your Lordship is
quite wrong in saying, that the system of par-
liamentary corruption was unknown at the Re-
volution. It was known, and it was felt; and,
as I said before, it was the PACKING of parlia-
ments of which the revolutionists chiefly com-
plained, and it was the convoking of a free re-
presentation of the people which was the great
object, I may say, the only avowed object of
the friends of William, and of William himself.
The Duke of Monmouth may have been sup-
posed to know what would tempt the people,
and he promised them the annual election of
their representatives, f \
* Amongst other unfurnished items in this bill, was the
abolition of ex-officio informations. #
f “Our resolution in the next place is, to maintain all the
“just rights and privileges of Parliament, and to have par-
“liaments annually chosen and held, and not prorogued,
“dissolved, or discontinued, within the year, before peti-
“tions be first answered, and grievances redressed.” See
“State Trials,” vol. ii. p. 1032, and note; also Ralph's “His-
tory,” vol. i. p. 873, which says, “ Monmouth's sudden and
surprising success must be attributed to his declaration.” Mr.
23
I will confess, with your Lordship, that we
do owe the complete and admirably organized
corruption of the House of Commons to the
Whigs who reigned for so long, in the name and
on the behalf of the first sovereigns of the new
dynasty, (for it is nonsense talking about the
CROWN originating the system) : but there
was such a thing as bribing, and threatening,
and treating voters, before the said Whigs began
to shew, that, however the honour of the inven-
tion might belong to others, the utility of the full
application was reserved for their own happy
genius. Indeed, the influencing of voters was
so notorious, and had arrived at such a pitch in
the reigns of the two last Stuarts, that a jacobite
writer, before quoted, speaks of a truly free
parliament as a chimera ; for by money, drink, or
power, elections had ever suffered an ill byass upon
them.*
Hume, indeed, finds it “chiefly calculated to suit the preju-
dices of the vulgar, or the most bigotted of the Whig party;”
but Mr. Fox in pointing out the faults of the Declaration,
(History, p. 271), does not mention the resolution to have
Annual Parliaments. I am aware that Reresby (pp. 202,203,)
interprets “chosen and held,” by the word sit.
* See the Reply to the Declaration of the Prince of Orange.
Somers's Tracts as above, Vol. ix. p. 286, edit. Scott.
“ This was so true, that even Charles and James when the
“Commons were risen, were driven to the garbling of Cor-
“ porations.”—Mr. Erskine's Speech on Mr. Grey's Motion for
Parliamentary Reform, 1793.
24
Now, this recognized evil, as well as a wish
prevalent amongst many politicians, to extend
to the utmost the control of the people over the
affairs of government, had brought a Reform of
Parliament into the view of many of those con-
cerned in the Revolution: and one of the com-
plaints, made at a very early period against the
first ministers of King William, was, that they
had done nothing towards securing the due influ-
ence and control of the People, in the choice of
their representatives. It is true, as Lord Boling-
broke confesses, that “ the frequency, integrity,
and independency of Parliament, the essentials of
British liberty, were almost wholly neglected at the
Revolution.”* That nobleman, indeed, looked
upon this neglect in a very different light from
your Lordship.–He thought it a misfortune:
you notice it amongst the praises of the Revolu-
tion. But the same author mentions a fact of
which your Lordship is, or affects to be, wholly
ignorant, namely, that, “ soon after the Revolu-
“tion, men of all sides, and all denominations,
“ (for it was not a party-measure, though it was
“endeavoured to be made such) began to per-
“ ceive not only that nothing effectual had been
“ done to hinder the undue influence of the
“Crown in elections, and an over-balance of
“ the creatures of the court in parliament, but
“ that the means of exercising such an influence,
* Dissertation on Parties, Letter xi.
25
“at the will of the Crown, were unawares
“ and insensibly increased, and every day in-
“creasing.” Lord B. adds, that the great body
of the nation then discovered that by this event,
namely, the settlement of the nation at the Re-
volution without the necessary provision in
favour of free parliaments, the foundations were
laid of establishing universal corruption.* The
declaration of Rights by the convention had said,
that elections of members of parliament ought
to be free; f “but that this right was not more
“ than claimed, that they were not effectually
“ asserted, and secured, at this time, gave,”
says the same writer, “ very great and im-
“ mediate dissatisfaction, and some, who were
“called Whigs, in those days, distinguished
“ themselves by the loudness of their com-
“ plaints.”f These Whigs were not, perhaps,
those Stuart ancestors of your Lordship, who
supported the Revolution: but they were men
of some name and authority. Mr. Hampden,
for instance, insisted “ that there could be no real
“settlement, nay, that it was a jest to talk of settle-
“ment, till the manner and time of calling par-
“liaments, and their sitting when called, were
“fully determined; and this, in order to prevent
* Dissertation on Parties, Letter xviii.
t See Parliamentary Debates, A. 1688.
# Letter xi.
26
“ the practice of keeping one and the same par-
“liament long on foot, till the majority was
“corrupted by offices, gifts, and pensions.”
Mr. Johnson, chaplain to Lord Russel, asserted,
that one line, settling and securing a fair and free
House of Commons, would have been worth all
the Bill of Rights. But, lest your Lordship
should say, these were mere moderate reformers,
(although, be it recollected, you have forgotten
there were any reformers at all at the Revolution)
let me add, that the complainants insisted, that
“ the assurances given at the Revolution had led
** them to think that the ANCIENT LEGAL COURSE
“ of ANNUALLY CHOSEN PARLIAMENTS f would
“ have been immediately restored; and the par-
“ ticular circumstances of King William, who
“ had received the crown by gift of the people,
“ and who had renewed the original contract
“with the people (which are precisely the cir-
“cumstances of the present royal family) were
“urged as particular reasons for the nation to
“expect his compliance.” So you see, my
Lord, that Parliamentary Reform, Radical Par-
liamentary Reform, a Reform, which should
make the House of Commons emanate solely
* See “Considerations concerning the State of the Nation,”
published in 1692, referred to in Letter xi.
+ See An Enquiry or a Discourse, published in 1693, and
quoted in Letter xi. -
27
from the People, and be chosen every year, was
in view of the contemporaries of the Revolution,
and was expected to have been obtained, owing
to the AssurANCEs given by the managers of the
Revolution. The patriots, or if you please, the
complainants, of that day, soon found that the
frequent sitting of parliament had been provided
for, and that Annual Sessions had been found
necessary for the sake of raising annual supplies.
But the “ ancient legal course of annually chosen
parliaments” was so far from being established,
that on the contrary it soon was established by
law, that the king might keep the same parlia-
ment together for three years.
I fear indeed that your Lordship's Stuart an-
cestors had not only a great deal to do, but a
great deal too much to do with the Revolution :
and that they were partly employed in keeping
out of view that which a large body of the nation
had in view ; that is, the solemn establishment
of a representation of the people, fully, fairly,
freely and frequently chosen.—It is known that
the views of some of those who acted in the
Revolution extended even so far as a Republic.
There were at least two plans for erecting a
Commonwealth openly published, whilst the
settlement of the Crown was uncertain—They
are reprinted, with due animadversions on their
exceeding and monstrous folly, by Mr. Walter
Scott, in his edition of Lord Somers's Tracts.—
Burnet owns that there were some in the Con-"
vention who wished “ to raise the power of the
people on the ruin of the monarchy.”—Major
Wildeman, who came over with the Prince of
Orange, was an old Republican, and there were
many in parliament who opposed the limitation
against a Popish successor, solely with the hope
of restoring the Commonwealth after the death
of William.—The managers, however, chose
to content themselves with declarations—those
pompous trifles, which Bolingbroke decries, and
which, though they satisfy your Lordship and
many of your contemporaries, were, as I have
before mentioned, soon exposed by the com-
plainants of “all orders and all denominations,”
immediately after the Revolution.
My Lord, you are surely wrong in this
point—nor must you shelter yourself behind
your expression—“A Reform in the original
frame and constitution of Parliament,”f because
the complainants made not use of the word
Reform, perhaps, but on the contrary, desired
a Restoration of what they thought this original
frame and constitution.—Equally unaccountable
is it, that you should ascribe this neglect in the
settlement of the nation to the fact, that “the
House of Commons under its ancient forms had
* History, Book IV.
t Defence, &c. p. 4.
29
recently obtained the full confidence of the
people by the renovation of the Constitution.”
Such neglect may be ascribed to any other
cause—Bolingbroke presumes that the great fear
being that of prerogative, prevented the consi-
deration of the greater danger, namely, undue
influence. But I think it would be charitable to
help the Whigs to a reason, which, however,
may be partly unpalatable—to wit—that the
Revolution of 1688 was notoriously the work
partly of the Tories, as well as of the Whigs.-
It surely would have been in character, if you
as a defender of the Whig faith and so forth, had
adopted the division usual with your party, and
if you had reluctantly owned that the glorious
Revolution was not the sole work of the Whigs,
and had fearlessly proclaimed that all the good of
that great work must be claimed for the Whigs,
whilst all the evil, all the sins of omission or
commission, must of right be attributed to the
Tories.—Why did not your Lordship throw all
the blame on those distinguished Tories, some of
whom carried highest the doctrines of Passive Obe-
dience and Non-Resistance, and were engaged in
it.f
* Defence, &c. p. 5.
t Dissertation on Parties, Letter VII. See also further in
Letter VIII. - - --
“There was a party that concurred in making the new
“settlement; a party that prevailed in Parliament, and was
30
The formation of the first ministry distinctly
shows that the Whigs alone were not those who
found favor in the eyes of King William—Lord
Halifax was no Whig–still less was Lord Not-
tingham a Whig.—Indeed the King's first mi-
nistry, so far from being composed of those pa-
triots which your Lordsdip would make us be-
lieve the framers of the Revolution settlement to
have been, were much like other ministers; and
Sir Charles Sedley proclaimed that his Majesty,
whatever were his private inclinations, was en-
compassed and hemmed in by a company of crafty
old Courtiers.”
The Whigs lost the good opinion of King
William before he had been a year on the
throne—“ by the heat,” says Burnet, “ that
they showed in both Houses against their ene-
“ by much the majority of the nation out of it.—Were the
“Whigs this majority Was this party a Whig party —No
“man will presume to affirm so notorious an untruth. The
“Whigs were far from being this majority, and King James
“must have died on the Throne, if the Tories had not con-
“ curred to place the Prince of Orange there in his stead.”
* Parliamentary Debates, 1689. The Tories and Whigs
coalesced a short time afterwards—Swift calls it an unna-
tural league, and puts these words in Italics—The Sovereign
authority was parcelled out among the faction, and made the
purchase of indemnity for an offending minister.—Examiner,
No. 29.
What did the Grenvillio-Sidmouthian-Foxite Administra-
tien in the case of Pitt's monument and debts? #
31
mies, and by the coldness that appeared in
every thing that related to the public, as well
as to the King in his own particular.”—It
appeared, that before a year and a half had ex-
pired, they had also completely lost the good
opinion of the People: for in the new Parlia-
ment that met on the 20th of March, 1690, the
Tories were by far the greater part returned.—
The chief cause of this disgust, was the attempt
to pass the Corporation Bill, which, as Burnet
owns, would have put the King and the nation in
the hands of the Whigs.t. And yet the King
found a way to quiet the Whigs who were dis-
contented at the Tory Parliament.—He gave
places to some of the party, and dismissed some
of their opponents—So that, as the same Author
observes, “Whig and Tory were now pretty
equally mixed; and both studied to court the King
by making advances on the Money Bills.”f
Whatever principles of action were laid down
by the Whigs, it is certain that their conduct
was similar to that of the opposing party, and
that the great master-spring of their policy was
selfishness. They liked neither King William,
nor cared for the people—except as appendages
to their own power and dignity. It is AN UN-
POUBTED TRUTH, that a year or two after the
* History, &c. Book V. vol. iii. p. 46.
f History as above, p. 54.
f History, &c. p. 55.
32
Revolution, several leaders of that party had their
pardons sent them by King James ; and had
entered upon measures to restore him, on account
of some disobligations they received from King
William.
They soon began that artifice which they
continued for so many years, of playing off the
exiled against the reigning Sovereign, and upon
all occasions preferred their belief that the Pre-
tender was not an impostor but a real prince.—
Your Lordship will recognise both these quo-
tations as proceeding from a professed enemy of
the new Whigs,” (for Swift thought himself an
old Whig); but a great writer is worth listening
to, when he proclaims an undoubted truth s—at
any rate the contemporary people must be
thought to have had better opportunities of
judging the merits of the actors in the Revolu-
tion than your Lordship; and this people had
completely found out the Whigs in less than ten
years after the accession of King William.—
The job of creating a new East India Company,
and above all, “the inclinations which those of
the Whigs who were in good posts, (they are
Burnet's words) had expressed for keeping up a
greater landed force,” and a charge of “robbing
the public of the money given for the service of
the nation, both to the supporting a vast expense,
* Examiner, No. 39, and No. 43.
33
and to the raising great estates to themselves.”
these were the immediate causes of the general
disrepute of the party, which your Lordship
seems to imagine to have been in perpetual and
tranquil, and merited possession of the popular
love, from the Revolution to the present day.
I trust I have partially succeeded in showing
that there are some particulars relative to the
glorious Revolution, which those who are per-
petually boasting of it are willing to keep out of
sight—I trust that your Lordship is now aware
that the connecting the merits of the Revolution
with the merits of the Whigs, even of that day,
is to count too much upon the ignorance of the
Rabble; and that to entail those merits, such as
they were, upon the Whigs of the present day,
is a device too trite and stale to be employed,
except to adorn a declamation and please the
boys of a Fox Club. + -
Your Lordship must be aware how easy it
would be for me to prove that there has been
nothing like an uninterrupted succession of opi-
nions and principles inherited by the same
families, or indeed descending through the same
apparent party, which can give even a plausible
claim to your modest Whig pretensions to ex-
clusive patriotism. -
- If the Whigs have inherited any rule of con-
* History of the Reign of King William, year 1698,
vol. iii. p. 289.
T)
34
duct, some people may think they find it in this
their early characteristic—“Give the Whigs but
“power enough to insult their Sovereign, en-
“gross his favor to themselves, and oppress and
“plunder their fellow subjects; they presently
“ grow into good humour and good language
“towards the Crown; profess they will stand
“by it with their lives and fortunes: and what-
“ever rudeness they may be guilty of in private,
“yet they assure the world there was never so
“gracious a monarch.” -
The “foolish,” “ vulgar,” “ cant,” “ con-
ceited,” “fantastic,” appellations of Whig and
Tory began to be used about the year 1676, and
were much in vogue during the latter end of
King Charles the Second's reign; they were
nearly dropt during the reign of James II. The
real distinction expired—but the names revived
at the Revolution.—Before they had been thirty
years old, “they had been pressed into the ser-
vice of many succession of parties,” and “ap-
plied to very different kinds of principles and
persons.”—If at first, to oppose even the King's
guard was to be a Whig, it was found in King
William's reign, that “ to be for a Standing
Army,” “to raise the prerogative above law for
serving a turn,” and “to exalt the King's supre-
macy beyond all precedent,” were also the signs
* Examiner, No. 35.
35
of being a Whig.—At one time the Whigs cried
up the House of Commons as at the Convention
Parliament, while they appeared to have the
majority there.—At another time they cried
down the House of Commons and extolled the
Lords:—witness their support of the Kentish
petitioners in 1701. It was very natural, then,
that in Queen Anne's reign, “the bulk of the
Whigs appeared rather to be linked to a certain set
of persons, than to any certain set of principles.”
Now your Lordship knows, that against this
set of persons, against individuals called Whigs,
the great body of the nation was for more than
half a century united; and that almost every
act of which the people now complain, may be
traced to Whig administrations.—It is now se-
venty years since Lord Bolingbroke endeavoured
to expose the extreme absurdity of preserving
the nominal distinction of Whig and Tory, and
enforced the incontrovertible truth, that the whole
nation could be divided in factonly into two distinct
sets of men, namely, the abettors of and gainers
by Parliamentary corruption, and the opposers
of and sufferers by the same corruption.f-His
Lordship's individual character cannot invalidate
a truth : though I know that it is a modern
* Examiner, No. 43, where the words under inverted
commas will be found.
t See particularly the first and last Letter in his Disserta-
tion on Parties.
D 2
36
Whig trick to depreciate the sound doctrines of
those who exposed the Whig Administrations of
George I. and II., by saying that the motive of
the complaint was a preference of the dethroned
family—And what if they did prefer the Stuarts
to the house of Hanover ?—The English who
changed their reigning family in 1688, did not
do it as a child at play changes its toys—it ap-
pears that they did not intend the change of
Kings, but only looked at more substantial ad-
vantages—their object was a relief from misgo-
vernment; and if the subjects of the House of
Hanover felt that they wanted relief from the
same evil, they were, perhaps, right in thinking
that the restoration of the exiled family was the
best expedient.—It would not, I think, be diffi-
cult to prove, that the majority of the people of
England was always against the new settlement,
and the manner in which it was supported by
Whig -administrations, who were thus obliged
to organize their corrupt House of Commons
as a counterpoise to the popular will.—At all
events, they were perfectly justified in doing
their best to convince their fellow country-
men that men calling themselves Whigs, who
had nothing in their mouths but “ the power
and majesty of the people, the original contract, the
authority and independency of Parliament, liberty,
resistance, exclusion, abdication, deposition,” and
* Dissertation on Parties, Letter I.
37
who attributed to themselves exclusively every
patriotic virtue in contradistinction to what they
called the Tory advocates of prerogative, non-
resistance, and slavery, were, in effect, mere
pretenders to popular virtues which they never
possessed, and kept alive those distinctions for
the worst purposes of delusion and self-interest.
Your Lordship knows that the folly of the
distinction which arrogated for a certain set of
men all popular favor, whether in or out of
place, and whatever was their conduct, had been
so generally felt in the reign of George II., that
those who wished to be honoured as Whigs were
despised and hated as courtiers, and those whom
the Whigs affected to depreciate as Tories and
Jacobites, were backed by the great majority of
the whole country, as being the party of the
country, and the true friends of the people.*
If the real difference was not lost at the Revo-
lution, it was abolished when Court and Country
party became the usual words, and the Tories
were so long obliged to talk in the Republican
* “As nothing can be more ridiculous than to preserve the
“ nominal division of Whig and Tory parties, which subsisted
“ before the Revolution, when the difference of principles,
“ that could alone make the distinction real, exists no longer;
“so nothing can be more reasonable, than to admit the no-
“minal division of Constitutionists and Anti-constitutionists,
“ or of a Court and Country party,’ at this time, when an
“ avowed difference of principles makes this distinction
“real.”—Dissertation on Parties.
38
style, that they seemed, says Mr. Hume, to have
made converts of themselves by their hypocrisy.”
Those who composed the court party in the
reign of the two first sovereigns of the house of
Hanover, and who wished to be called Whigs,
imagined that the corruption of which they were
all but the inventors, and which they had orga-
nized with a fatal address, would secure their
power, and keep the crown for ever in their
hands. But the perfection of the machine ren-
dered it easily transferable to other hands. It
was not a bow that Ulysses alone could draw, a
child could touch the trigger, and produce the
mischief at once. His present majesty wisely
considered, that the expedient of governing by
a corrupt parliament could succeed in any hands.
The new set of managers soon succeeded to all
the power; and, of course, to all the unpopu-
larity of those who had been so long predomi-
nant. The rejected families then began to court
the people, as a means of intimidating the king,
as they had before upheld the royal authority
for the sake of overawing the people. They were
in possession of advantages never before possessed
by any opposition, for they carried over with
* See Essay IX. on the Parties of Great Britain. -
Mr. Burke says it is cant to call Walpole the organizer of a
system of corruption.—This fine writer tried to beat down all
truth by abusive hard words—bring facts against him—and
he would call it “obscure diligence.” : : * ,
º
39
them a certain portion of borough-influence,
which their long continuance in power had ena-
bled them to mature, by means of court power,
and at the same time attach to their own persons.
From that moment this borough-influence was
considered the right-arm of the opposition
aristocracy, by which, and which alone it could
be enabled to prevent the overweening prepon-
derance of the crown in every parliament. The
complaints of those called Tories, in fact, the
country party, or landed interest, had been un-
remittingly, during the two last reigns, directed
against parliamentary corruption. Several mo-
tions had they made for the restoration of annual
parliaments, as the best means of diminishing
the temptations to corruption. The proposi-
tion, in 1745, was lost only by thirty-two votes.”
But the new opposition had not recourse to
this expedient: they adopted the old indefinite
cry against prerogative, and the power of the
crown ; and then, also, they began to attach,
with more pertinacity than ever, the name of
Whigs to themselves, and that of Tories to their
triumphant opponents. They were so long de-
barred from all means of mischief, and the king's
ministers proceeded with such alacrity and vi-
gour in applying the engine of corruption, which
they found ready made to their hands, towards
battering down, one by one, all the popular bul-
* January 29. See Parliamentary History, vol. xiii. p. 1057.
40
warks which had been left standing by their
predecessors, that the nation began to forget
their former misdeeds. The Rockingham Whigs
were certainly admired and believed by the peo-
ple. The opposers of the American war were
undoubtedly backed by the people, who were
not undeceived, except at the first opportunity,
by which they could be undeceived, namely,
the accession of the Whigs to power. * -
It is all in vain, my Lord, for your Edinburgh
Reviewer to come with his excuses for the
Fox and North coalition,” “ when a minister
“who doubled the national debt, and dismem-
“bered the Empire, was instantly taken into
“ the confidence of those who threatened to
“ take his head.”f The great body of the
nation, who witnessed that monstrous deed,
passed a judgment upon it, from which there is
no appeal. The indignation felt at that mea-
sure, attached itself to Mr. Fox and his friends,
long after they had again become the advocates
of popular rights. Some there are who will
maintain, that the party held together for a few
years; but it was disjointed, and, at the first
shock, it fell asunder. Then was it that the nation
heard of new Whigs and old Whigs; and, to
the squabbles between the two, we owe the
French war. The only time that their union
* See “The State of Parties,” Edinburgh Review, June, 1818.
+ See Bishop Watson's Memoirs, p. 255.
41
could be of advantage to the nation they chose
to differ amongst themselves.” Mr. Fox felt,
that the remnant which he had saved from Mr.
Burke could not be called the Whig party. In-
deed, he was willing that his friends should drop
a denomination, claimed, perhaps with justice,
by the followers of Burke, and the colleagues of
Pitt, and he recommended them to have done
with the “ idle distinctions of Whig and Tory.”f
Your Lordship confesses, that he and you, and
all of you felt, that the said remnant could not
form an administration of itself. The adminis-
tration which it did help to form, so far from
reorganizing the party, did, as your Lordship
knows, dissolve the last ties which bound you
together amongst yourselves; much more did it
* See “The Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs”
t See his Speech on Reform of Parliament, May, 1797.
Mr. Hobhouse quoted this speech on the hustings, which so
angered the party, that Mr. Lambton was sent down to tell,
that Lord Holland averred that Mr. Fox had never used the
words: to this, Mr. Hobhouse replied, that the words were
given in all reports of the speech, and that Lord Holland had
told him, that Mr. Perry had reported the speech himself—
They are as follows, and are a little unlikely to have been
foisted in by a reporter:—“We had conquered ourselves—
“we had given a generous triumph to reason over prejudice,
“we had given a death-blow to those miserable distinctions
“ of Whig and Tory, under which the warfare had been
“ maintained between pride and privilege, and through the
“contention of our rival jealousies, the genuine rights of the
“many had been gradually undermined and frittered away.”
#2
dissolve whatever bond there might be which
attached you to the nation. The odium affixed
to that coalition, survived their short-lived
power. They had no leader who could direct
or dignify their measures. All their principles
they had openly abandoned. As there had
been nothing honourable in their rise, there was
nothing dignified in their fall. The mere oppo-
sition to those in power could no longer deceive
a people who had so often confided in vain, and
whom the experience of yesterday left without
hope for to-morrow. For several years we heard
no more of the Whigs, except when a pitiful
paragraph in their Chronicle strove to show,
that the flambeau which once blazed, and was
now extinct, in parliament, still flickered in the
socket on a tavern-table, and cast a cheerless
ray on the doleful countenances of some five or
six forlorn followers of a name. The medley of
men who occupied the opposition benches never,
as I heard, were guilty of the absurdity of calling
themselves Whigs. They seldom contrived even
to vote together upon the most important points.
Who knew or who cared for the principles of
Mr. Ponsonby Did he agree with Mr. Whit-
bread Did Mr. Whitbread agree with Mr.
Sheridan 2 And where was Mr. Sheridan too
What did the party for the last of those who re-
minded the nation, that the Whigs could once
boast of genius, eloquence, and taste? Did not
Messrs. Lambton, and Ferguson, and Bennet,
43
seem to form a little squadron apart from all?
Could any one divine which way Mr. Brougham
was likely to vote? Did the language of Lord
Milton accord with that of Sir Samuel Romilly
Mr. Grattan too, did not he promote to the ut-
most the last war with France, which Lord
Grey strained all his ability to prevent P Did
all the Opposition oppose even the Indemnity
Bill? How many of the Opposition counte-
nanced the Duke of Bedford in supporting Mr.
Hone And you, my Lord, permit me to ask
whether any party has counted upon your Lord-
ship for these last years? And yet you now aid
the feeble attempt to revive a nominal distinc-
tion, which belongs to nobody, which may, with
equal justice, be applied to any body, which
means any thing, every thing, and nothing.
I am at a loss to imagine, by what indiscretion
it was, that the OUTS (for that is the nearest to
a true generic title) thought it advisable to re-
new the word in their journal, and in their
newspapers, when they were wise enough not
to employ it at the last general election. I do
not recollect, that Sir. S. Romilly was called a
Whig by his friends during the canvass for West-
minster. I am not aware that the opposition-
banner was inscribed with the obsolete word in
any of the contested counties or towns. But
the unpopularity of the king's ministers, and an
addition of a few votes, seem to have made some
of the Outs think that it would be advisable to
44
try whether the People are not again to be
ravished with the whistling of a name. Hence
the Edinburgh Review with its learned and long
passages that lead to nothing. Hence, all that
the faithful Chronicle has proclaimed of the
Whigs—the old Whigs—the Whigs of England.
Hence also that bold and candid avowal of Mr.
George Lamb, that he gloried in the name of
Whig. And yet, strange must it appear, that
not a single placard of the party ventured to
invite the Electors to vote for a WHIG. No,
they were told to vote for a friend of Sir Samuel
Romilly—for a friend of the poor old glorious
Revolution, again dragged from its repose—for
the friend of short parliaments—for the friend of
the poor man—but not a word about the Whigs.
Mr. Hobhouse indeed, and Sir Francis Burdett,
did their best to keep the merits of the Whigs as
much in view, as the modesty of their opponents
would allow : but the buff and blue were pru-
dently kept out of the contest, in order to be
more fresh for the triumph; and perhaps owing
to the mistake made by the people at not recog-
mising and rewarding their volunteer leaders and
saviours at the last day of the election, we heard
nothing even then of the victory of the Whigs.
The returned candidate in his address of thanks,
dropped the title in which he had gloried, and
neither he nor the Chronicle, thought it pru-
dent to boast that the Whigs had returned a
member for Westminster. The fact was only a
45
day old, it was as well to wait a week before they
gave birth to the fiction. - -
To our infinite surprise then, my Lord ' and
I fancy to the consternation of the party, your
Lordship comes forward with a Defence of the
Whigs. And you now wish to revive the fan-
tastic obsolete name, which has not existed in
its original sense for nearly a century and a half;
which almost every sensible politician of all par-
ties in that period, from Burnet” to Fox, has
protested against as mischievous and absurd, and
which you yourself cannot introduce without an
uncalled-for admission, that it is exposed to
ridicule and reproach. You begin, indeed, ra-
ther tamely at first with a Defence A Defence:
What a poor substitute for the song of victory
which usually crowns the exploits of all election
majorities.
And this is what you call “ throwing in the
bark after a fever;” Who has been sick 2–Not
the Reformers, they fondly fancy themselves
in a state of florid health, which they have never
enjoyed since they have at times been brought
into the infectious company of certain pretended
friends. Is it the Whigs who are sick? -
* “The last of these had gone into all the steps that had
“ been made for the King, with great zeal; and by that
“means was hated by the High Party, whom for distinction
“ sake, I will hereafter call Tories, and the others whics,
“ terms that I have spoken much against, and have ever
“ hated.”—History, &c. vol. iii. p. 5.
46
But come, my Lord, I am no Whig ;—I will be
fair with you, -your Apothecary's simile means,
that the people have been in a paroxysm, and
that you their Physician have been watching, and
have eagerly caught the first intermission of their
furious disease. Your Lordship knows that
sometimes patients will box their physician. We
may “ urge” you a little, but you shall have
fair play.—You have then seen.” “with the utmost
satisfaction from the result of the Westminster
election, that the sound sense of the country, never
lost, but at times overpowered, was beginning to
return again.” This sentence I take to imply
two distinct propositions; namely, that the state
of the Representation in Westminster has for
some years been such as to cause a belief that
the sound sense of the country had been over-
powered; and, secondly, that the return of Mr.
Lamb is a decided proof that this sound sense is
recovering its former force and functions.
It is true that since the year 1807, the Elec-
tors of Westminster have given a practical sup-
port to an opinion very general throughout Eng-
land, that nothing was to be hoped from any
body of politicians, whether in or out of place,
and that nothing could redeem the nation except
the uninfluenced controul of the people over
the management of their own affairs in the Com-
4) Preface to 2nd Edition of Lord Erskine’s Defence, &c.
47.
mons House of Parliament. The Electors of
Westminster had seen the latter opinion adopted
by many of the leading politicians of their time;
and they had seen it abandoned by those poli-
ticians: for, surely my Lord, you cannot have
the hardihood to say that the paramount neces-
sity” of Reform, is now, as it once was, the
creed of any party small or great in Parliament.
They believed that the principle which had been
perhaps dropt, because adopted for the most part
as a sort of party question, and not emanating
from the people, would flourish when manifestly
and solely proceeding from the people, and ac-
knowledged universally to be the great national
cause independent of all individual interests.—
The first step towards their great design, was
the reformation of their own representation.
This they undertook under happier auspices
than had attended their efforts when Mr. Tooke
was the independent reform candidate. The
monstrous coalition't between Fox, Grenville, and
* See the Whig Speeches in 1793, on Mr. Grey's Motion
for referring the Petition of the Friends of the People to a
Committee. Mr. Grey said, there could have been no Ame-
rican War, if there had been Reform. Mr. Erskine said, the
French Revolution was owing to the want of Reform in the
English Parliament, at which the Treasury-bench burst into
a laugh.
t Lord Erskine’s excuse for this coalition, is, that th
Foxites went in to keep out worse men; if this is to be done
with the sacrifice of every principle, they might as well have
48
Sidmouth, had opened the eyes of the whole
nation, and at this juncture there appeared a
man born for the time, the place, and the cir-
cumstances, and designated as it were by the
very hand of nature, to be the representative and
champion of a glorious cause. -
Without the help or interference of a single
individual of political power or eminence, the
Electors completely succeeded in restoring, as
far as depended upon them, the purity and pur-
poses of Election, and returned by the unbi-
assed votes of the People, a true Representative
of the People. It was making a mighty pro-
gress to show that the people not only were fully
competent to the conduct of this important duty,
but knew how to fulfil it without any of the
base arts, without any of the outrage, it may be
said, the carnage, which had in Whig and Tory
days attended the depraved struggle between the
rival factions. -
The influence of the Electors and particularly
the example of the Representative gained an
staid in to keep out worse men. His Lordship says, that all
former differences between Mr. Fox and Lord Grenville had
ceased to exist. Lord Grenville said in 1798, Jan. 9, that he
voted for the assessed taxes as a sort of pledge against Reform
of Parliament. Mr. Fox had said on the 4th of January,
1798, that he would never come into any administration of
which a Radical Reform both of the Representation of the
People in Parliament, &c. was not the basis. I never heard
that Lord Grenville retracted, but either he or Mr. Fox must
have sacrificed a principle on that point.
49
immediate proselyte in the person of him who
had at first appeared under circumstances some-
what equivocal, and from that moment both the
seats for Westminster were in the uncontested
possession of the people. Thus the people of
the metropolis, when left to themselves, and
acting solely for the sake of advancing a principle,
had without a single act for which an honest
man need blush, peaceably, but firmly, and as it
then appeared for ever, shaken off the trammels
which had bound them for centuries to the court,
and which the whole force of the Whig opposi-
tion, had never attempted to remove. For eleven
years, they reaped the reward of their honest
exertions, and in defiance of calumny, and of
the desertion and mutability of others, continued
unchanged themselves, still enforcing their great
national doctrine, and still showing by their own
example that the cause of reform and of public
morality, are one and the same.
Your Lordship's Defence wisely says, that in
Mr. Fox's time a Whig candidate, if not op-
posed by the court, would have walked over the
course. But this is the very point. In those
days, the court always did lay claim to one seat
at least, and Mr. Fox's friends never could carry
two opposition members.
The admiration, the love of the whole people
of England, attached to Sir F. Burdett, and to
him only, was sufficient proof that the nation at
E
50
large approved of the resolution by which the
Flectors of Westminster adhered to their first
object of making their representation the rally-
ing center of Reform. 4. -
But the gentlemen your Lordship calls Whigs,
did not participate in the general satisfaction at
seeing even two seats out of 658, filled solely by
the wishes of the people, without hint, influence,
or advice from any party. The pitiful figure they
had made in attempting to return Mr. Sheridan,
was still in their memory, but they still dared to
haunt the places where their honour died. An un-
fortunate division amongst the Reformers at the
general election in 1818, afforded an opportunity
which they had scarcely hoped to obtain. A Re-
quisition to Sir Samuel Romilly was got up, and
carried about for subscription, I speak a fact, by
a little Scotch Whig lawyer, and by the Editor of
the Chronicle;—the latter was told, “If you
start a Whig, you will have a Court candidate
started.”—The answer was, “we can't help it,
we don’t care.”—Mr. Brougham down in Cum-
berland, compared the influence of the people in
Westminster, to the influence of the Lowthers
in Westmoreland, and talked with glee of the
Whigs opening the close borough of Westminster.
The Court candidate, as foretold, was started,
and as might have been foreseen, divided an im-
mense number of votes with the regular or party
opposition, against the irregular or popular oppo-
5]
sition.—This help, and the great character of Sir
Samuel Romilly, together with sundry breakfasts
and little tricks, and the hatred of the Court,
brought in the party candidate.*—Sir F. Bur-
dett was again returned, and returned upon the
same principles, and by the same means, as had
secured his former elections for Westminster.
The opponents of the people, but more particu-
larly your Lordship's Whig friends, aye, your
forty years' friend, Mr. Perry, declared openly,
and circulated privately, that Sir F. Burdett had
expended large sums to procure his election. IT
WAS A GROSS AND MALICIOUS FALSEHOOD. The
whole expenses have been stated to a fraction in
the late Report of the Westminster Committee—
the items of every farthing spent, may be in-
spected by every subscriber. I tell you, my
• One of the complaints against the Reformers then was,
that they canvassed for single votes for Sir F. Burdett. It
should be recollected, that Sir S. Romilly had very early divided
nearly 2000 votes with Sir M. Maxwell; had the Reformers
given the second votes of their 2000 plumpers to Sir S.
Romilly, what would have been the consequense —Sir F.
Burdett would have been more than 2000 behind Sir S. Ro-
milly on the close of the poll,—the Whigs would have cried
out, “where is your Reform now where is your Burdett? "
and would have said, nay sworn, that they had forced their
friends to divide their votes in order to help poor Sir Francis :
as it was, all their efforts were directed to kidnapping the
voters in the very Committee-room, of the Reformers, and as
they were going to the poll, by every sort of trick and mean
electioneering artifice. . . .
E 2
532
Lord, without fear of contradiction, that if a
single illegal or even immoral act can be proved
against one of those concerned in promoting the
return of Sir F. Burdett, the Westminster Elec-
tors will allow you to nominate the next candi-
date yourself. You cannot be so ignorant, so
wilfully blind at this time as not to feel that Sir
F. Burdett's election, was a truly popular and
strictly constitutional election in every sense of
the word. Ask any of your friends who can-
vassed on that occasion, ask them whether it
was necessary to bribe or terrify any man into
voting for Sir F. Burdett. Ask them whether
they did not find it expedient in canvassing for
Sir S. Romilly, to say they wished well to Sir F.
Burdett.
Well, the same individuals, whose committee
amounted to between three and four hundred of
the most respectable inhabitants of Westminster,
endeavoured to return Mr. Hobhouse on exactly
the same principle as they had returned two
members for the last twelve years; that is, not
as the advocate of this or that particular plan
of Reform, but as the advocate of the paramount
necessity of reform, as opposed to all party prin-
ciples and connexions whatever. This endeavor
they made also by the same honourable unmixed
efforts as had rescued their city from the terror
and corruption of former elections. If the jackal
of the party can hunt down and trace a single
53
unworthy act to the promoters of Mr. Hob-
house's election, let it be proclaimed at once.—
But the party, backed as they are with what
they call success, do not now pretend to renew
the absurd calumnies of former elections.—
The public indeed, have at last learnt that these
gentlemen of the Aristocracy seldom charge the
people with a crime with which their own prac-
tice has not made them already familiar.—The
convicted bludgeon-hirers have taught the nation
a lesson, and have themselves, perhaps, learnt
circumspection.—Your Lordship cannot prove a
single unconstitutional act or attempt in the
whole career of the reform Electors of West-
minster, from the first return of Sir F. Burdett
in 1807, up to the present moment.—What then
can you mean by asserting that they and their
example have for a time overpowered the good
sense of the country &
Is it to overpower the good sense of the coun-
try, to say that the people ought, and to show
that the people can, elect their own representa-
tives without being corrupted themselves or cor-
rupting others: without being intimidated them-
selves or intimidating others: without aid or in-
terference from any party Is it to overpower the
good sense of the country, constantly to impress
the justice and necessity of giving to the rest of
the community the same advantages of a free
choice of representatives which the Electors of
54
Westminster have procured for themselves, and
enjoy by the extensive right of suffrage esta-
blished in their own city ? Is it to overpower the
good sense of the country to chuse such a man as
Sir F. Burdett as the advocate of that justice and
necessity ? Is it to overpower the good sense of the
country to attempt to send another man into Par-
liament who may fight the same battle by the
side of that advocate 2
I will tell your Lordship what you were
thinking of, though you did not dare to say it
openly.—Your Lordship was thinking that if the
example of Westminster should be followed in
all those counties or towns where the extension
of suffrage allows of that kind of election called
popular—that is to say, if the Electors through-
out the kingdom, in all but the very rotten
boroughs, should take their own elections into
their own hands—should banish all bribery and
influence, and even recommendation—should see
with their own eyes, and hear with their own
ears, and should return to Parliament pure re-
presentatives of the interests and wishes of the
third estate, of the Commons only—then your
Lordship was thinking that a death-blow would
be given to the power of the Aristocracy, which
would henceforward be entirely confined to their
own branch of the Legislature—and the House
of Commons would become a Democratic
assembly, not only virtually, but substantially
55
representing the people, and acting professedly
and purely, according to the general injunctions
and interests of the people.
I feel confident that it was an apprehension
of this consequence which made your Lordship
use those strange words, and yet I defy you to
prove that the Constitution of this country
designs the House of Commons to be any other
than that which I have just mentioned. I know
indeed that an ingenious young gentleman,
Mr. John William Ward,” did once say, that it
was never meant the House of Commons should
be purely democratical—but you, my Lord, who
know Greek as well as Mr. Ward, and who know
law better, never can say that the House of Com-
mons is not meant in its original institution, to
be an epitome of the POWER OF THE PEOPLE or
of the Democracy.—Formally it is so at this
day; and some wise men go so far as to say that
it is virtually. The Sovereign has not yet dropt
the phrase, to meet my people in Parliament—He
does not mean the people recommended to him
by the house of Cavendish or the house of Man-
ners—No—he means the people as directly dis-
tinguished from the heads and tails of these
houses, who have their power in the other
branch of the Legislature—he means the Demo-
cracy, and nothing else.f
* In his speech on Mr. Brand’s motion in 1812.
t Mr. Burke said, “the peers do not interfere as peers,
56
I am perfectly well aware, that if the example
only of the Electors of Westminster were to be
followed throughout the country, even were there
no change in the frame of the House of Com-
mons, the representation would advance in no
trifling degree towards its intended democratical
character; in other words, the House would be
more a Commons' House than it is at present-
Now it is impossible that your Lordship, as a
Lawyer, as an Englishman, as one who still
may feel some attachment to Parliamentary Re-
form, should really in your heart condemn a line
of conduct that has no other than this truly
constitutional tendency—for it is constitutional—
you know it is. * =
I have been looking through your Pamphlet
to help myself still farther to some glimmering
of meaning in this your proposition concerning
the sound sense of the country having been over-
powered by the Electors of Westminster—I find
therein the following phrases—“ hot, undisci-
plined Reformers,” “Libellers of Parliament,”
and lastly, “Revolutionists”—all which epithets
I presume your Lordship would wish should be
applied by others, for you do not directly apply
they interfere as men of property: but the fact of their being
peers should prevent them from applying their property in
that way, otherwise the Bill of Right talks nonsense, and
when it says peers shall not interfere at elections, says no-
thing, and speaks of individuals who have no existence,
67
them yourself, to the Electors of Westminster,
who have returned Sir F. Burdett.
Let us see—I must refer your Lordship to the
“Reply” made to your pamphlet, by one of
these hot, undisciplined electors, in order to con-
vince you, that the heat, to which you object, is
precisely that which once animated your Lord-
ship's Whigs. You cannot deny, that these
gentlemen did once think REFORM the one thing
needful, the PARAMOUNT necessity of the state.
I could multiply quotation on quotation, but a
reference to the Reply, and to the Declaration
of the Friends of the people, will save my paper,
and your Lordship's time.
I feel not so much anxiety to show, that the
Whigs have deserted the cause, as I do to plead
for the permission for the people still to adhere
to it. -
I see that the Edinburgh Review, or the gen-
tleman who had the credit of the article, Sir
James Mackintosh, decides it to be very puerile to
quote a man's former opinions against himself.
To be sure, Sir James may fairly endeavour to
lay down that maxim which accords happily
with the opinions of the HONEST MAN,” who
* See a pamphlet with this title, “A Letter to the Right
Honourable William Pitt, on his Apostacy from the Cause of
Parliamentary Reform, &c. &c., 1792,” signed an HoNEST
MAN, and attributed to Sir James Mackintosh. For mere
curiosity's sake, I beg to compare what is said in the Edin-
58
dealt out his plain sayings against Mr. Pitt, the
Curio “ of the black annals of apostacy.” But
Sir James can hardly say, that there is any thing
puerile in a man's defending his practices by re-
ferring to authority. If the authority to which
I refer happens to be the Whigs of other days,
I protest it is not out of malice; it is only for
support. You think that you look better and
*
burgh Review, against the people becoming themselves Re-
formers without their natural leaders, and against adopting
moderate Reform, whilst wild reformers are on foot, with the
following declamation of the HoNEST MAN.
“Despairing that a corrupt body should spontaneously re-
“form itself, you (Mr. Pitt) invited the interposition of the
“People. You knew that dispersed effort must be unavail-
“ing. You therefore encouraged them to associate. You
“were not deterred from appealing to the People by such
“miserable common places of reproach, as those of advertis-
“ing for grievances, diffusing discontents, and provoking
“ sedition. You well knew that in the vocabulary of corrupt
“ power inquiry is sedition, and tranquillity is synonymous
“with blind and abject obedience. You were not deterred
“from joining with the associations of the people, by being
“told they were to overawe parliament. You knew the value
“of a jargon that does not deserve to be dignified by so high
“a name as sophistry. You felt for it that contempt which
“every man of sense always feels, and which every man of
“sincerity will always express. They told you that extra-
“ vagant speculations were abroad; that it was no moment to
“hope for the accomplishment of temperate reform when
“...there were so many men of mischievous and visionary prin-
“ciples, whom your attempts would embolden, and whom
f' your reforms would not content.”
59
are more active without your tail; all I ask is
to be allowed to keep mine, and to refer to the
handsome figure which your Lordship made be-
fore you tumbled into the trap.
I say, that the heat of the Westminster Re-
formers is not a line higher than that of the
former Whig-Reformers. Those whom you de-
fend were mortally offended at Mr. Fox being
called a RADICAL Reformer, and being said to
have called himself a Radical Reformer. Mr.
Lambton was forthwith dispatched to say, that
he had Lord Grey's authority for asserting, that
Mr. Fox never called himself a Radical Parlia-
mentary Reformer, but declared himself for a
radical change of system. Whereupon the peo-
ple at the hustings, who did not understand
shuffling, called out, “It is all the same.” Mr.
Hobh9use quoted Mr. Fox's own words;" he
* * I think the words I used were these, “ that a Radical
“Reform, both of the representation of the people in parlia-
“ment, and of the abuses that have crept into the practice
“ of the constitution of this country, together with a complete
“ and fundamental change of system of administration, must
“take place, and that until it did I for one would take no
“share in any administration, or be responsible in any of.
“fice in his majesty's councils.”—I think these were my
‘words, I am sure they were the substance of what I said;
‘ was there any explanation necessary '—Mr. For's Speech,
Commons' Debates, Jan. 4, 1798. , -
“He (Mr. Fox) had already declared, he would-not come
‘in (to administration) without a total, fundamental, and ra-
60
quoted the words of those who charged Mr.
Fox with the very invention of the term “ra-
dical;” he might have quoted the ballads of
the day.* Mr. Fox himself, however, has set-
tled the question as to the radical change of sys-
tem; and that he has done so explicitly that I
trust we shall hear no more of this poor distinc-
tion. These are his words:—“As long as I
“stated the necessity of reforming abuses in
“general; while I said there must be “a change
“ of measures,’ ‘ a radical change of system,'
“ there was no alarm taken; but when I came
“ to specify a Parliamentary Reform,” then
“every thing I said became dangerous and
“ alarming: my words became then ambiguous
“ and mystical.”f One would think that he
had spoken them prophetically, to furnish an
unquestionable proof that his reform was a par-
liamentary reform, and to prevent the silly in-
* dical Reform of Parliament; and he (Mr. Perceval) begged
* the house to attend to those most chosen, dangerous, and
‘ alarming words.”—Mr. Perceval's Speech, ibid.
“The expression he (Mr. Fox) employed, and which has
“ become more conspicuous from its being made the subject
“ of particular thanks in certain resolutions lately advertised,
“ was that he would take no share in any administration
“ without a Radical Reform in the representation, and of the
“abuses of the present system. Such was the expression of
“my right honourable friend.”—Mr. Sheridan's Speech, ibid.
* “At the Shakespeare Tavern dining.”—See Antijacobin.
t See Mr. Fox's speech, ibid.
61
terpretations of any injudicious defender. We
must have no more denials by authority. It is,
indeed, a very fine thing to be a lord; but the
whole house protesting upon oath should not
avail against written records never disputed
before, and manifestly disputed now in order to
serve a turn. In the debate of Dec. 3, 1795,
Mr. Fox says that he had never hoped much
from Reform, although he had always voted for
it; but on January 4, 1798, he confesses he had
changed his opinion, and then thought par-
liamentary Reform indispensable. If, after this,
any man tells me that Mr. Fox confessed to him
that he was not a parliamentary Reformer, I
shall not attempt to argue, I shall say that Mr.
Fox told me he was a parliamentary Reformer.
A false bond is best answered by a false quit-
tance—or I will point to the parliamentary
debates as Bishop Watson did to the Scriptures,
“ En codicem sacrum !” and a sacred code they
are, if, as your Lordship says; they fully and faith-
Jully record the virtues and talents of the Whigs. *
I should be glad to ask your Lordship whether
the alarmists, the third part of the Whig heaven
whom Mr. Burke dragged down with him, whe-
ther they did not think the Whig Reformers as
hot as you think the Westminster Reformers.
As far as the PARAMOUNT URGENCY of Reform
is concerned, all the speeches of the Whig
* Defence, p. 7.
62
Reformers are quite as decisive as any thing
said in these days at the Crown and Anchor.
We want no other proof of this than Mr. Grey's
stirring up the people, in 1794, to meet in bodies
and intimidate the House of Commons by acting
upon its prudence. *
If the heat be proved by the plan of Reform,
I say that the declaration made by Mr. Hob-
house is neither more nor less than the declaration
made by the friends of the people in 1795, those
very friends of the people whose petition was
presented to parliament in 1793, by Lord Grey
and by yourself, and who were notoriously iden-
tified with the Foxites in parliament.t
The Society declared for equality and im-
partiality of suffrage, and for a new division of
the country; Mr. Hobhouse declared for equality
and uniformity of suffrage, implying, of course,
a new division of the country. The Society
said, the electors should be as numerous as
possible; Mr. Hobhouse declared for the largest
extension of suffrage possible. The Society
declared that the elections might be “triennial,
biennial, or even ANNUAL,f as they were in
* See Letter to the Duke of Portland.
t The alarm against annual parliaments is quite new.
That moderate Reformer, Mr. C. Wyvill, was for annual par-
liaments, and yet headed the largest of all the many associa-
tions of the Whig gentry for parliamentary Reform. Mr.
Alderman Sawbridge, who made what was called his annual
63
former times.” Mr. Hobhouse declared that
elections might be every twenty-four months,
or every twelve months. The Society said “ that
the whole measure must move together, and act
at once with all its force; ” in other words, they
recommended a radical not a gradual Reform ;
Mr. Hobhouse declared himself a radical and
not a gradual Reformer, saying at the same time,
as Sir F. Burdett said, that he could be happy
to accept any Reform from others, although he
should propose none but a radical Reform him-
self; and this, by the way, was a more moderate
avowal than any made by your Lordship's
Society, who more than hint they would have
the whole Reform or none.
Those of the Westminster Reformers who have
declared for annual parliaments, and what is
called universal suffrage, have declared only for
the principle to be found in the opinion of the
same Society, when they said that they “admit
the general right of voting at elections to be
COMMON and PERSONAL.” But that the great
majority of Westminster Reformers never did
suppose actual extension of suffrage to every
individual to be indispensable, is decidedly proved
by their selection and support of Mr. Hobhouse,
who positively declared the extension of suffrage
motion for shortening the duration of parliaments, said that
he preferred annual parliaments, and he was supported on
one occasion by 83 members; this was in 1772.
64
to be, in his opinion, of third-rate importance.
The truth is, that the Westminster Reformers
have always been comparatively indifferent to the
plan, their preaching and their practice have been
directed to inculcate the PARAMOUNT importance
of Reform. It has always been a consolation
and an apparent guarantee to them, when they
have found a man inclined to declare for the
most decisive and direct Reform ; and very na-
turally so; because the Whigs, (who, as I have
just shewn, by the voice of their Society, once
were of the same opinion as the Westminster
Reformers, *) now affect to call themselves
moderate Reformers; and therefore make it
necessary that those who are not to be suspected
of being changeable as the Whigs, should show
that their opinions are upon that subject more
decisive than those of the Whigs. A declaration in
favor of the principle of annual parliaments and
universal suffrage in the eyes of the Westminster
* It is well known that Mr. Fox, who was against universal
suffrage, still said publicly in parliament, and that too when
he was Secretary of State, that on the whole he thought the
best man to be entrusted with framing a project of Reform
was the Duke of Richmond. Now the Duke of Richmond
was the very apostle of universal suffrage.
See Speech of Mr. Fox on Mr. Pitt's motion for Reform
in 1782, also Mr. Grey said “ he did not approve of the
“ Duke of Richmond's plan of Reform, though he thought
“ it better than the present system.”—Parliamentary Debates,
May 6, 1793.
65 *
Reformers, cannot but be a recommendation, in
as much as it is a presumptive evidence that the
candidate is not to be classed with the Whig
pretenders to moderate Reform; hence the atten-
tion of the electors was directed to Mr. Kinnaird :
but the Westminster Reformers never did regard
such a declaration as indispensable; they never
were for annual parliaments and universal suf-
frage in the pure, bigotted, exclusive sense of
the phrase; they never quarrelled with any one
as the author of a celebrated pamphlet did with
the French for putting any limit to their right of
suffrage. If such had been their view of the
question, they would not have left Major Cart-
wright with 38 votes, nor have given nearly four
thousand votes to Mr. Hobhouse.
There is, in short, nothing more hot in their
plan than there was in the Whig plan of Reform;
any more than there is any thing more hot in their
importunity than there was in that of the Whigs.
They contend only for what the Whigs once
contended, the PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE OF
REFORM. - r :
So much for the heat of the Westminster Re-
formers; now comes your Lordship's other epi-
thet, undisciplined.
Your Lordship, in another place, has shown
your fears of organized detractors. These de-
tractors are, of course, the Westminster Re-
formers, who, it seems, have discipline enough
F -
* 66
to do harm, although they have not discipline
enough to do good. They are under some or-
ganization, you confess, and under some dis-
cipline or teaching, or rule of conduct; but then
this organization is their own; this discipline
they have derived from themselves; this rule of
conduct has been self-taught. The rub is, that
the Westminster Reformers are disciplined, but
are not disciplined by the Whigs: they are dis-
ciples; they are followers; but then it is of a
system taught by their own convictions; and
they are not disciples, they are not followers of
the Whigs. Your forty years' friend, Mr. Perry,
in his Chronicle, the other day, attributed in
part the large minority in favor of Mr. Hobhouse
to the discipline of the Westminster Reformers.
That was his word. I am no Whig–I misquote
nobody wilfully. •
If, by want of discipline you mean want of
instruction, I have already shown you that the
Westminster Reformers have adopted the same
notions as to Reform, as were professed formerly
by the Whig Friends of the People. I may fairly
add, that if those friends had adhered to that
notion, the Reformers would have been happy
to have been indebted to them for their instruc-
tion. -
Your Lordship, however, does certainly object
to the Westminster Reformers nothing else than
that they are not under the discipline of your Whig
i
67
friends. Thus it is the people must be led, and
the Whigs kindly undertake for guides. In vain
the people say, “we were, if you please, taught
to walk by you when we were as yet young in
the ways of Reform, but you would walk with
us no longer; you got upon your high horse,
and rode away; we have heard no more of you
for many years. Now you come back, having
been thrown by your nags, you want something
to do, and offer to help us again, but we have
grown up in the interval. Go our way, if you
like, we will thank you for your company; but
as for your leading strings' excuse us! we can
walk alone.”
I now come to the Westminster Reformers as
“Libellers of Parliament.” The libel to which
your Lordship alludes seems to be not only the
libel which speaks falsely, but the libel which
breaks the King's peace by speaking the truth.
We must consider them together. The Re-
formers have, I will allow, taken every occasion
to insist upon the notorious corruption of the
House of Commons, and upon the melancholy
truth, that, constituted as it is, no good whatever
is to be expected from the House of Commons.
As to the first part of the proposition, it is what
was insisted upon for many years by your Lord-
ship's Whigs, and it has been insisted upon by
many statesmen at previous periods of our his-
tory. I pass over the perpetual complaints of
F 2
68
the Country party in the first years of the acces-
sion of the House of Hanover. But let me
direct your attention to what was said and done
by those who called themselves Patriots, and
who were called disaffected Whigs by the friends
of the minister, Walpole. These gentlemen
endeavoured to bring the House of Commons
into contempt, not only by words, but by deeds :
they seceded from their duties: a scheme which
the Tories had before tried for the same express
object, and which the Whigs have since tried
twice; once in Lord Rockingham's time, in 1777,
and again under Mr. Fox. The language with
which they were reproached, is a complete coun-
terpart of that now levelled against the West-
minster Reformers. Sir Robert Walpole, in his
famous speech on the 13th of February, 1741,
after complimenting the Tory, or what we should
call perhaps the regular old opposition, then
struck out against the Patriots :
“Can it,” said he, “be fitting in them (the
“Tories) who have divided the public opinion
“ of the nation, to share it with those who now
“appear as their competitors 2 with the men
“ of yesterday, the boys in politics, who would
“ be absolutely contemptible did not their auda-
“city render them detestable with the mock
“ patriots, whose practice and professions prove
“ their selfishness and malignity; who threatened
“to pursue me to destruction, and who have
69
“never for a moment lost sight of their object :
“These men, under the name of Separatists, pre-
“sume to call themselves, exclusively, the nation
“ and the people, and under that character assume
“ all power. In their estimation, the King, Lords,
“ and Commons, are a faction, and they are the
“ government. Upon these principles, they
“ threaten the destruction of all authority, and
“ think they have a right to judge, direct; and
“ resist, all legal magistrates. They withdraw
“ from Parliament because they succeed in
“ nothing, and then attribute their want of suc-
“ cess not to its true cause, their own want of
“ integrity and importance, but to the effects of
“ places, pensions, and corruption.”” w
Read this, my Lord l and tell me whether
you might not fancy yourself perusing a Fox
Club Speech against the “men of yesterday,”
the “mock patriots, audacious, contemptible,
detestable Separatists,” who “ presume to call
themselves the nation, the people, and to call
King, Lords, and Commons, a faction:” against
those “who revile the Parliament, because they
can succeed in none of their attempts in Parlia-
ment ; ” and who, having neither “integrity nor
importance,” attribute their want of success to
the effect of “places, pensions, and corruption.”
And yet the name of Lord Chatham is to be
found amongst those very abandoned characters,
* Coxe's Walpole, Chap. 56.
70
and it must be some consolation to the Westmin-
ster Reformers to find themselves charged with
no more than was laid at the door of that illus-
trious statesman, who, indeed, for the remainder
of his career, seems to have been in nowise afraid
of speaking openly of the Corruption of the
House of Commons, and at the latter part of his
life made a motion to dissolve the said Assembly,
which in one speech he called “a corrupt House
of Commons which inverted all law and order,”
saying with Shakspeare, .
Fie on it! oh, fie!
'Tis an unweeded garden, things
Rank and gross in nature possess it merely.
and in another affirmed, that “the people had
no confidence in the present House of Commons,
who had betrayed their trust,”f and showed the
necessity of having a Parliament in whom the
people could place a proper confidence. On
another occasion,t he called the Parliament a
“Mob :” certainly this is libelling Parliament in
the same sense in which you would charge the
Westminster Reformers with libelling Parliament.
“Lord Chatham,” said your Lordship in the
Pamphlet on the French War, “ had detected
“ and exposed the rank corruption of the House
* See Lord Chatham's Speech on the 1st of May, 1770,
See also the Lords’ Protest.
t See his Speech on May 14, 1770,
# See his Speech, April 30, 1771.
71
“of Commons, as the sole cause of that fatal
“quarrel (the American war), and left it as a
“ legacy to his son to avenge and correct it;”
—you added afterwards, “Libels on Parliament at
“ that time, as since, were written ; but Mr. Pitt's
“were unquestionably the strongest and the best.”
We may see then what you mean by libel, although
we can, indeed, discern that you thought diffe-
rently of the good strong libels written by Mr.
Pitt, and the good strong libels of the Westmin-
ster Reformers. -
As I have mentioned Lord Chatham's name,
your Lordship will permit me to quote the
authority of your brother, for saying, that not
only did that Whig statesman libel, that is,
speak disagreeable truths of the House of Com-
mons, or to use your phrase “indecently ani-
madvert upon its character and conduct,” but
he had formed just the same notion of the true
remedy for corruption, as the Westminster Re-
formers, he looked to the Autocracy,t (a word
* See “A View of the Causes and Consequences of the pre-
sent War with France,” pp. 7 and 8. -
t Lord Buchan, in his character of Thomson the Poet, has
these words—“ A free constitution of government, or what I
would beg leave to call the Autocracy of the people, is the
panacea of moral diseases; e O Gº tº º e
“Eighteen years after Thomson's death, the late Lord
Chatham agreed with me in making this remark; and when
I said, “But, Sir! what will become of poor old England,
‘that doats on the imperfections of her pretended constitu-
72
happily invented by Lord Buchan) of the people,
to their spontaneous, uninfluenced exercise of
their own power, as the panacea for all moral
diseases in the government. He was indeed in
one sense of the word, what we should call only
a moderate Reformer, but he was not a moderate
Reformer in the present application of that
epithet to the Whigs. He was sincere, and in-
stead of frightening himself as he grew older, he
became more decisive; and having boldly at
one time declared he had not made up his mind
to shorten the duration of parliaments, he” as
frankly avowed afterwards, that he was a convert
to that species of Reform as part of the means of
diminishing the corruption which had brought
the Summa Rerum to stake.f
When we come to your Lordship's Whigs, we
‘tion ?’ he replied, ‘My dear Lord, the gout will dispose of
‘me soon enough to prevent me from feeling the consequences
of this infatuation. But before the end of this century,
‘ either the Parliament will reform itself from within, or be
‘ reformed with a vengeance from without.’ “Pythonic
speech, speedily to be verified.” -
Delightful dialogue! which the Earl of Buchan made public
either to claim some share of Pythonic praise, or to help me
to an argument against his brother.—The infatuated doting on
the imperfections of our pretended constitution, is worth any
money, and will be recollected by and by.
* See his Answer to the City Address, May 14, 1770.
+ See his Speech, April 30, 1771. Life of the Earl of
Chatham, vol. ii. chap. xl.
* 6,
( Q
find repeated libels on the House of Commons.
In the Speech before quoted, Mr. Fox said, “we
have now indeed, a form of government, consist-
ing of King, Lords, and Commons' House of
Parliament ; but not a government consisting
of King, Lords, and the Commons, Representa-
tives of the People of Great Britain.—It is a
Government in which the power of the People is
nothing.” -
Mr. Grey said on the occasion, before referred
to, that he expected no Reform whatever from
the House of Commons, and that Reform must
* Speech, Commons’ Debate, 4th January, 1798.
“Mr. Fox, in a speech of several hours,” says Mr. Burke,
“urged the referring to a committee the libellous impeachment
of the House of Commons, by the Association of the Friends of
the People;” Mr. Burke adds, that Mr. Fox’s purpose was,
“ to discredit Parliament as it stands; to countenance leagues,
covenants, and associations for its further discredit; to render
it perfectly odious and contemptible.” He goes on, “Mr.
Fox and these gentlemen have for the present been defeated;
but they are neither converted nor disheartened. They have
solemnly declared, that they will persevere until they have
attained their ends; persisting to assert, that the House of
Commons not only is not a true Representation of the People;
but that it does not answer the purpose of such Representation.
Most of them insist that all the debts, the taxes, and the bur-
thens of all kinds on the people, with every other evil and
inconvenience which we have suffered since the Revolution,
have been owing solely to a House of Commons which does
not speak the sense of the people.”—See Letter to the Duke of
Portland, Articles 43, 44. +.
74
come from the people by perpetually meeting in
bodies. Add to this, that the secession of the
Whig leaders in 1797 was notoriously for the pur-
pose of diminishing the authority of the House,
and to operate upon that House by means of the
public, who were to be convinced by the secession,
that Mr. Fox and his friends thought no good
was to be obtained by attending a House so con-
stituted.—“But you stay away because you know
you cannot obtain a Parliamentary Reform, Aye?
But you do not expect to be able to persuade
the House of Commons to commence this work.”
—“Why no, not by my speeches certainly ;”
“ and yet I think they may be persuaded.”—
“How 2°–" By the public.”—These are Mr.
Fox's own words.
In the same speech, in which that leader owned
he staid away, as a measure which might perhaps
produce Parliamentary Reform, he informs us,
that he was called factious for so doing. Mr.
Fox at that day used the very language to which
the present representative for Westminster must
feel himself obliged to have recourse. “I can,”
said Mr. Fox, “please my adversaries in no
“ way. They say there is mischief in my staying
“ away, and they accuse me of mischief in my
“speeches. They are neither pleased with my
“ presence nor my absence.”
* Fox's Speech, 4th Jan. 1798.
75
But in truth, all the speeches that Sir F. Bur-
dett could ever make—or all the resolutions of
Westminster Reformers, cannot be half so decided
an effort to bring the House of Commons into
disrepute, as the secession of the great Whig
leader and the great body of his friends in 1797.
They are the very Spartans of the comparison—
what we have said they have done—when it is
clear, “ that a national deliverance can only be
“effected by a just and constitutional interference
“of the people, under these circumstances there
“is an actual necessity for their interposition;
“which will, and which alone can justify an ap-
“peal to the people by secession.”—So said a
Whig Reformer.” -
Having shown how much countenance the
“hot undisciplined Reformers,” “ libellers of
Parliament,” now in Westminster, may derive
from good authority—good Whig authority; I
now come to the charge of our being Revolu-
tionists.-The harder the words used against us,
the better are we pleased—for the less they will
be thought to apply.—Your Lordship has en-
deavoured to fix upon the body of the Reformers
that reproach which the Whig who seconded
Mr. Lamb threw out against Mr. Hobhouse.—
Mr. Evans supported his charge by telling a
downright falsehood—forgive the word—your
* See—The Secession from Parliament Windicated, by the
Rev. Christopher Wyvill, 1799.
76
Lordship has nothing to do with the person who
told it—he hinted that Mr. Hobhouse was a
friend of the French, and said he had called the
Victory of Waterloo the “ Carnage of Mont
St. Jean.” Mr. Hobhouse showed that the ex-
pression, though a simple fact, had never been
used by him, but had been used by another
person; and he also stated that he was surprised
at such a charge of Revolutionary principles
coming from Whigs—who were always talking of
the Revolution—whose whole merits were con-
fined to their share in the Revolution—and who
had no other rag to cover their nakedness.-
Mr. Hobhouse might have added, that the Whigs
had borrowed a poor stale device from their former
opponents.-Hear Mr. Fox,−“I cannot,” said
he, “ state any thing in this house in favor of
a Parliamentary Reform, without his telling me
I afford encouragement to the French.” When
Mr. Evans had been obliged to retire in conse-
quence of the general indignation expressed at
his falsehood, Mr. Lamb supplied his loss by
still continuing the “ Revolutionary” charges
against his opponent: but what might be par-
doned to the pitiable situation of a candidate
who was bound by advertisement to find some-
thing to object to in the principles of Mr. Hob-
house, is not so excusable in your Lordship,
especially when you extend this intended re-
* Parliamentary Debates, as above.
77
proach to a large body of your fellow country-
men.—It is really disgraceful for a man like
Lord Erskine to chime in with the common
abuse levelled against the Reformers by the
wretched hirelings of the courtly press.—You
know that a certain portion of the political
actors, and talkers, and writers in this country,
have, at every period since the Revolution, been
constantly charged with being Revolutionists—
you well recollect the time when yourself and
your friends were the Jacobins, the Levellers, the
Revolutionists of the day, terms now applied by
Mr. Perry to his Westminster fellow-citizens.—
You should be aware that the application of
such epithets is become ridiculous and unpar-
donable, except when proceeding from some
regular Court organ, whose folly is official.
Your Lordship must have been shouting by
the side of Mr. Sheridan when he said, “We are
friends to Reform s” a phrase which, it seems, is
henceforth to be deemed synonymous with Revolu-
tion.* The miserable alarmist who wrote the
Pursuits of Literature, in his strictures on the
Radical Reform of Mr. Fox, found a Greek pas-
sage directly to his purpose, and charging the
Whig leader with wishing entirely to subvert the
State.t—Was it not Edmund Burke who exhi-
bited fifty-four articles of impeachment against
* Speech, Jan. 4, 1798.
t Dialogue IV.
78
the Right Honourable Charles James Fox ** and
did not Edmund Burke make it one of his articles
of impeachment, that at the first meeting of the
“Friends of the Liberty of the Press,” Mr. Ers-
kine took the lead in the name and authority of
Mr. Fox, and had thanks for his defence of Paine,
which amounted to a complete avowal of that Jacobin
incendiary.f -
The whole of the latter charges against
Mr. Fox in that famous Letter, tend to prove
that Mr. Fox and his fifty friends having sup-
ported the scandalous charges and indefinite pro-
jects of this infamous libel from the friends of the
people, I having by every art kept alive a spirit of
disaffection against the very Constitution of the
kingdom, and attributed all the public misfortunes
to that Constitution, it was absolutely IMPOSSIBLE
but that some moment must arrive in which they
would be enabled to produce a pretended Reform
and a real Revolution. In fact Mr. Fox did say
that popular resistance to the House of Commons
was a question of prudence.—“With respect to
“ the doctrine, he expressly declared, that in his
“opinion, not only the King may incite the
“ people to resistance—that not only the Lords
* See the Title—“A Letter from the Right Hon. Edmund
Burke to His Grace the Duke of Portland, on the Conduct of
the Ministry in Parliament; containing fifty-four Articles of
Impeachment against the Right Hon. C. J. Fox.”
# See Article 14, t Article 45. Article 46.
79
* may incite the people to resistance—that not
“ only the House of Commons may excite the
“ people to resistance—but that the measures of
“ the three branches of the legislature may jus-
“tify the people in resisting the government.”
Oh, my Lord we have consolation upon con-
solation, as far as it can be derived from autho-
rity.—We are not to be frightened with words
that break no bones—we have not been called
Revolutionists half so often as Mr. Fox, Mr. She-
ridan, Mr. Grey, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Lambton,
Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Francis, Mr. Taylor, and,
though last, not least in the list of those who
have despised the shame of calumny, the Ho-
nourable Thomas Erskine.—What said the HO-
NEST MAN, the popular Whig of ninety-two –
“Against the prevalence of both extremes (Re-
“ publicanism and Toryism) there only exists
“one remedy:—it is to invigorate the Demo-
“ cratic part of the Constitution; it is to render
“ the House of Commons so honestly and sub-
“stantially the representative of the people, that
“Republicans may no longer have topics of
“invective, nor ministers the means of cor-
“ruption.”f Think a moment, and you will
see the extreme injustice, nay, more, the ex-
treme absurdity of fastening the epithet Revo-
lutionist upon those against whom no other
* See Parliamentary Debate, Dec. 3, 1795.
t Letter to Mr. Pitt, &c. p. 33.
8()
crime can be charged, than the unwearied agi-
tation of what you call a hopeless question.—
This may be as your Lordship says it is, and
says it in capital letters, FOLLY; but it is surely
a little too hard to threaten such folly not only
with the critic, but with Jack Ketch. However,
I thank you for the warning, for, believe me, I
am much of Dryden's way of thinking:—
“To die for treason is a common evil,
“But to be hang'd for nonsense is the devil.”
Until, however, you convince me, that there
is any penal statute against this agitation, I shall
persevere; and shall take the liberty to think, that
the question is not altogether so hopeless as you
seem to imagine. For, the cause is now in the
right hands. It is in the hands of those whom
it most concerns. It is in the hands of those
who never can have any wish or interest to
abandon it. Any separate body of politicians
may have other subjects to divide their atten-
tion; but, with the people, the restoration of
the due control of the people must, necessarily,
be the sole object of all their endeavours. It is
not the weapon of a few ; it is the aim of all.
And if your Lordship magnanimously pro-
claimed, that you would stick by “the weather-
beaten remnants of the wreck” of the Whigs of
* See “A View of the Causes and Consequences of the
present French War.”
81
England,” you can hardly quarrel with those
who, to the last, adhere to the people of Eng-
land, however hopeless may be the struggle,
however prudent may be the retreat.
. Before I drop this part of the subject, I mean
the revolutionary charge, I must be allowed to
say, that your Lordship does not act fairly in
mixing up the Westminster and other radical
Reformers with those who were driven to excesses
by the distress of the times. You must surely
be aware, that the manufacturers did not rise in
order to obtain Parliamentary Reform, and that
the discouragement given by the Westminster Re-
formers, and by Sir F. Burdett to the proceedings
of the actors at Spa-fields and elsewhere, has
been made a matter of charge against them by
Mr. Cobbett and Mr. Hunt, individuals whose
authority must now have some weight with your
Lordship's Whigs, since your forty-years friend,
Mr. Perry, borrows a leaf from the one to revile
his Westminster fellow-citizens; and the Whig
candidate stood on the same board with the other
at the late election. +:
But here again I cannot resist the temptation
to refer to sound opinions, respecting the pro-
ceedings of such petitioners for Reform as may
have acted with less caution than was expe.
dient. In your present pamphlet you tell us,
that the bolder Reformers, in contradistinction
to the Whigs, “ appointed delegates in all parts
G
82
“ of the kingdom, and organized a general
“ system of correspondence, in terms so cri-
“minally and dangerously licentious, that their
“ papers were seized by (Mr. Pitt's) govern-
“ment, and a few amongst them, selected as
“ their leaders, were taken into custody by war-
“rants from the secretary of state.” Your Lord-
ship then proceeds to state the merits of the
Whigs in stepping forward to defend those who
had drawn themselves into this dilemma, and had
awakened the just vengeance of government.
In the first place, I find that when you wrote
of the proceedings of the government just after
they had occurred, you did not call the bolder
Reformers “criminally and dangerously licen-
tious;” no, you have this phrase, “ the homest,
but irregular zeal of some societies, instituted for
the Reform of Parliament, furnished a seasonable,
but a contemptible pretext”f for the arrogant in-
terference of government against French politics.
But here comes the strangest part of the refer-
ence, by which we see, that so far from the go-
vernment having been incited by this honest and
irregular zeal of the bolder Reformers, it was the
Whig Reformers, and Mr. Grey at the head of
them, that gave the first alarm and excuse to
the ministers. Your Lordship's words are clear
* Defence, &c. pp. 10, 11.
t “View of the Causes and Consequences,” &c. pp. 11
and 12, w
83
as crystal; you say, “ These irregularities and
“excesses were, for a considerable length of
“ time, wholly overlooked by the government.
“Mr. Paine's works had been extensively and
“industriously circulated throughout England
and Scotland : the correspondencies, which
“ above a year afterwards became the subject of
“ the state trials, had been printed in every
“ newspaper, and sold without question or in-
“terruption in every shop in the kingdom;
“ when a circumstance took place, not calcu-
“lated, one would imagine, to have occasioned
“any additional alarm to the country, but
“ which (mixed with the effects on the public,
“ from Mr. Burke's first celebrated publication
“on the French Revolution) seems to have
“given rise to the king's proclamation, the first
“act of government regarding France and her
“ affairs. . . . . . A few gentlemen, not
“ above fifty in number, and consisting princi-
“ pally of persons of rank, talents, and charac-
“ter, formed themselves into a society, under
“ the name of ‘The Friends of the People.’”
You then proceed to state the legal object of
the society, a Reform in Parliament: and after-
wards go on— .
“Nevertheless, on the very day that Mr.
“Grey, at the desire of this small society, gave
“ notice of his intended motion in the House of
“Commons, there was an instantaneous mur-
&
6
&
G 2
84
“mur amongst ministers, as if a great national
“conspiracy had been discovered. No act of
“government appeared to have been in agitation
“ before that period, although the correspon-
“dencies before alluded to had, for months,
“ been public and notorious, and there was
“scarcely an information, even for a libel, upon
“ the file of the court of King's Bench. Never-
“theless, a council was almost immediately held,
“ and his majesty was advised to issue his royal
“ proclamation of the 21st of May, 1792, to
“rouse the vigilance and attention of the ma-
“gistrates throughout the kingdom, to the vi-
“gorous discharge of their duties.”* *
Thus, my Lord, it was not the Reformers of
the corresponding and constitutional societies,
that brought the alarm upon the nation, and
the vengeance of the crown upon themselves;
it was Mr. Grey and his fifty Whig persons of
rank, talent, and character, that caused the
explosion. And you now come to take merit
for yourself and for your Whigs, because you
defended the above Reformers, who, according
to your own account, written just afterwards,
would probably never have been attacked but for
yourselves. I have, however, nothing to do at
this moment with the merits of the Whigs. I
only wish to prove, that those who adopt popu-
* “A View,” &c. pp. 12, 13, 14.
85
lar politics, and particularly Reform politics,
always have been called Revolutionists, and that
your Whigs were called and thought so more
than any others. Aye, were thought more dan-
gerous than the bolder Reformers. And I have
proved it.
It is, besides, hardly decent in your Lordship
to say, that you gave up your lucrative business
to defend the Reformers.” Let me ask you, did
not that defence make your business more lucra-
tive P .
I think, there is now little need of entering
farther on the subject of the heat or want of dis-
cipline, or of the Revolutionary character of the
Westminster Reformers. And I fancy, there-
fore, that I have said enough respecting the
first proposition, contained in your simile of the
bark and the fever, namely, that, owing to the
Westminster Reformers, the sound sense of the
country has been for a time overpowered.
I now come to the second proposition, name-
ly, that the result of the Westminster Election
shows, that the “sound sense of the country is
beginning to return again.”
If I have been at all successful in showing,
that a person, calling himself a Whig and a Re-
former, and, more than all Whigs and Reformers,
Lord Erskine, has no possible pretext for saying,
* Page 11 of the Defence.
86
that the Westminster Reformers are mad, and
have made the country mad, I shall then have
the less diſficulty in proving, that the same
person has still less pretext for proclaiming the
result of the Westminster election as a symptom
of returning sanity. .
Your Lordship, indeed, has not confined the
assertion to a simile, for you actually declare,
that the rejection of Mr. Hobhouse, and the
return of Mr. Lamb, “if turned to a proper
“ account, by persons of all parties and opi-
“nions, may be considered as one of the most
“favourable events, for securing the tranquil-
“lity, and advancing the prosperity of the
“ country, that has occurred since the consti-
“tution was renovated and consecrated by the
“ Revolution.” .
I dare say, that neither of the candidates
thought they were contributing to so magnifi-
cent an exploit; and I feel persuaded, that Mr.
Hobhouse, if he has the least spark of patriot-
ism, will think the loss of a seat in the House of
Commons a mere trifle in comparison with hav-
ing played even the unsuccessful part in so aw-
fully important a drama. That he should have
sealed with his blood, though rather with the
spirit of a combatant than a martyr, a third
charter of British freedom, cannot but be con-
solatory to such of his friends as may lament
the fatal error in his choice of a side.
87
But, seriously, my Lord, can you be ac-
quainted with a single circumstance relative to
the Westminster election, when you hail the re-
sult of it as an event so auspicious
If the defeat of Mr. Hobhouse be so truly a
subject of congratulation, the objection must lie
either against that gentleman, or against the
principles of which he is supposed to be the re-
presentative. As to the first, perhaps, it may
be a sufficient answer to say, that the Whigs
themselves professed from the hustings, that it
was not their original intention to oppose Mr.
Hobhouse; nor am I aware that (squibbing
apart) any of the party, during the whole con-
test, pretended to state a single objection to
that gentleman. Even your Lordship has for-
born to hint any thing to his disadvantage. In-
deed, it was publicly asserted, and I have never
heard it contradicted, that at the time it was
generally supposed Mr. Kinnaird would have
been selected as candidate for Westminster, se-
veral of the leading Whigs of Westminster de-
clared, that, although they were not inclined to
support Mr. Kinnaird, they would support Mr.
Hobhouse. The names mentioned were Mr.
Wishart, Mr. Perry, and Mr. James Macdo-
mald; of whom the first may be considered the
representative of the remnant of the Foxites in
Westminster; the second, as the organ of the whole
party; and the last, the acknowledged head of the
88
Romilly committee. It is perfectly true, that
when Mr. Kinnaird had withdrawn himself, the
Whigs then found their objections would affix
just as well to the next comer. The removal
of the immediate eye-sore, only left them
free to cast their angry glances at the object
next brought forward, and placed by the same
hands on the same eminence. The unanimity
prevailing amongst the Reformers at the public
meeting of November 17, 1818, and the refusal
on the part of Lord John Russell to allow his
name to be employed in opposition to them,
seem to have softened the attempted hostility of
the Whigs into a neutrality, which they preserved
with a sullen air of discontent, almost to the
last moment. But it is certain, that no personal
objection whatever was at any time made to Mr.
Hobhouse. One or two smart and ingenious
attempts were indeed made in “The Chronicle”
to draw him into a confession of faith; but not
even when the sword of controversy was drawn,
and the scabbard of shame and decency thrown
away, by the honest polemics of “The Chroni-
cle,” was any specific charge against the charac-
'ter of Mr. Hobhouse, independent of his poli-
tics, ever adventured by his opponents. I should
fancy that your Lordship would have found no-
thing to say against him had he stood on the
other side of the hustings.
Certainly the objection, then, would appear
S9
to attach to his presumed principles. In fact,
Mr. Macdonald, in the requisition to Mr. Lamb,
publicly stated that the reason for requesting
him to come forward was, because Mr. Mac-
donald and his friends objected to the principles of
Major Cartwright and of Mr. Hobhouse. What
were the particular principles of Mr. Hobhouse
to which the Whig gentlemen objected, they
never condescended to state to the public; and,
indeed, so far from having any thing to object to
in those principles, the Whigs, through their
organ the Chronicle, declared, after the election,
that it was unfair to say that Mr. Hobhouse had
any principles at all upon Reform.*. -
I have before touched upon the opinions re-
specting Reform of Parliament, publicly professed
by Mr. Hobhouse on the hustings, and have
shown how bold it must appear in a Whig to
attack those opinions unless he premises that he
has renounced all the notions formerly enter-
tained by his party as to the PARAMOUNT IM-
PORTANCE OF REFORM. Mr. Hobhouse appeared
as the decided opponent of his Majesty's present
ministers. The Whigs could hardly say, and
they will hardly let your Lordship say, that they
objected to Mr. Hobhouse on that score; but
Mr. Hobhouse appeared as the advocate of the
Jé. Chronicle, March 11. It may be some consolation to
Mr. Hobhouse to recollect that the charge brought against
Mr. Fox's reform was just the same—it was called indefinite.
90
PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE OF REFORM, and I
do believe that this is the principle to which
your Lordship objects, and which you think it
of such national advantage to have for a moment
defeated in Westminster, strange as such an
objection must be from a member of the society
of the Friends of the People. I believe, indeed,
that had the Westminster Reformers and Mr.
Hobhouse not thought Reform of such para-
mount importance as to make it necessary to
expose that party combination by which it had
suffered such cruel assaults, the mere presumed
principles of Mr. Hobhouse would not have
brought down the vengeance of the Whigs, es-
pecially when they thought their blow had so
little chance of being effectual. Mr. Lambton
kindly confessed that the Report of the West-
minster Committee had been the sole cause of
the nomination of Mr. Lamb : the honest frank-
ness of youth and anger made him forget that
his coadjutor, Mr. Macdonald, had put that
nomination to the charge of the obnoxious prin-
ciples of Mr. Hobhouse. The Chronicle, too,
made the same profession, and attributed the
opposition to Mr. Hobhouse solely to resentment,
and to a resolution on the part of the Whigs to
windicate their honor. It went, indeed, the
honest length of saying, “ that the Whigs were
fond of liberty, but they would not purchase
even liberty at the expense of their honor.” Candid
91
confession and one, which if you read interest
for honor, may pass for an incontrovertible,
immutable truth of all the political parties that
ever distracted a state. -
The Whigs, and your Lordship, may perhaps
say that the objectionable part of the principle
of the Westminster Reformers, and of Mr. Hob-
house, is that part which teaches them the
necessity of decrying all party connexions, and
of recalling public men to a sense of their pre-
sent duty, by laying before them the record of
their past professions: but this is rather the
practice than the principle, and Mr. Lambton
was much more honest than Mr. Macdonald in
avowing the fact that the reason why the Whigs
came forward with Mr. Lamb, was not for the
sake of establishing any great public principle ;
was not to produce any great national good; but
was solely to satisfy their wounded pride, or to
convince the world, as Mr. Perry said, that
though they loved liberty, they would not pur-
chase even liberty at the expense of their honor.
What the Whigs call their honor, it is, alas !
very difficult to divine. This quality, like the
Constitution of the country, as it resides we
know not where, and consists in we know not
what, may be unconsciously attacked, or gra-
tuitously defended; but the nation at large, who
do not participate in those delicate feelings, and
know of no private honor independent of public
92
principle in any set of politicians; the nation,
I say, did not and will not understand why those
persons who have for years been expressing their
conviction that the king's ministers were ruining
the country, should come forward to thwart an
individual, and a body of their fellow country-
men, who had just been exerting themselves
successfully to the confusion and discomfiture of
the ministerial influence in the metropolis. The
nation did not and will not understand that
Mr. Macdonald told the truth when he signed
the assertion that the Whigs put forward Mr.
Lamb upon principle ; but they give credit to
Mr. Lambton for saying it was from passion.
They believe him, and your Lordship must also
believe him. .
Your Lordship, then, cannot congratulate
yourself upon the result of the election, as having
defeated any obnoxious person, or the advocate
of any principles obnoxious to the party you
defend, and we must search for some other cause
for your delight.
You say that the tranquillity of the country
may be secured by this event. Never, perhaps,
was such a consummation so ushered in. I do
not suppose your Lordship had any hand in
hiring the six hundred bludgeon men, who
were arrayed at the command of Mr. Lamb's
Committee; but you must have heard of the
exploits of those heralds of peace. To mere
93
mortal eyes, your Lordship's Whigs, at the
election, appeared to be Saviours, who brought
“ not peace but a sword.”.” It is possible that
you may have been deceived by the Morning
Post, and your own Chronicle, into the vulgar
and now abandoned error of thinking that the
Reformers had hired a large multitude to commit
violences ; but I assure you, and challenge de-
nial, that since the people have taken the ma-
nagement of the election into their own hands,
there has been no organization of force of any
sort, much less such as formerly was arrayed, both
by Whig and Tory, in Westminster.f Mr. Perry,
during the election, talked of “the organized
hired band of yellers.” It was false—he knew
it to be false. Not a sixpence was spent by the
Reformers to obtain a false show of popularity.
* See the proceedings in the Court of Requests, as given
in the Times and other papers. The bludgeon men were
hired by one Bond, a Bow-street officer, who was hired by
some of the Committee; a Captain Prescott, and Mr. James
Macdonald ; so said the agents in their indignation at being
the sufferers.
t The excellent Mr. Lambton was most indignant at the
Whigs and Mr. Fox having been charged by the Report with
committing murder in the contests for Westminster. “How
“ atrocious ! only think, gentlemen, they said we committed
“ murder.” The young gentleman was too angry to see that
the Report, or rather a quotation in the Report, only said that
during the struggles murder had been committed; and so it
had. The thing happened before Mr. Lambton was born,
but it is nevertheless true.
94.
It was reserved for your Whigs to renew their
old practices; to bring prize fighters and hired
ruffians into the field. An honest Whig, in the
Chronicle, up to the very last denied this fact,
which had been notorious to every body before
the Hustings for the last three days, and charged
Mr. Hobhouse with denouncing the Whigs for
this iniquity at the very moment he had encou-
raged the people to murderous attacks upon the
Whig gentlemen. Even Mr. Lamb so far forgot
himself as to say in his address, that his opponent
had inflamed his adherents to assault the unpro-
tected female, and the unprepared passenger;
but after Mr. Hobhouse had written his letter to
the Chronicle,” and publicly renewed his charge
of the Whigs hiring ruffians, and defied all the
Whigs to prove that iniquity against the Re-
formers, your Lordship may have observed that
impudence itself has been silent, and a judicial
proceeding f has confirmed the fact publicly
proclaimed by Mr. Hobhouse, that the Whigs
hired a large body of ruffians to impede the
return of the Reformer, and that to the brutal
ferocity of those ruffians must be attributed all
* See Chronicle, March 6.
t It is a Whig adoption, perhaps, but not a Whig inven-
tion to make the prize-fighters pass for the people of London.
Lord Bute, when minister, hired a number of these patriots to
escort him to Guildhall, and was received much in the same
way as the Whigs.-See the History of the late Minority, 1763.
chap. xi. p. 127,
95
the disturbances at the close of the poll—and
you call this securing tranquillity. It is a strange
beginning, at any rate; but I can moreover
appeal to your own Whigs, whether they do not
feel that so far from securing tranquillity, they
have sowed the seeds of a dissension between the
Reformers and themselves that will never termi-
nate except in the total overthrow of the party,
or the total extinction of the principle of Reform.
When you talk of a great point gained, let
me inquire what has triumphed. Is it a prin-
ciple 2 Is it a party? No one will be so bold
as to say that the return of Mr. Lamb secured
any principle whatever. On the contrary, the
whole proceedings of his supporters were one
constant shuffle from beginning to end. It was
said that he came forward on the principles of
Sir Samuel Romilly: what were the principles
of Sir Samuel Romilly in what code do we find
them embodied ? but it is idle to talk of that
virtuous man, who can be made ridiculous only
by his absurd eulogists, and whose name was
made use of on this occasion merely as a signal
that those who had voted for Sir Samuel Romilly,
might vote for Mr. Lamb : that was the meaning
of Vote for Lamb on Romilly's principles.
It was also meant to insinuate, that as Sir
Samuel Romilly had been the opposition can-
didate at the last election, so Mr. Lamb was the
opposition candidate at this; and that Mr.
Hobhouse was inclined to support the ministers.
96.
No pains were spared to inculcate this opinion,
by Mr. Lamb's canvassers and committee, and,
in the early part of the election, many hundred
voters were positively deceived by the falsehood
of this honest election manoeuvre. The “glorious
principles of the revolution” were resorted to for
the same worthy purpose, as if Mr. Hobhouse
was against the revolution.
With the same candour it was spread about
that Mr. Lamb was the real Reformer, and that
Mr. Hobhouse intended to deprive many of his
constituents, should he be returned, of their
suffrages. The Whigs did not blush to disperse
a hand-bill to this effect;* but they themselves did
this very thing during the election, and disfran-
chised many hundred electors; and Mr. Lamb,
though he had before professed himself for
triennial parliaments and householder suffrage,
totally dropt even his professions on a topic
which as it had been taken up, was let drop
for election purposes. . He knew nothing
about the matter; but, at the same time, had
the modesty to talk of Mr. Hobhouse's explicit
declaration as being unintelligible. At the
latter end of the election, no more was said or
placarded about Mr. Lamb's principles on Re-
form or Revolution. We came to the honour of
‘Westminster, and Mr. Hobhouse, who was be-
fore charged with a wish to curtail the suffrage,
was now accused with being an advocate of
* See the Speeches on the first Tuesday of the last election.
97
universal suffrage. In short, it would be the
height of absurdity to say that any one principle
has triumphed on this occasion. Towards the
latter end of the election, it was hard to discover
even whether Mr. Lamb intended to sit with the
opposition, as the decency of his demeanor,
under popular persecution, would have suited a
court candidate; and, in his address of thanks,
eVen the poor word, liberty, hacknied as it is,
and one should have thought offensive not even
to Mr. Lamb’s ministerial supporters, was, either
by accident or design, totally omitted. The
triumph was given to the “cause of independence;”
a word still better suited to the undefined virtues
of the Whigs, and indiscriminately used by their
opponents. *
Still less has any single party triumphed ; for
your Lordship cannot live so totally secluded
from all truth as not to know that Mr. Lamb
owes his majority full as much to the supporters
of the court, as to the supporters of the party.
As your title page calls your defence a defence
of the Whigs, I presume that you would pre-
tend that the honor belongs to the Whigs,
although your Lordship's late practice would
make it doubtful in whose success you would
sincerely rejoice; that of the opposition or of
* Thus Mr. Sumner was called the old independent member
for Surrey. - * . - * x :
H
98
the minister. Both may divide the prize ;
for, according to the rule of Joan of Arc, he
who has shared the labour should share the
glory.
The whole organization which procured for the
totally unknown naval captain 4800 voters, was
set at work for Mr. Lamb. All the engines of
power, great and small, from the ordnance office
to the select vestries, the parish officers; all were
in activity. The nomination of Mr. Lamb was
hailed with delight by the Courier, and that
other faithful mirror in which we see the dirty
faces of our court sycophants and slanderers.
It is recollected by all who attended the hustings,
that the whole array of collectors, and others,
who were before the agents of Captain Maxwell,
appeared for the Whig Candidate. It may be
recollected, that when one of the speakers said
that the appearance of Mr. Lamb might bring
forward a ministerial candidate, the crowd ex-
claimed, He is the ministerial candidate. I may
challenge your Lordship to point out a single
effort or artifice, which are usually supposed
characteristic of court candidates, that were not
resorted to by Mr. Lamb's friends. If the first
two or three days of the election were employed
in persuading those who knew nothing of the
transactions of the hustings, that Mr. Lamb was
against the court, the whole of the latter part
of the contest, when the first mean artifice had
99
been exhausted, was devoted to collecting the
whole anti-popular force,—some of them the
willing dependants, others the reluctant victims
of power and corruption.
The return of Mr. Lamb is not the triumph
of the Whigs, and I will venture to assert from a
dissection of the poll, that had a regularly badged
and liveried court candidate been started, Mr.
Lamb would not have polled fifteen hundred
votes. Let him try again when there is only
one vacancy. That will show the Whig force
in Westminster. - - -
But if Mr. Lamb's return had been the fruit
of Whig influence solely, I see not how your
Lordship could possibly congratulate yourself
upon such an event, produced by such means.
You cannot know the circumstances of the case:
that you suspect them might appear from that
candid admission, “If upon the late election,
“influences were exerted which the law prohibits,
“I hope they will be detected and punished, and
“ a new election awarded; but, beyond that, it is
“ useless and childish to complain.”
If?—talkest thou to me of ifs, most noble Lord?
These are not the days when I would have gone
to you for constitutional law ; I would have
willingly gone to the Erskine of 1793, when he
said that the complaint was, “ that the people
“ had no control in the choice of their represen-
“tatives; that they were either chosen amidst
; ; ; s
H 2
100
“riot and confusion, and amidst bribery and cor-
“ruption in the larger districts, or by the absolute
“ authority of a few individuals in the smaller.”
Your Lordship now seems to resolve all crime
into detection,
Deprendi miserum est.
And now that the Westminster petition has been
dropped for want of pecuniary means of carrying
on an expensive suit before a corrupt tribunal,
your Lordship will doubtless more than ever
call aloud for the test of legal detection.—I say,
however, that it is notorious to all Westminster,
that influences were used which the law prohibits.
What was the Steward of Earl Grosvenor doing
in Pimlico? How many letters did an agent for
the Duke of Devonshire write to dependants of
that powerful house Ask an Irish Earl who
might have been a peer, and therefore, perhaps
was himself legally precluded from his very pro-
minent exertions, in company with what noble-
man's steward he canvassed ?—Why should my
Lord William Russell have appeared repeatedly
on the hustings together with other withered
weeds,
“ Which had no business there.”
Why, but that the Bedford tenants might know
under whose flag to range themselves. Your
Lordship, for ought I know, may not rank this
interposition of agents of those belonging to the
other branch of the legislature, under the “in-
101
fluences which the law prohibits.” You may
say, how do you know these stewards were
agents I dare say that they were not ; I dare
say that they acted against their nobler masters'
inclinations, and I should not wonder if they
were to be turned away from their service. The
Duke of Devonshire besides was abroad, and
could not leave any one to interfere for him at
elections;–of course not : he has not an agent
in the world, and if one of his borough-holders
had died, it would have been impossible to fill up
the vacancy!!!
To all this I say, that the voters considered
the applications as coming from the masters who
could record and punish, and not from the mere
servants who had nothing to withhold or bestow.
The employment of the managers of such estates
as are in the hands of peers of parliament to
show which way the tenants should vote, is
manifestly nothing less than an interference con-
trary to the spirit of the law. But, here comes
your Lordship's distinction, “It may not, in-
“deed it cannot, always happen that every man
“in Westminster, who pays to the public taxes,
“ has had leisure amidst laborious occupations, to
“consider the claims of candidates to distinction
“ and preference. * Such persons may fairly
“trust in the opinions, and repose in the wishes
“ of their BENEFACTORS, their EMPLOYERS, and
* Defence, &c. p. 19.
102.
“ their FRIENDS; and it is not corruption in en-
“lightened men, who can see clearly the interests
“ of their country, to use their influence with per-
“sons less qualified to investigate those sub-
“jects!”—Which, being interpreted, is as follows;
—How should a mechanic know any thing? the
laws of his country give him a vote to be sure,
but they intended it, like the penny to the school
boy, not to be spent all in trash, not to be thrown
away upon his silly inclinations; no, it is nothing
but a little token or pledge to give to a bene-
factor, or an employer, or a friend, in return for
favors received. It seems then we have been
all wrong, and have misinterpreted the Bill of
Rights; or, perhaps it is a misprint, like the
omission of the negative in the seventh com-
mandment; and we ought to read, “Elections
“shall not be free,” the poor may have a WISH
for one more than another, but he should give
his wish to the rich; - wº
“Right, cries his Lordship, for a rogue in need,
“To have a taste is insolence indeed.”
You think of these laborious voters, as Mrs.
Malaprop does of young girls, and sagely en-
quire, “What they can have to do with pre-
ference and aversion.” Your Lordship has
already had the serious answer” to your election
* “And this direct recommendation to the one to buy,
“ and to the other to sell his vote, this recommendation of the
“influence of terror,”-this recommendation to the one to
103
morality, which has often been practised I will
allow, but which it was reserved for a Whig
patriot, and a Whig Lord Chancellor to preach.
A blush does indeed betray itself, for you say,
“but whether I am right or wrong in this, it
“always did and always must happen in popular
“elections, unless God shall be pleased completely
“to recast the nature and character of man.”
How impious then were the Whig friends of the
people, who assumed to themselves that which
your Lordship says, belongs only to the divinity,
and did pretend completely to recast the nature
and character of the Englishman, by making
“a vote not worth soliciting.” At any rate as
your Lordship has kindly owned that you may
be wrong in defending influence, I do not see
how it can be “childish” in us to complain of
it; and really the deferring the amendment to a
new creation, the pious acquiescence in the pre-
sent imperfect condition of humanity, which
makes your Lordship inclined rather to increase
than diminish the necessary portion of moral
evil, may suggest to some one more ill-natured
“suborn the perjurer, and to the other to commit the perjury,
* comes from a person who calls himself a Parliamentary Re-
“former:—Truly, this is sound Whig reasoning. The igno-
“rance on the one hand, and the wisdom on the other, is
“assumed merely to justify the perjury:-Truly, this is sound
“Whig morality. And then it is asserted, that there is no
“corruption in the transaction:—Truly, this is Whig honesty.”
—Reply to Lord Erskine, pp. 27, 28.
104.
than myself, that your Lordship has forgotten
there is a second, as well as an early childishness.
As to the inutility of complaint, that is our
concern—were it only an amusement, it should
be left to us; for we have nothing else. We are
not actors in the great political drama, we are
only spectators—sitting too on the last and
lowest bench: but, we have paid our money, and
if we do not like the performers, we may hiss—at
least they thought so in France, and that too,
under the old monarchy.”
But a word more on influences prohibited by
law.—What does your Lordship think of public
breakfasts P Do you laugh in our faces as Mr.
Lamb did, and tell us that there is much “solid
satisfaction in a breakfast?”
Perhaps you will say that the Treating Act
does not extend to voluntary feasts given on the
part of the candidate's friends, and perhaps
Mr. Harrison, of the New Hummums, poured
forth his tea and wine all in gratuitous libations,
and out of pure love to the Whigs.-Prove
agency, you cry, or it is childish to complain—
it is nothing that the invitations to these break-
fasts were given by members of Mr. Lamb's
family—it is nothing that they were given by
those canvassing for Mr. Lamb—it is nothing
that the voters positively understood that if they
* “Ce monde ci est un oeuvre comique,” &c. &c. . . . . .
J. B. Rousseau.
105
voted for Mr. Lamb they would get a breakfast,
and if they did not vote, they would get none.—
This is not agency—this is only presumption—
it is not detection.—A committee of the House
of Commons has been known to reject even an
entry in an innkeeper's book, debiting these
treats to the candidate himself.” I know all
this very well, my Lord—and I suppose the
Westminster Electors knew it well enough when
they abandoned their petition with the less re-
gret, because their proofs were only moral evi-
dences, sufficient to convince any honest man,
and might have been voted frivolous and vexa-
tious by a dozen corrupt, puzzle-headed quib-
blers, chosen from that very body whom the
Westminster Electors have attempted to reform.
The same want of parliamentary demonstration
may, perhaps, affect the acts of bribery, which
became at last so notorious, that no less than
four or five individuals offered themselves as vo-
luntary witnesses of one single specimen of this
approved model of Whig persuasion.
In the late enquiry into the Chester election,
the payment of the money to the voter before
the face of the candidate, was not held to be
sufficient proof of bribery, although the friends
of the opposing candidate advised him to desist
from polling, as his election must necessarily
have been secured by that illegal transaction:
* At the Shrewsbury Election.
106
so that I imagine the Electors would have had as
little chance before a committee as they have had
before your Lordship, whose morality, upon your
own confession, is much like that of Julius
Caesar, who thought “ a man who had been
caught in adultery not a villain, but a bungler.”
In addition to the immediate influence before
described, which the law does not prohibit, but
which every principle of honour and generosity
condemns, it is known to all Westminster, that
the fear of offending the united Aristocracy pre-
vented many hundreds from voting for Mr. Hob-
house, who, nevertheless, could not be persuaded
to give their support to Mr. Lamb.-Add to
these, the great numbers rejected by the arbi-
trary decision of the High Bailiff, and the greater
number of those, whom shame of declaring
their poverty prevented from appearing at the
Hustings, to be exposed to the taunts of the Rate
Collectors and rejected by the Bailiff, and your
Lordship would find Mr. Lamb in a minority
much more considerable than his present majo-
rity.—Enquire of those who canvassed for either
party, and you will then be able to discover on
which side the wishes of the very great majority
of the Electors were inclined.—More than the
majority of Mr. Lamb were polled from the
parish of St. George; that is to say, from that
part of the town directly subject to the influence
of the Aristocracy.—And it is no exaggeration
107
to affirm, that of the seven thousand unpolled
Electors, four-fifths, if freely consulted, would
have declared for the Reformer, in opposition to
the Coalition Candidate.—Your Lordship may
ask why did they not come forward; but you
should be acquainted with the many disadvan-
tages under which the advocates of the popular
cause must necessarily exert themselves at a
contested election for Westminster.—Their voters
are all volunteers—they cannot be driven to the
poll—they wait for company—they wait for a
fine day—they wait for the latter days of the
poll, when their votes may appear to them more
valuable: in the mean time, terror and cor-
ruption, and solicitation of every sort, are un-
ceasingly at work—a great effort is easily made
by the trained bands in all the parishes, and the
public offices are most active on the very days
that the tradesman is most occupied.—The po-
pular cause is almost sure to be in a minority in
the latter days of the week, and hesitation and
despair may very naturally keep back very many
men most devoted to their honest principles; and
thus produce a fatal effect upon the poll. -
In the present case, however, it is a fact which
every man who canvassed for Mr. Hobhouse will
support me in declaring, that the High Bailiff's
decision as to the Poor's Rate, will, of itself,
sufficiently account for the defeat of the Re-
formers. - . . . . . . . . ;
108
That decision is manifestly contrary to reason
and the spirit of the Constitution, as it puts the
Election in a manner, into the hands of the Rate
and Tax Collectors, as it opens a door to bribery—
and as it deprives a man of his franchise, in some
cases, for an accident which he could not fore-
see; and in other cases, for an offence (if it may
be so called) against which the law has provided
another remedy, namely, distraint.
Supposing, then, the Whigs alone had done
this deed, is it for your Lordship to trim their
withered bays, because the distress and poverty
of the people have afforded them a temporary
triumph over the people —This consideration
alone, independent of all the “ influences” of
“benefactors, employers, and friends,” which the
constitutional lawyer thinks so innocent and
consonant to nature: this alone might have pre-
vented a politician professing popular principles
from congratulating himself on the result of the
Westminster Election.
That it was no subject of congratulation,
might have been understood by your Lordship,
from the voice of the country, expressed in the
independent voice of those weekly and provin-
cial journals placed beyond the influence of me-
tropolitan corruption.
More than all, it might have been understood
from the unequivocal conduct of your Lordship's
Whigs, who have never once broken silence, ex-
109
cept to betray their wounded feelings, and to
pronounce a sentence of proscription and banish-
ment * against those whom your Defence would
* “ State of Parties,” Edinburgh Review for June, 1818.
One word on this extraordinary manifesto and this coldness.
Can English legislators, the assumed representatives of the
people, be accused of a greater crime than this Whig pleader
admits his. Whig clients to be guilty of A coldness to the
popular cause ! !! What other cause is there in England, that
a member of the legislature can honourably, can safely advo-
cate The very slaves of the treasury-bench admit the popu-
lar cause to be the pretext for all their law-making and law-
breaking, and here comes a Whig and allows his friends to
have felt an unfortunate coldness towards the people. A mis-
fortune indeed, and one for which an English legislator de-
serves to be hanged. But hear some more. It seems the
Whigs found out, that they were not quite right in reserving
all their warmth for their own interest; yet they would not
commit the vulgar error of courting or deserving popularity:
By no means. The Whig apologist tells us, that the party
“cultivated more assiduously the esteem of the respectable portion
of the community.” Just for the present, we will not inquire
who these august personages are, that sit apart, like Jove on
his hill, and never mix in our low, common affairs, except
to control them. The community, both respectable and dis-
respectable, were, it seems, duly sensible of this amazing
condescension. The apologist tells us, that they evinced their
willingness to return to their natural leaders; and he pronounces,
in a style suitable to the long-suffering and loving-kindness of
their unalienable lords and masters, that “there cannot be a
doubt that this disposition will, as it ought, be met by correspond-
ing kindness.” -
If this tender suggestion had proceeded from the forgiving
Autocrat of all the Russias, at the head of seven hundred
thousand bayonets, on the eve of quelling a Tartar insurrec-
tion, the kindness would be imperial; but for an insolent,
1 10
represent as having been driven from the field,
and disabled for life.” r
Your Lordship would have done well to imi-
tate your more prudent friends; who thought
of this “Result” as my uncle Toby did of the
infant composition of Lipsius, “Wipe it up and
say nothing of the matter.”
Your Lordship has told us what you think of
the result of the election, I will tell you what
we, that is, what the Rabble think of this nota-
ble event. We do not pretend that no circum-
stance since the Revolution can compare with it
in importance, but we still think it of consider-
able importance. We think it has decided the
fate of the Whigs for ever, and that the “unfor-
tunate coldness” which their manifesto owns
them to have felt towards the popular cause, will
be henceforward repaid by the most freezing in-
difference and contempt. We think that not
even the spoilt children, nor even the lick-spit-
impotent junta of little shuffling, busy, disappointed, jealous,
disjointed clubmen, without authority, without concert, with
no principle which they dare to profess, with not even a name
to which they can fairly pretend,-for such nonentities to issue
their Ukase, and with a Review for a Gazette, and a small
critic for a Chancellor, to tell the whole nation of English-
men that they are pardoned, is a piece of ludicrous presump-
tion, quite worthy the assurance of this Solicitor against the
people of England.
* Chronicle for March 11.—“ It is not merely to the princi-
ples of these men they object, it is to the men themselves.” These
men are Sir F. B. and Mr. H.
111
tles of the party, will now venture to assume a
denomination which has for many years been
rejected as absurd and inapplicable to any set of
men; and which the late contest has rendered
more odious, perhaps, than any title that ever
designated the supporters of an antinational
Cal UISé.
We feel assured, that those who really intend
to benefit their country will henceforward regu-
late their opposition to the ruling faction in par-
liament, not with a reference to the approbation
or the direction of a party-leader, but with the
avowed purpose of doing their duty by their
constituents, and satisfying the just expectations
of the people. We cherish some hopes, that the
day is not far distant when those, who, by their
station and previous habits, are in possession of
the fairest opportunities for action, will show
that, by the honest propensities of a nature
truly noble, they are such men as the nation
would willingly see at their head, and would hail
as their natural leaders indeed. For, believe me,
my Lord, you and your friends misjudge the
people most egregiously. They take no plea-
sure in the discovery or the exposure of your
frailties: how can they be interested in the dis-
appointment of their own hopes 2 where can be
the consolation in confessing, that they have
loved, and admired, and trusted in vain? Your
reputation for sincerity must, necessarily, involve
112
their character for discernment; to own that
you have been false is an avowal that they have
been abused. The truth has long struggled for
entrance. They are affectionate and confiding,
and have willingly borne partial neglect, rather
than anticipate separation by hasty complaints:
it is true, that doubts have, from time to time,
been raised; but they were not the suspicions of a
tyrant or of a slave: they were the jealousies of
a lover. They felt that your honour was their
own; and even, when you were below the hori-
zon, they were willing to mistake the twilight
for the dawn; nor was the grateful error ex-
torted from them, until they were left in total
darkness, and, by a long and patient experi-
ence, they found that you had sunk to rise no
In Ore.
And here, my Lord, give me leave to expos-
tulate with you on the strange objection con-
tained in your Defence, to the exception made
by Sir F. Burdett in favour of certain individuals
of the Whig party, and confining his censure to
those only whom the cap might fit. You call
this “puerile”* because the character and con-
sistency of the Whig Party, in parliament, were
directly invaded. Now I really do not under-
stand your meaning; and, indeed, you are so
entirely ignorant of the events occurring on the
hustings, chiefly, I presume, from trusting to
* Defence, p. 21.
I 13
the reports of your forty-years friend, that it is
fitting to make every allowance for your miscon-
ceptions. The fact stood thus. The Whigs,
at Covent-garden, and in their daily complaints,
attacked Sir Francis Burdett, for an unsparing
censure of the whole party, with some of whom
he had appeared to act cordially in parliament,
and with making no exception in ‘avour of
any body. Sir Francis, in reply, said, he did
make an exception, and that he was willing to
allow, that the best men in the nation were
found amongst the Whigs, and that their excel-
lent qualities were cramped because they be-
longed to a party. So you see, my Lord, that
if there is any puerility in this exception, the
puerility belongs to the Whigs who called for
it. Only see how hard and inevitable is the fate
which you prepare for Sir F. Burdett: one of
the horns of your dilemma must catch him. He
gives his opinion publicly against the Whigs.
The Whig defenders exchaim, What a lumping
censure, without exception. All of us bad—
not one to be saved By no means, answers Sir
Francis; I do make exceptions.
Then comes the other Whig defender.
“How puerile ! you say some are good, some
are bad. You object to the party, but you
make exceptions; how puerile !!” What would
you have had Sir Francis do? He gave his
sentiments that, from past experience, no good
I
114
whatever was to be expected from the Whig
party : that their object did not appear a na-
tional object, but a personal object: that their
opposition might be, generally speaking, resolved
into a struggle for place; and that he felt no
more interested in the success of the Outs than
in the defeat of the Ins. *
* The definition of place-hunting, as given in the above
quoted Whig manifesto, is as follows: “ He only can be
“charged with hunting after place, who assumes, for factious
“ purposes, principles that do not belong to him, or abandons
“ those which he had professed, when the avenues to office
“ are within his views.” Very well; try Mr. Fox by this
rule. Mr. Fox's defenders say he was not seriously for Reform
of Parliament, but only took up the subject for the sake of
backing the people: now when he came into place with
Grenville and Sidmouth, which of his old principles stuck by
him at all Coming in under Grenville, who was pledged
against Reform, he could not be for Reform; and yet he had
professed Reform. Nothing is more common than to hear
of the disinterestedness and adherence to principle manifested
by the Whigs, by staying out of office when they might have
so often come in. How often they have sacrificed their in-
terest to their principles we cannot tell, but we can tell that
the only time they have been in power for fifty years,
they egregiously sacrificed their principles to their interest.
The two coalitions are given up by the candid, even of their
own party, and now the question whether or not they would
prefer being in or out of place, is pretty clearly seen by the
manifesto which smooths down all possible obstacles to their
ascent to power. The Whigs take credit to themselves for
going out of place because they could not carry the catholic
question; but the manifesto says, “if they can carry the
115
Your Lordship may think that he took a
wrong view on this subject; but surely there is
nothing puerile in this opinion : it is far from
the first time that the inexpediency, the mis-
chievous tendency of party has been recognized
and acted upon by a British statesman. When
the disaffected Whigs joined the Tories to turn
out Sir Robert Walpole, Mr. Shippen, a poli-
tician, whom even his opponents admired, and
whose name has been coupled with honesty by a
great cotemporary poet, dropped at once his
“catholic question, and effect a moderate and wholesome
“Reform of parliament, the country will gain so much the
“ more. But no such point should ever be thought of as a con-
“dition, sine qua non; retrenchment and reformation of abuses
“ at home and abroad, ought alone to be reckoned the master
“principle of the party.” t
In 1798, the Whigs swore they would never come in without
Reform : they dropped Reform between 1798 and 1806.
In 1807, they swore they would not come in without eman-
cipating the catholics: they dropped the catholics by the
year 1818, and they laid down a “master principle,” which
will suit and be submitted to by any set of men in the world.
After this, the modest pleader, with a bonhommie which he
thinks he has communicated to his readers, says, “ certain it
is, that a hankering after place never was so little the failing of
an opposition as in our times.”
Lord Erskine goes even farther, and says, that “the only
“criticism upon the conduct of the Whigs that he ever heard
“in the mouth of an enlightened and dispassionate man, was
“ that by going out in 1807, they did not attend to their FIRST
“DUTY; the conservation of their power.” So much for the
jirst duty of a Whig. -
I 2
116
attack upon the minister, that he might not play
into the hands of a selfish coalition.
The motion for removing Walpole from the
king's councils for ever, had been warmly sup-
ported by the most distinguished patriots of the
day—Sandys, Pulteney, Pitt, and Lyttleton;
but Mr. Shippen “declared that he looked on
“ this motion as only a scheme for turning out
“one minister and bringing in another ; that as
“ his conduct in parliament had always been
“regulated with a view to the good of his
“country, without any regard to his private
“interest, it was quite indifferent to him who
“was in and who was out; and he would give
“ himself no concern in the question.” At the
conclusion of these words he withdrew, and was
followed by thirty-four of his friends.” It will,
I confess, not be in our time that thirty-five
members of parliament will pledge themselves
in so decided a manner to an indifference who
is in or who is out, and show, by an overt act,
their impartial contempt for both sides of the
House; and yet, even one of your Lordship's
friends, another Whig defender, does own that
it is within the sphere of possibility that a “third
party” may arise, if ever our assurance that
nothing will be done by either of the present
* Core's Walpole, chap 55, p. 656, vol. 1.
117
parties should become doubly sure.” The only
difference between the learned reviewer and
Sir F. Burdett, is respecting the precise period
of the birth of this monster, which is to spring
up when the slime of Whig and Tory shall have
duly overflowed and saturated the land. The one
thinks the time is not come, and that it may be
deferred till the Whigs come into place; the other
* See the Edinburgh Review for June, 1818. Article,
State of Parties.—“Nor would there fail in these times to
“arise a third party for the interests of the people, if their
“ present defenders were to forget themselves when in office,
“ and to league with the advocates of unconstitutional
“ measures.” -
The pleader disposes of the people, on all occasions, in
a very edifying way. . They are to stick to their looms and
ploughs in a prone and peaceful attitude; or, if they look
above for a moment, they must not feel any of the jealousies
arising from past experience; they must repose in faith,
hope, and charity, and feel confident that something will be
done when the Whigs come into power. When they do come
in, then, to be sure, they ought to be closely watched; and,
says he, “are pretty sure to be so; ” but, not so fast, good
people, not watched by you, the watching is to come from
“ those whom they have displaced.” In other words, the party
out are the fit monitors and correctors of the party in : the
only earthly use of the people, is that they may have rhetorical
defenders, and that whilst those who strive to keep places,
employ, as their own property, the words Church and King,
and government, so those who struggle to get places, may,
by the courtesy of England, exclusively resort to all popular
topics of declamation. - . . .
118
thinks it is. There is nothing puerile in the
latter opinion, even if it be a mistaken one.
Nor do I see how it is puerile to say, whether
called upon or not, that the objection is to the
principle of party generally from their collective
conduct, and not to all the persons who compose
that party. I doubt not, but that it would be
very convenient for your Lordship's party to
convict Sir F. Burdett of want of candour and
discrimination; but we can perfectly well under-
stand him as well as you. We know very well
what he means by saying that he is at all times
ready to join those who appear willing to do
good; and that so far from feeling any rancorous
animosity, which may prevent him from co-
operating with the Whigs, he has often, indeed,
much more steadily than any one man of their
party, voted with them, and “will be happy
to range himself under their banners, whenever
they are inscribed with the sacred name of
liberty.” The Whigs have, it is true, a very
convenient method of quoting the good inclina-
tions of individuals, never, perhaps, experienced
by a single overt act, but which, from their
general character, they may very likely possess,
as a set-off against the faults of the party; but
surely we have nothing to do but with that which
is and has been done; and it is very idle for
some of the young men of the regiment to com-
• Speech on the Hustings, March 1, 1819.
l 19
plain that we confound them with the actors in
the coalition of 1807. If the Whigs will talk of
themselves as Whigs, will cry out “stick to the
party,” “ look at the party,” we have nothing
left for it but to see what the party has done.
Take one instance. The party divided very
respectably near a hundred against the suspen-
sion bill in 1817; and, notwithstanding the
awkward embarrassment which Mr. Ponsonby
confessed he felt in defending a law, which he
said he regarded with a reverence amounting
almost to superstition, the party did not then,
as you, their defender, do now, say, that the
king's ministers were on that occasion impelled
to permanent abridgments of public liberty. On
this account we give the Whigs the merit of this
opposition, such as it was. But Mr. Ponsonby
said, that he gave his cordial assent to the intro-
duction of the measures recommended by the
secret committee; and although he could not
give his consent to the suspension of the Habeas
Corpus Bill, yet “the communication made to
“ parliament had his perfect approbation, and if
“ he had been in the Cabinet, he would have re-
“commended a communication of the very same
“ kind.”% º
* Parliamentary Debates, Feb. 24, 1817.-Mr. Ponsonby
also said, “that he wished to go every length which duty and
“propriety would allow, in strengthening the hands of go-
“vernment on this occasion.”
120
Be it recollected that this communication was
that of the secret committee, and that upon it
were founded four measures; the first the sedi-
tious meetings' bill, for the first reading of which
bill Mr. Ponsonby voted, together with all the
opposition then in the house except fourteen.”
All England is now completely convinced, and
a respectable minority of the opposition has since
voted by implication, that the communication of
the secret committee was founded chiefly on the
word of hired spies and informers, convicted of
perjury, and every base and enormous offence.
Now if the body of the Whigs under Mr. Pon-
sonby opposing the suspension bill, are to be
praised; the body of the Whigs under Mr. Pon-
sonby are to be condemned for supporting that
secret committee, in whose report they had as
great a share as the ministers; so Lord Castle-
reagh said publicly in the House of Commons: at
least they are to be condemned by those who think
that report was what it was called.—A Libel on
the People of England. But here would come in
one of the fourteen who voted against the sedi-
tious meetings' bill,f exclaiming, “you are not
• Mr. Ponsonby seems to have felt some small compunc-
tion on the second reading of the seditious meetings' bill. Mr.
Lamb went through thick and thin. Lord Erskine was againstit.
t It was against the prototype of this bill, that the Whig
club made their famous declaration, and form of association.
—“We whose names are hereunto subscribed, calling to mind
“ the virtuous and memorable exertions of our ancestors, in
*
191
“fair to attack all the Whigs—you are not fair
“ to attack me, for I voted, and fourteen voted
“ against the bill.” It is clear that this must be
very satisfactory to the consciences, as it is ho-
nourable to the characters of the individuals; but
it does not save the Whigs, who must stand or fall
by the leader and the body of the party. If a
combination is good for anything, it must be good
when a great national principle is at stake ; if
on these occasions the politicians do not hold
together, it is idle to talk of party. The nation
have nothing to do but to judge of the party by
party acts; and to judge of individuals, by indi-
vidual acts. It is indeed a very absurd expecta-
tion, to suppose, that the Whigs are to have the
benefit of all the good ever done by any one of
their party, but are never to be blamed for any
bad measure from which even one of their party
was found to dissent. Nothing is more idle than
to say, “But do you not think Lord Tavistock
a very good man F"—Yes. “Well then he is a
Whig.”—Equally ridiculous is it to ask how it is
“ all past ages for the public happiness and freedom of this
“ nation, do solemnly engage and pledge ourselves to each
“ other, and to our country, to employ every legal and con-
“stitutional effort to obtain the repeal of two statutes, the
“one entitled, An Act for the more effectual preventing
“ seditious meetings and assemblies.” This was about 1795,
and in 1817, when according to the Edinburgh manifesto
the Whigs were 130 in parliament, only fourteen voted against
the bill, and the leader supported it ! ! ! . . . ... - - - - --
122
that Sir Francis Burdett, who has voted so long
with the Whigs, nay who has actually sat in
one seat amongst them for so many years, should
find fault with their proceedings. There is a
wide difference between voting with a party,
and for a party. Two men may travel the same
road, but one may be on his way to build, and
the other to rob a church. Sir Francis cannot
help having voted with the Whigs, when they
have opposed a vicious, and corrupt, and tyrannical
system, but it does not at all follow that when
he went into the lobby with the Noes, his wish
should be to walk all the way with them through
the dirt to Carlton House. -
The cause, however, of this complaint, is
easily discerned—as the ministers have the mo-
nopoly of power, their opponents think the mo-
nopoly of popularity belongs of right to them-
selves, and themselves only.—Thus can they
overlook a little versatility or abandonment of
principle, and even of party for the moment. A
truly shabby fellow shall be pitied and protected,
and the precedent be thought worth encouraging,
for the sake of what the whole party may find it
expedient to adopt hereafter : besides, any thing
mean breaks a man's spirit and character, and
qualifies him to wear with decent submission the
party livery; but no such pity, no such pro-
tection—no, not even toleration, for him who
follows one steady rule of action, independently
123
of all personal connexion: his very virtues are
but robberies from those who have them of right,
and who know how to wear them so sociably—his
concurrence is treachery, his opposition is malice;
if he is silent, he deserts his duty—if he speaks,
he spoils a project:—whether at ease or in action
he is alike rebellious, and to be marked with the
seal of reprobation. This is your choice: belong
to a party—you shall be promoted, pushed, and
caressed when living; and when you die, a statue
shall reward your supple genius.-Rely on your
own force, adhere to a national principle, and
then prepare to be kept back, crushed, trampled
upon, both by master and by slave—prepare to be
reviled and insulted by those whose impotence
confines them to slander and abuse: or should you
meet with mercy, resign yourself to be amongst
the number of wiseacres, alias purists, or of well-
meaning, and not very clear-sighted persons, who
labour under that unstatesman-like disease, “a
tender conscience, or are tainted with the vanity
of always thinking for themselves.” Such is the
Whig manifesto against a tender conscience and
independence—the words are from the above
quoted article on the State of Parties,” which
Mr. Brougham has the credit of having written,
during the Westmoreland election, as Sir Richard
* Edinburgh Review, June, 1818.-It is astonishing that
such a man will consent to be used.—
124
Blackmore wrote his verses “ to the rumbling
of his chariot wheels.” * * w
And now, my Lord, I shall take my leave,
repeating the assurance with which I set out,
that your Lordship never had, and never will
have, such ardent admirers as those of my own
class of life, who greeted your triumph on the
glorious ninth of November.—To which, how-
ever, I must add, that when your Lordship made
yourself more than a party to, may even a defender
of, the iniquities practised at the late Westminster
Election, you might expect some hollow thanks
for the apparent generosity of such voluntary
devotion: but you could not flatter yourself that
not one of the four thousand electors of West-
minster, on whose defeat you stept forward to
congratulate your friends and the public, would
not venture to remind your Lordship, that al-
though the people may want foresight, they are
not totally devoid of memory.—Nor could you
forget that one of the weapons of controversy,
lawful even in the hard hands of the vulgar, is
the comparison of the past professions with the
present doctrines of those by whom, at one time,
they have been designated as a great and gene-
rous nation, and at another, as “ gangs of tur-
bulent and almost distracted men.”* -
You may, perhaps, in the opinion of your
* Defence, &g. p. 28, , ,
195
friends, have given some hard blows to the
people—you may have driven back the assailants
of the Whig post; but you have laid yourself
open to attacks which your party must surely
deplore; and when your Lordship confesses that
you leapt from the bed into the battle,” you
might have recollected, that the Spartan, al-
though victorious, was punished by his country-
men for rushing naked into the field.
Thus far had I written, and was about to
wish you farewell; but at this instant I receive
your answer to the Replyer—and I hasten to
peruse the codicil of that political testament
which you have lately indited as a last gift to the
people of England.* - •
Now, my Lord, you are fair game—My re-
spect for your former character, and a wish to
spare a crazy politician, who might have been
induced by what he thought loyalty to his party,
or to a party which he wished to show he was
still attached to, in spite of many acts of infi-
delity, prevented me from telling you the indig-
* Short Defence, &c. preface.
126
nation excited amongst the people by your thus
coming forward as a volunteer bravo against the
Reformers of Westminster.
But your Lordship has now chosen to adopt a
tone such as shows you despise the usual allow-
ances granted to age and former merits : you
have chosen the weapons, and you must expect
your antagonists to make such use of them as
may be best suited to their purpose.
Your Lordship declares you were “ never
more diverted in your life with any thing you ever
read,” than with sundry propositions of the
Reply to you.--You tell us in the next page,
that nothing can be more amusingt—in another
place you are much entertained, and in other
parts of your Answer you go on frisking and
drivelling over every page, in order to convince
the world, I presume, that although you have
taken up this laughing mood late in life, you
will make up for the delay by the vigorous and
eager adoption of your late profession.—The gra-
vity and eagerness with which you apply to your
newly chosen employment, shall send you down
like the Elephant on the Rope, as a worthy rival
of the noble author who left his parliamentary
pursuits to please the world with “ Love in a
hollow tree.”
Never fear—if you want to be diverted, we
* Answer, page 2. + Page 3.
197
will furnish you with the materials—you shall
laugh ten times as much as ever; but do not be
angry with us if some intruders should chance
to be a party to the amusement: and if your
Lordship shall find that you yourself have
contributed to the national stock of harmless
pleasure.
Your Lordship is not content with the joke—
with the laughable appearance presented by the
Replyer—you have also thought it advisable to
hint that he was not only certainly a humourist,
but probably a drunkard; and this hint you
convey in a vein of irony, such as may suit your
infant excursions in the paths of pleasantry.*
Allow me to congratulate you upon the feli-
city with which you have thus “ taken the high
priori road,” and endeavoured to depreciate an
anonymous letter, by declaring the correspon-
dent to be drunk.—What has inspired your
Lordship I will not presume to say, but after
your adoption of such an extraordinary weapon
of controversy, you will expect only a clear
stage without any favor; and you must not be
offended, if I tell you, in return for having
brought forward this Helot of a Reformer, to
provide mirth and instruction for the public,
* “Here then, Sir, is a deliberate assertion, written, for
“any thing I know to the contrary, in the early part of the
“ day.”-See Answer, page 2. .
198
that it is with a perfect stare of astonishment
that we now see you attempt a merry mood
for which you have hitherto shown no sort of
capacity:
“And from the dregs of life think to receive, -
“What the first sprightly runnings could not give.”
It is not my purpose now to examine minutely
the pretexts which you have put forth for ap-
pearing in this new and amiable character—The
profession of ignorance which you volunteer in
the outset of your Answer, may be a protection
for the argument, but not for the adversary;
and if your Lordship had really no other means
of information than such as were derived from
the daily press during the Westminster Election,
and more particularly that portion of it which
you appear exclusively to have consulted—ſ
mean the Chronicle—you were presuming a little
too much on your name and station, when you
volunteered your aid to the fallen forces of the
Whigs—Nothing is more distressing, than for a
person thoroughly acquainted with all the de-
tails of his subject, to have to contend with one
who argues “ex plena ignorantiá;” and all I
can say to your Lordship, in reply to the
greater part of your assertions, is—that they are
founded on direct and absurd mis-statements,
which never would have had the least influence
with you, had you not been, as you confess,
129
“ at a distance from London during the late
“ election for Westminster.””
It is all in vain for any one to state those
notorious iniquities which occurred on that oc-
casion, if your Lordship is to come forward,
and, with an air of the utmost ingenuity and
naiveté, is to say, “I know nothing of all
“ these things—Who did them?—When were
“ they done?—mention names—I know nothing
“ of these matters—I dont believe any body
“ knows any thing of these matters.”
I say this is the amount of the denial which
you have given to all the charges made in the
Reply against the Whigs for their conduct at
the late election; and you have even gone the
length of using the same argumentum ab ignorantid
to prove there was no coalition between the
Ministerial and Whig parties against the Re-
formers; a fact which is motorious to every
tradesman in Westminster. Your Lordship is
not worthy a comment when you presume to
throw a doubt upon a fact so clearly established,
merely because no regular document of com-
bination seems to have been drawn up between
the prime minister and Mr. James Macdonald.
What can be got by arguing with a man who
either does not, or will not, know a fact passing
under his nose You refer the proof of the
charges against the Whigs to the evidence to be
* Answer, p. 1.
K
130
brought by the petitioners against Mr. Lamb's
return. Although the petition had been dropt
for want of money, three weeks before you pub-
lished your answer.
But before you come to this bold demonstration
of your ignorance as to the general events of the
late Westminster election, you take care to show
that you are not acquainted even with the very
conduct and professions of your own party on
that occasion ; for you devote three or four
pages to playing with that part of the Reply
which says that Mr. Hobhouse's speech, and
the Report of the Committee, were the cause
of the opposition to Mr. Hobhouse, and the
consequent exposure of the Whigs. :
You put into capital letters, as an absurdity
which tickled your fancy beyond all things, the
assertion of the Reply, that Mr. Hobhouse's
OWN SPEECH, AND THE REPORT OF THE COM-
MITTEE, PREVENTED HIS WALKING OVER THE
COURSE. Why, you silly man this assertion
was made by the Whigs at the hustings, and
also by the Chronicle; and if you will laugh at
any body for it, you must laugh at the testy
gentlemen who allowed a tavern speech, and the
said Report, to put them into a passion, and to
alter the line of conduct which they had resolved
to pursue in Westminster. You are so ignorant
that you absolutely appear not to know that the
Whigs were resolved to start no body against
131
Mr. Hobhouse, and would never have done so
but for the speech and the Report, which have
excited your merriment. You appear not to
know that the Whigs owned this themselves;
nay, did more, for they made it the pretext, the
excuse, for doing that which they otherwise
would never, they said, have wished to do. I
refer you to Mr. Lambton’s speech, and to the
repeated articles in the Chronicle to this effect.*
Your pleasantry on the presumed assertion of
the Replyer, that Mr. Hobhouse's speech, and
the Report, had “blown up at once into the air"
a “great number of persons of rank and property,
“who had contrived, for above a century, to
“impose upon the people as men of public
“spirit and virtue,” must be derived solely from
* The Chronicle for March 11, after the election was over,
reiterates the assertion, coupling with the Report and Mr.
Hobhouse's speech, the countenance which Sir F. Burdett
gave to the Report. Here, however, the Chronicle, as usual,
argued upon a fiction of its own. Sir F. Burdett had never
read the Report, when he took the chair at the meeting; he
could not hear it, at the Crown and Anchor, for it was not
all read there; and he never once gave his opinion upon it
during his speeches on that day. Nor could Mr. Hobhouse
offend in this particular; he had nothing to do with the
framing of the Report; he never alluded to it in his speech
at the meeting, in terms indicative of his opinion—But his
offence was, calling Mr. Fox a radical Reformer, and remind-
ing the people that the opposition now did not dare to devote
a single toast to Parliamentary Reform. r
K 2
132
your interpretation of the Reply, which attri-
buted the contempt into which the Whigs had
fallen to their conduct at the Westminster
election, and which had been occasioned by
what was said of them by Mr. Hobhouse, and
by the Report. As to the gentlemen of ante-
diluvian ages, whose public spirit and virtue of
above a century you record, who are they I
have already shown the absurdity of talking of
the Whigs as a party existing in regular succes-
sion, either as to principles or families, since
the Revolution; and it is only now necessary to
remark upon the recurrence to the usual Whig
trick of assuming, as a notorious fact, what a
little examination will show to be a ridiculous
fiction. •
Your Lordship's memory is so short that you
actually forget your own pamphlet when you
ask the Replyer how he could “ expect from
“you a history of England commencing above
“a century ago.” This is too bad. It was
your Lordship who began, in the old Whig way,
to boast of the Revolution of 1688, and to say
that an attack on the modern Whigs cast into the
shade the character of the Revolution itself. * Now
it was perfectly fair in the Replyer to observe,
that if you would claim for your Whigs the
merit of what the Whigs did at the Revolution,
he might fairly subtract from the merits, of the
* Short Address, &c. page 2.
133
said Whigs by showing what the ancient Whigs
did not do at the Revolution. Here, however,
you are more a Whig than ever, and have ac-
tually done the verything which I have charged
as a common practice against your party; for
you say that if the managers of the Revolution
acted ill “they only dishonoured themselves, and
“ did injustice to their country; but surely their
“ conduct could in no manner affect the characters
“ of men in another generation.” This is exactly
what we say; but you would make the rule
apply only to the bad part of the conduct of
your presumed political ancestors, and would
have the benefit of all the good they were able
to achieve, as your lawful inheritance.
You must either make no more boast of the
Revolution Whigs, or you must allow us to
point out where they failed to merit the great
praise you claim for them, in the first instance,
and then for yourselves. On this point I have
only to refer you to my former account of the
true pedigree of Whig virtue. If you do not
like my tree, show where it is wrong, and do not
you, a lawyer and a judge, complain of having
to go back a hundred years. - -
The Whigs, however, generally wish to make
out that there has been a regular transmission
not only of richés and honors with their puré
blood, but also of political virtue; nay more,
of public confidenee. This thé young member
134
for Durham, from whom, considering his charac-
ter, the people will bear a good deal of arrogance
and absurdity without complaining, in his late
Newcastle Fox speech, talked of certain people,
“whose principles had been regularly and faith-
“fully cherished from one generation to another.”
Now, who the deuce are these people? It is
strange enough that although all this happened
in our time, we should know nothing of it.
I do not wonder, however, that your Lordship
has some objection to enquire into the past,
when you do not condescend to inform yourself
even of present transactions, and when you
choose to represent yourself so amiably innocent
of all experience in the wicked ways of the
contemporary world, as actually to deride the
Replyer, and to hint that he must be an habitual
drunkard for supposing it possible that very
honest well-informed men in private life,” should
be very abandoned and dangerous political cha-
racters. Indeed, Lord Erskine, this is too much.
I do not wish to call you a canting hypocrite,
though you have used much harder words to the
Replyer; but what will the world think of your
pretended ignorance of a fact, which you, your-
self, forgetting the absurdity you had committed
a few pages before, admit in the subsequent
part of your answer as a common moral phe-
* Answer, page 3.
135
nomenon. For you tell the Replyer, that it is
in political controversy only that you “wish to
“believe him guilty of such a disgusting departure
“from every principle of justice,” adding, “per-
“haps if I knew you, I might regard you as a
“private man.” In this place, you very inad-
vertently, no doubt, show your complete per-
suasion of the existence of that common incon-
sistency in human character, the belief in which
you have before charged upon the Replyer, as
a most diverting absurdity, perhaps committed
in his cups, - r
After such a specimen of the mosaic, parti-
coloured, inconsistent materials, composing your
answer, I doubt whether the world will be
anxious to hear any more of a controversialist,
who furnishes by accident in one place the re-
futation of a deliberate absurdity in another.
But I shall not let slip this opportunity of en-
forcing the truth of the position taken up by
the Replyer; a truth, the general recognition
of which, is of the utmost importance, as a re-
futation of that most injurious but common
fallacy employed by selfish politicians to excuse
their dereliction from public duty. It is notoriously
too usual a trick to draw off the attention from
public misconduct, by referring to the private
qualities of the delinquent, as a presumptive
# Answer, p. 39.
136.
proof that what so excellent a person does, must
be done conscientiously, and from good though
mistaken motives. But we have nothing to do
with such virtues. The House of Commons
contains as many good fathers, good brothers,
good sons, and good people, in all the private
relations of life, as can well be assembled toge-
ther amongst 658 individuals, and yet the whole
misfortunes of the country, as Lord Grey said
in 1793, aye, and of Europe too, as your
Lordship said, have undoubtedly emanated from
that assembly, and, as far as their public works
are concerned, it might as well have been com-
posed of the devils of Pandaemonium.
In judging of politicians, we have nothing to
do but with their public works; by these we
are to know them; we are not to judge of the
works by the men, but of the men by their
works. How foolish it is of your Lordship, when -
trying to excuse the Irish insurrection act, you
say you do not mean to enter into the merits of
the proposition, though if it came from the Duke
of Bedford, then in Ireland, and the late Mr.
Elliot, the presumption was strongly in its favor,
from their tried and distinguished talents as
statesmen, united with the utmost mildness and
gentleness of disposition ; qualifications which could
not deliver the last, though unhappily lost to his
country, from an insinuation of reproach.*
* Answer, p. 66,
137
How very idle is all this The question was
not what sort of a man the Duke of Bedford is,
nor what sort of a man Mr. Elliot was, but what
sort of thing the Irish insurrection act was. The
question was as to the merits of that proposition
as you call it; and if you did not chuse to enter
into those merits, you should have been silent;
for we have not yet extended the law fiction
which guards the king, to you and your friends.
We do not admit, as and priori defence of your
follies, that a Whig can do no wrong.
I must here remark that you have had recourse
throughout the whole of your answer to this
ridiculous fallacy, and that to an extent which
cannot but move the pity of those who recollect
what you once were, and the indignation of those
who cannot understand how you can venture
to lend the sanction of a respectable name to
the unworthy delusions of hypocrisy. Pray
review the manner in which you have touched
upon one of the charges made against the Whigs
by the Replyer; namely, the introduction of
Lord Ellenborough into the cabinet. Do you
defend it, or do you not defend it I say it is
impossible to make out any thing from your
three pages and a half on this subject, except
that you are resolved to shuffle over this question,
and to divert our attention from the merits of the
question first of all, to the improbability of your
consenting to do any thing wrong on this point;
138
you, “who of all others ought certainly to have
“ been most jealous of any departure from that
“ sacred principle of judicial independence which
“ is the greatest security to the public freedom.”
Why, my Lord, this is just what we say; but
to assert that you ought to have been jealous,
when we protest that you were not jealous, is
really too ludicrous: at this rate we shall never
be able to convict any delinquent of any charge.
Such a mode of reasoning downwards is absurd
in any case, but more so when the person whose
implied consciousness of duty, (for it is nothing
more) is to protect whatever emanates from him,
is the very individual charged with the crime.
You, secondly, turn from your own authority,
that is, the authority of the person accused, to
the authority of Lord Ellenborough, that is, the
authority of the person benefitted by the tran-
sition.—Strange logic from a lawyer.
You say,+" But a distinction between the
“ privy council and the cabinet, in any thing
“ connected with the independence of judicial
“ functions, never even occurred to me, nor to
“ Lord Ellenborough himself, though a very
“ able and learned man, yet whose character
“ would have been still more involved in the
“ acceptance of an inconsistent situation, con-
“ ferring, besides, neither emolument nor dig-
“ nity, beyond those of his already exalted
* Answer, p. 54.
139
“ station, but only adding to its almost into-
“lerable burthens, which have lately carried
“ him to the grave.” -
To what does all this amount merely to the
same argument of authority: first, that Lord
Ellenborough was a very able and learned man;
secondly, that he would have lost character by
the act if wrong; and, thirdly, that he hurried
himself prematurely to the grave, by thus add-
ing to his public duties. The whole of which
are mere assumptions, and, if admitted, would
prove nothing; for a very able and learned man
may commit a very unconstitutional act ; a
man, sensible that he would lose character by
that act, may still consent to that loss; and,
lastly, I presume, that, as the untimely death
of Lord Ellenborough was introduced by your
Lordship, to give us a specimen of the pathetic
in pamphleteering, any serious remark on my
part would be thrown away upon a mere trope.
I believe Lord Ellenborough to have been a very
wicked judge, but I will not make a jest of his
decease, much as you tempt your readers to
pleasantry, by the verdict you have just given,
as to the manner in which he came by his death.
Before I have done with this part of the ques-
tion, I cannot help observing upon the inno-
cence with which your Lordship keeps out of
$ight the real cause of Lord Ellenborough's ap-
3 : , * Answer, p. 56.
140
pointment, which was no less disgraceful to the
Whigs than the appointment itself. It was
merely that Lord Sidmouth might have his due
share of influence and number of votes in the
cabinet. In order to prevent the preponderance
of those principles which the Foxites had so
long professed, (as well as to carve out in equal
portions the favours of the crown) it was de-
manded, that a sufficient quantity of the old
leaven of high-church and Tory principles should
be infused into the government. By submitting
to this addition to the numerical force of their
old opponents in the coalition cabinet, the
Whigs basely consented to give a gaurantee, as
it were, against themselves, and to bind their
own hands from the commission of any of those
popular acts which they had so often threatened
in the course of their old opposition calling. The
admission of Lord Ellenborough and such men into
the cabinet was, I repeat, a security demanded
by the king and the Tories, against the prepon-
derance of presumed Whig principles; and, by
granting that security, doubly, as it were, and
violating those principles by the admission, not
only of another friend of the court, but that
man, chief justice of England; the Whigs showed
even in the outset, that they had no objection
to give the best possible security against the in-
terference of their old opposition professions with
their present ministerial praetice. Your Lordship
| Al
had better have contented yourself with saying as
you do, “I wish, for my own part, that Judges
could have been always kept at a distance from every
thing connected with the court, or with any council
of the king.” This would have been a late re-
pentance and acquiescence in the general voice
of your countrymen, (including many of your
own party) which has decided, beyond the reach
of sophistry, this act to be an indelible disgrace
on the memory of Mr. Fox. Mr. Perceval was
backed by the whole country when he exclaim-
ed, “It is impossible to say what part Mr. Fox
“would have acted had this measure been re-
“ sorted to by a ministry he opposed; but if he
“was serious in his attachment to liberty, of
“ which, all over the world, he was an affection-
“ate toaster, it was natural to think he would
“ have opposed a thing so inconsistent with the
“true principles of freedom. I am satisfied that,
“if ministers do not now see the impropriety of
“ the measure, they soon will be convinced, by
“ the disapprobation of the country. I rather
“think that they doubt its propriety, but are too
“obstinate to confess their error.”f I was in
the House of Commons myself, and can appeal
to all present, whether the new tenants of the
treasury-bench did not by their blushes show a
sign of grace. They were too young in office
- * Answer, p. 57.
t Parliamentary Debates, March 3, 1806.
142
to be hardened sinners, and the elaborate defence
of “ the most accomplished debater that the
world ever saw” lost all impression, and was at
once effaced by this simple appeal to the opi-
nion of the country and to the conscience of the
ministers. .
A more extraordinary instance even than those
before quoted, has your Lordship given of your
new way of arguing from persons to facts, in
the excuse you make for the Whigs voting the
payment of his debts to Mr. Pitt. Your reason
is, first, because “ it manifestly appeared at his
death that he had been an incorrupt,” though in
your opinion, “a mistaken servant of the crown.”
Now this merely amounts to Mr. Pitt not having
made a fortune for himself; but, I say, that
no man would think it worth his trouble to make
a fortune, if he could be permitted to accumulate
a debt of 40,000l.” Mr. Pitt had money's worth
all his life, and that he was not guilty of the
sordid, troublesome folly of heaping up money
itself, was no earthly reason for paying his debts.
Leaving a debt of 40,000l., or 40,000l. in his
coffers, was, as far as the nation was concerned,
just the same thing, if the nation paid the debt,
except that the former hazarded the commission
* Mr. Fox said, that “to speak of Mr. Pitt as disinterested
in not touching the public money was an insult.”—Debates,
Feb. 3, 1806. Mr. Ponsonby said, he was astonished Mr.
Pitt’s debts were so little as 40,000l.' '
143
of an additional injustice; namely, the ruin of
his creditors. As to your Lordship reducing all
Mr. Pitt's faults, which you had ten thousand
times all of you denounced as treason against
public liberty, into his being merely a “mistaken
servant of the crown,” I say, that such candour
does not deceive you, still less can you expect
us to be cheated by so odious and idle a pretext
for sacrificing a public principle.
Your next reason is, that you would, had
you opposed the motion, “ been outnumbered by
an immense majority in parliament.” I believe
you would; but what has this to do with the
matter? If you were to have been deterred by
immense majorities in parliament, you never would
have opposed Mr. Pitt throughout the whole of
his career. As parliaments are now constituted,
there never can be enough of genuine public
spirit to resist the idle clamour against severity
and persecution beyond the grave; but, had the
sense of the people been taken, ninety-nine-
hundredths of the nation would have applauded
the Foxites for not acquiescing in the payment
of the debts of the minister.” A resistance
which would have been equally well founded,
with the opposition of Mr. Fox and Mr. Wind-
ham to the erection of Mr. Pitt's monument.
The fear of being unnumbered did not prevent
Mr. Fox from opposing the monument; he had
* Cobbett’s Political Register, Feb. 1, 1806.
144
only 89 with him on that occasion: this, there-
fore, was not the reason why the Whigs con-
sented to pay Mr. Pitt's debts.
The reason your Lordship gives is, that Mr.
Fox “ concurred with the adversaries of his opi-
nions, though it might appear to give a colour against
his own, rather than keep up, beyond the grave,
political animosities and contentions, the very re-
membrance of which, in his own benevolent mind,
had already been blotted out for ever.” No, my
Lord, this will not do; this was not the reason
to be inferred from Mr. Fox's own words.
Mr. Canning having said, “I beg gentlemen
again to consider on what ground they agree to the
7motion. Those who do not vote for it, on the ground
of Mr. Pitt's merits, had better oppose it openly.”
Mr. Fox answered, “ He had only said, that he
had distinctly stated the grounds of his own vote in
favour of it to be Mr. Pitt's MERITs.”f Your
Lordship is determined not to recollect the his-
tory of transactions in which you yourself were
concerned. But your own additional reason for
consenting to this measure, is a most extraordi-
nary instance of the personal reverence I have
so often alluded to: you wish it to be “recol-
lected, that Mr. Pitt was the son of the great Earl
of Chatham, who had a right to expect to be still
living in the feelings of this country:” exceedingly
* Answer, p. 52, t Debates, Feb. 3, 1806.
145
good; but if a monument is to be raised to all.
of the descendants of that minister, as long as
Lord Chatham is living in the feelings of this coun-
try, where shall room be found for the cumbrous
repeated tokens of such eternal gratitude. Your
Lordship took care, in 1793, to remind Mr. Pitt
how he differed from the great Earl of Chatham, .
and since, according to your own account, the
debts of Mr. Pitt were paid, by the candour of Mr.
Fox, and as a debt to Lord Chatham : the merits,
then, of Mr. Pitt had nothing to do with the
matter; and the commander-in-chief of the
Walcheren expedition will have a right to expect
that his father shall be living in the feelings of
this country, at his demise also, as well as at
that of his younger brother. The nation did not
here want any such memorial to prove, that the
late Earl of Chatham was still living in the feel-
ings of the country. The parliament, that set-
tled 4,000l. a year upon his descendants, took
care to prevent any premature oblivion upon the
subject of his merits. Lord Chatham is still
living in the red book. On the whole, this is
an inimitable sample of Whig practice, and
Whig pleading. The question is, whether a
minister, whom the Whigs had for 20 years
proclaimed an apostate and a traitor to the
liberties of his country, should have his debts
paid by the nation, as a national token of his
merits? The Whig leader at the time positively
L . . . "
146
says, “Yes, for his merits.” The Whig Chan-
cellor, 13 years afterwards, says, “Yes; 1st,
because he fingered none of the public money,
(a merit which it was an insult, according to the
Whig leader, to impute to him); 2dly, because
it would have been useless to oppose the ma-
jority; 3dly, because Mr. Fox was a man of
such gentleness, ingenuousness, and noble simplicity,
that he forgave Mr. Pitt; and, Athly, because
whatever you may think and we all thought of
Mr. Pitt, his father was still the great Earl of
Chatham.” Here we have names, and words,
and virtues, arranged in close order, according
to the usual Whig tactics, to keep out of view
the untenable nakedness of the post which it is
necessary to defend. To crown all, your Lord-
ship has recourse to the reverse of the Wolf's
argument: The son is but a lamb, but he had a
ram for his father.
In truth, my Lord, the nation have a right
to demand consistency from their public men.
The memory of a bad minister should be pur-
sued with invectives, not suffered to sleep in
oblivion; far less be crowned with reward. It
is not just that some solitary merit should be
selected as an excuse either for remuneration or
for pardon. Public justice, public good, de-
mand otherwise. What security can there be
for the sincerity of our politicians if they are
even required to show themselves actuated at
different times by feelings so different on the
147
same subject, and if their opposition to a system
is to appear only a dramatic part adopted in
their character as opponents of the minister,
and which must be dropped for the sake of de-
cent condolence when he drops into the grave 2
Your Lordship may call this persecution, may call
this warring with the dead. It may be so; but it
is, nevertheless, just, and proper, and useful.
Those feelings, which in private life are in-
compatible with an amiable character, are not
to be checked; on the contrary, they are to
be cherished when applied to the political con-
duct of our contemporaries. It is the duty of
every good statesman to cherish his antipathies
for bad statesmen. To blot out for ever such
animosities is not, as you would hint, a proof
of a benevolent mind. It is a proof of a feeble
mind, of a profligate mind; it is a proof of a
man either being deceived by the appearance of
rectitude, or it is more likely by the wish to ob-
tain a little momentary credit for a display of the
milder qualities: or of his being deliberately re-
solved to acquiesce in the pardon of vice rather
than to establish a precedent which shall set the
standard of virtue too high, and exclude all
chance of indulgence for his own meditated
apostacy. I have as great a veneration for part
of Mr. Fox's character, as your Lordship has,
but not for this part. -
- L 2
I4S
It is not required, that the debates in parlia-
ment should “engender any malignant passions,”
which your Lordship seems to think they would,
if men were obliged to adhere to their former
professions; on the contrary, there is not the
least necessity that a feeling on public affairs
should interfere with the charities of private
life; and I can easily understand, how Cromwell
should be ready to fire a pistol in King Charles's
face without feeling the least personal animosity
against him. But the House of Commons should
be a field for serious warfare, not for a sham-
fight, or an Italian battle, only for unseating the
combatants. Your Lordship seems delighted
with every thing unsubstantial, and is pleased
even with a popular clamour, provided it shall
be about nothing, and have no foundation in
reason, or knowledge, or consideration.* In
the same way I must allow that, candour, and
indulgence, and liberality, are inimitably suited
to the farce which is got up and played by the
rival polemics of St. Stephen's, and will be en-
couraged and copied, and these opinions of mine
hooted down and proscribed as long as that farce
lasts. But when the curtain shall have fallen,
* “Clamours of such descriptions may pass at the moment,
“ and, perhaps, have their uses in a free country, though set
“ on foot without due knowledge or consideration.”—An-
swer, &c. p. 54. . § { . . . . . . .
f
149
never again to be raised over those fooleries;
then, indeed, words will have their true weight
and invariable meaning, wherever spoken, and
the speakers will be expected to abide by them;
then we shall hear no more of those theatrical
passions which prompt our patriots to take a
minister's head this day and his arm the next: the
language of furious proscription, and of fulsome
panegyric, will no longer be heard in an assem-
bly met together not to indulge the momentary
humours of a few individuals, but to promote
the permanent happiness of all. We shall have
done with that sage privilege, by which the par-
liamentary currency has been debased into no-
thing but local tokens, mere paltry club counters,
perpetually changing hands, and passed, with
mock solemnity, from gambler to gambler, and
back again, but which are payable no where out
of the room, and not worth picking up in the
street. When that day comes, we shall hear no
more of the merits of a dead minister in the
mouth of the man who has condemned every
action of his life; nor will men, like your Lord-
ship, be called upon to defend the inconsis-
tencies of an illustrious friend, and venture,
when writing to a nation who have some little
character for common sense, to pourtray the
loathsome excrescences of habitual hypocrisy as
“a beautiful feature of our public councils.””
* Answer, &c. page 49.
15()
I pass, as you pass, my Lord, quite naturally,
from the pardon granted by the Whigs to a dead
enemy, to the friendship which they accorded to
a living opponent.
The Coalition of 1806 is allowed by the apo-
logist for your party, to have formed “a motley
administration,” which afforded a lesson of errors
to be in future avoided.” But if this candid
avowal had not been made, the nation had de-
cided that question, and your Lordship comes
too late with any discovery respecting the junc-
tion of Lord Grenville with Mr. Fox—or rather
of Mr. Fox consenting to take place under Lord
Grenville. Your whole excuse goes, indeed, as
I have before hinted, to the necessity of keeping
worse men out of place. You ask,i “ could they
(the Whigs) themselves have formed an adminis-
tration ?” I do not know—but I do know that
the formation of an administration ought not to
be the first grand object of the representatives of
the people in parliament: and that if those men
who advocate popular principles, remained firm
to those principles, without any of the usual
motives of party, they would form an union,
which, if mere place were their object, would, *
sooner or later, force any king of England to
adopt their counsels, without any base condi-
tions or wicked alliances. I do know that the
country expected of them that they should never
* State of Parties, Edinburgh Review for June, 1818.
t Defence, page 23.
151
form part of an administration, except for the
purpose of carrying into effect the principles
they had so long professed; and I also know,
that the general disappointment attending that
administration attached solely to the Whigs.-
No one thought worse of Lord Grenville for
admitting Mr. Fox under him—no one thought
worse of Lord Sidmouth for acting with Mr. Fox
—and for this reason—it was clear that neither
Lord Sidmouth nor Lord Grenville had made any
sacrifice of principle—the administration was
such as might have been expected from them.
The sacrifice then was thought to be solely on
the part of the Whigs—not only the people, but
the Tories themselves, saw where the change
had taken place; and a courtly poet, of great
eminence, dropped a tear over the grave of the
regenerated patriot, who had died, though he
had not lived, a Briton*—in other words, who
had repented of his former popular politics. As
the Whigs allowed so great an infusion of Lord
Sidmouth's principles, and gave such a gua-
rantee against the admission of their own, by
giving Lord Ellenborough a seat in the Cabi-
met; so they offered, if possible, a more decisive
surety to Lord Grenville, that he never should
have reason to complain of any recurrence to
their old, troublesome, opposition politics.-And
* “ Record that Fox a Briton died.”—Walter Scott-
MARMion.
152
this they did betimes—for I recollect that Mr.
Fox was yet on the opposition bench when he
moved for “ leave to bring in a bill for removing
certain doubts” ” as to the compatibility of the
offices of Auditor of the Exchequer and Com-
missioner of the Treasury. But the omnipo-
tence of parliament itself could not have reached
to the removing of doubts, had they existed; and
the nation found itself suddenly half agreeing
with Mr. George Rose, when he said, that he
should have consented to the bill if it had been to
remove doubts, but that no “doubt could be en-
tertained on the subject.”f It was not, perhaps,
so much the impropriety of the thing itself
which shocked the nation, as the sign which it
afforded, that the Whigs despised all public
opinion, and were, for the sake of a ministerial
arrangement, quite careless how soon they gave
a proof of their contempt.
Lord Grenville did not lose any character by
the transaction—it was conformable to his whole
practice and preaching; and as to the people,
he had not to settle accounts with them, but
with the King and parliament. But the Whigs
had preached against such practices, and had ap-
pealed to the people against king and parliament
any time these twenty years. The measure by
* Feb. 4, 1806–Parliamentary Debates.
† Debates as above.
153
which Lord Grenville was to lose nothing by
consenting to the arrangement that included the
Whigs, has received a condemnation without
appeal—your Lordship knows well enough that
it has ; and that to call the unpopularity which
attached to the Whigs for that measure, a “pre-
judice,” which it is disgraceful to renew, is to
force us to take your word for more than it is
worth.
As to the Coalition itself, you are equally
bold when you say, that the Replyer ought to
have shown that the Whigs “ could have carried
measures of their own by a sole administration,
which were frustrated by the union you con-
demn.”f The weight of this proof did not lie at
all upon the Replyer—it was enough for him to
show that from the Coalition administration had
emanated certain acts, totally at variance with
the formerly professed principles of the Whigs.
The Replyer did not, I believe, complain of the
Whigs for that reconciliation with an antago-
mist, which you think so beautiful a feature of
our councils, but with reconciling themselves to
measures which they had for a quarter of a cen-
tury condemned. You cannot deny, that if
Mr. Fox did not bring Whig principles into
place, it was nothing to bring Whigs into place.
You cannot get over, that Mr. Fox gave his
pledge to the whole nation repeatedly, that a
* Answer, page 54. f Ibid, page 49.
154
radical reform both in the Representation of the
people in parliament, and of the abuses that have
crept into the practice of the Constitution of this
country, together with a complete and fundamental
change of system of administration, must take place;
and that till it did, he, for one, would take no
share in any administration or be responsible in any
office in his Majesty's councils.” Now, my Lord,
I ask you publicly, did Mr. Fox, when he joined
Lord Grenville and Lord Sidmouth—men, whose
fortunes and characters had grown solely out of
and upon the very system which Mr. Fox swore
he would change radically, or live out of place
all his life—did he make one single stipulation,
that he should be allowed to make a single
change in the general system of administration ?
Answer me, my Lord, or never talk again of
the Whigs not having had time to develop their
virtues. I ask you explicitly, did Mr. Fox in-
sist upon a reform of any one of the abuses that
have crept into the practice of the Constitution, as
the condition of his coming into place? Was it
understood amongst your party, that one word
had passed on the subject previously to your
acceptance of office P Mr. Fox said in the de-
bate, Jan. 4, 1798, that if he had advised Lord
Moira, he should have said—“Take care, my
“Lord, take care, that while you are forming
“ the ministry, you are not doing so without
* Parliamentary Debates, Jan. 4, 1798.
155
“solid grounds: unless you have a proper
“ pledge of a Reform, the good which you
“intend will come to nothing.” Did Mr. Fox
have or ask for this proper pledge He said,
on the same occasion, “My sincere wish was,
“ never to make any part of any administration,
“ and I NEVER WILL, unless I have a pledge for
“a general reform of abuses.” Had Mr. Fox
this pledge? As to Reform of Parliament—you
tell us too clearly to be misunderstood, that it
was not brought into consideration—and for what
reason 2 because, “ there was no chance what-
“ ever that the House of Commons would have
“ yielded at present to any minister.” Good hea-
vens ! then the Whigs are worse than Pitt—be-
sides, there being no chance whatever of carrying
the measure, so far from preventing Mr. Grey
and yourself from bringing it forward, actually
stimulated you the more. You owned there was
no chance, and made it an argument for agi-
tating the question. Surely, your chance was
increased by your becoming ministers: but I am
ashamed to argue with you, when I know you
are only laughing about this question, and leav-
ing Reform of parliament apart:-I repeat the
question, whether the Whigs made a single sti-
pulation, that when they came in, they should
be allowed to carry a single one of their popu-
lar professions into practice—in short, whether
Mr. Fox made a bargain for, or let drop a word
156
of his intended adherence to one single point of
the conditions which he had sworn in the face of
his countrymen should be observed; and mark
you, my Lord, not after he took office, but before
he took office—he said the radical change “must
take place, and until it did, he for one,” &c.
Am I wrong in saying, that the only question
was as to persons, not to principles, and that the
solicitude of your party was totally directed as
to whom the King would, after your past con-
duct, consent to admit to his embrace 2 Am I
wrong in saying, that you, Lord Erskine, felt
as if dropped from the clouds, when you heard
that the King had actually consented to your
being his Chancellor You tell the Replyer
that he knows nothing of this matter; but all
the world will know enough of the matter, if
you are not able to give a simple yes, or no, as to
the real conditions of the coalition. Was there
any salvo for principle or not?—The Replyer
had a right to présume there was none, because,
not a single step was taken towards this RADICAL
change of system. If you know there was, you
owe it to your party to speak out—you owe it to
the people to speak out; for you cannot think
we are to be contented with such mere straw-
tickling as that “we forget, the short continu-
“ance of your power;”—we forget “that it
“ was reduced to nothing by the fatal illness of
“Mr. Fox;”—we forget that “it could not have
157
“ been fit, during that unhappy period, unless
“ under the most pressing necessities, to alter what
“we found established, and to have resorted to
immediate untried substitutions, merely for the
“support of our objections.”*
But Lord Grenville was not ill—he was prime
minister, and if, as you pretend, all subjects of
difference had ceased between you, he might
have carried the measures. Respecting the
pressing necessities, your Lordship must know,
that the whole question always is, and has
been, when these necessities are really arrived;
that the trite, but trusted fallacy of ministers,
is always to say that they are not come. You
must know, that for twenty years your Whigs
had been exclaiming that the pressing necessi-
ties were come; and you know that, according
to Mr. Fox's pledge, you should have come in
to alter what you found established, and for no-
thing else. If you did not come in for this
purpose, I say you were guilty of a base de-
sertion of your former professions, and of your
public duty; and if you did not come in with
this understanding, that you were to effect this
alteration, this radical change, you are grossly.
insulting us, by telling us that you might have
done good, but only waited for a pressing ne-
cessity, and for the recovery of Mr. Fox's health.
* Answer, page 60.
158
Such an excuse supposes that Lord Grenville
was not united in principle, and would naturally
relapse into his old measures, if not controled
by Mr. Fox. Such an excuse does away with
the necessity of apologizing for any one thing
you did or omitted to do ; and is, as you say,
an answer (an answer / 1 l) “ which manifestly
applies to several other charges.” Indeed it
does—it applies to one as well as another : It
applies to all—or it applies to none.
You needed not to have taken the trouble to
defend a single measure of the coalition. You
feel this, indeed, and it appears to me, give up
almost all the points attacked.
For example. The settlement of foreign
troops in England was “against your opinions.”
But you found them introduced by your prede-
cessors; “ could you forbear to legalize them "
could you forbear to increase them, or in your
fine round-about phrase, “to apportion their
“ numbers to the exigencies of our defence, at
“so critical a period of the war?”—so you raised
the foreigners to 16,000 troops.
The Barrack system || “ you objected to it
“when first proposed in parliament;” but the
measure was carried, and the barracks were
built, before you came into office. So you con-
tinued, and would have continued the barracks,
in the face of Mr. Fox's general definition of his
* Answer, page 60.
1.59
radical change, in spite of his solemn promise,
if ever he came into place “to govern the country
by a system of liberty, instead of by a system of re-
straint.” #
The Income tax. “It is true that you op-
posed it even as a war tax.” But you found it
established, so “ you continued for a season that
“ unpopular tar: and being continued, it became
“necessary, either to square it with the exigen-
“cies of the state, or instantly to impose other
“ taxes, which it required the utmost consider-
“ation to mature. This was our situation,”
say you, “ and we expect credit from our charac-
“ ters, that we should not have continued it in
“ peace, or even in war, against objections so
“justly raised up against it.”
This is so like giving up the point, that you
ought to be spared. But the Whig ministers
made none of these allowances at the time: they
said 10 per cent. was the natural limit of the
proportion to be taken from every individual in-
come. A Whig naturally leads the people. A
Whig naturally takes a tenth from every man's
income; and to oppose him either in the one or
the other pretension is unnatural. You expect
credit for your characters. Mygood Lord, this will
not do: you had credit for your characters for a
long, long time; and the continuance of every
obnoxious measure, which you had firmly de-
* Debates, Jan. 4, 1798.—Mr. Fox's speech.
I60
nounced, is a strange cause for demanding the
confidence of the country for your future discon-
tinuance of those measures. Besides, the income.
tax had found its natural limit, and the reason
of prior establishment would become stronger
every day. Yet you ask us to believe, that
“ you would not have continued it even in
war;” but you did continue it. The conclud-
ing phrases are unintelligible, “against objections
so justly raised against it.” I do not make out
whether or not you mean to allow, that objec-
tions were justly raised against it at the time;
if they were, how barefaced was it to continue
the tax: if at any other time, when would that
time arrive during war Never, according to
your own account. And yet the tax would have
been dropped during war: and, for this, we
are to take your word, upon the credit of Whig
character | | | Yes, of these gallant financiers,
whose great terror was, lest the national debt
should be paid with a precipitancy detrimental
to our commercial interests.
The Bank restriction you defend, as you de-
fend the Income tax. It was done: and could
not be undone. At least, not in a hurry. Al-
though it was “a dangerous departure from the
principles of public credit.” &
... Who would think that all these measures,
which were to be controled, were emanations
from and a part of that very system which Mr.
161
Fox pledged himself radically to subvert 2 Who
would not rather believe them the laws of the
Medes and Persians, or the immutable positions
of the Koran, or those ancient institutions which
the Iron Barons of England proclaimed they
would not suffer to be changed 2
If the Whigs changed nothing of the system
of administration, either at the root or in the
branch, but continued and encouraged the plan
of governing by parliamentary corruption, it would
be almost idle to inquire whether they seriously
contemplated the least change in the system of
Representation. You yourself give up the de-
claration of the Friends of the People, of that
very society whose petition you seconded in
parliament.—You give up the uniformity of
suffrage.—You give up the new division of the
country. You give up the near approach to
universal suffrage: to the advocating of all which
you have the candour (indeed, you could not
possibly deny it) to own, you were a party; and
this you do “at the risk of your character,
“which now it seems (so you say) must attend
“ the smallest change of opinion.””
What do you call the smallest change of opi-
nion ? it is the whole change, that is all. You
have given up the Radical Reform, to adopt
what? A reform derived from well considered
additions “ of county representations, and of
* Answer, p. 80.
M
162.
“ populous towns, though never before repre-
“sented.” That is to say, you are for preserv-
ing the rotten-borough system in undiminished
lustre: for, my Lord, in spite of your indigna-
tion, I say, that this would continue thé infamous
corruptions of rotten boroughs.” This is quite
natural : we understand you, when you say,
that you are like Mr. Burke, and are attached
to such divisions of our country as have been
formed by habit, and call it a wise saying
applicable less to France than to England,
“ where we have so many proud recollections of
freedom.”f You have a right, of course, to
change your opinion in toto; but, when you
call that entire change, the smallest change;
and when you defend that change by confound-
ing the most disgraceful traffic that ever existed
in any country, “with the proud recollections,
“ of freedom,” you must consent to be laughed
at even by the Rabble. - .
The reason given for abandoning your former
demand for a very extended suffrage, shows a
most lamentable want of information in mat-
ters in which you were once a principal actor.
You will not come so near Universal Suffrage
as you did formerly, “whilst its supporters lie
“so close behind me, to batter down my propo-
“sition by the larger claim of an utiqualified
“right. Those adversaries had then no formida-
• Answer, p. 27, + Ibid, p. 31.
163
“ ble force.”” Both these propositions are false
facts. The advocates of Universal Suffrage, the
great majority of whom, certainly in Westmin-
ster, argue from utility, not right, will not bat-
ter down any proposition of your's for Reform.
The excuse is all an assumption, and an absurd
assumption ; for, at this rate, no man should
give a beggar a shilling in charity, for fear of
having his purse snatched out of his hand, by
a by-stander, and flung amongst the crowd.
You yourself, as explained and defended by
Mr. Fox, on the debate on Reform, in 1797,
overthrew this puny objection. “My learned
“ friend,” said Mr. Fox, “ declared, if it be
“true, as it is so industriously circulated, that
“such and such men (dangerous men) do exist
“in the country, then surely, in wisdom, you
“ought to prevent their number increasing, by
“ timely conciliation of the body of moderate
“men, who desire only Reform.” Lord Grey,
in moving for Reform, in 1793, said, “He well
“knew that the chief difficulty to be encoun-
“tered would be the argument as to the danger
“ of the times. This, indeed, is a never-failing
“argument in times of prosperity and adversity,
“ in times of war and of peace. He had no
“doubt it would continue to be made success-
“fully, till THE PEOPLE RESOLVE FOR THEM-
“SELVES there shall be a proper time.”
g * Answer, p. 31.
164
As to the advocates for Universal Suffrage
having no formidable force when you and the
Whigs were the reforming Friends of the People,
I do not know what you call formidable; but I
have Lord Grenville's" authority for saying, that
of the Reformers, the advocates of Universal
Suffrage, were then “infinitely the more numer-
ous:” and yet, at that very time, Lord Holland
said he should have voted for Mr. Grey's plan,
which would have given about 1,500 electors to
each representative, and would have entirely
subverted the present Borough system—and de-
clared he “ wanted a system of administration
founded upon Parliamentary Reform.”f
You actually forget, that in your first pam-
phlet, you had represented the bolder Reformers
as so criminally and dangerously licentious, that
they forced the government to interfere. You
actually forget, that in this very answer you say,
that there were tumultuous meetings, and an alarm-
ing mass of publications. You forget, that in this
very Answer you confess, that very great multi-
tudes were of opinion that even Universal Suffrage
and Annual Parliaments were absolute rights of the
* “The partisans of which said Universal Suffrage were
“infinitely more numerous than those of moderate Reform.”—
Lord Grenville, Lords’ Debates, Jan. 9, 1798. Mr. Fox, in
his speech on Jan. 4, 1798, owned that “ Universal Suffrage
was by many supposed the best Radical Reform.” -
t See Lord Holland's speech, Jan. 9, 1798; and yet the
Whigs now say Fox's Radical Reform was not a Parliamentary
Reform.—Bah!!!—Laugh at them.
165
People. Now you say, they had no formidable
force. But the fact is, that the danger is a
mere feeble and ridiculous excuse, which you
yourself laughed at formerly ; and which is
sometimes said to exist, sometimes said not to
exist, just as it may suit the Whig weathercock
of the day.
You appear to me to have lost memory of
dates as well as facts, when you say, that the
tumultuous meetings, and the alarming mass of
publications that led to the State Trials, have now
made the question of Reform AN ALMOST entirely
new one since Lord Grey delivered his opinion
on Reform in 1794. What I has he delivered no
opinion about Reform since 1794 * Why, the
famous Declaration of the Friends of the People
was in 1795. Mr. Grey's motion for Reform in
Parliament, so often referred to, was in 1797.-
Yes, that very motion, which would have remo-
delled the whole state of representation. Mr. Fox
gave his celebrated opinion about the right of
resistance in 1795, and his pledge for a radical
reform in 1798. Have you no books? You say
that you do not hope the same success from
meetings of the people to forward Reform at
present, as when they were recommended by
Lord Grey and Mr. Pitt—and this change of
opinion you attribute to the “ continued and
“increasing prevalence of impracticable theories,
“ and an excited spirit of irritation and discon-
“tent.” But I have before shown, that these
166
impracticable theories were allowed by your own
Whigs to have been adopted by the majority of
the Reformers, when the Whigs supported a very
radical reform; and your own Whigs now say
that the majority of the Reformers are against
Universal Suffrage.* I have before shown how,
in your own former opinion, the way to allay
discontents, was to forward Reform, not to drop
the question altogether; not to declare, that, on
account of an inflamed and ungovernable spirit
in the people, “any alteration in the forms of
“ parliament must be, for that season, dropped.”f
Indeed, my Lord Grey sees no great harm in
public meetings, independent of the agitation of
the cause of Reform; for he recommends keeping
up and stirring up the spirit of the people as the
best preservative of liberty; and this he has said
since the State Trials in 1794—he said it in last
January.j:
I discover, however, that it is not the pre-
valence of the opinions in favour of Universal
Suffrage, nor of any of those wild and visionary
motions which the Whig Friends of the People
professed, that will make your Lordship defer,
for a season, any change in the representation.
You once thought, you say, that although An-
* See Lord Grey's Newcastle Speech. See State of Parties.
His Lordship and the Reviewer find the mass of the people
sound—that is, Whigs. - ,
+ Defence, p. 30.
f See the Newcastle Speech,-Newcastle Chronicle for Jan.
9, 1819.
I67
nual Parliaments and Universal Suffrage were
claimed by very great multitudes, “ yet, the
subject in the end would be considered with ten-
perance and moderation.” Why did you think
this in 1794, at the very time of the “tumultu-
ous meetings” of the “ criminally licentious"
societies, &c., whose existence you admit –
Why did you think so then, and do not think so
now? You give your reason thus—“But is this
“likely, Sir at present, when almost every man
“ of rank, of station, or property, who ever aus-
“ piciated the cause of Reform, has been pro-
“scribed and vilified”—that is, when interpreted
and reduced to fact—when the Whigs have been
told by the people that they have abandoned
their former opinions on Reform. In other
words—when the people presume to advocate
the cause by themselves, without waiting until
they and their cause shall be again auspiciated
by the Whigs.
In the filst place, admitting your position to
be as true as it is exaggerated, think what a
portrait you give of your patriots, when you des-
cribe them as deserting a great public cause, be-
cause they have been unjustly abused. Surely
they had nothing to do, when they were accused
+ 1 must add the Because in a note, it is not worth large
print:—“Because the various classes of such a people as that
“ of England, might have brought opinions and conduct to
“such a happy medium upon this important subject, as to
“ have acted upon the prudence of parliament at no very
“ distant period, with a tolerable effect.”—Answer, p. 24.
168
of having deserted Reform; they had nothing to
do, but to show, by being more eager than ever
in forwarding that object, how falsely they had
been calumniated. This would have been an
answer, indeed, rather more noble, more states-
man-like, more dignified, and more effectual,
than the retort by loud complaint and invective,
which has been the principal answer these
persons of rank, station, and property, have
deigned to give to the Radical Reformers.”
That they have not voted for Reform, I shall
not deny; but I likewise affirm, that few of them
have ever spoken on the subject, without con-
triving to denounce the Radical Reformers. But
I need say little on this fact, as your Lordship
seems to admit it, and to justify it.
It is requisite, however, to deny solemnly the
truth of your position, as to the proscription and
vilification of almost every man of rank, station,
* It is one of the present Whig fallacies, to make a dis-
tinction between the Radical Reformers now, and the Whig
Radical Reformers, under the pretext, that the present Radi-
cal Reformers are all for Annual Parliaments and Universal
Suffrage. But this is false; and Mr. J. W. Ward, in his
Speech on May 20, in 1817, on Reform, very well observed,
that the moderate Reformers were those who would be content
with partial alterations, applicable to what they deem particular
grievances. All other Reformers are Radical Reformers; and,
as the Whigs from 1790 to 1798, cannot possibly be included
in Mr. Ward's definition, they certainly were then, as we are
now, Radical Reformers. That is to say, they wished entirely
to re-model the Representation, and they proclaimed the PA-
RAMount IMPORTANCE of Reform.
169
or property, whoever auspiciated the cause of Re-
form. Recollect, my Lord, you are talking of this
having been done some time ago—you are not
alluding to any of the transactions of last year:
for you give this as a reason why the Whigs had
not latterly been so active as formerly in the
cause of Reform ; so that the events of the late
Westminster Elections did not come under con-
templation;* although, if they did, they would
not bear you out. And yet, in another place,
you say the Reformers have started up from a
twelve years’ trance.f Have they been pro-
scribing and vilifying in their sleep?—Or do you
allude to what they said and did before that
trance, namely, in the Election of 1807? You
say that the Reformers had ranged themselves
under the Whigs until lately. What do you
mean by lately ºf—twelve years ago? My Lord,
I suspect that you have admitted all that you
have found in Whig speeches as incontrovertible
facts; and that when you have read that the
Whig invectives against the Reformers were in
reply, you have believed that the original attack
had been made by the Reformers. The spleen of
the Whigs was first moved, I believe, by Sir Fran-
* The Report of the Westminster committee accused the
Whigs of abandoning Reform. Lord Erskine shows why they
had abandoned it—because they had been proscribed and
vilified: so that the proscription and vilification must have
been before the Report; indeed before the Election in 1818.
t Answer, p. 51. # Ibid, p. 15.
170
cis Burdett calling Mr. Fox “the best of pa-
triots;” and since that period, sundry Palace-yard
and Crown and Anchor speeches have cried up the
PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE of Reform, and the AB-
SoLUTE UNIMPORTANCE of who was in or who
was out of place, unless as connected with the suc-
cess of Reform. For, my Lord, you are as wrong
as ever; there has been been no twelve years'
trance—and I should not have quoted the
phrase, except to show, you did not know what
you were writing about. You will find no pro-
scription, no vilification at any time; but you
will find that the Reformers have been asleep
at no time. There has been no twelve years'
trance—it has been your Lordship rather, who,
thaving had your head in a bucket for five
minutes, have passed through all sorts of adven-
tures, and have dreamt over the occurrences of
many imaginary years.
Sir Francis Burdett, in his farewell address to
the Freeholders of Middlesex, on the 28th of
April, 1806, gave, by the picture he drew of
the parties in the House of Commons, a tone to
the language of the Reformers, which has never
since been dropt.—His address of thanks to the
Electors of Westminster was re-echoed by all
those who had been disappointed by the coali-
tion cabinet—that is, the great majority of the
* Yet, since that description, Mr. Sheridan said on the
hustings, in Covent-garden, that, had Mr. Fox been alive, he
would have voted for Sir Francis Burdett.
171
whole people of England. The nation began to
be indifferent to names—they joined the repre-
sentative of Westminster in asking themselves
the question—“As long as the thieves in common
“ take all they can seize, what is it to the plundered
“ people who share the booty, how they share it, and
“ in what combination 2"
At the first anniversary dinner in 1808, f al-
though Mr. Byng and several other Whig members
of parliament were in the room, the language of
the day was such as to show that the Reformers
had taken a decided line, from which no reve-
rence for favourite names would induce them to
depart. At the great Parliamentary Dinner
Meeting on the 1st of May, 1809, the language
held by the Radical Reformers was still more
explicit, and a speech from Mr. William Smith,
enabled them to come to an explanation with
the Whigs. Mr. Smith, with a frankness which
did him honor, and which has always distin-
guished his eminently useful career—told the
meeting, that he could hold out little hopes to
them of success; and drew his conclusion, in
great part, from the failure of all the attempts
* Sir Francis Burdett's Address to the Electors, May 25,
1807. See these documents in the “Exposition of the Cir-
cumstances which gave rise to the Election of Sir Francis
Burdett, Bart. for Westminster, in May, 1807.” Published
by Tipper, Leadenhall-street. -
+ See Proceedings of the First Anniversary Meeting of the
Triumph of Westminster, Published by J. Morton, Strand.
172
made by the “Friends of the People.” To this
Mr. Waithman replied:—“ He has told us a
“great deal about the society of the Friends of
“ the People—that there were very able and ho-
“nourable men in that society, I most readily
“allow ; but I should be glad to know, whether
“ those times were more propitious than these in
“ which we now live, for agitating the question of
“Parliamentary Reform 2 And if not, I should
“be glad also to know, where all his great and
“ noble friends now are, who were members of
“ that society I remember Mr. Charles Grey
“ and Mr. Tierney standing up champions for a
“Reform in Parliament; but I have recently
“ observed allusions by the same Mr. Charles
“Grey, now Lord Grey, in which he seems to
“ sneer at gentlemen who take a leading part
“ in the question of Reform, and in which
“ he alludes to the crude notions of modern
“ Reformers.” -
In another part of his speech he said, after
mentioning Mr. Fox's assertion, that he would
not come in without a Reform in Parliament—
“I greatly lament to say, that however strongly
“I was individually attached to the members of
“ that (Whig) administration, I saw not one of
“ those great professions carried into execution ;
“ nor did any one man in either house stand up
“ to give a pledge to carry such measures as had
“ been proposed before they came into adminis-
173
“tration, into execution.” In another place,
Mr. Waithman said: “Whatever may be said
“ by Lord Grey, of the House of Commons, I
“am still of opinion, that there is no difference
“ as to who are in or who are out under the
“present system.”
The same gentleman then said, that since they
had been in, the Whigs had deserted even the
Whig Club.
I can refer your Lordship to the proceedings
of the great meeting in Palace-yard in 1810,
Feb. 9. The language of Mr. Sturch on that
occasion, shows the Reformers were not asleep—
shows they knew the Whigs well—and speaks in
exactly the same tone as to the excellent indi-
vidual character of members of the House, as
you think so absurd and new in the Replyer.
Mr. Sturch said—“Since the year 1780, we had
“ had political changes, and various ministries.
“We had had Tory ministries, and we had had
“Whig ministries. But had these changes pro-
“duced any substantial alterations for the better?
“Had there been any radical change of system
“. . . . . . . It was very far from his intention
“ to deny that there were individuals of great in-
“tegrity in that House; but if they would have
“an honest House, they must have free and
“frequent elections.” This exception in favor
* See an Account of these Proceedings published and
printed by M'Creery, 1810.
174
of individuals offended you in Sir Francis Burdett,
and in the Replyer; but Mr. Sturch repeated it
in the subsequent part of his speech; and your
Lordship may see that the language of the Radi-
cal Reformers has been invariably the same, and
that, even whilst talking in their sleep of twelve
years, they have been consistent in all that they
have said. They have denounced Whigs as
party men, because, when the party came in,
nothing was done. They have respected Whigs
as Reformers, and, in proportion as they ap-
peared to stand by their original professions.
Thus the Westminster Reformers openly con-
demned the OUTS as a body, for what they called
rallying round the Constitution, against Sir
Francis Burdett; but they voted thanks to such
members of parliament as had stood by their
representative. -
After the liberation of Sir Francis Burdett, he
addressed the electors at the Crown and Anchor,
in a speech that so fully conveyed their senti-
ments, that they ordered it to be printed and
circulated.* Sir Francis, commenting on Lord
Grey's speech, observed, “We are told in this
“ same speech of Lord Grey, that it is the fa-
“shion of the times to vilify and defame all
“ public men. I should like one of these vili-
“fied and defamed characters to come forward,
* Published by Barker, Great Russell-street, Covent-gār-
den, 1810. . . . . . . :
175.
“ and point out, in what he has been calum-
“niated.” The same speech, circulated by the
electors, begged the country to observe, that it
was the Whigs who went the great lengths in
defence of the privileges of parliament, and thus
did the dirty work of the ministers. In those
days, Mr. Wishart, Mr. Waithman, Mr. Clay-
ton Jennings, and Mr. Sturch, were amongst
the leading Reformers at the public meetings;
they never made any exception to these opinions,
and I am the better pleased with shewing from
the gentlemen whose speeches I have quoted,
that the language of the Reformers, and the
complaints against them, have been always the
same during this imagined twelve years’ trance;
because, both Mr. Waithman and Mr. Sturch
may now be admitted as conclusive authority,
having lately become respectable in the eyes of
the Chronicler.” When then you say, that the
radical Reformers had ranged under the Whigs.
“ until lately,”f and that this is what “rubs us,”
you forget, or never knew, all that happened
* “The Chronicle” calls him that respectable citizen, Mr.
Sturch. We, radical Reformers, will not, as Bonaparte said,
wash our dirty linen in public; so we will not regret the past,
but hope for the future. Mr. Sturch's name is to be found in
all radical proceedings, since 1790, up to 1818. Surely he
will not impair an honest reputation by suffering himself to
be “patted upon the back,” by poor Perry. tº-
t Answer, p. 15. “AYE, THERE's THE RUB.” In p. 13
the word is, “ until very lately,”
176
since 1807. You forget even that you had said
in your “ Defence,” that the bolder Reformers
would not range themselves under the Whig
Friends of the People, in 1793, and so got into
scrapes by their own headstrong nature, by be-
ing without leaders, and by then “suspecting the
Whigs.”* The radical Reformers are not, I re-
peat, guilty of any sudden abandonment of their
officers. If there has been desertion, the de-
sertion is not to be charged against the PEOPLE.
The Reformers in Westminster have always
been awake—sometimes they have been obliged
to reproach the Opposition, at others they have
been able to approach nearer to certain mem-
bers of that party. This they have done from no
humour of the moment, nor from any wish to
lead or be led; but merely as there appeared an
inclination amongst these gentlemen to become
again earnest in the cause of Reform. But
as to personally proscribing and vilifying, they
have done no such thing. If there has been
any proscribing and vilifying, it has been
entirely on the side of the Whigs. For one
instance which you will point out to me of the
Radical Reformers calling the Whigs a faction,
I will show you two of the Whigs abusing the
Reformers, in good set phrases, in the true par-
liamentary slang. Besides, when you talk of
all these persons of rank, &c. you must mean
* Defence of the Whigs, p. 10.
177
individually, not merely as included in their
party. Now, let me ask, whom had the West-
minster Reformers personally attacked before the
last elections, (I say before the last elections,
because your argument applies solely to that
prior period) Lord Grey seems to be the person
who has most frequently complained, so, I pre-
sume, he must have been most frequently
attacked.
His Lordship is a very distinguished man, but
mean as we are, we may say to him, as he said
to Mr. Pitt—“we will never condescend to bar-
“ gain with him, nor endeavour to conciliate his
“favor by any mode of compliment.”
What has been said at any time against Lord
Grey, respecting his change of opinion on Re-
form, may certainly, as far as the language is
concerned, be defended, by referring to himself:
for I say, that he has never been called at any
time by an epithet stronger or harsher than that
which he applied to Mr. William Pitt in 1794–
An Apostate. We will let alone the other names,
“ prosecutor, aye, and persecutor too.” I am not
aware that this word had been ever distinctly
applied to his Lordship at the time that he was
thundering against the Reformers in the Lords,
in the year 1810. But I conceive, that it would
not be at all difficult to show, that Lord Grey
• Debate, May 6, 1793, on Reform,
N
178
does stand apart from his former opinions on
Reform; and may, therefore, fairly be said to
have apostatized. How far he stands apart is
another question. I am under great difficulty in
arguing with your Lordship, for I do not know
what you will admit as evidence. The Replyer
quotes to you an opinion of Lord Grey's, and
you say—Oh, it is only “a sentence picked out
from some report of a speech at a tavern.” But
a report of a tavern speech is quite ground
enough to make you rise up in arms against the
“ disappointed” Mr. Hobhouse. -
However Lord Grey did, according to your
own confession, in the House of Lords, own
that he would not go the lengths he formerly
went for Reform, for I find you using these
words—“I am decidedly adverse to those re-
“ forms which occasion so much alarm to go-
“vernment; so much so, that I should not be
“disposed at this moment to advance so far in
“any system of change, as that to which I for-
“merly set my hand. I feel exactly in that
“ respect, as I understand was expressed by a noble
“friend, now absent, whose motion I seconded in
“ the House of Commons.”f -
That is to say, that neither Lord Grey In OT
you would advance so far for Reform as you did
in 1793. But, without this admission from your
* Answer, p. 20.
+ Debates, March 25, 1817.
179
Lordship, I can easily prove that Lord Grey's
opinions on Reform have undergone a most ma-
terial change. I refer, without multiplying in-
dividual quotations, to all Lord Grey's speeches
in 1793 and 1794, and 1797, whether his Lord-
ship did not then maintain the PARAMOUNT IM-
PortANCE of Radical Reform. The recom-
mendation to the people to meet in bodies, and
act upon the prudence, that is, the fear of the
House, is quite enough to prove that Lord Grey
did then think that nothing was to be done
without radical Reform. That his Lordship has
dropped this notion of PARAMOUNT necessity, I
think is tolerably clear, from his conduct and
speeches in parliament. But I must quote a
tavern speech, the report of which was very
carefully taken, and very egregiously lauded in
the Chronicle—I mean that spoken at Newcastle,
at the Fox dinner in last January. - -
“I am attached (said Lord Grey) to a Reform
“conducted upon moderate principles; always
“gradual, and guided by salutary precautions.
“But to those other principles of Reform, as
“ erroneous in theory as they are irreducible to
“ practice, I am a decided enemy, as I believe
“ them to be absurd, visionary, and senseless.
“I should say, it appears to me, that there
“cannot be a more false, a more mistaken, a
“ more mischievous belief, than that a reform in
“ parliament, however desirable it may be, is the
N 2
180
“one and only measure by which the salvation
“ of the country can be effected.”
The second paragraph here quoted may serve
pretty well to show what Lord Grey now thinks
of the paramount importance of Reform. But,
perhaps, a stronger inference may be drawn from
the first.—His Reform upon moderate principles,
always gradual, and guided by salutary pre-
cautions, cannot, by any sophistry, be the Re-
form of the Friends of the People; a society
with which his Lordship identified himself, not
only at the time, but even so late as the year
1810. On the 13th of June, in that year he refer-
red to the proceedings of that society for his past,
and, indeed, his then opinion; for, strange as it
may sound, Lord Grey, even then, even in 1810,
still seemed to wish to be called a Radical Re-
Jormer. º:
Now the Friends of the People positively dis-
claimed gradual Reform in so many words—both
in 1794 and 1795—They said, “gradual altera-
“tions or partial improvements, though just and pru-
“dent in the retrenchment of expenses, and in the
“ reduction of establishments, are, in their nature,
“unequal to the removal of a rooted, inveterate abuse.
“To prune the vicious plant, is to strengthen and
* “By another association we were accused, as I am ac-
“cused in the present day, of not being a sincere friend to
“ Radical Reform.”—Lords’ Debates, June, 1810.
181
“preserve it.” Again in 1795—Gradual altera-
fions or progressive improvements which some men
recommend, would all be successively absorbed, and
sink into the standing system. “ Partial remedies
“ serve only to soften the symptoms and to induce a
“ habit of acquiescence, while they leave the root of
“ the evil entire. If an effectual reform of the
“ House of Commons is not to be had now, let us
“ take care not to make it unattainable hereafter,
‘ by any act of agreement, or composition with the
“mischief itself, or with the interests that support
“ it.”
That these were Lord Grey's sentiments, and
those of the Whig party, need not be re-asserted.
Sir Philip Francis must have thought them so,
when he republished these declarations in 1817.f
Indeed, your Lordship not knowing that you
would have to shift your ground in your Answer,
does in your Defence pronounce the declaration
of the Friends of the People to be above all objec-
tion—you call it “practicable”—you say it does
not pass the sober medium; and yet this is any
thing but a gradual Reform. But, perhaps your
Lordship might like to see what Lord Grey for-
merly thought about those absurd, senseless, and
visionary plans, so erroneous in theory, so irre-
ducible to practice. These plans are, of course,
Annual Parliaments and Universal Suffrage.
6
* See his pamphlet—A Plan of a Reform in the Election,
&c.——Ridgway, 1817. -
t Defence, p. 9.
182
Lord Grey, then, in his place in the House of
Commons, said, he did not approve the Duke of
Richmond's plan of Reform, though he thought IT
BETTER THAN THE PRESENT SYSTEM.” “Any
“ plan would be better which would secure such
“ people in the House, as would vote indepen-
“ dently, and uninfluenced by corruption;–he
“ could certainly mention a plan which ap-
“ peared to him better,” &c. I need not add,
that this is as much as to say, he thought
Annual Parliaments and Universal Suffrage,
not only reducible to practice, but better than
the present practice—-and one, which although
he could name a better plan, was one of those
plans which would answer the purposes of re-
presentation. -
What then can Lord Grey mean by saying, as
he did in the speech before quoted,—“My opinions
“ on Parliamentary Reform are alreadywell known;
“ to them I still continue attached, notwithstanding
“what I have said on some late occasions has been
“ represented as a renunciation of my former
“ opinions.”
I ask you, Lord Erskine, whether I have not
already shown, beyond hope of cavil, that Lord
Grey has renounced his former opinions When
a member of the society of the Friends of the
People, he was a Radical Reformer—his bill in
1797 was for a Radical Reform. Now he says,
a Reformer on moderate principles. He was then
* Parliamentary Debates, May 6, 1793.
183
for doing all at once—he is now for being always
gradual. He then talked of Annual Parliaments
and Universal Suffrage, as better than the present
system, and as admissible, though he knew a
better plan. He now calls Annual Parliaments
and Universal Suffrage absurd, senseless, vision-
ary, impracticable.
He then would bring the people to the doors
of Parliament to intimidate the members into
Reform. He now calls the notion of the para-
mount, indispensable mecessity of Reform, false,
mistaken, dangerous, and mischievous.
This is APOSTACY-this is standing apart from
his former opinions, or words have no meaning.
It is idle for your Lordship to say that Lord Grey
will again be found supporting Reform—at the
happy, harmonious period which your Lordship
fixes as the sole juncture when Reform can be
claimed with justice or utility.” Perhaps he
may—but even if he should turn out to be for
Universal Suffrage hereafter, we shall have still
been quite right in what we have said of his
former conduct and expressed opinions. How
could Lord Grey say his opinions on Reform
* “But (be the time at hand or distant) whenever petitions
“for Reform shall approach Parliament, proceeding from the
“harmonious wishes of the various classes and degrees, which
“can alone constitute a nation, and which above all nations
“of the earth, binds together as one soul and body the inha-
“bitants of Great Britain, I will venture to pledge my cha-
“racter,” &c.—Answer, p. 26.
184
were well known If he alluded to his old opi-
mions, indeed, we find them as clear as words
can make them in the declarations of the Friends
of the People; but all that we can collect as to
his present way of thinking, distinctly shows,
that he no longer retains those old opinions.
I wish, my Lord you had not put me upon
this work. Lord Grey, strange as it appears to
us, after the political fauw pas, the slight slips
of his Lordship's life, assumes, I understand,
the fierce arrogance of insulted virtue.—He
is, I should think, an irritable man, and is
likely to act so much from immediate impulse,
that even such a trifle as this pamphlet might
justify, in his mind, a fresh attack on the Re-
formers.
Now his Lordship is one of those few Whigs
whom I would rather have for us than against
us; and if some forbearance from telling the
truth would make him apostatize from his present
principles, I, for one, should be highly delighted
to see a man of his capacity and influence re-
turn to his old principles. -
The memory of his Lordship's once decided
character, when recalled by the occasional vi-
gorous efforts which he now makes in defence of
public liberty, is, I must own, more agreeable to
my fancy than even the present perseverance of
a dull man; and this I say with the thorough
conviction, that, at present, the Reformers have
no enemy so fatal to them as Lord Grey. There
185
is no accounting for tastes, and this is mine.—
The oddity of the selection, and more than that,
the arrogance of such a creature as myself, pre-
tending even to approve of a Lord, will amuse,
if it does not shock you; but we are all men,
my Lord, and—if the scum should ever unfor-
tunately be uppermost—who knows? perhaps it
may be as well to have even my vote.
I have been seduced into this digression, by
looking over (I have it now before me) Lord
Grey's speech on the French war, in 1815: a
very noble piece of parliamentary rhetoric,
surely; and this brings me just to say, in pass-
ing, that if your Whigs had been a party, and
had been a party pretending to any principles
of union, you would all have opposed this war;
but, on the contrary, I verily believe, that it
was a Whig speech that gave the minister
courage to go to war. I mean Mr. Grattan's
YoU voted for the war. What folly then is t
to talk of party You never combine and act
altogether upon any great national question.
Never upon a point decisive of some fixed prin-
ciple. A powerful muster can never be male,
except upon some motion warily set out with
exceptions and provisions,” contrived more for
* In compliance with the bad men of the party, Lord Ar-
chibald Hamilton, one of the best men of the party, on the
debate on the Scotch Burghs, was obliged most solemnly to
disavow any connexion between his petitions and Parliamen-
186
the sake of collecting votes than displaying
opinions. And yet you talk of an organized
opposition: and have the assurance to say, that
there is no sentiment more universal than that,
“such an opposition,” even to the most justly po-
pular administration, is a great security to good
government.* I rather think, I am as good a
judge of what sentiment is universal as your
Lordship is ; and, I say, that if such a senti-
ment ever did prevail, it is now entirely exploded,
except in those quarters where it will stick to
the last, namely, amongst the members of this
organized opposition themselves. Great security
to good government / 1 it is a FARCE; it is the main-
stay of bad government. It may do very well,
whilst the being a member of parliament, is as Mr.
tary Reform. The whole struggle between the battalions on
hat debate (May 6) was to affix, and ward off, that odious
and damnable suspicion. “I am against all innovation,” said
Iord Binning, “ and this is neither more nor less than Par-
limentary Reform.” (No 1 no no ! from the opposition
benches.) “I am as much against what is called Parliamen-
tary Reform as any body,” said Mr. Primrose, “but this is
not Reform. I am for the petitions.” Mr. Wynne was against
every thing wild and visionary; but he would vote for the
committee, as it pledged him to nothing. Then came George
Canring of Liverpool; he called this one of the “coarse,”
“broad,” “gross,” “tyrannical,” “insulting,” “shapes” of Re-
form; and ended an “animated” speech, so The Times calls
it, by comparing the said monster to a toad, and himself to
an angel, armed with the spear of truth.
f :
* Answer, p. 4.
187
W. Ward called it, in the warmth of admiration,
“a profession,”* (pity he did not add, a lucra-
tive profession); but in a true Commons' House,
what we should have, would be, what you say
would be of “no use to the people whatever;”
that is, “a desultory attendance of the homestest
“ and most enlightened men.”f Here is a charm-
ing eulogium on the present state of representa-
tion, and brings me back naturally to the main
question, as to the “proscription” and “vilifica-
tion” of our apostate Reformers, by the radical
Reformers.
I have shewn how materially Lord Grey must
have changed his opinions on the subject of Re-
form; for it is not an adequate confession to say,
as his Lordship did, in 1810, that there had
been “in subsequent times, some differences
“ from his former professions;”f but I do not
think you can shew me any proscription or vi.
lification of him by the Reformers. As we are
no party, we are not answerable for individual
attacks; and in the present state of the contro-
versy, I presume your Lordship would not think
of making the Reformers, whose defeat you re-
joice in, (that is, the Westminster Reformers,)
answerable for Mr. Cobbett’s strictures on the
* Speech, in 1817, on Sir Francis Burdett's motion on
Reform.
+ Answer, p. 40. # Debates, June 10, 1810.
188
Whigs. In truth, the Whigs have lately been
quoting the scripture of the “Register,” with
much delight against the Westminster Reformers.
Besides, Mr. Cobbett’s pen has been in activity
during the twelve years' trance, so you can have
alluded only to the body of men usually known
by the name of the Westminster Committee.
I protest then, that I am at a loss to know where
to look for the “proscription and vilification”
of these Whig persons of “ rank, station, and
property;” nor do I know, with the exception
of Lord Grey, to whom in particular you would
allude. The coalition of 1806 certainly con-
vinced the people of England, that the struggles
of party in parliament were struggles, not for
principles, but for power; and that conviction
will be found in the proceedings of the Westmin-
ster Reformers, but that is not proscribing and
vilifying almost all persons of rank, station, and
property; if it is proscribing and vilifying them,
they should be proscribed and vilified ; for it
is a truth indelibly fixed in the public mind.
—It is not at all surprising, that Lord Grey
should have drawn no small share of the public
odium upon himself, since he took part with
the Borough-mongers against the people of Eng-
land, in the great question which was tried in
the person of Sir Francis Burdett, in 1810. Then
it was that his Lordship proclaimed, that he con-
sidered the people should be suppressed in their
189
attempts to act upon the prudence of the house,
as readily as the unconstitutional invasions of
the crown should be resisted. Then it was that
the ardour of the citizen took in his eyes a de-
praved direction, and was no longer to have any
influence upon the deliberations of the senator.”
Then it was that his Lordship chose to question
the title of Sir F. Burdett to the claim of martyr-
dom,t, but he also was candid enough to confess,
that the title had been allowed by the people.
And if he is to be praised for confessing, that he
would stand by the privileges of parliament,
and what he thought his duty, at the risk of his
popularity; it must at the same time not be made
a matter of complaint, that he has incurred
the penalty which he magnanimously professed
* “And if the deliberations of parliament would be im-
“ peded by popular insult and commotion, why not as neces-
“sary to suppress the civium ardor prava jubentium, as the
“unconstitutional invasions of the crown on the freedom of
“ parliament.”—Lord Grey's speech, Parliamentary Debates,
Lords, June 13, 1810. * * *
+ “Sir F. Burdett says, that he is a martyr to the good old
“cause, for which Sydney and Russell bled on the scaffold;
“but Sydney and Russell did not fall martyrs to their resist.
“ance to any stretch or undue exercise of the power or pri-
“ vileges of parliament.”—Speech, June 13, 1810. But, by,
his Lordship's leave, the good old cause was, and is, the cause
of liberty; and whether the tyranny emanates from a cabinet
of courtiers, or an assembly of borough-mongers, resistance
to it is alike meritorious, and will equally make a martyr.
190
himself to despise.*. On that occasion his Lord-
ship certainly pulled off the gloves, and he would
have thought his universal defiance rather ridi-
culous than glorious, if he had not roused a sin-
gle adversary out of his whole world of oppo-
nents. He had, indeed, a foretaste of some
future antagonists from his friend Lord Stanhope,
before he left the house, who at once told him
what was then, and always will be, the vice of
all Whig declamation, and what, I think, is the
peculiar characteristic of Lord Grey's eloquence;
he said, that as to the support to which Lord
Grey would pledge the house for “the ancient
and essential rights and privileges of parliament,”
this “ he thought too indefinite ; his noble friend's
definitions were not so precise as they might have
been.”f Lord Stanhope then said, that, a cer-
* “I cannot but feel a deep regret, if I am deprived of my
“ popularity, by any misunderstanding of my views and ob-
“jects on the part of the people; but it excites my indigna-
“tion, if I am robbed of my popularity, by the basest mis-
“representations, and the vilest delusions practised by men,
“ who, without any regard to truth, sacrifice every really vir-
“tuous and patriotic object to the shouts of popular clamour.
“To obtain such a popularity requires neither virtue nor ta-
“lents. Indeed, men without virtue or talents are the best
“fitted to acquire such a popularity. Men who, as we have
“ seen in the present day, set themselves above all the decen-
“cies of private life, and above all those courtesies which
“ men, who really endeavour to do their duty, concede even
“ to their adversaries.”—Speech of Lord Grey, as above.
t See Debates, as above, -
191
tain supporter of the privileges of parliament
“ had broached doctrines which, if they were
“ well founded, it would be more tolerable to live
“ in Turkey than in any country where such
“ doctrines were countenanced.”
And this is a good place for observing a small
slip in your Lordship's memory, about this very
speech of Lord Grey's, in 1810. Your “An-
swer”* positively denies the assertions of the
Replyer, that “this speech was an uncalled-
for declaration against all Reform, and all Re-
formers.” I happen to have the report of Lord
Erskine's speech upon the proposed address o
Lord Grey, on this very occasion:—
“He agreed with the noble earl (Stanhope) in
“ the opinion which he had formed of the just pri-
“vileges of either house, being commensurate to the
“ necessity of the case, and being founded by that
“ necessity. He was sorry, that a motion on such
“ a subject should be brought forward in a manner
“ that appeared to him to be hasty, and as if made
“ on the spur of the occasion. He must declare,
“ that he did not feel any of that alarm which was
“entertained by many, of the dangerous views of
“ those who were amongst the foremost in seeking
“for Reform. He did not believe there were any
“ considerable body of men in this country; he
“ was sure that he did not know any man who ap-
* Answer, p. 19.
192
“ peared to him to have any further object than to
“ obtain what to them appeared the ESSENCE and
“Spirit of the CONSTITUTION. Many of these
“ men might be mistaken in their opinions; but
“ when it was recollected what an ardent spirit
“prevailed in the time of our forefathers, and how
“much blood had then been shed in the defence of
“what they conceived the liberties of the country,
“men could hardly be condemned at present for
“feeling a considerable degree of zeal and ardour
“ on such a subject.”
; :So said Lord Erskine, in 1810. -
This is a noble and a just defence of all the
radical Reformers; and it is a defence manifestly
against Lord Grey, whose address you call hasty;
is not that word as good as “uncalled for " It
was not an answer to Lord Liverpool, the only
ministerial speaker before your Lordship, except
as far as Lord Liverpool had expressed the
“ most entire satisfaction”* at Lord Grey's sen-
timents concerning the privileges of parliament.
You sealed your opinion on this point by not
dividing with Lord Grey. The Duke of Nor-
folk, the Marquis of Douglass, and Lord Stan-
hope, also refused to take part with the Parlia-
ment against the People: they left the house
with your Lordship. How then can you be
astonished if the radical Reformers occasionally
* Debates, 1810. June 13, as above.
193
recollect the decisive line taken against them,
by Lord Grey, in the imprisonment of Sir F.
Burdett It did not happen so long ago; you
thought it hasty at the time; and, although you
now choose to defend him for attacking “all
such Reformers ” as the Replyer,” yet at the
time, I say, you thought there was not a single
dangerous Reformer, not a single man amongst
them who appeared to have any “further ob-
ject” than obtaining what he thought “the
essence and spirit of the constitution.”
Your Lordship had forgot you differed from
Lord Grey on that momentous question; but
we have not forgot it: we are grateful for your
defence of us then, and are glad to set it off
against your attack on us now. The incon-
sistency, indeed, is not a little puzzling; but I
have been accustomed to it, by looking over
Whig speeches, and by attempting, if possible,
to collect together any knot of men, however
small, acting upon any single principle however
indefinite, to whom may be applied upon the
slightest pretext, the modest and favourite title
of the great body of the Whigs of England.
In the question of Reform, it is “confusion
worse confounded;” for here, in this pamphlet
* “ He spoke only against all such Reformers as I have al-
“luded to, and (if I may judge from your pamphlet) against
“ all such Reformers as yourself.”—Answer, p. 19.
O
194
of your's, I can quote excellent premises for
quite contrary conclusions. -
In page 18 you declare, that you and Lord
Grey have been disappointed, by the radical
Reformers, from “effecting the Reform recom-
“ mended by the Friends of the People.” r
In pages 29, 30, and 31, you give us dis-
tinctly to understand, that you have “rejected,
“ upon maturer reflection,” what is certainly
the whole of the plan of radical Reform, recom-
mended by the Friends of the People. If so, the
radical Reformers have not prevented you from
effecting this plan. You are not for this plan
yourself.
In page 17 you are angry not to be thought
an advocate for a general change in the Repre-
sentation. In page 31 you tell us, that an addi-
tion to the county representation, and to that of
populous towns, is the specific Reform you would
adopt. You do not seem to understand the
subject; and what with attacking those with
whom you used to agree, and defending those
with whom you used to differ, you have so be-
puzzled your argument, that you forget that
you have one indispensable duty to perform, be-
fore you either attack or defend others, namely,
to reconcile yourself with yourself.
You should not have forgotten, that the
reason which you have given for the change of
the question as to Reform—that is, the proscrip-
195
tion and vilification of the former auspiciators of
that claim, did not operate with you at all in
1810, at which period you did not see the dan-
ger you now see from any Reformers; and yet
that separation of the people and the Whigs had
evidently commenced before 1810. You should
have recollected, that in hinting at the patriotism
of the Westminster Reformers starting up after
a twelve years' trance, you must doubtless mean
to say, that they have not done any thing, either
good or bad, since the election of 1807—what
then in their conduct can have changed your
opinion since 1810?–not the elections in 1818
or 1819; because the defence which you make
for the Whigs refers to their conduct before that
period, for which conduct you give the excuse,
that before that period they were proscribed and
vilified.
I have before said this could be no excuse,
were it even true; but it is not true. Your
Lordship's friends are apt to exclaim against the
slightest remonstrance, against the plainest ex-
position of a sober truth, as if it were the most
injurious reviling of rancour and ingratitude.
As a proof of this, I must refer you to the out-
cry raised against the Report of the Westminster
Committee; which, though it does not enter into
your Lordship's proofs of proscription and vilifica-
tion, was doubtless considered in that light by your
196
friends. Now the strongest phrases in that report
are the two following, the first of which succeeds
the quotation from Mr. Grey's speech of 1794,
when he denounced Mr. Pitt as an Apostate:—
“Nothing can be more severe than the indigna-
“tion so properly expressed by Mr. Grey against
“ those who had apostatized from the cause of
“ Reform ; and nothing can bring public men
“ into contempt so completely, as such unprin-
“cipled and shameless apostacy. When, there-
“ fore, Mr. Grey, and the whole of his party,
“joined with the Grenvillites, the unrelenting
“ persecutors of Reform, they justly excited the
“ contempt of the people.” The second is :—
“The feelings excited by the Electors of West-
“minster mainly contributed to expose, still
“further, the enormous iniquities of both the
** factions.”
This is expressing, and strongly too, an opi-
mion of the coalition in 1806; but it is not per-
sonal proscription and vilification. I affirm,
that there is much more of personal proscription
and vilification to be found in what I have
quoted from Lord Grey's speech in 1810, and
much stronger general language in the denun-
ciations of his late Newcastle speech.
However, it was quite enough to make the
Whigs resolve upon running every risk of loss of
character, and to prove that they were not apos-
197
tates from Reform, by opposing the Reformers
in Westminster. I have only slightly quoted
Mr. Lambton’s speech, nor would I now refer to it,
had he not many years left him to repent: but as
the Whigs were audacious enough to say, that
the Reformers struck the first blow at the late
election, I must put down the codicil which the
member for Durham added to his father-in-law's
will against us.*
Mr. Lambton then told us we “ had been
borne aloft by the tide of popular commotion”—“been
lifted above the sphere to which we had been con-
demned by our natural insignificance, and to which
we must now return.” He said, “these Radical Re-
formers, these advocates of Annual Parliaments
and Universal Suffrage, (as if the phrases were
synonymous) with liberty in their mouths”—“ had
contributed to the increase of lavery more” than “the
united power of corruption and despotism.” He told
us we “could only rise by tumult and riot to the un-
natural elevation that” we “sought.” He called us
“brawling, ignorant, but mischievous quacks,” with
whom “the true people of England held no commu-
nion.” He said that our “doctrines and views were
* See the Newcastle Chronicle for Jan. 9, 1819. Mr.
Lambton, by the word “demagogues” seems to have had some
individuals in his eye: but he must know that, as he named
nobody, the offence was against the whole body of Radical
Reformers.
198
exposed to universal derision and abhorrence;” and
ended by “tearing away the veil which concealed
the deformity of our features, which,” he added,
“now inspire nothing but disgust.” Now, Idaresay,
that Mr. Lambton thought that we, the Radical
Reformers in Westminster, would be too happy
to be dismissed so quietly, and would
“Seek us out dishonourable graves.”
But, oh! the unquenchable insolence of “na-
turally insignificant” souls' we published the “RE-
Port of THE COMMITTEE.” The Whigs cried
out at the Election, “why did not the Reformers
make their complaint before ?” We might say
—“why did not Lord Grey and Mr. Lambton
make their attack before ?” The Newcastle
Chronicle arrived with the excommunication
of the Reformers on January 12. The Report
was prepared in the course of the subsequent
fortnight: but it could not be read until the
last general meeting. After this, we must hear
no more of the first attack coming from the
Reformers on the late occasion. On the Thurs-
day following Sir Samuel Romilly's death ap-
peared a paragraph in the Chronicle, calling the
friends of government and the Reformers in
Westminster the “ two extreme factions;” and
shortly before the meeting of Parliament, ap-
peared a series of essays (stupid enough to be
199
sure) against the Radical Reformers. The Re-
port, in point of time, was only a Reply. The
Whigs think they are to hit out at us like boxers
against a wall, to put themselves in wind. If we
retort, they cry out, like little parlour-boarders,
that they “don’t make hitting in the face,” it
bloodies their clean gentlemanly cheeks and fine
shirts. But, let them leave us alone, then; for I
assure your Lordship, that most of us are like
myself, who have no taste whatever for that
kind of battle:—
“ Ubi tu pulsas, ego vapulo tantum.”
Your Lordship cannot expect that the same
sort of decent deference and respect can be shown
by the people at large towards public men, as
you are accustomed to pay them. The people
feel acutely every thing that affects their inte-
rests; and, as all their statesmen invariably talk
of those interests as the sole object in their view,
they must be allowed, now and then, some ex-
pressions of feeling when they think themselves
neglected or betrayed—much more when they
are manifestly mocked at and insulted. When
their politicians make a speech against their way
of thinking, they don't stand staring, as your
Lordship did at Lords Grey and Grenville when
they opposed the Corn Bill, “absorbed in the
200
“contemplation of how fearfully and wonderfully
“both in mind and body, we are made.”
Good, my Lord, we are not quite come to
that ; we have something else to do than to make
moral reflections upon the composition of those
who are to make laws for us—we have to think
only of the composition of the laws themselves,
which indeed, generally seem to be made also in
fear and wonder: fear, at some imaginary evil;
and wonder, that any body should be so vile as
to object to them.
It would not be decorous in you to give way
to your real feelings, when you have them—you
would discompose the company and spoil the
play—you are one of the actors. But I say
again, as I said before, the sincere applause and
the cordial hissing must come from where the
money comes, from the vile people below.
You wish to be kings of the dictionary, and to
keep even the coarse language of our vernacular
for your own use : for I do not find it ever so
much objected to as when it comes from those
from whom it ought to have been expected more
than others—the people. It must be confessed,
that we soar with very weak wings indeed, when
we attempt to reach the Billinsgate flights of the
* Answer, p. 25. Mr. Ricardo in this respect was as fear-
fully and wonderfully made as these two Lords—he wrote
against the Corn Bill.
201
House of Commons' orators; and yet, our efforts
are criminal—theirs are all in course. The rea-
son perhaps, is, that when we complain, we mean
something—when a parliamentary talker is rude,
he means nothing—It is only a part of the FARCE,
not worth being angry at ; besides, it is much
more easy to resent an insult than to redress a
wrong.
Whatever may be the cause, I repeat, that I
could pick out from Whig attacks on the people,
expressions much stronger than any to be found
in popular denunciations of any party.—Even
your Lordship's Answer” abounds in phrases of
* The diverting nature of the Reply, and the jolly habits of
the Replyer, have been before noticed—next come a disgusting
want of temper—an indecent contempt of fact, p. 8. Calumnies
at a tavern meeting, (that is, Mr. Hobhouse's speech)—deserted
and slandered, p. 13. Gross and wilful misrepresentation, p. 16.
Gross and wilful misrepresentation, p. 17. Coarse, illiberal,
and anſounded, p. 19. Grossest and most palpable misconstruc-
tion, p. 20. Slanderously attempted, p. 27. You must have
been quite conscious that you were grossly misrepresenting me—
“ and you must have introduced the word They to express that
I had so written, well KNowing THAT I HAD Not,” p. 37.
“Disgusting departure from every principle of justice,” p. 39.
Coarse and vulgar remarks—senseless tirade, p. 40. Your pur-
pose to defame, p. 41. An inflamed attack, more fit to be addressed
to a mob, &c. p. 43. In p. 44, the Replyer is a defamer, a
dunce, a reptile, and a mummy; and the Answerer is Mr. Pope,
who preserves him, quite against rule, in the museum of his wit
-next comes—your own dark colours—falsely representing, p.
47. Calumnious complaints—you ought to be considered as a libel-
P
202
scorn, contempt, and derision of your corres-
pondent; such as, if used originally by me,
would have subjected me to every opprobrious
epithet.
Your Lordship seems, in the true style, most
hurt at being charged with indecorum; but in
looking over your Pamphlet, I find words, which
in me would not be so very decorous. Let
us, however, look at this indecorum—it is, I
find, the “indecorum of self-applause,” which
most shocks you as a charge against you. But
how do you rebut this charge —by saying that
it is motorious, you became suspected of being
the author of the Defence of the Whigs, because
you were not praised more than twice in that
defence, and that praise was only incidentally
given l!!”
ler, p. 51. Indecent language, p. 63. Most contemptible, p. 63.
The same unjust and peevish spirit which so disgustingly distin-
guishes almost every sentence you have written, p. 8. All which
weapons of oratory are brought up in the rear by an appro-
priate metaphor, which serves the triple purpose of a joke, a
reproof, and a defence of the Whig tax on private breweries.
“But your bile, nevertheless, which, for twelve years together,
“ has been fermenting in your private brewery, has at last so
“publicly boiled over, that under the general law you are liable
“to be taxed,” p. 70. Alas, poor Whiggery ! to be left to
such a defender. Did I not say that Lord Grimstone had got
a dangerous rival 2
* “It is notorious I became suspected of being the author,
“because, amidst the necessity of stating several important
203
If I were to say, as you do of a passage in the
Reply, that “I was never more diverted in my
life” than when I read this—should not I be
hooted down as one who had indecently exposed
the acknowledged failings of a man, arrived at
that time of life when failings are apt to predo-
minate over good qualities 2 Would not every
decent, demure Whig creature cry out—so, you
attack a poor old fellow for his vanity ?—oh ! for
shame !
I know very well what will be said, if any
thing is said, of this letter to you. I know that
the author will be set down as a man without
any taste, or sense of shame—as a gross, malig-
nant, ignorant, presumptuous libeller of all the
venerable names that were ever “great to little
men.” But I shall expect some little forbearance
from your Lordship, because, a great deal of
what I write is copied from the pure repositories
of Whig oratory; and mean though I am, I
must still think myself not wholly so, since my
composition has been, in a great measure, quick-
ened by the breath of Whig nostrils—or, if that
shall be no inducement to moderation, because
I have forborn to make the most of what you say
about the “indecorum of self-applause,” as well
“ events, in which I had been personally active, I blended
“myself with the opposition, without the least allusion to any
“ merit of my own,” &c. &c.—Answer, p. 8.
204
as to comment upon some twenty quibbles which
I marked down on first reading your Answer.
And so, my Lord, I conclude these “More
Last Words” of mine, by praying, that you will
leave the abuse of the Electors of Westminster
to those in whose mouths it is graceful—and
do, if you can, do persuade some persons of
rank, station, and character, once more to
“auspiciate” the cause of Reform. -
THE END.
John M'Creery, Printer,
Black-Horse-Court, London.
A
TRIFLING MISTAKE,
&c.
In pages 31 and 32 it was said, that in the year 1795
Mr. Erskine made no speech in the House of Commons,
except a word or two about the Portsmouth Markets.
This error was detected before publication; the leaf was
cancelled and another inserted; but, by accident, some
copies containing the error were delivered.
A
TRIFLING MISTAKE
IN
THOMAS LORD E RSKINE'S
RECENT
3}rtfatt,
SHORTLY NOTICED AND RESPECTFULLY CORRECTED,
IN A
LETTER TO HIS LORDSHIP,
BY
THE AUTHOR OF THE
“ T).EFENCE OF THE PEOPLE.”
a c. 22.6%. , 2, */
y”
“The courses of his youth promised it not.”
King Henry V. Act I. Scene 1.
LONDON:
PUBLISHED BY ROBERT STODART, 81, STRAND.
1819.
J. Mcleos, Pinter,
Elack-lloise Court, London.
A
TRIFLING MISTAKE,
&c.
MY LORD,
After a gestation somewhat dispropor-
tionate to the size of the birth, your Lordship
has favoured me with what you are pleased
to call “A very few Remarks” upon my
“ DEFENCE OF THE PEOPLE;” and your forty
years' friend, Mr. James Perry, has given
you that encouragement of which a man of
your modesty and inexperience must neces-
sarily stand in need. Your Lordship must ex-
cuse me if I make no reply whatever to the
critical notice with which he has ushered
your “very few Remarks” into the world. I
am content that Mr. Perry should call, or,
should he happen to speak what he thinks,
should esteem the “ DEFENCE OF THE PEO-
PLE” “flippant” and “base:” for, indeed,
I should be loth that the same person who
B
2
calls your Lordship ingenious, and liberal,
and just, and satisfactory, and so forth, should
ever be found among my encomiasts.
The motorious impartiality of Mr. Perry
will, I hope, compensate in your eyes for
whatever deficiency that gentleman may la-
bour under, on the score of taste and literary
capacity.
My business is with your Lordship, you
begin, laudably enough had you intended to
go through with your task, from the begin-
ning. You object to my title, “A Defence
of the People,” “as if,” you add, “there had
“ been a word in either of the defences of
“ the Whigs, by which their rights or liber-
“ ties were invaded.” -
I say that this is something worse than so-
phistry. Your Lordship might, perhaps, have
reminded me that I was arrogating to the Re-
formers, the title which the great author of the
Paradise Lost formerly gave to the whole na-
tion: but the reason given for your objection
is such, as scarcely to excuse me for argu-
ing with so miserable and marrowless a lo-
gician.
You accused the popular Reformers of
misconduct, and triumphed over their de-
feat in Westminster. I attempted to shew
that you knew nothing of the matter: that
3
the popular Reformers had not misconducted
themselves; that their defeat, if a defeat it
was, was no just subject of congratulation;
and that your party, not your people, were in
fault. I did not say that you had attacked
their rights and liberties: you had attacked
their conduct, and had not I a right to call
my reply to your attack a Defence 2
After this specimen of fairness, and of your
knowledge of the common use of language,
you go on to state, that you have “therefore”
chosen to make your very few remarks serve
“ as a preface to your new edition.” Why
“ therefore ?” “ This is a non-sequitur, Mr.
Serjeant.” But it seems the “ therefore”
comes afterwards; for you add, “ that who-
“ever collects from it, (that is, the preface),
“ the nature and character of the complaints
“made against me, may, by comparing them
“ with what I have written, be more clearly
“ convinced of their injustice.”
My Lord, I say the same thing; I say who-
ever does collect from your preface, the con-
tents of my complaints, may make the com-
parison : but I add, that not a soul living
can possibly collect the nature and character
of those complaints from “ your preface;”
and that your Lordship, so far from being
another “Luke Milbourne,” the fairest of
B 2
4.
critics, and affording such a means of compa-
rison, has, in fact, totally disfigured the whole
of the “ DEFENCE OF THE PEOPLE:” and re-
duged it to the ridiculous insignificance of
being nothing but a commentary upon the life
and adventures of Thomas Lord Erskine !
I complain about you? I did not complain
about you. You had written a very hasty and
ill-timed pamphlet, of which your own party
were ashamed, all but your forty years' friend,
the ex-officio bottle-holder of every Whig blun-
derer. I answered your pamphlet, but I treated
not of you but of your party; not of your con-
duct, but of your arguments. What I said per-
sonally of you, was as of a Whig ; as fairly
illustrating my general position; not as mak-
ing a serious ground of complaint against you
individually. No one knew whether you were
alive or dead: your pamphlet was taken up
just to shew what a poor cause that of the
Whigs was, and nothing was asserted of you
except historically; and not at all as an “ar-
gumentum ad hominem.” The Honorable
Thomas Erskine was arrayed with the other
popular Whigs of “auld lang syne,” merely
as part of the argument from authority, and
from a real feeling of admiration for his former
exertions. As for the knight of the thistle,
I repeat, no complaint was made about him ;
5
and when it was asked what party had counted
upon him during these last years, the question
was put as to a man calling himself a Whig
party man ; and being in his own person a
strong instance that no one can tell what a
Whig means; and that the belonging to a
party implies no political co-operation, or
general combination whatever,
Your Lordship concludes your sentence and
cause of rejoinder, thus: “and that public
“men may take warning to avoid all politi-
“cal communication with those, who, with
“ seeming gratitude, acknowledge services to
“ the state, and reward them with the bit-
“terest reproach.”
There is something so pitiable in this “take
warning, all good people, by the fate of
Thomas Lord Erskine,” that the good intention
and extreme humility of the address, should
almost save your Lordship from further ob-
servation: but I am not quite sure that you
do not mean to deprecate my company, ra-
ther than your own example; or, in other
words, that you do not mean to say, “you see
how the author of the Defence of the People
has treated me, how he has praised me for what
he likes in my former conduct, and laughed at
me for my pamphlet and my green ribbon:
take warning, don't keep company with him,
6
you who write and wear ribbons, or he will
treat you as he has treated me.”
If this be your meaning, which I rather
imagine it to be, all I can say is, that you
totally mistake my identity; I never had any
political communication with you whatever—
I never sought any—you were never worth
any in my day. I have seen you three times,
since “I was harnessed to your carriage,” and
each of those times I said to myself, as I said
when I read your pamphlet, “is it possible
that this can be Mr. Barrister Erskine –is it
possible that this can be the seconder of the
libellous impeachment called the Declaration
of the Friends of the people 2–is it possible
that this is the man whom I have seen cari-
catured as a fish-tailed lawyer, swimming in"
the train of the Jacobin Leviathan, and sav-
ing, as Caesar did his Commentaries, the 132nd
edition of his pamphlet on “the causes and
consequences of the French war P”—Let me
moreover add, that your Lordship has made
an unfortunate guess if you suppose me to be
one of those who will be deterred from what
I think my duty, by the hint that I am to be
* See a celebrated caricature with Mr. Canning's hymn
to Lepaux beneath. Some malicious man should re-en-
grave the print for the edification of those who say the
Whigs were never such Jacobins as the Reformers.
7
put out of the Whig pale, and excluded from
the “political communication of” what you
call public men.’” I am old enough to
know that the political communication of the
men to whom you allude, so far from being an
object of pursuit, is not worth having upon
any terms or any grounds—that it makes a
man neither wiser, nor better, nor bolder—that,
on the contrary, it shackles his intellect, cor-
rupts his integrity, and subdues his courage.
I am not only indifferent to the advantages
of such communication, but I would cau-
tiously avoid the suspicion of a co-operation
with those whose former conduct has been
such as to neutralize the efforts of whatever
honest coadjutors may have the misfortune to
be confounded amongst their ranks. Nor do
I value it of a rush who is going the same
road as myself, as long as I am persuaded
that it is the path which I ought to pursue.
Number and example may furnish a public
excuse, but they cannot acquit to the con-
science; and such has been the readiness
with which rogues congregate, and such the
fashionable prevalence of political profligacy,
that perhaps at no time has a man a better
chance of being right, than when he marches
alone on his career, heedless of who follows
and without a guide. -
8
After your warning, your Lordship goes
on thus—“To vindicate this salutary caution,
“I feel myself at liberty to reprint the exor-
“dium of this singular work, since it relates
“wholly to myself.” -
What is “vindicate * is it a misprint P you
have no errata to your pamphlet, so I have
nothing but your text to help me. Do you
use the word in the English or in the Latin
sense (a language I have looked into since I
was harnessed to your carriage, to qualify me
the better for a beast of draught). Is it law
English P or law Latin *—And how is this
vindication to account for your reprint of the
exordium—for the notable reason, because
“it relates wholly to yourself?”
You think then that the best excuse for a
man's repeating what has been said, is when
the repetition is about himself, and himself
only. *
Whatever the rest of the world may think
of the expedient of your reprinting your own
praises, I cannot quarrel with you for giving
a circulation to a page and a half of the
Defence of the People, which they might
never have obtained when confined to an
anonymous publication. Moreover, by this
* Page 4 of Preface. My Lord, of course, should mean
* to shew that I am justified in,’ &c.
9
quotation, I am enabled to skip over to page 6
of your preface, not being yet in your Lord-
ship's predicament, of being called upon to
controvert my own former sentiments.
After the quotation, your Lordship says—
“a writer ought to be perfectly sure of his
“ground who prefaces a libel with such en-
“ thusiastic praise.” + Softly, Lord Erskine;
you seem to think with Falstaff that “good
words” are on a par with “good cabbage.”—
I did not LIBEL you : if I did, prove it; the
English have as good laws against prose as
the Romans had against verse. Prove the
libel, if I have libelled you— .
—jus est judiciumque.
If I have not libelled you, it is you that have
libelled me by making the charge; and I will
appeal to the first twelve men in Mr. Ridg-
way’s reading-room, for a verdict. But you
do not bring forward a single proof of the
libel—you do not even attempt to contradict
a single statement—you have not one of my
premises to invalidate—not a solitary con-
clusion to deny. Your whole argument, or
rather declamation, answers the probabilities
about the opinion and behaviour of other men
respecting you—you do not bring a single
fair quotation to shew where I have misre-
* Page 6.
10
presented, or said of you or your book any
thing but what I might say.
You say, that after praising your former
conduct so highly, I am bound to esta-
blish very serious offences to justify the
saying “ you should have died when you de-
scended from the triumph of that memorable
day.” - -
Your Lordship has read Juvenal—you ought
to know that what he said of Marius I
transferred to you. Let me ask you whether
the Roman “established any serious offences”
against the unfortunate rival of Caesar, before
he said that he should have died of a timely
Campanian fever, just as Marius should have
died when he descended from his Cimbrian
triumph—you know that the poet merely
meant to say that it would have been lucky
if the heroes had died when their reputation
was at the highest, and before their misfor-
tunes. Surely I may say of your Lordship,
without establishing any serious offences against
you, that had you died on the fifth of No-
vember, 1794, you would have gone down
to posterity with a much greater reputation,
than the occurrences, or, if you please, even
the inactivity of your succeeding life will
* Page 6.
11
permit. Is not an early death amongst the
proverbial felicities of the favorites of heaven?”
I did not wish to establish any serious of
fences against you. I did not think writing
a silly pamphlet, or wearing a bit of ribbon,
were “serious offences,” but I certainly did,
to say the least of them, rank them amongst
“. . . . . ., the follies of the wise,” and I can
assure your Lordship that as to the latter ar-
ticle I do not lay half so much stress upon it
as your own party have done. I say I did not
try “to establish any serious offences” against
you, before I passed what you call my “sen-
tence of death” against you; but I do not say
that if I had considered you as quite respon-
sible for your conduct, I might not have made
out a serious case against you—at least if it
be a serious offence to become the apologist
of a notoriously profligate and abandoned
party, and to indulge in topics of abuse against
those who join in the general national opinion
respecting that party, the said apologist being
totally ignorant of all the immediate circum-
stances of the case, rising from a sick bed,
* 'Oy 5, 9so: pixototy &ro0%axis víos' ź
Tº y&g Bayeſ, otz &ioxpèr &AA &roxpā; Barify.
A sentiment which looks well in English.
Whom love the gods dies young—'tis no disgrace
To die—save only if the death be base.
12
absent from the scene, and striking his
blows at random without candour or discre-
tion. This I say in a political character
might be proved to be an offence—a serious
offence—to say nothing of your Lordship's
fallen antagonists, over whom you were re-
joicing, being your good old coadjutors—the
people; for that the Reformers and the people
may be fairly identified, the events passing at
this hour must prove, even to the blindness of
selfish incredulity.
But I repeat I have nothing to do with
establishing these offences; my allusion to the
great character which you would have ob-
tained with posterity if your career had closed
with the acquittal of Hardy, was such as a
scholar had no excuse and a controversialist
no pretext for mistaking. As for passing
sentence of death upon you, I am almost
tempted to say as Caesar did to the veteran
who asked leave to kill himself, “What, do
you think you are still alive : " Your pam-
phlets are at least as good a proof of your
decease as Partridge's almanacks were of his
death—“ did ever man alive write like this 2 ”
Forgive me—I only quote Swift. I try to be
serious, but a page of your Defence makes
me quite flippant, as Mr. Perry says.
By skipping over another quotation from
13
my own pamphlet, I come now to page 7.
I there discover that you thank me for select-
ing companions of your fallen state from
amongst “the most able and virtuous public
men.”” I certainly did attempt to console
you with saying that your case was not an
uncommon one, as I had alluded to its being
that of Marius and Pompey some hundreds of
years ago. I also gave you one or two con-
temporary names, beginning particularly with
Sir James Mackintosh and Mr. Tierney, as
instances of politicians not maintaining at
this time the opinions with which they com-
menced their career, and had obtained the
admiration of their countrymen. They are
“ certainly amongst the most able,” and, if
your Lordship can sincerely add, “ virtuous.”
public men, I for one shall not wish to di-
minish the consolation of good fellowship by
comparing the opinion of the nation in this
particular with your Lordship's estimate of
public virtue.
In the same page you say that I “proceed
“to establish the justice of my sentence of
“ death against you by long and laboured
“ censures of the Whigs from the Revolution
“ downwards.”f The “sentence of death” is,
Ifancy, disposed of:—what you call the long
* Page 7. + Ibid.
14
and laboured censures of the Whigs from the
Revolution downwards, were intended as an
answer to your Lordship's trite and gratuitous
but very usual praise of the Whigs from the
Revolution downwards; and as your Lord-
ship had played the ordinary Whig trick of
boasting of what share the Whigs had in the
Revolution, and how at that Revolution,
Reform was not a part of the plan for amelio-
rating the condition of the people, and how
the Whigs had always been doing good, Whig
after Whig, from the Revolution to this day,
—I showed that your Lordship was only the
parrot of men either as ignorant as yourself,
or who had an interest in perverting facts;
but this required very little labour. Your
Lordship does not attempt to answer a single
one of my arguments, or deny any position I
have advanced on these points. You leave
the public to judge between your naked com-
mon place eulogies and the facts brought
forward in the Defence of the People as a
contrast with those eulogies. If you are sa-
tisfied, so am I—If you have not attempted
a reply there can be no call for my rejoinder.
But turning over to page 8, I see that
“you dispose of THE WHOLE OF IT * in
capital letters, that is of the whole of what
the “Defence of the People” says of the conduct
$
15
of the Whigs at the Revolution, and since, up
to this day:—This is certainly an after-clap
considering that you had left the argument to
the public. I did not expect to find “the whole
of it disposed of.” But how does this take
place P Why “ by only stating, that on the
“9th of November, 1794, this writer well
“ knew I had long been a member of the
“House of Commons, personally attached to
“Mr. Fox, and supporting the Whig party;
“ he must have known also, that I had ap-
“ proved of the junction with Lord North,
“ which he reprobates, and had supported
“ the administration formed under it: yet with
“ this full knowledge of me, he still was
“ harnessed to my carriage, and tells me,
“ even at this hour, that I might THEN have
“ gone down to posterity PURE AND ENTIRE;
“ up to this period then I am safe, which greatly
“narrows my remarks.”* -
Who this 3, is, need not be asked ; it can
be nobody but Lord Erskine ; but, my Lord,
I tell you again that my general argument
had nothing whatever to do with your Lord-
ship's historiuncula. I never thought up to
what “ period you were safe.” All I said
was that the Reforming Barrister—that the
# ‘Preface, page 8.
16
Thomas Erskine of 1794, was the idol of the
people—and so he was. The people either
never knew or forgot that you had supported
the coalition—you were of no parliamentary.
consequence, and a silent vote could and
did not subtract an iota of popularity from
that character under which you distinguish-
ed yourself in the House as a radical Parlia-
mentary Reformer, and out of the House
as the legal defender of Reform doctrines,”
and as the most eloquent and powerful ad-
vocate that ever pleaded in behalf of public
liberty.f I will not, however, have any quib-
bling with you, and now that you tell me
you supported the coalition, which I pro-
test I did not know, I do say that had
you died at Hardy's acquittal, you would
have gone down to posterity not “pure and
entire.” I hope after this candid rectification
of an error, your Lordship will be good
* Mr. Erskine’s Defence of the Dean of St. Asaph was
in 1783. -
t Out of a thousand pages abounding with noble sen-
timents, look at the magnificent passages in the speech
on Stockdale's trial, beginning—“ It is the nature of every
thing that is great and useful, both in the animate and
inanimate world, to be wild and irregular,” &c. See
page 267, vol. ii. of Erskine’s Speeches, edit. 2.
17
enough to allow that there is some difference
s fe e &
between ignorance of the history of the Re-
volution, and ignorance of the history of
Lord Erskine before his Lordship could be
said to have had any history belonging to
him.
If my purpose had been to write a comment
on your Lordship's biography, perhaps you
might have thus disposed of the whole of my
censures of your early life, if I had censured it;
but, that my not knowing whether or not you
voted for the Coalition, should dispose of any
part of the remarks on the conduct of the
Whig party at the Revolution, and since, is a
mode of argument which could have been
suggested only by a vanity of which I verily
believe there is not a parallel instance in the
records of egotism.
Besides, what has the question of the Coali-
tion to do with the applause given to you by
the people, for your defence of Hardy ?—
Though the men who harnessed themselves
to your carriage, either did not know, or were
generous enough to overlook that you had
voted in support of the Coalition ; yet, you
know very well, that the same people would
not have harnessed themselves to your car-
riage on account of your support of the
Coalition. No: the multitude in those days
Ç
18
passed a sentence confirmed by the voice of
the succeeding age. They cried, “No For 1"
“No For 1’’ with the same vehemence, as in
the Revolution War, they afterwards shouted,
“For for Ever !” And, they would have
cried, No Erskine / too, only it was probable,
that, excepting those who attended Westmin-
ster-Hall, they did not know there was such
a man in the world. But, you Whigs, my
Lord, if a Whig you be, seem resolved,
that we shall take and eat all, and every part
of each of you, or none—no picking and
chusing—coarse pieces and all must be weigh-
ed up to us; and, glad ought we to be, that
we are allowed to come to market at all. The
period up to which your Lordship is safe, and
will be so for the remainder of your life, is
that up to which you are silent. I say not this
out of wanton insult. I speak the opinion,
which your friends feel, but which their false
delicacy has left it for an antagonist to convey,
and he does it unwillingly to your Lordship's
ears. You, were perfectly safe, no one at-
tacked you, until you came forward to pro-
claim an ungenerous satisfaction at the defeat
of the Westminster Reformers. The language
of the “REPLY” to your first “ DEFENCE,”
was not rude and personally directed against
you. The unwarrantable phrases in which you
19
indulged in your “ Refutation,” I have before
collected together and commented upon.*
After the use of such phrases, I said, and I
say again, you are fair game for any one who
chooses to expose your unreasonable attempts
at authorship. What you have been pleased
to hint of your correspondent being a libeller, f
and a defamer, and a slanderer, hardly adds
to your Lordship's claims to the milder lan-
guage of controversy, at least not at my hands.
Indeed, by way of fairness, I presume your
Lordship makes the whole question turn
upon yourself, what you have done, and
whom you have acted with. You drop your
pamphlets, and expose your own character:
you expect that your naked and unarmed
person alone, should, like that of Entellus,
operate with a charm upon all beholders;
and, that the former renown of a veteran
champion should scare every competitor from
the field. But, you should have laid by your
cestus before. The English nation, and parti-
cularly the friends of freedom, have an interest
in the deconous and dignified exit of such an
actor as your Lordship has been upon the
stage of politics. r , , §
* Defence of the People, p. 201.
+ Page 6. f Page 9. | Page 12.
C 2
20
Yet, I say, that my business was, and is
with your pamphlets: the “I,” and “me,”
and “myself,” which I find so thickly sown
in your Preface, shall not tempt me to turn
from the argument to the individual; and,
though I have no doubt but that you and
your friends would be exceedingly glad of
drawing upon my head the invidiousness of
sporting with the personal infirmities of a man
once illustrious; yet, I shall not bring you
before the public with half the readiness that
you have brought yourself; nor indeed, in
any other way than such as a due regard to
my former assertions may imperiously re-
quire.
Do not, however, imagine that any respect
for you or your party, or for those forms of
decency which your Lordship's gentlemanly
coadjutors would always apply to cripple us
of the rabble, but dispense with altogether
themselves: do not imagine I say, that any
such deference will operate with me. The
boasting of an anonymous pamphleteer, is, if
possible, more ridiculous than that of an ac-
knowledged writer; but, I may be permitted
to tell your Lordship, that your flat contra-
dictions of one or two assertions of the De-
fence of the People, though respecting your-
21
self, have nothing imposing with me. I never
have asked, and never will ask, who it is that
says any thing. I only inquire what is said.
It may be thought presumptuous for me to
pretend to know more of you, than you know
of yourself; but, before I have done with
you, I think I shall convince even yourself,
that the Author of this Preface of yours, is
entitled to no sort of respect as a controver-
sialist, and is to be treated like any other
garbler or misquoter, when he writes of the
compositions of others. You, and the public
too, shall see, that in this pretended answer
to the “Defence of the People,” you have
shown either that you never read the book, or
purposely distorted its contents. If, then,
your authority is worth so little respecting a
page lying open before you, what can it be
worth when you are talking of yourself *—
You are extremely indignant at my asking
you, “whether any party has counted upon
your Lordship for these last years?” and,
you answer in capitals, YES. I reply in the
same imposing style and character, NO. And
I add, that I know as much about the matter
as your Lordship—I am quite borne out in
this negative in more ways than one: that
if there has been any Whig party, it has been
especially confined to the followers of Lord
22
Grey, from whom you have dissented on more
occasions than the momentous one to which
you allude: namely, the French war in 1815.
But, what was before said in the Defence of
the People, must be repeated here; there is no
catching a party man: in one place he says,
“on small matters differences of opinion may
be allowed, the party combines only upon
grand principles.” In another place he says,
“in minor matters party men may co-ope-
rate; but, there are subjects too important
for a sacrifice of individual opinion.” At
this rate, any man may call himself a party
man or not, just as it happens to suit his
present convenience. -
Your YES is meant for a loud affirmative;
but I can speak in as high a tone as your
Lordship, and I again rejoin, No—and I
would advise neither you not your friend Mr.
Perry to put me upon particular proofs of the
light in which your Lordship has been re-
garded by the Party. It was from the Party
* This is the excuse made in the article on Universal
Suffrage, in the Edinburgh Review for January last, for
not making Parliamentary Reform a party point: in other
words, for the party not combining to do a great national
good. Oh, no: they should only combine about a leather-
tax, or a prison-bill, or, in the adjustment of the spoil
when they come in.
23
that I took my cue; for the People knew:
little or nothing about your late life. They
are not half so jealous of Carlton-House dim-
ners, and of ribbons, as the Party are. It
was from the little sneers and jests floating in
the aristocratical Whig atmosphere at your
expense, and occasionally dropping down in
shape of epigram and pun amongst us below,
that I was enabled to know what your politi-
cal associates thought of you, and how you
were pitied. The “dull sentence” about the
green ribbon, which you have chosen to mis-
take for a quotation from some other author,”
(as if any author had ever cared or written
about your ribbon before 1), dull at it, was,
had no other meaning than simply to illustrate
* “I could not, therefore, have ever guessed at the
“drift of putting this question to me, but from a dull
“sentence to be known only for a quotation, from the
“obscurity of its author, by inverted commas. “You
“might as well say, 'if you laugh at Lord Erskine's green
“ ribbon, you cannot have any respect for Mr. Erskine's
“Defence of Hardy.” To this vulgar jest I reply, that,
“if he holds in republican contempt the most ancient
“distinctions of a monarchical state.” Preface, p. 11.
Now, does not the reader see that the inverted com-
mas which (or his own vanity) made my Lord think
there had been some former lucubration on his green
ribbon, is merely the usual form of denoting a thing
said. “You might as well say, &c.” . . . .
24.
the absurdity of the Whigs sheltering their
present insignificance behind the good con-
duct of the Revolution Whigs, and of the
usual complaint, that those who object to the
modern Whigs must be necessarily opponents
of the Revolution. If the sentence be “dull”
—if it be a “vulgar jest,” I still say it applies,
and is exactly in point—the public mustjudge,
your Lordship is hardly an impartial critic in
this case. I quote the whole passage be-
low. *
Your Lordship is not quite sure whether
the republican contempt of green ribbons be
directed against the knighthood or the knight;
but, in either case, the aggressor is the paro-
dist who furnished me with the joke, and who
is what they call a Whig–a leading Whig.
“And when weak Lawyers go astray,
“Their stars are more in fault than they ;”
a piece of humour, none of mine, which I
thought there was no great harm in transplant-
ing into the prose of the Defence of the People.
* Your Lordship says, that “ if a Whig is now to be
considered a term of ridicule or reproach, we shall “cast
into the shade the character of the Revolution itself.” Not
at all, you might as well say, “if you laugh at Lord
Erskine's green ribbon, you cannot have any respect for
Mr. Erskine's Defence of Hardy.”—Defence of the People,
p. 12.
25
As to the dissertation contained in pages 12
and 13 of the preface, upon the order of the
Thistle, and how seemly a thing it was for
your Lordship, as being of the Stuart family;
to obtain a Stuart knighthood—and as being
of his Royal Highness's household, to wear
his Royal Highness's livery*—I have only to
repeat, that it would not have afflicted the
people, nor me as one of them, if your Lord-
ship had been even a knight of the garter,
though you might not have been so nearly
allied to Edward the Third or the Countess
of Salisbury, as I am exceedingly willing, on
your own protestation, to admit you are to
the Scotch kings. The people do not quarrel
with court dignities—the joke against your
ribbon was a Whig joke. If you have “pub-
licly trod out a squib which has come across
the unsullied path of your public life,” you have
trod out no squib of mine—it came from your
own party—and the fire-work having burnt out
* The author of the Defence of the People feels some
compunction even in alluding to the unaccountable folly
and total blindness to ridiculous exposure manifested in
these pages; so much so, that he will only quote the con-
cluding triumphant clench: “So much for the green
Ribbon, which I have only at all adverted to, because I will
not suffer even a squib to come across the unsullied path of
my public life, without publicly treading it out.”—Preface,
p. 14. r -
26
some time ago, I only shewed you the stick,
to remind you and the public of the favours
which these firm bound sincere Whig friends
are in the habits of interchanging with one
another. My last quotation brings me to the
proof of that which I promised to make mani-
fest, namely, that with the Defence of the
People lying open before you, you have written
on, either blindly or wilfully ignorant of its
contents. The blunder, if by that name it is
to be called, made by your Lordship in that
which you think the most conclusive refuta-
tion of all said about your Reform principles
in my pamphlet, is so very gross, that the
readers of this letter will doubt of the expe-
diency of my replying to such an antagonist.
But I have begun, and shall go on. You say,
“The assertion of my having given up the Reform of
“Parliament, the great, or rather the only avowed object
“ of his complaint, is equally unaccountable and surpris-
“ing ; because, in the pages now before the reader, I
“repeat and strongly inculcate the very same sentiments
“ which he himself praises me for having expressed in the
“ House of Commons in 1795. To avoid all subterfuge,
“I shall refer to his very words in the quotation of mine,
“ and then to my own written lately, that they may stand
“ in comparison together. In his 79th page, speaking
“ of the Honorable T.homas Erskine, he expresses himself
“ thus:– What said the Honest MAN, the popular Whig
“ of ninety-two º'?”
27
You then go on to the quotation made by
me from what was said by the “Honest Man,”
and conclude the quotation with the refer-
ence, “Parliamentary Debate, Dec. 3, 1795.”
First let me dispose of the gross blunder and
misquotation,-‘‘ Speaking of the Honorable
Thomas Erskine.”—No, my Lord, I was not
speaking of the Honorable Thomas Erskine.
How comes it you must think one is always
speaking of the Honorable Thomas Erskine *
—There is but one man in this kingdom who
is always speaking of the Honorable Thomas
Erskine. —You thought that the HoNEST
MAN could be no other than the Honorable
Thomas Erskine; but all-swallowing as this
serpent vanity is, I did not think that it ate
until it could not think or see. Why how
could you make such a blunder in the face of
words and dates ? If this “ HONEST MAN” was
the HoNEST MAN of ninety-Two, how could
he be also the HoNEST MAN of ninety-FIVE *
The above reference to the parliamentary
debate is in my pamphlet appended to the
above quotation—it is a misquotation of
your's; but when you added the reference—
when you put down the quotation as from
something said in 1795, how the deuce came
* Preface, page 15.
98
you to leave the words, the Honest Man
of ninety-two P It is the blindest of bungling
misquotations. You must have seen that
I had before quoted the pamphlet as being
attributed to Sir James Mackintosh,” and
signed an HONEST MAN; and I do not
think it possible that you could have mis-
understood that I called this HONEST MAN
“ the popular Whig of ninety-two,” because
the date of the pamphlet, which I also quoted,
was 1792. Look at the Defence of the People
again, my Lord; you will see the words.-I
ask you, how you came to suppose that I was
speaking of the Honorable Thomas Erskine,
when I quoted a pamphlet which I said was
attributed to another man. I will ask you, how
you dared (it is not too strong a word for the
occasion) to falsify what was written by your
antagonist, by appending the reference of one
quotation to the words of another quotation,
and thus making him answerable for your own
ridiculous blunder. It is inconceivable that
you should be so wrapt up in self-contempla-
tion, as to think I quoted no one but you—
• See a pamphlet with this title “ a Letter to the Right
Honorable William Pitt, on his apostacy from the cause
of Parliamentary Reform, &c. 1792, signed an Honest
MAN, and attributed to Sir James Mackintosh.-Note to
page 57 of Defence of the People.
29
thought of no one but you—had read no one
but you—was laughing at no one but you.
But what makes the blunder still more
unaccountable and unjustifiable is, that the
reference which you have appended to the
words of the HONEST MAN is, in my pam-
phlet, distinctly given to a passage quoted
from a speech made by Mr. Fox on the date
assigned, namely, December 3rd, 1795. Add
to this, that the quotation from the HONEST
MAN has the following reference not less dis-
tinctly given at the foot of the page, and
which you could not fail to see, namely,
“* Letter to Mr. Pitt, &c. &c. p. 33.”f
There is no misprint—no confusion of aste-
risks—no blunder of printer, publisher, or
author. The blunder, the stupid, blind
blunder is all your own—all the blunder of
Thomas, Lord Erskine, and to be found only
in the Preface to the NEW, (hah hah! why
new, this is as good as the 132nd edition of
the pamphlet on the French War)—to the new
edition, I say, of his Lordship's Defence of the
Whigs. No given vanity can possibly account
for such a blunder; but after it has been made,
it may be hardly worth while to comment
t See Defence of the People, p. 79.
30
upon the notable use made by your Lordship
of this unparalleled misquotation.
This is the way a Whig then answers one
of the people. This is the way, that in order
to exclude him from “all subterfuge, he quotes
his very words.” Subterfuge, indeed, who will
want a subterfuge now How will your
Lordship hide yourself from the shame of
such a proceeding—such a disgraceful pro-
ceeding You accuse me of every bad
motive and unfair dealing; you hint at my
subterfuges, and you come out with one
of the grossest, and at the same time the
most ridiculous of all perversions—with a
misapplied, misquoted, and misinterpreted
reference: you quote another man's words,
which you ought to have known were another
man's words, as your own. You say that
I had quoted them as yours, though I
quoted them as Sir James Mackintosh's.
You add a reference of your own, as if it had
been mine. How many direct falsifications
—how many blunders—how much unfairness
—how much foul dealing does this imply
Think a little, my Lord! Suppose you had
caught me at this work, what would you
have said 2 You do talk, as it is, of my being
“ careless and inconsiderate;” but if I am
. 31
careless and inconsiderate, what must be said
of the above-mentioned practices of your
JLordship I am afraid oarelessness will not
aggount for them! It is almost too much to
follow your Lordship, when, after identifying
yourself with the Honest Man, you go on in
this strain:
“I cannot sufficiently express my thanks to'the at thor,
“for having given to the public of this day, after a lapse
“ of nearly twenty-five years, my invariable sentiments on
“ this momentous subject, which might otherwise have
“been forgotten: and now let us see what I have written
“ only a few months ago.”
And after quoting from your Defence of the
Whigs, you conclude,
“To what a pitch, then, must misrepresentation or in-
“ advertency have arisen, when, instead of only referring
“ to the words of the author, and to my own lately pub-
“ lished, I have been obliged, in my justification, even to
“reprint them together, that the reader might have before
“ him, at one and the same moment, my speech in 1795,
“which is eulogized, and my writings at this hour, which
“ are condemned.”
To whom does the “misrepresentation,” to
whom does the “inadvertency” belong You
have not justified yourself—your justification
is to come; you did not reprint what I said—
* Preface, page 17,
32
you reprinted a misapplied reference; and as
for your comparing your present doctrines (or
rather those of some months ago), with your
“speech in 1795,” you made no such speech
in 1795 in the House of Commons, as you
pretend to quote. You certainly did not
speak on December 3, 1795; and if you had
spoken then, you would not have used the
words of the pamphlet written in 1792.
But I am ashamed of dwelling so long on
your blunder, with which, however, be it
recollected, you think you have completely
settled all doubts that might before have been
entertained respecting the variability of your
opinions on Parliamentary Reform. It is
time for me now to urge upon you again and
again, that it was not you with whom I was
remonstrating, not personally at least; it was
with your presumed party, the Whigs whom
you said you were defending, and whose fatal
friend I think you have proved yourself, upon
this volunteer occasion. If I treated with you,
it was only as a Whig :—it was with this
bearing only that you were attended to, and
now let me tell you, that even if you had
been the “HONEST MAN of ninety-two,” and
had you quoted me fairly instead of falsely,
still your argument would have been worth
33
nothing. What I said of your change, you
have said of yourself; even in this Preface
you say you have repeatedly avowed your
change of opinion,” as to the means of, and
plan of a Parliamentary Reform, though you
still continue a Reformer.f. It is not likely
that you should avow another part of my as-
sertion, which tended to shew that you did not
know any thing precisely about either your
* Page 17 of Preface.
f It is quite tiresome to quote and requote: but Lord
Erskine really knows so little about the matter, that it is
necessary to repeat what is said in the Defence of the
People; that in his Lordship's two Defences of the Whigs,
there are at least two opinions about Parliamentary Re-
form : in the one he says, the Declaration of the Friends
of the People is above all exception; in the other, that the
change founded on disfranchisement, which he seems to
recommend, (page 33 of First Defence) “ has no more
“connexion with the GENERAL principle of Reform, than
“ the taking off the rotten branch of a tree, is a reason
“ for transplanting or cutting it down.” Now, the
Friends of the People were for eradicating the tree, they
say, “to prune the vicious plant, is to strengthen it.” Indeed,
my Lord owns, he would not go quite so far now as he
did when a Friend of the People, and yet he talks of his
only having changed his opinion as to the means of Re-
forming Parliament. This is not true, his change is, as
to the quantity of Reformation which Parliament wants;
but his Lordship does not know what he says or has said,
so we must forgive him.
D
34
old opinions, or your present opinions on this
momentous subject. But you have kindly,
though unwittingly, confirmed my assertions
by your present practice; for here, in this
very Preface, you contradict what you said
a few months ago. In your Defence of the
Whigs, you thought there were just appre-
hensions for the Parliament refusing to do
any thing in the way of Reform, “ whilst
such a spirit exists, and continues to be excit-
ed amongst the people,”” if even there were
no influence of the Crown in the House of
Commons, you thought Parliament should do
nothing, this was an excuse for inactivity
on the part of the Whigs. You now appre-
hend no such danger. You say “ such an
apprehension is now entirely at an end.”t I
suppose it is at an end, since the powerful
effect of your Lordship's pamphlet, or, to use
your own simile, since your Lordship “threw
in the bark,” after our fever.
However, let me assure you, I do not care
the least about your inconsistencies, except
when by blunders and misquotations you
charge them upon me. I do not care in
* Preface to the Second Edition of First Defence of the
Whigs.
t Preface, p. 22.
35
what mind you were yesterday, so long as
you are in the right mind to day. I believe
you and I had better have no more argu-
ment about the Honorable Thomas Erskine's
opinions past, present, and doubtful. Our
notions of the very first conditions of con-
troversy differ too much to allow of a future
combat; we shall never agree about the
weapons; the struggle, therefore, can hardly
have a satisfactory close to either of us. I
have been turning over some of your legal
speeches this very day, and think, (the asser-
tion is not positive), that, if worth while, I
could prove your Lordship to have spoken in
favour of the abstract right of Universal Suf-
frage. But whatever you thought in other days
whatever you wrote in last March, is, to the
people, of little import—they have been too
frequently undeceived ever again to think
they see in past professions a guarantee for
future conduct. If you now write and act in
behalf of popular rights, you need fear no
retrospect, and believe me it is not in the
power of habitual and indiscriminate flattery
to give such home, such heartfelt and effec-
tual praise as your Lordship will receive from
us of the people, if you stand by us in
the approaching session of Parliament.
D 2
S6
I have been led to this by a hint dropped
by your Lordship that it is your intention to
do your duty when Parliament shall come to
consider the recent transactions.” You say
“ that the scenes which have so lately con-
vulsed some of the most populous and indus-
trious parts of the kingdom, render any other
answer to the Defence of the People super-
fluous and useless.”f Indeed they do; with-
out pretending to the gift of prophecy, the
author of that Defence may fairly say, that
all he said of the Whigs, all he said of the
popular Reformers, has been completely con-
firmed.
Let me, however, just observe that your
Lordship was not quite right in saying that
those scenes had answered my pamphlet,
until you knew what those scenes were, of
which you own yourself to have known as
little as I have proved you knew of my
pamphlet and the “Honest Man”; for you
say, “I am not at all acquainted with the
details of this interesting and affecting sub-
ject.” I
Are you not how and why every body
else is—why should your Lordship alone of
* Preface, page 19, t Ibid, page 18, : Ibid. page 20.
37
all Englishmen be in the dark?” How comes
it that you do not know as great a proportion
of a subject, that interests and affects you so
much, as every body else knows? Does your
Lordship wait for a gazette picture of the
Manchester massacre P-for the details which
you will hear in his Royal Highness's speech,
and in the address which will echo that speech?
If so, I have no hopes of your doing what all
England knows to be your duty, although you
might think your duty to be directly contrary
to the general expectations of your country-
men. Whatever evidence can teach, what-
* In the same way, his Lordship being absent from
London during the Westminster Election, denied the
coalition between the Whigs and Tories, although he
owned that several, perhaps many Tories, had voted for
Mr. Lamb. We can tell his Lordship now how many did.
Why, of those who voted for Sir Murray Maxwell in June,
1818—Two Thousand seveN HUNDRED AND sixty-three
voted for Mr. Lamb in February, 1819; out of which were
one ThousAND AND SEVENTY-THREE actual plumpers of
Maxwell's, that is, dead government votes, who would not
vote for Romilly in 1818, but voted for Maxwell only.
Even of the 2763, by far the greater part were doubtless
government voters, and gave the vote to Romilly to keep
out Burdett. Let this be as it will, the thousand and
seventy-three are quite enough to prove the coalition, even
to a man out of London at the time. See An Authentic
Narrative of the Westminster Election in 1819.
38
ever examination can elicit, is already known;
at the least you have no right to be not at all
acquainted with the sad details. Your chim-
ing in with the alarmist cry, “that nothing
can be more mischievous or useless than the
assembling of immense multitudes,” does not
augur well for the line which your duty may
take. But I see in another page of your
preface enough to hold out to me the hope
that you will stand by the right of the people
to assemble at any time and for any purpose
short of subverting the government by force
of arms.
Your Lordship now thinks the present
crisis peculiarly favourable for the discussion
of Parliamentary Reform, and extending the
franchise: that you thought just the con-
trary when I last addressed you, is nothing
to me. Perhaps the “ interesting and af-
fecting ” events at Manchester have altered
your mind. Little or nothing as you con-
fess you know of the details, perhaps they
have shown you that the Radical Reformers
have no sort of power or influence in any
way in the country, and that they “cannot
break in like a flood upon you.” Indeed
* Preface, page 22.
39
you say so; in as many words, with the
motives of your conviction I have nothing to
do—it is enough that you are come to so
desirable a conclusion.
Perhaps, however, it is the insignificance
of these Reformers that has made you say, in
parting, that the Whigs “ought for ever to
stand aloof from all such Reformers,” as
those who have defamed said Whigs, “not,”
you add, “ from resentment—not even from a
“decent pride, however natural and justifi-
“able, but because the defamation proves
“ their views to be different.”” That the
views of the Whigs and of the people are to-
tally different I most sincerely believe ; but
I tell you what, stand aloof from us you
cannot, if you intend to be of the least service
to the country, or if you intend your Whigs
should come into place.
Is it not notorious—is it not owned by all
parties and every man in England, that if the
Whigs had the least character in the country,
the present ministers would be turned out to-
morrow It is true that the people would
insist upon their being hanged the next day,
which would not quite accord with the views
* Preface, page 18.
40
of those who think it too much to put a man
to death for a few mistakes. *
My Lord, your Whigs can not keep aloof
from us, do what they will, unless they
go over to the other side at once, which not
a few of them seem inclined to do. Their
distinctions without differences—their nice
exceptions—their reservations—their condi-
tional offers will not do at all. They have
no character nor power independent of the
people ; the nearer they come to the people,
the more formidable they become to those
in power; the farther they remove from the
people, the more inefficient and contemptible
is their position—laughed at by the governors
—suspected if not hated by the governed.
And here let me just ask your Lordship
whether you have not lately seen some trifling
symptoms which convince you that the
“ wild,” “ impracticable,” “ theoretical,”
“ anti-constitutional” Reformers, are just the
very first persons to show—that neither are
they mad, nor will they tolerate the madness
of others—that they promptly can practise
* Lord Erskine says that Mr. Fox voted for paying
Pitt's debts, because it was manifest he had been an
incorrupt though a mistaken servant of the public.—
“Second Defence of the Whigs,” p. 52–Served the public ſt
yes, as the boxers say, served out the public.
41
all they preach—that they have no theory on
which they are afraid or unable to act, or
which is not strictly applicable to the subject
in view—that they love the constitution well
enough to defend it unaided by any of those
who are always crying constitution, and swear-
ing that they alone, from their property and
virtue, are interested in its preservation.
When the whole body of the Aristocracy
were aghast—when they were sunk into a
stupid lethargy or panic submission, as the
sword of despotism reeking with the blood of
their fellow-citizens was waved in triumph
over them—when the tyrants already began
to exult, and thought that in the momentary
surprise and suspension of breath they saw
the very death of English freedom—Who
were the first to awake 2—who were the first
to convince the murderers that they had not
witnessed the last struggles of British free-
men Was it your practical man 2 was
it your rational Whig P was it your good
benevolent creature ? was it a charitable
abuse politician * was it a criminal law
amender 2 Oh no l—these sort of gentry
wanted, like your Lordship, to be “ ac-
quainted with the details of the ‘interesting
and affecting event’ ”—and for aught they
did, or would have done, this island would
42
have been by this time one large panopticon
prison, with my Lord Sidmouth sitting like
the spider jailor in the midst, and your hu-
mane politicians, not having the force to
break the thread, would have had to beg the
pitiful permission of setting the broken legs
of the wretched flies entangled in the web
of tyranny. --
But who prevented this? Strange, indeed,
but true—why the “ wild and visionary”
people—the mere phantoms have spoilt the
whole project—overset the whole scheme—
these airy nothings moved forward at once,
and soon the whole substantial preparations
of the cannons — the bayonets — the con-
stables—the jails—all the masses, animate
and inanimate, arrayed by government, va-
mished like smoke before them.
In plain language, had the military dis-
persion and massacre of the people at Man-
chester not been immediately resisted, there
was an end of all popular assemblies: it need
not be added, of all popular rights.
But resistance was made, and made by the
Radical Reformers, aye, more, by that very
class of Reformers, on whose defeat your
Lordship congratulated the country as an ex-
cellent symptom of returning health. The
, first who dared to meet openly and discuss
43
the question, were the wild and visionary Re-
formers, Major Cartwright, Messrs Wooler
and others, at the Crown and Anchor:* the
first man who by name called upon his fellow-
countrymen, to obtain redress, and afford re-
lief for the sufferers, and who set the example
himself, was the wild and visionary Reformer,
Mr. Hobhouse:f the first man who roused his
fellow-countrymen to meet in the cannons'
mouth, who denounced the murderers, who
offered his own person and life as a sacrifice
at the altar of liberty, was the wild and vi-
sionary Sir Francis Burdett: the first people
who did organize a meeting, who did meet at
the risk of military execution, and under the
musquetry and sabres of the household army,
were the wild and visionary Westminster Re-
formers.|
* At the meeting at the Crown and Anchor Tavern,
on Saturday, August 21. r *
† In his letter to the Statesman, Saturday, August 21.
# In his letter to the Electors of Westminster, dated
August 22.
| Not a Whig came to the Westminster meeting in
Palace-yard. The excuse made by the Chronicle was,
that they could not agree to the Resolutions about Parlia-
mentary Reform—though there was nothing objectional
in that Resolution. Now this excuse is perfectly false and
absurd: an offer was made to let the Whigs see the Reso-
lutions—not one of the party tried to see them—they did
44
What has been done in the country, what-
ever is now doing is owing solely to their ex-
ample, and it is not for the sake of detracting
from the merit of the imitators, that a fact so
notorious is here asserted. It is asserted as an
expostulatory comment upon your Lordship's
advice to your Whigs—to stand aloof from the
popular Reformers. If it had not been for
these Reformers, if all the politicians in the
country had been divided into Tories and
Whigs, Great Britain would have been, at
this moment, subject to martial law, and
not know whether there was any thing about Reform in
the Resolutions; therefore they could not have been kept
away by that Resolution. The fact is, they never thought
of coming—the “ enfans perdus,” the forlorn hope on
these occasions is always the People. The Aristocracy
come in when the danger is over to share the glory and
divide the spoil. But the most unjustifiable part of the
alleged excuse in the Morning Chronicle, was that which
degraded the noble devotion of the Westminster Reformers
into a mere electioneering manoeuvre. Forsooth they ex-
posed their lives and properties, and tried an undecided
question with a mad, besotted, and would-be military go-
vernment—they met to the number of 100,000—not to
determine at their own peril, whether or not England was
England, but for what, think ye, reader “why, to pro-
mote the electioneering interests of Mr. Hobhouse.” Incre-
dible and ridiculous as such a charge may seem, yet it
was made against the Westminster Reformers, against the
very men who had two days before actually raised the
spirit of liberty from the lowest despair. r
45
your friends at court would have laughed
at the motto upon your Lordship's coach,
more than any one has laughed at the noble
owner thereof.
Not Mr. Perry himself can be more pleased
than I am with your Lordship's call upon the
aristocracy. Such as have not been moved
by the Manchester murders, may still, per-
haps, be roused by the voice of an old asso-
ciate. Men who have not the courage to be
first, may still not like to be the last in the
career of patriotism: let them make haste.
It is, however, not quite so consoling, nor,
may I add, at all accountable, when I find
your Lordship's call concluding with the no-
tification, that you have fixed your sheet
anchor in Lord John Russell’s Reform pro-
position, announced, so you say, for the next
session of parliament.
Gracious Heavens ! are you laughing at us,
my Lord It is not fair that one man should
expose another to ridicule, by placing him on
an eminence, which his own modesty would
prompt him to decline. At the same time,
my respect for this young gentleman's per-
sonal character shall not prevent me from
saying, that there is not a single man except
Mr. Perry (and he only said he did) and your
Lordship, who cares one farthing about Lord
46
John's proposition, or who looks at it with
any interest whatever.
You say—“ his rank and character are
ample securities to Government, and the prin-
ciples of his family a sufficient pledge to the
People.”
Now, unless I am much mistaken, the Go-
vernment have better securities against any
possibility of being hurt by his Lordship's
intended Reform than either his rank or cha-
racter (respectable as it is). I mean his Lord-
ship's parliamentary conduct respecting Re-
form, and particularly his late vote against a
motion to consider of the state of the Repre-
sentation, which vote he openly avowed he
gave because he would not accede to any
proposition coming from Sir Francis Burdett.
The spirit and the political wisdom manifest-
ed by this vote, and the reason for it, are in-
deed “ample securities for Government,” and,
I may add, more than “a sufficient pledge to
the People,” that the principles of his family
are not his Lordship's principles. Both his bro-
thers, if I mistake not, voted for Sir Francis's
motion; and the Duke of Bedford's late letter
to the Concentric Liverpool Society, as well as
Lord Tavistock's denunciation of the Borough-
'mongering Parliament, contain sentiments
directly contrary to those of this young man,
47
who said on the above occasion, that he
would not consent to cast any slur upon the
present state of the representation.
So, my Lord, you must place your hopes,
and direct your “strong interest” elsewhere.
Let me tell you where: just where you had
your hopes and interests, when you nobly ex-
claimed—“The three estates of the kingdom
“ are co-ordinate; all alike representing the
“ dignity, and jointly executing the authority
“ of the nation: yet all our loyalty seems to
“ be wasted upon one of them. How happens
“it else, that we are so exquisitely sensible,
“so tremblingly alive to every attack upon
“THE CROWN, OR THE NOBLES who surround
“ it, yet so completely careless of what regards
“THE ONCE RESPECTED AND AWFULCOMMONS
“OF GREAT BRITAIN.” I quote your Lord-
ship's words as I find them in capital letters.”
You must return to the PEOPLE: if you do
not go to them, they will come to you; but
not with the arms of friendship. Your next
meeting will be such, as will convince the
NOBLES who surround the throne, and who
seem to have more of your sympathy than
they had when you defended Frost, that
the AWFUL COMMONS OF GREAT BRITAIN
* Mr. Erskine’s Speech on the Trial of John Frost,
p. 354, vol. ii. edit. 2nd.
48
will not suffer their RESPECTABILITY to de-
pend upon the good will of others, but upon
their own real importance and exerted power.
You only deceive yourself, and add to the
fatal delusion of your party, and of the higher
classes in general, when you hold out any
hopes from the interference of Parliament in
behalf of the people. It is of the Parliament
that the people complain. “We all know,”
as your Lordship said in 1784,” “ that the
calamities which have fallen upon this country
proceeded from that fatal source.” Do you
imagine then that the Parliament is like
the spear of Pelides, and that nothing can
cure the wound but the weapon that made
it Such magic must be confined to
poetry. As the truth of Lord Grey's pre-
diction that the “House of Commons will
never reform itself,” receives confirmation
from every succeeding session; what extra-
ordinary folly must it appear, or rather how
insulting it is to the common sense of the peo-
ple who suffer, to send them for redress where
no redress is to be obtained 2 The people
feel confident that one of the first measures
of the next session will be to do by act of
* Mr. Erskine's Speech on the Trial of the Dean of
St. Asaph, p. 173, vol. i. 3 * - **
49
Parliament what the ministers were foolish
enough to try to do by the more bungling and
hasty expedient of the sword. Ministers look
forward to the assembling of Parliament as
they do to the array of an army—they know
something will be attempted against the liber-
ties of the people, and the only question with
them is whether they are likely to be strong
enough to resist. The Parliament is by them
regarded as a sort of etat major to the army,
there is the ecclesiastical and the civil part of
the establishment; there is a commander-in-
chief, seldom seen except at the bottom of a
piece of paper: the statutes they make the
orderly book, nothing but paper in themselves,
but which are absolute commands when forced
down the throat at the point of the bayonet.
What prevents the people from walking down
to the House, and pulling out the members by
the ears, locking up their doors, and flinging
the key into the Thames 2 Is it any majesty
which hedges in the members of that as-
sembly Do we love them Not at all,—
we have an instinctive horror and disgust
at the very abstract idea of a borough-
monger. Do we respect them Not in the
least: Do we regard them as endowed with
any superior qualities On the contrary, in-
E
50
dividually there is scarcely a poorer creature
than your mere member of parliament; though
in his corporate capacity the earth furnishes
not so absolute a bully. Their true practical
protectors then, the real efficient anti-Reform-
ers, are to be found at the Horse Guards, and
the Knightsbridge barracks: as long as the
House of Commons majorities are backed by
the regimental muster roll, so long may those
who have got the tax-power keep it, and hang
those who resist. The only wild and vision-
ary Reformers are those who expect a volun-
tary abdication of the controling power of
the most powerful empire upon earth, on the
part of the present possessors of all the honors
and emoluments, and consideration, that do-
minion can bestow. A philosopher, a bigot,
a sovereign wearied with toil, or swayed by
caprice, have been known to resign the reins
of government; but the whole history of the
earth furnishes no example of a whole body
of masters, peaceably and willingly laying
down that dominion which they have silently
and gradually usurped. The man must be
rather unreasonable who expects such virtue,
such moderation, such self-sacrifice, even in
an individual; but to hope for them, or to
think them to be had for asking, from a whole
51
and numerous class of society, is absolute
madness. This is, indeed, wild and vi-
sionary.
Nothing but brute force, or the pressing
fear of it, will reform the Parliament. The
Parliament know this, and they see that the
people are now meeting and following up
Lord Grey's recommendation to assemble,
and to act upon the prudence, that is, the
fear of the House. Is it not natural, then,
that the Parliament should be disinclined to
have its prudence so acted upon Of course
it is. The ministers, who are the committee,
or part, of Parliament always in session, have
not chosen to wait for a meeting of the whole;
but have drawn the sword, without ceremony,
to stop these assemblies from acting on their
prudence. - -
The people, not accustomed to see these
things done in this way, or by any other than
the whole, have resisted, and as yet success-
fully; so that they still continue renewing
their painful experiments on the prudence
of the House. Now, then, the old approved
expedient is to be tried, and the whole are to
be brought to inforce what a few, out of mere
informality and want of precedent, were
unable to effect. ** w
Does not your Lordship think that the peo-
52
ple have sense enough to see that it is ex-
actly the same thing to them, whether these
meetings are prohibited by act of Parliament
or by a charge of cavalry Do you not ima-
gine it likely that they should recollect that
Mr. Fox said, “that not only the King may
“incite the people to resistance—that not
“only the Lords may incite the people to
“ resistance—that not only the House of
“Commons may excite the people to resist-
“ance—but that the measures of the three
“branches of the legislature may justify the
“ people in resisting the Government.”
And if Mr. Fox never had said so, don't you
think that they would feel that they had that
right without any prompter
My determination, for one, is fixed; if those
who have the power attempt to deprive me of
the inalienable right of meeting my fellow-
countrymen, by letting loose a soldier at me,
without the warning of an act of parliament,
I will resist him if I can : if they do give me
the warning of an Act of Parliament I will
break it if I can. I consider the object ex-
actly the same; the injustice equally calling
for resistance; the mere additional ceremony
is not worth the statute paper;-the time, the
means, the occasion, must of course make
* Debates, December 3, 1795.
53
part of the prudential question, which every
man must determine for himself, and concern-
ing which I do not wish to be his prompter.
But the resolution is the same, and without a
ridiculous defiance of dangers distant and un-
certain, I believe that I speak the sentiments
of millions of Englishmen, and I am quite
sure that I speak my own, when I say, that
I would not wish to survive the liberties of my
country.—Caesar's world is no world for
me !
PostsCRIPT.
THE abrupt and lawless suspension of the
Oldham inquest—the magisterial protection
and release of a felon for the manifest justifi-
cation of the Manchester murders—-the aug-
mentation of the army—the protrusion of the
Duke of Wellington as an actor ready dressed
and harnessed for the scene—the dismissal of
a Lord Lieutenant for promoting an inquiry
into the massacre of his fellow countrymen—
all have occurred since the writing of the above
letter : all tend to justify the apprehensions
therein expressed of an immediate attempt
upon the remaining liberties of England.
Now then, my Lord ' ' screw your courage
to the sticking point.' End as you began.—
Do not share, do not lend aid to, the threat-
ened tyranny. Do not finish, as the Rhine,
56
a course in part so noble and so pure, amidst
the puddles and common sewers of corruption.
Be taught by an opponent—or, if my humble
exhortation be despised, look to an example
now, thank Heaven' to be found amongst
your Peers. Like Lord Fitzwilliam, merit the
disgrace of the court—secure, as he has in this
instance done, the applause of your country.
FINIS.
John M'Creery, Printer,
Black-Horse-Court, London.
r
R E PLY
LoRD ERSKINE.
BY AN ELECTOR
of west MINstER.
2". * - 49 ..” _2? y { ~
C_2 . . / 2 c. 2 a. o.
LONDON :
PRINTED FOR w, hone, LUDGATE-HILL.
sºmº
1819.
*****
Price 1s. 6d.
John M'Creery, Printer,
Black -Horse-Court, London.
R E PLY
TO
L OR D E R S K I N E.
ELECTORS OF WESTMINSTER,
A PAMPHLET has just made its appearance,
intituled :-- -
“A short defence of the Whigs against the
imputations attempted to be cast upon them
during the late Election for Westminster.”
The Pamphlet has been attributed to Lord
Erskine in a way which leaves no doubt as to
his being the Author.
The imputations to which the title-page
alludes appear to be two, and they are thus
introduced:—“That Mr. Hobhouse, sup-
ported by Sir Francis Burdett, opposed the PRE-
TENSIONS of the Whigs of England to any
favour or support from her people, as being;”
1st, “a corrupt and profligate faction, which
had abjured all the free principles of the Con-
stitution; and,”—2nd, “ had abandoned the
cause of Reform, which they had once So-
LEMNLY pledged themselves to support.”
B
2
The first imputation is, as it stands in one
sentence, somewhat obscurely stated: it con-
tains two assertions; first, that the “Whigs
are a corrupt and profligate faction,” this is
clear enough ; the second, that they “ have
abjured all the free principles of the constitu-
tion,” is couched in the usual parliamentary
jargon, which is generally as unintelligible to
those within, as to those without the house,
and may be made to mean any thing the
speaker pleases. If it may be understood to
mean, that the Whigs are charged with being
enemies to the freedom of the people, that
charge, as well as their being “a profligate
faction” and having “abandoned the cause
of Reform, which they had once SOLEMNLY
pledged themselves to support,” shall be fully
proved.
It may, perhaps, be as well to say a word
or two here, to prevent misapprehension as to
the application of the term Whig : it is in-
tended to apply it to the party who form the
present Opposition, within and without the
two Houses of Parliament; but, more par-
ticularly to that in the House of Commons.
No person, at all acquainted with those,
who compose this party, will hesitate to pro-
nounce that individuals may be found among
them, whose private characters are exem-
plary: many there are, as well Tories as
Whigs, who, individually considered, are most
5
respectable as gentlemen and scholars; and
the only matter for surprise is, that such men
should be found acting in their respective
parties, as if wisdom, honour, and honesty,
formed no ingredients in their characters.
To be clearly understood, it is necessary to
go a little into the history of the Election;
and, to state—that the Report made on the
9th of February last, by the committee ap-
pointed by yourselves to conduct the Election of
Mr. Hobhouse, and the speech of Mr. Hob-
house on the same day, were the causes of
the virulence of the Whig Faction, as you
saw it displayed during the Election; it could
not bear the truth to be spoken even in part,
and feared the consequences; it knew that
from the moment the people should really un-
derstand its views, all hope of wresting the
Government from the hands of the present
Ministers, its primary object, would be hope-
less.
The course pursued by the faction for se-
veral years past, proves that it thought the
people were blind to its true character, and it
was prepared to appeal to the people in Sup-
port of its fictitious character, by fraudulently
pretending that it had been the cause of Mr.
Hobhouse's return for Westminster, had that
gentleman walked over the course ; this was
prevented by the report of your Committee.
If the report of your Committee had not de-
prived the faction of the means of deception,
4.
it would, through the press, and by the oppor-
tunity it has of addressing itself to the public
in various ways, have made a merit of return-
ing Mr. Hobhouse; it would have demanded
of him, an unqualified support of its party
measures, and it would have branded him as
an ungrateful, unprincipled apostate, had he
opposed any of them. It would have put a
cheat upon the Reformers; it would have
gained character with the country by its du-
plicity, and have done injury to reform by its
dishonesty.
The Report, and the speech of Mr. Hob-
house, at once prevented the faction accom-
plishing either of those unworthy purposes;
disappointment deprived it of reason—it could
contain its rage no longer, and it precipitately
plunged into a contest which has happily
drawn upon it the attention of the whole
body of the People, and has enabled a very
large portion of them fully to appreciate its
false pretensions. It has convinced them,
that there is no real difference between the
Whig and Tory factions, except the dif-
ference which always existed ; namely, that
the Tories would exalt the kingly power,
that it might trample upon the Aristocracy
and the people; while the Whigs would es-
tablish an Aristocratical oligarchy to tram-
ple on the king and the people. There never
was, nor is there now, any other difference
between them : both alike would subject the
5
people to their arbitrary dominion; and both
alike deserve what the one has long had, and
the other has at last obtained—the contempt
of the people !
The nomination of Mr. Lamb was the act
of the Whigs—it was the avowed act of the
party, and it seems so to have been consider-
ed by the noble Author himself. The address
of Mr. Lamb on the day of nomination, may
therefore be fairly considered as the address of
the party—and a more flagrant attempt at
imposition was hardly ever made; the nomi-
nee ºf the faction had nothing to offer for
himself, and the faction had nothing to offer
on his, or on their own part; it sought to
cajole you by a general declaration, as un-
meaning as it was insincere, of adherence (we
must suppose) to the publicly avowed princi-
ples of a most respectable man, who had never
laid down any principles; and this was all in
the way of profession, or explanation, which
the faction ventured to lay before you.
But they seated Mr. Lamb :—how did they
accomplish this 2
By an appeal to the sense of the people *
No :
By any offers of service to the public –
No :
By pledging themselves to pursue measures
to improve the condition of the people —
No : ,’
By undertaking to use their efforts to re-
6
duce the overwhelming burthen of taxation
No :
By proposing to destroy the demoralising
and oppressive Excise Laws No :
By promising any REFORM OF PAR-
LIAMENT 2 No :
By any one proposition beneficial to the
people * No :
What, then, have they done which the most
inveterate Tory would not have done?—
Nothing.
In what, then, consists the difference between
the two factions in respect of the people :
In Nothing.
The Whigs have procured a seat for Mr.
Lamb, and they affect to call it a victory; a
victory, if it were one, gained over the peo-
ple. They however know that it is not a
victory. Had they indeed obtained a victory,
their conduct would be the very reverse of
what it is ; the uneasiness they exhibit—the
mean personalities they indulge in—the petu-
lant and angry feelings they continually ex-
press;—all prove, that so far from having sub-
dued the people, or gained character for
themselves, they are conscious they have
sunk, never to rise again.
They have procured a seat for Mr. Lamb–
by what means ?
By a coalition with the Tories against the
people:
By a coalition with the very party, which
7
during the former Election, supported Captain
Maxwell against them:
By the power of their purse:
By undue influence of all sorts:
By terror—by promises—by threats—by
compulsion: z
By taking advantage of the poverty of the
times, to seduce those they could not inti-
midate:
By an alliance with the very refuse of
Society:
By—as it is stated in your petition to the
House of Commons—
“By hiring ruffians to intimidate the elec-
tors, and to obstruct the Poll;
By treating;
By partiality on the part of the returning
officer :”
By all the base arts which formerly dis-
graced Westminster, and which you had
driven away.
In seating Mr. Lamb, while they manifest-
ed their own unworthiness, they materially
assisted in promoting the very cause they
coalesced to destroy.
The country need scarcely be told, that an
individual more or less on the side of Reform in
the House of Commons, however desirable in
some respects, is of small importance in com-
parison with such an opportunity as the late
election afforded, of unmasking and exposing
8
the people's enemies, and thus rendering
them comparatively harmless: thus teaching
the people to depend on themselves. This the
faction begins to feel; and, as it has no weapons
of reason with which to continue the combat,
it resorts in its agony to those of personal in-
vective, abuse and calumny.
The Whigs would indeed address them-
selves to the very people against whom they
coalesced, but they know not how to address
them with effect. A feeble effort has how-
ever been made by Lord Erskine, in praise of
himself and the Whigs, which has the merit,
and it has no other, of keeping their misdeeds
out of sight. *
The noble Lord would persuade the people,
to apply the isolated measures which the
Whigs in former times pursued in favour of
the people to the Whigs of the present day;
to the degraded, despised aristocrats, whose
conduct you so lately witnessed; and he
would have the people forget all their atro-
cious acts against them.
He praises the revolution of 1688, and in-
sinuates most falsely that the Whigs are now
willing to bring back the government to what
it was then made: he praises the Bill of
Rights as a second Magna Charta, but he
takes care not to acknowledge that the Whigs
rendered this second Charter of no avail to
the people: he does not inform us that the
9
Bill of Rights was only a declaratory Statute
in the nature of a preamble to other statutes,
which ought to have been made to carry its .
declarations into effect, which statutes the
Whigs took care should never be made.—He
does not say that the Whigs rendered all the
declarations of that statute null and void : he
does not tell us, that in 1688, and for five
years afterwards, Parliaments were of right
ANNUAL or rather SESSIONAL, as they
had for many centuries been, and that every
departure therefrom was a stretch of arbitrary
power, under the name of prerogative ; he
does not tell us, that the Whigs proposed a
bill to make them triennial, and that it was
not until the sixth year from the revolution,
that for the first time in this country, Parlia-
ments could by LAW be continued for three
years.”
He does not tell us that the Whigs made
the act, to continue themselves in power for
SEVEN YEARS, f when they had only been elected
jor THREE YEARS–nor that THEY called
those who opposed that act Tories—nor
that they put a cheat upon the people, who
expected the bill would expire with the
Whig parliament which made it—nor that the
people throughout England made bonfires for
* Stat. vi. W. & M. c. 11.
+ Stat. i. G. I. Stat. ii. c. 38.
* C
10
joy, when that parliament expired. He has
not told us, that the Whigs formed and esta-
blished the Excise Laws as they now exist–
nor that they commenced the destructive
Funding System—nor that they first made it
death by law to forge the paper of their Bank;
neither has he once told us, that all the great
grievances of which we justly complain, origi-
nated with the Whigs, who under the pretence
of a love of Liberty have stabbed it more fre-
quently and more deeply than the Tories
themselves.
The noble Lord professes to be in favour of
Reform, and would seem to insinuate, that he
prefers the plan of the “Friends of the People;”
but he presently declares, that all the reform
he seeks is the disfranchisement of one or two
rotten boroughs.
He praises the Whigs for their efforts in
1793, and he condemns you for doing the
same thing in your Report.
He complains of perverseness in the re-
formers, because they have not become apos-
tates; he condemns them because they still
continue to repeat the substance of the peti-
tien, which the author himself and Lord Grey,
brought into the House of Commons: Whig-
like, he praises and condemns the same thing,
in the same breath. -
He praises the “Society of the Friends of the
People”; and some of its proceedings well de-
| 1
serve all the praises which have been bestowed
on them : but do the Whigs of the present
day support or approve of those proceedings?
Let their whole conduct from the moment
they broke up that society, answer for them.
In 1793, the Society of the Friends of the
People presented their justly celebrated Peti-
tion to Parliament. It was supported, by
order of the Society, by Mr. Charles Grey and
the Hon. Thomas Erskine. On the 30th of
May, 1795, at a general meeting of that
society, W. Smith, Esq. M. P. in the chair,
“ it was resolved, after due consideration, to
publish a DECLARATION,” in which they said,
that the “right of voting should be subject
to a qualification so moderate, that there may
be no condition in life in which it may not
be acquired, by labour, by industry, or by
talents.” They said their plan would extend
the right of “suffrage to nearly a million and
a half of heads of families;” and they “admit
the general right of voting at elections to be
CoMMON and PERSONAL.” They say, “it is
undoubtedly desirable, for many reasons, that
the collective body of qualified electors should
be as NUMEROUS as possible; but principally,
because a great number of electors is of itself
a better security against corruption, than the
severest laws against bribery, by making the
individual vote of no value, and hardly worth
soliciting. That to reach the numbers, by
12
whom the power ought to be exercised, it
must be EQUALLY AND IMPARTIALLY DISTRI-
BUTED over the whole surface of the kingdom,
by a new division of the country.” They
add, “to us it appears, that a new division is
indispensable, and that we should only cheat
ourselves, and deceive the nation, if for the
sake of a useless accommodation, we yielded
to any project in which this condition was
not included.” “ The whole measure must
not only be equal to the whole of its purpose,
but it must move together, and act at once
with all its force :” and then they say, they
will have the whole Reform or none; any thing
“short of the plan they propose being not only
useless but pernicious.
They proposed “To divide England into
513 divisions, as equal as possible ; to elect
one member in each division: and to take
the election of the whole representation of the
kingdom at the same hour and on the same
day.”
They said “That a general election for the
whole kingdom might be conducted without
tumult or expence, and completed in a few
hours; and that in future the elections might
be TRIENNIAL, BIENNIAL, or even ANNUAL, AS
THEY WERE IN FORMER TIMES.–Members of
parliament who acted faithfully, would be
generally re-chosen; but it is neither safe
nor constitutional to leave any Representative
13
very long out of the reach of his Constituents.”
The noble author calls his pamphlet a De-
fence of the Whigs. What a miserable de-
fence is that which is obliged to leave all
these matters unnoticed, and to rest itself upon
a declaration of “ The great difficulty of sud-
denly originating and maturing any syste-
matic and general change in the Represen-
tation.”
The society of the Friends of the People
say, “After long deliberation we have fixed on
a specific plan and declared it without re-
serve.”—Yet we are now told that we would
“Suddenly originate and mature a plan ;”
and for this we are to be condemned by the
Whigs, by those who having abandoned all
their former pretensions, stare with wonder at
discovering that they are no longer popular,
They were popular when they were REFORMERS.
—They are hated by the people now they
are nothing but WHIGS.
He tells us that the “criminal, dangerous,
and licentious acts” of some of the reformers,
induced the government in 1794 to seize their
papers, and to imprison some of their persons;
that the Whigs on that occasion were ser-
viceable to the cause of freedom, by their
opposition to the proceedings of ministers,
This praise will be denied them by no man,
but it is after all only a negative service they
rendered to the country; they had themselves
14
set the example of constituting Corresponding
Societies, and they had met over and over again
in convention, as “deputies from counties
and towns”; had in that capacity published
resolutions, and a declaration* quite as “licen-
tious” as any published by the British con-
vention, or by either the Constitutional or
Corresponding Societies, although his Lord-
ship now chooses to stigmatise the one as
“criminal and dangerous,” while he passes
over in silence the act of the others.
Too much praise can never be given to
the noble author, for his exertions during the
State Trials in 1794.—No one will ever grudge
the splendid triumph he obtained on the
acquittal of Mr. Hardy, after a trial of nine
days, when in the month of November, and
during one of the heaviest falls of rain ever
witnessed in this country, he was drawn
by the populace from the Old Bailey to his
residence, accompanied by the acclamations
and benedictions of perhaps as large an as-
semblage of the people, as ever were collected
together on any occasion whatsoever. But
every one must regret, that this very circum-
stance, which elevated him to a height he
would otherwise never have reached, did not
prevent him from becoming a member of an
administration, which we shall prove to have
* Wide Wyvil's Political Papers, vol. i. p. 109, p. 426,
15
been by far the most pernicious of any this
country ever saw.
The noble author applauds the Whig and
Grenville Coalition; he praises the Whigs for
having abolished the Slave Trade; but he says
not one word on the other acts of their admi-
nistration, atrocious and “profligate” as those
acts Were.
Let us take a rapid glance at their acts and
deeds in the one short year of their adminis-
tration, and thus in some measure supply the
deficiencies of the noble author.
Lord Grenville was one of the fathers of the
act to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act—the
Gagging Act—the new fangled Treason Act—
the principal promoter of the war against
human freedom in 1793—the unrelenting per-
secutor of reformers at all times; yet from the
love of power, and desire of emolument, the
Whigs bowed down under the people's adver-
Saries, and submitted to be picked out man
by man by Lord Grenville. - -
With the Grenvilles and the Windhams,
with those whose most conspicuous attribute
was a furious rage against all reform, they
made common cause. -
They reprobated the system pursued by
Pitt, and Grenville, and Windham, and Dun.
das; they called that system “ruinous, in-
quisitorial, execrable, diabolical, destructive
of liberty;” they said insurrection against it
16
was a duty, the performance of which duty
was merely a question of prudence; yet they
took place under the Grenvilles to carry on
the very system against which insurrection
was a duty.
They talked of the extravagance of the Pitt
and Grenville administration;–of the enor-
mous load of debt and taxes which bent the
people to the earth; yet no sooner were they
in power than they added large sums to the
debt, and increased the taxes enormously.
They called the Income Tax, a tax “worthy
only of the inquisition”—yet they raised that
“highwayman's tax” from 6% to 10 per cent.
They said “ “a man had it in his power
to make such alterations in his expenditure
that the TAX would not ENTIRELY CRUSH
HIM ; he might in some measure relieve himself;
£f he lived on the FIRST FLOOR, for instance, HE
MIGHT REMOVE TO THE SECOND; if he was on
the SECOND FLOOR already, he might MOUNT
to the ATTIC STORY”—he only who “ was
already found in the cellar” was alone to be
exempted.
They increased the assessed taxes.
They laid on no less than seven millions of
* Wide Mr. Fox's Speech, Parl. Deb. vol. vii. p. 222.
Whoever takes the trouble to examine the debates of the
Coalition Parliament cannot fail to be struck with the con-
tempt continually expressed for the people, and the high
aristocratical notions which were as continually entertained.
17
taxes, which on the average of the preceding
years, was twice as much as Pitt had laid
on.” - -
They taxed the income of widows and or-
phans, and soldiers and sailors, 10 per cent. —
They screwed one pound out of every ten
pounds from their pittances, and they ex-
empted the enormous property which the
King had placed in the funds from all tax
whatever. This money, which from its having
been saved, was proved not to have been ne-
cessary to support the splendour of the Throne
—this money, therefore, unnecessarily wrung
from the people in taxes—this money, which
had been lent to the government to carry on
wars and to promote corruption—for the inte-
rest of this money they compelled the people
to pay taxes. At the moment they exempted
the King's money from the tax, they made
every one else pay: they added no less a sum
than 51,000l. a year to the incomes of the
King's sons and daughters,f which Pitt had
refused to do; they levied new taxes upon the
people to pay this sum, because, as they
would have persuaded the people, the King
was himself too poor to provide for his
children. -
* Wide the Whig Budget and the subsequent discus-
sions—during their administration. Parl, Debates, vol. vi.
p. 564 et seq. and vol. vii.
+ Stat. 46 G. III.
D
18
Besides adding 6,000l. a year to the incomes
of the Dukes of Clarence, Kent, Cumberland,
Sussex, and Cambridge, they gave to those
Dukes from the Admiralty Droits, (from the
money which in fairness should have been
divided among our sailors) no less a sum than
75,000l. - *
They who had vehemently condemned a
profuse expenditure of the public money,
when out of office, were more profuse and
more extravagant than those they had justly
condemned. -
They granted more pensions and to a larger
amount; they crammed more hungry syco-
phants with the public money,” than had ever
before been done in the same space of time.
They seized upon sinecures and all other
corrupt sources of emolument for themselves
and their followers, with a ravenousness, which
surprised even the blood-suckers they pulled
off. 3. –
They maintained, that a sinecure office was
as much a man's property as his freehold.
They told the people, that Pitt's conduct was
“ruinous, destructive of liberty, execrable, in-
quisitorial, infamous; that the system he pur-
sued justified rebellion:” but, when they got
into power, they told the people, by the mouth
of their leader, “that they never voted in their
lives with more satisfaction, than they should
* Wide Appendix.
19
do for the payment of Mr. Pitt's debts (with
the people's money), because it was a tribute
due to departed worth, the reward of a muni-
ficent nation to a meritorious public servant.”
Thus treacherously and basely belying their
own assertions—thus inhumanly extorting the
substance of the people on account of him,
whom they had declared to be the bitterest
enemy of that very people. .
They made Lord Grenville (the co-adjutor
of Pitt, the associate of him and Dundas in all
their proceedings against the liberty, the pro-
perty, and the happiness of the people) the
auditor of his own accounts -
They made him first Lord of the Treasury.
They made an act to enable him to hold a
sinecure of 4,000l. a year, with a place of
6,000l. a year. x- : 3
They made the Chief Justice Ellenborough,
a member of the King's cabinet council. This,
so far as depended on them, was an attempt
to destroy the independence of a judge.
They placed a judge in a situation “to
decide on bringing a man to trial in that very
court, where one of the ministers whom he
had perhaps accused and irritated, would pre-
side, and preside not merely to direct and
influence the jury, but eventually, in his own
person, to award the amount of his fine, and
the duration of his imprisonment.” -
* Wide Speech of the Earl of Bristol, Parl, Debates, vol.
wi, p. 258.
20
Thus manifesting their hatred of liberty—
their hatred of a free press; thus endeavouring
to destroy both ; thus taking strides towards
arbitrary power, which Pitt and Dundas had
never dared to take. -
They attempted to levy a tax on the raw
produce of the country—they proposed a tax
on iron mines. - -
They increased and extended the demora-
lizing Excise Laws.
They attempted to carry them into private
families; by which, any man's house might at
all times, both by day and by night, be in-
vaded and searched by their myrmidons, and
his utensils be locked up against him. They
said, no man shall brew a barrel of table-beer
in his own house, for his own use, but by
our leave, and under the inspection of our.
exciseman. No man shall make a gallon of
Currant wine, but by our permission, and
under the eye of our exciseman. :
They opposed the Bank Restriction Bill
when out of place: d
They continued the Restriction when in
place; and .
They opposed the Bill again when out of
place. • ,
They commenced the Orders in Council,
which almost ruined our commerce and ma-
nufactures.* -
* Parl. Debates, vol. vii, p. 255, 523.
21
They condemned these Orders when out of
place.
They made an act to legalize the employ-
ment of foreign mercenary troops in England,
and they increased their number to 16,000.
They made an act to indemnify those who
had illegally employed them.*
They, when out of place, condemned the
Barrack system, as a system of abuse in all
its parts; they reprobated it as being highly
destructive of freedom, by separating the sol-
dier from the citizen.f
They continued the system while in place.
They reprobated it again when out of place.
They said Hanover was a miserable paltry
spot of sand, which had cost us in money
many times the value of all its land and all its
houses, and more lives than it contained peo-
ple—they repeated, that it was a mill-stone
about the necks of the people of England—
they repeated, that it had been, and would
be again, the cause of mischievous interference
with foreign nations, and the frequent cause
of war. Having, by truckling to Grenville,
got into power, they said Hanover was as
dear to us as Hampshire; that we ought to
go to war as cheerfully for the one as the
* Statutes at large, 46 G. III.
t Wide Mr. Robson's Speeches, Parl, Debates, vol. vii,
p. 237, et seq. - - --
22
other; and they declared no peace should be
made until Hanover was restored.
They reprobated and condemned Lord
Wellesley's administration of India. They
pledged themselves thoroughly to investigate
his conduct; but when in place, they refused
all inquiry. They hunted down the man who
accused him, refused the papers necessary to
enable him to substantiate his charges: they
called upon him to prefer his charges without
the documents; and when they could no
longer withhold them, they told him to “pro-
ceed at his peril.”
They made themselves popular by advo-
cating Reform of Parliament; sold themselves
to the Grenvillites; and stigmatized those who
still sought Reform, with the name of Jacobins.
They drew the bill to confine the people of
Ireland to their houses, from sun-set to sun-
rise, under pain of MILITARY EXECUTION.
They left that bill as a legacy to their suc-
CéSSOTS. - -
They offered meanly to give up the Ca-
tholic Bill, if the King would consent to re-
tain them in office; but the King refused,
and kicked them all out. - .* ,
Yet this is the administration Lord Erskine.
holds out to your admiration
The noble author proceeds to a defence of
Lord Grey, which is exceedingly weak; all
it amounts to is this, that his Lordship “is no.
23
longer a Commoner but a Peer, and that he is
not prepared at once to propose the same ex-
tended alteration in the Representation of the
people as he had formerly proposed in the
House of Commons.”—Lord Erskine, no
doubt, thinks this is a “ defence” for the
conduct of his noble friend, but if such a de-
fence had been put forth by a Reformer, for
one of themselves, the slang dictionary would
have been ransacked for terms of reproach
and contempt to heap upon the head of the
“Apostate,” as the Whigs would have called
the one, and the ignorant wretch as they
would have called the other: there would
have been no end to their personalities.
No man ever condemned the corruptions of
the House of Commons, or its inefficiency to
promote the freedom of the people, more than
Earl Grey; no man ever proved the absolute
necessity there was for a Reform of that House
more than himself; and no man ever more
completely abandoned all his professions than
he has done. His speech on the 13th June,
1810, was an uncalled-for declaration against
all Reform and all Reformers. At the anni-
versary in memory of Mr. Fox, he said, “I
am not unwilling to say, that I think the House
of Commons is, with all its imperfections on its
head, one of the best securities the people of this
country ever had for the preservation of their
jreedom.” And of the same tenor are all his
24
subsequent speeches on thequestion of Reform;
no one of his pledges has he ever redeemed,
and his conduct can be designated by no sin-
gle word, but the word he himself applied to
the conduct of . Mr. Pitt, when he called him
** an APOSTATE.” - -
The noble author passes over the period
from the time the Whigs were kicked out of
office, in 1807, to 1817, without taking any
particular notice of the conduct of the faction;
he says nothing of their defence of seat-selling,
nor of their “ rallying round the minister to
prevent popular encroachment,” on the cor-
ruptions which were then exposed. He says
nothing about the Corn Bill, which originated
with them, and was passed principally for
their convenience. He omits to tell us, that
the leading Whig, Mr. C. C. Western, the
mouth-piece of the Agricultural interest, as
it is called, on the House being deluged with
the petitions of the people against the Bill,
said, “* He had no hesitation in stating, that
popular clamour should be withstood;” that,
“Not only the present administration, but
any other must give way, if the will OF THE
PEOPLE was to be uncontrollable; he trusted,
therefore, that the House would maintain its
honour and character, by persevering in the
course which it deemed to be right, and
* Parliamentary Debates, vol.xxx, p. 26.
25
THAT IT WOULD NOT ALLOW ITSELF TO BE
SWAYED BY PETITIONS, for the people might
as well petition for the abolition of their liberties
as for the abandonment of the measure under
consideration, which involved their dearest in-
terests.
Great blame is thrown upon the Reformers,
and great praise is bestowed upon the Whigs,
for their conduct in 1817. The excesses,
however, of that time ought not to be im-
puted to the reformers, who did no one act
beyond petitioning. In the few places where
excesses were committed, they were produced
by spies, some of whom were employed, and
others encouraged to proceed in exciting the
most wretched and ignorant of the people to
commit acts of outrage.—His Lordship knows
that those acts were not the acts of the re-
formers, and that they ought not to have been
imputed to them. +
It is true enough that many of the Whigs
reprobated SOME of the acts proposed by the
minister on, that occasion, but it is equally
true that the leaders of the party stimulated
the minister to produce those acts. At the
opening of the session, petitions for Reform
poured in from all parts of the country. At
this moment, there seemed to be two leaders
of the Whigs—Mr. Ponsonby, the acknow-
ledged leader, and Mr. Brougham, who was
resolved at any rate to take the lead.
R
26
A furious attack was made by the would-
be-leader on the Reformers.—He was sup-
ported by the Whigs, who vied with each
other in the use of epithets of abuse: they
called the Reformers—“wild, visionary, dis-
gusting, malicious, disloyal, seditious, rebel-
lious, demagogues, malcontents, liars, ene-
mies of social order, incendiaries meditating
civil war and bloodshed.” Their petitions
were called a “farrago, vague, dangerous,
impracticable, pernicious, intended to pro-
duce incalculable mischief, inciting the people
to revolt, and rebellion;” more than a mil-
lion of men, who signed these petitions, were
thus calumniated by the Whigs, who, day
after day, kept on inflaming one another,
and producing a disposition in the House to
proceed to measures of coercion, which, but
for their conduct, would probably not have
been attempted. On the 4th of February, the
acknowledged leader, f “Mr. Ponsonby, said
he was solicitous to ascertain from the noble
lord (Castlereagh) whether it was or was not
in his contemplation to proceed immediately
on the subject (against those who were called
disaffected), as in his judgment it was one of
all others in reference to which any delay
must be pregnant with public danger.” (hear,
#ear.) Not only was the minister stimulated
* Parliamentary Debates, vol. xxxii, p. 209, et seq.
t Parliamentary Debates, vol. xxxv, p. 84, et seq.
27
by the Whigs to proceed against the people,
but almost all of them came forward to dis-
claim Parliamentary Reform, and Lord Er-
skine himself, who now says, “I am myself
as much devoted as ever to a Reform in Parlia-
ment,” said,” “HE did not now hold the opi-
nions he did when he signed a paper for PAR-
LIAMENTARY REFORM.” Yet the noble Lord
praises the Whigs for their consistency.
No comment is necessary; the reader has
already answered the question. Are the im-
putations proved or are they not *—Were they
justly or unjustly made 2 •
The noble author occupies nearly the whole
of his 19th page with an endeavour to shew that
the Electors of Westminster are too ignorant,
to be able “to consider the claims of candi-
dates to distinction and preference;” “they,”
he says, “ may fairly repose in the wishes
of their BENEFACTORS, their EMPLOYERs, and
FRIENDS ; and it is not corruption in enlight-
ened men, who can see clearly the interests of
their country, to use their influence with per-
sons less qualified to investigate those sub-
jects;” and this direct recommendation, to the
one to buy, and the other to sell his vote—this
recommendation of the influence of terror—
this recommendation to the one to suborn the
perjurer, and to the other to commit the per-
* The Morning Chronicle, March 26, 1817.
28
jury—comes from a person who calls himself
a Parliamentary Reformer: —truly this is sound
Whig reasoning. The ignorance on the one
hand, and the wisdom on the other, is assumed
merely to justify the perjury:—truly this is
sound Whig morality. And then it is asserted
that there is no corruption in the transaction:
—truly this is Whig honesty.
The last act of the party we shall notice is
their late combination under their new leader,
Mr. George Tierney, who on one occasion
confessed he was too poor to consent to be
out of place. Some time before the meeting
of Parliament, it was settled that Mr. Tierney
should be engaged as the leader of the opposi-
tion—Mr. Tierney the leader how miserably
have the Whigs degenerated l—“ RUMP,”
indeed ' Mr. Tierney the leader of opposi-
tion However incredible this might be to
the public men who flourished only a few
years ago, could they hear of it, still Mr.
Tierney is the leader. -
To make Mr. Tierney the leader, about
120 members of the opposition signed a paper;
and a few more, who did not dare to sign the
paper “ because they represented populous
places,” sent in notes of accession privately :
and thus was constituted as pretty a Combi-
nation not to do any thing disagreeable to the
new formed battalion marshalled by the Aris-
tocracy as ever was entered into. No one
29
need wonder after this that no measure, which
does not originate with one of the battalions,
is entertained, or that any man, except your -
extraordinary representative Sir Francis Bur-
dett, is heard, until he has enlisted into one of
these battalions.
The noble author tells us, his intention is to
save the “Whigs from being considered, as
objects of ridicule or reproach.” This is im-
possible, when the very name “ stinks in the
nostrils” of the people. The term “Whig”
must now be dropped, and the party be
henceforth designated as the party of George
Tierney—the “ Tierney-ites 1’’
Much has been said about conciliation.
The Electors of Westminster have always
been ready to do every thing in the way of
conciliation, which was not an abandonment
of the principles they have all along sup-
ported. But an attempt has been made to
persuade the people, that because a man was
called a Whig, he ought to be considered as
one who supported a Reform in Parliament.
It was necessary to put this false pretence in
its true light, and to prove that the Whigs
were not Reformers, and this you have made
manifest to the whole country: that cheat
will serve them no longer. Were the Whigs
really Parliamentary Reformers, there would
be nothing to conciliate; they would then,
30
like you, desire no other name by which to be
designated.
Under the most trying circumstances, near-
ly 4000 of you have in the open face of day
proclaimed yourselves RADICAL REFORMERS;
you have thus given to the country a gua-
rantee for future independent, manly, and ju-
dicious exertions on the next occasion : you
have thus encouraged the people to continue
their exertions in the same good cause.
The example you have set is producing,
and will produce, the best effects all over the
United Kingdom. -
The time is past, when party-men for mere
party-purposes, can longer hope to obtain the
aid of the people.
The time is past, when a Combination of
Aristocrats to trample upon the people, can
by any contrivance avert from itself the in-
dignation of the people.
The time is past, when any assembly, whose
acts are opposed to the interests of the people,
can have any ground of hope for the counte-
nance of the people.
The time is rapidly arriving, when the con-
tempt of the people for the corruptions of the
House of Commons, will compel that house
to attend to their request for a Radical Reform
in the Representation of the people.
The time is come, when it is more than
31
ever the duty of every man to adopt the re-
commendation of Mr. Grey, now Earl Grey,
made by him in 1794—when in his place in
the House of Commons, he said—“ This
House will never reform itself, or destroy the
the Corruption by which it is upheld, by any other
means than those of the resolutions of the people
acting upon the prudence of the House, and that
point they could only accomplish by meeting in
bodies as recommended by the minister (Pitt) in
1782.” -
The time will probably not be long before
the Electors will be again called upon to ex-
ercise their franchise, and this they will assu-
redly do as honest men: they will then set
another grand example before the country,
by returning SIR FRANCIS BURDETT
and Mr. HOBHOUSE, as their Representa-
tives to Parliament.
AN ELECTOR.
Westminster,
March 24, 1819.
32
POSTSCRIPT.
SINCE the Noble Lord's pamphlet was first
published, a Postscript has been added to it,
the sole object of which is to protect the most
infamous corruptions in the Borough traffic.
He says in cases where “ a borough is the
property of an individual and PROOF has been
given to the House that a SEAT HAS BEEN SOLD
FOR MONEY, it should be disfranchised. This
would render the practice of it more dan-
gerous, (he means it would make the parties
more circumspect) and would keep SUCH
TRANSACTIONS MORE OUT OF PUBLIC VIEW,
which would in itself be a great point gained
jor the public; as NOTHING can be more un-
jortunate than when ATTACKS on these accounts
are made EVEN within the walls of Parliament,
upon its title to trust and reverence, no satisfac-
tory answer can be made to them.” -
And this contrivance, this “KEEPING OUT
OF PUBLIC view,” he says, would “exalt the
dignity and character of Parliament: in
other words, the dignity and character of
the People!”
APPENDIX.
The following is believed to be a correct account of the
Whig job, in relation to one of the public offices; and may
serve as one from among the many proofs which might be
adduced of the charge made against them in p. 18.
ADDITIONS made to the Audit Office in Somerset Place, ammo
1806.
One Chairman of the ºf
Board . . . . . 1500 per annum, SERGEANT PRAED.
Four new Members,
each . . . . . 1200 per annum, ANSTEy.
w SARJEANt.
WishAw.
- DEARE.
One Secretary . . . 1000 per annum, MALLETT, a Fo-
* reigner.
Six Inspectors, each . 600 per annum, Mitford.
BourCERD.
Noble.
MATHIAs.
ENGLEBACK.
- HoFFEY.
Four Examiners, each 260 per annum, CAMPBELL.
- PETRIE.
FLINT.
CHILD.
Four Examiners, each 150 per annum, SEYMoUR.
RYLAND.
Wilkinson.
Scott.
With numerous other appointments which increased
the expence of this establishment from about £14,000 to
<f 38,000 per annum; and, after all, the office was much less
efficient than under the old and less expensive system.
John M'Creery, Priuter,
Black-Horse-Court, London.
JUST PUBLISHED BY W. HONE.
In Octavo–Price Eighteen-pence,
A LE TTE R
TO
THE PEOPLE of ENGLAND.
ON THE SUBJECT OF
CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM.
By GRACCHUS.
3ſm the 19ttø3.
I.
In Demy Octavo–Price 4s. 6d. sewed,
THE
o C E AN GAv E R N.
A TALE OF THE TONGA ISLES,
Oft, in my fancy's wanderings,
I’ve wish'd that little Isle had wings;
And we, within its fairy bowers,
Were wafted off to seas unknown,
Where not a pulse should beat but ours—
And we might live, love, die alone. MooRr,
II.
In Foolscap Octavo–Price 5s. 6d. in boards,
THE
A GE OF INTELLECT,
-- OR
CLERICAL SHOW-FOLK,
AND
WONDERFUL LAY-FOLK;
A Series of Poetical Epistles between Jack Jingle in Town
and Bob Blazon in the Country. With an Introduction,
and Notes, Critical, Ethical, Topographical, Chronological,
and Astrological.
By FRANCIS MOORE, Physician.
SUPERB, EDITION OF HONE'S TRIALS.
TO BE PUBLISHED BY SUBSCRIPTION,
IN ROYAL OCTAVO,
EXTENSIVELY ILLUSTRATED BY ENGRAVINGS, COLOURED AND PLAIN, CN
COPPER AN f ON WOOD,
PRICE TO SUBSCRIBERS, 62.2s. IN EXTRA BoARDS,
A
HISTORY
OF THE
Cºp Offitto 33rogrtutiong,
- Isstituted BY
THE K I NG’S AT TO R N EY GENERAL
AGAINST
W I LLIA M H O N E :
INCLUDING ENLARGED REPORTs of
(Libret 5tatt QCrtalſ;
IN THE COURT of KING's BENCH, sº
FOR PUBLISHING
POLITICAL PARODIES,
INTITLED
THE LATE JOHN WILKES’S CATECHISM, THE POLITICAL
LITANY, AND THE SINECURIST’S CREED.
TOGETHER WITH .
COPIOUS ELUCIDATIONS, ADDITIONAL PAROD1Es, SINGULAR SPECIMENs
OF THE LITERATURE OF THE MULTITUDE, AND EXPLANATORY NoTEs.
BY WILLIAM HONE.
LGmü0m:
PRINTED FOR WILLIAM Hone, LUDGATE HILL.
A DDRESS.
A snour time after my acquittals, I made known my intention of
Preparing an elegant and copious edition of my Trials, compre-
hending a more Enlarged Report of the whole proceedings than had
hitherto appeared: and that I had it also in contemplation to en-
"ich the work by numerous graphic illustrations, and to publish
the Particulars as soon as I could collect the materials and ascertain
the expense. Having now nearly completed all my arrangements,
*pectfully offer the following as the contents of my volume, and
the terms upon which I shall be able to afford it to the Public.
J
*—
Jºlº. M'Creery, Printer,
The Work will be an Historical Record of every circumstance
connected with these Trials, as it occurred, and will particularise—
The cause of my publishing each of the Parodies, and of my totally sup.
pressing them.
My Arrest on the late Lord Chief Justice ELLEN Boroug II’s Warrants.
Refusals to plead to three Ex-Officio Informations.
Commitment by the Court of King's Bench to the custody of the Marshal;
the Court requiring excessive Bail, upon the instant, and subsequent personal
motions in Court.
The compulsion of the Court to cause my pleading to the Informations, and
my Protests.
Proceedings before the Master of the Crown Office, on his nominating three
Special Juries to try the Informations, and my Protests on that occasion.
Various Proceedings in and out of Parliament respecting the Parodies.
Abandonment of the Special Juries by the Crown, and, as I imagined, of
the Prosecutions,—being liberated without Bail.
Renewal of the Prosecutions by the Crown. Nomination of three fresh
Special Juries, and my Protest, followed by
My Motion in Court for Relief against the Juries selected by the Master of
the Crown Office. -
The reducing of the three Juries.
Correspondence with the Law Officers of the Crown.
THE TRIALS-when, pleading in my own Defence in Guildhall, London,
during three successive Days, before Mr. (now Lord Chief) Justice ABBott,
and the late Lord Chief Justice ELLENBoRough, I was acquitted by three
several Special Juries of Merchants. -
The Public Proceedings in my behalf will conclude this part of
the Work, which will contain verbatim Copies of all the Parodies,
and every other production, either quoted or referred to in each
defence, with fac-simile Engravings of the Prints, successively com-
mented upon and exhibited to the inspection of the Juries:—these
illustrations being as essential to a thorough understanding of the
Trials, as diagrams to a mathematical work.
The sueceeding part of the Volume will attract the greatest share
of literary interest, being by far the more curious and larger portion
of the Work.
It will include an extensive collection of Parodies, which were not
even mentioned in Court; many of them old and exceedingly rare,
and all on various accounts remarkable. Connected with Parody,
an abundance of Articles will be presented, which, although con-
tributing largely to the amusement of the illiterate, and hourly influ-
encing their manners and character, have scarcely ever been noticed
by the bibliographical enquirer, and are wholly unknown to the
general reader. Subjects will likewise be adverted to more strictly
of an Antiquarian nature, but as strictly within the object of the
Work. To me the execution of this department will be rendered
in a greater degree pleasing by a fondness contracted early in life for
Old Legend and Ballad Story, for the Ancient Lore contained in our
3ſatà Letter Books, and for Popular Facetiae. In this departmen"
the vaeran Bibliomaniac may be agreeably surprised, perhaps, *
finding something new—let him not startle at the word—something
old which he has not noticed ; and the research of the more nicely
inquisitive be directed to a field wherein few have hitherto simpled.
There will, of course, be much historical, political, and literary
elucidation, with numerous Biographical and Bibliographical Notes,
and good Indexes.
A very prominent and interesting feature will be formed by the
several Engravings in addition to those mentioned before. These
will exhibit nearly one hundred subjects, selected from a large va-
riety of great rarity and singularity, not produced in Court, and be
executed in an appropriate style of embellishment. Some few will
be on wood, printed with the letter-press. At the desire of the gen-
tlemen who suggested the publication of the Trials in this perma-
ment form, and with these extensive illustrations, a Portrait of my-
self, from an accurate likeness, painted expressly for the purpose,
will be inserted.
Although my own Collection of Books, Tracts, Prints, and Me-
moranda, which, since the Trials, I have diligently, and almost
daily, employed myself in forming, without regard either to pains
or expense, furnishes the greater part of the materials for the un-
dertaking; yet the valuable stores in the British Museum, in Dr.
Williams's Library in Red Cross-street, and in other public de-
positories; together with the use of Private Collections generously
laid open to my research by their liberal Proprietors, will greatly
aid my endeavours to render the Volume not merely acceptable to
the every-day reader, but desirable to the curious collector.
February, 1819. W. HONE.
The Work, which is in considerable forwardness, will be hand-
somely printed in Royal Octavo, to range in the Library with
Howell’s State Trials, DiBDIN's Bibliographical Decameron, &c.; and
be delivered to Subscribers, Price ºf 2.2s. in extra boards. It is in
contemplation to raise the Price to Non Subcribers on the day of
publication.
SUBSCRUBERS’ NAMES will be respectfully received by William
HoNE, No. 45, Ludgate-hill, London. Country Subscribers will
please to name the channel in town through which they may
desire to pay for their Copies when ready, and have them for-
warded.
ADWERTISEMENT.
*...* W. HONE in the course of the last year, made exten-
sive arrangements for the Sale of Libraries and Collections of
Books by Public Auction. After having received great en-
couragement, and accomplished several sales, he has, from re-
lapses of severe ill health, been compelled wholly to relinquish
this part of his business. He therefore earnestly solicits the
Orders and other favours of the Public as a BooksellER and
PUBLISHER, to which branches he now means to devote ex-
clusively his attention. * *
Just Published, ... --
BY WILLIAM HONE.
I. THOUGHTS ON THE FUNDING AND PAPER SYSTEM,
and particularly the BANK RESTRICTION, as connected with
the National Distresses, with Remarks on the Observations of Mr.
Preston and Sir John Sinclair. By N. J. DeNison, Esq. In 8vo.
Price 3s.6d. sewed.
II. AN ENGRAVED SPECIMEN OF A BANK NOTE–NOT
TO BE IMITATED. Printed on Bank Post Paper; submitted to the
consideration of the Bank Directors and the inspection of the Public;
with the BANK Restriction BAROMETER. Price Is.
III. THE LAMIENT OF THE EMERALD ISLE, on the Death
of the Princess Charlotte. By CHARLEs Phillips, Esq. In 8vo.
Sixth Edition, Price ls. sewed.
IV. EMIGRATION, a Poem, in Imitation of the Third Satire of
Juvenal. In 8vo. Price ls, 6.d. sewed.
V. THE EMIGRANT'S GUIDE TO THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA; containing the best Advice and Direction re-
specting the Voyage, Preservation of Health, Choice of Settlement,
&c.; also the LATEST INFORMATION concerning the Climate,
Productions, Population, Manners, Prices of Land, Labour, and
Provisions, and other Subjects Economical and Political, affecting
the welfare of Persons about to Emigrate to the United States and
British America. By Robert Holditch, Esq. of the Royal College
of Surgeons. In 8vo. Price 4s. 6d. boards. -
VI. AN ENGRAVED PORTRAIT OF LORD BYRON. An
excellent Likeness, adapted to any of his Lordship's Works. Pricels.
\ . In the Press.
I. POLITICAL ESSAYS. By William Hazlitt;
Victrix causa Diis placuit, victa Catoni...—LucAN.
In one volume, 8vo. . - -
II. SIXTY CURIOUS AND AUTHENTIC N ARRATIVES
AND ANECDOTES, respecting extraordinary Characters; illus-
trative of the tendeney of Credulity and Fanaticism; exemplifying
the consequences of Circumstantial Evidence, and recording remark-
able and singular instances of voluntary Human Suffering, with va-
rious interesting occurrences. By John Cecil. A handsome vo-
lume, in Foolscap octavo, with an historical Plate. Price 6s. in
boards.
III. SPEECHES BY THE RIGHT HON, JOHN PHILPOT
CURRAN, late Master of the Rolls in Ireland. An Epirion'
GREATLY ENLARGED by the addition of his Speech on the Trial of the
SHEARESEs, and other Speeches never before collected. With a Memoir
and Portrait. In one large Volume, 8vo. Price 10s. 6d, boards,
#
REFORM OF PARLIAMENT.
—e-º-º-
Čicſ; tımt itſ;tct (ºlcſtto it.
1819.
At a General and most numerous Meeting of the
Electors of Westminster, convened by Public Ad-
vertisement, “on Tuesday, the 9th day of Febru-
ary, 1819, to receive the Report of the Commit-
tee appointed on the 17th day of November last,
and to take the further necessary measures to
secure the Election of Jon N Hobhouse, Esq.”
SIR FRANCIS BURDETT, M.P. in the Chain.
iºnºmºmº
The following REPORT was ordered to be printed:
The GENERAL Committee REpoRT,
THAT a Committee of Electors has been formed
and is in a state of activity, in each of the Seven Parishes, which
compose the City and Liberty of Westminster, and an additional
Committee has also been formed in the Out-Ward of the Parish of
St. George.
That the number of Electors composing these Committees is
more than twice as large as it ever was on any former occasion ;
that the zeal and intelligence of the Members have never been sur-
passed ; and that the favorable result of their canvass is altogether
unprecedented.
That each of the Parish Committees has convened one, and some
ºf them have convened two, Public Meetings of the Parishioners,
and it affords great satisfaction to your Committee to report, that all
those meetings have been very numerously attended; that the busi-
lºss has been wholly transacted by Tradesmen, in their respective
Parishes, and that in no instance has there been any want of ability
for all the purposes of such meetings; but that, on the contrary,
2
the conduct of those meetings has been so judicious and exemplary,
and the speeches of the Electors, who addressed them, have been so
excellent as to excite the applause of the Friends, and to command
the respect of the Enemies of the People.
Mr. Hobhouse has been invited to, and has attended all these
meetings; he has been received with enthusiasm, and in his
speeches he has shewn his intimate knowledge of the system pursued
by the Government, and its tendency towards military despotism;
he has exposed the Corruptions of the House of Commons, and has
declared himself a Radical Reformer—eager to fight your battles,
by the side of your intrepid champion Sir FRANcis BURDETT.
At all those meetings the utmost unanimity has prevailed, and
an eager desire to promote the return of Mr. Hobhouse has been
manifested. A manifestation founded on the conviction of the
necessity of such a Reform, in the House of Commons, as shall
restore those short Parliaments, which, for several centuries (and
until they were destroyed by the arbitrary power of the King and
Aristocracy) were both the law and practice of the country—of such
a Reform as shall make the right of suffrage so extensive, so equal,
and so secure, that the House of Commons may be what it is pre-
tended to be—what the law requires it should be—and what in reason
it ought to be—a real Representation of the whole People: so that
by the extent and equality of suffrage it should be impossible to
corrupt the People out of the House, and by the frequent exercise of
that suffrage, it should be made the interest of the Representative to
act with good faith towards his Constituents, and thus prevent the
Corruption of the Members within the House.
That these opinions are not fallacious—are not the ebullitions
of the moment, but the result of knowledge, and dictated by sound
principles, has been fully proved by the great number of Electors
who have actually canvassed their respective Parishes; and by the
result of their canvass which, by its unparalleled success, has not only
Proved the progress of right habits of thinking in this important
Şity, but utterly confounded the enemies of Reform; and, we may
hope, secured the return of another friend of the People. It has
encouraged us to believe that, henceforth, Westminster will return
none but RADICAL REForMERs.
In the present proceedings there has been, in one respect,
*...deviation from the Plan hitherto pursued by the Electors of
Westminster. Neither Sir Francis Burdett, nor Lord Cochrane,
Were expected to do any Act, which might subject them to the per-
sonal expence which the Law very unjustly makes Candidates liable
* Pay: Sir Francis Burdett and Lord Cochrane were not therefore
Sandidates. It has, all along, been considered that a Seat, even in a
House of Commons which really represented the whole People,
3
while it was undoubtedly the greatest Honor any Man could receive,
would still be an Office of great trouble and difficulty.
In the best state of things it would be just for the People to pay,
and no degradation to their Representatives to receive compensation
for a due performance of arduous duties. In the present state of
things, burden enough is placed upon the shoulders of an honest
Member of Parliament, without his being compelled to spend his
money, much less to beg Votes, from door to door, to obtain the Seat
This deviation was occasioned by the great body of the Electors
not being personally acquainted with Mr. Hobhouse, and from his
opinions on the Vital question of Reform being known to them only,
from general Reputation, and his Speeches, during the last Election.
Hence it became necessary for Mr. Hobhouse to attend the
Parish Meetings, that the Electors might hear, from himself, the
opinions he entertained, and be enabled to judge for themselves, as
to his eligibility to represent them in i'arliament.
The preparatory measures for an Election contest have, in the
present case, been unusually prolonged, and have consequently been
attended with unusual expense, and the time which must still elapse
before the Elect.on can be determined, cannot fail considerably to
augment that expense.
These considerations will, it is trusted, be sufficient to induce
the friends of Reform to continue to aid the funds by their sub-
scriptions. s
Your Committee have applied the Funds, which have been en-
trusted to them, with as great a regard to economy as was at all
consistent with the attainment of their object. -
Your Committee have used every fair, honest, and honorable
means, in their power, to promote your wishes. Attention has been
paid to the suggestions of every Friend to Reform, and they trust it
will be found that no circumstance, of any importance, has been
neglected.
The accounts, when audited, will be published, and the books
and documents will as usual, be open to the inspection of every
Subscriber. -:
The Electors of Westminster consider the business of electing
their Representatives to be their own proper business; they well
know how to manage it for themselves; and, in calling your attention
to the present and former state of our city, the contrast it exhibits
will, it is hoped, demonstrate, to the nation, the great advantages
which would result from a conviction, in the minds of the People at
large, that they are competent to manage their own affairs, without
4
the assistance of any party in the State, or of great and sounding
names, usurping the place of intellect and integrity.
At the General Election in 1807, by your spontaneous exertions,
your most excellent Representative, Sir Francis Burdett, was first
sent to Parliament, without his solicitation, and without his being
put to personal trouble or expense. w
At the General Election, in 1812, Corruption had not recovered
from the blow, and dared not face you. On that occasion you re-
turned two Parliamentary Reformers, one of whom remains with us
to fight the battles of Freedom against the Domestic Foe; while the
other, now no longer your free-chosen Representative, is at this no-
ment fighting the battles of Freedom, in a Foreign Country;-to the
Friends of Liberty, in which Country, he was not more recommended
by his known talents and courage, than by his being your Re-
presentative. -
In 1814, after the expulsion of Lord Cochrane from the House
of Commons, you again returned him free from personal trouble and
expense. - -
In July last, you again triumphed, and it might have been
expected that Corruption would no more have entered the lists with
. . The Election in 1807, contested, as it was, against the power
of both the in's and the out's, was carried, by you, for a sum
under £800.
The Chairing which, on that occasion, was thought necessary,
cost upwards of £400.
The Election of Sir Francis Burdett and Lord Cochrane, in
1812, and the subsequent Election of Lord Cochrane, in 1814, cost
about £800. Six times have the Committees had to contend in
Courts of Law, at great expense, in actions which, as they involved
the Freedom of Election, in Westminster, they were compelled to
defend. *
Upwards of Thirty Public Meetings of the Electors have been
held, on subjects relative to the Liberties of the People.
The Elections in 1807, 1812 and 1814; the contests in Courts
of Law, and the Public M eetings of the Electors, have altogether, in
the space of eleven years, been accomplished for a sum of money not
exceeding £4300; the whole of which, with the exception of a small
balance, has been defrayed by public subscription. -
At the last Election, new and unexpected difficulties presented
themselves: they arose from two canses—ist, The great length of
5
time since an Election contest had taken place; the consequence of
which was, that the Electors had forgotten the necessity of prompt
and mutual co-operation; and 2nd. The divisions among the Friends
of Reform. Those circumstances, by causing distraction, prevented
the rigid economy used on former occasions, from being put in
practice, and the expenses of that Election amounted, at its close, to
the sum of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . £1,199 170
The subsequent Chairing to . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430 12 6
Making a total expense of... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1630 9 6
While the Subscription amounted to... • - - - - S87 12 6
Leaving a deficiency of........ £ 742 17 0
ºmmºnsº
A strict regard has always been paid to moral considerations,
and not one penny has been expended, for any purpose, which an
honest man need be ashamed to justify. No drunkenness—no de-
bauchery, of any kind, was promoted;—no false swearing was per-
mitted;—no rioting encouraged;—no murders committed;—none of
the vile acts formerly resorted to were allowed;—no undue influenee
was, in any way, attempted;—no threats used;—no promises made;
—no hired Voters appeared at the Hustings;–there was no puffing
in the Newspapers;–no attempts to mislead any one;—all was left,
as it ought always to be left, to the good sense of the Electors them-
selves. o
The history of these proceedings does not shew a mere petty
retrenchment, from unbounded extravagance, which it has lately be-
come the fashion of the Outs to recommend as all the Reform the
People should desire. There has been a Radical Reform in manage-
ment and morals, demonstrating that the People, and the People
alone, can do their own business in the best and least expensive
Iſlall Ilêt. *
Even the Hustings, which were said to be the property of those
who could destroy and carry them off, and about which furious and
disgraceful contests were held, have been preserved by the exertions
of You R Committees, and those disgraceful contests prevented.
. Thus has Westminster become a school of political morality,
instead of being, as it formerly was, one common scene of depravity!
No adequate idea can be given of the state of Westminster,
during the time its seats were contended for by the Whig and Tory
parties, Those only can appreciate it, who were observers of it.
old and intelligent Friend of Reform speaks of it thus:–
“I remember several Westminster Elections—l remember the
profligate proceedings—the deep and dire atrocities with which they
were accompanied—the canvassings--the compulsions—the threats
6
—the penalties—the enormous corruption—and the sanguinary con-
flicts with which the struggles of the two ARIstock Atic parties
were attended; when the Irish chairmen, on the one hand, with their
broken poles converted into bludgeons, and the butchers,” on the
other hand, with their marrow-bones and cleavers, ready both of
them for the alarum and the execution of factious slaughter,
knocked down the Electors proceeding to the Hustings or departing
from them, and sought to decide, by open violence, the contests
which their respective employers could dispute no longer, by means
of their abused and exhausted purses —I remember many of those
circumstances well, and every old inhabitant of Covent Garden will
remember facts enough of this description; at a time when Re-
Jormers were not, and Family influence was all in all. Notwith-
standing the hireling cant about the “self-willed multitudes and
democratical turbulence,” yet since the People have taken the Elec-
tion into their own hands, and the contest has no longer been exclu-
sively confined between what was called the Whig and Tory, or
more properly the Ministerial and Opposition families, these disor-
ders have ceased.
“I remember that eontest, in which, if reports are to be cre-
dited, (and I could quote an authority not unlikely to have been
pretty accurately informed upon the subject) two hundred thou-
sand pounds were expended, nay, it has been said, two hundred
thousand pounds by each, to decide whether Charles James Fox or
Sir Cecil Wray should be the representative of this city. Two
hundred thousand pounds—the revenue of a prince—the rental of a
principality—expended upon what ' and how !—the statement itself
involves the answer: in the corruption of morals—in the subver-
sion of all integrity—in the encouragement of drunkenness, riot,
tumult, and debauchery, in the eradication of truth, and the su-
bornation of perjury—the murders with which the contest was
accompanied, were the smallest part of the crimes.
“The two great family confederacies were exhausted by the
gigantic effort, and a bargain was made to rob the people of
Westminster of any efficient vote, or share, they might hitherto have
possessed, in the pretended representation of the country.
“This precious compact was eventually frustrated by John
Horne Tooke. The numbers polled for Mr. Tooke, at his respec-
tive Elections were not great; for Westminster, after all, had not so
far got rid of its veneration for rank and family, as to suffer its
choice to be led by talent and integrity alone.
“The opposition of Mr. Tooke was of vast consequence, it
furnished the means, it afforded opportunities for exercising the
* The great disturbances were occasioned by Irish Chairmen and Porters,
hired for the purpºse by one party, and fellows dressed as Sailors, who were
hired by the other party. The writer is here in error in attributing these
mischiefs to the Butchers. - *
º:
*** *
7
popular franchise, it persuaded the People to think and to feel that
that franchise was of great importance.
“The necessary stimulus to canvass and scrutinize the cha-
racters and tendencies of men and measures was preserved, till
a man was found upon whom the confidence and suffrages of the
Electors could be concentrated, and hence began the popula-
rity and might of the RADICAL REFoRMERs. Thus was pre-
pared the way for the fame, the influence, the envied, more
than enviable ascendancy of SIR FARN cis BURDETT, THE MAN
INDEED of THE PEoPLE, for the people themselves have raised
him to the pinnacle on which he stands. They raised him
because they needed him. Disgusted by personal contests, and selfish
coalitions, and finding places, pensions, taxation and national insol-
vency, oppression, and pauperism, rapidly and continually increas-
ing, they resolved to enquire and to determine for themselves on the
means of their own redress, instead of trusting to the vague professions
of those who had so often deceived them. They sought a leader;
he appeared; he was hailed. You concentrated, and you triumphed.
From that moment, Westminster has been the great well-head,
or natural reservoir of RAD ic AL REForM, whence flow so many
torrents in various directions, which no barriers can stop in their
progress to the ocean of universal opinion and assent. +
“The Radical Reformers are advocates for equal rights, equal
protection, equal laws; they are resolute for what they regard, a
Constitutional Reform, not for a revolution to overthrow the Con-
stitution, for this they have been calumniated and reviled; for this
some of them have been trampled on, insulted and proscribed,
shunned like pestilence, hunted like wild beasts, and persecuted
even unto death. *
“Westminster has proved that, amongst the poorest, the
most uninformed, and unaccommodated, of her people, anarchy has
no party.” .
Your Committee take this opportunity of replying to two
ealumnious reports, which have been diligently and extensively pro-
pagated :-
I. That vast sums of money have heen expended in the Elec-
tions of Sir Francis Burdett and Lord Cochrane.
II. That Westminster has been influenced by a Junto.
To the first accusation, your Committee reply:— .
That no sums of money have ever been expended, but what has
been stated in the accounts, which have, from time to time, been
printed. $
That no sum of money has been expended, by any persons, foy
the purposes of those Elections, except by the Committees appointed
to conduct the Elections.
These assertions are founded on the particular knowledge of
several of your Committee, and are proved by the fact, that if
other sums of money had been expended, there must have been
some one, at least, to have expended them, and that person must
have been known; yet, who has ever heard of such an agent who
has ever related one solitary fact, of a single shilling having been
expended to promote any of the Elections, or Public Meetings, since
1807, except by the Committees of the Electors 2
The enemies of Reform, who have the monopoly of the daily
press, with all the means which it affords, would certainly have known
of money being expended, by others, as well as by the Committees;
and, had money been so expended, it could no more have been hid
from them, or from the Committees of your opponents, or from the
Parish Officers, or from the Tax and Rate Collectors, or from the
select Vestrymen in the several parishes, all of whom have been, at
all times, arrayed against you, than many of the vile practises of
the ministerial candidate and his agents, could be hid from your
Committee at the last Election, .
Your committee not only deny, in the most unqualified terms,
that any sums of money have been expended, beyond the sums
stated in the preceding account, but they challenge all their ene-
mies to shew the contrary.
Your enemies know those reports are false; but they also know
that many persons will be imposed upon by them, and thus made
to believe that the same corruption is still going on, in Westminster,
which they see going on in almost every county, city, and borough in
the kingdom ; they know also, that others will believe those re-
ports, because the conduct of the Electors of Westminster displays
a virtue of which they are utterly unable to form a conception.
To the second aceusation, “that Westminster has been in-
fluenced by a Junto,” that is, by a very small number of persons,
your committee reply:—
That the facts are, and they are as notorious as the sun at
noon-day, or the Corruption of the House of Commons; that at the
several Elections since 1807, the Committees have seldom consisted
of so few as one hundred members; the present Committee actually
consists of upwards of three hundred. c
. These large Committees have necessarily appointed Sub-Com-
mittees from their own bodies, for particular purposes, but they
have always held the means of controuling those Sub-Committees i
9
their own hands, and have, from time to time, examined into their
conduct and accounts, and no Sub-Committee has ever existed,
which was not eager to lay before the General Committee the whole
of their proceedings as often as possible.
Who, it may be asked, compose the Junto ? if the assertions of
your enemies be carefully examined, it will be found that this
Junto consists wholly of your most worthy and excellent Treasurer,
Mr. Brooks, to whose care and accuracy and strict economy, the
City of Westminster is not less deeply indebted, than it is for his
prompt, manly, and liberal conduct, in advancing his own money in
some cases ºf emergency, when, without his assistance, the cause of
Reform would most probably have suffered.
For these advances, or for any other of his services, Mr. Brooks
has not in any way received, and does not desire to receive any
recompence. Never since 1807 has Mr. Brooks been fully paid the
sums he has, from time to time, advanced; but it is presumed, the
Electors will no longer suffer his account to remain undischarged.
The Electors themselves know that they are not, and cannot be
influenced; the folly of supposing the contrary seems excessive, and
would not be worth a remark, were it not that the calumny has
been propagated with an industry equal to its malignity, and may
have imposed on many persons who are unacquainted with the mode
in which the Electors of Westminster have conducted their public
business.
Influence can only be exerted by the rich and the powerful; by the
Aristocracy, the Church, and the Government; every individual of
these bodies is, however, restrained within the limits of his or her
immediate connections; and the number of Electors who, after all,
are influenced, is very few in comparison with the number of those
who are wholly beyond the reach of influence,—who are truly inde-
pendent.
If, then, the influence of these powerful bodies be thus compara-
tively limited, how, and by what means can four or five common trades-
men (and no one has ventured to make the Junto consist of more) act-
ing as a Sub-Committee, influence the whole body of Electors 2 These
Committees have in fact no power, and no influence, all they have
ever done, all they ever can do, has been, and must be, to act
simply as an organ of communication for the Electors at large, who
need no more than arrangements and means of easy communication,
which it is the proper business of such Committees to provide,-they
need no influencing to induce them to do their duty to their
country. -
It was not to be expected that the daily press which had uni-
10
formly been opposed to the Radical Reformers, should, on this
oceasion, have voluntary joined in promoting the Election of Mr.
Hobhouse, and the less so, as your Committee possessed no funds
which would enable them to insert, as advertisements, Notices of the
Public Meetings before mentioned, and the Resolutions passed at
those Meetings. By a calculation which has been made, it appears that
to have inserted those notices and resolutions, once in each of the
daily papers, would have cost upwards of £1000, an expense
wholly beyond their means, or even their desires, since, in conse-
quence of the very large number of Electors who have come forward
on this occasion, other cheaper,-more useful—and more efficient
means of conveying information have been provided; yet, notwith-
standing this, some of those papers have taken a favorable notice of
several of those meetings, by inserting the Speeches of Mr. Hobhouse,
while others have made them known by their violent abuse and
scurrility. One thing, however, is remarkable, but by no means
unaccountable; it is, that the only inorning paper which took no
notice of those meetings (although its reporters attended at some
of them) was the Morning Chronicle, the accredited organ of the
Whigs, and the readers of that paper, were left in total ignorance, so
far as depended on that paper that it was even intended to go on to an
Election with Mr. Hobhouse, and the inference, as your Committee
have reason to know, has, in some instances been drawn that Mr.
Hobhouse had been abandoned.
To several of the Weekly Papers, the Thanks of the Com-
mittee, and of the Electors, are due; not only for the notice they have
taken of the proceedings, in Westminster, but also for some very
valuable articles, well calculated to promote the course of Parlia-
mentary Reform.
Your Committee are of opinion, that the leading facts respect-
ing the conduct of the parties, in the House of Commons, as they
regard the great cause of Reform, should be ever present to the minds
of the People, who should neither forget the conduct of those who
have apostatized from and betrayed that cause, nor your disinte-
rested efforts to promote it.
Your Committee will, therefore, make a few very brief re-
marks on some important transactions since the revival of the ques-
tion of Reform, in 1792. *
In 1792, several societies were instituted for the purpose of
procuring a Reform in the Representation of the People. One of
these Societies, “the Friends of the People,” was composed of
many members of both Houses of Parliament, and of this society
Mr. Grey, now Earl Grey, the Hon. Thos. Erskine, now Lord Ers-
kine, and Mr. Mackintosh, now Sir James Mackintosh, were leading
members. This Society recommended, and was the means of estab-
lishing affiliated societies in various parts of the country.
*
Ji
In 1793, the Petition of the Friends of the People, for Reform
of Parliament, was presented to the House of Commons by Mr. Gray.
Among many other allegations which this Petition contained,
were the following:
I.—“That the House is not an adequate representation of the
People of England.
H.-4: That it is prejudicial to the interests of the People, and
contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.
III.-‘‘That the Elective Franchise is partially and unequally
distributed. - .
IV.- “That the right of voting is regulated by no uniform or
rational principle. …
V.—“That from the combined operation of the defects your
petitioners have pointed out, arise scenes of disgraceful confusion,
litigation and expence, of tumults, disorders, outrages and perjury.
VI.-‘‘That 70 Members are returned by 35 places, where
Elections are mere matters of form, and this your Petitioners are
ready to prove. ...~"
VII.-‘‘That 90 more are elected by 46 places, in none of
which, the number of voters exceeds 50, and this your Petitioners
are ready to prove.
VIII.-‘‘That 37 more are elected by 19 places, in none of
which, the number of voters exceeds 100, and this your Petitioners
are ready to prove.
IX.—“That 52 more are chosen by 26 places, in none of which,
the number of voters exceeds 200, and this your Petitioners are ready
to prove.
X.—“That 30 more are returned for Counties in Scotland—20
by less than 100 Electors each, and 10 by less than 250 each, and
this your Petitioners are ready to prove.
XI.-‘‘That 15 more are returned by 13 districts of Burghs in
Scotland, not containing 100 voters each, and by 2 districts of Burghs,
not containing 250 each, and this your Petitioners are ready to
prove. , - r
XII.-‘‘That 84 individuals do, of their own immediate autho-
rity, send 157 Members.
12
XIII.-‘That 150 Members are returned, not by the collec-
tive voice of those who appear to send them, but by the recommen-
dation of 70 powerful individuals.
XIV.—“That the total number of Patrons, altogether, are 154,
who return a decided majority of the Honourable House.”
It is almost needless to say that the House refused to receive the
proofs which were offered.
In 1794, when Mr. Pitt, Mr. Dundas, and Lord Grenville, were
persecuting the Reformers, Mr. Grey, who was the organ of his
party, said: “That, on a former occasion, Mr. Pitt had, with
others, resolved, that, considering it was in vain to look to Parlia-
ment for a regeneration originating within itself, it be recommended
to the People, thoughout the Kingdom, to assemble during the en-
suing summer, in districts, for the purpose of applying to Parliament
on the subject.”—“ But,” continued Mr. Grey, “W. Pitt, the Re-
former of that day, was W. Pitt, the prosecutor, aye, and the perse-
cutor too of Reformers now! He who thought fit to inflame the
passions of the People, and to instigate them to a contempt of the
House of Commons, then, would not, at present, allow the People to
judge of their own rights and dearest interests, but persecuted with
the real bitterness of an Apostate, his own partner in the question of
Reform. This same William Pitt, who had taught the People to
believe that nothing homest was to be expected fºom the House of
Commons, now asserted that the People should do nothing for them-
selves.” “But, if the language of applying to the People for a
reform, be criminal,” said Mr. Grey, “I myself am guilty, since
I do not scruple to assert, that, from this House I have no hopes
of Parliamentary Reform.—This House will, NEVER REFoRM
arself ; or destroy the corruption by which it is upheld, by any
other means than those of the resolutions of the People, acting
apon the prudence of the House, that point THEY could on I.Y
Accom P LisH by MEETING IN Bodies, as recommended by the
Minister in 1782.—However impugned, Parliamentary Reform was
a cause he, Mr. Grey, would never desert, nor would he, to preserve
power, or to gratify ambition, ever become an ApostATE.”
Nothing can be more severe than the indignation so properly
expressed, by Mr. Grey, against those who had apostatized from the
cause of Reform: and nothing can bring public men into contempt,
so completely, as such unprincipled and shameless apostacy.—When,
therefore, Mr. Grey, and the whole of his party, joined with the
Grenvilles, the unrelenting persecutors of Reform, they justly 1Il-
curred the contempt of the People. One effect of this coalition was,
that the People having lost all confidence in Public Men, seemed to
give up the cause of Parliamentary Reform in despair ; they even
ceased to discuss the subject, and the consequence was that both
sides of the House ceased to talk of the People.
13
In this state was the nation when, in 1807, the Electors of West-
minster emancipated the uselves from the controul of both the aristo-
cratical factions, and once more roused the attention of the People
to their vital interests, and encouraged them to renew their efforts
for the destruction of corruption.
The feelings excited by the Electors of Westminster mainlv
contributed to expose, still further, the enormous iniquities of both
the factions.
The veil which had formerly been attempted to be drawn over
the iniquities of the Borough Traffic was removed, and, at length, as
if to convince the world that the one party was not a jot better that
the other party, the then LEADER of THE Oppositio N, un-
blushingly avowed in D EFEN ce of THE MINISTER “That the Sale
of Seats was as motorious as the sºn at noon-day.” It was this which
induced the SPEAKER to say “That the question, now before the
House, is no less than this: WHETHER SEATS IN THis Hous r, SHA1, I,
BE, HEN cºroRTH, PUBLIcLY SALEABLE *” A propositiou, at the
sound of which our ancestors would have startled with indignation ;
but a practice which, in these days, and within these walls, in utter
oblivion of every former maxim and feeling of Parliament, has been
avowed and justified. *
“The sale of seats,” continued the Speaker, “degrades and
debases the habits of the higher ranks of life, who confess their own
sense of the nature of these transactions, by the concealment with
which they seek to cover them : it taints and contaminates the general
character of Parliament. Fraud, force, corrupt practices, and undue
influence, of any sort, by which the freedom of Election is controuled,
have been reprobated in all ages: IT IS Ess ENTIAL To The VERY
IDEA of ELECTIONS THAT THEY shou LD BE FREE. Such is the
ancient language of the statute of Westminster, in the reign of Ed-
ward I. Such, also, is the modern language of the Bill of Rights.
It is for us, who have before us such flagrant proofs, that the traffic.
in seats has broken through the existing checks, to put it down by a
new law.” ~
But, though the evil was thus openly admitted and thus publicly
condemned; though a new law, by which it was pretended that the
evil would be checked, was made, no effectual means to put a stop
to the mischief, were adopted. The just demands of the people were
called popular encroachments, and to resist them, both battalions of
the regiment, equally regardless of reputation, rallied round the
Minister.
In the mean time, the question of Parliamentary Reform became
the subject of more frequent discussion, both within and without the
House of Commons, than at any former period; and it is a fact, well
14
worthy of your constant remembrance that, in proportion, as know-
ledge increased among the People, and they felt their own impor-
tance, so were they abandoned, first by one, and then by another of
those party men, until, at length, not one of them remained ; thus
proving that they never intended that the people should act for
themselves; and thus it happened that, in i817, when a more de-
cided interest was taken by the People in their own affairs; “the
two Battalions of the well-trained Regiment,” vied with each other
in the abuse of all Reform and all Reformers; but, as if doomed
to sink still lower, no sooner was the late General Election ended,
than the OUTS, thinking they had gained accession of strength, by a
few men from the other Battalion, could no longer contain their
exultation. In the delirium of the moment, when, to their disor-
dered imaginations, the whole power of the state seemed within their
grasp, they published a kind of Manifesto, in which they disavowed
and disclaimed all connexion with Reformers; and, in substance,
declared that Retrenchment and Reform of Abuses was, alone, the
illaster principle of the party. That by retrenchment and the reform
of (petty) abuses, they should satisfy one part of the disaffected, and
that they would combat the other with the strong arm of the law.
Your Committee are fully convinced that no man, who does not
wilfully shut his eyes and refuse to hear, or in any way attend to
passing events, can now be deceived, or led to expect any ameliora-
tion in the state of the country, from any thing but the exertions of
the People in the way recommended by Mr. Pitt, and Mr. Grey. If
the People steadily act upon a resolution to obtain Parliamentary
Reform, they will assuredly save themselves from a military despo-
tism, or a sanguinary revolution.
The Electors of Westminster have always been willing to join
with any man, or any body of men, in inculcating the necessity and
aiding the progress of Reform. It is of small importance to them
what the particular plan may be; what they regard as essential is,
that the plan proposed should be sufficient to effect the object at
which they aim. But they will neither be drawn aside by spe-
ciºus pretences, nor will they cease to pursue their object, because
it is abandoned by others. No apostacy on the part of others—
no disappointments or disgusts will make them relax their efforts,
in a cause, the success of which, experience has shewn to be essen-
tially necessary to the establishment of good government.
Your Committee cannot conclude without congratulating you on
the prºgress made in the cause of Reform, and on the prospect of
the still further progress, the return of Mr. Hobhouse will promote ;
but they cannot refrain from urging you not to relax in your endea-
yours for one moment; they trust every Elector will pursue his ob-
ject as iſ success depended on his exertions alone, and ever to bear in
luind, that victory is never guined until the contest is ended.
It was then Moved and Seconded :
ThAT the energetic Measures which have been
pursued, by the Parochial Committees, be continued until their ob-
ject shall been accomplished.
Upon which the following Amendment was proposed
by Mr. HENRY Huw T.
THAT, in consequence of the proceedings of the last Meet-
ing, held in this Room, having been charged, by several persons,
with having been unfairly conducted, a General Meeting of the Elec-
tors of Westminster be called in Palace Yard, to consider of a proper
person to represent Westminster.
The Amendment, having been put from the Chair,
was negatived by an immense Majority, seveN hands
only being held up for it.
The original Resolution was then carried by ac-
clamation, not more than Tm Elve persons dissenting.
It was then moved and seconded :
THAT the Thanks of this Meeting be given to Sir
FRANCIS BURDETT, for his able and impartial conduct in the
Chair, and also for his continued exertions to procure for the peo-
ple of England their lost share in the Government of the Country.
On the question being put, it was carried in the
affirmative, by acclamation, with only Tmo dissentient
voices.
The Meeting was then dissolved.
London : PRINTED BY J. DEAN, 13, Pola ND STREET.
To me
ELECTORs
OF
WESTMINSTER.
tººl
"EWHE Committee of yourselves who conducted the late
Election, made a Report to you on the 9th of February last.
That Report and the Speech of Mr. Hobhouse on the
same day, roused the spleen of the Whig faction: it could
not bear the truth to be spoken even in part, and feared the
consequences; it knew that from the moment the people
should really understand its views, all hope of wresting the
Government from the hands of the present Ministers would be
hopeless.
The course pursued by the faction for several years past,
proves that they thought the people were blind to its true cha-
racter, and it was prepared to appeal to the people in support
of its fictitious character, by fraudulently pretending that it
had been the cause of Mr. Hobhouse's return for Westminster,
had that gentleman walked over the course; and this was only
prevented by the report of your Committee. If the report
of your Committee had not deprived the faction of the means
of deception, it would through the press, and by the oppor-
tunity it has of addressing itself to the public in various
Ways, have made a merit of returning Mr Hobhouse; it would
have demanded of him, an unqualified support of its party
measures, and it would have branded him as an ungrateful,
unprincipled apostate, had he opposed any of them. It
would have put a cheat upon the Reformers; it would have
gained character with the country by its duplicity, and have
done injury to reform by its dishonesty. -
* The Report, and the speech of Mr. Hobhouse, at once
Prevented the faction accomplishing either of those unwor-
Westminster: Printed by G, Smeeton, 17, St. Martin's Lane.
( 2 )
thy purposes; disappointment deprived it of reason—it
could contain its rage no longer, and it precipitately
plunged into a contest which has happily drawn upon it
the attention of the whole body of the People, and has
enabled a very large portion of them fully to appreciate its
false pretensions. It has convinced them, that there is no
real difference between the Whig and Tory factions, except
the difference which always existed; namely, that the Tories
would exalt the Kingly power, that it might trample upon
the Aristocracy and the people; while the Whigs desire to
establish an Aristocratical oligarchy to trample on the King
and the people. There never was, nor is there now, any
other difference between them, both alike would subject the
people to their arbitrary dominion, and both alike deserve
what the one has long had, and the other has at last obtained
—the contempt of the people! ~
The Whigs have procured a seat for Mr. Lamb, and they
affect to call it a victory; a victory, if it were one, gained
over the people : they however know that it is not a victory.
Had they indeed obtained a victory, their conduct would be
the very reverse of what it is ; the uneasiness they exhibit—
the mean personalitics they indulge in—the petulent and
angry feelings they continually express—all prove, that so
far from having subdued the people, or gained character for
themselves, they are conscious they have sunk, never to rise
agºla. •.
But they have seated Mr. Lamb—how has this been
accomplished 2 *. -
By an appeal to the sense of people?—No.
By any offers of service to the public —No.
. By pledging themselves to pursue measures to improve
the condition of the people —No.
By undertaking to use their efforts to reduce the over-
whº, burthen of Taxation?—No.
By proposing to destroy the demoralising and sav
Excise Lawsº No. y £ age
By promising any REFORM offARLIAMENT:—
O. -
By any one proposition beneficial to the people?—No.
What then have they done which the most inveterate
Tory would not have done?—Nothing. .
In what then consists the difference between the two
factions in respect of the people i-In Nothing. -
( 3 )
They have procured a seat for Mr. Lamb—by what
means ? - *
By a coalition with the Tories against the people
By a coalition with the very party, which during the
former Election, supported Captain Maxwell against them.
By the power of their purse. -
By undue influence.
By terror—by promises—by threats.
By taking advantage of the poverty of the times to
seduce those tºy could not intimidate.
By an alliance with the very refuse of society.
By hiring ruffians.
By treating. -
By other contrivances, which as they will probably be
considered in another place, need not now be mentioned.
. By all the base arts which formerly disgraced Westmin-
ster, and which you had driven away.
In seating Mr. Lamb, they have manifested their own
unworthiness, and have materially assisted in promoting the
very cause they coalesced to destroy.
The country need scarcely be told, that an individual more
or less on the side of reform in the House of Commons, how-
ever desirable in some respects, is of small importance in com-
parison with such an opportunity as the late election afforded,
of unmasking and exposing the people's enemies, and thus
rendering them comparatively harmless : this the faction
begins to feel, and as it has no weapons of reason with
which to continue the combat, it resorts in its agony to those
of personal invective, abuse and calumny.
The Whigs would indeed address themselves to the very
people against whom they coalesced, but they know not how to
address them with effect. A feeble effort has however been
made by Lord Erskine, in praise of himself and the Whigs,
which has the merit (and it has no other) of keeping their mis-
deeds out of sight.—It professes to be in favour of reform, and
would seem to insinuate, that it prefers the plan of the “Friends
of the People,” but it presently declares, that all the reform it
seeks is the disfranchisement of one or two rotten boroughs.
He praises the Whigs for their efforts in 1793, and he con-
demns you for doing the same thing in your Report.
He complains of perverseness in the reformers, because
they have not become apostates; he condemns them because
( 4 )
they still continue to repeat the substance of the petition, which
the author himself and Lord Grey, brought into the House of
Commons: Whig-like, he praises and condemns the same
thing, in the same breath. -
The noble Lord would persuade the people, to apply the
isolated measures which the Whigs at any former time
pursued in favour of the people to the Whigs of the present
day, to the degraded, despised aristocrats, whose conduct
you so lately witnessed; and he would have the people forget
all their atrocious acts against them. *
He praises the revolution of 1688, and insinuates most falsly
that the Whigs are now willing to bring back the government
to what it was then made : he praises the Bill of Rights as a
second Magna Charta, but he takes care not to acknowledge
that the Whigs rendered this second Charter of no avail to the
people : he does not inform us that the Bill of Rights was only
a declaratory Statute in the nature of a preamble to other
‘statutes, which ought to have been made to carry its declara-
tions into effect, which statutes the Whigs took care should
never be made.—He does not say that the Whigs rendered all
the declarations of that statute null and void : he does not tell
us, that in 1688, and for five years afterwards, Parliaments
were ANNUAL or rather SESSIONAL, as they had for
many centuries been, and that every departure therefrom was a
stretch of arbitrary power, under the name of prerogative; he
does not tell us, that the Whigs proposed a bill to make them
triennial, which the King more than once refused to sign, and
that it was not until the sixth year of his reign, that, for
the first time in this country, Parliaments could by LAW be
continued for three years. x - a 3. . . . "
He does not tell us that the Whigs made the septennial act,
to continue themselves in power for seven years, when they had
only been elected for three years—nor that triex called those
who opposed that act Tories—nor that they put a cheat upon
the people, who expected the bill would expire with the W.
parliament which made it—nor that the people throughout
England made bonfires for joy, when that rascally parliament
expired. He has not told us, that the Whigs formed and esta-
blished the Excise Laws as they now exist–nor that they com-
menced the abominable Funding System—nor that they first
made it death by law to forge the paper of their Bank; neither
has he once told us, that all the great grievances of which we
justly complain, originated with the Whigs, who under a pre-
tence of a love of liberty have stabbed it more frequently and
more deeply than the Tories themselves.
He applauds the Whig and Grenville coalition: he praises
the Whigs for having abolished the Slave Trade; but he says
not one word on the other acts of their administration, atro-
cious as those acts were.
Let us take a rapid glance at their acts and deeds in the
one short year of their administration, and thus in some
measure supplying the deficiency of the noble author.
Grenville was one of the fathers of the act to suspend the
Habeas Corpus Act—the Gagging Act—the new fangled
Treason Act—the principal promoter of the war against human
freedom in 1793—the unrelenting persecutor of reformers at
all times; yet from the love of power, and desire of emolu-
ment, the Whigs bowed down under the people's adversaries,
and submitted to be picked out man by man by Grenville.
With the Grenville's and the Windham's, with those whose
most conspicuous attribute was a furious rage against all
reform, they made common cause.
They reprobated the system pursued by Pitt, and Grenville
and Windham, and Dundas; they called that system “ruinous,
inquisitorial, execrable, diabolical, destructive of liberty;”
they said insurrection against it was a duty, the performance
of which duty was merely a question of prudence; yet they
took Place under the Grenville's to carry on the very system
against which insurrection was a duty.
They talked of the extravagance of Pitt's, and Grenville's
administration, of the enormous load of debt and taxes which
bent the people to the earth; yet the moment they got into
power, they told the people to remove from the first floor
to the garret, that the debt and the taxes might both be
increased. -
They called the income tax, a tax “worthy only of the
inquisition”—yet they raised that “ highwayman's tax” from
6; to 10 per cent. ºw.
They increased the assessed taxes.
They laid on no less than seven millions of taxes, which
on the average of the preceding years, was twice as much
as Pitt had laid on. -- * *
( 6 )
They taxed the income of widows and orphans, and
soldiers and sailors, 10 per cent.—They screwed one pound
out of every ten pounds from their pittances, and they ex-
empted the enormous property which the King had placed
in the funds from all tax whatever—This money, which from
its having been saved, was proved not to have been necessary
to support the splendour of the Throne—this money there-
fore unnecessarily wrung from the people in taxes—this
money which had been lent to the government to carry on
wars and to promote corruption—for the interest of this
money they compelled the people to pay taxes. At the
moment they exempted the King's money from the tax,
they made every one else pay : they added no less a sum
than 51,000l. a year to the incomes of the King's sons and
daughters, out of the taxes they levied upon the people,
which Pitt had refused to do; because as they would have
us believe the King was himself too poor to provide for his
children. - - 3.
Besides adding 6000l. a year to the incomes of the Dukes
of Clarence, Kent, Cumberland, Sussex and Cambridge,
they gave to those Dukes from the Admiralty Droits, (from
the money which in fairness should have been divided among
our sailors) no less a sum than £75,000. .
They who had vehemently condemned a profuse expen-
diture of the public money, when out of office, were more
profuse and more extravagant than those they had justly
condemned.
They granted more pensions and to a larger amount;
they crammed more hungry sycophants with the public
money, than had ever before been done in the same space
of time. tº
They seized upon sinecures and all other corrupt sources
of emolument for themselves and their followers, with a
ravenousness, which surprised even the blood suckers they
pulled off. - 3. -
They told the people, that Pitt's conduct was “ruinous,
destructive of liberty, execrable, inquisitorial, infamous; that
the system he pursued justified rebellion:” but when they got
into power, they told the people by the mouth of their leader,
“ that they never voted in their lives with more satisfaction,
than they should do for the payment of his debts (with the
people's money), because it was a tribute due to departed
worth, the reward of a munificent nation to a meritorious
public servant.” Thus treacherously, basely belying their
( 7 )
own assertions—thus inhumanly extorting the substance of
the people on account of him, whom they had declared to be
the bitterest enemy of that very people.
They made Lord Grenville (the co-adjutor of Pitt, the
associate of him and Dundas in all their proceedings against
the liberty, the property, and the happiness of the people)
the auditor of his own accounts : -
They made him first Lord of the Treasury.
They made an act to enable him to hold a sinecure of
434000, a year, with a place of £6000, a year.
They made the Chief Justice Ellenborough, a member of
the King's cabinet council. This, so far as depended on them,
was an attempt to destroy the independence of a judge. -
They placed a judge in a situation “to decide on bringing
a man to trial in that very court, where one of the ministers
whom he had perhaps accused and irritated, would preside,
not merely to direct and influence the jury, but eventually
in his own person, to award the amount of his fine, and the
duration of his imprisonment.” - -
Thus manifesting their hatred of liberty—their hatred of a
free press; thus endeavouring to destroy both; thus º -
strides towards arbitrary power, which Pitt and Dundas ha
never dared to take.
They attempted to levy a tax on the raw produce of the
country—they proposed a tax on iron mines; which they
were obliged to abandon on account of its partiality, im-
policy, injustice and oppression.
They attempted to carry the abominable excise-laws into
private houses; by which, any man’s house might at all
times, both by day and by night, be invaded and searched
by their myrmidoms, and his utensils for brewing be locked
up against him. They said, no man shall brew a barrel of
table-beer in his own house, for his own use, but by our leave,
and under the inspection of our exciseman. No man shall
make a gallon of current wine, but by our permission, and
under the eye of our exciseman. - -
They opposed the Bank Restriction Bill when out of place :
hey continued the Restriction when in place; and
They opposed the bill again when out of place.
They made an act to legalize the employment of foreign
mercenary troops in England, and they increased their num-
ber to 16000.
( 8 )
They made an act to indemnify those who had illegally
employed them. *
They said Hannover was a miserable paltry spot of sand,
which had cost us in money many times the value of all its
land and all its houses, and more lives than it contained
people—they repeated, that it was a mill-stone about the
necks of the people of England—they repeated, that it had
been, and would be again, the cause of mischievous inter-
ference with foreign nations, and the frequent cause of war.
Having, by truckling to Grenville, got into power, they said
Hannover was as dear to us as Hampshire; that we ought to
o to war as chearfully for the one as the other; and they
º no peace should be made until Hannover was re-
stored.
They reprobated and condemned Lord Wellesley’s admi-
nistration of India. They pledged themselves thoroughly to
investigate his conduct; but when in place, they refused all
enquiry. They hunted down the man who accused him,
refused the papers necessary to enable him to substantiate
his charge : they called upon him to prefer his charges with-
out the documents; and when they could no longer withold
them, they told him to “proceed at his peril.”
They made themselves popular by advocating Reform of
Parliament; sold themselves to the Grenvillites; howled
furiously against reformers, and stigmatized those who still
sought reform, with the name of Jacobins.
They offered meanly to give up the Catholic Bill, if the
King would consent to retain them in office; but the King
refused, and kicked them all out.
Yet this is the administration Lord Erskine holds out to
your admiration 1 -
The noble author praises the Society of the Friends of the
People; and some of its proceedings well deserve all the
W. which have been bestowed on them : but do the
higs of the present day support or approve of those pro-
ceedings : Let their whole conduct from the moment they
broke up that society, answer for them. Lord Erskine,
while he affects to bestow praise on that society, takes care
to inform his readers, that all the reform he asks in the name
of the Whigs, is the disfranchisement of one or two rotten
boroughs.
( 9 )
In 1793, the Society of the Friends of the People presented
their justly-celebrated petition to Parliament: it was sup-
ported, by order of the society, by the Hon. Charles Grey
and the Hon. Thomas Erskine. On the 30th of May, 1795,
at a general meeting of that society, W. Smith, Esq. M. P.
in the chair, “it was resolved, after due consideration, to
publish a declaration,” in which they said, that the “right
of voting should be subject to a qualification so moderate,
that there may be no condition in life in which it may not
be acquired, by labour, by industry, or by talents.” They
said their plan would extend the right of “suffrage to nearly
a million and a half of heads of families;” and they “admit
the general right of voting at elections to be common and
Person AL.” They say, “.. it is undoubtedly desirable, for
many reasons, that the collective body of qualified electors
should be as NUMERous as possible; but principally, because
a great number of electors is of itself a better security against
corruption, than the severest laws against bribery, by making
the individual vote of no value, and hardly worth soliciting.
That to reach the numbers, by whom the power ought to be
exercised, it must be EQUALLY AND IMPARTIALLY DIs-
TRIBUTED over the whole surface of the kingdom, by a new
division of the country.” They add, “to us it appears, that
a new division is indispensable, and that we should only
cheat ourselves, and deceive the nation, if for the sake, of a
useless accommodation, we yielded to any project in which
this condition was not included.” “ The whole measure
must not only be equal to the whole of its purpose, but it
must move together, and act at once with all its force :” and
then they say, they will have the whole reform or none, any
thing short of the plan they propose being not only useless
but pernicious.
They proposed “To divide England into 513 divisions,
as equal as possible; to elect one member in each division;
and to take the election of the whole representation of the king-
dom at the same hour and on the same day.”
They said “That a general election for the whole kingdom
'might be conducted without tumult or expence, and completed
in a few hours; and that in future the elections might be
TRIENNIAL, BTENNIAL, or even ANNUAL, As THEY wer E
IN , FoRMER TIMEs.--Members of parliament who acted
faithfully, would be generally re-chosen; but it is neither safe
( 10 )
nor constitutional to leave any Representative very long out
of the reach of his Constituents.” - *
The noble author calls his pamphlet al)efence of the Whigs.
What a miserable defence is that which is obliged to leave all
these matters unnoticed, and to rest itself upon a declaration of
“The great difficulty of suddenly originating and maturing
any systematic and general change in the Representation.”
The society of the Friends of the People say, “After long
deliberation we have fixed on a specific plan and declared it
without reserve.”—Yet we are now to be told that we would
“Suddenly originate and mature a plan”; and for this we
are to be condemned by the Whigs, by those who having aban-
doned all their former pretentions, stare with wonder at dis-
covering that they are no longer popular. They were popu-
lar when they were Reformers.---They are hated by the
people now they are nothing but whics. -
The noble author tells us, his intention is to save the
4t . from being considered, as objects of ridicule or
reproach.” This cannot be accomplished now, when the very
Maine “stinks in the nostrils” of the people. --
Mutch has been said about conciliation. The Electors of
Westminster have always been ready to do . thing in
the way of conciliation, which was not an abandonment of
the principles they have all along supported. But an
attempt has been made to persuade the people, that because
a than was called a Whig, he ought to be considered as one
who supported a reform in parliament. It was necessary
to put this false pretense in its true light, and to prove
that the Whigs were not reformers, and this you have made
manifest to the whole conntry: that cheat will serve them
no longer. , Were the Whigs really Parliamentary Reformers,
there would be nothing to conciliate ; they would then, like
you, desire no other name by which to be designated.
Under the most trying circumstances, nearly 4000 of you
have in the open face of day procłaimed yourselves RADICAL
R E For MERs ; you have thus given to the country a guarantee
for future independent, manly, aud judicious exertions on
tne next occasion : you have thus encouraged the people to
£ontinue their exertions in the same good cause. -
( 11 )
The example you have set is producing, and will produce,
the best effects all over the united kingdom.
The time is past, when party-men for mere party-purposes,
can longer hope to obtain the aid of the people.
The time is past, when a combination of aristocrats to
trample upon the people, can by any contrivance avert from
itself the indignation of the people.
The time is past, when any assembly, whose acts are
opposed to the interests of the people, can have any ground
of hope for the countenance of the people.
The time is rapidly arriving, when the contempt of the
people for the corruptions of the House of Commons, will
compel that house to attend to their request for a radical
reform in the representation of the people.
The time is come, when it is more than ever the duty of
every man to adopt the recommendation of Mr. Grey, now
Earl Grey, made by him in 1794—when in his place in
the House of Commons, he said—“ This IIouse will never
reform itself or destroy the corruption by which it is upheld,
by any other means than those of the resolutions of the people
acting upon the prudence of the House, and that point they
could only accomplish by meeting in bodies as recommended
by the minister (Pitt) in 1782.”
The time will probably not be long before the Electors
will be again called upon to exercise their franchise, and
this they will assuredly do as honest men : they will then
set another grand example before the country, by returning
SIR FRANCIS BURDETT and Mr. HOBHOUSE, as
their Representatives to Parliament.
March 16, 1819. - #
Westminster: Printed by G. Smeston, St. Martin's Lane.
i
|
§
;
;
}
i
;
RESOLUTIONS
O N
PA R L I AM ENTARY RE FOR M,
Moved by £ * ,
Sir FR.1.YCIS BURDETT, tº, tº .
In the ! 3
Hotise of commons,
On T U E S D A Y, the 2d of J U N E, 1818.
1.—That no adequate security for good government can have place, but by
means of, and in proportion to, a community of interest between Governors
and governed; and that the truth of this principle has been unequivocally
recognized in speeches delivered from the Throne by all the Kings of this
j. (except only King Charles the First, and King James the Second) from
º accession of King James the First, down to the present reign, both in-
clusive. º
2.—That on any occasion upon which this community of interest fails to
be entire, the interest of the few, or of the bne, ought to give way to the interest
of the many; and that the truth of this principle has been recognized lil
speeches delivered from the Throne by the Kings of this Realin, of every
family from the accession of King James the First, down to the present reigii,
both inclusive. - - §
3.—That under the Government of this country, no such community of
interest can have place, but in so far as the persons in whose hands the admi-
mistration of public affairs is vested, are subject to the º: ahd
controul, or check of the Representatives of the people; such Representatives
speaking and acting in conformity to the sense of the people. º
- 4.That, according to established usage as evidenced by speeches froin the
Throne, and other public acts, the Members of this House being in their col-
lective capacity styled Representatives of the people, and the powers exercised
by them, being on no other ground recognized as Constitutional ; it is, only
in so far as they are really and substantially Representatives of the people, that
the powers so exercised by them are constitutionally exercised. . . *
5–That it is only in so far as the Members of this House are in fact cheseh,
and from time to time removable by the free suffrages of the great body of the
people, that there can be any adequate assurance, that the acts done by theń,
are in conformity to the sense and wishes of the people; and, therefore, that
they can in truth, and without abuse of words, be styled, or declared to be
epresentatives of the People. r - " --
6.—That no Member of this House ean otherwise than by a notorious fiction
he styled a Representative of any part of the people, other than of the part
‘omposed of such individuals, as have or might have voted on his election.
And, that, by the general appellation of Representatives of the people, is, and
º to be understood Represeñtatives of the whole body of the people.
.—That the sense of the whole body of the people cannot be adequately coh-
formed to, by their Représentatives, except in so far as the suffrage of each
Person in the choice of his Representative has a force and effect, as equal as
*ay be, to that of the suffrage of every other person. And that such equality
ºf force and effect cañ fict have place, except in so far as in the case of each
( : )
Representative, the number of persons possessing the right of voting on his
election, is (as far as local circumstances will permit) the same as in the case
of every other. -
8.—That on the occasion of electing a Representative of the people, no
man's suffrage can with truth be said to be free, except in so far as in the
delivery of it, he stands unexposed to the hope of eventual good, or the fear of
eventual evil to himself, and his connexions from the power or influence of
every other individual on account of his suffrage. -
9.—That the advantage and necessity of comprehensive, equal and free
suffrages has been recognized in divers speeches from the Throne.
10–That the sense of the people can never be truly represented and con-
formed to by the Representatives, otherwise than in so far as those Represen-
tatives are dependent upon the wishes of their Constituents for their continuance
in their situation as Representatives; such wishes of the Constituents being
*: by their suffrages, freely delivered as above.
1.—That though to give this dependence the greatest perfection of which,
without regard to other objects it might be susceptible, would require that at
all times it should be in the power of every Electoral body to remove its Re-
presentative, in the same manner that it is in the power of every individual,
who has granted to another a power of Attorney, to revoke the same ; yet
forasmuch as in such a state of things, the people, instead of deputing Repre-
sentatives to manage their public concerns, would be in their own persons
engaged in the superintendance or management thereof, to the prejudice of the
business of private life; hence it becauſes necessary that this same power of
removal should not have place otherwise than at certain stated, and more or
less distant periods. * - -
12.--That for as much as the dependence of the Representatives upon their
constituents will be the greater, the shorter the term is, during, which the
are exempt from removal; and as 'ho inconvenience can be apprehended from
one election at the least taking place in every year; and as it appears by
divers statutes, and long continued practice in "obedience thereto, that th:
principle at least of annual elections is conformable to the ancient laws and
practice of this realm ; it is thérefore expedient that the people should be
enabled to remove their representatives, and, if necessary, repair the mir
fortune of having made an improper choice, at least once in every year.
13.−That the sense of the people considered as the standard to which th”
sense of their rulers ought to conform, is, not the sense entertained by the
people in any past period of time, and which may have undergone subsequeſ"
change, but on the contrary, is the sense of the people taken in its freshº!
state; and that this truth has been repeatedly recognized in speeches de;
livered from the throne, by his late Majesty King George the Second, and
by his present Majesty. [This resolution contained several extracts from
speeches in which their late and present majesties expressed their satisfaction
on seeing the most certain information of the sense, disposition, and wishes
of the people, by a new choice of their representatives.] ‘. . .”
14.—That by the words SENse, Disposition, and wish Es of the people,
employed in the said speeches, nothing less than the sense, dispositio",
and wishes of the whole body of the people can with propriety be understood;
for as much as if it be the interest and duty of His Majesty, to collect and
attend to the sense, disposition, and wishes of any one part of his people,
it cannot be so in any less degree in regard to any other part, ” •
15–That except by petitions, and eyen by those means no otherwise than
occasionally and partially, and therefore inadequately, the sense, dispositrº.
and wish Es of the people can be conveyed *ś". other mann"
than by the choice made by them of persons to sit and serve in this house *
- ( 3 )
the character of Representatives; and, that except in the said inadequate
manner by petitions, those who have no part in the choice of Representatives,
cannot at any time make known to his Majesty, the part which their sense,
disposition, and wishes, has in the sense, disposition, and wishes of the whole
body of the people. t º & ºw
16 —That for as much as no power lodged in the hands of constituents
can create or maintain the due dependence of their Representatives, unless
the good or evil which may be produced by the exercise of such power
be at all times in the expectation of the Representatives greater than any
that can be made to accrue to them by any othar person or persons whose
interest or supposed interest it may be to engage then in a violation of their
trust; it is therefore necessary, that by all practicable means every Repre-
sentative of the people be rendered as completely exempt as possible from
every such external influence. -, * z - - -
17,--That the offices, commissions, and emoluments, the power, rank,
dignities, and other advantages, which are at the disposal of the Crown,
constitute so many instruments of temptation, by which the Memhers of this
House are exposed to be seduced from their duty, and induced to sacrifice
the general interest of the People, to the particular interest, or supposed
interest of the Crown, its servants, and their adherents. -
18,-That as this house is now constituted a large proportion of the
Members thereof obtain their seats by the appointment or favour of particular
individuals without being elected, or at least without being freely elected by
any part of the People: and that such Members are continually exposed to
be seduced from their duty, and induced to saerifice the general interest
of the People, to the º: interests of their respective patrons.
19,-That forasmuch as the influence of the Crown cannot be exercised and
made productive of its natural effect, without counteracting and overpowering
the influence of the People in the breasts of the Members of this House, so as
to engage them to make continual sacrifice of the interest of the People to the
separate interests of the servants of the Crown and their adherents; such in-
* *
fluence may with truth and propriety be termed a sinister influence.
20–That Parliamentary Patronage not only prevents or interrupts compre-
hensive, free, and equal suffrage, whereby alone the sense of the People can
be made known, but operates on the one hand as a perpetual inducement to the
servants of the Crown to favour the individuals who are possessed thereof, at
the expense and to the prejudice of the People; and on the other hand as a
Perpètual temptation to those individuals to maintain and increase the influehee:
of the Crown from which they may expect to derive benefit for themselves and
their connexions. . . . . . . . . . . , # . . .
21-That by a resolution passed on the 6th of April 1780, it was declared
by this House, that the influence of the Crown had increased, was increasing,
and ought.to be diminished. - -
; 22-—That since that time the influence of the Crown has been greatly
increased, on the one hand by the increase of the public debt in respect of the
taxes, raised for paying the interest thereof, and the profitable patronage and
Power exercised in relation to the several offices and commissions necessary for
the collection of those taxes; and on the other hand by the increase of the
*anding.army, in respect of the patronage and power exercised in relation to
he offices and commissions thereunio belonging, and the means of employing
the same power to stifle the vºice and destroy the liberties of the people. -
23–That forasăuch as no adequate diminution of the influenee of the Crown
*n how be effected, the only resource which remains is to correct this influence
Jº-counterforce consisting of the influence of the people.

*4-That this House taking into consideration the gracious intentions so
- *
often expressed by his Majesty, particularly calls to mind the speech delivered
( 4 ) -
bu the 5th of Dec. 1782, in which his Majesty speaking to both IIouses ºf
Parliament, and after declaring it to be the fixed object of his heart 1,
make the general good, and true spirit of the constitution, the invariable rul,
of his conduct, was pleased to say. “To insure the full advantage of a
Government conducted on such principles depends on your temper, you:
wisdom, your disinterestedness, collectively and individually,–my people
expect those qualifications of you, and I call for them;"—añd again the speech
delivered on the 19th May, 1784, in which his Majesty was pleased to say,
“You will find me always desirous to concur with you in such measures is
may be of lasting benefit to my people, I have no wish but to consult their
prosperity ;”—and again the speech delivered on the 25th of January, 1785,
in which his Majesty was pleased to say, “You may at all times depend on my
hearty concurrence in every measure which can tend to alleviate our national
burthens, to secure the true principles of the constitution, and to promote the
general welfare of my people.” r - ,” . . |
25-That this House taking into consideration the gracious disposition ºf
His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, assures itself with the fullest confi.
dence, that His Royal Highness, acting in the name and on the behalf of his
Majesty, will be pleased to vouchsafe his sanction to all such measures as may
be necessary for placing the influence of his Majesty's People in this House on
a firm and unalterable i. * . - - - -
26.-That therefore this House proceeding on the principles above declared
is resolved to make one great sacrifice of all separate and particular interests,
and to proceed to establish a comprehensive .. consistent plan of reform; in
virtue whereof, the whole people of the United Kingdom, may be fairly and
truly represented in this House; and, in order to that end, this House dots
hereby declare:- - - - . . . . . . . .
1,–That it is expedient and necessary to admit to a participation in the
election suffrage, all. such persons as being of the male sex, of mature age, aud
of sound mind, shall, during a determinate time antecedent to the day of
election, have been resident either as householders or inmates, within the
district or place in which they are called upon to vote. - . . . . .
II.--That the territory of Great Britain and Ireland taken together, ought ſo
be divided into 658 Election districts, as nearly equal to each other in poju’
lation as consistently with local convenience they may be; and that each such
election district ought to return one Representative, and no more. . . .
III.-That for the prevention of unnecessary delay, vexation, and expenst,
as well as of fraud, violence, disorder, and void elections, the election in
each district, ought to be begun and ended on the same day, and that for this
purpose, not only the proof of title, but also every operation requiring more
ifme than is necessary for the delivery of the vote, ought to be accomplished
on some day, or days, antecedent to the day of election, and that the title tº
a vote should be the same for every elector, and so simple as not to be subject
to dispute. . . - . . . . . . .”
IV.--That for the more effectually securing the attainment of the above
objects the Election ought to be subdivided into sub-districts, for the recept
tion of votes, in such number and situations as loeal convenience may require.
V.--That for securing the freedom of election the mode of voting ought to hº
VI.--That for more effectually sécuring the .# of wiſſ and opinion, ſº
between the people and their Representatives, a fresh election of the Memhº
of this House ought to take place, once in every year at the least; saving '"
the Crown its prerogative of dissolving Parliaments at any time, and thereuſ”
after the necessary interval, summoning a fresh Parliament. . . . .
* *: * —º- -*-*-*. -
Smecton, Printer, 17, St. Martin's Lane, London,
Westminster Election.
Reform of Parliament.
At a Meeting of the Electors of Westminster, convened
by Public Advertisement, at the Crown and Anchor Tavern,
Strand, on Tuesday, November 17, 1818,
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT, Bart. in the Chair,
A Letter from the Hon. Doug LAs KiNN AIR D was read, “expressing
his earnest desire, that his services in behalf of the independence of
Westminster, might, as heretofore, be limited to the duties of an Elector,
which alone, consistently with other duties, he felt himself competent to
unhertake.”
IT WAS RESo LV ED,
I, “TH At it is the imperative duty of the Electors of Westminster, to return to Parha-
ment a man of known integrity, that he may there, by the side of our present excellent
Representative, support the just claims of the people to Parliaments, of a short dura-
tion, and to a full, free and equal share in the choice of Representatives.”
TI. “ THAT Jo HN Hob House, Esq. from the known talents and character, is a fit and
proper person to represent the City of Westminster in Parliament.”
H, THAT a Committee, with power to add to their number, be now appointed, to carry
the above Resolutions into effect, and to take the necessary measures to secure the
Return of Mr. Hop Hous E "
The Committee having assembled,
IT WAS RESOLVED,
I. THAT since the year 1807, when the Electors of Westminster took upon themselves to
elect their Representatives, they have thrice returned Sir Fº ANC1s Burdett, and
twice returned Lord Cochſ. AN E to Parliament, on independent principles, free from
all expense whatsoever, to either of them.
II. THAT this Committee will use its utmost exertions towards fulfilling the expectations
• of the Electors, in their endeavour to return Mr. Hobhouse, on the same independent
principles, free from all expense to him.
IHI. THAT many Electors having expressed a wish that the most public declaration possible
should be made by Mr. Hoe Hous E ; and Mr. Hobhouse having not. only made 31
declaration at the public Meeting, of a perfect coincidence of opinion respºtlig
Parliamentary Reforº, but also, that “he should think it no desertion of the Purity
“ of Election as practised in westminster, if he should come to the Husting, there
“ to repeat that declaration, and to answer the questions of the Electors This
Committee, in conformity to the wishes of the Electors, feel themselves bound on this
occasion, to promote theirs and Mr. Ho B Hous E's desires.
IV. THAT to enable the Committee to corry into full effect the instructions they have
received from the public Meeting, it will be necessary that every frieud of liberty should
not only use his personal exertions to promote the return of Mr. Hoe Hous E, but that
he should also consider it his bounden duty to contribute towards the expenses which
must necessarily be incurred.
SAMUEL BROOKS, Chairman.
subscriptions are received by Mr Brooks, 110, Strand; Mr. Robinsºn, 9% Dean Street,
Soho, Edward Langley, Esq. 17. Edgeware Road; and Mir King, 22, Charing Crº"


SPE}}}(CPI

Sir FRANCIS BURDETT,
DELIVERED FROM
&ſiº 3:3ttgtings in Cobent Garben,
o N
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16th, 1819.
&lestminster,
eRINTED BY GeoRGE sm EEton, St. MARTIN's LANs.
1819.
S P E E CH #
SIR FRANCIS Irºr DETT
. . GENTLEMEN, :
I should not have obtruded myself on
your notice on this occasion, had it not been for some gross mis-
representations which have gone forth to the public regarding my
recent conduct; though they are as false, as those by which my
political life has been so frequently assailed, and which time will
contradict as it has done those which have preceded them; still,
when I consider the mischief which they may do, not to me in-
dividually indeed, but to that great cause which l have so long
advocated, I feel it my duty distinctly to shew, that I never have
deserted either the cause of the public, or that of any friend,
public or private with whom l have been connected. I am called
upon particularly to perform this duty at this time, when the lie
of the day will serve the purpose of the day, and be materially in-
jurious to the great cause of Parliamentary Reform.
I am sorry that an individual who wished to put some questions
to me, was not permitted to be heard. Perhaps you may be
inclined to place as little confidence in that person as in any man
alive ; still however it is but fair play that every party should be
heard.
Before I proceed to notice those points which appear to implicate
my own conduct, I cannot forbear to congratulate the people, on the
novelty of the Whig Candidate, or the Coalition Candidate, as Mr.
Lamb may fairly be called, from his uniting the suffrages of both
the Ins and the Outs, that for the first time, a Whig candidate
dare not present himself to your fibtice, without assumuing a dis-
guise; I call it a disguise, putting on the character of a reformer.
lf, before his nomination, the learned gentleman had declared
himself to be an advocate for a Reform in Parliament, he knows that
he would have thrown the apple of discord amongst his party, and
gone far to dissolve that ill-assorted body, of which he inow stands
forward as the political organ—that he would have been rejected
by them as a man who was no moie of a Whig than 1 a.m.
I congratulate the people of England—it augurs well for the
progress of Freedom, that not even a Whig dare now stand before
the Electors of Westminster, without resting his claims to their
support upon principles of Parliamentary Reform. It promises
fairly for the restoration of our rights, that such concessions to
popular freedom have been at length obtained from the present
Whig Candidate—concessions never before extorted from any of
his predecessors. . .
While I admit this to be an advantage, I cannot but wonder that
any person should have such confined notions, as to be persuaded
that the declarations of Mr. Lamb upon the subject of Reform, are
intelligible, while those of Mr. Hobhouse are not : it had been said,
that the principles of Reform which the Whig Candidate avows, were
( 5 )
pagated by Mr. Cobbett, some of which Major Cartwright knew to
be lies, and yet so far from contradicting what he knew to be
false, he by not contradicting, sanctioned all as true. This I
scannot think fair and honourable dealing. I disdain to notice Mr.
Cobbett's falsehoods; but that which is often unfit for a man to
do himself, may be very fit and the duty of another to do for him.
1 will not however, take up any more of the time of the meeting,
by alluding to the feelings of irritated and disappointed vanity, or
sof what concerns individually myself. -
But there is another charge made by Sir Charles Wolseley,
of a public kind. That gentleman has stated, that I was
desirous of making Westminster a rotten borough : I am sur-
prised at that gentleman submitting to become the parrot of a
common calumniator—that he should be induced to come for-
ward to repeat a calumny, which self refuting as it is, has
been however refuted over and over again : that he should conde-
scend to utter the unmeaning jargon, too silly for belief, and too
weak for delusion, concerning Westminster being governed by a
rump faction. What purpose of mine could be answered by de-
grading Westminster into a rotten borough 2 Is it to secure a seat 2
I mean nothing disrespectful to the Electors of Westminster, but I
tell them, I care not ‘ that ' for the seat; and that I am willing to
resign it, whenever they may think it can be better filled by any
other person, for the advancement of those principles of freedom,
in the support of which we have been so long mutaally engaged.
I am undoubtedly anxious to have a colleague who entertains simi-
lar principles with myself, not from any personal consideratich,
but for the promotion of the common cause. On this account it
is that I am anxious for the success of Mr. Hobhouse : and
I wish you to consider, what benefit is likely to be conferred
upon that Cause, by the return of a Whig Candidate, who
is, as it were, a reformer and no reformer—who is a reformer
here on the hustings, but cannot be a reformer with his own party
—a reformer, of whom it is impossible to know, what he is, or
where to have him—a reformer of such a stamp, that he like the
sheep's head which has been paraded before the hustings, the
face of which was black on the one side, and white on the other,
presenting a different countenance, according to the persons to
whom it was turuca, and emblematical of party, according tº
the circumstance of being in or out of place. Let the outs be
in, and the ins out, and the same change will be presented as on
turning the side of the sheep's head : and by turning first oue side,
and then the other, they hope to deceive all parties.—But it
seems the learned gentleman glories in being a Whig : I know
that amongst the Whigs are some of the best men in England; and
I lament it for this reason, that party without principle defeats the
purposes of the good, whilst the character of the good gives strength
to the delusion, and promotes the interested views of the bad,
who are unfortunately the most active and predominant. But I
know not what the Wrigs have done, now or heretofore, that
should make any honest man glory in that thread-bare party dis-
( 6 )
tinction. In my opinion, they have done nothing, or worse than
nothing, by deluding and misleading the people. . At the Revo-
lution, instead of carrying into effect the great principles which
they then professed, they persuaded the people to be satisfied with
a barren declaratory act, and Mr. Johnson, the Chaplain of my
Lord Russell, that honest person, told his patron that the Whigs
had abandoned the cause of the people, and that three honest lines
securing to the nation the right of a fair Representation in Parlia-.
ment, would have been more worth, than all the parade of their
inefficient declaratory bill of rights: the same bill which that honest
and able man, Thomas Paine, had designated as a Bill of Wrongs.
Thus where the people deprived of the fruits of the revolution
and left exposed to evils as great or greater than had ever been
experienced under the rigour of the Stuarts. Another glorious
act of the Whigs, was that act which Dr. Johnson compared
to the creation of Twelve Peers in one day, in the time of
Queen Anne, by the Tories, which,’ says he “was bad enough,
yet was not to be compared to the contempt of national rights,
with which the House of Commons, some time after, at the in-
stigation of Whig GIs M, elected themselves for seven years, having
been elected for three by their constituents'. The establishment
of a standing army in time of peace, and the military government
under which we now live, was another of those acts in which the
learned gentleman, as a whig, might glory ; and this unconstitu-
tional and fatal innovation, for fatal it has ever been found in what-
ever country it has been established, has now a rived at such a
height, that we can hardly walk along the streets of London with-
out being jostled off the pavement by armed soldiers, or ride along
the roads without danger of being trampled under foot by dragoons.
The public debt and system of Bank paper, the sad effects of
which are so severely felt, and which seem to be so destructive
and so utterly remediless, is another blessing for which we are
indebted to the WHIGs, and in which the learned gentleman as a
Whig may glory. The Electors of Westminster have now to con-
tend with one of these glorious Whigs, or rather with a CoA LITIon
Candidate, the monstrous production of the Whig and Tory factions,
* between which two thieves’ says Mr. Ralph the historian, “this
country has been crucified.” But I trust the Electors of West-
minster are now too enlightened to be duped by either party, and
that they have sense and spirit to maintain their own independence
in spite of both ; and whatever may be the result of this contest,
whether favorable or adverse to Mr. Hobhouse, GOD GRANT
THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE SUCH AS TO PROMOTE THE
GOOD OLD CAUSE OF ENGLISH LIBERTY.
F I N I S,
Reform of Parliament.
**
-y ;
Electors of Westminster,
THE Contest in which you are now
engaged, is of more importance to LIBERTY
than any of your former Contests,
The two Aristocratical Factions have
again combined to suppress the Voice of the
People—they have once more laid aside their
disgraceful Squabbles for Power and Plunder,
and have united to prevent Reform.
The Leaders of the Tories, and the
Leaders of the Whigs, with the refuse of all
Parties, now associate at the same Table, and
co-operate in the same bad Cause. Personal
Hatreds the most venomous ; Animosities the
most deadly, are suspended, to ensure the
destruction of your Freedom. They mistake
your Inactivity for indifference to the Cause of
Reform, and hope by its continuance to
triumph over You.
They deceive themselves. You wil
CROWD TO THE POLL, and secure
your Independence, by returning

Mr. HOBHOUSE
with an over-whelming Majority,
Committee Room, King Street, Covent Garden,
February 18, 1819.

SPEECHI
SIR FRANCIS BURDETT,

Qºm the 39ttgtingſ of Çobent (Ratbelt,
On the FIFTH DAY of the POLL, (Friday,) the
19th of February, 1819.
*C*- - -
SIR FRANCIS BURDETT came forward, and was received
with great applause. He addressed the Meeting as follows:–
“Gentlemen, Electors of Westminster, I cannot but congratulate
you on the result of this day's poll (Applause) and when we
recollect that every artifice, every excitement, every influence,
which the corruption of power and delusion of trick could bring
into play against you—when we recollect that every means have
been resorted to, to intimidate, to seduce, to sweep out all the
scourings of the public offices, and of all the other Government
departments—when we recollect, as we must do, all this, and
see no decline of our strength as compared with yesterday, but
still see the spring of liberty fresh and clear, and the friends of
independence ready and willing to come forward to reinstate
Westminster in the proud state she was in before this contest—
when we see all this, we have, I say, reason to be gratified (loud
Applause). We know we have no reason to despair, for our
cause is the cause of the liberty of the country—a cause never to
be despaired of by a patriotic mind (Applause). Experience
tells us that the Electors of Westminster are not easily brought
into action ; it is not the work of a moment to get them
forward. We know that they are staunch friends of liberty, and
that the enthusiasm which that sacred principle imparts, is struck
among them by collision, and by the appearance of men among
them, whom they know to be opposed to the cause of freedom,
and to their best interest. We all know that it takes more trouble
to rouse a lion than to start a hare (Applause.) The venal and
corrupt press has told you, that when a lion was expected to
be roused, nothing appeared but the braying of an ass. I tell you
the lion of Westminster begins to rouse himself, (great Ap-
plause.)—The puny efforts of low aristocracy, the low and piti-
ful tricks of the possessors of Noble names, and of high rank
and influence, who have degraded themselves by 'stooping on
the present occasion to promote their views by miserable strata-
gem and artifice, and that unnatural coalition between the Court
and the sham friends of the people on the spot, where previously

* – - - - * - - * -*
- w -
—r-r-
* Mr. Hunt spoke before Sir FRANcis Burpet.T.
2
the Ministerial Candidate, and the People, were alone opposed-
add to this, that monstrous addition which they received by the
advocacy of the last Speaker,” have shocked, and disgusted all
good minds. (Great Applause.) You see in this monstrous
combination, art, malignity, wickedness, corruption, and power—
all united to destroy the understandings of the People of West-
minster; and, notwithstanding their united efforts, I promise
you, that, after seeing them as they are, you will in the end see
them overcome. (Great Applause.) I am sorry that you did
not give the proper attention to the Persons who had previously
addressed you, because the Cause of Truth must prevail when
it is heard. I am sorry Mr. Lamb was not heard; first, because
he may complain of the treatment you gave him ; and, secondly,
because it would be much better to have his observations heard,
that they might, if it appeared necessary, be answered on the spot.
He told you, that my friend, Mr. Hobhouse, was a great jester,
and he himself proved that he would be the same, if his wit were
willing, and if not willing when it ought, he would attempt it
when he could. Notwithstanding what Mr. Lamb had said about
Mr. Clarke, whom he discovered to be a Barber, and the sneer
he made at this man's trade—as if, because of his being a Barber,
the whole fraternity of Barbers must be his enemies—I must say
that the punning upon Whig and Wig, did not throw aside the
man's question. But putting away the equivoque, I think I may
say, that the Barber shaved the Lamb’s head very closely.
(Loud Laughter.) If this Lamb's head is often presented before
you, I should not wonder if the Barber in the end would cut off
his ears. (Laughter—a voice in the crowd, “ be more serious,
“Sir Francis,”). But to become more serious, as I am properly
admonished to be, and if I have been betrayed on this occasion
into the errror of levity, I hope it will be attributed to Mr. Lamb,
who set me the example. The great question before you,
Gentlemen, is, not whether this man or that man shall be re-
turned—it is not whether this Whig or the Tory is the better man.
No, but whether the great ºi. of Radical Reform shall or
shall not receive your support—that is the question.—(Applause.)
–And I say, Mr. Lamb and the Whigs delude you when they
talk of Reform, and avow themselves Reformers. Mr. Lamb
comes here clothed in the disguise of Reform—he will not
speak out, and declare his principles in the plain and intelligible
manner in which Mr. Hobhouse does, and yet he talks of Re-
form and the Constitution, and all this at the time when in
answer to a plain question he says, he does not understand the
history of the rotten boroughs. I understand he said he had
not studied the question so well as the Gentleman who put it
to him—— :
Mr. LAMB-4* I never said that.”
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT observing that Mr. Lamb was
anxious to cxplain, stopped to give him that opportunity.
:3
Mr. LAMB said—“ I never said what has been imputed to
me. I did say when the person enumerated a long list of bo-
roughs, and described what he represented to be the particular
state of each, that I was not so well versed as he seemed to be
in such a mass of details; but I agreed with him in saying,
that if the abuses he pointed out existed, they were great
grievances, and ought to be removed. I have since found that
the information given me by the person who put the questions
respecting the boroughs he enumerated, was in many parts
erroneous.”
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT resumed.—“ I told you just
now, that it was more difficult to rouse a lion than to start a
a hare ; but the gentle Lamb, it seems, has got angry at last,
and has become a roaring lion.— (Laughter and Applause.)—-
I should be sorry not to take any man’s words but as he says he
uttered them, or interpret them differently from what he inter-
prets them himself; but this I will say, that if Mr. Lamb
never uttered the expressions attributed to him, let him now,
for it is not an improper time, let him now speak out on the
great and vital subject of Reform.—(Applause.)—Let him speak
plainly and intelligibly to the people of Westminster, what are his
sentiments upon the subject.—(Applause.)—It requires no time,
nor labour, nor reflection to ponder upon the bearings of the sub-
ject. Every body has heard of and read the Petition from the
Friends of the People, in 1793—every body knows it was
demonstrated in that Petition, that 150 Borough Proprietors
returned a Majority in the Commons' House of Parliament.
(Cries of ‘Shame "J–Does it require consideration, know-
ledge, or information, or any thing but the plainest under-
standing and ordinary integrity, for a man to say, whether
this is, or is not an infamy which ought to be any longer en-
dured 2–(Applause). I beg, most pointedly, to impress upon
your minds, the necessity there exists on the present occasion
of openly exerting yourselves, and using every means in your
power, to maintain not only your own independence, but to
shew the coalition of Whigs and Government, that you are not
such unprincipled dolts as to suffer yourselves to be held out as
the spectacle you are represented to be in daily venal Press, as
persons in whom no lasting confidence can be placed (Crics
of ‘Shame”)—as persons whose support is not at any time of
any importance, from its feebleness and uncertainty. Shew
now by your acts, that you are not only attached to the great
principle of Reform, but that you are sensible of the necessity
of upholding that reputation you have gained, and preserving
its example for the benefit of the People of England—that you
are not these ſickle, shallow, and uncertain beings you are so
falsely represented to be. Whoever reads the Public Papers,
Will see how false the particular statements are which relate
to the occurrences of this place. The Morning Chronicle, or
4
rather, the lying Chronicle, for that is its proper name, that
Paper which goes beyond all other Papers in its falsehood and
malignity, has published a Hand-Bill of a ludicrous kind, as-
serting that a triumphant Chair was prepared for Mr. Hob-
house; now, this has no foundation whatever in point of fact—
it is absolutely false from beginning to end, and yet The Chro-
nicle, in a Note of the Editor's, asserts that the story was true,
and founded upon a fact. There is a hired party here, it is said,
to stifle Mr. Lamb's voice—now, from all that I have been able
to hear, and, I believe, I have heard every thing, this charge
is utterly false, it is entirely destitute of a scintilla of truth.--
But that which is here of the first, of the greatest importance,
is, the security of the election. Bestir yourselves then, Elec-
tors, and shew your enemies that you are determined to main-
tain the reputation you have so honourably acquired; and not-
withstanding the compassion of The Courier at my situation,
as deserted by you, and motwithstanding the piety of The
Courier (for it is a pious paper)—ſ A laugh)—which was
shocked at my quotation from Ralph, the historian, that be-
tween these two thieves (the Whigs and Tories) the Consti-
tution was crucified—notwithstanding all this, do you perform
your duty. The Courier, indeed, in ignorance that my ex-
pression was a quotation from Ralph, became shocked at my
invention of the image—they were shocked at my using it.
Notwithstanding these deep expiessions of piety and compas-
sion from The Courier, I hope you'll prove yourselves, as you
hitherto have done, to be the steady fiends and champions of
the principles of English liberty—(Applause)—and that so
long as I maintain those principles, which have made me the
object of your choice, and which it has been the practise, I
may say the business of my life to assett and enforce—that so
long as I continue to maintain those great principles, and I
trust I ever shall be found to maintain them, I shall have from
you, the people of Westminster, the advantage of your coun:
tenance and steady support, and that the people of England
will also have from you the benefit of your glorious example,”
(Loud Cheers.)
Printed by W. MOLINEUX, 5, Bream's Buildings, Chancery Lamé.
+
Mr. H O I, II O U S E,
At the End of the 5th Day of the Poll at Westminster,
19th February, 1819.
, s P E E CII . .
GENT LEMEN, > -
. . . . t TH E Coalition is not so successful
to day as it was yesterday. They were about 400 a head
upon yesterday's poll, and they are only, as I am informed,
145 a head upon this day's poll, (applause). Perhaps I can
account for it.
Yesterday—their net AIN Ens were fed, they had what
they called A PU is Lic BR EAK FAst at Devonshire House, and
another at the Hummums, the poll was swelled by those
electors, who having lost their independence, were thus dragged
to the Hastings, and this accounts for their success: to day
they could find none mean enough, and none dependent
enongh, to be fed by them, and this accounts for their de-
ficiency. In a small town, this would be called Treating—
I know not why it is not considered so here. Whatever it is
called, it is mean, shabby and Whiggish (loud ſoughter).
Are you to be treated out of your votes? (cries of, we necer
shºtſ/ ) Will you be so deluded ? (no never.)
The Whig and Tory Coalition however remains just as it
did, and both are acting together against you. Recourse
has again been had to the old corrupt practices, which too
long disg; accº your city. A nobleman went about canvass-
ing this day with the steward of another nobleman on his
arm, to intimidate the tenants to vote for the Whig Candidate.
You have heard of the influence of a Junto—By whom
are they so called By your enemies! Of what does it
consist : {}i Committees appointed by yourselves | Com-
mittees of Tradesmen. Did these respectable tradesmen ever
attempt to bribe you with a breakfast 2 (no never.) Did they
ever procure noblemen's stewards to intimidate their tenants
to vote * Did they ever canvas with their intimidating letters,
to make them vote one way, when they thought another ?
The Whigs say, if they have Government support, they can-
not help it : No-nor could they help it if the Tories gave
them a place (applause and laughter.) - -
The Whig Candidate has called me a second Joe Miller
(a laugh.) It is very odd that I cannot please the Whigs do
what I will, he called upon me to enliven my speeches with a
little humour, when I attempt to follow his recommendation,
he says, I am too jocose. ſº him at all. You
heard him sneer in the words of a song at “the spruce Mr.
Clark.” Now Mr. Lamb is one of the wits of the party. If
this is the extent of the wit of the party, I am sorry for it—it
Wont do—I must go to another school (laughter.)
( 2 )
But let us look at his principles.—He first told you, they
where those of Sir S. Romilly. He next says, that his prin-
ciples are his own, and that he will not have them counter-
signed by any man. Then he talked to you of the principles
of the Glorious Revolution, and said that he cherished those
principles. The Tories said the same ! . The Whigs pro-
posed Catholic emancipation. The Tories, opposed it, be:
cause they revered the principles of the Revolution 1; and
they forsooth rallied round the Constitution!! So say the
Whigs —They too rally round the Constitution And they
oppose the People! This is all Whig delusion : pure and
naked W H IG G E R Y |
But this declaration of Mr. Lamb's, not being attractive,
he made another, and became suddenly the Friend of Reform
—the Friend of Reform . When the plain honest intelligent
Citizen (Mr. Clarke) went to put a plain question to him
on the Boroughmongering system, he avowed his utter
ignorance of this system ; and now he calls him “ a SPY.”
(Shame! shame! ) He calls an Elector of Westminster, who
goes to put a plain question to a Candidate at a public Meet-
ing of his Parish, “A SPY.”—But this witty Gentleman
has since found out that this honest Elector was a BAR BER
And his wit could take no higher flight than to ridicule this
WORTHY man's calling. Does he think of obtaining his
lºlection by ridiculing the occupations of his Constituents 2
But this honest BA R B E R,in proving that he was better informed
than this learned I. A wy ER, has done good service to the State.
He has made manifest the ignorance of your would-be Re-
presentative —and for this he to is called A SPY! r
Let me put this question of Reform to the Whigs distinctly.
They say—I would limit your Right of Suffrage. y
I say—l would extend it.
They say—I would not have all Housecpers vote.
I say—I would not stop at Housekeepers.-Will they go
as far as that 2—ASK them, Gentlemen.
They say—I am not for Annual Parliaments. -
I say, I am.—Will they go as far as that.—ASK them,
Gentlemen.
Will they give you any Reform that will destroy Corrup-
tion —Will they 2—ASK them, Gentlemen.
| Will they consent to cut up the Borough System altoge-
tler 2—Will they destroy the prepondering influence of
Aristocratical families in the Elections of the People —But
these are questions of too delicate a nature to be put to a Man
who has lived all these years, and yet remains ignorant of the
Borough System :-A learned lawyer too! One might have
throught his very briefs would have taught him better.
The Delusion of Reform being to be had from Whigs of
Whiggism is about to be dissipated. It is for you to shew that
you will not be robbed of your Rights by the United Factions.
—4–
- L. - - - …t ... * * * * -- . - *º-º-ºr-
G. Smeeton, Printer, ſº, st. Martin's Lane,
#pccribes
OF

J. C. HoBHOUSE, Esq.

Sir FRANCIS BURDETT,
D E LIVE RED FROM
Çijt ſºugting; in Couent Garūtu,
ON
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24th, 1819.
------- - - - - ------ ---------------. ------- -- ---...----, - … r..…” --- ~~~~ --~~~ -------
&ſc3tminster ;
PRINTED BY GEoite E SM Eeton, ST. MARTIN's LAN E.
1819.
SPEECH
OF
J. C. H. O B H O US E, Esq.
GENT LEMEN,
THIS is a bad day for us, in more senses than
one, the weather for the last hour has been so unfavourable as to prevent
a great number of those who would put their legs forward in your cause;
from coming to the Poll. I was not aware yesterday, when l promised you
greater success, that this day was a holiday at the Public Offices, and that
of course our opponents had leisure to bring up a great array of persons
in the employ of Government against us. Though I was aware, that
our opponents had the support of Government; yet, I was not sensible
until the present moment, that the COALITION was so complete
The WHIG CAN DIDATE, in an Advertisement published this day,
appeals to the friends of real freedom and independence for their support.
I suppose then, that as he particularly directs his exhortation to the
friends of real freedom and independence, to come up against you;
he means to insinuate, that you who have so long upheld what we so
foolishly call “Independence of Westminster,” have been the advo-
tates of slavish dependence; and that your worthy Representative Sir
FRANcis Bu RDett, instead of being the Representative of the real,
Wishes and sentiments of the Electors of Westminster, has, in fact,
been returned only by the friends of false freedom and truckling
dependence ".
The chief merit of a WHIG, must, as I suppose, consist in his op-
Position to Ministers. Now, I wish to know on what account a WH16,
should at the present moment, come forward to attempt to deprive you
ºf your rights—you who since 1807, have returned both you Represen-
"tives, although before that period, the Whigs, by all their efforts,
°ould hardly return one ! I do not understand how this WHIG who
"sts his claim to public consideration on his opposition to the views
* Government, can come forward against a popular cause like yours,
While you are engaged in continuing your efforts to return two Members
( 4 )
who would oppose that Government! The time was, when notwithstand-
ing all the efforts of the Whigs, you were obliged to submit to have
one Cinque Port Member, out of the two you returned —You will all
recolleci, that Mr. Fox was obliged to have an Admiralty Co-partner!
Why it is we are called, and by the Wii 1Gs too, the friends of false
freedom, and not of Independence, who have rescued Westminster from
this thraldom, remains for them to explain. I cannot understand, why
they should object to your returning you own Representatives, with free-
dom and Independence, save and except it is, that they had not, as for.
merly the sole nomination of one of your Candidates. I can only thus
account for their objections to your returning two decided opposition
Members; two, who, though they did not belong to the regiment, would
always be found sitting and voting on the same side of the House with
their 13atallion.
For three months past, you have been exerting yourselves to support
your Independence. During that period, you presented such a face to
the Court Candidate, as to drive him hin completely out of the field.
The W H IG's gave you no assistance 1 They said they would maintain
an armed neutrality ; that they should like io see “what sort of battle,
the l8eformers could make against the Court.”
I complain of their conduct in this instance to the Independent
Plectors of Westminster. During near three months exertions, you
heard nothing of their intention to interfere; but, when they found you
had effectually expelled the Court Candidate, they treacherously (I hope
I do not use too gross a phrase) came forward to rob you of the fruits of
your Victory. This is a plain statement of the contiuct of the Whigs,
without any exaggeration. I appeal to you then, to know whether it
is not a fact, that at the time your efforts were exerted to support your
Rights, against the Machinations of Government, the WHIGs stood by
and did nothing. As to the motives which impelled them to this line of
conduct, I think it candid to state, that my insignificance, of which I
have a proper idea, might have been some small inducement; but yet,
it could only have been a small one; for I cannot believe, that it is
against me, that they have put themselves in their present array. No,
I'll tell you against what, an i against whom they direct their hostility,
It is against the paramount question of REFo RM IN PA R LIAMENT
—Against this their efforts are directed, but above all, and confessedly
so, to pull down the character of your great Representative, Sir FRANC13
BUR DETT | Every body knows that this is the fact. If they dared to
speak the truth, this would be found their real aim and end. " I do not
say they hired a man to malign his character; but at the moment the
Ruffian who used to stand at that corner of the Hustings, calumniated
it, they showed no feelings of disinclination to hear him—then it was
that the Whig CANDIDATE, in mock condolence, said he was really
sorry that the Hon. Baronet appeared to lose his influence with the
people. I shall say nothing of the extreme modesty, delicacy and
propriety of a young man, (pointing to Mr. LAMB) taunting you.
( 5 )
with a falling off of your favor towards your Representative. I shall
say nothing of the decency that prompted him to feel that he was likºły,
to be the instrument of pulling down the fame of Three and Twenty
Years public virtue and services. He and his friends will live to rue
this intemperate triumph over the feelings of those who returned such,
a Representative to be the advocate of their Rights—a Representative
too, who was not only known in Westminster, but in every part of
England, as the undaunted Champion of the People. The W H IG
PARTY, had no right to come forward here on popular pretexts, to
snatch from you, your Independence. When I saw a banner inscribed,
“ Laws and Liberty!” I thought at the moment how impossible it was,
to put together two more incongruous words. What the kind of Liberty
is, which they destine for you, their efforts sufficiently evince 1
I am perpetually hearing complaints from Electors of the tyran-
nical influence which our opponents employ to bring voters to the
Poll. I know not what they call “ LIBERTY,” but I am sure you will
not wish to have your liberties handed over to the great families at the
West End of the Town, who would lord it over the people, and pre-
scribe to you who you should choose to be your Representative.
There is an important question which ought to have been decided
before we came to the Hustings; that is the question of the payment of
Poor Rates, the nonpayment of which, according to the decision of the
High Bailiff, is disfranchisement. This surely cannot be either law, or
reason. The present returning officer in this Case acts upon his own
precedents, and as I understand upon the decisions of two Committees of
the House of Commons; but the Shaftesbury Case in 1812, (which
is later than the two he acts upon) is contrary to those decisions. It
is surely very absurd to say, that when the Collectors have an op-
portunity of distraining for arrears of rates, they should be invested
with the power of disfranchising. It is very absurd to imagine, that
the nonpayment of a debt, either to the public or an individual, should
be punished with the disfranchisement of the debtor. See the state in
which this places the people! The pressure of the times has in fact
put it in the power of the High Bailiff to diminish the franchises of the
people : So that the corruption which caused this deplorable defalcation,
is to make it the means of still further oppression. That is, in fact, that
they who are rendered poor and distressed and miserable by taxation,
should be also made to suffer in their civil rights. I do not mean to
impute to the Rate-Gatherers any improper conduct—they must be
governed by their orders, but the consequence of this decision is, that
by the numbers of Electors who have been thus disfranchised, I have
lost a majority on the present poll. You ought from this very circum-
stance, to be more watchful whom you should return for Westminster,
when you see that this decision has the effect of restricting your elective
franchise at the moment when, in common with the whole kingdom,
yºu are demanding an crtansion of that valuable right. -
( 6 )
I hope it will not be deemed presumptuous and arrogant for the
to"entreat that you will hear my opponent. I should have made this
request earlier, but that I recollected when a friend of mine made a
similar remark at the last Election, he was described by the Whigs, as
being arrogant and presumptuous for making it. I shall not however
be deterred from incurring a similar imputation, but again request that
you will give my opponent a fair hearing.
[Mr. Hohfrouse delivered this Speech to an immense crowd, during
a heavy fall of snow. He was frequently interrupted by enthusiastic ap-
plause, and at its conclusion the people testified their satisfaction by repeated
shouts.]
Mr. Lamb attempted in vain to obtain a hearing ; and said, since they
werenot inclined to do so, he would wish them goodbye ||
SIR FRANCIS BURDETT, then said
GENT LEMEN,
- AFTER the eloquent speech you have just heard from
Mr. Hobhouse, and in the present state of the weather (it snowed very
fast) I should be sorry to detain you above a very few minutes. I
cannot congratulate you this day on the state of the Poll. I cannot
congratulate you on the success of the cause we are endeavouring to
support ; but I can congratulate Mr. LA MB at not being this day seen
in that unseemly company in which he was placed on former days.
I do sincerely congratulate Mr. LAM b that he is without the associate
who used to stand on the same plank with him. I do this with the
heartfelt sincerity with which he gave me his condolence for lººf
lost, as he was pleased to say, the good opinion of my countrymen.
think it very possible that an honest and upright man in the straight
forward path of his duty, should by delusion and misrepresentation:
have lost the good opinion of some of his countrymaen. God forbid
I should alter the course which I was convinced it was right to pursue,
from any fear of losing for a time the good opinion of my constituents,
because I am convinced that truth in the end must triumph, and that
then the man who has suffered by temporary unpopularity will be
plaged higher than he was before in the public esteem—when a man's
principles are founded upon honesty and truth, he need never stand
in awe of any changes of popular sentiment. One of the great reasons
which induced me to stand here from day to day is to ascertain whether
the fact be, that I have lost any part of the confidence you reposed
in me, and also that I desired to shew you I was not afraid of any
enemy who may wish to arraign my conduct. I appear here ready
to explain the principles of my conduct, and to answer any questions
which may be put to me, relative to the public principles which I have
made the rule of my public life. I came here to day, particularly to
answer the charge which was brought yesterday against me by Mr.
( 7 )
Bowie–(he is a turncoat, said somebody in the crowd.) I do not know
anything of Mr. Bowie, he may be a turncoat, but the charge he brought
against me, is not from a turncoat, but from Major Cartwright. . You
would not hear the charges yesterday, but they are published this day in
the Morning Chronicle. I was asked these three questions:--the First
was, -Why I thought the Major did not wish to be in Parliament?—the
Second—Why, I thought he could not be carried into Parliament, suppos-
ing he had our support.—the Third was—What charges the Major counte-
manced, which he was conscious were false as put forth against me in
the writings of Mr. Cob Be TT.
As to the first Question, I knew indeed that the Major had been put in
nomination in three places, Nottingham, Boston, and Thetford, but I did
not collect from this, and I certainly did not think, that because a
man stood a Candidate, there was any reason to believe he wished to be
in Parliament: for I knew, that that honest and able man, and true and
real friend of his Country, Mr. John H on N E Tooke, had stood on
these Hustings, when he had no notion of obtaining a Seat. He came
here, not in the expectation of getting into Parliament, but to expose
the juggles of faction, and to assert those principles of freedom, of which
during his whole iife, and that a long one, he had been the homestest and
ablest advocate. As to the second question, it was from my knowledge
of the feelings of the Electors of Westminster, and the Major's own
experience of his attempt, that I thought it impossible his Election
could be carried: that being my opinion, as it was and is, I was bound
to speak it out honestly, to those who put the question, and it ought not
to be considered a want of respect to the Major, or any unwillingness to
pay him the respect he deserves, that I declared, what I thought to the
Electors, and concurred in the necessity of putting in nomination a
Candidate more likely to meet the general support of the Electors of
Westminster, and who was a staunch promoter of our great cause.
I see in the Morning Chronicle of this day, the Major says, that I
was incorrect in supposing he meant to convey an opinion that I was
likely to follow the Duke of Richmond's example, and give up my
opinions for a place—the Major says he only meant to place the Duke
of Richmond's example before me, but not to insinuate that I should
desert the Cause of Freedom. I give him credit for meaning only what
he says he means; but when he says that a man is not a rogue, and that
he only means to say he may be one, the explanation is hardly very
courteous. . It reminds me of what Falstaff says in the Play, “if you
“ call this backing your friends, a plague upon such backing.” The
Major challenges me to put in proof of his having countenanced any of
the insinuations of Mr. Cobbett, which he knew to be false. What I
imputed to the Major was, that by not contradicting the Statements
which he knew were not true, he did to a certain extent countenance
other falsehoods of that writer. Without mentioning any thing that
can be deemed of a private or particular nature, I only call upon you
to mind the statement of Mr. Cobbett, that I paid the expences of the
( 8 )
Westminster Committee, and paid all their attendance, that it was 1 who
paid what he calls the Rump-that it was 1 who paid Mr. CLEARY
for insulting Mr. HUNT—that it was I who paid for forging a Letter,
or for a letter which was a pretended forgery. The MAjo a knew all
these statements to be false, Mr. Cleary was no Agent of mine, but he
was Major CART w Right's Agent, and he was Major CART w Right's
own private Secretary at the time Mr. Cobbett said he was my Agent,
to carry on the intrigues of what he pleased to call the Rump. When
the Major alluded to the statements of this Writer, he might at least
have said that he knew a part to be false, and that therefore a willing
credit ought not to be given to the rest. I freely give the Major credit
for being a Man of honor, but, when I was attacked by him, I was
bound to repel his accusation in the way that appeared to me most
effectual.
One of the charges made against me in the Morning Chronicle,
yesterday, is of all the various charges which have been urged, the
only one to which I must plead guilty; yet, though true in the letter,
it is not quite true in the meaning, which the writer wishes to convey.
He says that we have “eaten salt together”—his intention by using this
expression, I dare say, is to insinuate that a great intimacy subsisted be-
tween the proprietor and me.—We did “ eat salt together.”—I dined
with the Editor of the Chronicle once, and it is the only act in my life,
of which I am ashamed. -
But, these are things of small and trifling import. Let me conjure
you, as our duties advance and as the means of compulsion which our
opponents wield, begin to cease, that you will continue your exertions
with unabated energy. You will not wonder if I, whose whole life has
been up-hill in support of liberty, should not be dishcartened. If our
cause were hopeless, instead of being full of hopes, I would still continue
my exertions to promote it. I should still have to say, I had shrunk
from no duty which I ought to have fulfilled; and however, unfavorable
might be the result, that no part of that failure would be imputed to me.
If we exert ourselves, we have every prospect of success. Wherever I
have been, the feelings of the public are with us; and, I have no
doubt, that in the end we shall succeed. Our Wotcrs cannot be drilled
like those of our Opponents; but, I have the utmost reliance they will
come in time to the Poll, to secure in this great Cause, the Independence
and triumph of Westminster, and that it will not be deserted by you, who
have sojustly acquired the character of being the most Independent and
enlightened Body in the Kingdom. -
[Mr. Cleary came forward and corroborated all that Sir F. Bunpert
had stated respecting the charges of Mr. Cobbett.]
G. Smeeton, Priiter, 17, St. Martin's Lane.
SPEECH
MIR. HOBHOUSE,
ON THE
H U STINGS AT COVENT G A R DEN,
On Saturday, 27th February, 1819.
Nir. Perceval, on the 3d of January, 1798, remarking on a former Speech of
Mr Fox, said, “ that Mr Fox had declared he would form no part of any Admi-
“nistration without a total, fundamental, and Radical Reform of Parliament, and
“he begged the House to attend to those most dangerous and alarming words.”—
Parl. Hist. Vol. 33. p. I 191 and 1195. . -
Mr. Fox, in reply to Mr. PER cºv AL, said—“I do not pretend to have a very
“good memory of the precise words of any man, and especially of my own, but I
“ think the words I used were these, that a Radical Reform, both of the Represen-
“tation in Parliament, and of the abuses which have crept into the practice of the
“ Constitution of this country, together with a complete and fundamental change of
“system of Administration, must take place, and that until it did, I, for one, will
“take no share in any Administration, or be responsible for any office in his Ma-
“jesty's Counsels. I think these were my words. I am sure they were the substance
“ of what I said.”--Ibid. p. 1229.
Mr. Pitt said, “ the Hon. Gentleman (Mr Fox) expressed himself in the same
“words the London Corresponding Society had thought proper to adopt.”—Ibid.
p. 1269.
...~...~~~~. -------------º-º-º-º-º-º-º-,
- *.*.*.*.*--.…” -“. . *.*.*.*.
GENTLEMRN,
I LABoup under considerable disadvantage in
answering Mr. Lambton’s speech, for I did not distinctly hear
the particular topics he touched upon. I only oecasionally
caught some of his sentences. To those I did catch I shall give
the best and most sincere answers I can. He first, as I under-
stand him, states, that he has the best authority for saying, that
Mr Fox never expressed a wish for the abolition of the miser-
able distinctions of Whig and Tory. What I have to say in
justification, of my quotation from Mr. Fox’s speech is, that I
took the extract which I read from a published report of tha
speech. All the reports that I have read of that speech
concur in attributing to Mr. Fox the very words. I have heard
indeed, that there is one Report in which they are not cited.
Mr. Lambton has told you that he had his information from the
uephew of Mr. Fox (Lord Holland), that Mr. Fox never used the
words I quoted. As Mr. Lambton has told you that he has this
authority, I think it right to state that I had my information from
the nephew of Mr. Fox likewise. I asked the question of him,
in a passing way, whether that speech had been correctly report-
ed, and I understood from him that it had been reported by Mr.
Perry himself!
MR, LAMBTON.—I have the authority of Lord Holland to
deny the correctness of that report.
MR. HobHouse.—I should have never mentioned a private
Conversation, had not that species of communication been al-
!ded to by Mr. Lambton. I must again repeat that I asked Lord
Holland the question, whether that speech was correctly reported,
And I understood it was reported by Mr. Perry. The words are to
bº found in all the editions I have read. We have likewise the
2
authority of Sir F. Burdett, who was also present at that debatc.
I should like to know from him how his memory serves him,
for I understand that he does recollect perfectly well that Mr.
Fox used these words. Besides, it is very extraordinary that,
as those words are in so many various reports of Mr. Fox's
speech, made at the time, that they never were contradicted
till now. It is only stated on private authority, and from recol-
lection, that he did not use these words. You all know, Gen-
tlemen, that one authority is as good as another. My inquiries
authorise me in saying that they were used; but exclusive of
this, the speech itself bears me out. in several passages before
as well as after my quotation, Mr. Fox lays peculiar stress on
the bad effect which party efforts and distinctions had upon the
question of Reform ; and when the sense renders the use of
these words natural—and when the records of their being
spoken are uniform, surely I am not to be accused of mis-
statement for my having quoted them, nor is my statement to be
overthrown by merely presumed recollections, opposed as they
are by so many various printed attthorities. Mr. Lambton says,
that Mr. Fox's expression was “a radical change of system.” The
words to which I allude in the Report are, “a radical Reform of
the Representation in Parliament.” He says that there is a wide
difference in the meaning of the two phrases: but the question is,
Gentleinen, not what I, or any other man means, but what Mr Fox
himself meant. I have explained to you how I quoted his words,
and where I got them. I never said that Mr. Fox meant the same
plan of Radical Reform that we wish. I said, on the contrary,
that he did not mean the same, but that he used the words, and
had Mr. Lambton read any other paper than the Morning Chro-
micle, he would have seen that there was no ground for his ob-
servation : for actually, Gentlemen, in reading the Chronicle, I
no more recognize what passes at these hustings, than I do what
is going on in Japan. I think I next caught Mr. Lambton's
expression, that on this occasion we had the aid of the Whigs
to drive away Sir Murray Maxwell. I repeat what I before said,
that they gave us no aid. Mr. Lambton certainly did make to
me a private declaration of his support, on certain conditions,
but was this any proof that I was to have the support of the
Whigs 2 or that they assisted us in driving away Sir Murray
Maxwell ? Surely the proffered support of Mr. Lambton did not
drive away Sir Murray Maxwell ! Mr. Lambton is correct when
ite says that he endeavoured to prevent another Candidate being
started against me. I believe he did contribute to prevent ano-
ther Candidate being started, but surely his writing a letter with
that view cannot be construed either as a proof of his, or the
Whigs, having driven Sir Murray Maxwell from the field. Nei-
ther he nor I understood it to have had this effect at the time,
I hope I am the last man to be ungrateful for expressions C
kindness; but when Mr. Lambton announces them on these
hnstings, I may be permitted to quote the lines of our poet Prior,
“To Jack I owed great obligation,
But Jack most luckily thought fit
To publish it to all the nation :
5ure Jack and H are more than quit.”
3
I think I heard Mr. Lambton apply the word “despicable” to
my conduct. I hope I did not—(Mr. Lambton : “certainly
not.”) I am glad of it. I again contradict the assertion that the
Whigs gave the smallest aid to expel the Court Candidate. 1
appeal to Mr. Lambton's friends (looking to the Gentlemen ty
whom Mr. Lambton was surrounded), whether they did not say
the Whigs would observe a strict neutrality between me and Sir
M. Maxwell. This I know was the understanding. I positively
deny that we received any assistance from the party. I ask, was
there any subscription opened among them, any canvassing or
any other act done, to assist us. I know not of one. I defy Mr.
Lambton—1 defy any other man of the Whigs—I defy any Inafi
living, to say with truth, that the Whigs came forward to assist
us in any way whatsoever to drive Sir Murray Maxwell from the
field. Mr. Lambton knows very well, that in his private con-
versations with me, he stated his objections to the Whigs start-
ing a Candidate against me, and I thought at the time, that in-
dependent of his personal kindness to me, he was governed in
his opinion by a proper popular feeling. I owe it to Mr. Lamb-
ton, to state thus much, but as to the Whigs giving me their
support, I know they had more hostility to me than otherwise—
indeed this was avowed to me by one of the representatives of the
leading Whig families. He avowed to me that they were on the
whole hostile—that I was not in fact popular with them. Mr.
Lambton will recollect that when he spoke to me on this busi-
ness before, I told him I considered his conduct the more kind
and the more flattering, because he was almost the only man of
the party who so expressed himself I never made any objection
as, if I heard him rightly, he insinuates I did, to Ladies canvas-
sing for my opponent—(Mr. Lambton said, my allusion was to
Sir F. Burdett.)—Yes, I remember what Sir Francis Burdett
said, but his objection was not against Ladies canvassing—it cast
no reflection upon the fair sex ; for what he complained of was
this, that the Nobility were driving about and forcing voters into
their coaches, which were decorated with coronets, and bringing
them down to the Poll. As to the spy that Mr. Lambton charges
me with using, all I shall say is, that the man was not a spy. I
never sent him to Mr. Lamb's Committee, nor to any meeting;
but he told me after he had been, not to Mr. Lamb's Committee,
but to a meeting of his parish, what had occurred. No spy has been
employed by us, although we see spies enough coming to us from
Mr. Lamb's party. I walked up to this Poll, from St. Anne's
Committee, arm in arm with a man whom I afterwards found to be
a spy. The information given to me by Mr. Clark, whom Mr.
Lambton designates a spy, was a plain statement of what he
heard Mr. Lamb, who was always talking of Reform, give of his
principles at a public meeting of Mr. Clark's own parish. The
declaration thus made by Mr. Lamb, does not authorize any
bºdy in designating that man as a spy, whose questions put to
Mr. Lamb at that public meeting produced the declaration.
There is, I know, a great deal of spying in our Committees; this
is I suppose merely the Ruse de Guerre of our opponents. I
should be glad, on occasions like this, that we should have none
ºf those lying, tricking, and paltry stratagems, used at some elec-
4
tions, but which, until again resorted to, and now practised only
by our opponents, were banished from Westminster.
As to the Report of the Committee, which has been animad-
verted upon by Mr. Lambton, what I know of it is, that it stated the
opinions upon the subject of Reform of the 340 Electors compos-
ing your parochial committees, who ordered its publication. If
that report be offensive to the Whigs, I am not answerable for it.
I am not here to state what I approve or disapprove of that Re-
port, but I confess I do not see in it any thing so offensive as Mr.
Lambton pleases to think it to contain, except, indeed, so far as
plain truth may be offensive. I am astonished at Mr. Lambton
calling upon me to speak upon this topic, when he knows, as well
as I do, that I cannot without a breach of trust discuss here that
point with him. I do not think this quite fair and honourable
dealing. The Whigs are here to oppose me, and I must stand or
fall by a comparison of my conduct with theirs. I must stand or
fall by shewing them to be the decided enemies of the people. If
Mr. Lambton had taken the trouble to read other Papers, and not
believed all that was said by Mr. Perry in his Chronicle, he would
have known where and how I was misrepresented. He who was
himself here, ought to have known that when I denounced the
Whigs as a Party, I always made individual exceptions. I never
said or thought that there were not honourable men in the party.
I objected generally to the conduct of the Whigs as a party, and
to their conduct more particularly in Westminster. Do the
Whigs mean that we are to be trampled under their feet, and are
never to speak our sentiments until they chuse to allow us ;
Did they expect that we should feel in any other manner than
we have felt at their conduct, in rising up on a sudden, without
any warning, to oppose the popular Candidate? We saw them
stand by for months, until we had expelled the Court Candidate.
We did this without their aid. It is THIs which has aroused the
arrogance of that overbearing and impotent party. I say impo-
tent, because it is their impotence which makes them arrogant.
They cannot act beneficially for the people. The country knows
this, and laughs at their boast of “large” minorities—despises
their proceedings—and treats, as it deserves, their badly assorted
system. They can do nothing: they know it, and therefore
they talk so foolishly.
I have now, Gentlemen, answered every thing I heard of Mr.
Lambton’s speech. I repeat, upon my honour, I have given a
sincere and candid answer to all the statements that I heard him
make. I am glad you heard him. I hope you will do so again
if he should address you. It is for your interest, and my inte-
rest, that he should be heard, and if possible, answered. r
Mr. Hobhouse looked at the Poll as he retired, turned round
to the Electors again and said, “We shall win it Gentlemen, I
have not the least doubt of the result.”
Almost every sentence in the Speech was received with aecla-
%ations. w
Smith, Printer, Clement's Inn, Strand.
SPEECH
SIR FRANCIS BURDETT,
ON THE
HUSTINGS AT COVENT GARDEN,
Monday, 1st March, 1819.
MR. HoBHouse addressed the immense multitude in a Speech which was
inaudible except to those near him, from the violent vociferation of a
gang of ruffians, hired by Mr. Lamb's agents, who had committed crºss
assaults, and interrupted the polling during the whole morning. Mr.
LAMB then addressed himself to the bands by which he was surrounded,
who, at the conclusion of what he had to say, withdrew with him.
Silence was thus instantly restored, and SIR FRANCIS BURDETT
spoke as follows :-
GENTLEMEN,
I should have adhered to the resolution I told you I had adopted the
other day, were it not that our adversary loses nothing by not being heard—
he loses nothing by that marked disapprobation which, on so many occa-
sions, you have expressed, because he has the means of disseminating
through the daily press, what, if he had uttered here, would be immediately
confuted, but which, wherever made, it is necessary we should confute.
Our opponent calls himself here all sorts of names, and he makes it im-
possible for any one who has heard him up to the present day, to state in an
“. intelligible” form what are the sentiments upon which he recommends
himself to the choice of the Independent Electors of Westminster. He
says, he was the friend of the late Sir Samuel Romiliy, and is the friend
of his principles—he tells you he was the friend of the late Mr. Fox, that
he is the friend of Whig principles—the friend of this and of that, and of
almost every thing—that he is the friend of the Poor' if he had added,
of the Poor Rate too, he would have said what is very material to his
Purpose ; for I have no hesitation in stating that the Poor Rate has been a
good friend to him; and has, I think, by the arbitrary and unconstitutional
decisions which have been come to against Voters in arrear for Rates, given
him a number which, had such decisions not been made, would have exhi-
bited a majority for us on the Poll. So convinced am I that the
decision respecting these votes will not stand the test of legal inquiry, that
I do hope and entreat the unpolled Electors of Westminster will come
Town and tender their votes notwithstanding any Arrear of Poor's Rate ;
for I have no doubt, that whenever the validity of these votes shall be before
* proper tribunal they will be established. This at least we may say for
Mr. Lamb, whatever he may be the friend to, that he is not the friend to
Freedom of Election.
I hope and confidently trust we shall shew Mr. Lamb that the Electors
of Westminster are not to be c joled by delusion, nor bullied out of their
independence by hired ruffians. "I hope the Electors will not be deterred
6)
*
from asserting their Rights by the h HIG practices that are played off
against them ;—practices only now, indeed, renewed, but of which the
Electors of Westminster will show their opinion, by exhibiting a spirit too
high to be subdued by them.
It was complained of on a former occasion, that the Report of your Com-
mittee charged the Whig Party and their great leader, Mr. Fox, with re-
sorting to vile means in their former contests; with being guilty of those
infamous practices; which practices the Party denied had been in use, but
which vile and infamous practices are Now revived : and it is for the public
to judge who is guilty of these acts. The Report did certainly charge the
Party with being guilty of the foul crime of murder in their former contests.
Their tumults were notorious ; and whether the crime for which they are
held responsible, be murder, perjury, or bribery, for all three were committed,
must be left to individual observation and feeling. Mr. Lambton called
this charge a foul calumny Does he not know that murder, perjury, and
bribery, were committed on former occasions, when contending factions dis-
puted the Representation of Westminster. It is not now a matter of opinion
but a matter of Record. The same Gentleman also said that I had been
once enlisted under the Whig Party. (An Elector in the crowd vociferated
“Nobody believes it.”)—I am sure that what my honest countryman says
is strictly true, that nobody will believe it. He also says that I professed
Whig principles at the Election for Middlesex. Now this is astonishing
ignorance of the fact. Never did any man shew more complete ignorance of
the daily occurrences which are recorded in the Newspapers, than the gem-
tleman who made this charge. He says i never deserted Mr. Fox until
after his death ! Now I must have enlisted before I could have deserted, and
this I never did. I never enlisted into either battalion of the well-trained
regiment. On the contrary, I denounced the enlistment of both par-
ties. I declared in public when they coalesced together, that I belonged
to neither, and that neither would ever do their duty to the public. It
was at the time that Mr. Fox came into power, that I lost ny seat for
Middlesex ; and 1 lost it when he came into power because I would not
commive at WHIG KNAVERY ; because I denounced to the Public the
scandalous Coalition of the Fox and Grenville Party; that union of those
who so long maintained the principles of Freedom, with those who had
uniformly shewn themselves its most implacable enemies. I denounced
their conduct at a time when Mr. Lambton ought to know few followers
desert a Leader: I mean at the time of his getting into power, and
when he is making his ministerial arrangements. That is not the moment
which is generally selected for the desertion of a party—that is rather the
moment when an interested man having selfish views would make his zeal
more conspicuous to his Leaders. If I had been inclined to compromise my
principles, I might have secured my Election, and escaped perhaps having
imputed to me now this childishly absurd charge of deserting Mr. Fox.
Though I lost the Election for Middlesex at that time, I might, if the
seat had been an object to me, to promote any personal views, which no
seat ever was or shall be, have kept it by a connivance at what I saw going
on, and without being guilty of any positive act: but I disdained to com:
promise my principles. I told the Electors of Middlesex my opinion of
the Coalition. I told them so at a time too when the general impression
prevailed of the permanence of that Administration which was supposed to
be immoveable, because it united all the talents of the leading parties of
the country; and when you recollect that by the conduct I then pursued,
3
I had to encounter the opposition of the Whig Coalition, and of the pre-
vious Government influence, you will be astonished to hear that without
giving away a ribbon, or influencing a Freeholder, I polled on that occasion
twelve hundred independent votes. This I thought to be as great an honour.
as any man could obtain from his countrymen. w
Another foolish and absurd tale has been uttered by one of the Gentle.
men on these Hustings; in which he says that I had forgot the debt of gratitude
I owed to Mr. Fox. This is a debt which I confess I may admit, and still
not know in what it consists. While Mr Fox opposed the tyranny of the
Government of the country I stood by him with my feeble aid, until I saw
what I thought to be a dereliction of his public duty. Whilst he supported
the principles of Liberty, no man can say I deserted Mr. Fox; but I never
enlisted under his party.
It has been also stated, that I decried his talents. I know not who has
poured forth such falsehoods, for I never did speak of the general conduct
of Mr. Fox; I never can speak of it but as being that of a man whose
private good qualities, whose goodness of heart and extensive benevolence,
endeared him to all who knew him. So far from decrying his talents, I
always thought him to be the most accomplished orator this or any other
country ever produced. To talk of my attempting to depreciate the talents
of such a man is to speak any thing but the truth. I never felt a more
painful duty than when I was compelled to differ from him. I never felt a
more painful duty than in being now called upon to justify myself against
such an aspersion as that of not having sense enough to appreciate his
abilities. %
As to the practices of this Election, Mr. Lambton charges me with being
guilty of subormation of perjury, and what is his proof?– that banners and
music are sent about to induce Voters to come to the Poll 2 I believe there
are some persons in the degraded state of this country who are lost to public
sentiment. I believe there are others who would have the folly and the
tyranny to call the sending forth these banners something like the crime of
treason; yet I believe Mr. Lambton is the only man to be found who would
attach the name of subornation of perjury to such a matter –(Loud
Laughter.)—He says, that I have found fault with Ladies for convassing;
I never did. What I did find fault with was, the conduct of Ladies of high
rank who threatened honest tradesmen with the loss of their business if they
did not vote as those Ladies directed them. It was for compelling such
persons to do as they desired them ; that is, to risk the ruin of their fami-
lies unless they voted against their consciences. This is what I complained
of such persons of either sex going about in a fair canvass. I have never
asked how any tradesman with whom I am connected voted, nor did I ever
wish to know. It is PRoud INsoleNCE to domineer in this manner over
the man who serves you in the way of his business. If he gives you the
article which you want, and is paid for it in return, the obligation is mu-
tual. I think it mean and ungenerous to look in any other light than
this upon the tradesman who serves you honestly, and to whom you do no
favour while you pay him the amount of his bill. Mr. Lambton asks,
“Was it the same Sir Francis Burdett, to whom credit had been given by
“ the Society of Concentrics at Liverpool, upon his stating to them that he
“ was ready and willing to support their plan of Reform 2 Was it the
“ same Sir Francis Burdett, who made this declaration, that now came
“ forward to accuse the Whigs of hugging infamy to their bosom, and to
“ apply to them epithets of the most degrading description.”
4.
Yes, it is the same Sir Francis Burdett that was willing to support the
Concentrics at Liverpool; and it is the same Sir Francis Burdett who, after
all that has passed here, is ready still to support the Whigs, provided they
will pledge themselves to support any substantial or effectual Iteform of the
Representation of the People in the Commons House of Parliament. I have
no private animosities to gratify, or private interests to advance. I can only
feel an interest in promoting the general Liberty of the Country. Having
this object only in view, I care not for the distinctions of Party. I want to
to know what are the Whig principles on the subject of Reform Mr. Lamb
says that he will follow Sir Samuel Romilly. What is Sir Samuel Romilly's
plan * Let us know the plan of which he says that he will be the advocate,
and if it be an honest Reform, I’ll combat in the ranks with Mr. Lamb to
promote it But our opponents fly from particulars when they allude to Re-
form. And when you insist that they were once the advocates for Radical
Reform, “O!” they say, “they never meant any such thing.” What injus-
tice do they not do to the memory of Mr. Fox, whom they pretend to revere,
who was the Advocate of this Reform ' My own ears heard him say, that
he once thought some public good might be effected without a Reform in Par-
liament, but that he had since changed his mind, and was convinced nothing
eould be done without a Reform I also heard him declare that he would
accept of no part in any administration, high or low, of which Reform was
not the basis.
I am charged with moving on different principles-—I say in reply that I
do not— that I now stand on the same position which I always occupied—
it is my accusers who have changed, and who, like ignorant people at sea,
imagine the land to be receding from them when they are in fact receding
from the land.
I am on the precise spot of ground on which I first placed my foot, and
am opposed in principle in this contest to men with whom, in other times,
and under other circumstances, I have co-operated. If you should have
again Whig Ministers, it is far from impossible that I should sit on the
same seat which Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Canning will then occupy. I
shall do my duty, and I trust you will do yours. By supporting the prin-
ciple of Reform in the present crisis, you will raise your own character,
and advance your favourite object, which is nothing else than a Reform in
the Commons House of Parliament, whose corruption is as notorious as
the Sun at noon-day, whose burdens have pressed heavily on the coun-
try, and are now too heavy for the people much longer to bear. I exhort
you all not to lose a moment in promoting this cause... I shall not cease my
exertions for a single instant, and I hope you will not relax in yours.
If we BOTH do our duty, be the result what it may, we shall at least have
to say that we have brought through this great cause of the Liberties of
our Country against the united power of all the factions and influence that
eur opponents have been able to array against us. “,
Smith, Printer, Clement's Inn, Strand,
SPEECHES
Mr. HOBHOUSE and Sir F. BU18 DETT,
AT THE HUST IN GS IN COW E N T G A R D EN >
On the Final Close of the Poll,
W E D N E S D A Y, M A R C II 3, 1819.
M. R. HO BHOUSE—
G ENT LEMEN,
I come to bid you farewell; the Election is lost, but I trust we
have not lost our honour; of one thing I am sure; we shall
§nd more consolation in such a defeat, than our antagonist will
derive from such a victory. The combination of almost the whole
A Ristock Acy of Great Britain, the union of the Two great
pºlitical PART1 Es of the day, have been too much for the people
of Westminster, and the number of those who, from a false view
of the question, or allured by promises, or terrified by threats,
have ineen brought against us, has been greater than that of the
£iectors, who have had the intelligence to see their duty, anºt
the courage to perform it; not that i mean to impute base unotives
to the whole body composing the majority, many may have been
conscientiously persuaded of the propriety of voting as they have
done, but I do not scruple to say, that delusion and terror, and
influence of every kind have been the powerful agents that have
secured the triumph of the coalition.—Gentlemen, let us see
which of us has the most reason to be contenied with the result
ºf this contest ; on the one hand we see a caudidate, fairly chosen
from amongst the people, by the people, and for three months
seeking every occasion, by which he might collect the wishes
and intensions of the Electors, with respect to himself and to
his cause. We see the same person labouring with a large body
of the Electors, in expelling the Court Candidate, and in suc-
ceeding in his endeavour; the people of Westminster seem to
avow, that his cause is their cause, that he stands upon principles
solely, that he is an honest advocate of that principle, they prepare
to intrust him with their rights, previously to their choice; the
Electors, connected with his noumination, a large body, between
three and four hundred, think fit to lay down the principle on
which they have j". their exposition involves the censure
of a powerful political party; that party take the alarin; their
pride is wounded, their resentment roused, they resolve on a
conflict, and forget that their antagonists must be the people—
that people whose rights they affect to defend, whose miseries
they pretend to deplore. They forget that in order to shew
they had not apostatised from the cause of Reform, the most
curious of all measures was to attack the Reforiners of West-
minster. They forget to examine whether, even if they had
cause for resentment, it might not be unseeinly to indulge their
anger and run all the risks of exciting a more than civil war
between the various denominations of the popular party ; they
allow their resentment to prevail. For, Gentlemen, Mr. Lambton
has certainly told you the truth; and all that we see in Mr.
Macdonald's requisition, and Mr. Lamb's address about the general
call for a man of different principles from mine, was inerely the
exeuse, it was not the cause of the oposition. The Report of
the General Committee was the cause, and the sole cause. The
( 2 )
Whigs then came into the field against the Radical Reformers :
they chose a man to whom no party was likely to make any ob-
jection; they dubbed him a Reformer and a Friend of the Revo-
lution, in order to catch the people,_they instructed him to abuse
The as a Revolutionist, in order to make him please the Court.
They succeeded to a miracle, and in four and twenty hours the
coalition between the partisans of the Government and of the
party was complete. The whole organization which had done such
wonders at the commencement ºf the last Election, when Maxwell
and Romilly divided 2,334 votes, began to act against the people;
but the Whigs were still anxious for every little that might help
them. They did not refuse the good fellowship of any one who
had the solitary merit of hatred of the people of Westminster,
and of the man whom the people had chosen—not only the man
but the measures were sanctified in their eyes by the end in view ;
every species of cajolery, and the menaces and the allurements
which could operate upon the weak and the selfish were brought
into play, and to crown their homest endeavours they concluded
their struggle by a recurrence to downright violence and force. It is
not surprising that these efforts should have overpowered those pro-
ceeding solely from principle; but I ask again, is it possible that an
honest man of the party can derive any consolation fºom the
numbers that have been brought to vote for the Representative
of such a coalition ? Will any Whig, who looks back upon the
old principles of his party, feel a sincere triumph in a victory
obtained not by the Whigs, but by the retainers of the Court—
not by the people, but by the plunderers of the people * ... I doubt
not, however, that we shall hear of the victory of the Whigs in
Westminster—that we shall be told that the people have returned
to their allegiance, and will be treated with corresponding kindness,
but ſhe truth is, such another victory will ruin them. Gentlemen,
our antagonists may have the idle houour, but I feel sure
th;4t the Reformers will have the true glory of this contest.
A great good has been besides already achieved; it has been shewn
that there are in Westminster 3861 Radical Reformers, who,
against every disadvantage, and at the risk of every sacrifice, have
dared to record their names as supporters of a great public prin-
ciple, who have manfully looked danger and corruption in the
face, and have sought no fee or reward beyond the satisfaction
arising from the fulfilment of their duty. Another great good has
also been obtained—the modern Whigs have been completely
wnmasked. The public can be no longer mistaken as to their real
character and pretensions—the increase of the aristocratical power,
the immediate satisfaction of their own selfish passions must hence-
forward be the acknowledged motives of all their conduct, for the
attainment of which no sacrifice of principle will be thought too
great, no associates too vile and unworthy. Henceforward the
Radical Reformers will learn to rely on themselves alone.
Another service may also have been done to the People by this
contest—the Reformers will have shaken off from them those to
whom I have scarcely once alluded during the whole of this
contest. What they have been pleased to say of me was all in
their lawful calling. They have been shaken from the Reformers,
but they have stuck, like the vile straw, to any thing else that
it meets- : « *
“Coached, carted, trad upon—now loose, now fast,
“And carried off in some Whig's tail at last.”
( 3 )
I wish the Whigs joy of their new friends. As for myself,
Gentlemº, I have to express a most sincerely grateful sense of
the confidence which so large a portion of the unbought, unbiassed,
free Electors of Westminster have been inclined to repose in me;
that they should have thought me a fit Advocate of their great
cause, is to me a sufficient repayment for whatever exertions
I may five made in behalf of the liberty of my Fellow Citizens.
Our intercourse is to end sooner, perhaps, that might have been
expected ; but the Actor, who leaves the stage in the first act,
may play his short part equally well with him who stays upon the
stage until the curtain falls. I have done my best to justify the
good opinion of those who selected me for the choice of the people,
but as I was selected from the people, and have laboured for the
people alone, I shall not be surprised at finding that whatever
approbation I may receive, will come from the people only. I did
not enter blindly into this career. I knew what I was to expect;
I knew that by declaring my sentiments freely, I was entering my
name upon the list, not only of public, but of social proscription ;
but I repent not, and like Dean Swift's girl who ran away with the
footman, would do it were it to be done again. Again, Gentlemen,
1 bid you farewell; I retire into the ranks whence you called me
forth ; whether I shall be again in the van, depends upon your-
selves, but depend upon it, I shall never be found far behind in the
great cause of public liberty.
S{R FRANCIS BURDETT then said,
GENT LEMEN,
IT seems our opponents are not so proud
of their triumph as to stay for any length of time before you on
this last day of the contest (Mr. LAMB only remained a few
minutes on the Hustings.) It is with great satisfaction, 1 place
nyself before you on the present occasion. I feel proud of
addressing so large and enlightened a body of the Electors of
Westminster, (A laugh from some of Mr. Lamb's friends on
the Hustings) Gentlemen, I do not wonder that persons who can
think success justifies the means by which that success was
obtained, should be surprised at the feeling of satisfaction I retain,
notwithstanding the disappointment of our hopes. I have been
accustomed to struggle against all the efforts of power, not indeed
with a confidence of success, nor yet without producing some
effect in the course of my exertions.—(Ioud applause.) I augur
from the approbation of this immense multitude, who participate
in my feeling, that my efforts have not been made in vain. I
have always found the people of Westminster the advocates of
the true principles of liberty—of those true principles of English
Liberty which declare that all power emanates from the
People at large. I am therefore not disheartened by the result
of the present contest—least of all by the tricks, delusion and
artifice of the base Coalition party that has been arrayed against
us. Nor am I dismayed by the efforts of all those hired riffans,
whom the people of Westminster have driven before them, whenever
they dared to shew their face here. I am not disheartened; for
I see the genuine sentiments of liberty are every day spreading
more and more throughout the country; the beneficial effects of
which I trust we shall live to see realized.
( 4 )
Mr. Hob House has said, that he wished you farewell—it may
possibly not be a very long farewell, even the present state of the
Poll justifies us in concluding that the general feelings and senti-
ments of the Electors of Westminster are with us, and there is
little doubt that on the next occasion, you will again turn to
Mr. Hobhouse, as the Champion of your Rights and Liberties.
There is hardly a prospect that the iudependent Electors of
Westminster will have again to encounter such a coin' ination of
parties, hostile to their Liberties, as that which has now opposed
thern ; because, besides the old tricks of the WH 1GS, the violence
of their adherents. the almost universal union of almost all the
strong parties which Corruption could marshal against us; and
besides all the base ineans that were taken to give effect to these
operations, we have also to regret the falling off of some persons
who were usually among our most staunch supporteis in West-
10 inster, (Crics of “Wish ART.”)—I do not mean Air WIs II ART,
Gentlemen, for he was always a Whig–C“ then 'tis STU to 11’’)–
Yes! we may indeed Accus E Mr. Sturch of a dereliction of his
public principles—he has certainly not done his duty by us on the
present occasion. You all know that there are others who have
also deserted us: but Gentlemen it would be inviduous to name
them. There never was before such a combination of untoward
circumstances to retard the progress of our cause. Our Whig
opponents have little cause of Triumph in the issue of this contest.
I think that though they may give Mr. Lamb a seat, they will
unseat themselves in the estination of the public. Ouis is the
Triumph of the heart, we enjoy our Triumph in 1he hearts of the
people of England—a Triumph, the enjoyment of which, in
success or in defeat, we can always secure, because it cousists in
the Triumph of our own consciences, when we know and feel we
have discharged our proper duties. This is a Triumph, Gentlemen,
of which no honest man can be divested—this is a feeling which we
shall never resign, for the paltry result of an Election gained by
iniquitous means. I should have been ashamed of success, if it
were to be procured by such means as have been resorted to by
our opponents on the present occasion. I should scorii a Triumph
obtained by such unworthy means ! - •-
I shall now, Gentlemen, take my leave of you, and with
increasing esteem for your character and principles. I trust that
our closer connexion will rivet still stronger the bonds that unite
us. I am now, as I ever have been, ready and willing to assist in
every manner in which I possibly can, in the promotion of that
great object which we have all in view—the re-establishment and
maintenance of the Constitutional Rights and Li BerTIES of The
People of ENG LAND ! -
[Nearly every sentence of Sir FRANcts BURDETT's Speech was
received with shouts of acclamation by the immense muhitude
opposite the Hustings, and general demonstrations of pleasure
from the largest and most respectable groups of persons of both
sexes ever before assembled in the booths.]
F I N I S.
G Smeeton, Printer, 17, St. Martin's Lane,
REFORM OF PARLIAMENT.
S. P liº lº (f) liſ
S I R F R A N C I S BU R D ETT,
LIVERPO (OI, C () NCIENTRIC SOCIETY,
Fourth of December, 1818.
Recommended to the Perusal of the ELEctons of West-
MINSTER, by the Committee appointed to manage the
E/ection of JOHN HOBHOUSE, Esq.
‘‘ Your worthy Chairman has so fully, so elaborately, and,
permit me to say, so excellently discussed all the principal topics of
political argument, that I am at a loss to what part of the subject I
shall engage your attention. I cannot, however, refrain from ex-
Pressing my abhorrence of that fatal system of corruption, by which
every vestige of our freedom is daily obliterated, and which it be-
comes the duty of us all to use every endeavour to redress. This
great evil is seen and felt chiefly in the state of our Representation;
and it is to the open and acknowledged corruption of the House of
Commons that all our other grievances may be traced as their head
and spring. It would be vain to hold up any particular instance of
the errors and evils of those who are termed his Majesty's Ministers,
acting, as they do, in the midst, and by the means of this corruption;
for no man, or set of men, can hold the same places without acting
in the same manner, until a Reform shall render the House of Com-
Mons what it ought to be. I do not complain, therefore, of the conduct
ºf any man—I reprobate the system, without the overthrow of which,
the Ministers themselves can never be just, nor can the People €Ver
be happy. It is a system of tyranny and oppression, incapable of
being held together but by tyrannical and oppressive means.
“ The exercise of the Franchise is every where unequal—every
where directed by disorder and bribery—and every where replete
with injustice. To take for instance this your town of Liverpool:—
"an any thing be more outrageously corrupt than the present state of
Your Representation ? yet, in comparison with other towns, you are
said to have a popular election. But how far is this the case ? In
your town, all persons of property are excluded from the choice of
Persons who are constitutionally considered the guardians of pro-
Pºrty; and thus, those who pay most of the taxes have no vºtes,
"hile the persons who are to consider the propriety of taxing them
*re sent to the House of Commons by wretched and unfortunate
"en, who have what I must term the unfortunate power of disposing
"their votes to the best bidder, or who, being under the powerful
4
course is with public opinion, whether it goes onward to the ancient
and simple mode of Annual, or stops at Triennial Parliaments. With
respect to the word universal, as applied to suffrages, I have some
objections to it: no one makes use of it without some limit; for
instance, minors and the insane must be excepted ; and that which
necessarily must have limits, cannot be universal. The more ex-
tensive the right of Suffrage can be made, the better; and while I
am ready to unite with all Reformers in furtherance of Reform, yet
must I declare myself to be most favourable to that Reform that
embraces Annual Parliaments, and the most extensive right of Suſ-
frage that may be found to be practicable.
“ In the present mode of electing the House of Commons, the
wealthy and the well-instructed have scarcely any votes. Far be i
from me to wish to deprive the poorest man of his rights ; but when
the weight and power of elections are thus thrown to the poor
and the uninformed, the holders of those undue advantages become
the tools of designing men. I, too, know that the poor man has his
life and his liberties to defend, and it would be unjust to deprive him
of his franchise; but it is, if possible, still more unjust to deprive
the wealthy and the well-instructed, who have still greater stakes
in the prosperity of the country, of their rights—to exclude the rich
man of the means of choosing those who are to determine not only upon
his life and liberty, but upon his property also. A Majority, an the
House of Commons, is now returned by Twelve Thousand miserable
individuals, and these are for the most part JUST K EPT ABow E
the state of PAUPERs for the MERE PUR pose of making this
return.' Can any thing be conceived, in any political institution, more
monstrous or more absurd than this 2 and yet the opponents of
Reform, maintain that it is quite sufficient for all the practical pur-
poses of government; and we, who advocate the right of the rich to
have a vote in the choice of the guardians of the public property, are
denominated Jacobins!—With folly equalled only by their animosity,
we are accused by them of desiring to subvert and destroy, even
when we claim for rank and for wealth, that weight which they ought
to find in the councils of the State, and to which they are so mani-
festly entitled. But if for this we are called Jacobins, democrats, or
visionaries, will not all rational men perceive that our enemies are
angry because they are corruptly interested; and that because they
cannot argue, they have recourse to abuse.
“ Gentlemen, I sincerely congratulate this Society, of which I
am proud to have been so long a member, on the progress which the
great cause of Parliamentary Reform is making, not only without, but
even within the walls of the House of Commons. Gratified as I am
in visiting the Concentrics of Liverpool, and the other Friends of the
Cause who have favoured us with their presence on this occasion, yet
I have a higher gratification in witnessing your zeal in the cause of
Reform. Let that cause be the paramount motive of your conduct—
the main spring of your actions. It is the cause of our Country—
of Truth—of Justice—and of Liberty!”
London: Printed by J. Dean, 7, Wardour Street, Soho.
To The
THREE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED
AND
SIXTY-O NE
3Electorg of Jºãºgtmingter,
WHO,
HN DEFIANCE OF THE MENACES - AND THE BRIBES OF
A DESPOTIC AND CORRUPT GOVERNMENT,
O F A D E G ENERATE N OB I LITY;
OF THE ARMS OF POWER;
OF THE ARTS OF A SELFISH, BASE AND Usurping FACTION,
D.A.R.ED
To assert their Right to be Represented, by a Man
freely chosen by themselves,
+ AN ID
In the worst Times of Treachery, Cowardice, and
Submission, proved Faithful to the glorious Cause of
TRUTH,
HONOUR AND LIBERTY!
—mºm-
THE HOMAGE OF A FELLOW-LABOURER.
—-mºnºmm -
£ombon :
3}rintet by 305m 3Dean, No, bit, &arbour $treet.
sº
1819.
TO THE
Oſijree Jijougant, 3:fght 39ttnurtu amb #ixtp=09me
ELECTORS OF WESTMINSTER,
&c. &c. &c.
I.
Whe N Xerxes the banner of Asia unfurl’d,
To chain the last freemen then left in the world,
Three hundred, alone, all his myriads defied,
And the triumph was theirs, tho’ they fell and they died.
II.
Their glorious example still liv'd, to inspire
Each bosom of Greece with the patriot fire;
And the laurels that grew on Thermopylae's tomb
Were crowns for her heroes of ages to come.
III.
Oh! friends of your country, though numbers oppress,
Yet time and occasion must bring you redress;
Recoil'd and collected still closer adhere,
And this be the watch-word of all—PERs EveRE.
IV.
See power and corruption their forces unite,
And courtiers and nobles press on to the fight;
Each vassal who envies the free and the brave
And longs all mankind, like himself, to enslave :
V.
Each coward who shrinks from the frown of his Lord.
Contentedly draws on the people his sword:
Each rogue rushes on to extinguish your fame,
And prove that such virtue was only a name !
WI.
The spoilers of England so eager to keep,
For ever, each mite of their ill-gotten heap,
Indignantly raise all their voices to drown
The cry of a nation that asks for its own
VII.
Those, too, that impatiently wait for the hour
Thatshall givethem their portion of plunderandpow'r,
Their idle contentions a moment forego,
And turn all their arms on the popular foe.
VIII.
Vain all their endeavours, with freemen to cope,
For Liberty leans on the Anchor of Hope
No moon, not a star may illumine the sphere
But she looks where the day-break at last must appear.
IX.
The patriot may perish, the traitor may fly,
But her cause is immortal and never can die!
Late triumphs, but certain, her warriors shall crown,
Nor slaves, with their numbers, can tramplethem down:
X.
And wherefore, ye champions of Britain, despair
For the fate of the battle when BURDETT is there *
His voice is your thunder, His arm is your host ;
He has not retreated—then nothing is lost
XI.
Behold your own Hero still manfully strive
To keep the last spark of your freedom alive :
Though all should desert Him, undauntedly true
To the station assigned Him by virtue and you,
XII.
There, there, like some column, majestic and grand,
Behold Him, 'midst ruins, in solitude stand :
Time, tyrants, corruption—surviving, to shew
Where the temple of freedom stood ages ago !
XIII.
Oh! friends, when old Timeshall have crumbled the
That tells that the first of our patriots is gone, [stone
When malice, and envy, and hatred, are not,
And the lie, and the liar, alike, are forgot.
XIV.
Our annals, of England, may faithfully tell
How hardly He struggled, how long and how well
How fearlessly saw every friend drop away,
And still, in the face of the world, stood at bay !
XV.
Yet where, tell me where, shall posterity find
A portrait to show the fair form of His mind
That temper unruffled, that spirit so gay,
Those wishes so kind, and so pleased to give way ſ
7
XVI,
Those manners so simple, those feelings so strong,
That sense of the right, and that horror of wrong !
That air, unaffected, yet noble and free,
That shows us what Englishmen were and should be.
XVII.
With Him, then, ye Freemen to fight by your side
With him for a Patron, a Friend and a Guide,
Your virtuous career still pursue, undismay’d,
And know that your triumph is only delay’d
XVIII.
For the day must arrive—see the Giant awakes
His chains are but rushes—the bondage he breaks
Once more the proud Eagle of England is young;
His plumage more brilliant, his pinion more strong.
XIX.
Oh! vision of Glory ! the struggle is o'er,
And, free as the billows that circle her shore,
The nation of nations, in majesty bright,
Expands all her charms and displays all her might,
8
XX.
Then, then, shall your country, exulting declare,
Who fought the good fight in the day of despair :
Her Westminster Patriots—her faithful and few—
And fame weave her ever-green garlands for you!
FIN IS,
Printed by J. DEAN, 7, Wardour Street.

vlje TN
No. 1.j - r - a
T a Meeting of MAJOR CART WHIGHT'S COM-
MITTEE, held at the Russell Coffee House, on Tues-
day, February 23d, 1819, -
PRf's ENT.
HENRY HUNT, Esq in the Chair.
JOHN GALE JONES, Esq.
SIR CHARLES WOLSELEY, Bart.
MR. B() WIE.
MR. THGMAS PRESTON,
Resolved UN AN i Mous LY.—That, it being wholly im-
possible we can bring in Major Curtwright for Westiniaster,
we do withdraw the worthy Major from the Poll, and to the
utmost oppose Mr. Hobhouse. -
REso Lv Ed UN AN IM ous LY.—That the invitation to us
from the Hon. G. Lamb, to unite this Countmittee with his
Committee be accepted. -
Resolved UN AN I Mously.—That the thanks of this com-
mittee, be given to J. Macdonald, Esq. M. P. and Mr. Evans
of Pall Mall, Auctioneer, for the attentive politeness with
which they communicated the desire of Mr. Lamb's Corn-
mittee, and that those Centlemen be attended to their Com-
mittee Room, by Mr. Hunt, Mr. John Gale Jones, and Mr.
Bowie, who are hereby deputed, to announce the union of this
Committee with Mr. Lamb's Committee.
(Signed) HENRY HUNT, Chairman.
REsolved.—That the thanks of this Meeting be given to
Henry Hunt, Esq. for his conduct in the Chair.
(Signed) THOMAS PRESTON, Secretary.
REso Lved UN ANIMous LY.—That Henry Hunt, Esq.
and John Gale Jones, Esq. do attend the Hustings, to
support and encourage Mr. Lamb in his addresses at the
close of the Poll, day by day. -
Resolved.—That Mr. John Gale Jones be the Secretary
of this Committee.
(Signed) R. H. EVANS, Chairman.
REso Lv ED.—That the thanks of this Meeting, be given
to R. H. Evans, Esq. for his conduct in the Chair.
COV ENT GARD EN, WED NESDAY.
TººnTTTTTºttmºſpittºr,
[Feb. 24.
TNTEETTNU. The Tijds of The Hon. GTKMB,
held in Downing Street,
Lord CASTLEREA GH in the Chair,
PRESENT.
J. Willock, esq.
Mr Evans,
Courier Mudford, esq.
All r. Bowie.
Henry Hunt, Esq.
Hon. W Lamb, M.P.
Dr. Watson
J Macdonald, Esq. M.P.
} Auctioneers.
John Gale Jones, esq. Dr Slop.
Rt Hon. G Canning, M. P. Citizen T. Preston,
Sir W. Curtis, bart. &c. &c. &c.
Rzsolv En UN AN i MoUs LY.—On the motion of Mr. Can-
ning, seconded by Mr. Hunt, that all the gentlemen present
being embarked in the same cause will support each other
in procuring the Hon. G. Lamb to represent the City of West-
minster in Parliament, being firmly persuaded that it is the
only means by which they can effectually secure to themselves
the ends which they respectively have in view.
REsolved UN AN IMoUs LY.—')n the motion of Henry
Hunt, Esq. seconded by Dr. Slop, that the thanks of this
meeting be given to the noble Chairman, for his zealous and
itmpartial conduct in the chair.
REsolved UN AN ºxiously.—On the motion of the Rt.
Hon. G. Canning, seconded by Courier Mudford, Esq. that
John Gale Jones, Esq., be the Secretary of this coalition.
(Signed/ J. G. JONES, Secretary.
ºf-ce
(C(DVlăNT' (GARDEN.,
->
Yesterday, the Hon. G. Lamb was seen walking from
the Morning Chronicle Office towards the stairs of the
Waterloo Bridge, in a very low and desponding state
of mind ; happily the watermen were at the plying place,
and he turned back with a look of great disappointment.
Oa Monday, Mr. Lamb experienced a heavy fall
on the Hustings. He has ever since complained of a
T a MEETING of The Hon. GEORGE LAMB's Com-
mittee, on Tuesday, February 23, 1819,
+ PRESENT,
R. H. Ev ANs, Esq. Auctioneer, in the Chair.
Rt. Hon. George CAN N IN G, M. P.
J. M. AcDo NALD, Esq. M. P.
J. W1 L Lock, Esq.
And other Members of the Committee.
Resolved UN ANIMously.—That Mr. Hunt, Mr. John
Gale Jones, and Mr. Bowie, (being a Deputation from
Major Cartwright's Committee) be admitted to the sitting of
this Committee, and that the Union of the two Committees
be from this day declared.—
Resolved Us A NiMously,–That the thanks of this
Meeting be given to Henry Hunt, Esq. John Gale Jones,
Esq. Sir Charles Wolseley, Bart. Dr. Watson, Mr. Bowie,
Mr. Thomas Preston, and the other Members composing
Major Cartwright's Committee, and that they be added to
this Committee, for the purpose of canvassing for Mr. Lamb,
and otherwise opposing by all possible means the principles
of Radical Reform, as advocated by Sir F. BURDETT,
and the Return of Mr. HOBHOUSE.
severe stratch on the poll.
i–
PARTNERSHIP. -
ESSrs. LAMB and HUNT respectfully hope for the favours of
MI their respective friends in their present partnership ; and beg
to observe, that Mr Hunt's business is removed from Spa Fields to
the premises of Mr Lamb, where Mr. Hunt attends daily for the
benefit of the joint concern.

(Signed) JOHN GALE JONES, Secretary,
ATROCI OUS LIBEL ON M R. HUNT.
HER EAS it has been circulated that I am about to part with a
man's wife I now live with, and who contributes to my support;
and aſso, that I am, about to live again with my own wife, and re-
tire to my home, and conduct myself as I ought to do hereafter-l
hereby give notice, this cruel aud malignant report is propagated by
the i.amp, with a view to ruin my character.
As witness my band this 23d day of Feb. 1819.
HENRY HUNT,
ORDER OF PROCESSION
FOR CHAIRING
Sir Francis BURDETT,
..Monday, July 13, 1818,
§
with DIRECTIONS for carrying the same into Effect. .
e. º º º C
HIGH CONSTABLE ON HORSEBACK.
Eight Assistants, four and four.
Three small dark blue Flags, used during the Election.
Band of Music, three and three.
Large white Flag, carried on Horseback.-Motto:
“PURITY OF MELECTION.”
1. Banner of St. Ann's Parish—Green.
Electors, four and four, bearing a large dark blue Flag—Motto's:
‘Burdett& Independence.’ ‘Burdett& Purity of Election.”
Band of Music, three and three. -
Banner of St. Paul's, Covent-Garden, and St. Martin's-le-Grand—Pink.
Electors, four and four, bearing a dark blue Flag—inscribed:
“SIR FRANCIS BURDETT.”
Band of Music, three and three. -
3.—Banner of St. Clement Danes, and St. Mary-le-Strand—White.
Electors, four and four, bearing a dark blue Banner—Motto:
“TRIAL BY JURY.”
Band of Music, three and three.
2.
. 4.—Banner of St. Martin's in-the-Fields—Purple.
Electors, four and four, bearing a dark blue Flag—inscribed:
“SIR FR.MNCIS Irur DETT. "
Band of Music, three and three.
5.—Banner of St. James's—Crimson.
Electors, four and four, bearing a dark blue Flag—Motto:
“BUR DETT and Reform.”
Band of Music, three and three.
_, 6. Banner of St. George, Hanover Square—Sky Blue.
Electors, four and four, bearing a dark blue Flag—inscribed:
“ SIR FRANCIS BURDETT.”
Band of Music, three and three.
7. Banner of St. Margaret, and St John's—Yellow.
Electors, four and four, bearing a dark blue Banner—Motto:
---- * ar 95
“jºlagna Cîjarta.
Band of Music, three and three.
Dark blue Flag—Motto's:
“Burdett and Reform.”—“ Purity of Election.”
COMMITTEE, three and three.
Large dark blue Banner—Motto:
“BURDETT, the Choice of the People.”
Eight-Assistant Constables, four and four. 3 *
Six Trumpeters with silver Trumpets, three and three, and Kettle Drums.
SIR FRANCIS BURDETT,
In the Chair, drawn by SIX HORSES.
Large dark blue Banner, carried on Horseback—Motto:
“R.ADICAL REFORM.”
Twenty named Gentlemen on Horseback, four and four, to bring up the rear of the
Procession, arranged by the Committee. -
N. B. Any Horseman or Carriage which may follow, are requested to fail in
immediately after the Twenty Gentlemen last mentioned.


ID II if IE C T II O N S.
'*-
The Electors, of the several Parishes, will assemble by Ten
o’Clock in the Morning, * ..." "
. at the under-mentionto pouges:
1.—St. ANN, King's Head, Little Newport-street, corner of Gerrard-street.
2.—St. PAUL, Cot 3. *** -
St. MARTI §: ſºwn º Nag's Head, James-street, Covent Garden.
3.—St CLEMENT DANES and e -
St. MARY-I, E- STRAND . . . . {Red Lion, Haughton, street, Clare Market.
4.—St. MARTIN IN THE FIELDS, Coach and Horses, near Cecil-court,
St. Martin's Lane. * * -
5–St. JAMES, Fountain, Broad-street, Golden-square. . .
6–St. GEORGE, Red Lion, Chandler-street, Grosvenor-square.
7.—St. MAR GARET and 'on, Princes- - s *
St. JOHN . . . . . . . . . © e e }ra Lion, Princes-street, Storey s Gate.
Where they will be met by two Gentlemen of the General Committee, who will
conduct them to their appointed Places in the immediate Vicinity of Hyde Park,
where they are expected to arrive by 12 o’Clock, and where Persons will be
previously stationed bearing the Parish Banners as numbered in the order
of Procession.
The Members of the General Committee will assemble at the White Horse,
corner of the Foot Barracks, Knightsbridge, by Half-past 12 o’Clock.
The Twenty named Gentlemen on Horseback, and such others as may prefer
that Mode of attending the Procession, are requested to assemble by 12 o’Clock,
in the Knightsbridge Road, near St. George's Hospital.
Carriages to assemble by the same Hour, in Grosvenor Place.
As soon as the Parishes have arranged themselves under their respective
Parish Banners, the Gentlemen of the Committee conducting each Parish are to
repair to the Committee Room at Knightsbridge, and announce their Arrival and
Arrangement at the appointed Stations: at One o’Clock, or as soon as the Com-
mittee are apprized that all are in Readiness, an Explosion Rocket will be
discharged from the Turnpike Gate, and a signal Streamer of dark blue and white
Stripes will immediately be hoisted above the Lamps, and remain until the
Parishes are in motion. . . .
THE PROCESSION will then commence, proceeding in Order from Hyde-
Park Corner along Piccadilly, and as soon as all those preceding the Car have
passed the Gate at the Top of Constitution Hill, another Rocket will be discharged
and the same Streamer will again be hoisted as a Signal to Halt, which will be
repeated by corresponding Streamers to the High Constable at the Head of the
Procession, and the whole will Halt, when the Twenty named Gentlemen on
Horseback will immediately join, and all others mounted, will fall in their Rear,
four and four ; and the Carriages arrange to follow singly. As soon as Sir
FRANCIS BURDETT is seated in the Chair, the third Rocket will be discharged
and the signal Streamer again hoisted above the Lamps, and communicated to the
High Constable as before, when the whole Procession will move forward to the East
End of Piccadilly, down the Haymarket, along Cockspur-street, round the Statue
at Charing-cross, to the Strand, up Bedford-street, and Henrietta-street, round
Covent-Garden, by the West, North, East, and South Sides, down Southampton-
street, to the Crown-and-Anchor Tavern, Strand. - -
Whilst the Procession is in Covent-Garden, a fourth Rocket will be discharged
from the Top of the Piazza Coffee-House, and a signal Streamer hoisted, when the
whole will Halt and give three Cheers. -
As soon as Sir FRANCIS BURDETT has alighted from the Chair, the Flags,
Banners, and Chair will proceed round St. Clement's Church to Waterloo Wharf,
under the Charge of a Number of volunteer Special Constables accompanying
the Procession for that Purpose. §
SAMUEL BROOKS,
CoMMITTEE Room, CHAIRMAN.
Piazza Coffee-house, July 8, 1818.
&
N.B. Every Gentleman will provide himself with a dark blue Cockade ; and to
observe Uniformity as much as possible, Patterns may be seen at each District
Committee-Room. - * : *
BENNETT, Printer, 7, Cross Street, Carnaby Market.
E L E C T I O N
SIR FRANCIS BURDETT.
Committee Room, Piazza Coffee House,
1 lth July, 1818.
THE Electors of Westminster and the Public at
large are respectfully informed, that the assertions
continually made and diligently propagated by a
corrupt and calumniating daily press, and by indi-
viduals and bodies of individuals of both the factions.
1st. That Sir Francis Burdett has subscribed
largely towards the expense of the Election,-- is
faise---Sir Francis Burdett never having subscribed
cither directly , or indirectly any sum whatsoever
towards this or any other of his Elections for
Westminster.
£d. That very large sums of money have been
expended in procuring the Return of Sir Francis
Burdett---is equally false.
42. s. d.
The Committee have the satisfaction
to state that the whole expense attend-
ing the Election including every item,
amounts to the sum of - – - 1 193 16 8
And that there have becn received
from various individuals º - 829 11 ()
ººm-ºs-
Leaving a Balance unpaid of – £366 5 8
The books and vouchers for the above account
are open for the inspection of the subscribers.
By Order of the Committee,
SAMUEL BROOKS,
Chairmat.
x Subscriptions for deſraying the expences of the Election, continue
to be received at the Committee Room ; by Mr. Brooks, 110,
Strand ; Mr. Robinson, 99, Dean Street, Soho; Edward Langley,
Esq. 17, Edgeware Road; and Mr. King, 22, Charing Cross.
G. Smecton, Printer, 17, St. Martiu's Lane.
er Election.
-- *... **
—l-º-
Wes taminst
*
THE Managing Committee appointed to conduct
the Election of John HobHotSE, Esq. acq"
the Electors, that in answer to an application made
by them to SIR FRANCIs BURDETT, for his assistance
and co-operation in promoting the cause of Parlia:
mentary Reform on this occasion, they have received
the following Letter :---
Dear Sir, ... Kirby Park, November 26, 1818.
I beg leave to transmit a Draft for
£1000, for the eagences of Mr. Hobhouse's Election;
and to state to the Committee my readiness to attend
them in any way they may think useful for securing
the Independence of Westminster. : •zº
- I remain, Dear Sir,
Your's very sincerely,
(Signed ) FRANCIS BURDETT.
To M.R. BRooks, - * . -
ChairMAN of the Westminster Committee.”
The Electors will not fail to recognize in this last
act of SIR FRANCIS BURDETT the devoted zeal and
magnanimity which have always marked the conduct
of their most excellent Representative. …
By Order of the Committee.
Crown and Anchor Tavern, -
27th November, 1818. - # § SAMUEL BROOKS,
Chairman.
A. MACPHERSON, PRINTER, Russell Court, Drury Lane,


WESTMINSTER ELECTION.
MEETING
Parish of "St. Paul.
Retrenchment! Economy! Reform 1
THE Elections for this City, since the memorable Year 1807, when
for the first time WESTM INSTER asserted its Independence, have been
conducted by the People on the pure Principles and genuine Spirit
of the Constitution, which declares that “Elections shall be free and
without corruption.”

SIR FRANCIS BURDETT has been thrice, and LoRD CochRANE twice
elected, free from every personal Sacrifice.
A great and glorious Example has been set to the whole kingdom,
and the most beneficial effects have been produced.
The Electors at large, in a most numerous Assembly, have resolved to
maintain those Principles, by the Return of .
•/o/en. Aobſeouse, AEsq.
The avowed Enemy to all Parliamentary Abuses.
To forward these desirable Objects, the Committee
appointed for this Parish, have invited
Mr. HOBHOUSE
to meet the Inhabitants at the Great Room, Shakes-
pear Tavern, Great Russell Street, Covent Garden,
on TUESDAY NEXT the 1st December, at
Seven o’Clock in the Evening.







W. ESTM INSTER ELECTION.
REForm of PA Irill AMENT.
--ee. -------------
_* ~ *-*.
Crown and Anchor Tavern, Nor. 20, 1818.
-- - At a Meeting of the Committee appointed to conduct the Election of
John Hophouse, Esq.
1T W AS RESOLVED, That the following Papers be printed and distributed for the
information of the Electors. SAMUEL BROOKS, Chairman.
Sir, - Tuesday, November 17, 1818.
I am directed by the Committee appointed at the public Meeting of the Electors of
Westminster, held at the Crown and Anchor Tavern, in the Strand, this day, to announce to you the following
Resolution, passed at that Meeting by an immense majority. *
Resolved, “ That Jon N H oblious E, Esq from his known talents and character, is a fit and proper
“ person to represent the City of Westminster in Parliament.” -
I am further directed to assure you, that the most prompt and vigorous measures will be pursued to
carry into effect the wishes of the Electors above expressed, to secure your l’eturn to Parliament, for the City
and Liberty of Westminster.
I have the honor to be, Sir,
Joli N H obli ouse, Esq. - Your most obedient Servant, -
SAMUEL BROOKS, Chairman.
Sir, 43, Clarges Street, Wednesday, November 18, 1818.
I am favoured with the communication. which, in the name of the Committee appointed
to carry into effect the l{esolution passed at the public Meeting of the Electors of Westminster, you have been
good enough to transmit to me this morning. I hope I shall prove myself worthy of their preference, and of
the zealous interest, which you, Sir and the Committee are pleased to take in my behalf. I beg leave to
enclose an Address to the Electors, to be circulated as you think proper.
I am happy to hear that immediate steps have been taken to ensure the object in view ; and I wish to
state, that I am in readiness to receive any such directions as the Committee may think serviceable to our
inutual cause. Previously to any other communication, I hope I may be excused for explicitly stating, that
I presume that the Election is to be conducted upon the ancient principles, and that excepting the legal
expenses attending the Hustings, I shall be indemnified from all pecuniary sacrifices. I ain independent
bºth from my circumstances, and from my moderate wishes: but I have no possible means of engaging in an
Election conested upon the present corrupt system, or indeed upon any other plan, than that which has been
adopted by the Westminster Electors, since the year 1807.
With respectful Compliments to the Committee,
SAMU E L I3 Rooks, Esq. I remain, Sir,
Chairman of the Committee appointed at the Your obedient humble servant,
public Meeting of the Electors of JWestmin- JOIHN HOBHOUSE.
ster, held at the Crown and Anchor Tavern.
To the INDEPENDENT ELECTORS OF WESTMINSTER.
Gentlemen, 43, Clarges Street, Wednesday, November 18, 1818.
o I have received with gratitude and pride the intelligence of my having been
nominated at a Public Meeting of the Electors of Westminster, as a fit person to represent this City in Parlia-
ment. With additional satisfaction I learn, that the requisite measures for carrying the Resolution of that
Mºeling into effect have been already adopted, and that preparations for an immediate canvas have been pro-
vided in the different parishes.
The REFoit Me its A R E UN ited : the disadvantages, therefore, under which they commenced their
last struggle, no longer exist. I flatter myself, indeed, that I shall receive the support of every friend of
freedom: Whatever may be his political creed, as to the best modes of redressing our grievances. With the
accomplishment of your first wish, a cordial union among yourselves, the Victory is more than half achieved.
Nothing can impede the exertions of all the truly independent £lectors. They will know their real adherents,
and so far from dreading concealed enemies, they will feel they have many well wishers amongst the unwilling
ranks of their opponents. United, the issue of their contest cannot be doubtful. Their duty is easy. They
will tell their brother Electors, to be true to those principles of Reform, which are derided and decried by the
heartless slaves of power, but which the triumphant practice of Westminster, has shewn to be not only safe
but salutary.
Electors of Westminster —You will not leave incomplete the exertions and the success of your last
struggle—You will not disfranchise one half of your great City, nor convert the suffrages of freemen into
the instruments of despotism.
As to myself, Gentlemen, You may be assured that I shall be found at the post which your preference
has permitted me to occupy, It might, I am well aware, be much better filled ; but I shelter myself belind
your selection, and the dignity of the cause may add some importance to the advocate.
. I trust, that, previous to the contest, opportunities will be devised, by which I may increase the
acquaintance I have had the happiness to form with a large body of the Electors.
wil nºvel retreat whilst you shall encourage me to proceed : and should I be returned to Parliament
by the unbought Votes of the Electors of Westminster, I will contribute all the means in my power towards
the accomplishment of the purposes for which I conceive the trust will be placed in my hands.
I am, Gentlemen, your faithful servant,
I beg you will receive the enclosed draft for one hundred pounds towards defraying the
necessary and lawful expences of returning to Parliament, a Representative of the City of Westminster, pledged
to use his best evertions towards effecting a RA DICAL REro RM of the Commons //ouse of Parliament. If
any thing could have increased my hearty sympathy with my Brother Electors, co-operating for this end, it is
that their choice has been directed to Mr. Hobhouse, to whose integrity, and to whose talents, no cause,
however sacred, may not with confidence be committed
It will afford me much satisfaction to contribute any services which you may be pleased to think, that
I, as an Elector of Westminster, can render to the Cause in which you are engaged, as I should have the
additional gratification of satisfying the claims of private friendship whilst discharging a public duty.
S. B nooks, Esq. I have the honor to be,
Chairman of the Committee appointed by the Dear Sir,
E fect ors of Płºcs frn inster, ro core a z, c & 2/, c
JE /cc t torrs of Jo ſa za A ſo L. F. Jº ºr 2’s
«» t
Dear Sir,
JOHN HOBHOUSE.
Clarges Street, November 19, 1818.
* , , ur very obc-ri i r n tº serva rif,
* * , -





REQUISITION s
ir Francis Burdett,
And his ANSWER.
Copy of a Letter addressed to Sir Francis Burdett, by a numerous
- Body of the Electors of Westminster. . . .
SIR, WESTMINSTER, 20th June, 1818-
WE, the Undersigned, Electors of Westminster, feeling the utmost anxiety for the success of the cause of Reform, and having
no doubt that the same feeling is common to us and the great majority of our Brother Electors, consider it to be our bºunden
duty to address you on the present occasion, and to represent to you, that the support, which is given to each other, by the two
factions which have so long oppressed the State, together with the unfortunate disunion which has arisen amongst some of the best
Friends of Reform, have placed us in circumstances of peculiar difficulty. .
You have, on all occasions, used your utmost exertions to defend the Rights and Liberties of the People of England :
the whole nation has confidence in your character and integrity, and we are deeply impressed with the opinion, that your return
to Parliament is of the utmost importance to the interests of the whole people.
We are happy to inform you, that the differences which had arisen amongst ourselves are at an end, and that all our efforts
are now united in support of the cause of which you have so long been the ardent and faithful leader; but the exertions of our
enemies have given them advantages which will require extraordinary exertions, on our part to counteract ; and in order that
sūccess Hääy be ensured, we are most anxious to have your personal assistance.
r You, Sir, in the modern times of corruption first raised a public voice in England. It began in Westminster, and soon
spread over the whole country. That voice, the honest fruits of your honourable and courageous labours, the factions have united
to destroy, even in the &radle which gave it birth; and now it is in the heat of the contest, and amidst difficulties and dangers never
before contended with, that we earnestly and respectfully call upon you to lend your powerful aid, not for the purpose of securing
your own seat, which we know to be a matter of indifference to you, any otherwise than it is connected with the Public Cause, but
io secure the expression of public opinion, in the only place where it can be expressed, and where it certainly will be expressed in
the moment that you are seen as the guardian and supporter of it. -
The enemies of the Cause have calumniated you by stating that you had deserted the People—that you would refuse to
serve them, even if called upon to do so. We entreat you, Sir, to contradict these statements—to appear personally upon the
Hustings, and let the World see, that you are the same Friend of Liberty, the same ardent Supporter of popular Rights which we
have always known you to be. -
We ask you, not forÉ. sake, or for our own, but for the sake of that Cause, the success of which can alone secure the
happiness of the People of England. ...
º • We have the honor to be, with the greatest respect, Sir. ..
To Sir Francis Burdett, Your most obedient Servants,
Baronet. \ /Signed by a very numerous body of Electors.)
sir FRANCIs ºr dºtt's AWswer.
GENTLEMEN, Saturday Evening, June 20, 1818.
My esteem for the understanding and independance of the Electors of Westminster, and the grateful sense I entertain of their
handsome conduct towards me, on every occasion, make it my duty as well as my inclination to use every exertion in my power,
at all times, to serve them: but, highly as I estimate my duty towards them, and anxious as I am to fulfil it, there is still a higher
duty to performa towards myself; and which, if neglected, would be alike prejudicial to us both; as it would strip me of all
personal consideration, and therefore of all means of discharging my debt of gratitude to them.
º This first duty, the foundation of every other, is self respect; it can only be preserved by fair and honourable dealing, and
consistency of conduct; to offer it a sacrifice, together with public principles, on the altar of Expediency, in order to obtain a seat
in the House of Commons, would be a wretched and mistaken method of attempting to advance the public cause. -
I am free to confess, that upon every occasion like the present, whether as a Candidate, or proposed without being a Candi-
date, my object has been not to find a seat, but a Public ; my endeavours have been used to rouse that Public, to give it an
opportunity of displaying itself in its fairest light; to shew virtue her own image, for the purpose of securing the esteem of the wise
and good, thereby advancing in the most irresistible manner the public claim to universal Freedom. * . . ;
I am not aware of any selfish motive, either of Avarice, Vanity, or Ambition, having ever tainted my mind in this pursuit.
The Patriotism, Spirit, and Intelligence of the Citizens of Westminster, have long presented to the creatures of corruption, an
“object that seared their eye balls:” . They started at it “like a guilty thing upon a fearful summons;” such was the effect pro-
duced by your spontaneous and spirited exertions, unparallelled in the History of Elections. It was the grand and imposing
spectacle of a people who knew their rights, and knowing, were resolute to obtain them. . . - . . . . . . . ~
The reverse of this picture would be a sad spectacle to exhibit to the eye of an expecting world ; if, however, the people
of Westminster are unequal to the task of sustaining the noble attitude they have taken, if it is but a semblance of Patriotism
and Virtue that has been assumed, I am the most unfit person upon earth, by any compromise of those principles and professions
upon which we have so long acted, to strive to uphold a cheat. If a mask, as is continually hinted at in the public prints, has
been worn, I am desirous that it should be made evident to all the world that it has not been worn by me; and in my opinion, by
whomsoever worn, the sooner it falls off the better. - - .
If there are those who, ignoble by nature, have nevertheless put on the lion's hide only, “doff it for shame, and hang a
calf's skin on those recreant limbs.” The great question now at issue in Westminster is, not whether this or that individual should
be returned; therefore I say nothing of any candidate; but whether REForM, or No Refonx, shall take place ; whether, as far
as the Citizens of Westminster are concerned, Corruption and Despotism shall be countenanced, or the Rights and Liberties of
the People of England restored. The important point is to prove, not the influence of any individual, of any name, or the effects
of any personal exertions, still less of any electioneering tricks or cajolings; but the force of principles; to prove the People of
Westminster at least superior to the former, and equal to the latter; to throw in the great weight of example, preaching practically,
more eloquently “than angels trumpet-tongued” in support of the public cause.
te These, and not indolence, nor luke-warmness, nor want of due respect towards the Citizens of Westminster, have been the
motives (and I trust they are fair and honest ones) of my conduct; nor can I now repent it, or be induced, though so urgently
pressed by those whose requests would, in ordinary cases, operate as commands, to change it, for the sake of obtaining, by incon-
sistency of conduct and compromise of principle, so paltry an object as a mere seat in the House of Corruption. A seat in the
House of Commons has no value in my eyes, but inasmuch as it can be made conducive to the recovery of the People's Rights.
How far any man's being placed therein is a matter of any importance, it is now your province to judge: should you think it of
any, you will perform your easy duty, by walking to the poll, and electing for your representative whomsoever you confide in.
As to myself, whether in or out of Parliament, I shall at all times be ready, zealously to co-operate with my fellow-citizens
of Westminster, and the rest of my countrymen, for the purpose of checking that system of fiscal spoliation, and political
corruption, which takes his due reward from the poor, his inheritance from the rich, and liberty from all; and must finally terminate
in the establishment of despotic power... It is against this formidable enemy we have buckled on our armour, and I trust we shall
keep our “harness on our backs” until we have obtained the people's inalienable rights, recovered their fair and reasonable share
of the Government, the appointment of their own Guardians in a House of Commons freely and constitutionally chosen by them-
selves. More than this they ought not to demand—with less they cannot be satisfied. - .
. - I remain, Gentlemen,
To the Electors of Westminster, - Your very grateful, and yery obedient, humble Servant,
***** sway FRANCIs BURDETT -

At a Meeting of Mr. L.AMB'S Friends,
held at No. 14, Park-place, St. James's-
Street, on Wednesday Evening, Feb.
17, 1819;
EARL SEFTON in the Chair.
Present, Mr. LAMBTon, Mr. MAcDonald, Mr. LAMB,
and about thirty others. w
Mr. CLARKE, an Elector of the Parish of St.
James's, asked—Would Mr. LAMB pledge himself
to support such a REFoſtM as should Abolish the
choosing of
Two Members for BATH by 32 Individuals;
Two for OLD SARUM by 3 or 4 Individuals;
Two for GATToN by the same number;
Two for BUCKINGHAM by 12 Individuals;
Two for BANBURy by 14 Individuals;
Two for LAUNCEston by 11 Individuals;
And in numerous other Boroughs in the same man-
ner, by similar Numbers, and transfer the Repre-
sentation to Large Towns and Populous Counties?
Mr. LAMB ANSWERED,
He was a Friend to Parliamentary Reform ; to a
larger extension of Suffrage, and a shorter duration
of Parliaments. He was the Friend of the late
Sir Samuel Romilly, but HE had NOT STUDIED
the Constitution of the BOROUGH SYSTEM SO
ACCURATELY as the Gentleman who put the
Question '' -
—iº-
Electors of Westminster.
Is he Ignorant ---Or is he False :
In either case he is not ſit to Represent
You.
Hay and Turner, Printers, Newcastle Street, Strand.
Reform of Parliament.
PURITY of ELECTION.
**-*.
Hobhouse.

Electors of Westminster,
Your WHIG Enemy, who seeks a Seat
to destroy YOUR LIBERTIES, may send
you Letters of Thanks for your Votes; but you
will not expect Thanks from a COMMITTEE
YOURSELVES, acting for YOU, and by
YOUR MEANS ONLY to PRESERVE
YOUR LIBERTIES. - -
Canvas aniong Yourselves—for Yourselves
and gain for Yourselves another glorious Victory.
Come to the Poll without delay, and return
the MAN selccted by Yourselves, by a large
Majority.
State of the Poll, 6th Day.
TOTAL.
Hobhouse . .117 1133
Cartwright . I 37
Lamb . . . .282 1824
Committee, Fisher's Room,
Covent Garden, Feb. 20, 1819.
Subscriptions are received at the Committee Room, and
by the Treasurer, Mr. BRooks, 110, Strand.
Corent Garden, Feb. 24, 1819.
Subscriptions are received at the Committee §. and
tº the freasurer, Mr. Brooks. 110. Strand:


Reform of Parliament.
PURITY OF ELECTION.
****

HOBHOUSE.
Electors of Westminster,
THE Poll is drawing to its Close. Another Glo-
rious Victory is within your Power.
Your Enemies--your Whig and Tory Enemies
---areformidable in their craft and in their corruption.
That you despise their Power is but too clear,
for you are lulled into a Security, which if continued,
may be fatal.
Arouse yourselves in Time ! Your Freedom,
your Honour, your Independence, the Character you
have maintained for the last Twelve Years, may all
be lost while you are preparing for Action.
Come forward instantly, and record your Names
* those who are exerting themselves to maintain
them.
The voice of BURDETT is a host in argument,
but it reckons only for ONE at the Poll like each of
yours. Follow his example. Inscribe your name
with his, for

HOBHOUSE.
State of the Poll, 9th Day.
TOTAL.
Hobhouse . .261 2297
Cartwright . 0 37.
Lahib . . . .390 2658
Committee, Fisher’s Rooms,
Coccnt Garden, Feb. 24, 1819.
Subscriptions are received at the Committee Room, and
by the 'Preasurer, Mr. Brooks. 110. Strand.
º
Qºbe New Daily globertiger,
No. 1.]
COV ENT G A R D EN, WEDN ESDAY.
[Feb. 24.
T a Meeting of MAJOR CARTWRIGHT'S COM-
MITTEE, held at the Russell Coffee House, on Tues-
day, February 23d, 1819,
PRESENT.
HENRY HUNT, Esq in the Chair.
JOHN G A LE JONES, Esq.
SIR CHARLES WOLSELEY, Bart.
MR. B( ) W IE.
MR. THOMAS PRESTON,
Resolved.—That the thanks of this Meeting be given to
Henry Hunt, Esq. for his conduct in the 4 hair.
(Signed) THOMAS PRESTON, Secretary.
Ta MEETING of The Hon. GEORGE LAMB's Com-
mittee, on Tuesday, February 23, 1819,
Plk ESENT,
R. H. Ev.ANs, Esq. Auctioneer, in the Chair.
Rt. Hon. GeoRGE CAN N IN G, M. P.
J. M.AcDo NALD, Esq. M. P.
J. WILLock, Esq.
And other Members of the Committee.
Resolved UN AN IMous LY.—That Mr. Hunt, Mr. John
Gale Jones, and Mr. Bowie, (being a Deputation from
Major Cartwright's Committee) be admitted to the sitting of
this Committee, and that the Union of the two Committees
be from this day declared.—
Resolved UN ANIMoUSLY,+That the thanks of this
Meeting be given to Henry Hunt, Esq. John Gale Jones,
Esq. Sir Charles Wolseley, Bart. Dr. Watson, Mr. Bowie,
Mr. Thomas Preston, and the other Members composing
Major Cartwright's Committee, and that they be added to
this Committee, for the purpose of canvassing for Mr. Lamb,
and otherwise opposing by all possible means the principles
of Radical Reform, as advocated by Sir F. BURDETT,
and the Return of Mr. HOBHOUSE.
REso Lved UN ANIMously.—That Henry Hunt, Esq.
and John Gale Jones, Esq. do attend the Hustings, to
support and encourage Mr. Lamb in his addresses at the
close of the Poll, day by day.
REsolved.—That Mr. John Gale Jones be the Secretary
of this Committee.
(Signed) R. H. EVANS, Chairman.
Resolved.—That the thanks of this Meeting, be given
::::::::::::::::: - ; --- # * * * *ś
Tºwer.TTNüof The Fººds of The Hon. G. LAME,
held in Downing Street, -
Lord CASTLEREA GH in the Chair,
PRESENT.
J. Willock, esq.
Mr Evans,
Courier Mudford, esq.
Mr. Bowie.
Henry Hunt, Esq.
Hon. W Lamb, M.P.
fºr. Watson
J Macdonald, Esq. M. P.
Auctioneers. .
Resolved UN ANIMous LY.—That, it being wholly im-
possible we can bring in Major Cartwright for Westu; inster,
we do withdraw the worthy Major from the Poll, and to the
utmost oppose Mr. Hobhouse.
REsolv ED UN AN IMoUs LY.—That the invitation to us
from the Hon. G. Lamb, to unite this Comunittee with his
Committee be accepted. -
Resolv ED UN AN I wously.—That the thanks of this com-
mittee, be given to J. Macdonald, Esq. M. P. and Mr. Evans
of Pall Mall, Auctioneer, for the attentive politeness with
which they communicated the desire of Mr. Lamb's Com-
mittee, and that those Centlemen be attended to their Com-
mittee Room, by Mr. Hunt, Mr. John Gale Jones, and Mr.
Bowie, who are hereby deputed, to announce the union of this
Committee with Mr. Lamb's Committee.
(Signed/ HENRY HUNT, Chairman.
John Gale Jones, esq. Dr Shop.
Rt Hon. G Canning, M. P. Citizen T. Preston,
Sir W. Curtis, bart. &c. &c. &c.
& Eso LVED UN AN i MoUs LY.—On the motion of Mr. Can-
ning, seconded by Mr. Hunt, that all the gentlemen present
being embarked in the same cause will support each other
in procuring the Hon. G. Lamb to represent the City of West-
minster in Parliament, being firmly persuaded that it is the
only means by which they can effectually secure to the mselves
the ends which they respectively have in view.
R Esolved UN AN IMous LY.—')n the motion of Henry
Hunt, Esq. seconded by Dr. Slop, that the thanks of this
meeting be given to the noble Chairman, for his zealous and
itnpartial conduct in the chair.
Resolved UN AN IMously.—On the motion of the Rt.
Hon. G. Canning, seconded by Courier Mudford, Esq. that
John Gale Jones, Esq. be the Secretary of this coalition.
(Signed/ J. G. JONES, Secretary.
-ms
coyºtr GARDEN.
s==
Yesterday, the Hon. G. Lamb was seen walking from
the Morning Chronicle Office towards the stairs of the
Waterloo Bridge, in a very low and desponding state
of mind ; happily the watermen were at the plying place,
and he turned back with a look of great disappointment.
On Monday, Mr. Lamb experienced a heavy fall
on the Hustings. He has ever since complained of a
severe stratch on the poll.
PARTNERSHIP.
ESSrs. LAMB and HUNT respectfully hope for the favours of
MI their respective friends in their present partnership; and beg
to observe, that Mr Hunt's business is removed from Spa Fields to
the premises of Mr Lamb, where Mr. Hunt attends daily for the
benefit of the joint conceru.
ATROCIOUS LIBEL ON M R. HUNT.
HEREAS it has been circulated that I am about to part with a
W man's wife I now live with, andwho contributes to my support;
and āIso, that I am about to live again with my own wife, and re-
tire to my home, and conduct myself as I ought to do hereafterº-1
hereby give notice, this cruel and malignant report is propagated by
the Favonia, with a view to ruin my character.
=As witness roy band tº 's 23d ºx ºf £eº-1849-


Reform of Parliament.
Westminster Election.
Crown and Anchor Tavern,
Feb. 11th, 1820.
At a meeting of Electors of Westminster, held this day,
It was unanimously resolved :
I. That considering the great abilities, and eminent past
services of SIR FRANCIS BURDETT, BART. it is highly
fit and proper, that he be put in nomination as one of the
Representatives of the City and Liberty of Westminster, on
the expected dissolution of Parliament. *
II. That JOHN CAM HOBHOUSE, Esq. from the
zeal and ability he has already shown in the cause of Parlia-
mentary Reform, and his determined resistance to arbitrary
Power, is a fit and proper person to be put in nomination
as the other Representative, on the expected dissolution of
Parliament.
III. That the Chairman, Mr. Brooks, be requested
to communicate the proceedings of this evening to SIA
FRANCIS BURDETT, BART. and JOHN CAM
HOBHOUSE, Esq.
( 2 )
The Chairman having communicated the foregoing
resolutions to SIR FRANCIS BUR DETT and JOHN
CAM HOBHOUSE, Esq. received the following replies
from those Gentlemen.
Newgate, Saturday, February 12, 1820,
Sir,
* I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt
of your letter, and of the accompanying resolutions passed at the
Meeting of Electors of Westminster, held last might at the Crown
and Anchor Tavern.—I beg to assure the Friends of Reform,
that their approbation of my conduct is highly gratifying to my
jeelings, and that it shall be the labour of my life to prove, that
it is not discreditable to their discernment.—I am proud to per-
ceive that the Electors still consider me as not unworthy the
distinguished honour of being a second time put in nomination for
the Representation of the City of Westminster, and I take the
earliest opportunity of assuring them, that I shall hold myself in
readiness on the first moment of my release from imprisonment to
assist my fellow Citizens in carrying their wishes into effect. If
by the Independent Voice of their large and enlightened commu-
mity I shall be called upon to exercise the most important function
that can be performed by the Citizen of a free state ; I shall
never forget, that I have been selected on account of the full ex-
pression of my sentiments on the necessity of a Reform in the
House of Commons. And I shall consider a seat in Parliament
in no other light than as affording more extended means, and
more frequent opportunities of proclaiming the same opinions on
the only question which now interests, or, indeed, concerns the
great mass of the English Nation.
I have the honour to remain,
To Samuel Brooks, Esq. Sir, your most faithful Servant,
Chairman, &c. JOHN CAM HOBHOUSE.
Oakham, February 16, 1820.
Sir, -
I had the honour of receiving your communication
ºf the result of the Meeting of Electors of Westminster at the
‘. and Anchor Tavern on the evening of the 11th, at this
ptact.
( 3 )
The long-continued approbation of the enlightened and inde-
pendent Citizens of Westminster cannot be other than highly gra-
tifying to me; but it is still more so to find, by your letter, that
“ more spirit, unanimity, and determination was never manifested
on any occasion;” for never stood the country more in need of the
erertion and example of Westminster than at the present crisis.
As I shall be in town to-morrow, I shall only add, which is how-
ever scarcely necessary, that the Electors of Westminster will.
dispose of me, and any services they may think me capable of ren-
dering the common cause, in whatever way they may judge most
advantageous, and may rest assured, that no effort on my part
shall be wanting to promote their wishes in recovering the consti-
tutional and violated rights of the People.
I remain, Sir,
To Mr. Brooks, Your most obedient Servant,
Chairman, &c. &c. FRANCIS BURDUTT.
Crown and Anchor Tavern,
February, 23, 1820.
At a numerous Meeting of Electors of Westminster,
friends of Palliamentary Reform, held this day—
The resolutions of the Meeting held on the 11th of this
month were unanimously adopted—and the following address
to the Electors at large was ordered to be printed and circu-
lated.
To the Electors of Westminster.
After mature deliberation it has been resolved to
nominate SIR FRAN cis BUR DETT, Bart. and JoHN CAM
Ho Bhouse, Esq., at the ensuing election for the City and
Liberty of Westminster.
We feel regret at being obliged to recur to events which
may possibly awaken animosities between those who perhaps
( 4 )
wish well to the same cause; but we should not be doing our
duty by you, our fellow citizens, or by ourselves, if from
any motives of false delicacy, or from the fear of undeserved
censure, we should refrain from speaking openly, those truths
which it is necessary for your very existence as an inde-
pendent body should be known and understood.
Our sole object has at all times been the promotion of
Parliamentary Reform, and we have felt that in order to
romote that object it was indispensible that the Electors of
Westminster should return to Parliament, TWO members,
whose principles were congenial with their own, and who
being fairly and truly their representatives, would be beyond
the reach of Party, and pursue the same national object with
themselves. &
The election of Members of Parliament for Westminster
had been for several late years in the hands of the people
themselves—their representatives were returned free fiom
any personal trouble and expence; and you enjoyed that
independence of which other communities could boast only
In name,
. The departure of Lord Coch RAN E opened a way for the
re-introduction of party interference; but the reputation of
Sir SAMU El Romilly seemed to reconcile the electors to
that interference, notwithstanding they had been accustomed
to consider all attempts of party to influence them as incom-
patible with the freedom of Election.
The case was far otherwise in 1819. You then under-
stood the nature of the effort made to reduce you to the con-
dition of other elective bodies. You made a noble struggle
against the coalesced parties, and you were not successful only
because the Returning Officer, at the suggestions of the Rate
Collectors, who were hired and paid for the purpose, (by
those who said they wished to extend the suffrage) bisfr AN-
chised AT LEAst FIFTE E N H UN DRED Electors, a large
proportion of whom attempted, and the remainder of whom
had promised to vote for Mr. Ho Bhops E, but who were
restrained by the fear of rejection from tendering their votes.
Since the close of the last election, several points of very
considerable importance have been established, which it is
our duty to state to you. Your opponents charged your
Committee during the election with hiring, arming and in-
( 5 )
flaming bands of ruffians against the electors. It was
Proved in the Court of King's Bench, that bands of ruf-
fians were hired, armed, and sent intoxicated to the Hustings
by those very persons who made the accusation ; and Mr.
James Macdonald, the proposer of Mr. Lamb, and the hirer
of those ruſſians, not only admitted the fact to two members
of your committee, but boldly avowed also, that H E would
HIRE twice the number at the next election; but we cannot
think this gentleman will be so imprudent as to carry his
threat into execution. At all events, on the first symptoms
of violence you will understand whence it proceeds, where
to look for the authors of the disturbance, and you will know
how to deal with them, so as to prevent the outrages and nais-
chiefs which were experienced from hired mobs at the last,
from being again perpetrated at the approaching election.
Your opponents also during the Election constantly denied
that there was any coalition between them and the minis-
terial party, and their advocate Lord Erskine challenged you
to prove it. Since that time their leader, Mr. Tierney, has
in his place, in the debate on the State of the Nation, avowed,
and proclaimed the fact, and we have found by a dissection
of the late Poll, that out of the 446.5 who voted for Mr. Lamb,
2763 had voted at the previous Election for Sir Murray Max-
well, and ONE THOUSAND AND SEVENTY-ONE HAD
Po LL.E.D. PLUMPERs Fort SLR M U R RAY-in other words,
were DEA D Gover NMENT vot ERs; you need not, therefore,
fear the power of the Whigs in Westminster. These facts
speak volumes.
But by far the most important point has been gained by
the trial of the action brought by Mr. Cullen against the
High Bailiff for refusing his vote, on the ground that he was
in arrear, that he had not paid his poor's rates. The Chief
Justice declared that the vote was ILLEGALLY Rej ECTED
AND ou GHT TO HAVE BE EN RECEIVED. This decision
has taken the choice of your representatives out of the hands
of the hired rate collectors, and has again restored it to your-
selves. Having recovered the Right, you will doubtless use
IT FOR YOURSELVES.
Difficulties you will still have to encounter, undue influ-
ence you will have to resist, though these have been much
diminished since the last Election. You must look forward
( 6 )
to another coalition of the two parties against the reformers.
Mr. Lamb has already hung out a flag of truce to the minis-
terialists, he has taken care not to run the risk of scaring any of
the in ever, with the name of R EFoRM, while he seeks to
soothe them by insinuating, that those who pretend to defend
“ the Rights of the People” should do so ONLY “ to main.
tain the securi v of the Crown.”
You will be told that Mr. Lamb is the old member, but
you may reply, that he has occupied the seat, only in conse-
quence of Mr. Hobhouse having been deprived of it by the
decision of the High Bailiff, which decision has since been
decided to have been illegal.
You will be told that in whatever manner Mr. Lamb got
into the house, he has behaved well since he has been there;
but you may reply, that, had Mr. Lamb behaved ten times as
well as he has done, it is indispensible to the cause of reform,
that Bot H THE MEM B ERs shou LD BE REFoRM ERs, congenial
in their sentiments both with themselves and with you, and
that they should actually and in truth, be THE REAL REPR E-
S ENTATI v Es of TH E PEOPLE, and not the nominees of a
party. You may moreover add, that it would be equally
absurd and destructive of your principles, to return Sir Francis
Burdett, and to give him as a colleague one who said in the
House Commons, on Sir Francis Burdett's Motion for Reform,
that “his object was to draw a wider distinction between him
“ and the reformers, of whom Sir Francis was the organ, than
“ between A N Y oth ER two classes of politicians '' Who on
the same occasion said, that “ since Sir Francis Burdett and
“his coadjutors had placed themselves at the head of reform,
“ its march had been littie more than what was in military
“ language called marking time, an art which consisted in
“making much dust and little progress, or rather in a retro-
“ grade motion;” thus studiously insulting you by an
awkward attempt to throw ridicule on the most important of
all causes and on the most eminent of all its supporters. And
who having concluded the banter in which on that occasion
he thought proper to indulge, seriously affirmed, “that he must
“consider th AT Hous E, THE TRUE REPRESENTATIVE of THE
People.” That house, which, but a few days before the Mar-
quess of Tavistock had called “a corrupt,” and Mr. Coke “a
“ boroughmongering House of Commons.—That House, of
( 7 )
which Mr. Lambton in his present address to his constituents
says, “has lately passed acts such as would never have been
“adopted by a House of Commons really representing the Peo-
“ple of England,” Mr. Lamb may have served the purposes of
his party, but then he must look to his party for his reward, and
must not expect that, having been carried into Parliament for
Westminster against the people at the last Election, he should
be carried into parliament by the people at this Election.
But if the services of Mr Lamb in parliament had been
useful to the people, instead of being intended to ridicule and
debase them, still the reformers would have no reason to fear
to contrast them with the services of Mr. Hobhouse out of
parliament. Prom the moment the Electors of Westminster
first turned their attention towards that gentleman he has been
wholly employed fighting the people's battles; never has he
been disgusted or discouraged; no circumstance has induced
him to relax his efforts: whether in prison, or at large among
his fellow citizens, his conduct has been invariably the same,
always has he been at his post, never has he been found want-
ing. Amidst the taunts and abuse of the hireling press of both
parties, he has steadily pursued the course which he pledged
himself to pursue.
In many respects he might even be considered more the
member for Westminster than his late and present opponent;
at no time has he delayed an instant in attending to your
call ; he has been amongst you at a moment's warning, and
he was among the first, if even he was not the very first to
raise his voice against the Manchester atrocities; he was
the first who from his own purse furnished the means of pro-
curing redress, had it been to be procured, for the sufferers; he
was the first who set the example of coutributing to alleviate
their misfortunes. -
As a Parliamentary Reformer, the bold expression of his
sentiments, relative to the House of Commons, caused him to
be singled out from among thousands of his fellow country-
men, as was said in the Honourable House, “ as a victim not
unfit for the Honourable House to strike at.” This circum-
stance alone, were there no other, might seem to designate
the person whom the Reformers in Westminster should select
as the colleague of that truly great man, whose whole life has
been devoted to the people, whose unremiting efforts have
been constantly directed to the exposure of that System of
( 8 )
Sham-representation, which, after having been long recog-
nized by all our greatest and best statesmen as an 1 M Post URE,
has revived, and produced the exercise of that very power of
a bitrary imprisonment, and suspension of the Laws of the
Land, which drove King James from the throne.
Mr. Hobhouse is not occupied by the duties of any
profession, but is wholly free, as he is perfectly willing, to
devote himself to the service of his country; he is not
interested in the triumph of any party ; it is by promoting
the intº rest of the people, and by that alone that he can hope
to maintain the character, and to preserve the station which
your voice is alone able to confer.
Of Sir Francis Burdett it is surely unnecessary for us to
add our feeble praise to your intimate knowledge of his
unbounded merits, and we shall therefore only remark, that
he is perhaps the only man, who has for so long a period
steadily and invariably maintained the cause of the people,
with such singular ability, without having in any one instance
been drawn away from his purpose, or induced to swerve to
the right hand or to the left; who has exhibited the rare, and
we believe the only example of never having been seduced
or deluded by party feelings: and we are confident that
his bright example will be perseveringly followed by
Mr. Hobhouse.
We feel fully assured that you will second our efforts,
which we promise shall be unremitted. The most cheering
prospects of success appear on every side, and we cannot,
therefore, doubt of the issue of the contest.
We entreat you to come early to the poll, and not to wait
until asked for that suffrage which independent minded men
should be prompt to give without solicitation. By so doing,
a ready answer may be given to the numerous canvassers
of your opponents, who will be silenced at once by the
words,
* I HAVE WOTED !”
By order of the Committee,
February 23, 1820 SAMUEL BROOKS,
Chairman.
F I N I S
S. Ward, Printer, Dean Street, Soho.
REFORM OF PARLIAMENT.
Westminster Election.
Cuno 3 buttggeg
To THE
Electors of Westminster,
SIR FRANCIS BURDETT, Bart.
AND
JOHN CAM HOBHOUSE, Esq.
—-mºſt SNRRRRRRRum-
Printed by Order of the Committee of Electors.
1820.
W. Robson & Co. Printers, St. Dunstan's Hill.
TO THE
INDEPENDENT
Electors of Westminster.
ST, JA Mes’s PLA.cf., 25 Feb. 1820.
Gentlemen,
HAv1NG been subjected to one Ex-officio Information by
my last Address, I may possibly be subjected to another
by the present; for, whether what I write may be a libel, or
may be so called by the Attorney General, is more than I
can tell: just as he pleases. For neither his unconstitutional
power of filing ex-officio informations, nor any other power
under heaven, shall prevent me from speaking my mind freely
upon any occasion that concerns the general welfare, or from
doing any act that in my judgment may contribute or tend to
the recovery and security of the constitutional rights and liber-
ties of my country.
Gentlemen, never did that country stand more in need
of wisdom, firmness, energy, public principle, and public ex-
ample, than at the present moment; and never were any
persons more capable of setting such an example, or were
placed in a situation more calculated to do so with
effect, than the Electors of Westminster will be on the ex-
pected dissolution of Parliament. Then will be the time for
them to place the Independence of Westminster on an im-
moveable basis; then the time for displaying the character of
Westminster in a clear and unequivocal point of view ; then
the time for them to give full and consistent expression to
their principles, feelings and opinions, all of which were by
our opponents flagrantly outraged at the last Election, both
during the contest and by its result. - -
3
Gentlemen, without unnecessarily ripping up old sores,
or calling too strongly to mind past injuries, which on our own
account I agree we ought to forgive, but which on account of
the public we ought not to forget, and without disparagement
to Mr. GEORGE LAM B, for whom I have much personal
regard. I am however, as an Elector of Westminster, as a
supporter of the just exercise of the rights of the People, and
above all, of the sacred right of free election, as a friend to
good order, peace and liberty,
“For order and degree
“Jar not with liberty, but well consist,”—
bound to bear in mind, and without anger to resent, the
disgraceful practices, the brutality and violence, the vile and
false aspersions cast on us by those, who were they as honest,
or at least as downright, as Richard, would confess with him,
“The secret mischiefs which I set abroach,
“I lay unto the grievous charge of others.”—
The scandalous coalition, the unjust decisions, together with
all the arts, tricks, and devices by which Mr. GEORGE LAMB
was at the last Election palmed upon Westminster as its
Representative, when in truth and fact he represented nothing
in Westminster, but Boroughmonger enmity to Parliamentary
Reform. Gentlemen, it is highly important to our character,
honor, and independence—to the peace of the City—to good
morality, truth, and Reform, that such modes of proceeding
should not be permanently triumphant.
Gentlemen, on the other hand, when I call to mind the
zeal, ability, and manliness with which Mr. Ho BHous E then
fought our battle, and has since evinced in maintaining the
right of the subject against the power of arbitrary imprison-
ment—taking . these circumstances into consideration, I beg
leave to assure you that nothing could have given me more
satisfaction than the communication made to me by Mr.
Brooks, that “a numerous and respectable meeting of the
“ Electors of Westminster, held at the Crown and Anchor
“ Tavern, had resolved to use their best endeavours to return
“to Parliament so tried and powerful an advocate of the
“cause of the People as Mr. Ho Bhous E.;” and should the
Electors of Westminster again think fit to appoint me one or
4 *
their Representatives, they cannot undoubtedly appoint
another, more efficient or desirable than the Gentleman in
}. both for their own good, and for that of the public.
indulged a hope indeed, reflecting on all that passed on a
former occasion, unnecessary here to repeat, that this course of
things would have taken place without opposition, until Mr.
GEoRGE LAMB's advertisement made its appearance. Of
this address I know not what to say ; because of nothing,
nothing can be said: but any thing so totally void of all pub-
lic principle, of all reason, or even excuse for supporting its
author as Candidate for Westminster—any thing so poor, so
spiritless, so “woe-begone,” I will venture to say was never
before addressed to the patriotic, ardent, and enlightened
Electors of Westminster, unless it was by a ministerial tool;
not one word with respect to that great, that all-important,
and it is hardly overstating it to say, that only important ques-
tion, Reform the paramount question at any rate in the
minds of the well informed people of Westminster.
For my own part, Gentlemen, I confess, that monstrous
as are the late Bills, which are so justly stigmatized through-
out the country, my own opinion is, we are little the worse
for them.
Had the Boroughmongers added thereto the Suspension
or even the Repeal of the Habeas Corpus Act, my opinion
would still be the same, for were they to drop the mask of
despotism, I think it would be to our advantage, since
“To be hated, it needs but to be seen.”
It is befitting children to complain of the exercise; what
we complain of is not the exercise, but the existence, of a
power to do those things, and more, if more were necessary
to their purposes, in the hands of a Boroughmonger
Oligarchy, unchecked by the voice, uninfluenced by the will,
and regardless of the wishes of the nation: this it is to which
men of sense direct their attention; this it is that creates the
constitutional grievance, viz, such power in such hands, or
in any hands ; and the constitutional remedy, in the judgment
of men of understanding, is, a Reform in the Commons House
of Parliament. -
. . Now, Gentlemen, with respect to this indispensible con-
dition of fair government, Mr. GeoRGE LAMs makes no
declaration of his sentiments in his Address: in his place, in
5
Parliament however he has, by which it appears that his
sentiments on the vital point, are from ours
“As far as the Poles asunder.”
On this ground
“We meet in mere oppugnancy.”
And on this ground, though there were no other, the Electors
of Westminster, those at least who are for an efficient Reform
of Parliament, are precluded, any regard being paid to con-
sistency, from supporting a person so totally differing from
them in principle and opinion.
Gentlemen, from Mr. GEORGE LAMB’s declaration in
Parliament, we learn that he would be willing to disfranchise
a Rotten Borough, when Ev ER a case of corruption was, as
they call it, made out SATIS FA CTO RILY, in order to transfer
the right of Election to some populous place.
Gentlemen, if we were all sure of attaining the age of
Methusalem, we might, by possibility at least, hope to see
some good effected in this manner before we died; but on our
present circumscribed plan of existence, to entertain such a
hope, from such a source, would be as absurd as for any
Parliamentary Reformer to vote for a candidate who enter-
tains such puerile ideas upon the subject.
Gentlemen, as one of yourselves, I submit these consi-
derations to your judgment; and at the same time embrace the
opportunity of assuring you, that I have so much at heart the
character of Westminster for consistency and public principles,
that I shall be ready to co-operate with you, upon this and
every other occasion, in any exertions you may think neces-
sary, for supporting the one or advancing the other.
In the mean time, Gentlemen,
I remain,
Your most obedient and very humble servant,
Francis Burdett.
TO THE
INDEPENDENT
Electors of Westminster.
-
New GATE, 26 Feb. 1820.
Gentlemen,
A v ERY large and respectable Body of your Fellow Citizens
have signified to me, that it is their intention to nominate me
at the ensuing Election of Representatives for your City.—
As I was at the late vacancy honoured with the uninfluenced
votes of nearly Four Thousand Electors; and as those who,
by a disfranchisement, since pronounced illegal, were pre-
vented voting for me, would have given me a large majority
on that occasion, I venture to presume that the efforts of the
Friends of a real Reform in Parliament, will, on this oppor-
tunity, be crowned with success.
Should I be returned to Parliament by your free voices,
I shall exert myself to the uttermost, to procure for the People
that constitutional control in the Legislature, to the want of
which I attribute all our calamities. This it is that cuts off
from us the chance of that final relief, on the certainty of
which, had we but a fairly chosen House of Commons, we
might, in the midst of all temporary embarrassments, most
confidently repose. This it is that has driven our statesmen
to despotism, and our people to despair. Hence the disso-,
lution of all the ties, which bind together the members of a
free and happy community—the total separation of interests
between the governors and the governed—the suspicion, the
7
alarm, the violence, that characterize the rulers—the jea-
lousies, the hatreds, the discontents, that agitate the subjects.
Hence the prevalence of misery, and the incitement to crime.
Be not deceived, Gentlemen, the present system cannot
last. A naked tyranny or a restoration of our rights is near at
hand. Be not terrified by self-alarms into an aquiescence in the
one; but, in securing the other, never forget that your cause is
the cause of good order and of humanity, Mistake not, Gentle-
men, the sure symptoms of misgovernment, for what, you will
be told, are the naturally depraved propensities of your Fellow
Countrymen. Desperate men there will be found in every
state of society; but when the people are generally discon-
tented with the Government, the Government alone can be
in fault. “THE PEOPLE,” as MR. BURKE says,
“ HAVE NO INTEREST IN DISORDER ;—BUT
“ WITH THE GOVERNING PART OF THE
“STATE, IT IS FAR OTHERWISE.” You have also
the authority of the great Minister of Henry IV. of France, for
the incontrovertible maxim, that “the people never revolt from
“a desire of attacking, but from an impatience of suffering.”
There is only one cure for all our National distresses.
Your interest will never be consulted; your wants and wishes
will scarcely be known, so long as the Legislature shall be
composed of those, whose interests appear to them at
variance with, or independent of those of the nation at large;
and who come into Parliament, not to tell what you want, or
what you wish, but to obtain what they want, and what they
wish for themselves. The Crown has its ministers, the Aris-
tocracy have their full share of the legislature in the House of
Peers : but, for all the purposes of a real control, the
People are totally without representatives. The Electors of
Westminster may, however, cause their opinion to be known,
and their complaints to be heard, although redress may be
delayed; but even this consolation will be denied to them, if,
8
in the Election of their Representatives, they submit to the
influence of those who are connected with the present
corrupt system of representation, instead of listening to the
suggestions of their own conciences, and the simple
dictates of their own good sense and patriotism.
On many minor points, I agree with the Gentleman to
whom I was lately opposed; but it is because that Gentleman
was returned by an interference with and an abridgment of your
elective franchise, which I deem to be wholly unconstitutional;
it is because that Gentleman appears to me, not to entertain
sentiments congenial with your own, on the PARAMOUNT
IMPORTANCE OF A REFORM IN PARLIAMENT,
that I have acceded to the invitation of your Fellow-citizens.
It remains for you, Gentlemen, to shew by your suffrages,
whether or not I have formed an erroneous opinion of these
sentiments: this at least you may be assured, that I have not
given you a false statement of my own.
Wr. LAMB has had a ten days’ start of me; but as the
votes of honest and enlightened men are not the result of a
civil speech, or of a shake by the hand, but of long conviction,
my imprisonment will not, surely, be injurious to me in that
respect. -
I shall however be most happy to seize every opportunity
afforded me of a personal intercourse with the Electors of West-
minster, and to enlarge my individual acquaintance amongst
them to the utmost possible extent. I will not presume to say
that I have become a wiser and a better man by the knowledge
which I have obtained of many of them, but I will say that I
have formed a higher estimate of human nature, and have
conceived better hopes of my Country.
I am, Gentlemen,
Your most faithful Servant,
John Cam Hobhouse.
W. Robson & Co. Printers, St. Dunstan's Hill.
SPEECH
OF
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT
Delivered on the Westminster Hustings,
On WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15th, 1820.
As
GENTLEMEN, #
THE state of the poll this dº
t
continues, as you see, quite satisfactory to all parties.
is quite satisfactory, no doubt, to Mr. iaid, who this day
continues to obtain that “ P RosP E R1ty” to which he is
entitled, and which he has obtained during the contest
(great applause.) Every day he will be more and more
depressed on the poll, and more and more elated by those
hopes—those buoyant hopes—which he entertained yesterday,
and which, I doubt not, he will have cqually good ground for
entertaining to the conclusion of the contest. (Much laughter.)
A great many of your friends are so persuaded of the cor-
rectness of the opinion that you will be triumphant, that
they do not think it necessary for them to make any effort,
or to put themselves to any trouble. This is the reason
that more have not polled to-day, as I have been told by
the canvassers; but when l consider the numbers already
polled, and when I bear in mind that your friends have
regularly kept at the head of the poil, and that no advantage
has, even for a day, been obtained over you, I have no reason
to believe, unless something very unexpected should happen,
that there will be a very heavy day's polling again during the
election. - –
I happened yesterday to mention the fable of the hare and
the tortoise; and Mr. Lamb said, that according to the fable,
the tortoise won the race. He was right according to the
fable, but not in the application of it to us; for we resemble
the hare only in speed, not in supineness. We will not fall
asleep, and give the tortoise leave so pass us. (Applause)
If even some slight turn should by accident be given to the

( 2 )
state of the poll—of which I entertain no apprehension—but,
if, according to the idea of an honest friend whom I met,
Mr. Lamb should get one a-head, that would produce an
exertion which might afford anot; er day's heavy polling.
At present you have only to continue as you have hitherto
been going on : it is not on one day's poil that you have been
successful, but regularly every day has the poll been well
filled. I confess that Mr. Lamb has polled better than I
expected : but still his best hope is despair. (Applause)
It would be impossible for any person but Mr. Lamb to feel
any hope in such a situation. (cheers.) But you will, not-
withstanding, continue your exertions ; for the contest con-
cerns you much more than any individual who may stand
before you here as a candidate for your suffrages (applause.)
With respect to the great question of the power assumed
by the House of Commons to commit to prison without trial,
Mr. Lamb has told you, that with you, the road to fame is
through the gates of a prison. , Why, whº bad and arbitrary
times, persecution has always been the road to honour and
distinction. (Very great applause.) And in my mind, it is
no bad argument in favour of any individual, in such times,
that he has suffered in a public cause. (Loud cheers.) Mr.
Lamb has thought it necessary to mention this subject and
lay stress upon it. That individual however, knows that you
bear it in mind, and the sympathy of enligtened and inde-
pendent men is a great consolation to those who suffer
unmerited inflictions in the public cause. (Great applause.)
Mr. Lamb has said and unsaid —(a laugh)—but I will here,
suppose him to have said, that Mr. Hobhouse ought to have
been committed to prison. Mr. Lamb also thinks, what I
believe no other man alive can think, that the House of
Commons is the temple of Virtue! (Laughter.) But if it
were the temple of Virtue, if it were even the temple of discre-
tion, it would not have had recourse to arbitrary and violent
measures to redress its own alleged, whether real or imaginary,
wrongs. (Applause.) Mr. Lamb has said there is no doubt
that if Mr. Hobhouse had expressed a wish to be brought up
to the bar of the House, his wish would have been granted.
This, however, is not to the purpose. What we contend for
is that no Englishman can be committed, least of all by the
House of Commons, which ought to protect the people's
rights, upon a charge without evidence, without inquiry into
its nature and merits, and without trial of its truth or false-
hood. ( /.otta cheers.) This is one great important prin-
ciple which you are maintaining at the election, and against
one who thinks that the power ought to be exercised, but,
as he says, with mercy. Such a power, however, cannot be
( 3 )
erercised with mercy. (Appause.) The idea is absurd ; for
D Espot Is M is I N Co MP ATI BLE witH the exercise of MERCY.
(Cheers.) Ii is is apossible to conceive despotism, but as a
gross and outrageous wrong to the individual who suffers
under it. ( Great applause.) Mr. Lamb has said that Mr.
Hobhouse's friends wished rather to send him to Newgate
than to have him prosecuted by the Attorney General ; and I
confess I would rather suffer imprisonment from the House of
Commons than in consequence of a verdict obtained on the
prosecution of the Attorney General, because when a person
is imprisoned by the usurpation of the House of Commons,
all their power ceases when the House breaks up ; he is
released as a matter of comrse, and walks out without any
thanks to them. If one has a verdict against him on the
prosecution of the Attorney Gencral, the penalties are more
severe, and perhaps he may have no better reason to be
satisfied with his trial. (Great applause. ) But no power of
arbitrary imprisonment exists in this country; and if the
King has no such power, I do not see how the House of
Commons, who are bound to protect the rights of the people,
can possess it. None ought to have such a power, and least
of all the House of Commons, for they can claim no power
but as your representatives. (Applause)
As the time is drawing so very near when I shall be
called on to go into the country to attend my own trial,
I can assure you that I shall go with a most satisfactory
anticipation of the result of this election. (Loud cheers, )
The few days that remain I shall be obliged to devote
to preparation for my trial, as to the result of which I
feel no anxiety. I do not myself anticipate any experience
of the sentence which is pronounced after a conviction at
the prosecution; and here it would be improper for me to
enter farther into that subject. (Applause.) I go to my
trial in the country with as much confidence as I came
to this election. There is no knowing, as a gentleman in
the crowd has said, what a jury in the country may
do ; but, as far as I know, the jury by which I amu
about to be tried may be as fair and impartial a jury as
can be found in England. (Great applause.) I am able
to say that I have that feeling in my own mind which gives
me confidence, and that so far as my own consciousness
and my own view of Iny conduct can influence the minds
of others, I bave reason to feel confidence. (Great
applause.) On this you may rely, that whatever depends
on me shall never be left undo: in the cause of public
liberty. (Shouls of applause.) You, I am confident, will
do all that depends on you, and will hold out to the
country that example to which it looks with so much
( 4 )
anxiety. When you shall have established your indepen-
dence on this occasion, by overcoming the influence with
which you have now to contend, it will not be soon
assailed again, and the independent Electors of Westminster
would not probably be disturbed for a considerable time
to COme. (Applause.) I trust you will continue your exer-
tions, and not suffer the sºccess which has hitherto attended
your cause to make you too confident. You are on this
occasion to hold your character high, and to shew not only
that you are victorious, but that your independence is
not to be lightly attacked. At present nothing can be
more favourable than appearances are ; and I cannot see
how by possibility the conclusion can be less favourable
than present appearances indicate. But you will not on
that account relax your exertions; you will maintain your
independence on that high ground which belongs to you:
you will sustain the character which you have acquired, and
which forms an erample to the country. I shall now take
my leave of you, as I shall be obliged to make some
preparations during the very few days that intervene between
this and my trial; but from the flattering state of the poll, I
feel confident, that on now taking my leave, my connexion
with the Electors is not to cease.
(The worthy baronet, on concluding, was greeted with the
most rapturous eacpressions of approbation; and almost every
countenance in the immense assembly, indicated the most af.
fectionate interest and anariety.)
STATE OF THE POLL.
IDAYS.
I. 2. 3. 4. 3, 6. 7. ToTAL
BURDETT . .167 463 396 629 520 396 286 2857
Hop Hous E 163 417 364 605 502 361 261 2673
&, Smeeton, Printer, 17, St. Martin’s Lane.
Westminster Election, 1820.
At a Meeting of the Committee appointed by the
Electors of Westminster, to conduct the free
Election of Sir FRANcis BURDETT, Bart.
and John CAM Hobhouse, Esq. held 27th
April, 1820;
DR. MACLEAN in the Chair.
It was resolved,
That the following brief Narrative of the Progress
of PARLIAMENTARY REFORM be printed. That
it be delivered to every Elector who polled for Sir
FRANCIS BURDETT and Mr. Hob Hous E, or either of
them, at the late Election; and that it be generally cir-
culated among the Friends to that all-important object.
From the passing of the Septennial Act in 1716,
various efforts were made both within and without the walls
of Parliament, to procure the repeal of that liberticide act,
and thus to recur to Triennial Parliaments. Motions were
also made in Parliament to restore annually elected Par-
liaments, and to procure a more general and more equal
right of suffrage; and towards the close of the American
War, societies were instituted for the purpose of obtaining
a thorough Reform in the representation of the people in
the House of Commons. It was at that time clearly fore-
seen, and ably demonstrated by many enlightened men, that
unless the House of Commons were made really to repre-
sent the people, and the term for which the members were
chosen were made so short as to secure their independence,
that corruption would continually increase, new wars be
engendered, new taxes invented, and the old ones increased:
that unheard of miseries would overspread the land, that the
( 2 )
people would be degraded, both in their condition and in
their own opinion; that laws would from time to time be
proposed, alike repugnant to the spirit of the English
nation, and destructive of its rights and liberties: and thus
a system would be formed, which, if not timely checked,
would either cause the standing army to rule the land at the
point of the bayonet, or force the people to take their affairs
into their own hands, at whatever risk, as the least of two
evils. These societies consisted principally of men of con-
siderable property and influence; they assembled in various
parts of the kingdom, and appointed delegates to represent
them in convention. The delegates thus appointed, held their
meetings, at first, in the CoMM on Co UN C1 L CHAMBER of
The CITY of Lo N Do N,” and afterwards at the St Alban's
Tavern: at these meetings, resolutions were agreed to,
memorials adopted, and both were published in the news-
papers, and otherwise dispersed all over the country. They
demanded “a much more extended and EQUAL RIGHT
of Suffrage, and ANNUAL Elections;” yet we do
not find they were persecuted by the minister of that day,
or that the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, or that
-ās
* At one of those meetings, held in the CoMM on Council
CHAMBER of the City of London, on the 3d of March, 1781,
there were present:
Deputies from Yorkshire.
Rev. C. Wyvill, Mr. Shone, Sir James Norcliffe.
Surry.
, Sir F.Vincent, Mr. Budgcn, Mr. Trecothick, Mr. Nicholls, Mr. Day.
Herts.
Mr. Jennings, Mr. Baker.
Huntingdon.
Dr. Jebb.
Middlesex.
Mr. Townsend, Rev. R. Bromley, Mr. Bellas.
( 3 )
Sedition Bills were passed to suppress their meetings, or
new fangled treasons invented to destroy their persons.
It was about this time that the Duke of Richmond wrote
his celebrated letter to Colonel Sharman, recommending
ANNUAL PARLIAMENT's and UN Ivers AL SUFFRAGE ;
and composed his Bill to carry his plan into effect.
Among the many meetings held in various parts of the
country, was one of the Electors of Westminster in Palace
Yard, at which the whole of the Duke of Richmond’s plan
was adopted, and a committee appointed to promote its
adoption generally. But the people were then too unin-
formed, too much attached to names, and too much occupied
with the unworthy squabbles of INs and outs, to attend
to their own interests. These societies having sown the
seeds of Reform, ceased to exist, and the nation sunk into a
state of apathy. From this state it was, about the year 1792,
again roused. Societies were again formed, and consider-
able progress was made in the good work of convincing
Essex.
Mr. R. Smith, Mr. R. M.T. Chiswell, Mr. Baker, Mr. Redman,
Mr. Brand Hollis.
Kent.
£ord Viscount Mahon, Mr. C. Robinson, Rev. E. Marshall,
Rev. Dr. Rycroft.
Devonshire.
Mr. Chichester, Mr. Hamlyn.
City of London.
Mr. B. Crosby, Mr. Wilkes--Aldermen.
Mr. Holder, Mr. Thorp, Mr. Sharp, Mr. Kemp-Commoners.
Westminster.
Hon. C. J. Fox, Hon. R. Fitzpatrick, Lieut. General Burgoyne,
Messrs. Windham, Butt, Sheridan, Scott, and Churchill.
( 4 )
the people, that their liberties could only be restored
and secured, and their well being promoted, by a House of
Commons really and truly representing them: this caused
certain of the Borough-mongers to display their malice,
and to exercise their power. New treasons were invented;
the laws passed for the personal safety of the subject were
suspended, and men were fined, imprisoned and transported,
for doing that which only a few years before, had not only
been done with impunity, but without any legal offence
having been imputed to any one. Attempts were even
made to take away the lives of men, for following the
example set by the minister himself. The leading reformers
hoped that the predictions of those eminent and patriotic
men, who had formerly advocated the cause of Reform,
realised as but too many of them now were, would have
“roused the people to demand a restoration of their rights,
in a tone which could not be resisted;" but in this hope they
were disappointed. The seeds sown by the reformers had
indeed taken root, and some had produced fruit: it was
evident the cause of Reform had advanced, but not to an ex-
tent sufficient to produce the requisite support; and at length
these societies, like the former societies, also ceased to exist.
Many public men who had advocated the cause of Re-
form apostatized; some of them even became the perse-
cutors of the very persons with whom they had formerly
associated, and all hope of Reform seemed to have expired.
Opposition by the people themselves, or by public men on
the part of the people, was no longer made, and ministers,
wholly unchecked by public opinion, ran on in their mad
career, wasting the resources of the nation with unparalleled
* See Parliamentary Debates, 1793–5.
( 5 )
profligacy, and destroying the good old laws and liberties of
the people, with a wantonness which nothing but the cer-
tainty of the utmost impunity could have produced. Many
persons there were, however, who believed that the efforts
made by the reformers must have produced effects on the
minds of their fellow citizens, although no manifestation was
visible; they persuaded themselves that the disgraceful con-
duct of the two great political parties in the state, in their
unprincipled coalition in 1806, must also have opened the
eyes of a large portion of the people, and made them
see the evils of governing by corruption ; and some of
them in Westminster resolved to ascertain the correct-
ness of this opinion, by an ‘experiment, whenever an
opportunity should offer. One occurred almost im-
mediately, when Mr. Paull was in consequence proposed
to represent the People of Westminster. He was pre-
sented to the Electors as a reformer, who by his conduct
in Parliament had incurred the hatred of both the factions.
The success of the Electors on that occasion far exceeded
the expectations of those who were principally concerned,
and encouraged them the year following to support the free
election of Sir Francis Burdett. The manner in which the
Electors came forward at that time, demonstrated at once,
the progress the principles of Reform had made, and an ex-
annple was then set to the country, from which the happiest
results were reasonably and confidently expected. From that
time to the present, the opinion of the absolute necessity of
a radical Reform of Parliament has been steadily advancing:
the eyes of the nation have been fixed on Westminster,
her example has been nobly followed by the Electors in
the Borough of Southwark; and, the Freeholders of the
County of Middlesex have now returned Mr Samuel Charles
Whitbread, by their spontaneous votes, and at a compara-
tively small expence, simply and only because HE DECLARED
( 6 )
hi M self “A THoRough PARLIAMENTARY RE FoEMER,”
and gave his word (for which his name was taken as a
pledge,) to promote that object to the best of his ability.
Other places would no doubt have followed the example
of Westminster, had corruption ieft other places in which
the voice of the people could be fairly heard. But
although the example set by Westminster could not be
generally followed, numerous indeed are the testimonies,
both public and private, that her proceedings have been
extensively and truly appreciated.
**
Never, until lately, did any very large portion of the
people really take a decided part in their own affairs,
and never before were the two great factions really
alarmed for the continuance of their mischievous power—
a power which Both have exerted in every corrupt
way, open and covert, to stifle the voice of the people,
and prevent them returning honest, independent men to
Parliament; yet, notwithstanding their power and their
influence—notwithstanding the great sacrifices which oppo-
sition to this power and to this influence invariably subjects
those who have the honesty and courage to resist, the cause
of Reform is rapidly gaining ground upon its powerful
enemies.
In Westminster, small as were the pecuniary means,
and still less the influence of those who took the most
decided part in assisting their brother electors to recover
their rights, they have been sufficient to confound, and at
length totally to defeat all their opponents.
After a contest maintained for thirteen years, such have
been the cousequences of the propagation of the principles
of Reform, in producing right habits of thinking, that in
} .
( 7 )
the very face of power, and its active, corrupt, and widely-
extended influence”—spite of threats and promises, of at-
tempts to disfranchise the Electors, of actual persecution,
and of all sorts of allurements held out, where terror had
failed to induce the Electors to abandon their duty, they
have fairly, honourably, and honestly possessed themselves
of both the seats, and have returned two upright,
learned, and active RADICAL Reformers, in the persons of
Sir FRANC is BUR DETT and Mr. Ho B House, truly and
faithfully to represent them in Parliament.
Since the year 1807, when Westminster first emanci-
pated itself, up to the year 1818, there have been one con-
* Mr. Lamb in his farewell address insinuates that he was Not
at the late Election support ED by “Mi Nist ERIAL INFLUENCE.”
Mr. Lamb also says, that “it was more than once ANNOUNCE in
BY HIS ADVERS ARI Es, that HE w As Not so su PPort TED.”
These assertions of Mr. Lamb's are however any thing but
correct. Mr. Hobhouse, in his speech to the Electors from the
Hustings, on the morning of the nomination, said, “it clearly
appeared that Mr. Lamb w As the Mi Nister IAI, CANDIDATE, and
that he calculated on receiving MIN1st ERIAL Aid."
It was known to the Committee of the Electors conducting
the Election of Sir FRANC is BURDETT and MR. Hob House, that
MR. LAMB WAs supported by “ MINIsr ERIAL IN I. Lue NCE ;” and
they also charged him in their public advertisements with being the
“MIN1st ERIAL CANDIDAT e.”
That Mr. Lamb had the full benefit of “MINISTERIAL
INFLUENCE,” is proved by the following facts:
Of those government voters, who polled plumpers for Captain
Maxwell in 1818, amounting to 1071, the parish of St. George alone
furnished Mr. Lamb with 330 votes in 1819. This same parish of
St. George again furnished Mr. Lamb with no less than 298 votes
in 1820, from the government voters, who polled plumpers for
Capt. Maxwell in 1818, leaving only 32 short of the whole number
polled; and these may be accounted for, from change of resi-
dence, ill health, and death, and by the rejection of the votes of the
Regtor, the Tax Collectors, and other Officers of this Parish, who,
as they excuse each other from paying rates, were not on the late
Election allowed to poll. -
( 8 )
tested and two uncontested elections; several actions in
courts of law, and more than thirty public meetings of the
Electors, the expence of which, amounting to £4,300.
has been wholly defrayed by public subscriptions, without
any charge having ever been made upon the Members, or any
expence on account of these elections having in any instance
been paid by them.
The contested election in 1818, cost. . $1225 19 5
Subscriptions received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935 12 6
Leaving a balance unpaid of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 6 || 1
The contested election in 1819, cost . . $2.245 9 5
Subscriptions received. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2157 11 6
Leaving a balance unpaid of. . . . . it s p tº a tº $ tº & tº a 87 17 | 1
The late contested election cost. . . . . . £1577 13 6
Subscriptions received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451 18 6
Leaving a balance unpaid of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 125 15 0
And thus there remains to be subscribed the sum of £1503 19 10
Nearly the whole of this sum of £1503 19s 10d has
been advanced by a few individuals, and the several ac-
counts of those who were employed in the necessary affairs
of the three last elections have been almost all paid.
The Electors of Westminster, and the Friends of Reform
throughout the United Kingdom, are therefore respectfully
ealled upon to reimburse, by means of their subscriptions,
the advances made for the public cause; and it is confidently
expected they will cheerfully comply with the solicitation.
9. CHARLES MACLEAN,

27 April, 1820. - CHAIRMA N.
N. B. Two modes of raising the sum required to discharge
the debt incurred are recommended: One, by subscriptions to be
paid at once ; the other, by the collection of small sums weekly—
for which purpose books have been prepared. These books will
be delivered, on application to Mr. HeNRY BRooks, No. 110,
Strand; to whom it is also requested subscriptions may be paid.
S. Ward, Printer, Dean Street, Soho.
Reform of Parliament.
TO THE E LECTORS OF WEST'M INSTER.
- PR E FA C E TO THE **
REPORT
O F
Qºſţīt ºrial of tºt (Tattgc
v BET W E EN
JOHN CULLEN, PLAINTIFF, and ARTHUR MORRIS,
Bailiff of the Liberty of the Dean and Chapter of the Collegiate Church
of St. Peter, at Westminster, DEFENDANT,
Fon
Refusing to 1.eceive the Plaintiff’s Vote
AT
THE ELECTION
* OF
A Member of Parliament for the City of Westminster,
Tried in the Court of King's Bench, Guildhall, London, on
Wednesday, Jan. 12, 1820,
Before Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT, and a Special Jury.
Published by Order of the Committee appointed to manage the
Election on the Part of
JOHN CAM HOBHOUSE, Esq.
The Trial, Cullen against Morris, has decided a point of
the utmost importance. The question at issue had little, or
no reference to the individual interests of the Plaintiff and De-
fendant; nor was the action brought for the purpose of ob-
taining money from the High Bailiff of Westminster. Far
other motives determined Mr. Cullen upon the present occa-
sion: he wished it to be left to an English court of justice to
say, whether the right of returning members to Parliament for
the City of Westminster shall remain in the Householders at
large, or, whether it shall be taken from them, and be vested in
2
the returning officer, assisted by the collectors of the poor's
rate. This, as was said by the learned and eloquent Counsel
for Mr. Cullen, was the real question at issue—and it may be
safely said, that not only Westminster, but every scot and lot
voter in the country, was interested in the event of this trial.
That event has been such as every friend to freedom must
have desired.
The object of Mr. Cullen's Counsel, as he stated it in his
speech, was to have it solemnly determined, first, whether an
elector is disfranchised and deprived of his privilege by his
poor's rates being in arrear where he has once paid—is still
liable to pay—and has the visible means of doing so ; and,
secondly, whether a refusal to admit an unobjectionable vote
does not subject the returning officer to an action, without any
proof of malice. -
The first of these questions was decided in favor of Mr.
Cullen; and NO HIGH BAILIFF IN WESTM INSTER
WILL VENTURE FOR THE FUTURE, TO DEPRIVE
AN ELECTOR OF HIS VOTE AT THE SUGGESTION
OF A RATE COLLECTOR. As to the second question,
Lord Chief Justice Abbott, differing from Lord Holt, thought
malice a necessary ingredient in the refusal of a vote by a
returning officer, in order to justify an action; and the reader,
seeing how extremely difficult, if not almost impossible it must
be to prove a bad motive, will uot be supprised that a jury,
lcaning, like true Englishmen, to the most generous interpre-
tation of conduct, should have hesitated to give a verdict
against Mr Arthur Morris, upon the present trial. But there
is no doubt that a future refusal upon circumstances similar to
Mr. Cullen's vote, would constitute malice on the part of the
High Bailiff. A verdict for Mr. Cullen could scarcely have
done more than relieve him from his share of costs. The vital
question, as to the right of voting, has been as satisfactorily
settled as it could be by the first legal authority of the country.
The LoRD CHIEF Justice pronounced Mr. Cullen's to be
a good vote, and that it ought not to have been refused. Mr.
Cullen then has gained his principal object, and has restored a
very large body of his fellow-citizens, who were disfranchised
at the last election of Westminster, to the exercise of their
rights. r
Mr. Morris's counsel, Mr. Scarlett, understood very well
the importance of this action, when he said, “if Messrs.
“Blackburne and Evans's (Mr. Cullen's counsel) proposition
“could prevail, the respectable inhabitants of Westminster
“would have no rights at all, and that is what is sought by
“ this action—then the return of a member for Westminster
“would depend on the will of the rabble, who would come
3
“to vote at the next Westminster Election; but my learned
“friend will, I think, be deceived if he expects that he can get
“your verdict, and the sanction of any Judge in England,
“(which I am sure he never will) to the doctrine he has laid
“down. If he can succeed, not to the whole extent of his pro-
“ position, but to any part of it, HE MAY WALK OVER
“THE COURSE AT THE NEXT ELECTION; he needſ
“not trouble the High Balij with any of his law, for he has
“ the decision in his favor.” This is very cheering news to
the friends of Reform in Westminster—for not only did the
Counsel for Mr. Cullen succeed to “any part of his pro-
“position,” but to the whole important extent—and if Mr.
Scarlett's deduction is good in fact, THE REFORMERS MAY
WALK Ov ER THE Cou Rs E AT THE NEXT ELECTION.”
The learned Counsel's inference as to “the respectable In-
“habitants yielding all their ights to the Rabble,” when
translated into honest English, merely means—-that the aristo.
eracy will no longer have sufficient power to return a Member
for Westminster, when all those who were excluded by the
High Baliff at the late Election shall be allowed to give their
votes to the real object of the People's choice. As for the
RABBLE, the counsel for the bludgeon-men ought to know
more about them than the Reformers; but Mr. Scarlett did
not find the word RABBLE in his brief. It is merely a rhe-
tººl flourish, and he is not answerable for it, except at the
*I
The Electors of Westminster may now congratulate them-
selves that their elections will be conducted according to the
principles and the practice before the year 1818. Before that
time, as it appeared by the evidence of Mr. Tooke, the late De-
puty Bailiff, No objection w As ever MADE To RECEIVE
TH E VOTE OF A PERSON CAP A BLE OF PAYING, M ER ELY
BECAUSE HE WAS IN ARREAR, UNLESS THERE HAD
BEEN A DEMAND AND A POSITIVE REFUSAL TO PAY.
In fact, the invariable rule whilst Mr. Tooke was Deputy
Bailiff, was, not to disfranchise a person, otherwise qualified,
unless a case of inability to pay the rate was clearly established
against him ; and it is not to be believed that any High Bailiff,
at the mere suggestion of his solicitor, will incur the grievous
responsibility, not only of infringing the lawful rights of his
fellow-citizens, but of that danger which may come more home
to his immediate feelings, namely the risk of an action for every
vote rejected against the manifest intentions of the law in this
important point. There is no reason to believe, that the
present High Bailiff has been any other than misled, and
having once been sct right by the Chief Justice of England,
no apprehension is to be entertained that he should again fall
into the same error.
Thus has the right of voting been established, and thus
have the Electors been freed from the machinations of those
who caused them to be insulted, degraded and disfranchised,
under the hypocritical pretence of preserving their rights, and
promoting Parliamentary Reform.
The last address of your late Committee closed with the
following sentence:
“The time will probably not be long before the Flectors
“will be again called upon to exercise their franchise, and this
“they will assuredly do as honest men. They will then set
“ another grand example before the country, by returning Sir
* Francis Burdett and Mr. Hobhouse as their Representatives
“ to Parliament.” -
The time has arrived, and you will not fail fully to perform
this important duty. .
Crown and Anchor Tavern, February 23, 1820.
N. B. The Report of the Trial is published by HAY-
wARD & Rosco E, Orange Street, Red Lion Square, and
by STOBART & STEU ART, No. 81, Strand.
S. Ward, Printer, Dean Street, Soho.
©lettorg of Čáestminster.
After a long silence, Mr. GEORGE LAMB informs
you, that he has plucked up spirit sufficient to bear his part,
and is resolved to “entitle himself” to your praise for
“ci v1 LITY AND can Do U R ; ’
“REspecTFULLY.” Of his “civility,” cAN dour and Respect,
and this he does, he says,
you will judge, when you have read the following Copy of a
Letter addressed by Mr. LAMB, in IIIs own HAND, to those
MINISTERIAL men whom he endeavours to gain privately by an
opposit E course to that he takes in public.
—-ºn-
Copp.
WHITEHALL YARD,
2d March, 1820.
SIR,
Having had the ill luck of not finding you at home,
when I called some time ago; and being now confined by tempo-
rary indisposition, I take the liberty of writing to request your
support during the ensuing contest for Westminster. As there is
no MINISTERIAL Candidate, I should have reckoned my success
certain, had it not been for the committ AL of Mr. Hobhouse to
Newgate by the House of Commons. That however has inspired
a zeal into his Friends, and the LOWER CLASSES, which
threatens a sharp struggle. If exertions are not made in MY
señALF, the House of Commons will have the MoRTIFICATION of
seeing a rejected Candidate obtain Prosper 1TY, merely from
the circumstance of their having ventured to punish him, for a
FLAGRANT INsu LT and LIBEL.
I hope I shall have your pardon for the intrusion; and
have the honor to be,
Your obliged humble Servant,
(Signed) G. LAMB.
Reform in Parliament
ºmºsºmeºmºmº
WESTMINSTER ELECTION.
Electors of Westminster /
YOUR TRIUMPH IS COMPLETE :
In 1807, in clecting Sir FRANC is BU R Dett, on principles
of freedom and indepei,dence, you set a bright example to
your countrymen. Since that period, for 13 years, your
efforts to obtain entire independence, against all the power,
and all the influence of corruption, has been incessant.
In your great City, the very focus of corruption—f n your
great City, which contains all the Offices of State, the Court,
and the Aristocracy, possessing means of influence which
no other portion of the people would have ventured to oppose,
vo U have TR1 U M P 11 ED !—To oppose You, threats, pro-
mises, calumnies, persecutions, and terror, have all been
employed. Ins and Outs have coalesced—party animosities
have been laid aside ; and those, who at all other times de-
nounced each other, assumed the very garb and language of
your friends, in order to stifle your voice, and repress your
example.
Animated by true English feelings you have neither been
deluded nor dismayed. Steady to your purpose, your
efforts have been crowned with complete success.
In no other place on the face of the Earth, exists there
more intelligence than among you. It is this great MoR AL
power your Enemies fear. It has fully displayed itself,
and they are confounded. *
In freely returning Sir FRANCIs BUR Dett and Mr.
Hobhouse, you have obtained a T R U1 MPH as glorious to
You R st: 1. v Es as 1M Por TANT To T11 E LIBERTIEs of the
Wo R I, D.
- - -º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-
Final Close of the Poll, March 25, 1820.
TH IS D A Y. TOT A Le
Burdett..... 254 5327
Hobhouse 22-1 4882
Lamb ........ 225 4436
Committee Room, Rainbow Coffee House, King Stoeet, Covent
Garden, 25th March, 1820.
63. Smeeton, Printer, 17, St. Martin's Lane.
oRDER of PROCESSION
For Chairing -
SIR FRANCIS BURDETT,

AND
Jo HN CAM H OBHOUSE, ES Q.
On Thursday, April 6, 1820.
With DIRECTIONS for carrying the Same into Effect.
—“C-
TWO TRUMPETERS ON HORSEBACK,
* Four dark blue and white Streamers.
Constable on Horseback.
Nine Assistants, three and three.
Dark Blue Flag, Motto “THE PEOPLE.”
Band of Music, three and three.
BANNER of the Parish of ST. ANNE---Green.
Electors on Foot, four and four.
Parochial Committee in Barouches and Four.
Band of Music, three and three.
BANNER of St. PAUL, Cowent-Garden, and St. MARTIN-
LE–G RAND–––Pink.
Electors on foot, four and four.
Parochial Committee in Barouches and Four.
Band of Music, three and three.
BANNER of St. CLEMENT, and St. MARY-LE-STRAND,
White. /
Electors on Foot, four and four.
Parochial Conimittee in Barouches and Four.
Dark Blue Flag, motto, “REFOR.H OF PARLI./1MENT,”
Band of Music, three and three -
BANNER of St. MARTIN IN THE FIELDS---Dark Blue.
Electors on Foot, four and four. -
Parochial Committee in Barouches and four.
Band of Music, three and three. -
BANNER of St. JAMES, Crimson.
Electors on Foot, four and four.
Parochial Committee in Barouches and Four.
Dark Blue Flag, Motto, “ TRI./LL BY JURY,”
Band of Music, three and three.
BANNER of St. GEORGE---Light Blue.
Electors on Foot, four and four.
Parochial Committee in Barouches and Four.
Band of Music, three and three.
BANNER of St. MARGARET, and St. JOHN---White.
Electors on Foot, four and four.
Parochial Committee in Barouches and Four.
White Flag, Motto, “PURITY OF ELECTION.”
Three Barouches and Four, containing the Proposers and Seconders, Chairman, Treasurer,
º - Counsel and Solicitor.
FOUR TRUM PETERS ON HORSE BACK.
Dark Blue Flag, - White Banner in Advance, Dark Blue Flag.
‘John Cam Hobhouse.’ ‘Choice of the People.’ ‘Sir F. Burdett,’
SIR FRANCIS BURDETT,
AND
JOHN CAM HOBHOUSE, Esq.

In a CAR drawn by Six Grey Horses.
Twenty named Gentlemen on Horseback.
Carriages to Close,
i
**ººr-º-º-ºw------.......…. . .
DIRECTIONS.

º
*-i-
The Electors of the several Parishes, will Assemble at
Nine o’Clock,
3t their 3&tºpettiut Öommittee 300mg; viz.
1.—ST. ANNE, Bunch of Grapes, Gerrard-Street, Soho.
2.—ST. PAUL COVENT-GARDEN, and
S.T. MARTIN-LE-GRAND. :
3.—ST. CLEMENT DANE, and
ST. MARY-LE-STRAND.
4.—ST. MARTIN IN THE FIELDS, Northumberland Head, St. Martin's Lane.
6.—ST. JAMES, Assembly Rooms, Brewer-street.
6.—ST. GEORGE, Running Horse, Duke Street, Grosvenor-Square.
7. OUTWARD, Feathers, Grosvenor Place.
8.—ST. MARGARET, AND ST. JOHN, Red Lion, Princes-Street.
Garrick's Head, Bow Street.
: Red Lion, Haughton Street,
They will then proceed with their Band of Music and Banner to Sloane-street,
Knightsbridge, which it is expected they will reach at about Ten. When the
Members are seated in the Car, the Procession will move as before arranged, and
proceed to Hyde Park Corner, along Piccadilly, down the Haymarket (if possible,)
Cockspur Street, round the Stafue at Charing Cross, up St. Martin's Lane, Long
Acre, James Street, and Covent Garden. When the Car reaches the spot where the
Hustings stood, the Procession will halt, and give three cheers, upon a signal
given by the waving of a Streamer, from the top of a house at the corner of James
Street.
The procession will then move towards the Strand, down Southampton Street,
and terminate at the Crown and Anchor Tavern.
After setting down, Carriages will draw off towards Temple Bar, round the
East Side of St. Clement's Church, and up Wych Street.
It is much wished that Gentlemen who intend joining the Procession in Barouches,
will do so in Barouches without Boxes, the horses (with a Favor on each side of the
head,) rode by Postillions. - - &
The Favor will be dark blue, with a white Rosette in the centre, to be worn on
the left side of the Hat; and to obtain uniformity, as much as possible, Patterns
may be seen at the various Parochial Committee Rooms, and at Mr. WEST's, No.
5, Little Newport Street, Soho.
E. Thomas, Printer, Denmark Court, Exeter-Change, Strand.