At the same meeting Mr. Berkeley, the senior member, made
one of the poorest speeches we ever remember from his lips. The first part of it was a lecture to the Tories of Bristol for not pro- posing a citizen of Bristol as their candidate, a glorification of the very worst feature in English borough elections; the preference for local notabilities. The second was a tirade against the Times for having abused Lord Palmerston in 1850 and supported him in 1865, which, if it means anything, means that a journal must not change its opinions in fifteen years, must, as Sir Robert Peel said, steer by last year's almanack. The Times deserves censure for many things, but certainly not for refusing to postpone Eng- lish interests—which demanded Lord Palmerston—to its own reputation for consistency. Suppose Mr. Berkeley became con- evinced that vote by ballot was a contrivance for evading the fulfilment of a trust, would he be wicked for ceasing to promote it?