Sir JOHN HonisousE has declared, that if any circumstance shall
arise to induce him to change those principles on which he has hitherto acted, he will resign his seat, as Sir ROBERT PEEL did his seat for Oxford, on changing his opinion on the Catholic Bill. Now Sir JOHN ought to know, that in the case of Sir ROBERT PEEL, there was no change of principle—there was only a change of practice. Sir ROBERT declared then, and has de- clared many times since, that his principles were the same as ever they had been. The plain fact is, Sir ROBERT was pledged to oppose the Catholic claims, and he honourably resigned when he found he could not redeem his pledge. It is not a question of principle, but of fact, that is at issue between Sir JOHN Hon- HOUSE and the Cockspur Street Committee. Sir JOHN might violate no principle in maintaining the Assessed Taxes and the Newspaper-tax; he would, however, resist the application of the principle of reduction, where his constituents thought it ought to be applied. He might violate no principle in opposing Ballot or Triennial Parliaments; but he would resist the application of the Purity of Election principle, where his constituents thought it ought to be applied. An honest member is bound to give up his seat, not when he and the electors differ on points of principle, but when they differ on points of practice.
Previous page
