30 MAY 1835, Page 11

THE PLEDGE-BREAKING MEMBER FOR ST. ANDREW'S.

THE misrepresented and betrayed constituents of Mr. ANDREW JOHNSTON have fully exposed his tergiversation, though they have not been able to shame him into the performance of the most so-

lemn pledges ever exacted from a public man. When Mr. J

seoN'sconduct is thoroughly examined, we believe it will be found unequalled in political shabbiness and want of faith. The mate- rials for this scrutiny have been amply furnished by the Fife Herald of the 21st instant. In that journal, we find a history of Mr. JOHNSTON'S connexion with the St. Andrew's Burghs, from his abjuration of Toryism to the present time. It is such as must degrade him irretrievably in public estimation : from the begin- ning to the end, his conduct has been little better than a tissue of trickery.

Passing. over some of the earlier particulars of this statement, we would direct attention to the circumstances of the last election. Mr. JoreNeroN was suspected of a secret bias towards Toryism, though he adopted what the Fife paper very appropriately calls an " Ultra swaggering tone of Reform," when he thought it would suit his purpose. His votes in support of the unpopular measures, and against some of the more Liberal ones of the GREY Cabinet, determined the majority of his constituents, when, from local dilliculties, they found that it would be hazardous to attempt to get rid or him altogether, to bind him down by pledges to act the part, at any rate, of a decided Reformer, though in his heart he might be something very different. With this view, they com- pelled him to promise that he would use every effort to turn out or "vote down " the Tory Ministry ; and that he would resign his scat whenever called upon by a majority of his supporters. That he made the first promise, Mr. JOHNSTON himself does not deny :

that he also gave the second in unequivocal terms, no one can doubt who reads the following explicit affidavit.

" At St. Andrew's, the lAth day of May 1835 in presence of William Gibson, Esq.. one of the MIgistrates of the city of Mt. Andrew's compearcd 1-o shy. George Langlands, acting Chief Magistrat of the city of ;:t.'Autiony's, Geor,e CI-UM:shanh. one of the M.:gist rates of the said city of St. Andrew's, the Reverend Thomas G illespie, LL.D., AssistatA Professor of Humanity in the United Collerte of SI. Andrew's. James Comet. draper. St. Andrew's, Peter Steele, merchant, St. Andrew's, and William Smith, druggist, Si. Andrew's, electors of the said city ; who being ,olemuly sworn, deponed. That th:.2.- heard Mr. Andrew John.don. M.P., in the ToWn.hall of St. An- drew's. in the month of January last, a few days before the nomination. when address• mg the electors, state, that shout(/' he giro dissatighetion to hi,' supporter,. he them pled;,ed himself to relays when regoired to do so by it majority if them. All which is truth, as the deponents shall answer to God.

" Sworn before me (Signed) WiLtrAst GIllsON, Magistrate.

(Signed) "Grottos: LANGLANI)S. JAMES CONNELL. GEO. CRUICKSHANK. P. STEELE.

THOMAS GILLENPIE. WM. SMITH." Well—two-thirds of his supporters have required Mr. Johnston to resign, and yet he keeps his seat. The case against Mr. JOHNSTON needs no further confirmation ; but if any were wanting, it is at hand. During the progress of the negotiations for his return, a serious disagreement arose between Mr. JOHNSTON and several influential electors, in consequence of some shuffling out of his professions on the part of the candidate. In order to effect a reconciliation, a gentleman of the legal pro- fession, disposed to act a friendly pert towards Mr. JOHNSTON, offered his services as a mediator. They were accepted, and proved successful in healing the breach. But on what terms was

the reconciliation effected ? That will appear from the subjoined extract of a letter addressed to Mr. JOHNSTON by his friend, the mediator, on the 25t1i of April—after Mr. Joretesener's reluctance

to resign his seat, when required to resign it, had been ascertained. " Yon then voltintarily, frankly, and unequivneally, admitted in the presence of Mr. N. and myself, and of your two agents, Messrs. S. and S., that you had said that you would resign your scat at any time, if ealkd on by a majority of those who had voted for goo, which you considered to fie the spirit of the Re. form Bill ; that you meant to abide by this pledge ; and that you had no donbt your bext poLlie cadres; to your supporters would be satisfaetot y to them on this and ather points." tt Whether the pledge whirl' you thus mime under was a wise one, it is not for me to say. I might have been disposed to think that a candidate should rest on the weight of his character, rather than on the weight of his promises ; but with this I had Lothing to do. You chose to make the pledge, and I take it for granted you will abide by it. Thus much at least I feel bound to say, (as an impartial individual, cognizant of all the circumstances, and an ear-witness to all that was said on the occasion alluded to, as yell as to your subsequent public speech to the elertors,) that if I stood in your situation, I should consider it imperative on me, as a man of honour and a gentleman, instont/y to resign the trust which had been reposed in me, without the least tampering, equivocation, or (Irby."

No reply to this letter has been sent by Mr. JOHNSTON, al- though a note, acknowledging the receipt of it reached the writer.

But Mr. JorreseoN has surely a ease in answer to this state- ment ? he must have grounds for his refusal to act up to his pro- mise? He has; and he shall speak for himself.

In a letter addressed to the agent for the requisitionists, on the 12th instant, Mr. JOHNSTON (after stating, that on the Irish Church (liestion alone be differs with his constituents, and that on that question his sentiments were well known before the elec- tion), observes- " I submit, nen to call for the resignation of a Reprurntative on the ground that he had deserted his opinions, and falsified the expectations to which he had given rice, may be just ; lint the justice of demanding his refitment because he had acted up to the prineiples which he had steadfitstry avowed, and because be had realized the expectatiaas talc!' he had uniformly held out, appeaird to me much more questionable. I therefore had no doubt as to the a:: ccer which I might have given to the requisitions; but, in the peculiar eiacomstances, I felt a reluctance to be th • judge in my own case, and I prepared a statement, which, with the whole letters and documents on the subjeet in Inv possession, I, in the first instance, communicated to Mr. Buxton ; and I had the satisfiction to find that he entirely concurred in the view which I had taken. Ilut I went further. I determined to ask tile advice, and to be g,nided by the opinions, of persons of high character, with whom I had no connexion, and who, on such a question, could not be considered in :toy way prepossessed in my favour, as the vote com- plained of was given in opposition to a proposition of their own. I enclose co- llies of the statement, and of their opinions, which I only received yesterday."

here we may remark, that the opinion of his father-in-law, Mr. BUXTON, will not aid Mr. JOHNSTON greatly in the eyes of the Reformers. Mr. BuxeoN.s speech on the Irish Church question received our hearty commendation ; but when be declared his ap- probation of Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S resolution with one exception, and when that point was conceded to meet his views, we certainly thought that Mr. BUXTON'S vote had been given in its favour. The fact turns out otherwise : Mr. BUXTON, we are informed, walked out of the House without voting at all ! He allowed his name to be printed among the majority without correction; but, for some reason best known to himself, he did not vote in accord- ance with his speech. Mr. BUXTON, therefore, is not exactly the referee whose decision in this case will weight with the Reformers., But Mr. JOHNSTON refers to other opinions, and a statement ou which those opinions were given. The value and fairness of that statement may be guessed at,from the fact that no mention what- ever is made in it of the terms on which his reconciliation with the St. Andrew's electors was procured by the gentleman whose letter we have Timed. Mr. Jou NSTON sinks the transaction altogether ; thene,h he had received the letter in question at the time he trans- mitted his statement to Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Mr. SPRING RICE, and De. LusittNGTON, for their opinions as to the course he ought to take. He gives those gentlemen to understand, that the only claim his constituents have upon him, rests on a passage of a speeeh delivered by him at Cnpar on the 6th of January, and after- wards revised by him, and which was to the following effect- " That be said publicly during his canvass in 18:32, what he would now repeat, that if when they had a trial of him they should unfortunately discover that a discrepancy of opinion had arisen between them on matters of importance, he should conceive himself bound at any time to deliver hack his trust into their hands. Such a declaration he had formerly made, and he saw no reason he should now depart from it."

Ile denies that any difference with his constituents has arisen ; for the only "matter of importance" on which he differs with them is the Irish Church question ; and on that point he says that his opinions were well known before his election. He admits that he had received a requisition to resign, accompanied by the following declaration, signed by eleven electors-

" 171 h April 1835 —We, the undersigned electors in St. Andrew's. do most solemnly

declare we heanl Mr. Andrew Johnston, M.P., in the Towrrhall of St. Andrew's, io the mouth of January last, a few days before the nomination. when addressing the electors,

state, that should he give dissatisfaction to his supporters, he then pledged himself to resign when required to do so by a majority of them."

But Mr. JOHNSTON expresses his "absolute conviction " that he used precisely the same words to the St. Andrew's electors as those which we have quoted from his Cupar speech.

This is the substance qf Mr. JOHNSTON'S statement ; and on this ex parte showing, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Mr. SPRING RICE, and Dr. LUSHINGTON, ventured to decide the case between Mr.Joiter- STON and his constituents. At least so says Mr. JoHerseoer; on whose authority the following opinions are published in their names. "The answer can only be, that he was desirous of maintaining the Peel Ministry in office in the teeth of one of his most solemn pledges. He could have no other motive than this—Peel had declared that if the motion were focally carried against him, he would resign ; and Lord John Russell stated, that it was meant as much to test the confidence of the House in the Ministry, and procure their overthrow, as to lay down a regulating principle for the future government of Ireland. Mr. Johnston skulhed, and did not vote, on the two first divisions ; but on the last division, whiA was one of life or death So the Tories, he came forward and voted in their ranks. The vote was to decide whether we were to have a Peel or a Melbourne Administration ; and 3k. Johnston and a few other soi-disant Liberals substantially declared that they would prefer the former. Thus did he vote up that Ministry he was pledged to vote down, and voted down another which he engaged to have put an their stead. There is no greater instance of political tergiversation on record : Sir George Murray's breach of faith about the Dissenters' University Bill was a trifle to it : it was a breach of public trust more flagrant and pro- voking than has been committed by any public man of the present period."

Here, then, was that " discrepancy " of opinion on a matter of importance, which Mr. JOHNSTON pretends has not " arisen ' since his election. Never since Parliaments began was a shuffier so completely pinned down—so ignominiously exposed.

There is still another point which must not pass unnoticed. The constituency of the St. Andrew's Burghs are the sole and ex- clusive judges in the case between themselves and their Member. Theirs is the province to determine when the pledge should he en- forced. The calm Lord JOHN RUSSELL has nothing to do with it, neither has the confident Mr. SPRING RICE, nor the special- pleading Doctor LUSHINGTON. It is a matter between the Elec- tors and their Member, to be determined by the former. Um- pires were not to be called in; there was no stipulation to that effect. Yet Mr. JOHNSTON affects to be satisfied with the decision of umpires, who have only heard one side of the question.

But the question is not yet decided. The sturdy Reformers of the North will not let this matter rest,—they will give their treacherous Member no peace; and, if they cannot force him to act honestly, at least persist in holding him up as an example to other political shuffiers and pledge-breakers. They are not acting tyrannically or capriciously in this matter, but from high moral mo- tives, and with a deep sense of responsibility. It is impossible to read their appeal to their "fellow countrymen" without feeling the highest respect for these men. They appear voluntarily at "tile solemn bar of public opinion, to crave whether, on Mr.JonNsTost s own interpretation of his pledge, they have not been justified in calling on him to resign." Let those readers who may grudge the space bestowed upon

Memorandum of Lord John Russell on the foregoing (that is, mill& Johnston's statement of his own case).

" I think, if the opinion of Mr. Johnston on the Irish Church and Education were a new or altered opinion of his, though only on a single matter, he would be bound to resign ; but as his opinion on these matters must have been known to the great ma- jority of his supporters, I do not conceive he is now bound in honour to resign his seat. Further experience may show whether the present difference between Mr. John- ston and his constituents will tend to a further separation on other subjects, or whether some approximation may not take place even upon the present matter of contention. (Signed) "J. R." Memorandum of the Right Honourable T. Spring Hire on the foregoing, "My view of the case is very clear. Passing over the imprudence of haying given a pledge, it is simply to be considered whether a case has arisen which requires the resignation to be made or tendered. This does not appear to me to be the case from this paper. Mr. Johnston's opinions on the Church question were known and patent to his constituents at his election ; and cannot, therefore, in my mind, be held to constitute the difference contemplated as a contingency when lie was on the hustings.

(Signed) "T. S. It.'

Extract of a Note from S. Lushingtwa, Esq. on flee foregoing. " The agreement is to resign in ease a difference of opinion take place on matters of

importance. Now, here is a difference of opinion, and on a matter of importance; hu then, it is on one matter only, and not on several. Surely his constituents could no mean that he should be so fettered, that on a single question (and that too of such a kind) resignation should follow a solitary difference. This could hardly be the spirit, and is not the letter of the agreement. Not the spirit, for such a construction is unconstitu- tional and derogatory to both member and constituents; very different indeed from a discrepancy of opinion on politics generally. Again, was not this compact entered into with an exception necessarily implied as to Irish Education? His constituents could not believe that Mr. Johnston intended to abandon his avowed principles on that

question. (Signed) "S. LUSHINOTON."

There is little to remark on Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S and Mr. SPRING RICE'S opinions but that of Dr. LUSHINGTON is a piece of contemptible special-pleading, which would render us exceed- ingly cautious how we placed faith in the Doctor's own assurances. Of all three it may be said, that, considering there were two con- flicting statements—one the declaration of eleven electors of St. Andrew's, and the other the solitary "absolute conviction" of the accused party—it is not by any means creditable to the fairness or discretion of the referees, that they at once decided, without requiring further evidence, that Mr. JOHNSTON was right and the electors wrong. Now, however, that the additional testimony as to what Mr. JOHNSTON really did say is before them, we presume that they cannot for a moment adhere to the above opinions • and they ought at once to retract them openly. Any person, indeed, who could take Mr. JoHNsroN's "absolute conviction" in oppo- sition to the clear, explicit testimony on oath, of the gentlemen whose affidavit we quoted above, must be utterly incapable of esti- mating the comparative value of evidence. It is as clear as any poiLit can be made, that Mr. JOHNSTON has violated his most solemn promise.

Even supposing, however, that he could escape from this di- lemma, there is another into which he must fall. He pledged himself to " vote down" the Tories ; but he did his best to vote

them up. This is put strongly in the Fife paper, by the agent for the requisitionists. It is asked why Mr. JOHNSTON voted only on the last division, the result of which decided the fate of the PEEL Ministry, and which was universally looked upon and acknowledged to be, not, as Mr. JOHNSTON falsely insinuates, a mere question of Irish education, but one of life or death to the Ministry? Wily did he vote only on that division ? this exposition, remember the importance of the princ;ple which is involved in the conduct of Mr. JOHNSTON and his constituents. It is not a provincial, but a national question, that is at issue. The St. Andrew's Electors are the first who have publicly called upon their Member to give up his seat. Mr. JOHNSTON is the first (we trust he will be the last) Member of the Legislature, who has ventured to refuse fulfilment of a solemn promise of this nature.