SIR JOHN HOBHOUSE'S RESIGNATIONS. OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVES.
WE have more than once stated our opinion, that the obedience to Treasury mandates which is expected from a Government official, and the duties of a representative of a populous district in the Reformed Parliament, would be found to clash. The votes given on Sir JOHN KEY'S motion exemplify this point. In the Metro- politan districts, the great mass of the population are extremely urgent fbr the repeal of the House and Window tax ; and it is quite impossible that their representatives, had they consulted the wishes of their constituents, should have supported the Govern- ment on the important division of Tuesday last. But the inti- mation from the Treasury was found to be all-powerful with the possessors or expectants of place; and accordingly, Mr. ROBERT GRANT, Sir WILLIAM HORNE, Dr. LUSHINGTON, and Mr. WILLIAM BROUGHAM, threw their constituents overboard, and united with the Ministry in forcing them to continue the payment of a tax which they might be almost said to have been es- pecially elected to repeal. There was, however, one distin- guished exception to this general defection on the part of the place-holding and place-coveting members for the Metropolis— that of Sir JOHN HosnousE ; who gave up his post as Secretary for Ireland, and his seat as Representative for Westminster, rather than be compelled to vote with his constituents in opposition to the Ministry, or with the Ministry in opposition to his constituents. This double resignation has been extolled as an effort of almost superhuman virtue. The Times of Wednesday concludes an eu- logistic article on the subject in these words- " He (Sir John Hothouse) exhibits a purity of principle fur which ire should in rain look fur a parallel. It is a pity that such a man should be both out of Parliament and out of office; and yet his full merit could hardly bare been known without the noble and unsolicited surrender of those honours."
Now all this is very fine; and we have assuredly no desire to impute wrong motives to Sir Joaw HOBHOUSE, or to depreciate his praiseworthy actions. But still it will be as well to examine a little more closely into his conduct as a public man, and Member for Westminster, upon this occasion.
Sir JOHN refused, as is well known, to give any pledges to the electors of Westminster ; and he grounded the propriety and jus- tice of his refusal upon the fact, that during may years of Parlia- mentary service, he had uniformly and faithfully represented the wishes of his constituents; and that it was little less than an in- sult to impute to him the possibility of turning craven to the popular cause, because he had taken office. As there was no question at all, therefore, that the great body of the Westminster electors were determined, if possible, to procure the repeal of the House and Window tax, and as Sir JOHN continued to pique himself upon the scrupulous regard which lie paid to the wishes of his constituents, his vote for Sir JOHN KEY'S motion was -counted upon as certain. Moreover, he headed the Westminster deputation to Lord ALTHORP, and urged upon him the necessity of taking off the unpopular impost; informing him at the same time, that all the Metropolitan Members would vote against its con- tinuance. Up to the very day when the subject was to be brought forward in Parliament, the expectation that lie would warmly second the mover for the repeal, was general and well-founded. But how has lie fulfilled these most just expectations? We are compelled to say that he has grossly falsified them. He slunk away from the battle in very pitiable style. It was clearly his first duty to represent the notorious wishes of his constituents; and if, as it unfortunately appears to be the case, those wishes and the views of the Administration of which he formed a part were at variance, it then became his duty to resign . his office, and keep his seat—at least until the 'Westminster electors could procure a successor upon whom they might more justly depend in the hour of trial. As it is, although four fifths of the inhabitants of Westminster are heartily opposed to the House and Window tax, one of their representatives voted for its continuance, and the other did not vote at all. Is not this a perfect mockery of popular representation ? But it will be said, that the question was not that of a mere re- peal of the House and Window tax—that other matters were mixed up along with it, which materially altered its complexion. This we deny : Sir JOHN KEY'S motion was simple and direct—" that it was expedient to grant relief to his Majesty's subjects by repealing that portion of the Assessed Taxes charged on inhabited Houses and Windows." This was the very plain question on which Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE was called upon to vote. Ministers thought fit to propose an amendment, which embraced the consideration of the re- peal of the Malt-duty and the imposition of a tax on Property and Income; but this was not the motion which he was called to give an opinion upon, except that it should not be allowed to stand as a negative to the proposition which he was bound in duty and in honour to support. It would, indeed, be a very easy matter to procure the rejection of any motion, if in order to do so, it were only required to propose some puzzling amendment to it. But, granting that a vote for the repeal of the House and Win- dow tax necessarily implied a readiness to vote for a Property-tax —not a tax on property and income, as it was falsely put by Lord ALTHORP and Mr. BARING—did this alternative come suddenly upon Sir JOHN? Is it not one, on the contrary, which has been the subject of discussion among all rational persons who have written or spoken upon the subject of taxation for many months past? That in the present state of the revenue and expenditure any very large sum could be remitted unless a substitute was found for it, none but visionaries ever supposed. We say, then, that as a statesman and legislator, and a representative of' the first city in the empire, Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE ought to have made up his mind upon this point long ago. He ought to have foreseen the necessity of reverting to a Property-tax, if the Assessed Taxes, or the principal part of them, were abolished, and regu- lated his electioneering professions and Parliamentary votes ac- cordingly.
We have taken it for granted that Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE'S re- signations are both bona fide—that he will refuse to come forward again as a candidate for Westminster, and that Lord GREY must appoint another Irish Secretary. We know that suspicions are entertained that there is a good deal of manceuvering at the bottom of this affair; but we are unwilling to believe Sir JOHN Hon- HousE guilty of the trickery and deep dissimulation which such a suspicion necessarily implies.
The truth is, Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE is not the man for West- minster. He might make a good Minister, but he must ever be an incompetent representative of " the first constituency in the kingdom." He refines, when lie should decide ; he places himself in a false position, and complains that he is not comfortable; he undertakes a duty, and is driven into a dilemma by a puzzle; and, by way of saving both his honour and his trouble, he deserts his place and cuts his constituents.
The Ministers of the Crown must have (Acid seats set apart for them.
Previous page
