TOPICS OP THE DAY.
THE WESTMINSTER ELECTION.
Irappears certain that there will be a contest for Westminster The sitting members again come forward; being called upon 1 Ay a large body of the electors, who expressly declare, that they e sider the past conduct of their representatives as " the F ,rarest pledge for the future." This declaration seems to be highly agree- able to both the honourable members ; and Sir FaxwetsB URDETT, , in his reply, reprobates the system of exacting pledges fton, can- didates, in very stronab and sarcastic language. Indeed', he dwells more upon this point than there is any occasion fbr. It has been known for sonic time past, that many A the electors had determined to bring forward Mr. HUME for vicestminster, in case of his being unsuccessful in Middlesex. P,ut, as his return appears now to be placed beyond reasonable dor, ,et Colonel EVANS has been called upon to stand in opposition to Sir JOHN HOB- nousE,—for there does not seem to be any intention at present to unseat Sir FRANCIS BURDETT. We learn from the Colonel's letter to F'.;tr FRANCIS, that it was determined, on Saturday evening last, t .o put him in nomination ; and "that measures were taken to Ca ,try that determination into effect." The first of these measures appears to have been a visit to Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE at Richmowit made for the purpose of ob- taining answers to several questions, relative to his future Parlia- mentary conduct. Sir JOHN, in rA somewhat uncourteous manner, endeavoured to cut the matter slaort, and absolutely refused to give any pledges whatever. The %deputation then returned, as we are told, very much dissatisfied,--but not greatly disappointed, we ap- prehend, as they had predetermined to support Colonel EVANS,- on the assumption that Sir JOHN would act precisely as lie did. We view this visit, therefore, in the light of an electioneering ma- noeuvre, not very worthy of the electors of Westminster and the • gallant officer whom they support. If Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE, in- stead of refusing all answer, had replied in the affirmative to the questions propounded, Colonel EVANS and his friends would have been placed in a rather awkward predicament. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT, in his reply to Colonel EVANS'S letter, announcing his intention to stand for Westminster, gives way to his feelings of mortification, in unqualified, and we do not scruple to say, extremely unbecoming terms. He declares, "that he would rather be turned out with Homtouse than be returned with any one else:' And this is not a private letter, but is sent to the Committee for managing his election, to be read by them be- fore it is forwarded to the Colonel. Now, whatever Sir FRANCIS BURDETT'S standing and services may have been, they are not such as entitle him to dictate to his constituents whom they should elect to represent them in Parliament; and the style which he has so unadvisedly adopted has given just offence. We have now then, it appears, three candidates in the field. Let us examine their several pretensions with calmness and im- partiality; taking it for granted, that the great majority of voters have no other object in view than to return those who are in every respect most likely to prove discreet, faithful, and efficient repre- sentatives of the first constituency in the empire. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT's claim to be reelected rests principally upon the merit of his past services. When many a loud-tongued patriot of the present day was dumb, he was eloquent in upholding the rights of the People. For many years he stood forward, almost singly in the House of Commons, the unflinching advocate of Par- liamentary Reform. By him alone " the sacred flame of liberty" appeared to be kept alive. There was certainly something very striking in his position, and chivalrous in the style in which he maintained it. The reward which lie received was suitable to the nature of his services. Hewes the popular idol—" Westminster's Pride and England's Glory." He was returned to successive Parliaments, free of expense ; and a dashing speech on the hust- ings, or in the House, was received as an apology for the neglect of More laborious and less brilliant duties. We consider, therefore, that the debt of gratitude, which the Reformers of Westminster owed to Sir FRANCIS, has been discharged in full, and in a mode the most agreeable to his feelings. We come next to examine his actual qualifications for the post which he again aspires to occupy. Judging from what he. has hitherto performed, we are compelled to think that they are ex- tremely meagre. During the whole period of his Parliamentary career, he has given little or no evidence of talent as a legislator. He is deficient, then, in the first and highest qualification for a member of' Parliament. Nor has he hitherto endeavoured, nor is he likely in future, to compensate in some measure, for this defect by great assiduity in the performance of minor duties. It is, on the contrary, a matter of just complaint, that he is inattentive and indolent. He occasionally makes a manly and brilliant speech, Which the House cheers to the echo, and which reads admirably in the newspapers. But we look in vain for-evidence of proficiency in the science of legislation—for clear views of the great political questions of the day, or even that knowledge of detail, which are all requisite in a representative of the city of Westminster at the present time. If to return a gentleman to the Reformed Parliament, were merely a handsome compliment,—if the distinction were merely honorary, and the duties showy and -unimportant,—then Sir FRANCIS might expect to be unanimously returned. But as the reverse is actually the true state of the :case,—as the mere name and fashion and sentimentalism of Reform must give place to r ,taio substantial, and extensive mehorations in every branoh.of g' avernment—as strong, active, steady labourers, are wanted for die hard work that must be done,—it is possible to conceive a ftter, because a, more useful, member for Westminster than even Sir FRANCIS, notwithstanding his lofty tone of dictatorship; and if such a man is found—equal in other respects, superior in these- -it will be the clear duty as it is the unquestionable right of the electors to return him in preference.
If in the case of Sir FRANCIS BURDETT the electors are bound, in the rigid performance of their duty, to look simply to his pre- sent qualifications and not to his past services, d fortiori the same rule ought to be applied to Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE. He cannot expect to be treated more indulgently. Still, however, the Parlia- mentary conduct of Sir Joniv, during the last twelve years, has been such as to give him no trifling advantage in any struggle which may ensue to throw him out. We are not aware that during that term a single vote or speech can be imputed to him with which reasonable fault can be found. He has never bartered his soul for preferment, nor danced attendance at the Treasury with- his conscience in one hand and his talents in the other, saying,- " What do you bid for these?" He has been the consistent advo-' cate of Reform in Church, Law, and State; and industrious as well as independent. It is not fair, for electioneering purposes, to depreciate his talents or acquirements ; though it may be fair to admit that his qualifications for law-making are not of the very highest order. Let his opponents make out a list of the members who are his equals in all respects : they will find it a very short one. Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE must be conscious that he has de- served well of his country and his constituents ; and he no doubt thinks it rather hard, that his past conduct should not be held a sufficient guarantee for his future usefulness and honesty. But he seems to forget, in the first place, that any considerable body of the electors of Westminster have a right to expect courtesy at least at his hands ; and, secondly, that by the acceptance of office in the Government, he has evidently placed himself in a situation which may render it extremely inconvenient to him to redeem his past pledges—for the time was when he did not object to give them: and therefore, that his constituents are justified in coming to a clear understanding with him, as to whether his tenure of office will interfere with the performance of his especial duties to- wards them. It may be excusable in an old member, such as Sir FRANCIS BURDETT,—W1I0 is moreover no placeman, and under no obligation to vote with the Ministerial leader,—it may be excusable perhaps, though not decorous, in Min to take lofty ground, and lecture his constituents on the subject of their demanding pledges : but it will never do for Sir JOHN Hoonouse to give himself such airs. Besides, we do not see any thing so very objectionable in the questions put to him by the deputation. And certainly, if, owing to his being a member of the Government, he is not at liberty to vote for the Ballot, or the repeal of the Assessed Taxes, the Septennial Act, and the Taxes on Knowledge, he ought at once to resign his seat or his place,—for the opinions and wishes of his constituents are clearly in favour of all these measures.
But suppose we take another view of this subject. What is the aim of the parties who are desirous of obtaining these pledges ? Simply, we apprehend, to forward as much as possible the political objects therein specified. Now we submit, that an active and in- telligent member of the Administration, necessarily carrying with him great weight as the representative of Westminster, is more likely to succeed in such an undertaking than a person uncon- nected with Government. We therefore doubt the prudence and policy, though we fully admit the right, of demanding these pledges. It amounts in fact to a resolution not to permit one of their members to hold office tuner any Administration. For it cannot be supposed, that a subordinate member of a Ministry will be allowed to originate or support financial and political measures of very great importance, without the concurrence of the Premier. Now Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE cannot be authorized to pledge Lord GREY to repeal the Septennial Act and the Assessed Taxes, &c. We are inclined to think, that the best course would have been, to have required from him a promise, or at all events to have come to a clear understanding with him, that he should seize every fair occasion to accomplish the objects which his constituents appear to have so much at heart, leaving to his discretion the time and mode of doing so. It seems, however, that a considerable body of the Westminster electors think differently; and they have accordingly called upon Colonel EVANS to become their candidate. The Colonel promises all-that is required of him, in the most unhesitating manner. His friends are ardent and thoroughgoing ; and there is every pros- pett of a sharp contest. Now it would be difficult to find a more honest Reformer or a more gallant soldier than Colonel EVANS has proved himself to be. The most perfect reliance may be placed on his good intentions and Parliamentary diligence. But the object of the electors, in dismissing one of their e'ld representa- tives, should be, to find a more efficient man to fill his place ; and it-may well be asked in what respect Colonel EVANS is superior to Sir JOHN -HOBHOUSE? Certainly tint in Parliamentary experience, or political knowledge, or readiness and tact in debate. On the contrary, he is notoriously inferior to him in all these essential quali- fications' for a leading member. This inferiority is no discredit to the Colonel. His habits have been formed and his education completed in the camp, not in the senate. As yet, he is a tyro in politics ; andhas not had the requisite experience in Parliament to become: even- a good mouthpiece to a party. His want of poll.' 'eal information generates ,a want of confidence in himself; and on this, as well as many other accounts, he has been unwisely se- lectsd, we think, to succeed either of the sitting membete, There is another objection to the introduction of a third eantli- date, which has been considered weighty : we allude to the chance which it affords to a Conservative, who may take advan- tage of this split among the Liberals, and slip in through the me- dium of their divisions. We do not, however, lay much stress upon this point : for we may safely challenge the Tories to bring forward a candidate whose character and acquirements combined are of such a superior order as would induce the electors of West- minster to think for a moment of preferring him teeny one of the three gentlemen now in the field. To succeed in an election for Westminster, a man must be honest, independent, and of unble- mished character, as well as insinuating and clever. This, we know, is a great annoyance to the Conservatives, and stands sadly in the way of the promotion of their leaders.
Previous page
