are in favour of Parliamentary Reform, because they consider the House of Commons, as at present constituted, an inadequate check on the Ministers of the Crown, and an imperfect representation of the different classes and interests of the community. Whatever Res forms they may propose or support, they will found them neither on natural rights with Major CARTWRIGHT, nor with Sir FRANCIS BURDETT, on the Tory principle of emancipating the Crown from the House of Commons. They would render that assembly more independent of the Minister, but not abridge it of one particle of its power. They would give the unrepresented portions of the community a share in the Government, but have no desire to subvert the Constitution."

The true style of the modern gentleman is easily recognizable in this elegant document. The repeated recourse to Mr. Cobbett's dictionary for a term whereby to abuse the Westminster Tradesmen who have been the most active advocates for Reform-" the little Court of Dandies," a phrase all their own, and some gross falsities, give a genuine Whig stamp to the whole article. The "social proscription," Mr. Hobhouse had in his farewell speech proclaimed awaited him, but he could hardly imagine it would be publicly pronounced against him-the use of this "last argument of party" would of itself have been sufficient to denote the true authors of this edict. The reason given for this proscription is equally wor thy of the Whig gentlemen. The writers wish it to be supposed they speak from a knowledge of facts, touching the private life of Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Hobhouse. Now, one should be a Whig gentleman, in order to reconcile oneself to alluding to the private life of any man, especially when one's knowledge must have been derived from a former intercourse with that man. The Westminster tradesmen never thought it worth while to inquire whose friendship Mr. Lamb cultivated in private. But it seems the gentlemen mean to say; that Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Hobhouse were extremely ambitious of the honors and comforts of Whig friendships, and, indeed, an article, previously quoted, boasts of their having been admitted into the circles of their High Mightinesses. It is, however, not absolutely impossible that both these persons may have the extreme hardihood to think that in cementing these friendships, (if they did form any such), they brought as good as they got. The Whig writer would doubtless have it slightly hinted that Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Hobhouse made eager advances and solicitations for this high communion. Whether they did so, those who are personally acquainted with them, must decide; and also whether there is any thing particularly mean or forward in the carriage and conduct of either of them. This question

+

refers to their private life, and none but a Whig would have thought of agitating such a point. The writer would also perhaps suggest, that in this private intercourse the above persons entered into certain party engagements; but the writer can only hint this; for if he knew this, he would not have stuck at saying so outright. The world then will now clearly perceive, that which ought surely to be publicly proclaimed, namely, that association with a Whig gentleman is, if nothing is said to the contrary, a tacit submission to the Whig party-in other words, that these prudent persons never give their suppers and dinners, and balls, and conversation and countenance for nothing, but always as a set-off against the places and pensions and ribbons of the court: so that the simplest way of judg ing of a man's politics should be by looking at his card-rack.

The charge of traducing in public those whom Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Hobhouse and the framers of the Report cultivated in private, is such as would never have entered into the head of any but a true party politician: for, as Sir Francis Burdett observed in his speech at the subsequent dinner, "the usual offence is to praise in public and to traduce in private”—an offence which it should seem is perfectly reconcileable to Whig honor. One would, however, think that Sir Francis, Mr. Hobhouse, and the framers of the Report, had made use of their private intimacy to expose individuals publicly. This is what the writer would wish to hint-and with what justice and pretext he does hint this, may be collected by referring to all the speeches of those two persons. Neither they nor the Committee traduced any individuals; and whether their attacks on party were traductions or truth, the country, and not the party must finally decide. The Whig writer states a falsity when he says, that Sir Francis Burdett gave a sanction to the Report of the Westminster Committee. He could give no such sanction, for he had never been consulted on the subject, and had never seen it when he was called to the chair, and he never alluded to it in any of his speeches that day. The Whig is equally false when he says that Mr. Hobhouse gave his approbation of that Report in his speech: the Committee had not consulted him any more than Sir Francis, and he said nothing about the Report.

The Whig puts an equally unfair gloss upon Mr. Hobhouse's declaration. The objection to his undefined principles is exactly the objection made to their idol Mr. Fox; and his declaration in fact is neither more nor less than the essence of the declaration made by the Whig Friends of the People in 1795.

The avowal that the Whigs are not for universal suffrage nor for uniform suffrage, is of importance, as it is a confession of a change of principles from those who, when calling themselves the Friends of the People, "admitted the RIGHT of suffrage to be common

and personal," and after stating how small a limitation to the exer cise of suffrage they proposed, distinctly declared for uniform suffrage and for a new division of the country, which would give an equal number of constituents to each representative. But these points have, we may safely assert, been completely set at rest in the pamphlets called "A Reply to Lord Erskine," and " A Defence of the People," and to them we refer the reader.

As the Whigs affected to believe that the positive merits and real popularity of their party had procured for them their majority over the Reformers, independently of the direct or indirect exertion of that influence which Government is enabled to exercise in Westminster, it has been thought advisable to compare the Poll Books of 1818 with those of 1819, in order to find out how many of those who voted for Sir Murray Maxwell in June voted for Mr. Lamb six months afterwards. The result of the investigation has gone to establish the decisive fact, that Mr. LAMB OWES HIS MAJORITY

TO THOSE OVER WHOM THE GOVERNMENT CAN EXERCISE A

DIRECT INFLUENCE. This will be seen from the following numerical detail, extracted from the Poll Books of the two Elections.

LIST OF THOSE WHO HAVING VOTED FOR MAXWELL IN 1818, VOTED FOR LAMB IN 1819.

* Two years before the celebrated declaration of the friends of the people was made, the Honorable Thomas Erskine (now Lord Erskine) then a great leader in the House of Commons, in his speech on Mr. Grey's Motion for Reform: said, the members of the House of Commons, "were either chosen by riot and confusion, and amidst bribery and corruption in the larger districts, or by the absolute authority of a few individuals in the smaller; that no private fortune, even if Elections were free, could bring up the Electors to the poll at a county contest, or the absent freemen in corporations, or stand the expense of the final issue in that House. The principle of the remedy therefore must present itself to every mind alike,

Now it is probable that the Whigs may not be inclined to admit that the two thousand seven hundred and sixty-three, who gave only one vote to Sir Murray Maxwell in 1818, were actually under Government influence, although it is a positive fact that, at the beginning of the Election in 1818, the canvassers for Maxwell solicited for Romilly, so much so indeed that, generally speaking, Sir Samuel cannot be thought to have had many first votes amongst those who polled for him and for Maxwell: But it would not be stretching a point to say, that by far the greater number of the above 2763 were government voters, and would have voted for any one countenanced by the Court; certainly they cannot be put down to the Whig force in Westminster, which, properly speaking, cannot be raised to a number greater than the voters for Lamb after the substraction of the voters for Maxwell to be found in the late majority; that is to say, from the 4465 given to Lamb 2763 must be taken, before an estimate is made of the positive Whig force, which would appear in an election where there should be three candidates for one vacancy -a Whig, a Tory, and a Reformer. This calculation reduces the said force to seventeen hundred and two voters, which we sincerely believe to be the utmost number the Whigs could muster if they were opposed by the Court and by the Reformers in a contest for a single seat.

But though the Whigs may quibble about the split votes which were given for Maxwell, it is impossible that they can dispute about the PLUMPERS. They must allow those who gave single votes for Maxwell against Romilly and against Burdett to be dead government voters. Of these government voters, then, ONE THOUSAND AND SEVENTY-ONE supported Mr. Lamb; and, if these government voters had not supported him, his numbers would have been reduced from 4465 to 3394; in other words, he would have been in a minority of four hundred and sixty-seven when compared with the three thousand eight hundred and sixty-one who voted for Mr. Hobhouse. This supposes that not one of the influenced voters would have polled for Mr. Hobhouse even if they had had their own way but there is reason to believe that very many of them would have voted for him had they not been forced to do otherwise.

though different persons might differ in the details. It could be no other than to simplify and EQUALIZE the franchise of Election, to make each body of Electors too large for individual corruption, and a period of choice too short for temptation, and by the subdivision of the places of Election, to bring the Electors together without confusion, and within every man's reach. Surely this was practicable."-Parliamentary History, Vol. XXX. p. 834.

* The whole number of plumpers for Romilly was only 453.-Burdett, 2308.

of

Our investigation has led us to know that about one hundred of those who gave plumpers for Maxwell, voted for Hobhouse; and we account for this circumstance from the conviction that many the influenced voters are in their hearts Radical Reformers; and that as during the first few days of the Election the Government did not commence active operations for Mr. Lamb, there was opportunity for the above small number to declare for the Reformer. We mention the fact that the Whigs may, if they please, set off these 100 votes against the above statement of their obligation to the Court.

We fancy, however, that we shall hear no more of the triumph of the Whigs in Westminster; and, indeed, considering how chopfallen these poor gentlemen are, not only in the metropolis, but in the whole country, we should hardly have furnished the public with the above document, had it not been to prevent the assumption of a fallacy at some future period when there may be occasion for another struggle. The above exposure must convince the Reformers that they are in fact the strongest party in Westminster; and that by resolutely never giving a second vote to either Tory or Whig, they will always appear the strongest party in Westminster. Had none of them given a second vote to the candidate put up by the Whigs in 1818, there would have been no mistake about the matter. Sir Francis Burdett would have been far at the head of the poll, and the contest would have been, where it ought to be, between the two factions. But the personal character of Sir Samuel Romilly very naturally prevailed over those who did not see the treacherous use which would be afterwards made of their votes by the Whigs, who now actually assert that Romilly's second votes brought in Burdett, although it is notoriously true that Burdett's second votes, added to those which the Court in the early days of the poll lent to Sir Samuel Romilly, brought him in. The conduct of the Whigs against the Reformers on the late occasion will, we trust, prevent the possibility of such a mistake as that of splitting votes with a Whig being again made. The great body of independent voters must see that they never can give a vote to a Whig without giving a vote against themselves, and without giving a vote for that party who, as on the late occasion, will join the Court against the Reformers whenever there is the slightest appearance of profit from such a coalition. There is only one method of obviating any chance of their helping in a third man (as he is called in electioneering slang) out of preference to some more obnoxious candidate-namely, always to start with two Radical Reformers, let them be who they may, but certainly not with more than two, as was the case in 1818. Had not Major Cartwright's friends unadvisedly disturbed the unanimity of the Reformers in 1818, it is probable that all the Radical