The Sun.
London, England, 1832-12-03 00:00:00

PIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

It will be seen from our report of the county
meeting at Hertford, which appears in -another
column, that Lord Deere, aided by several par-
tisans of the present Government, succeeded in
deafeating a resolution against the Dutch war.
Never was a question- cregs:.?d more distinctly
upon party grounds than the .vestion of peace
or war was, argued, upon this occasion, by his
Lordship, and the speakers who followed him
on the sarr e side. If the proposition had been,
" Will you prefer a Tory to a Whig ? will you
turn out a Reforming Administration ? or will
you reinstate your old adversaries in power ? "
the arguments adduced by the Noble Mover of
the amendment, and his friends, could not have
been more plainly directed to those topics than
they were upon the very different proposition of
interfering to prevent hostilities against Hol-
land. The manoeuvre answered the purpost
for which it was resorted to. The old preju-
dices of Whig and Tory, the recent conflicts of
Reformer and Anti-Reformer, were all pressed
into the service of Ministers by their adherents :
and the decision of the meeting was in con-
formity with their recommendation, that, be-
cause of considerations which had nothing to do
with the matter, it was expedient to leave Hol
land to its fate, and the Ministers to their
career of aggression and war. But, though
this result may be fi,Airly enough appealed to as a
proof of the strength of Whig influence in the
county, it will scarcely be regarded as a set-ofi
against the great city meeting, where com-
mercial and practical men of all parties carried a
resolution similar to that which was lost in
Hertfordshire. There still remains the opinion
of Parliament, and of the nation ; and a little
time will show whether the approbation vouch-
safed to Ministers, from Hertfordshire and
other places, bears any proportion to that which
the public in general are prepared to recognise
as their own.—Morning Herald.
On Friday morning last the citadel of Ant-
werp, which all along has been acknowledged
even by the Dutch themselves to belong tc
Belgium, was summoned to surrender to its
lawful owner—the King of Belgium, and re-
plied to by a cannon-shot from the military re-
presentative of the King of Holland, who has
no claim, and pretends to no right of possessing
that fortress. The question, therefore, which
has agitated Europe for the last two years, and
which ought long ago to have been decided b 3
the treaty of the 15th of November, 1831, is
now to be settled—not by diplomacy, but b\
arms. Never, certainly, did a wilful or ambi-
tious Monarch throw himself into the arena of
contest with more reckless folly, or with the anti-
cipation of more desperate results. He is per-
fectly aware that the citadel of Antwerp cannot
long withstand the attacks of a large French
force in occupation of the city,—he must be con-
vinced that, unassisted by the absolute Powers of
Europe, he cannot run the hazard of invading
Belgium to relieve the siege,—and he must,
therefore, know that unless he has the certainty
of inure blood being shed, the blood which fu
now sheds will be of as little value as the ditch-
water in his own stagnating canals. Yet, in the
face of these frightful contingencies, he begins
the war by asserting a hostile occupation o 4
territory which he acknowledges not to be his
own, and which never belonged to Holland.
Need we say anything more to annihilate the
pretended admiration of Dutch patriotism, or to
excite the indignation of British virtue on this
melancholy occasion? We broadly state tilt
fact (and we challenge all the world to deny it)
that the King of Holland has only one object in
view—the recovery of Belgium; and that he hopes
to attain that one object only by one means,
viz., the absurd resistance of the Dutch to the
freedom of the Scheldt, and the contingencie,
which that resistance may produce. Hence,
with a feeling probably not better than that
of the incendiary who set fire to the temple
of Ephesus, he has ordered the first shot to be
discharged from the citadel of Antwerp, which
may kindle a general war. Let us, therefore,
hear no further hnmbug about the patriotic firm-
ness or religious feelings of his Dutch Ma-
jesty, who has shown all the perfidious and cruel
ambition of a conqueror under the mask of ait
unjust and monopolizing trader. When the
wretched Tory creatures who now oppose their
own Government, and take part with Holland.
on the question of the Scheldt, shall have told
us that they are decided to recommend the re-
newal of the treaty of Westphalia, we shall be
enabled to deal with them. It would be hazard-
ous to calculate at present all the consequences
of Dutch resistance to the occupation of the
citadel of Antwerp. They may end—and we
hope they will end—with the reduction of the
Place • but should a Dutch army invade Belgium
to support the operations of the Dutch garrison
of this advanced fortress, it will then appear
evident that perfidy has been more extensively
at work than was at first suspected, and that a
general war of opinion is to be provoked by the
party most likely to suffer from its results.—
Times.

The county meeting of Hertford, which had
been convened by the Conservatives to provoke
a general war, by hypocritically calling for peace
with Holland, has turned out to be, as at New-
castle, a signal failure. Though the Lord-
Lieutenant of the county was in the list of the
requisitionists,—though his Lordship spoke at
the meeting against the Government to whom
he owes his commission,—and who ought in-
stantly to show their sense of his factious con-
duct by withdrawing it,—the monstrous alliance
of the Tories and their hired rabble was defeated
by a majority of 10 to 1. The public now
understand the meaning of these ridiculous
farces of our pacific Conservatives. They know
that a petition for a peace with Holland is
merely intended to be an electioneering ma-
muvre,—that the animals who stir in such
a business, however little wisdom they may
posses themselves, presume on the laudable love
of peace and the perfect ignorance of politics of
those whom they address,—and that they can
only succeed by misrepresentation and 'false-
hood. When the Conservatives are fairly met,
as they were at Hertford by Lord Dacre
and Sir John Sebright,
.they are sure to
be reduced to their origin al insignificance,
or to be routed with signal disgrace. We have
so often discussed the question of the Belgic
settlement—we have so often shown that the
present arrangement offered the only chance of
preventing a general war—and we have so often
proved that the Eve Courts fully adopted the
principles which two of them are now endeavour-
ing to enforce, with no wish to act hostilely
against the very Power whose obstinacy they are
compelled to check, that it would be superfluous
now to enter further into the subject. Au in-
nocent gentleman who appeared among the Con-
servatives at Hertford, told the people " that
the only real point in dispute was the right to

certain tolls—it wa3 a mete dispute about a
certain number of guilders, and he asked, was
gold to be put in competition with human
blood ?" Exquisite simpleton ! and does he
not know that the demand of " these same
certain number of guilders" at the mouth of
the Scheldt, as the condition of entering the
river, must have obstructed the entire trade of
Antwerp ? Does he not know that most wars
have arisen from the denia! of well-defined rights
or the demand of enormous fines for reasonable
immunities ? Has he forgotten, or did he not
know, that the pretended right of cutting logwood
in the bay of Campeachy led us to a sanguinary
war with Spain ? The truth is, that the question
of the Scheldt, taken in connexion with the
treaty of Vienna, and the original law of nations,
would furnish a better ground for a war than
almost any other which a common genius for
inventingwarUe pretexts could devise or desire.
We beg, in conclusion, to call the 'attention of
Lord Grey's Government to the follO%;:ing very
mild, but not the less important, notice of Lord
Verulam's conduct. What did the Tories do
in the case of the venerable Earl Fit zwilliam ?:
" I am friendly, and always have been, to public meet-
,ngs, an i have been a party to promoe many, but never
would I convene a meeting during such a fevrrish anxiety
,f the inhabitants of the county and of Englmd at lar,-e,
when within a fortnight so much better opportunity would
have been afforded for its expresion. With the sincere,t
ottachment to the Noble Lord (Veruhm), I regret exceed-
ingly that be should have permitted himself to become a
party in this affair. I lament it on account of his being
laced at the Lead of this county by his Sovereign to main.
,ain its p,!ace, when instead it produces agitation. His moo
-ices, I know, are excellent, and may have emanated from
:misconception of the object the projectors had in view, in
unnecessarily calling the county together at this memento"
Times.

It would appear that we are to have a couple
of Conservative candidates for Westminster, Sir
George Murray and Sir George Cockburn.
This is a natural consequence of the division of
tlie popular interest. We confess we regret this
division Of the popular interest. With regard
to Sir Francis Burdett, the cause of Reform is
greatly indebted to him. He was a Reformer in
times when it required some courage to be one.
Sir John Hobhousc is not exactly in the same
predicament. He may be said to have derived
his consequence from Reform. The cause had
taken deep root in Westminster, when he was
put forward by the electors as a determined and
zealous Reformer, ready to go all lengths in the
cause. We have on more occasions than one
shown that we do not entertain the highest
opinion of the views on matters of legislation
entertained by Sir Francis. He has rather
inore than an average share of aristocratical
prejudices, and sometimes in the House delivers
himself of what, without any great lack of
candour, may be termed pure twaddle—as, for
instance, when he declared that one sentence in
\Tapia Charta (a mere declaration, liable, like
dl general declarations, to the utmost latitude
of interpretation) was worth ail the modern
discoveries in politics and legislation. The
-ruth is, Sir Francis, with good natural parts,
has the besetting sin of most rich men—he is
too lazy to apply himself to anything that
demands exertion, and there is no Royal road to
knowledge. Sir John Hobhouse has fewer
prejudices and more industry than Sir Francis ;
hut the staple is greatly inferior. it has been
.charged against the two Members for Westmin-
ster by a Sunday contemporary (the Examiner)
that they wish the Reform to be turned to no
ccount

" The Ballot (says our contemporary) would give to
be existing Parliamentary Constitution the best cif- et of
which it is capable; and will Sir John vote for the Bal!ot,
'or which he has argued as strongly as for a Reform ex-
Teding the measure contemplated by Mr. Lamb (house
older suffrage, gcc.) which, let it be observed, exceeds
'he present much-vaunted Reform ? We are certain that he
will not. He will not advance to the extent which he called
small' in 1819 ; and he will not give the short measure the
egree of efficacy of which it allows, by affording to the
constituency the protection of secret voting. His voucher,
sir F Burdett, is for resting where we are, and abstain-
ing from any attempts at improvement. His language
is, Have you not got the Bill? What more would you
have ?'

" ' My son, here is a drum, take it and play with it;
.muse yourself, but make no noise.'
"'My man, you are hungry: here is a horn spoon,
take it, be satisfied, be grateful, but by no means help
yourself to soup. Be content: what more would you
have? You were starving ! Well, have you not got a
qpoon, and would you have more ? Would you insist on
using it ? Would you eat ? Oh, fie! this is gluttonous
—this is grasping. We should not have given you the
poor, if we had a notion that you were for employing it,
:Ind had set your mind on the food. The spoon was a
anal gift : nothing mote was contemplated.'"

We should be sorry to think that in the next
Parliament there will not he many men pos-
sessed of both the will and the power to make
the Reform Bill produce its fruits. The Re-
form Bill is but a means to an end—good go-
vernment ; and to obtain good government, the
representatives of the people must make the ex-
ertions which are necessary to remove the nume-
rous abuses that now press on the people. The
great security for the people is, that if they re-
turn a proper House of Commons, Ministers
must propose efficient measures, and they can do
so without apprehension from the efforts of fac-
tion. The electors should, of course, endeavour
to have the assurance that they whom they
send to Parliament will really and truly
give effect to their views. Both Sir Francis and
Sir John Hobhouse have shown a degree of
testiness on the subject of pledges quite un-
called for. There are points on which it is of
the utmost consequence that the electors and
representatives should come to a correct under-
standing. It is for the electors to determine
What opinions shall be entertained by the men
whom they send to Parliament as their repre-
sentatives ; and no candidate should hesitate to
enter into the fullest explanations to satisfy the
electors. Appeals to the past will not do, be-
cause the Reform Bill has changed entirely the
nature of the warfare in Parliament between the
r people and their enemies. It would be absurd
to say that a man in place is disqualified from
representing a city like Westminster. But then
the candidate should not the less explain his
views on all points respecting which the electors
are anxious to obtain explanation. It is true,
the. candidate cannot pledge the Ministry to
support any particular measure, and while he
forms part of a Ministry he cannot pledge
himself to support what the Ministry does not
support ; but then he can cease to form part
of the Ministry which refuses to propose the
measures which he has agreed to support.
Where the constituency and the Ministry
are at variance, the duty to the constit-
uency ought to prevail. We are far, there-
fore, from approving the course adopted by
tl►e two Baronets in all particulars, and think
they have carried matters with too high a hand.
Still we regret that an opposition has been
started. We have no hesitation in saying that
if we thought that throughout the country a
number of determined Reformers and efficient
men of business would not be elected, we might
attach more importance to the representation of
Westminster. But, under all circumstances, it

would have been, we think, better not to risk the
throwing Conservatives into Westminster. We
have only to add, that it is a poor compliment
to Ministers to suppose that they intended the
people to make no use of the powers given to
them under the Reform Bill. There is no dis-
position to undervalue the services rendered to
the country by Ministers ; and we are sure, that
if they endeavour to give effect to the Reform
Bill, they always receive the support of a
Reformed Parliament. On one point, we have
no hesitation in saying, that if the Westminster
electors do not require a pledge—namely, the
ballot—they will certainly be fools ; whether
their representatives, after giving the pledge,
would prove knaves, is their concern.—Morn-
ing Chronicle.

The degree of respect entertained by the Mi-
nisterial Press for the understandings of its readers
may be inferred by the manner in which it shuf-
fles under the charge of inconsistency upon the
subject of pledges. The Journals in the service
, of Government have one solitary argument, by
the incessant repetition of which they labour to
reconcile the diametrically opposite opinions
which they have each and all advanced at dif-
ferent periods upon this subject. It was, they
pretend, wise and patriotic to advise the electors
to demand a pledge from candidates to support
the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the
Bill," as this pledge included no more than a
single question which had already been amply
discussed, and upon which the country had
fully made up its mind. But the case,
they tell us, is widely different now that
the voters in certain counties and boroughs
show a disposition to extort pledges in favour
of a great number and variety of measures
of practical policy. To sanction this course
would be silly, unconstitutional, and fac-
tious—a direct attack upon the principle, a
violent extinction of the authority, and an
indecent mockery of the use and purpose of
representative government. In this apology
for the inconsistency of the Ministerial writers
and candidates who now treat with such high
disdain a practice which they formerly upheld by
precept and example, there is manifest bad faith,
and such a degree of bad faith as implies great
contempt for those to whom it is addressed. It
is in truth a very impudent juggle. The pledge
to support the Reform Bill, expressly in a great
majority of cases, and in all the rest by well-un-
derstood implication, involved the further pledge
to support all the measures, be they what they
might, of the Reform Ministry. It fettered
the candidates who were so weak or unprinci-
pled as to submit to the dictation of those
who are now the enemies of pledges, not
merely upon the question of the Bill, not
merely upon any other question or any given
number of questions in the actual contem-
plation of the electors at the time of ex-
torting it, but upon every possible question that
time or circumstances might bring forth pending
the discussion of the Reform Bill, upon every
new act of Grey or Plunket rapacity, upon
every job of Lord Brougham, upon every blun-
der of Lord Althorp, upon every reckless project
that might be engendered in the brain of Mr.
Poulett Thomson or of Dr. Bowring. But
considering the Reform pledge apart from
the unmitigated helotry to the Ministry of the
day, which it was understood to include, can
any thing be imagined more remote from truth
than the representation that it was a pledge
upon one single question, which question the
electors had well considered and fully under-
stood ? It was a pledge upon questions and
principles more numerous by far than the clauses
in the 13ill. It was a pledge upon questions and
principles of the magnitude and importance of
which, of the number even of which, the electors
knew nothing, and still know but little, although
they seem to know more than they did, there
being probably no constituency in the three
kingdoms that would not now if it could modify
the Bill in a great variety of particulars. This
by no means implies that the electoral bodies
who extorted pledges did not understand the
measure as well as the puppets they were about
to set up, or as well even as the authors of the
measure in whose support those puppets were to
act. To establish a new Constitution for the
government of an extensive and diversified em-
pire like that of Great Britain must inevitably
be almost, if not altogether, a leap in the dark ;
and upon the countless multiplicity of questions
which appertain to such an undertaking it is,
therefore, less rational and more dangerous than
upon any other imaginable occasion to exclude
the faint anti imperfect glimmerings of light
which the most candid, dispassionate, and unpre-
judiced discussion might happen to elicit. What
becomes, then, of the consistency of our Ministe-
rial partisans of the Press and the hustings who
were eager in their demands, and no less eager
in their tenders of pledges, in favour of the Re-
form Bill, and who now profess the opinion that
candidates who give pledges, and electors who
require them, upon subjects infinitely less diffi-
cult, infinitely less important, and infinitely bet-
ter and more generally understood, violate, not
only the principles of the Constitution, but the
plainest dictates of common sense? The opinion
is correct enough, no doubt, but where is the
consistency ? Would it not be much better for
these persons to say at once that their opinion is
changed ? The change is from error to truth,
and why should they be ashamed of it ? It is bad
policy to shuffle upon such occasions. The
most charitable observers are thereby led to sus-
pect that neither error nor truth has touch to do
with the matter, and that the system of pledges,
which was once so good and is now so bad, has
only changed its character because the electors
will no longer require the precise pledges which
suit the purposes of existing power.-Morn.Post.
Nothing can be more truly ludicrous, incon-
sistent, or irrational—nothing less defensible, in
every point of view—than the conduct of those
candidates for the representation of the people
in the ensuing Parliament, who condemn all
pledges for the removal of abuses as a species
of wholesale slavery. With one breath they
condemn them in the lump, from what quarter
soever they may be demanded, and, with the
same, they give pledges in such abundance, and
to such an extent, that one is at first apt to dis-
credit even the evidence of their senses as to the
identity of the individual who is guilty of such
inconsistent conduct. Among the foremost of
those who are amenable to this charge are Mr.
William Brougham,
one of the candidates for
the‘ rrepresentation of Southwark, and the Secre-
tary atWar, who stands in some risk oflosing his
seat for Westminster. The former is most elo-
in defence of
the qne
n tf
thoughceeaid i neoatsyversyysctozincailiiid against theg,
adoption of pledges, in any shape or guise, and
under any circumstances—the latter, if not so
diffuse upon the subject, is no less determined
in a similar view of the matter.

" If yuu abk Mt," bays Mr. Brougham, " to pledge
myself upon particular questions, you doubt my integrity,

you distru6t my judgment—you impair my uaefulness.
You doubt my integrity, because, knoWing what I have
been, you discredit me in future. You distrust my judg-
ment, because yon deprive me of my free agency, and send
me iota Parliament a mere puppet. You impair my use-
fulness, because you take from me the power of delibera-
tion ; for who can pretend to discuss the merits of a ques-
tion when he goes to the discussion pledged and bound to
vote in one way only? You discuss! you argue !' it
would be said, ' why, you have already decided; you are a
mere tool delegated by others to affirm or deny, right or
wrong, convinced or unconvinced ; you have no choice ;
you must put your own judgment in your pocket, and
vote as you have been ordered."

An evening contemporary, in commenting on
the above sentiments, says—" Nothing can be
added to this ; the absurdity of the practice, and
the mutual degradation of those who would sub-
mit to it, and of those who exact it, are lid bare
with a masterly hand." Now, with all due de-
ference to the, opinion of our contemporary, that
the "absurdity of the practice is laid bare with
a masterly hand," we beg to observe that we
cannot trace in this " masterly hand" sort of de-
clamation any point, argument, or common sense.
The demand for pledges implies no distrust in
the integrity of the candidate, but, on the con-
trary, presupposes that the person from whom
they are demanded is a person of integrity, and
will faithfully redeem whatever pledges he may
find it agreeable to his conscience and reason to
give ; for who would think for a moment of ex-
acting pledges from one of whose honest inten-
tions to fulfil them he had reason to entertain a
doubt ? As little distrust is there implied in the
judgment of the party from whom the exaction
is made ; for his judgment may be very sound
and very excellent, although opposed to that of
his constituents, who are the party, we take it,
unless we mistake the meaning of the Reform
Bill, whose judgment ought to be preferred, and
not that of the person who is desirous of repre-
senting them. It is the interests of the former
that are at stake in the matter, not those of the
representative, who, if representation be any
thing else than a mere word, signifying nothing
means that the candidate should represent, ex-
press, and advocate, the opinions, sentiments,
wishes, and interests of the majority of his con-
stituents, and not those which he personally en-
tertains or is actuated by. If we are wrong in
this matter, what is representation but a mockery,
the House of Commons but an irresponsible
assembly of petty despots, and the Govern-
ment itself but a well-cloaked tyranny ? With
regard to the charge that the usefulness of a
Member of Parliament would be impaired by the
exaction of pledges on particular questions, we
reply that common sense, coupled with the im-
possibility of exacting pledges on all points which
may come under discussion in the Legislature,
not only point out the proper line of demarca-
tion, beyond which pledges can neither be given
nor exacted, but furnish a complete and most satis-
factory answer to it. The points, in fact, on
which the people have thought of demanding
are few ; but having made up their minds on
them, would they not act the silliest part that can
possibly be imagined, if, having the power in their
hands, they were to neglect the present golden op-
portunity of having their sentiments represented ?
So much for Mr. Brougham's arguments against
pledges—now for his consistency, on which sub-
ject we borrow the following brief illustration
from the Spectator of yesterday

" Lord Henley, after expressing his horror of pledges,
gives two very distinct pledges—promising, first, to vote
for the prompt abolition of slavery; second, to vote against
Atheism—meaning retrenchment.

" Alderman Waithman, after vowing that he will give
no pledges, gives half a dozen at least.
" Mr. William Brougham, after declaring to the elec-
tors of Southwark that will not accept a seat in Par-
liament if he is to be fettered and bound down by pledges,'
promises, in the most distinct tei Ina, to vote, Ist, against
' pluralities of livings, which ought to be abolished;' 2d,
against the tithe system, which was a tax on improve-
ment, a most obnoxious impost—to do away with which
he would cordially support any measure ;' 3d, against
Bishops sitting in the House of Lords;' 4th, for al-
teration in the corn laws, which be would go any length
to support;' sth, ' for a repeal of the assessed taxes he,
would frankly vote; 6th, for a well-modified property
tax ;' 7th, for the repeal of Mr. S. Bourne's Vestry
Act; Sth, for the repeal of the taxes on knowledge,' to
which he was a decided opponent; 9th, for triennial Par-
liaments;' 10th, for ' emancipation of the slave popula-
tion ;' and 11th, for the abolition of military flogging.'
Eleven pledges in all ; but notwithstanding all these spe-
cific pledges, he will not consent to accept a seat in Par-
liament if he is to be fettered and bound down by specific
pledges'—no, that he won't !

Mr. Sergeant Spankie declares that ' he cannot con-
sent to go into the House of Commons fettered by
pledges;' and then distinctly pledges himself to defend the
East' India Company, whose Counsel he is, with a
good salary ; and ' to support the Administration, not
only against ancient ope❑ enemies, but against the more
dingermis hostilities of Reformers, doing the work of
Anti-.lleformers, whatever disguise or denomination they
may assume.'

" Alderman Wood says, ' I object to pledges :' and
then specifically pledges himself to vote for the abolition
of tithes, slavery, the assessed taxes, and the taxes on
knowledge, for shortening the duration of Parliaments,
and for extending the suffrage.
" Mr. Lyall, who speaks of pledges as an abomination,
pledges himself very distinctly to support our glorious Con-
stitution in Church and State, with all its abuses.

" Mr. Alexander Baring pledges himself to vote for
the Agricultural intexest; which means, coming from
him, that he will vote the other way. If be had treated
the farmers of Essex to some abuse of the corn laws, they
might have reckoned on his vote for maintaining those
laws. But, at any rate, he pledges himself, and in terms
not to be mistaken by those who know his habit of speak-
ing, on one side and voting on the other.
" We cannot learn with precision what pledges have
been given by

" Lord Aileshury's candidates for Marlborough,
" Lord &IHomy's candidates for Hertford,
" Lord Westmoreland's candidate for Lyme,
" Lord Exeter's candidates for Stamford, or
" The Duke of Newcastle's candidates for Newark.
But this is well known, that all these candidates, and
many more of the same class, both Whig and Tory, arc
under positive engagement to vote according to the views
of their constituents, the Lords and Dukes hy whom they
expect to be sent to Parliament, and, what is more, to re-
sign their seats in case they should feel disposed to vote in
opposition t,) the said Lords and Dukes.
" Mr. Briscoe and Mr. Hurtle, candidates of the atheis-
ive specific piedges, without any declamation
abouttieal Y
Pabrotni gs, fetters, delegates, and so forth; as do those
poor, ignorant, hungry revolutionists:
" Mr. Grote, the banker,
" Mr. Thornely, of Liverpool,
" And Mr. Marshall, of Leeds.

Beauclerk offers a string of pledges to
th:elelcrt.orAsnolierY
f East Surrey ; who, as they pass a resolution
declaring that they will elect him, exclaim—' We pledge
ourselves!' that is, they pledge themselves to support a
man who promises to support their opinions in the House
of Cominons.
44 31e. Wakefield, in his address to the electors of Lam-
beth, tells them that, if they elect him after reading his
pledges, they will have pledged themselves to let him vote
as he pleases; a way of describing pledges, which, though
more new-fangled' than pledges even, deserves the atten-
tion of all electors.
slavish, base, despicable, and what not,
6, The number of candidate@ who rail against pledges
pasiend;Win-gfatnlfemletlves at the same time, most specifically,
to support his Majesty's patriotic Ministers,' is very great
indeed ; as might have been expected, seeing that his Ma-
jesty's patriotic Ministers have nearly as much patronage
as any Ministers ever had, and a great deal more, some
think, than they ought to have.
.4 On the other band—
it sir Richard Vyvyan pledges himself to oppose his
Majesty's Revolutionary Ministers. And
Sir Charles Wetherell pledges himself to wage eternal
war with his Majesty's Jacobin, tricoloured, Swing Mi-
nisters.
.‘ Sir John Hobhouse is by no means singular in de
lacing that he ' will not give any pledges at all ;' but h

is unique in nut giving pledges after that declaration. All
other declaimers against pledges proceed to do the very
thing which they have just declared that nothing on earth
shall induce them to do; the Minister at War alone means
what he says. But perhaps half of Westminster is Sir
John Hobhouse's own ;' and if so, we are not surprised,
seeing the wonderful change which Reform has worked in
him, that he should think he has a right to do what he
likes with it."

To conclude :—the opponents of pledges
pretend to be the friends of the people, and yet
will not pledge themselves to aid in carrying
their wishes into effect—many of them have
placed in their hands an instrument of great
power, and would willingly flatter their vanity
by allowing them to play with it as
.a child does
with a rattle, but they object to its being em-
ployed for its legitimate ends and purposes—
they have allowed the steed to be taken from
the stable—to be bridled, saddled and mounted,
but would lock the stable by way of preventing
him from being rode ! When the fate of the
Reform Bill was doubtful, they not only pledged
themselves to support it in all its entirety, but
made the most incessant and urgent appeals to
the people not to elect any candidate who would
not pledge himself to follow a similar line of con-
duct—and now that it is about to come into
operation, and its utility, as an instrument of
good, to be tried, they object to the very con-
duct which they found to be good under pre-
cisely the same circumstances ! But let not the
pledge-refusers deceive themselves. They may
triumph in a few places, and for a short time—
but it will be only for a short time. The ocean
of popular opinion has been set in motion—its
waters upheaved from their bed in all their
strength and in all their majesty ; and what petty
stream is it that will stem its tide or check its
flow ?—Morning Advertiser.

KING'S BENCH, DEC. 1.