practicability of conducting a government without giving placemen seats
in the Legislature. And, though the _positive pledge_ may, in all cases,
not be insisted on, the principle ought to be clearly understood; and,
where the candidate is not very well known indeed, and has not had _long
trial_, I am for insisting upon the positive pledge. This pledge Mr.
Hunt has given you, and you must be well assured, that, if he were
disposed to break it, he would not dare to do it. For this alone I
should prefer him to either of the other candidates, both of whom, all
three of whom, you may be assured, have in view either _public money_ or
_title_, both of which Mr. Hunt disclaims. The 2nd pledge that Mr. Hunt
has given you is, that he will endeavour, if elected, to do away all the
sinecure places, and all the pensions not granted for real services.
This is a pledge which I deem of great importance. The sum of money
expended _annually_ in this way has been stated by Sir Francis Burdett
at nearly a _million of pounds sterling_, that is to say, a sum
sufficient to maintain 125,000 poor people all the year round, supposing
them not to labour at all I, for my part, should deem the abolition
of these places and pensions of far greater importance to us than the
gaining of a hundred battles, by land or sea.
The 3rd pledge of Mr. Hunt is, that he will, if elected, do all that in
him lies to procure for the nation a peace and a _Reform of Parliament_.
Now, Gentlemen, look back for the last 20 years; reflect on what has
passed during that time; and then say, whether you sincerely believe,
that this nation can possibly continue in its present course much
longer. The finger of wisdom, of common sense, points to peace as
the only possible means of rescuing ourselves from our dangers; but,
Gentlemen, _how are we to have peace_? The terms offered by the Emperor
of France are fair; they are, indeed, such as I never expected to see
obtained at the close of a negociation; they would, if accepted of,
leave us in possession of all our conquests, of all the Islands in the
West Indies; of the exclusive fishery of Newfoundland; of the Cape of
Good Hope and the French Settlements in Senegal; of the French and Dutch
Settlements in the East Indies; of the Isles of France and Bourbon;
in short, they would leave us in possession of about 40 millions of
conquered people, while France herself would not possess above 17 or 18
millions of conquered people. And, which is never to be forgotten, they
would leave in our hands, the island of Malta itself, which, as you well
know, was _the avowed object of the war_.
Why, then, have we not peace? _Because we have not reform_, it being
absolutely impossible, in my opinion, for our present internal system to
be continued during a peace which should be accompanied with the usual
consequences of peace. When the present war began, it was stated by the
then Minister, Addington, that _we were at war because we could not be
at peace_; and, I suppose, that the same reason would now be given; for,
otherwise, it is, I think, impossible to account for the rejection of
the late overtures of the Emperor Napoleon, which, as I have, I am
persuaded, clearly shown in a former Register, were both honourable and
advantageous to England. Not only, therefore, will this country, in my
opinion, never regain its former state of freedom and happiness without
a reform of parliament; but, I am convinced, that, without such reform,
it will never again have peace with France.
This being the case, it must be an inexcusable folly for you to elect
any man who is not decidedly for a reform of the parliament; and,
amongst all your candidates, Mr. Hunt is the only man who has declared
for that reform. The partisans of Sir Samuel Romilly say, that they
doubt not that _he will_ declare for reform. I do not think that he
ever will; at least, not till such men as Mr. Hunt shall have made it
_inconvenient_ to be against reform. If Sir Samuel Romilly were for
reform, why should he be so loath to make the declaration? He has told
you, that those who promise most perform least; but, if this were to be
taken as a rule without an exception, there would, at once, be an end of
all promises and engagements between man and man. In this case, however,
the rule did not apply; for he might have expressed his wish to see
reform take place without making any promise upon the subject. This he
did not do; and, during the whole time that he has been a candidate
for Bristol, he has not once _mentioned_, in any way, the subject of
parliamentary reform.
There is, besides, with regard to Sir Samuel Romilly, a most suspicious
circumstance; and that is, that his leading partisans all belong to that
corrupt faction, which has been designated under the name of _Whigs_,
and which faction is, if possible, more hostile to reform than the
followers of Pitt and Perceval themselves. I have frequently asserted,
that the two factions cordially unite upon all occasions, where an
attack is made upon corruption in general, or where the interests of
_party_ are concerned. We saw them join hand-in-hand and heart to heart
when the late Perceval and Castlereagh were accused by Mr. Madocks, on
the 11th of May, 1809, on the anniversary of which day Perceval was
shot, at the door of the very place where he had before triumphed. We
saw them join in rallying round that same Perceval when Sir Francis
Burdett was sent to the Tower under the escort of thousands of soldiers.
We saw them join in reprobating the Address to the Prince Regent
proposed by Sir Francis Burdett. In short, upon all occasions when
something was to be effected hostile, decidedly hostile, to the people,
the two factions have cordially joined; they have, for the time, become
one. They hate one another; they would destroy one another; but, they
love the public money more than they hate one another; and, therefore,
when the _system_ is in danger, they always unite. They cordially unite
also against every man who is hostile to the system. They hate him even
more than they hate each other; because he would destroy the very meat
that they feed on.
Hence, Gentlemen, the united rancour of the factions against Mr. Hunt,
and their united approbation of Mr. Bragge Bathurst. But, of this latter
we must take more particular notice. There has appeared in the Bristol
newspapers a publication respecting a Meeting for the purpose of uniting
in a testimony of gratitude to Bragge Bathurst. At this meeting the
following resolutions were passed; but, I beg you to observe, first,
the language and sentiments of the resolutions, and next, who were the
principal actors in the scene. The whole of the publication was as
follows:----"At a General Meeting of the Merchants, Traders, and other
Inhabitants of this City, convened by public advertisement, for
the purpose of uniting in a testimony of _gratitude_ to their late
_Representative_, the Right Hon. Charles Bathurst,--THOMAS DANIEL, Esq.
in the Chair,--the following Resolutions were moved by _Michael Castle_,
Esq. and seconded by _John Cave_, Esq. and carried unanimously:--1st,
That the conduct of the Right Hon. Charles Bathurst has been
distinguished, during 18 years that he represented this City in
Parliament, by a _meritorious attention to its local interest, and
an invariable zeal for the individual concerns of its inhabitants_,
entirely independent of every consideration of political party.--2d,
That in the _retirement_ of the Right Hon. Charles Bathurst from that
elevated situation which he so deservedly held amongst us, we feel
desirous of testifying, in this public manner, _the gratitude we
entertain for services that have reflected so much honour upon his
abilities and exertions_.--3d, That a Subscription be now entered into,
for the purpose of presenting the Right Hon. Charles Bathurst with a
permanent Token of our esteem and approbation of services that have been
so frequently called upon, and attended to with so much advantage to the
City at large.--4th, That a Committee be appointed of those Gentlemen
who signed the requisition for the call of this meeting, together with
any of those who may be subscribers, for the purpose of carrying into
execution the wishes and intentions of this meeting.--5th, That the name
of Mr. Robert Bruce be added to the twenty gentlemen who have signed the
requisition, for the purpose of forming a Committee, with any other of
the Subscribers.--6th, That Mr. Thomas Hellicar be requested to take
upon himself the office of Treasurer.--THOMAS DANIEL, Chairman."
Now, Gentlemen, you will observe, that here is as decided praise as men
can bestow. Mr. Bragge is praised for his _eighteen years' conduct_,
though, during that time, he has been doing every thing which the
supporters of Sir Samuel Romilly affect to disapprove of. To describe
his conduct under three heads, it has been this: he has uniformly
supported Pitt and the war; he has uniformly _distinguished_ himself
as an opponent of Parliamentary Reform, and was one of the foremost in
reprobating Mr. Madocks's motion; he has, during the 18 years of war and
national misery, been a great part of the time a placeman, and he is
now a placeman in possession of a rich sinecure, with immense patronage
attached to it. And, it is for _conduct like this_ that these townsmen
of yours are about to give a testimony of their _gratitude_!
If, however, this were confined to the friends of Bragge Bathurst, to
those who profess his principles, all would be in its place, all would
be natural enough. But, you will bear in mind, Gentlemen, that the two
factions have united here, and these resolutions, extolling to the skies
a sinecure placeman, a Pittite, and a known and decided enemy of reform
of parliament; you will bear in mind that these resolutions were _moved_
by Mr. MICHAEL CASTLE, the very man who introduced Sir Samuel Romilly
into your city; the very man in whose carriage Sir Samuel Romilly
entered your city; the very man who filled the chair at Sir Samuel
Romilly's dinner. This was the man selected to MOVE resolutions
expressive of the gratitude of the people of Bristol for the conduct of
Bragge Bathurst, the sinecure placeman, the supporter of Pitt and the
war, and the decided and distinguished enemy of parliamentary reform.
This was the man, this Mr. Michael Castle, to tell the world in the most
solemn manner, that the friends of Sir Samuel Romilly approved of the
conduct of the very man, whom they, when canvassing you for your votes,
represented as unfit to be your member.
Gentlemen, can you want any further proof of the political hypocrisy
of such men as Mr. Charles Elton, and Mr. Mills, and Mr. Castle? Can you
be made to believe that they are sincere when they tell you that they
wish for a reform of any sort? The truth is, they wish to put in a
member of their own, that they may enjoy the benefit of his patronage;
but, in doing this, they must take care not to do any thing hostile to
_the system_, for without the existence of that all their prospects are
blasted. You see, that they have in these resolutions, no scruple to
declare the vile and abominable principle upon which they act. They here
most explicitly avow, that they are grateful to Bragge Bathurst for the
zeal he has shown in the _individual concerns_ of his constituents. That
is to say, in getting _them places under the government_; or, in other
words, in enabling them to live upon the taxes; that is to say, upon the
fruit of the people's labour. I told you, in my first letter, that they
had no other object than this in view; that one part of them only wanted
to put in Sir Samuel Romilly that he might give them more of the taxes
than thev had been able to get from Bragge Bathurst. Mr. Hunt had told
you this before; and now you see the fact openly avowed. The jobbers on
both sides plainly tell whoever is to be their candidate, that he must
take care of their _individual concerns_.
This, Gentlemen, is the real cause of the hatred, the rancour, the
poisonous malice, of both factions towards Mr. Hunt, who makes open war
upon the tax-eaters. This is the reason why they hate him. There are
other reasons, but this is the great reason of all; and you may be well
assured, that you will see both the factions always unite against any
man, be he who he may, who is opposed to the system of places and
pensions. But, what, then, must be the extent of the hypocrisy of the
friends of Sir Samuel Romilly! They pretend that they wish for a reform
of parliament, when they must well know, that such a reform would
totally destroy the very root whence spring those _individual_ benefits
for which they express their gratitude to Bragge Bathurst. Sir Samuel
Romilly, as I had before the honour to observe to you, has never
told you that he is for a reform of the parliament; and, after the
publication of these Resolutions, moved by the man who introduced him
into your city, there are very few amongst you, I trust, who will not
be convinced, that his partisans are well convinced that he will not
support such a reform as shall give us a chance of destroying that
corruption which is now eating out the very vitals of the country.
Clear as it is, then, that both the factions are your enemies, I hope
that you will stand firmly by each other in opposition to so detestable
an union. Both factions are hateful; but of the two the Whigs are the
worst; because they disguise their hostility to the cause of freedom.
Take, however, only a little time to reflect, and you will not be
deceived by the cant of Mr. Charles Elton and Mr. Mills, both of whom,
I would venture my life, have bespoke places for themselves in case of
success to their candidate. They well know that the success of Mr. Hunt
would defeat their scheme, and _therefore_ they hate him. They do not
dislike him for his separation from his wife; they would not give his
wife a bit of bread to save her life, if she was a beggar instead of
being, as she is, well and liberally provided for; they would see her
drop from their door dead in the street, rather than tender her a
helping hand; but, to speak of the separation suits the turn of the
hypocrites; by having recourse to it, they can cast calumny on their foe
without letting their real motive appear. They would, if they dared,
tell him that he is a cruel savage for endeavouring to prevent them from
pocketing the public money; but this would not suit their purpose; and
they therefore resort to his separation from his wife.
Trusting now, Gentlemen, that you see clearly the motives of the two
factions, and that their main object is to get a share of the
public money, I shall not fear, that, at another election, you will
_resolutely_ endeavour to defeat that vile object. The whole mystery
lies here. It is the public money that the factions want to get at. They
are not attached to any particular set of men or of means. Whoever or
whatever will give them the best chance of getting at the public money
is the man or the thing for them; and Sir Samuel Romilly has been
brought forward upon the recent occasion, only because there were a set
of men, who found that they could not get so much of the public money as
they wanted under any of the other candidates. They found the old ground
too thickly settled for them; they therefore resolved to get new ground
of their own; and they chose Sir Samuel Romilly, because he was at
once likely to be a placeman, and was a man of a good deal of deserved
popularity. They, if he were elected, would say as Falstaff did of the
moon: "the _chaste_ Diana, under whose influence _we steal_." They mean
to make a passage of him through which to get at the people's earnings;
and, all this, too, under the guise of virtue and patriotism. With me
there wanted nothing to produce conviction of this fact before; and now,
I trust, that there is no man who will affect to doubt it; now when we
see them moving and signing resolutions, applauding the conduct of a
member of parliament who has become a sinecure placeman, and who is
notoriously a most decided enemy of reform of parliament.
With these facts before him, it is not to be believed, that any one
amongst you will give his vote for this hypocritical faction. If Sir
Samuel Romilly will declare openly for reform of parliament, you will do
well to vote for him and for Mr. Hunt; but, if he will not, it is your
duty not only not to vote for him, but to do all that lies in your power
to prevent his being elected; for, be you well assured, that, without a
reform of parliament, no man living can save this country or render it
any essential service. There is no national evil that we feel, be it
small or great, which may not be traced to the want of a parliamentary
reform, and such a reform, too, as shall cut up corruption by the roots.
It is with great pleasure that I perceive Mr. Hunt has promised you to
be a candidate at Bristol at every future election, as long as he has
life and health, unless he should be a member when a vacancy takes place
for your city. This promise ensures you _an election_; it secures you
against being sold like _dumb creatures_; it secures you the _exercise_
of your right of voting, and the right of now and then openly
reproaching and loading with just maledictions any of the wretches who
may betray you. To be a member for Bristol, in future, a man must stand
an _election_ of some days, at any rate; no one will be able to get in
by a mere day's parade; an election at Bristol will not in future be a
ceremony like that of choosing a churchwarden; your voices will be
heard, and, I hope, they will always carry terror to the hearts of the
corrupt. You have only to _persevere_. To keep steadily on. To suffer
nothing to turn you aside. Your enemies cannot kill you, nor can they do
you harm. If they collect and publish lists of _your names_; you will do
well to collect and publish lists of _theirs_, and then stand your
chance for the _final effect_. But, above all things, be upon your guard
against the fraudulent dealings of the Whigs, who are the worst faction
of the two, because they are the greatest hypocrites. They make use of
the name of Sir Samuel Romilly as the means of deceiving you, and of
getting a share of the public money into their own pockets; and of this
fact I beg you never to lose sight.
I am, Gentlemen, your friend,
WM. COBBETT. Botley, Tuesday, 11th August, 1812.
These three letters will give a clear view of the state of politics at
Bristol. I offered myself as a candidate for that city, not with the
expectation of being returned as one of the Members, but from a firm
conviction, and, indeed, a thorough knowledge, that it was one of the
most _corrupt cities_ in the universe; that the people had been kept
in total ignorance and darkness by the intrigues and cabals of the two
factions, the Whigs and Tories, in which glorious and praiseworthy work
those factions had been ably assisted by the local press of the city.
MATTHEW GUTCH, the Editor of _Felix Farley's Journal_, the Ministerial
or Tory hack editor, and JOHN MILLS, the Whig hack editor, two beings
equally unprincipled in politics, had contributed mainly to assist in
perpetuating the ignorance of the people; the whole of the patriotism
of the citizens consisting in being devoted tools either to the Whig or
Tory factions, blind supporters of the _high_ or the _low_ party. It
will be seen by these letters, that my great object was to rescue the
people of Bristol from this deplorable state of ignorance and darkness,
into which they had been plunged by the intrigues and unprincipled
compromise of these two factions. How far I was successful in this
attempt, may be best deduced from the unwarrantable and villainous abuse
that was poured out upon me by all the rascally editors of the public
press of that day. Gutch and Mills vied with each other which could be
most scurrilous, and which could tell the greatest number of the most
unprincipled and barefaced falsehoods. It will be seen also, from these
letters, that I was assailed by Mr. Charles Elton and Mr. Walker, both
supporters of Sir Samuel Romilly; the former the son of Sir Abraham
Elton, and the latter an attorney, who published a pamphlet at the time
on purpose to abuse one. When I say that these two gentlemen were the
most liberal minded men in the City of Bristol, you may form some idea
of the prejudice that was excited against me, and the pains that were
taken to put me down. As, however, Mr. Elton and Mr. Walker have made
some amends, by expressing themselves in a very different manner of
me since I have been here, I am by no means disposed to bear them any
ill-will; on the contrary, I think them two of the very best men amongst
the gentry of Bristol, and an exception to the sweeping character which,
in my last number, I gave of the Bristol gentlemen, although at the
period to which I allude they were two of the foremost to abuse and
belie me. If either of them should read this, I have not the least doubt
but they will lament the injustice they did me; the names of both of
them appear amongst those who have subscribed to remunerate me for some
of my expenses; and I am informed that they liberally promoted the
Bristol petition, that was presented to the House of Commons last week
by Mr. Bright, one of the Members for that city. This evidently shews
that, if they still remain my political enemies, they are at any rate
liberal and generous foes; but I would fain hope that they have by this
time convinced themselves from observation, that I am more deserving of
their support than their hatred and opposition. They will have seen
that I have, ever since they first saw me at Bristol, been the steady
persevering friend of Radical Reform; they will see that I have always
advocated the same principles; and they will acknowledge that the very
principles and sentiments that I promulgated, during the first election
for Bristol, are become almost universal now; that the very same
language which I made use of upon the pedestal, in the front of the
Exchange, has lately been made use of, and repeated almost verbatim, by
Noblemen and Members of Parliament, at county meetings; that the very
remedies which at Bristol I declared, in 1812, to be necessary, to
restore the country to freedom and happiness, are now almost universally
allowed to be the only remedies in 1822. These letters, which were
written by Mr. Cobbett, I do not publish for the sake of raking up any
old grievances; far from it but I do it for the purpose of maintaining
and proving my consistency, and also that, whatever I may have erred in,
my errors have sprung from the head and not from the heart.
The reader has seen in these letters, that I promised the electors of
Bristol that I would always be a candidate for Bristol, at all future
elections; but this, of course, was _conditional_. When the proper time
comes I shall, I think, give a very satisfactory reason why I did not
keep this promise, or at least why I was prevented from doing so;
although perhaps, it would, as it turned out, have been much better for
me, personally, if I had gone there again, under all the disadvantages
which I had to anticipate, rather than have destroyed my health
and wasted my property in opposing Sir Francis Burdett for the City of
Westminster. Still, however much I may have suffered upon that occasion,
I must persist in thinking that a great public good was effected by it.
These things, however, I shall at least honestly account for, whether
my explanation prove satisfactory or not, at the proper epoch of my
history.