It would be invidious, perhaps, to criticise the different candidates for
the representation of London and Westminster very severely. I think it
must be granted, that they are as sincere in their professions as their
opponents, which at least bleaches away much of that turpitude of which
their political conduct is accused by those who are of a different way of
thinking. But it is quite evident, at least to me, that no government
could exist a week, managed with that subjection to public opinion to
which Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Hobhouse apparently submit; and it is
no less certain, that no government ought to exist a single day that
would act in complete defiance of public opinion.
I was surprised to find Sir Francis Burdett an uncommonly mild and
gentlemanly-looking man. I had pictured somehow to my imagination a dark
and morose character; but, on the contrary, in his appearance,
deportment, and manner of speaking, he is eminently qualified to attract
popular applause. His style of speaking is not particularly oratorical,
but he has the art of saying bitter things in a sweet way. In his
language, however, although pungent, and sometimes even eloquent, he is
singularly incorrect. He cannot utter a sequence of three sentences
without violating common grammar in the most atrocious way; and his
tropes and figures are so distorted, hashed, and broken--such a patchwork
of different patterns, that you are bewildered if you attempt to make
them out; but the earnestness of his manner, and a certain fitness of
character, in his observations a kind of Shaksperian pithiness, redeem
all this. Besides, his manifold blunders of syntax do not offend the
taste of those audiences where he is heard with the most approbation.
Hobhouse speaks more correctly, but he lacks in the conciliatory
advantages of personal appearance; and his physiognomy, though indicating
considerable strength of mind, is not so prepossessing. He is evidently
a man of more education than his friend, that is, of more reading,
perhaps also of more various observation, but he has less genius. His
tact is coarser, and though he speaks with more vehemence, he seldomer
touches the sensibilities of his auditors. He may have observed mankind
in general more extensively than Sir Francis, but he is far less
acquainted with the feelings and associations of the English mind. There
is also a wariness about him, which I do not like so well as the
imprudent ingenuousness of the baronet. He seems to me to have a cause
in hand--Hobhouse versus Existing Circumstances--and that he considers
the multitude as the jurors, on whose decision his advancement in life
depends. But in this I may be uncharitable. I should, however, think
more highly of his sincerity as a patriot, if his stake in the country
were greater; and yet I doubt, if his stake were greater, if he is that
sort of man who would have cultivated popularity in Westminster. He
seems to me to have qualified himself for Parliament as others do for the
bar, and that he will probably be considered in the House for some time
merely as a political adventurer. But if he has the talent and prudence
requisite to ensure distinction in the line of his profession, the
mediocrity of his original condition will reflect honour on his success,
should he hereafter acquire influence and consideration as a statesman.
Of his literary talents I know you do not think very highly, nor am I
inclined to rank the powers of his mind much beyond those of any common
well-educated English gentleman. But it will soon be ascertained whether
his pretensions to represent Westminster be justified by a sense of
conscious superiority, or only prompted by that ambition which overleaps
itself.