A letter to Lord Brougham, in reply to Isaac Tomkins, gent., and Mr. Peter Jenkins

A L E t T El

" b m

k

LOUD BROUGHAM,

ssm

IN RF.l'LV TO

ISAAC TOMKINS, GENT.

AND

MR. PETER JENKINS.

BY

JOHN RICHARDS, ESQ. M.P.

LONDON:
J. HATCHARD AND SON, 187, PICCADILLY.

1835.

LONDON:

IBOTSON AND PALMER, PRINTERS, SAVOY STREET, STRAND.

V ?

LET T E R,

&c.

My Loup,
Two or three days ago, my attention was di-
rected, by a friend of mine, to two little pam-
phlets, published under the names of Isaac
Tomlcins and Peter Jenkins; but generally (and,
I am convinced, truly) ascribed to the pen of
your Lordship. In one of these pamphlets,
your Lordship has thought fit to mention my
name. And you have done this, it seems, in
reference to the course which, on a late occasion,
I thought it mv duty to take in Parliament.
lint, independent of your personal and wholly
unprovoked attack on me, yon have, by means

6*

of these tracts, and your observations on them
in the Edinburgh Review, endeavoured, mis-
chievously and dangerously, as it appears to me,
to influence the public mind on a most important
question ; and this gives me some right to make
a few remarks on them.

But, first, let me ask your Lordship, how,
amidst the multifarious and opposite pursuits,
some great and some small, in which you are
engaged, — as a judge,— a senator, — a school-
master,— a reviewer, — and a writer of two-
penny tracts, — how comes it that your Lord-
ship's notice has fallen upon me ? I have not
been raised to distinction by any one, whose
character and power I afterwards endeavoured
to subvert. I have neither betrayed the trust,
nor violated the confidence of any party. I am
not hated and feared by my political associates
as a traitor to them. Nor, after having truckled
to the court, do I now teach sedition to the
people. It is true, that, for some years, I
praised your Lordship for a patriot; — that I
thought you learned, and believed you to be dis-
interested and sincere. But I am not the only

person who has been misled by appearances —
who has given credit to the bawling pretensions
of trading politicians — or who has mistaken base
coin for that which is sterling. Is it because,
like many others, I was deceived in your charac-
ter, that your Lordship thinks me worthy of
your censure ?

Just before the opening of this Session
of Parliament, the Conservatives, for the first
time since the passing of the Reform Act, be-
came possessed of power ; and Sir Robert
Peel, their distinguished leader, considering, no
doubt, the great change made by this Act in the
constitution of the House of Commons, and
earnestly desirous of complying, as far as he
safely could, with the wishes of the people, an-
nounced his determination to govern the country
on the principles of Reform. I gave him credit
for sincerity. He demanded a trial, and I de-
termined to give him one. I now ask, whether he
has, in any instance, falsified his own declara-
tions, or disappointed the hopes of the country?
Even faction itself cannot say that he has done
this. How has lie exhibited himself? Intrepid

8

yet calm, abounding in knowledge, rich in ex-
perience, indefatigable, in eloquence hardly to
be equalled, willing, nay anxious, to grant all
useful reforms, and resolute in refusing only such
as are mischievous and dangerous, — he stood
the Statesman and the Patriot; — a picture
of moral and mental greatness, the pride
of his friends and the admiration even of his
enemies. But his political opponents, irritated
by their own dismissal from power, and afraid,
perhaps, that if the right hon. Baronet should
hold office long, he might, with his splendid abi-
lities, and straight-forward, manly, and patriotic
conduct, win " golden opinions" of the people,
determined, by any means and at whatever risk,
to destroy his ministry. Witness their party-
motion on the Speakership ! Look at their paltry
amendment on the address to the Crown ! And,
above all, consider their motions on the Irish
Church; — pending the inquiry of their own
commission into the state of that church ! When
they issued that commission, either they thought
an inquiry necessary, or they did not. If they
did not, they stand convicted of being public

hypocrites ; if they did, what shall be said of
their recent motions ? Were these motions the
effect of a mere desire for place ? Did they
spring solely from bitter, rancorous, party-
spirit ? Or do these soi-disant leaders of the
Whigs, with their Radical allies, fancy them-
selves, like the Whigs of a former day, pos-
sessed, forsooth, of "all the talents;" and,
therefore, the only proper persons to carry on
the government ?

The administration of the Whigs, during the
time in which they, lately, held office, notoriously
disappointed the hopes and expectations of the
nation. Rash, without courage ; timid, without
prudence ; feeble, indecisive, irresolute, given
to change for the sake merelv of change, — ad-
vancing a step, and, startled at their own bold-
ness, as hastily retreating, — proceeding on no
plan, — guided by no certain or fixed principles,
— unacquainted with the details of business, —
and unaccustomed to the commonest forms of
office, - they were the occasion of anxiety and
uneasiness to their friends, and of contempt and
mirth to their enemies. Uefore they acquired

10

power, much was expected from them. Their
opposition to the government had been lively
and spirited ; their demeanour bold and fearless.
Both in and out of Parliament, they constantly
spoke ad populum, It is probable, that they
did not foresee the consequences of many of the
measures which they recommended and urged.
Be this as it may, they always appeared as the
advocates of popular rights and popular privi-
leges. Whether they believed all they said, or
whether the mask of patriotism was worn for the
occasion, I will not attempt to determine. It
is, however, beyond dispute, that, when in
office, they belied their former professions and
former conduct ; and not only opposed popular
measures themselves, but loudly condemned
and vilified those who continued to support
them.*

But the Conservatives were again called to
direct the councils of the King ; and now, the

* Of course, I speak of tlie Whigs as a party. I have the
pleasure to know amongst them many excellent and amiable
individuals ; and my animadversions are intended, in no de-
gree, to apply tu them.

11

scene of Whig- politics at once changed. Again,
they became loud in their invectives against the
King's Government ; — again, vehement in their
appeals to the people. They afl'ected, piteously,
to lament the opportunity they had lost of doing
the people good ; and, full of protestations of
their present excellent intentions, and lavish of
their promises as to the future, they begged to be
once more entrusted with power ;_for the sake,
and only for the sake, of the country ! And, am
J to be denounced by your Lordship, because I
did not listen to men like these? Having been
already deceived, was I still to give them my
confidence ? But, with your usual accuracy in
stating facts, your Lordship says, " that, at the
late election, I vowed to oppose the late minis-
ters, and restore reformers to power." It
might be sufficient, perhaps, for me to assert,
that Sir Robert Peel showed us that he is a
reformer ;— and that the men whom you eulogize
are sham reformers. But my answer is, that,
at the election, I exposed to scorn the hol-
low and despicable conduct of the Whigs ;

I said, that I was disappointed in them; and de-

12

clared, that, in my opinion, it would be a public
misfortune, if they should be restored to power.
I said, at the same time, " that I mistrusted the
Tories, and feared the Radicals." This was be-
fore Sir Robert Peels two addresses to the elec-
tors of Tamworth. And, because I believed Sir
Robert Peel, and refused to join in a hypocritical
party-crusade to drive him from office, your
Lordship, with characteristic regard to truth
and candour, and with all that good feeling and
good taste which distinguish you, has attempted
to brand me as an apostate ! But I proceed to
consider the scope and tendency of your Lord-
ship's two tracts.

It is impossible, T think, for any one who has
read these two publications and also the arti-
cles written, as I am persuaded, by you, on
the same subject, in the last Edinburgh Re-
view, to doubt the intention of your Lordship
to degrade, and the tendency of such writings
to destroy, the aristocracy of the country.
Whether you be actuated by disappointed
ambition, restless and dissatisfied because
it has failed to obtain supreme power, or whe-

13

ther, as is more likely still, some wound has
been given to that morbid vanity which renders
yon so vulnerable, I shall not stop to inquire. I
can, however, readily imagine, that, in the po-
lished circle to which the favour of your Sove-
reign introduced yon, certain peculiarities of
gait and dress, especially if connected with at-
tempts to he fine, and an abrupt, dogmatic, and
sarcastic manner, irrespective of rank or sex,
may have excited ridicule. Undoubtedly, they
were not calculated to inspire esteem or conciliate
regard. That some real or fancied slight has made
you sore is evident ; for not even the ladies escape
your lash ! You appeal, indeed, to our feelings,
in the strongest manner, on behalf of females in
the middle class of life, whom you represent as
slighted and contemned by the class above them.
But these latter you caricature in the broadest
style. You speak of them as heartless and
worthless ;— devoid alike of all that deserves es-
teem, or which ought to exci'.e in us affection and
love. " Every female member of this class, " you
say, " is under the exclusive dominion of some
waiting-maid, or silly lover, or slander- monger-

14

ing newspaper." You represent them " as
capricious and wayward, unreasoning, and often
unfeeling, blind to all danger, and alarmed
where all is safe ; in short, as children, or
rather spoiled children." Your attempts at
gallantry may, possibly, not always have suc-
ceeded ; but, supposing that you have been,
sometimes, laughed at, is not the language you
use rude and unfeeling? You do not, perhaps,
excel in those modes of pleasing which win the
affections of the gentler sex; but, why, there-
fore, libel them ? No one will deny that you
have your useful qualities; and why not be sa-
tisfied with the praises they justly gain for
you ? Why attempt things, for which you are
wholly unfit ? Your Lordship, perhaps, may
remember the fable of the ass, who attempted to
imitate the lap-dog.

In the tract, which, under the assumed name of
Isaac Tomkins, contains your "Thoughts, "after
expressing your opinion, in a somewhat tri-
umphant manner, that reform is rapidly ad-
vancing, and that the present moment is favour-
able to your purpose of procuring the improve-

15

ment and remoulding of our institutions in Church
and State, you proceed to give us a sketch
of the legal rights and privileges of the nobility.
Having done this, you labour to prove that, in-
dependent of peers and their eldest sons, the
aristocracy includes all the younger branches of
noble families, and likewise their immediate con-
nexions and acquaintance. You attempt to
show the bad consequences of this, and atlect to
lament the relative disadvantages under which the
sons and daughters of the middle class labour.
You, studiously, endeavour to sow the seeds of
jealousy and envy ; — to excite the anger and ill-
will of one class of society against another; - and,
by libelling in the grossest manner the aristocracy,
you pander to the worst feelings of human na-
ture. But you assert, that persons of the
middle class of life labour under great dis-
advantages; — that neither at college, nor when
they leave it to mix in the business of the World,
do they meet with the same acceptance in aris-
tocratic society (which society, whose exclusive-
ness you bitterly complain of, you represent as
no object of desire, and, indeed, below a wise

If)

and good man's notice !) as those do that are
born patricians. To use your own words, " that
they have to make their way — to win spurs;
the others start on a vantage ground —they are
born spurred." You then cite the case of a far-
mer's or shop-keeper's son going to Oxford ; and
try to persuade us that he has not an equal chance
with'the son of a man of rank. Now, the fact is,
that the middle class of persons, in this country, are
most felicitously circumstanced. You are obliged
to admit, " that it is a very great advantage of
our constitution that nothing prevents men of no
birth from gaining this (aristocratic) station by
their wealth, and talents, and industry." And
you say further, " that the middle class are
the part of the nation which is entitled to com-
mand respect, and enabled to win esteem or
challenge admiration. They read, they reflect,
they reason, they think for themselves. They
are the nation — the people — in every rational or
correct sense of the word. By them, through
them, for them, the fabric of the government is
reared, continued, designed." And yet, mon-
strous though it be, you appear to wish to

17

destroy this happy constitution of society ! O
no ! you will exclaim, " I have no wish to
destroy the middle class ; but only the aristo-
cracy." Why, what egregious inconsistency is
this! In page 18 of your "Thoughts," you,
in the plenitude of your candour, say, "Let us
here at once admit the grievous error of those
who complain that aristocratic society is exclu-
sive, and that the nobles of our land, and their
associates, have a refined intercourse among
themselves — a luxury which none besides are
suffered to taste. Avowed by some, this re-
pining is felt by many more; but, it is un-
worthy of sensible men, and fitter for foolish
people, just as empty as the patricians, and less
accomplished ; in a word, vulgar minds who
would fain enter into fine company with the
view doubtless of keeping the door shut as soon
as it had yawned to let themselves in. Let all
who thus feel (reason they do not) reflect how
little of what they complain of belongs to aris-
tocracy in the bad sense; that is, in the only
sense in which we have any right to level it or
sweep it away. The dukes and marquisses

c

18

with their wives and mistresses, their girls and
their lads, would form just as exclusive and as
refined a circle were their titles abolished, so
theij retained their possessions ; and, of course,
no man in his senses ever dreamt of levelling
the distinctions of property, and thus plucking
out the corner-stone from the fabric of society ."
Again, page 8, you say, '? The picture (of
aristocratic society) has some features, which
would be as revolting as they now are, evenif all
artificial distinctions of rank were swept away,
as long as the accumulation of property is per-
mitted; — a?id with that no man of sense would
wish to interfere." So then, after all, it seems,
that the follies and vices, which are alleged by
your Lordship to exist amongst the upper class,
are the effect — not of aristocratic distinctions —
but of the accumulation of property; — and with
that we have your Lordship's high authority for
saying, no man of sense would wish to inter-
fere;— for that to do so would be to pluck out
the corner-stone from the fabric of society.
" But the fault," cries your Lordship, " lies in
the special privileges which they have of a po-

19

litical nature. Only see," you exclaim, " how
the aristocracy and the Upper House of Par-
liament oppress the country, and cause the mis-
management of its concerns !" And then, after
drawing a most exaggerated picture of alleged
abuses, you declare, " Until either their pri-
vileges are restricted, or their constitution is
changed, the country has little chance of good
government, or a continued sound legislation !"
Verily, my Lord, when I read this passage, I
could hardly trust my own eyes. What ! this
from your Lordship ; — who, if I mistake not,
spoke, not long since, in the most contemptuous
language of the hasty and indigested measures
of the House of Commons ! who panegyrized
the constitution of the House of Lords, as ad-
mirably fitted to ameliorate and correct the un-
wise, and not unfrequently indiscreet, proceed-
ings of the Commons! Why, really, "this is
too bad !" But, your remedy, my Lord— your
remedy? It is gravely proposed, it appears, by
your Lordship, in order to correct whatever is
amiss in the constitution of the Upper House of

Parliament, that they should have what does

c 2

20

the reader imagine ? The schoolmaster? — No.
A purification of their body? — No. An aboli-
tion of the peerage ? — No such thing ; — but a
free conference with the Lower House ! ! ! By
which means an opportunity is to be given to
those who are distinguished as having " more jaw
than judgment," to convince them that are wrong
of their error ! Further, that all the members of
both Houses should attend, and that all should
debate, and all vote together ! Truly, your
Lordship has not been to France for nothing;
nor studied, it seems, without profit, in the
school of that celebrated constitution-monger,

the Abbe Sieyes ! Mr. Cobbett has given you
the name of the Swamper; and you appear
likely enough to justify the appellation. But I
am sick of such trifling.

In your " Letter," under the signature of
Peter Jenkins, your Lordship would seem to
aim not merely at the correction of alleged
aristocratic abuses, but at the subversion of the
aristocracy itself; for you thank Isaac Tomkins,
gentleman, (that is, yourself!) " for your able
and just remarks upon that aristocracy which,"

21

you say, " forms the chief bane of all policy, as
well as all society, in this country, and which
tends not much more to destroy good govern-
ment over us than to sap good morals among
us." You appear, indeed, to wish not merely to
get rid of the aristocracy; — but to run a muck at
the House of Commons. " Our representatives,"
you exclaim, " have deceived us ; — do not let
us deceive ourselves. A considerable majority
of the House of Commons is against all reform;
that majority, in its heart, hates the people."
But, you wreak your anger, in an especial way,

" on the forty or fifty pretended liberals, who
have not gone over, openly, to the enemy ;" — and
declare, " that they are the true cause of all the
mischief that is befalling us." Whilst, with
amusing inconsistency, but from motives which
cannot be misunderstood, you praise Lord Stanley
and the Duke of Richmond; — who are the chiefs
of the moderate party ! This leads me to make
a few very short remarks on your own high
pretensions as a statesman and reformer.

The three subjects, on your conduct respect-
ing which, your character, as a statesman and

22

reformer, will, probably, be judged by posterity,
are, Law Reform, — Education, — and the Poor
Laws. With respect to Law Reform, I hardly
ever met with a lawyer who did not say, that you
had signally failed. Whether this opinion be
correct or not, I will not decide ; but this I
know, that the two great evils of the Court, over
which you presided, are delay and expense;
and that you have neither lessened the one nor
abridged the other. Notwithstanding all your
Lordship's boasted labours and exertions, a
chancery suit is, still, as ruinously expensive and
tediously enduring as ever.# As regards your
Lordship's endeavours to eclucationize — without
teaching religion and morals, you have yourself,
if I mistake not, very lately lamented your want
of success; and, certainly, it cannot be even pre-
tended, that your attempts, in this way, have, in
the slightest degree, diminished the amount of
profligacy and crime. Your Lordship's experi-
ment on the Poor Laws is now in progress; and,
therefore, it will, perhaps, be but fair to wait
awhile before we pronounce, definitively, either on

* Crede experto !

23

its justice or policy. But. I, a tyro in such mat-
ters, should have thought it at least humane, if
not necessary, before I rigorously dealt with the
indigent here, to endeavour, by making some
legal provision for the poor in Ireland, to
stop the great influx of pauperism from that
country into this. Your Lordship, however, is,
it seems, against the principle of Poor Laws al-
together;— and your opinion, it is said, is, " that
no relief ought to be afforded even to the aged
and infirm poor ; bid that during their health
and strength they ought to save enough out of
their earnings to keep themselves in sickness
and old age." If these are your Lordship's
sentiments, why, at least, not be consistent; —and,
contented with your own savings in a profession
munificently paid, resign the pension that you
receive of ,£5000 a year ?

Iu the Edinburgh Review, you severely
blame even the King himself! "The evils, 'you
say, "of such temporary changes of Government
shake men's confidence in the monarchical system."
And again, " Can any thing be conceived better
fitted to make men question the benefit of a

24

monarchical constitution, than to see the whole
concern plunged in confusion because some
political intriguer, some private friend, some
hanger-on at Court, has persuaded one individual
in twenty-two millions to try a rash experiment?
Who can doubt, that such feats of regal activity
are calculated to make men count the cost of
royalty,— not in pounds, shillings, and pence, for
that is its least expense — but in human happiness
destroyed, and human improvement delayed?" I
shall not trouble myself to expose, at any length,
the gross inconsistency between the radical senti-
ments you now publish, and those loyal ones which,
in your late excursion to the north, you took so
much pains to promulgate. The expressions of de-
voted attachment to the King, which you then put
forth, and the pains that you took to make the
world believe, that you thought the political move-
ment had gone far enough and that it ought to
be arrested, were, doubtless, fitly used for the
purpose which you then had in view. Your
talk, at that time, was of doing less, in the way
of reform, in the next session of Parliament, than
had been done in the last ! Ah ! but you were

25

then in office; — and, perhaps, sometimes dreamed
of the Premiership ! You are, now, out of office ;
and you may, possibly, think, that it will answer
your purpose to agitate, excite, and inflame.
But, perhaps, I do your Lordship injustice; and
reflection may, possibly, have led you, conscien-
tiously, to prefer a republic to a monarchy. If
this conjecture be well founded, I beg leave,
respectfully, to ask your Lordship, whether or
not you have ever considered why, although re-
publican institutions may be most suitable for the
United States of America, they are not adapted
for this country ? It is, I think, recorded of
the late Mr. Jefferson, towards the close of
his presidential career, when he had had great
experience, that he said, speaking of forms
of Government, " that his opinion, decidedly,
was, that their (the United States) free insti-
tutions would not suit the circumstances of
Europe. " Now, although individuals of the
Utilitarian School, to which, I believe, your
Lordship belongs, are apt, in their zeal for the
establishment of a principle in matters political,
to overlook, and sometimes even scoff at, the

26

circumstances of a case, I crave your Lord-
ship's attention, whilst I submit to you a few
facts; — on which I can suppose Mr. Jefferson's
opinion to have been founded.

In the United States, owing to the abundance
of fertile land, which can be had by any one for,
comparatively, a trifling sum, provisions of all
kinds are plentiful and cheap ; a very small sum
of money will enable a man to obtain the neces-
saries of life. Again, the population, compared
with the means of subsistence, is limited and thin;
and, the demand for labour being greater than
the supply, wages are high. I believe, that
the lowest labourer can earn a dollar a day.
Hence, indigence is rarely to be met with ;— indeed,
never, except from gross misconduct, long illness,
or sudden misfortune. The people, therefore,
are contented and quiet. Now there is no dan-
ger in allowing to a people, thus happily circum-
stanced, great, I may say almost unlimited,
political power. They have plenty to eat and
drink — they are comfortably clothed and lodged
— and have no temptation to meddle with, much
less attack, tiie property of others. Every where

27

there is peace, and order, and submission to the
laws. There is required no standing- army ; — and,
in fact, scarcely any interposition of the Govern-
ment. Let us now look at England. Here, all
the fertile land has, long since, been appropriated.
And, owing to the high rental value of land,
which rental value is determined by the compe-
tition for it, and owing, also, to general and
local taxes and burthens, the necessaries of life
cannot, without ruin to the producer of them, be
sold cheap. Here, owing to the demand for
labour not being equal to the supply, the wages
of labour are necessarily low; — in many instances,
a mere pittance. Would it be politic, or wise,
or safe, to give sovereign power to a people who
find subsistence difficult and precarious ? The
bulk of the people here, circumstanced as they,
unfortunately, are, must be dissatisfied. They,
naturallv, look to change ; and, but too fre-
quently " imagine vain things." Nam semper
'in civifafe, quibus opes nulla situ I, bonis bivalent,
malos extollnnt ; — Vetera odere, nova exoptant ;
odio suarum rerwn mutari omnia student.
Hence, in such a state of society, a strong police,

28

a standing army, and a vigilant, efficient, Con-
servative Government, are absolutely necessary.
Need I say more to prove the soundness of Mr.
Jefferson's opinion?

My Lord, it cannot be concealed, that the
present times are critical. The foundations of
society are shaken ; — and men, instead of peace-
ably following their usual occupations, go about
inquiring, "Who will show us any good?" Per-
haps, it would not be difficult for me to explain
the causes of this strange and alarming state of
things. Perhaps, I could show how much the
Whigs, aye, and your Lordship amongst the
rest, have had to do in giving birth to those
causes. But this is not the fitting occasion ; nor,
indeed, have I either inclination or leisure to
enter on the subject. I will content myself with
solemnly warning your Lordship, that these are
not times for men of high rank and eminent
station to scatter firebrands, and stimulate the
multitude to evil. You may, perhaps, think that
you could, at any time, extinguish the moral con-
flagration. You, perhaps, fondly believe, that
although the flood-gates were opened, you could

^S.SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY H

mill ir

29 AA 000 564 024

stop the waters from rushing out ; you may
fancy, that you could ride the whirlwind and
direct the storm. Take care that you are not
deceived. Sallust, in describing Catiline, says,
Satis eloquently, sapientice pariim ; vastus
animus, immoderata, incredibilla, nimis alt a
semper cupiebat. This description may be ap-
plied to others as well as to Catiline. No one
denies to your Lordship the praise of unceasing-
industry ; and that you possess very considerable
powers of mind. I sincerely pray, that hence-
forward you may use those powers creditably
and beneficially for yourself, and advantageously
for the country.

I have the honour to be,

My Lord,

Your Lordship's most obedient servant,

JOHN RICHARDS.

13, Cadogan Place,
April 20, 1835.

LONDON :

IUOTSON ANi. PA1.MI It, PRINTERS, SAVOY STUFET, STR A XD.