34 ULTRA RADICALISM. 



house's case is surely one. His recorded speeches to his constituents 

 avow, beyond the possibility of mistake, a recognition of the general 

 expediency of Pledges ; they also avow a suspicion of the very party, 

 with whom he now has coalesced. We think the Party in power worthy 

 of power, for the present ; and give Sir John Hobhouse full credit 

 for good intentions in acting with them. But this is foreign to the 

 question of his offence against the Westminster Electors. When they 

 elected him, his views would not amalgamate with Whiggism of any 

 kind ; and though his conduct may have since been, as we ourselves 

 deem it, irreproachable, he certainly, in common courtesy, and with- 

 out reference to the serious nature of his trust, owed his constituents 

 the most temperate, and respectful, and elaborate explanation, if not 

 downright apology. 



For our own parts, we cannot help believing Sir John to be the 

 better Baronet of the two ; to have, by far, the less of the Aristocratic 

 leaven in his composition, if indeed he has any of it, and to be, in all 

 respects, a more suitable representative for a radical constituency than 

 Sir Francis. But this is no business of ours. If the Westminster 

 men choose to be grateful to Sir Francis for his deeds of old, and re- 

 ward him by continuance in service, they had a right to do so ; nor, 

 however rejoicing in Sir John's return, do we think he could justly 

 have complained of ejection. 



Having at present said thus much respecting the Menders and Re- 

 storers, we must reserve a little more consideration for them, in our 

 conclusion ; when we argue for the present fitness of these men as a 

 party for office, in preference to such as would be chosen by our hot- 

 headed brethren, the Ultra Radicals, either from amongst their own 

 sub-division, or from amongst those to which we profess to belong, 

 viz. : the Radicals, the Alterers and Improvers. 



Of what sort of men then, and of what sort of views may the Ra- 

 dical Party be said to consist? and hence, as the best way to establish 

 the existence of our own party in due individual distinctness, we 

 shall attempt a definition of a Radical. 



A Radical then, in our opinion, adopts for his fundamental prin- 

 ciple, alteration and improvement, in reference to amendment and 

 restoration. He believes that, as in the moral, so in the political 

 world, it is contrary to the law of our creator for men and things to 

 remain long in the same state. He not only objects to the principle of 

 maintaining things as they are, but also to the principle of establishing 

 anyjixed condition of things whatever, as the beau ideal of political per- 

 fection. He does not give man, of past or present time, credit for 

 wisdom to contrive absolutely for the future. He allows full scope 

 for the utmost stretch of human sagacity and foresight in providing 

 but he believes the chances are so much against these, in attempts to 

 enact permanent provision, that he is always rather disposed to be 

 stirring, and, if possible, improving, than standing still and letting 

 alone. 



The Radical attributes more practical wisdom to the confessedly 

 reflective and deliberative portion of the present, than of the past 

 world ; but this principle is guarded from excess by habitual unwil- 

 lingness to trust the impetuous and heady light troops and skir- 



