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 singularlyincorrect.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 Westminsterbe justified by a sense of conscious superiority, or only prompted by that ambition which overleaps itself.
