Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

and a declaratory law; and what is the consequence? That no man, who has any modesty, or who ever expects to be credited, will deny that by those laws more influence has been conveyed to the crown or the minister, than was subtracted by that act of reform. The little influence of the whole people on the representative body is thus noticed by SHERLOCK, a bishop. In his treatise on the test, and corporation laws, he says, That though the dissenters were but a twentieth part of the people, yet if they got into corporations, the petty boroughs being so numerous, they might by them obtain a majority in the house of commons against the whole nation.' 'In a word, it is undeniable, that a great majority of the house of commons are under another influence than that of the people. It is nonsense to call this a representation of the people: the balance of the constitution is therefore gone: it must be restored, or the constitution will be undone. The only thing to be decided is, how it may be restored? It may be restored by opening all the boroughs, so as to make them places of popular and constitutional election. But will private interest hear of that? No-What follows? That there is but one mode left for restoring the balance, and that is by an additional body of constitutional representatives, chosen by an additional body of constitutional electors.-Either then, this must be done, or the evil must continue; nor will that be all; for, according to the nature of the evil, it will propagate itself till it overwhelms what remains of your constitution. Is the addition of members objected to? It was not objected to Lord CHATHAM. It was not argued, that the integrity or wisdom of Parliament was confined to the number of five hundred and fifty-eight. No. It was felt, that this house is never tumultuary, but when it ceases to be a public, by becoming a party assembly. It was therefore felt, that as by the super-addition of such

members,

members, this house would become more a public, and less a party assembly, it would by course become less tumultary, and rise in dignity and order. But if this be a serious objection, remove it; there are an hundred boroughs that might be limited to the return of one representative instead of two.-I do not propose it; but I desire that you will either propose it, or not object this addition to me. In a word, the people have lost their constitutional influence in the Legislature. Instead of having the whole, they are far from having a majority in their own representative; the majority is against them; and the majority decides for the whole. The house is a second rate aristocracy, instead of a popular representation: the pillar of the constitution is undermined; it is nonsense to say, that every thing is well, when every thing is in danger; every country in Europe was once as free as England; in every country of Europe it was said, that every thing was well, till they found that every thing was otherwise; they went to bed saying they were free, and they wakened bondmen.

"Let us not flatter ourselves, that there is a destiny peculiar to England; she has lost her liberty more than once; it is our business to take care, that they shall never lose it again. MACHIAVEL says wisely, that no free government can last, that is not often brought back to its first principles and why? Because the excellence of a free government is to control the evil passions, and practices of rulers. What is the consequence? Those passions and practices are at perpetual war with such a constitution, they make a constant effort to undermine or evade this barrier which is opposed to them. What is perpetually assailed, must be perpetually defended: what is incessantly sapped, must be incessantly repaired. It is nonsense to say, that the English constitution, because it was

once

once the best in the world, can never want reformation. A bad government cannot easily become worse; it therefore may not want, and certainly does not deserve reparation. A good government does easily become worse; it is with difficulty it can be preserved, even by vigilance; and of all things in the world it best deserves to be repaired. The proposition which I make to you, is prac ticable; that cannot be denied; it cannot be denied to be efficient; it will add a body of responsible constituents, of such a number that a majority of the people may have the exercise of franchise; thus it cures the defect of the constitutent body; and on the representative body it will have this good effect, that there will be no longer a decided majority in the house of commons under another choice and another influence than that of the people; it leaves every county, city, town, borough, manor, &c. as it finds them; it molests none of the private proprietors of that which ought not to be private; and what does it ask of them in return? Nothing, but that they will suffer the constitution to be indemnified; and the influence of the people to re-enter the representation. To carry all this into execution would require but one short provision; namely, that the sheriff of each county be required, by himself and his deputies, to take the poll of the resident householders of his county in each parish on the same day; thus this great remedy to the constitution may be obtained in one day, with less tumult and expence than attends upon the election of a diminutive borough: thus the representative will be chosen, as he ought to be, by the people; and by shortening the duration of Parliaments, he will continue to act as if he were so chosen.

"MONTESQUIEU has said, that a free people will pay more taxes with greater alacrity, than a people that are not free; and he adds, the reason, because they have a

compen

compensation in the rights they enjoy. The people of England pay fifteen millions and an half annually to the revenue. This purchase they pay for the constitution. Shall they not have the benefit of it? Every individual pays fifty shillings a year. How many enjoyments must every inferior individual relinquish, and how much labor must he undergo, to enable him to make this contribution? No people ever deserved better of government than the people of this country at this moment: they have not only submitted with alacrity to this enormous mass of taxation; but when the health or rights of their sovereign were at stake, they gathered round the throne with unexampled zeal. Can such a people be denied their privileges? Can their privileges be a subject of indifference or remissness to this house? I cannot believe it; and therefore I move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the representation of the people in Parliament.”

The motion having been seconded by Mr. GRIGBY, Mr. WINDHAM observed, that, in his opinion, one preliminary question ought to be answered, previously to even the least reception of the motion. The right honorable gentleman had not proved enough to encourage them to go on with him in his proposition. He ought first to make out his grievance; then propose his remedy, and when the house were put in possession of both, it would be for them to judge how far the first was ascertained, and the second proportionate, and to decide, whether the remedy ought to be adopted or not. The right honorable gentleman had only said, that there was an inadequate representation, without producing any proof of the fact. The right honorable gentleman seemed to have mistaken the end for the means: experience had convinced them that they were not an inadequate representation, but that the house of commons, constituted as it was, was answer

able

able to all the purposes that a house of commons ought to be, and that the people lived as happy and free under it, and enjoyed all the luxuries of life as fully as they could possibly desire. It was not usual to judge of the goodness of a tree otherwise than by its fruits; and to apply a homely adage to the British constitution, "The proof of the pudding was in the eating." The experience of ages had demonstrated, that the house was adequate to all which, was necessary, and that with no better representation of the people in Parliament, they had been comfortable and easy, the country flourishing and prosperous, and the people safe. Every proposition of reformation or innovation was good or bad according to the nature of the case: this was a case in which we might lose every thing and could gain nothing. This project came before the house under the appearance of liberty, as all innovations did, which were likely to destroy that very liberty they professed to preserve. The liberty of their country needeth no speculative security: it could not be better secured than it was. But the right honorable gentleman had quoted the case of the Middlesex election, and laid great stress on the minority's governing the majority in that case. Why! be it so! If it had been the general rule of election, for ought he knew that house might have gone on well; and if it did, ought he to quarrel with it, because he was not able to see exactly how it happened, or how it had confused the people? If he were asked the reason, why it went on so well, he should answer only,

there are more things in nature than are to be found in your philosophy.' As to the American war, the right honorable gentleman came somewhat near where he wished to bring him, to matter of fact.

Mr. WINDHAM.denied that the continuance of the American war had heen owing to the inadequacy of represen

« ZurückWeiter »