A \ B \ C \ D \ E \ F \ G \ H \ I \ J \ K \ L \ M \ N \ O \ P \ R \ S \ T \ U \ V \ W \Z

The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, Vol. II. (of 12) by Edmund Burke

E >> Edmund Burke >> The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, Vol. II. (of 12)




And now, having done my duty to the bill, let me say a word to the
author. I should leave him to his own noble sentiments, if the unworthy
and illiberal language with which he has been treated, beyond all
example of Parliamentary liberty, did not make a few words
necessary,--not so much in justice to him as to my own feelings. I must
say, then, that it will be a distinction honorable to the age, that the
rescue of the greatest number of the human race that ever were so
grievously oppressed from the greatest tyranny that was ever exercised
has fallen to the lot of abilities and dispositions equal to the
task,--that it has fallen to one who has the enlargement to comprehend,
the spirit to undertake, and the eloquence to support so great a measure
of hazardous benevolence. His spirit is not owing to his ignorance of
the state of men and things: he well knows what snares are spread about
his path, from personal animosity, from court intrigues, and possibly
from popular delusion. But he has put to hazard his ease, his security,
his interest, his power, even his darling popularity, for the benefit
of a people whom he has never seen. This is the road that all heroes
have trod before him. He is traduced and abused for his supposed
motives. He will remember that obloquy is a necessary ingredient in the
composition of all true glory: he will remember that it was not only in
the Roman customs, but it is in the nature and constitution of things,
that calumny and abuse are essential parts of triumph. These thoughts
will support a mind which only exists for honor under the burden of
temporary reproach. He is doing, indeed, a great good,--such as rarely
falls to the lot, and almost as rarely coincides with the desires, of
any man. Let him use his time. Let him give the whole length of the
reins to his benevolence. He is now on a great eminence, where the eyes
of mankind are turned to him. He may live long, he may do much; but here
is the summit: he never can exceed what he does this day.

He has faults; but they are faults that, though they may in a small
degree tarnish the lustre and sometimes impede the march of his
abilities, have nothing in them to extinguish the fire of great virtues.
In those faults there is no mixture of deceit, of hypocrisy, of pride,
of ferocity, of complexional despotism, or want of feeling for the
distresses of mankind. His are faults which might exist in a descendant
of Henry the Fourth of France, as they did exist in that father of his
country. Henry the Fourth wished that he might live to see a fowl in the
pot of every peasant in his kingdom. That sentiment of homely
benevolence was worth all the splendid sayings that are recorded of
kings. But he wished perhaps for more than could be obtained, and the
goodness of the man exceeded the power of the king. But this gentleman,
a subject, may this day say this at least with truth,--that he secures
the rice in his pot to every man in India. A poet of antiquity thought
it one of the first distinctions to a prince whom he meant to celebrate,
that through a long succession of generations he had been the progenitor
of an able and virtuous citizen who by force of the arts of peace had
corrected governments of oppression and suppressed wars of rapine.

Indole proh quanta juvenis, quantumque daturus
Ausoniae populis ventura in saecula civem!
Ille super Gangem, super exauditus et Indos,
Implebit terras voce, et furialia bella
Fulmine compescet linguae.--

This was what was said of the predecessor of the only person to whose
eloquence it does not wrong that of the mover of this bill to be
compared. But the Ganges and the Indus are the patrimony of the fame of
my honorable friend, and not of Cicero. I confess I anticipate with joy
the reward of those whose whole consequence, power, and authority exist
only for the benefit of mankind; and I carry my mind to all the people,
and all the names and descriptions, that, relieved by this bill, will
bless the labors of this Parliament, and the confidence which the best
House of Commons has given to him who the best deserves it. The little
cavils of party will not be heard where freedom and happiness will be
felt. There is not a tongue, a nation, or religion in India, which will
not bless the presiding care and manly beneficence of this House, and of
him who proposes to you this great work. Your names will never be
separated before the throne of the Divine Goodness, in whatever
language, or with whatever rites, pardon is asked for sin, and reward
for those who imitate the Godhead in His universal bounty to His
creatures. These honors you deserve, and they will surely be paid, when
all the jargon of influence and party and patronage are swept into
oblivion.

I have spoken what I think, and what I feel, of the mover of this bill.
An honorable friend of mine, speaking of his merits, was charged with
having made a studied panegyric. I don't know what his was. Mine, I am
sure, is a studied panegyric,--the fruit of much meditation, the result
of the observation of near twenty years. For my own part, I am happy
that I have lived to see this day; I feel myself overpaid for the labors
of eighteen years, when, at this late period, I am able to take my
share, by one humble vote, in destroying a tyranny that exists to the
disgrace of this nation and the destruction of so large a part of the
human species.

FOOTNOTES:

[52] An allusion made by Mr. Powis.

[53] Mr. Pitt.

[54] Mr. Pitt.

[55] Mr. Dundas, Lord Advocate of Scotland.

[56] The paltry foundation at Calcutta is scarcely worth naming as an
exception.

[57] Mr. Fox.

[58] Governor Johnstone.




A

REPRESENTATION TO HIS MAJESTY,

MOVED IN

THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

BY THE RIGHT HON. EDMUND BURKE, AND SECONDED BY WILLIAM WINDHAM, ESQ.,

ON MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1784,

AND NEGATIVED.

WITH A PREFACE AND NOTES.




PREFACE.


The representation now given to the public relates to some of the most
essential privileges of the House of Commons. It would appear of little
importance, if it were to be judged by its reception in the place where
it was proposed. There it was rejected without debate. The subject
matter may, perhaps, hereafter appear to merit a more serious
consideration. Thinking men will scarcely regard the _penal_ dissolution
of a Parliament as a very trifling concern. Such a dissolution must
operate forcibly as an example; and it much imports the people of this
kingdom to consider what lesson that example is to teach.

The late House of Commons was not accused of an interested compliance to
the will of a court. The charge against them was of a different nature.
They were charged with being actuated by an extravagant spirit of
independency. This species of offence is so closely connected with
merit, this vice bears so near a resemblance to virtue, that the flight
of a House of Commons above the exact temperate medium of independence
ought to be correctly ascertained, lest we give encouragement to
dispositions of a less generous nature, and less safe for the people; we
ought to call for very solid and convincing proofs of the existence, and
of the magnitude, too, of the evils which are charged to an independent
spirit, before we give sanction to any measure, that, by checking a
spirit so easily damped, and so hard to be excited, may affect the
liberty of a part of our Constitution, which, if not free, is worse than
useless.

The Editor does not deny that by possibility such an abuse may exist:
but, _prima fronte_, there is no reason to presume it. The House of
Commons is not, by its complexion, peculiarly subject to the distempers
of an independent habit. Very little compulsion is necessary, on the
part of the people, to render it abundantly complaisant to ministers and
favorites of all descriptions. It required a great length of time, very
considerable industry and perseverance, no vulgar policy, the union of
many men and many tempers, and the concurrence of events which do not
happen every day, to build up an independent House of Commons. Its
demolition was accomplished in a moment; and it was the work of ordinary
hands. But to construct is a matter of skill; to demolish, force and
fury are sufficient.

The late House of Commons has been punished for its independence. That
example is made. Have we an example on record of a House of Commons
punished for its servility? The rewards of a senate so disposed are
manifest to the world. Several gentlemen are very desirous of altering
the constitution of the House of Commons; but they must alter the frame
and constitution of human nature itself, before they can so fashion it,
by any mode of election, that its conduct will not be influenced by
reward and punishment, by fame and by disgrace. If these examples take
root in the minds of men, what members hereafter will be bold enough
not to be corrupt, especially as the king's highway of obsequiousness is
so very broad and easy? To make a passive member of Parliament, no
dignity of mind, no principles of honor, no resolution, no ability, no
industry, no learning, no experience, are in the least degree necessary.
To defend a post of importance against a powerful enemy requires an
Eliot; a drunken invalid is qualified to hoist a white flag, or to
deliver up the keys of the fortress on his knees.

The gentlemen chosen into this Parliament, for the purpose of this
surrender, were bred to better things, and are no doubt qualified for
other service. But for this strenuous exertion of inactivity, for the
vigorous task of submission and passive obedience, all their learning
and ability are rather a matter of personal ornament to themselves than
of the least use in the performance of their duty.

The present surrender, therefore, of rights and privileges without
examination, and the resolution to support any minister given by the
secret advisers of the crown, determines not only on all the power and
authority of the House, but it settles the character and description of
the men who are to compose it, and perpetuates that character as long as
it may be thought expedient to keep up a phantom of popular
representation.

It is for the chance of some amendment before this new settlement takes
a permanent form, and while the matter is yet soft and ductile, that the
Editor has republished this piece, and added some notes and explanations
to it. His intentions, he hopes, will excuse him to the original mover,
and to the world. He acts from a strong sense of the incurable ill
effects of holding out the conduct of the late House of Commons as an
example to be shunned by future representatives of the people.




MOTION

RELATIVE TO

THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE.


LUNAE, 14 deg. DIE JUNII, 1784.


A motion was made, That a representation be presented to his Majesty,
most humbly to offer to his royal consideration, that the address of
this House, upon his Majesty's speech from the throne, was dictated
solely by our conviction of his Majesty's own most gracious intentions
towards his people, which, as we feel with gratitude, so we are ever
ready to acknowledge with cheerfulness and satisfaction.

Impressed with these sentiments, we were willing to separate from our
general expressions of duty, respect, and veneration to his Majesty's
royal person and his princely virtues all discussion whatever with
relation to several of the matters suggested and several of the
expressions employed in that speech.

That it was not fit or becoming that any decided opinion should be
formed by his faithful Commons on that speech, without a degree of
deliberation adequate to the importance of the object. Having afforded
ourselves due time for that deliberation, we do now most humbly beg
leave to represent to his Majesty, that, in the speech from the throne,
his ministers have thought proper to use a language of a very alarming
import, unauthorized by the practice of good times, and irreconcilable
to the principles of this government.

Humbly to express to his Majesty, that it is the privilege and duty of
this House to guard the Constitution from all infringement on the part
of ministers, and, whenever the occasion requires it, to warn them
against any abuse of the authorities committed to them; but it is very
lately,[59] that, in a manner not more unseemly than irregular and
preposterous, ministers have thought proper, by admonition from the
throne, implying distrust and reproach, to convey the expectations of
the people to us, their sole representatives,[60] and have presumed to
caution us, the natural guardians of the Constitution, against any
infringement of it on our parts.

This dangerous innovation we, his faithful Commons, think it our duty to
mark; and as these admonitions from the throne, by their frequent
repetition, seem intended to lead gradually to the establishment of an
usage, we hold ourselves bound thus solemnly to protest against them.

This House will be, as it ever ought to be, anxiously attentive to the
inclinations and interests of its constituents; nor do we desire to
straiten any of the avenues to the throne, or to either House of
Parliament. But the ancient order in which the rights of the people have
been exercised is not a restriction of these rights. It is a method
providently framed in favor of those privileges which it preserves and
enforces, by keeping in that course which has been found the most
effectual for answering their ends. His Majesty may receive the opinions
and wishes of individuals under their signatures, and of bodies
corporate under their seals, as expressing their own particular sense;
and he may grant such redress as the legal powers of the crown enable
the crown to afford. This, and the other House of Parliament, may also
receive the wishes of such corporations and individuals by petition. The
collective sense of his people his Majesty is to receive from his
Commons in Parliament assembled. It would destroy the whole spirit of
the Constitution, if his Commons were to receive that sense from the
ministers of the crown, or to admit them to be a proper or a regular
channel for conveying it.

That the ministers in the said speech declare, "His Majesty has a just
and confident reliance that we (his faithful Commons) are animated with
the same sentiments of loyalty, and the same attachment to our excellent
Constitution which he had the happiness to see so fully manifested in
every part of the kingdom."

To represent, that his faithful Commons have never foiled in loyalty to
his Majesty. It is new to them to be reminded of it. It is unnecessary
and invidious to press it upon them by any example. This recommendation
of loyalty, after his Majesty has sat for so many years, with the full
support of all descriptions of his subjects, on the throne of this
kingdom, at a time of profound peace, and without any pretence of the
existence or apprehension of war or conspiracy, becomes in itself a
source of no small jealousy to his faithful Commons; as many
circumstances lead us to apprehend that therein the ministers have
reference to some other measures and principles of loyalty, and to some
other ideas of the Constitution, than the laws require, or the practice
of Parliament will admit.

No regular communication of the proofs of loyalty and attachment to the
Constitution, alluded to in the speech from the throne, have been laid
before this House, in order to enable us to judge of the nature,
tendency, or occasion of them, or in what particular acts they were
displayed; but if we are to suppose the manifestations of loyalty (which
are held out to us as an example for imitation) consist in certain
addresses delivered to his Majesty, promising support to his Majesty in
the exercise of his prerogative, and thanking his Majesty for removing
certain of his ministers, on account of the votes they have given upon
bills depending in Parliament,--if this be the example of loyalty
alluded to in the speech from the throne, then we must beg leave to
express our serious concern for the impression which has been made on
any of our fellow-subjects by misrepresentations which have seduced them
into a seeming approbation of proceedings subversive of their own
freedom. We conceive that the opinions delivered in these papers were
not well considered; nor were the parties duly informed of the nature of
the matters on which they were called to determine, nor of those
proceedings of Parliament which they were led to censure.

We shall act more advisedly.--The loyalty we shall manifest will not be
the same with theirs; but, we trust, it will be equally sincere, and
more enlightened. It is no slight authority which shall persuade us (by
receiving as proofs of loyalty the mistaken principles lightly taken up
in these addresses) obliquely to criminate, with the heavy and
ungrounded charge of disloyalty and disaffection, an uncorrupt,
independent, and reforming Parliament.[61] Above all, we shall take care
that none of the rights and privileges, always claimed, and since the
accession of his Majesty's illustrious family constantly exercised by
this House, (and which we hold and exercise in trust for the Commons of
Great Britain, and for their benefit,) shall be constructively
surrendered, or even weakened and impaired, under ambiguous phrases and
implications of censure on the late Parliamentary proceedings. If these
claims are not well founded, they ought to be honestly abandoned; if
they are just, they ought to be steadily and resolutely maintained.

Of his Majesty's own gracious disposition towards the true principles of
our free Constitution his faithful Commons never did or could entertain
a doubt; but we humbly beg leave to express to his Majesty our
uneasiness concerning other new and unusual expressions of his
ministers, declaratory of a resolution "to support in their _just
balance_ the rights and privileges of every branch of the legislature."

It were desirable that all hazardous theories concerning a balance of
rights and privileges (a mode of expression wholly foreign to
Parliamentary usage) might have been forborne. His Majesty's faithful
Commons are well instructed in their own rights and privileges, which
they are determined to maintain on the footing upon which they were
handed down from their ancestors; they are not unacquainted with the
rights and privileges of the House of Peers; and they know and respect
the lawful prerogatives of the crown: but they do not think it safe to
admit anything concerning the existence of a balance of those rights,
privileges, and prerogatives; nor are they able to discern to what
objects ministers would apply their fiction of a balance, nor what they
would consider as a just one. These unauthorized doctrines have a
tendency to stir improper discussions, and to lead to mischievous
innovations in the Constitution.[62]

That his faithful Commons most humbly recommend, instead of the
inconsiderate speculations of unexperienced men, that, on all occasions,
resort should be had to the happy practice of Parliament, and to those
solid maxims of government which have prevailed since the accession of
his Majesty's illustrious family, as furnishing the only safe principles
on which the crown and Parliament can proceed.

We think it the more necessary to be cautious on this head, as, in the
last Parliament, the present ministers had thought proper to
countenance, if not to suggest, an attack upon the most clear and
undoubted rights and privileges of this House.[63]

Fearing, from these extraordinary admonitions, and from the new
doctrines, which seem to have dictated several unusual expressions, that
his Majesty has been abused by false representations of the late
proceedings in Parliament, we think it our duty respectfully to inform
his Majesty, that no attempt whatever has been made against his lawful
prerogatives, or against the rights and privileges of the Peers, by the
late House of Commons, in any of their addresses, votes, or resolutions;
neither do we know of any proceeding by bill, in which it was proposed
to abridge the extent of his royal prerogative: but, if such provision
had existed in any bill, we protest, and we declare, against all
speeches, acts, or addresses, from any persons whatsoever, which have a
tendency to consider such bills, or the persons concerned in them, as
just objects of any kind of censure and punishment from the throne.
Necessary reformations may hereafter require, as they have frequently
done in former times, limitations and abridgments, and in some cases an
entire extinction, of some branch of prerogative. If bills should be
improper in the form in which they appear in the House where they
originate, they are liable, by the wisdom of this Constitution, to be
corrected, and even to be totally set aside, elsewhere. This is the
known, the legal, and the safe remedy; but whatever, by the
manifestation of the royal displeasure, tends to intimidate individual
members from proposing, or this House from receiving, debating, and
passing bills, tends to prevent even the beginning of every reformation
in the state, and utterly destroys the deliberative capacity of
Parliament. We therefore claim, demand, and insist upon it, as our
undoubted right, that no persons shall be deemed proper objects of
animadversion by the crown, in any mode whatever, for the votes which
they give or the propositions which they make in Parliament.

We humbly conceive, that besides its share of the legislative power, and
its right of impeachment, that, by the law and usage of Parliament, this
House has other powers and capacities, which it is bound to maintain.
This House is assured that our humble advice on the exercise of
prerogative will be heard with the same attention with which it has ever
been regarded, and that it will be followed by the same effects which it
has ever produced, during the happy and glorious reigns of his Majesty's
royal progenitors,--not doubting but that, in all those points, we shall
be considered as a council of wisdom and weight to advise, and not
merely as an accuser of competence to criminate.[64] This House claims
both capacities; and we trust that we shall be left to our free
discretion which of them we shall employ as best calculated for his
Majesty's and the national service. Whenever we shall see it expedient
to offer our advice concerning his Majesty's servants, who are those of
the public, we confidently hope that the personal favor of any minister,
or any set of ministers, will not be more dear to his Majesty than the
credit and character of a House of Commons. It is an experiment full of
peril to put the representative wisdom and justice of his Majesty's
people in the wrong; it is a crooked and desperate design, leading to
mischief, the extent of which no human wisdom can foresee, to attempt
to form a prerogative party in the nation, to be resorted to as occasion
shall require, in derogation, from the authority of the Commons of Great
Britain in Parliament assembled; it is a contrivance full of danger, for
ministers to set up the representative and constituent bodies of the
Commons of this kingdom as two separate and distinct powers, formed to
counterpoise each other, leaving the preference in the hands of secret
advisers of the crown. In such a situation of things, these advisers,
taking advantage of the differences which may accidentally arise or may
purposely be fomented between them, will have it in their choice to
resort to the one or the other, as may best suit the purposes of their
sinister ambition. By exciting an emulation and contest between the
representative and the constituent bodies, as parties contending for
credit and influence at the throne, sacrifices will be made by both; and
the whole can end in nothing else than the destruction of the dearest
rights and liberties of the nation. If there must be another mode of
conveying the collective sense of the people to the throne than that by
the House of Commons, it ought to be fixed and defined, and its
authority ought to be settled: it ought not to exist in so precarious
and dependent a state as that ministers should have it in their power,
at their own mere pleasure, to acknowledge it with respect or to reject
it with scorn.

It is the undoubted prerogative of the crown to dissolve Parliament; but
we beg leave to lay before his Majesty, that it is, of all the trusts
vested in his Majesty, the most critical and delicate, and that in which
this House has the most reason to require, not only the good faith, but
the favor of the crown. His Commons are not always upon a par with his
ministers in an application to popular judgment; it is not in the power
of the members of this House to go to their election at the moment the
most favorable for them. It is in the power of the crown to choose a
time for their dissolution whilst great and arduous matters of state and
legislation are depending, which may be easily misunderstood, and which
cannot be fully explained before that misunderstanding may prove fatal
to the honor that belongs and to the consideration that is due to
members of Parliament.

Copyright (c) 2007. bestextbooks.com. All rights reserved.

Saemund Sigfusson and Snorre Sturleson - "The Elder Eddas of Saemund Sigfusson; and the Younger Eddas of Snorre Sturleson"

William Wood - "Animal Sanctuaries in Labrador"

Various - "The Mirror of Literature, Amusement, and Instruction"

Isaac Newton - "The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended"

Review: The Dying Game by Melanie King
Articles published by guardian.co.uk Books

Review: Hang the DJ edited by Angus Cargill
Review: The Dying Game: A Curious History of Death by Melanie King

Review: Bait by Nick Brownlee
Review: Hang the DJ: An Alternative Book of Music Lists edited by Angus Cargill