A REPRESENTΑΤΙΟΝ ΤΟ 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. THE PREFACE. HE reprefentation now given to the publick relates to fome of the most effential 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 propofed. There it was rejected without debate. The fubject matter may, perhaps, hereafter appear to merit a more ferious confideration. Thinking men will scarcely regard the penal diffolution of a parliament as a very trifling concern. Such a diffolution muft operate forcibly as an example; and it much imports the people of this kingdom to confider what leffon 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 fpirit of independency. This fpecies of offence is fo closely connected with merit; this vice bears fo near a resemblance to virtue; that the flight of a houfe of commons above the exact temperate medium of independence, ought to be correctly ascertained, left we give encouragement to difpofitions of a lefs generous nature, and lefs fafe for the people; we ought to call for very folid and convincing proofs of the exiflence, and of the magnitude too of the evils, which are charged to an independent fpirit, before we give fanction to any measure, that by checking a spirit fo eafily damped, and fo hard to be excited, may af fect the liberty of a part of our constitution, which, if not free, is worse than useless. The Editor does not deny, that by poffibility fuch an abuse may exift: but primâ fronte, there is no reason to prefume it. The house of commons is not, by its complexion, peculiarly fubject to the distempers of an independent habit. Very little compulfion is neceffary, on the part of the people, to render it abundantly complaisant to minifters and favourites of all defcriptions. It required a great length of time, very confiderable industry and perfeverance, 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 houfe of commons. Its demolition was accomplished in a moment; and it was the work of ordinary hands. But to conftruct is a matter of skill; to demolish, force and fury are fufficient. The late house of commons has been punifhed for its independence. That example is made. Have Have we an example on record, of a houfe of commons punished for its fervility? The rewards of a fenate fo difpofed, are manifeft to the world. Several gentlemen are very defirous of altering the conftitution of the house of commons: but they muft alter the frame and conftitution 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 difgrace. If thefe examples take root in the minds of men, what members hereafter will be bold enough not to be corrupt? Especially as the king's high-way of obfequiousness is so very broad and eafy. To make a paffive member of parliament, no dignity of mind, no principles of honour, no refolution, no ability, no industry, no learning, no experience are in the leaft degree neceffary. To defend a post of importance against a powerful enemy, requires an Elliot; a drunken invalid is qualified to hoist a white flag, or to deliver up the keys of the fortrefs on his knees. The gentlemen chosen into this parliament, for the purpose of this furrender, were bred to better things; and are no doubt qualified for other fervice. But for this ftrenuous exertion of inactivity, for the vigorous task of fubmiffion and paffive obedience, all their learning and ability are rather a matter of perfonal ornament to themselves, than |