thoughts on the present discontents-第29节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


assertion。　　When　you　come　to　examine　into　this　claim　of　right；
founded　on　the　right　of　self…government　in　each　individual；　you　find
the　thing　demanded　infinitely　short　of　the　principle　of　the　demand。
What！　one…third　only　of　the　legislature；　of　the　government　no　share
at　all？　　What　sort　of　treaty　of　partition　is　this　for　those　who　have
no　inherent　right　to　the　whole？　　Give　them　all　they　ask；　and　your
grant　is　still　a　cheat；　for　how　comes　only　a　third　to　be　their
younger　children's　fortune　in　this　settlement？　　How　came　they
neither　to　have　the　choice　of　kings；　or　lords；　or　judges；　or
generals；　or　admirals；　or　bishops；　or　priests；　or　ministers；　or
justices　of　peace？　　Why；　what　have　you　to　answer　in　favour　of　the
prior　rights　of　the　Crown　and　peerage　but　thisour　Constitution　is
a　proscriptive　Constitution；　it　is　a　Constitution　whose　sole
authority　is；　that　it　has　existed　time　out　of　mind。　　It　is　settled
in　these　two　portions　against　one；　legislatively；　and　in　the　whole
of　the　judicature；　the　whole　of　the　federal　capacity；　of　the
executive；　the　prudential　and　the　financial　administration；　in　one
alone。　　Nor　were　your　House　of　Lords　and　the　prerogatives　of　the
Crown　settled　on　any　adjudication　in　favour　of　natural　rights；　for
they　could　never　be　so　portioned。　　Your　king；　your　lords；　your
judges；　your　juries；　grand　and　little；　all　are　prescriptive；　and
what　proves　it　is　the　disputes　not　yet　concluded；　and　never　near
becoming　so；　when　any　of　them　first　originated。　　Prescription　is　the
most　solid　of　all　titles；　not　only　to　property；　but；　which　is　to
secure　that　property；　to　government。　　They　harmonise　with　each
other；　and　give　mutual　aid　to　one　another。　　It　is　accompanied　with
another　ground　of　authority　in　the　constitution　of　the　human　mind
presumption。　　It　is　a　presumption　in　favour　of　any　settled　scheme　of
government　against　any　untried　project；　that　a　nation　has　long
existed　and　flourished　under　it。　　It　is　a　better　presumption　even　of
the　choice　of　a　nation；　far　better　than　any　sudden　and　temporary
arrangement　by　actual　election。　　Because　a　nation　is　not　an　idea
only　of　local　extent；　and　individual　momentary　aggregation；　but　it
is　an　idea　of　continuity；　which　extends　in　time　as　well　as　in
numbers　and　in　space。　　And　this　is　a　choice　not　of　one　day；　or　one
set　of　people；　not　a　tumultuary　and　giddy　choice；　it　is　a　deliberate
election　of　ages　and　of　generations；　it　is　a　Constitution　made　by
what　is　ten　thousand　times　better　than　choiceit　is　made　by　the
peculiar　circumstances；　occasions；　tempers；　dispositions；　and　moral；
civil；　and　social　habitudes　of　the　people；　which　disclose　themselves
only　in　a　long　space　of　time。　　It　is　a　vestment；　which　accommodates
itself　to　the　body。　　Nor　is　prescription　of　government　formed　upon
blind；　unmeaning　prejudicesfor　man　is　a　most　unwise；　and　a　most
wise　being。　　The　individual　is　foolish。　　The　multitude；　for　the
moment；　are　foolish；　when　they　act　without　deliberation；　but　the
species　is　wise；　and　when　time　is　given　to　it；　as　a　species　it
almost　always　acts　right。

The　reason　for　the　Crown　as　it　is；　for　the　Lords　as　they　are；　is　my
reason　for　the　Commons　as　they　are；　the　electors　as　they　are。　　Now；
if　the　Crown　and　the　Lords；　and　the　judicatures；　are　all
prescriptive；　so　is　the　House　of　Commons　of　the　very　same　origin；
and　of　no　other。　　We　and　our　electors　have　powers　and　privileges
both　made　and　circumscribed　by　prescription；　as　much　to　the　full　as
the　other　parts；　and　as　such　we　have　always　claimed　them；　and　on　no
other　title。　　The　House　of　Commons　is　a　legislative　body　corporate
by　prescription；　not　made　upon　any　given　theory；　but　existing
prescriptivelyjust　like　the　rest。　　This　prescription　has　made　it
essentially　what　it　isan　aggregate　collection　of　three　parts
knights；　citizens；　burgesses。　　The　question　is；　whether　this　has
been　always　so；　since　the　House　of　Commons　has　taken　its　present
shape　and　circumstances；　and　has　been　an　essential　operative　part　of
the　Constitution；　which；　I　take　it；　it　has　been　for　at　least　five
hundred　years。

This　I　resolve　to　myself　in　the　affirmative：　　and　then　another
question　arises；　whether　this　House　stands　firm　upon　its　ancient
foundations；　and　is　not；　by　time　and　accidents；　so　declined　from　its
perpendicular　as　to　want　the　hand　of　the　wise　and　experienced
architects　of　the　day　to　set　it　upright　again；　and　to　prop　and
buttress　it　up　for　duration；whether　it　continues　true　to　the
principles　upon　which　it　has　hitherto　stood；whether　this　be　de
facto　the　Constitution　of　the　House　of　Commons　as　it　has　been　since
the　time　that　the　House　of　Commons　has；　without　dispute；　become　a
necessary　and　an　efficient　part　of　the　British　Constitution？　　To　ask
whether　a　thing；　which　has　always　been　the　same；　stands　to　its　usual
principle；　seems　to　me　to　be　perfectly　absurd；　for　how　do　you　know
the　principles　but　from　the　construction？　and　if　that　remains　the
same；　the　principles　remain　the　same。　　It　is　true；　that　to　say　your
Constitution　is　what　it　has　been；　is　no　sufficient　defence　for　those
who　say　it　is　a　bad　Constitution。　　It　is　an　answer　to　those　who　say
that　it　is　a　degenerate　Constitution。　　To　those　who　say　it　is　a　bad
one；　I　answer；　Look　to　its　effects。　　In　all　moral　machinery　the
moral　results　are　its　test。

On　what　grounds　do　we　go　to　restore　our　Constitution　to　what　it　has
been　at　some　given　period；　or　to　reform　and　reconstruct　it　upon
principles　more　conformable　to　a　sound　theory　of　government？　　A
prescriptive　government；　such　as　ours；　never　was　the　work　of　any
legislator；　never　was　made　upon　any　foregone　theory。　　It　seems　to　me
a　preposterous　way　of　reasoning；　and　a　perfect　confusion　of　ideas；
to　take　the　theories；　which　learned　and　speculative　men　have　made
from　that　government；　and　then；　supposing　it　made　on　these　theories；
which　were　made　from　it；　to　accuse　the　government　as　not
corresponding　with　them。　　I　do　not　vilify　theory　and　speculation
no；　because　that　would　be　to　vilify　reason　itself。　　〃Neque　decipitur
ratio；　neque　decipit　unquam。〃　　No；　whenever　I　speak　against　theory；
I　mean　always　a　weak；　erroneous；　fallacious；　unfounded；　or　imperfect
theory；　and　one　of　the　ways　of　discovering　that　it　is　a　false　theory
is　by　comparing　it　with　practice。　　This　is　the　true　touchstone　of
all　theories　which　regard　man　and　the　affairs　of　men：　　Does　it　suit
his　nature　in　general？does　it　suit　his　nature　as　modified　by　his
habits？

The　more　frequently　this　affair　is　discussed；　the　stronger　the　case
appears　to　the　sense　and　the　feelings　of　mankind。　　I　have　no　more
doubt　than　I　entertain　of　my　existence；　that　this　very　thing；　which
is　stated　as　a　horrible　thing；　is　the　means　of　the　preservation　of
our　Constitution　whilst　it　lasts：　　of　curing　it　of　many　of　the
disorders　which；　attending　every　species　of　institution；　would
attend　the　principle　of　an　exact　local　representation；　or　a
representation　on　the　principle　of　numbers。　　If　you　reject　personal
representation；　you　are　pushed　upon　expedience；　and　then　what　they
wish　us　to　do　is；　to　prefer　their　speculations　on　that　subject　to
the　happy　experience　of　this　country　of　a　growing　liberty　and　a
growing　prosperity　for　five　hundred　years。　　Whatever　respect　I　have
for　their　talents；　this；　for　one；　I　will　not　do。　　Then　what　is　the
standard　of　expedience？　　Expedience　is　that　which　is　good　for　the
community；　and　good　for　every　individual　in　it。　　Now　this　expedience
is　the　desideratum　to　be　sought；　either　without　the　experience　of
means；　or　with　that　experience。　　If　without；　as　in　the　case　of　the
fabrication　of　a　new　commonwealth；　I　will　hear　the　learned　arguing
what　promises　to　be　expedient；　but　if　we　are　to　judge　of　a
commonwealth　actually　existing；　the　first　thing　I　inquire　is；　What
has　been　found　expedient　or　inexpedient？　　And　I　will　not　take　their
promise　rather　than　the　performance　of　the　Constitution。

But　no；　this　was　not　the　cause　of　the　discontents。　　I　went　through
most　of　the　northern　partsthe　Yorkshire　election　was　then　raging；
the　year　before；　through　most　of　the　western　countiesBath；
Bristol；　Gloucesternot　one　word；　either　in　the　towns　or　country；
on　the　subject　of　representation；　much　on　the　receipt　tax；　something
on　Mr。　Fox's　ambition；　much　greater　apprehension　of　danger　from
thence　than　from　want　of　representation。　　One　would　think　that　the
ballast　of　the　ship　was　shifted　with　us；　and　that　our　Constitution
had　the　gunnel　under　water。　　But　can　you　fairly　and　distinctly　point
out　what　one　evil　or　grievance　has　happened；　which　you　can　refer　to
the　representative　not　following　the　opinion　of　his　constituents？
What　one　symptom　do　we　find　of　this　inequality？　　But　it　is　not　an
arithmetical　inequality　with　which　we　ought　to　trouble　ourselves。
If　there　be　a　moral；　a　political　equality；　this　is　the　desideratum
in　our　Constitution；　and　in　every　Constitution　in　the　world。　　Moral
inequality　is　as　between　places　and　between　classes。　　Now；　I　ask；
what　advantage　do　you　find；　that　the　places　which　abound　in
representation　possess　over　others　in　which　it　is　more　scanty；　in
security　for　freedom；　in　security　for　justice；　or　in　any　one　of
those　means　of　procuring　temporal　prosperity　and　eternal　happiness；
the　ends　for　wh