Page images
PDF
EPUB

bates, seem inclined to take any share in this. I hope they will allow it to be a question of some consequence to their country; and, if it should be carried in the affirmative, some of them may perhaps find it a question of some consequence to themselves. I will venture to say, that I have not heard a question better supported on one side, and less said against it on the other, by the gentlemen who have already spoken since I sat in parliament; and I now stand up, not that I think any thing needful to be added to what has been said in support of it, but that I cannot think of letting a question go, in the success of which I think the happiness of my country so deeply concerned, without my joining with other gentlemen, in shewing all the regard for it that lies in my power.

An honourable and learned gentleman has indeed advanced a doctrine which I think altogether new: That we are to have no further dependence on our electors after we have taken our seats in this house; nay, that a dependence upon them would be more dangerous than a dependence on the crown. This, sir, is really in my opinion something very new; though that gentleman may perhaps like the one better than the other, yet I shall always look upon a dependence on the people of England, or even those I represent, to be less dangerous and more honourable than a dependence on the crown: and I value myself more on the honour I have had of sitting here for two parliaments as one of the representatives of the people of England, and by the free and uncorrupted choice of those I represent, than I should do on the greatest honours the crown can bestow. Indeed, if I had obtained my seat here by bribery, or by the illegal and corrupt influence of any great minister, I should look upon it in a very different light-I should look upon it as one of the most disgraceful situations I could be in.

It has been affirmed by several gentlemen who have spoken on the other side of the question, that the longer parliaments continued, the less influence the crown had

upon them; and for a proof of this they have instanced the long parliament in king Charles the Second's reign. The same gentlemen have likewise asserted, that triennial parliaments would distress his majesty's government. How these two assertions are compatible, I leave to the gentlemen themselves to explain, for to me it appears impossible that both can be true; because, if the crown has always the less influence in a parliament the longer it continues, surely the shortening the time of its duration cannot distress any king's government. But as to the long parliament in king Charles's time, though they did not towards the end shew the same servile compliance that they had done for many years before, yet it is plain, that the crown thought that parliament fitter for the purposes of the court at that time, than they could expect any new parliament chosen by the people to be. Otherwise, as the king had it in his power, he would certainly have dissolved them much sooner. And if that long parliament really deserved the name usually given to it, we must conclude that their non-compliance at last was not owing to their virtue, or a want of inclination to receive, but to a want of power in the crown to give. The people were not then accustomed to bear such heavy burdens as they do at present; the revenues of the crown were not so large, nor the posts and places at the disposal of the crown so numerous. There was

not such a numerous standing army to support the parliament in case they had gone on in the same servile method. And as the complaints of the people grew loud and clamorous, as there was little to be got, with a great deal to be apprehended by the continuance of a servile compliance, it is very probable that these were the true reasons of that parliament's becoming at last so restive. And if the nation was now in the same state it was at that time, I should not be half so much afraid of septennial parliaments, as, I think, I have good reason to be at present.

The animosities, disputes, and divisions about elec. tions, have been set in the most dreadful light, and have

been represented as so great an inconvenience, that we ought to run the risk of having our constitution overturned, rather than submit to it. But, sir, can it be imagined that there would be the same contention for a seat in parliament which was to continue but for one year, or even for three, that there is for one which is to continue for seven? The example of the city of London plainly shews us the contrary. As the common council. men and a great many other officers in the city, are chosen annually, I have had occasion to be often present at these annual elections, and never could find that they were attended with any great heats and animosities, or with any inconveniences; for after the election is over, the contending parties go home, and live in the same friendship they did before; and I am convinced the case would be the very same, if annual elections for members of this house were restored. The same man might perhaps be continued and re-chosen every year for many years together, probably without any dispute or opposi tion but his being liable every year to be turned out, would be a continual check upon bad behaviour, and would make him study the interests of the people, instead of pursuing only some private and selfish views of his own.

Even as elections stand at present, there would be no such contentions, nor any such heats and animosities as we hear of, if they were entirely left to gentlemen who have a natural interest in the place. In such case, if a candidate found himself defeated by fair means only, and merely by the superior interest of his antagonist, it would not raise his indignation; it would occasion no heats or animosities. He would wait with patience for a new opportunity, and in the mean time would endeavour to recommend himself to his country by acts of hospitality and benevolence. It is ministers of state intermeddling with elections; it is election brokers, and such dealers in corruption, that occasion all the heats and animosities we have: for when a gentleman of a great natural interest sees his electors obliged by power,

or bribed by money to vote against him, perhaps in favour of an utter stranger, it cannot but raise his indignation. It may indeed justly raise his utmost fury and revenge.

It is certain, sir, that if the people were entirely left to themselves they would without much contention always choose those gentlemen, who by having large properties of their own, might be reasonably supposed to be such as would take the best care of the properties of their fellow subjects. But if the people should ever begin to see their representatives making their seats in parliament places of profit, and bartering their votes and their behaviour in parliament for posts, places, and pensions, the people will soon follow the example of their repre sentatives, and will insist upon sharing with them in the profits. Thus by degrees, the minds of the people will be debauched; they will be brought to think, that the selling their votes at elections is no crime; the representatives, who buy their seats, must sell their votes; and at last all regard for the public good will be generally laid aside by all sorts of men. The only effectual method, sir, of preventing this fatal effect, is to restore annual elections: for then it would be impossible even for the treasury itself, (if ever the public money should come to be so misapplied,) to issue yearly sums of money sufficient to get the better of the natural interest, which country gentlemen always have in the places where they and their families have perhaps for many generations resided. The consequence of which will be, that none but country gentlemen, and those who have a natural interest in the place, will ever appear as candidates; and thus neither the morals of the people will be debauched, nor their properties plundered, nor their liberties destroyed by those election brokers and ministerial agents, or their candidates, who never can be employed or set up but for such base purposes.

As for our credit abroad, which it is pretended sep. tennial parliaments very much contribute to, I think it

is evident that it has been sinking ever since the septennial law took place; which confirms what was justly observed by an honourable gentleman, that the credit of the nation among foreigners does not depend upon the length or shortness of our parliaments, but upon that correspondence and confidence which ought always to be kept up between the king and his people. I will not say that this decay of our credit abroad has been altogether owing to the septennial law, but I dare say, if our parliaments had not been septennial, they would probably before now, have enquired into the conduct of those who have been the causes of this decay; and whatever reasons the decay of our credit among foreigners may have been owing to, it is now come to so low an ebb, that we really seem to have almost none to lose. This, I am sorry to say it, seems to be our case at present; and as I think nothing can so effectually restore our credit abroad as the restoring our constitution at home, I shall therefore give my vote for the question.

SIR ROBERT WALPOLE.

We may form as good an idea of the talents of this celebrated man as a speaker in the house of commons, from the following speech, as from any that he has left behind him. He may be considered as the first who (if the similitude is not too low to be admitted, I confess nothing can be lower) threw the house of commons into the form of a regular debating society. In his time debate was organized; all the common-place topics of political controversy were familiar in the mouths of both parties. The combatants on each side, in this political warfare, were, regularly drawn up in opposition to each other, and had their several parts assigned them with the greatest exactitude.

"The popular harangue, the tart reply,
"The logic, and the wisdom, and the wit,"

appeared in all their combined lustre.

The effect of this

« PreviousContinue »