CLASSICS IN THE HISTORY OF LIBERTY EDMUND BURKE, SELECT WORKS OF EDMUND BURKE (1999) VOLUME IV: MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS

Ret urn t o t he I nt roduct ion t o Edm und Bur ke and t he det ailed Table of Cont ent s.

ED I TI ON USED

Select Works of Edm und Burke. A New I m print of t he Payne Edit ion. Foreword and Biographical Not e by Francis Canavan, 4 vols ( I ndianapolis: : Liber t y Fund, 1999) .

TABLE OF CON TEN TS

z EDI TOR’S FOREWORD

{ ENDNOTES

z EDI TOR’S NOTE

z SHORT TI TLES

z SPEECH TO THE ELECTORS OF BRI STOL

{ MR. EDMUND BURKE’S SPEECH TO THE ELECTORS OF BRI STOL

{ ENDNOTES

z SPEECH ON THE REFORM OF THE REPRESENTATI ON OF THE COMMONS I N PARLI AMENT

{ SPEECH

{ ENDNOTES

z TWO LETTERS TO GENTLEMEN I N BRI STOL ON THE TRADE OF I RELAND

{ TO SAMUEL SPAN, ESQ; MASTER OF THE SOCI ETY OF MERCHANTS ADVENTURERS OF BRI STOL

{ COPY OF A LETTER TO MESS. * * * * * * * * * * * * * AND CO. BRI STOL

{ ENDNOTES

z THOUGHTS AND DETAI LS ON SCARCI TY PREFACE

z THOUGHTS AND DETAI LS ON SCARCI TY PREFACE

{ THOUGHTS AND DETAI LS ON SCARCI TY

{ ENDNOTES

z SPEECH ON FOX’S EAST I NDI A BI LL

{ MR. BURKE’S SPEECH, ON THE 1ST DECEMBER 1783

{ ENDNOTES

z A LETTER TO SI R HERCULES LANGRI SHE ON THE CATHOLI CS OF I RELAND

{ A LETTER FROM THE RI GHT HON. EDMUND BURKE, M.P. I N THE

TH E ON LI N E LI BRARY OF

LI BERTY

© 2 0 0 4 Libe r t y Fu n d, I n c.

CLASSI CS I N TH E H I STORY OF LI BERTY

ED M UN D BURKE,

SELECT W ORKS OF ED M U N D BU RKE

_{( 1 9 9 9 )}

V OLUM E I V : M I SCELLAN EOUS W RI TI N GS

Livros Grátis

http://www.livrosgratis.com.br

KI NGDOM OF GREAT BRI TAI N, TO SI R HERCULES LANGRI SHE, BART. M.P.

{ ENDNOTES

z SKETCH OF THE NEGRO CODE

{ A LETTER TO THE RI GHT HON. HENRY DUNDAS, ONE OF HI S MAJESTY’S PRI NCI PAL SECRETARI ES OF STATE

{ SKETCH OF THE NEGRO CODE

{ ENDNOTES

z SELECT BI BLI OGRAPHY ON EDMUND BURKE

E

’

F

I n t he t hree volum es of Libert y Fund’s new edit ion of E. J. Payne’s Select Works of Edm und Burke

are writ ings in which Burke expounded his Whig t heory of lim it ed ( and part y) governm ent , his view s on t he im perial crisis t hat led t o Am erican independence, and his view s on t he great Revolut ion in France, which he saw as a crisis of West ern civilizat ion. This com panion volum e includes writ ings t hat present Burke’s views on t hree addit ional t hem es: represent at ion,

econom ics, and t he defense of polit ically oppressed peoples. These t hem es are t ouched upon in m any of his writ ings, but t he docum ent s select ed for t his volum e are am ong t he clearest exam ples of his t hought on t hese subj ect s.

The first t hem e is Burke’s underst anding of represent at ive governm ent . Alt hough he was skept ical of dem ocracy as a form of governm ent for any but sm all count ries ( and not opt im ist ic even t here) , he did believe t hat governm ent exist ed for t he good of t he whole com m unit y and m ust represent t he int erest s of all it s people. But , as he explained in his Speech t o t he Elect ors of Brist ol aft er his elect ion t here, his idea of represent at ion was not t he radically dem ocrat ic one t hat saw represent at ion as a m ere subst it ut e for direct dem ocracy and a represent at ive as a m ere agent of t he local elect orat e whose dut y it was t o carry out it s wishes despit e his own best

j udgm ent .

As Burke said in his own words in t his speech, while he surely would list en respect fully and seriously t o his const it uent s, he rej ect ed t he idea of “ aut horit at ive inst ruct ions; Mandat es issued, which t he Mem ber [ of Parliam ent ] is bound blindly and im plicit ly t o obey, t o vot e, and t o argue for, t hough cont rary t o t he clearest convict ion of his j udgem ent and conscience.” 1 ( I n his Speech on t he Reform of t he Represent at ion of t he Com m ons in Parliam ent , which follows t his speech in t he present volum e, Burke explained t he polit ical t heory t hat lies behind t he view of

represent at ion t hat he rej ect ed at Brist ol.) Rat her, he argued in his Brist ol speech, a

This view of t he funct ion of represent at ive governm ent was com pat ible wit h t he arist ocrat ic t heory of civil societ y t hat Burke set fort h in his Reflect ions on t he Revolut ion in France and in it s sequel, An Appeal from t he New t o t he Old Whigs ( w hich m ay be found in Daniel Rit chie’s Furt her Reflect ions on t he Revolut ion in France, published by Libert y Fund) . The Brit ish const it ut ion t hat he adm ired and loved was a prescript ive one, not based upon t he dem ocrat ic t heory of t he right s of m en, but legit im at ed by it s long service t o t he welfare of t he people. I t is explained here in a speech t hat Burke neit her delivered nor published, but w hich his lit erary execut ors found am ong his papers and included in t he first set of his Works: t he Speech on t he Reform of t he

Represent at ion of t he Com m ons in Parliam ent . Burke’s polit ical t heory derived t he powers of governm ent from t he consent of t he people, as he had explained in his early and never-com plet ed Tract s relat ive t o t he Laws against Popery in I reland. But bot h t here and in t his speech, t he people’s consent was dem anded and cont rolled by t heir m oral obligat ion t o obey a governm ent t hat served t heir welfare. I t was not derived from Everym an’s original right t o govern him self in t he “ st at e of nat ure.”

The second t hem e dealt wit h in t his volum e is econom ics. Since Burke never wrot e a form al t reat ise on t hat subj ect , his views on it are found in relat ively brief form scat t ered t hroughout his works. Two exam ples of t hem are included here.

The first is Two Let t ers t o Gent lem en in Brist ol on t he Trade of I reland, w hich Burke wrot e t o m erchant s in Br ist ol while he was t hat cit y’s Mem ber of Parliam ent . He had vot ed for cert ain relaxat ions of t he legislat ion t hat rest rained I reland’s right t o export goods t o Great Brit ain. The Brist ol m erchant s, t ypically, saw I reland’s gain as t heir loss and wrot e t o prot est Burke’s vot e as host ile t o t heir int erest s. Burke replied t hat t rade is not a zero- sum gam e but a t wo- way st reet , t he t raffic on which benefit s bot h part ies.

One m ust not exaggerat e w hat Burke says in t hose let t ers and m ake him out t o be a free- t rader

t out court . He was addressing a part icular quest ion, t he t rade bet ween t he t wo kingdom s under one crow n of Great Brit ain and I reland. He had no desire t o have t he Brit ish Parliam ent relinquish it s power t o regulat e com m erce wit hin and out side t he Em pire. I n t he debat e on Brit ish policy t owar d t he Am erican colonies, he had accept ed t he Navigat ion Act s by which Brit ain severely rest rict ed Am erican t rade because t he Am ericans derived real benefit s from t heir m em bership in t he Em pire, and he w as cont ent t o argue t hat t he Act s w ere a reason for Brit ain not t o t ax t he colonies. Nor did he propose opening all of Brit ain’s possessions t o int ernat ional t rade on even t erm s.

Yet w e can say t hat he had a bias in favor of freeing t rade from m ercant ilist rest raint s. Aft er t he cont roversy over t he t rade bet w een Brit ain and I reland, he wrot e t o a m em ber of t he I rish Parliam ent t hat his aim had been “ t o fix t he principle of a free t rade in all t he part s of t hese islands, as founded in j ust ice and beneficial t o t he whole, but principally t o t he seat of t he suprem e pow er.” 2 The regulat ion of t rade, however, would rem ain wit h t he suprem e power.

Nor should we exaggerat e t he im port of t he next docum ent , Thought s and Det ails on Scarcit y. I t , t oo, addresses a narrow quest ion—whet her governm ent should subsidize t he wages of

libert y. I t s m eaning, t herefore, cannot be lim it ed t o t he quest ion of agricult ural w ages, and it im plies a laissez- faire t heory of econom ics.

On t he ot her hand, Burke was not always unwilling t o have governm ent int ervene in econom ic m at t ers. The next docum ent included here, t he Speech on Fox ’s East I ndia Bill, shows t hat , having earlier defended t he chart ered right s of t he East I ndia Com pany against effort s t o bring it under great er cont rol by t he Brit ish governm ent , Burke had changed his m ind and now advocat ed st ripping t he Com pany of independent power t o govern t he part s of I ndia t hat it cont rolled. The int erest ed reader m ay also consult t he Nint h Report of t he House of Com m ons Select Com m it t ee on I ndia, of w hich Burke is t he acknow ledged aut hor, for his free- m ar ket view s, but should be careful not t o m ake him out t o be a Manchest er liberal before his t im e.

The t hird t hem e is Burke’s genuine concern for oppressed peoples. Burke always claim ed t o be a reform er, and in m any ways he was one. For exam ple, one of t he act ions t hat cost him his seat as M.P. for Brist ol was his support of a bill for t he relief of insolvent debt ors. The docum ent s select ed here, however, dem onst rat e his concern for peoples out side Great Brit ain but under Brit ish rule. Burke was always an im perialist but an enlight ened one who believed t hat t he Em pire could and should be a blessing t o all t he lands t hat com posed it . Volum e 1 of t his set present s t he argum ent s he used in favor of t he Am erican colonies and against t he Brit ish policy t hat drove t hem int o revolt . He did not favor Am erican independence, but when it cam e he accept ed it gracefully and even saw a benefit t o t he Brit ish people in it . I f t he Brit ish governm ent had succeeded in suppr essing t he Am erican revolt by for ce, he feared, t he result w ould have been a vast increase in t he power of t he Crown, and no Whig could approve of t hat . “ We lost our Colonies” ; he t herefore said, “ but we kept our Const it ut ion.” 3

The ot her great im perial t opics he dealt wit h were I ndia and I reland. The first of t hese is t he subj ect of Burke’s Speech on Fox’s East I ndia Bill, which is a lengt hy indict m ent of t he East I ndia Com pany’s m isgovernm ent of I ndia. I t was followed by his Speech on t he Nabob of Arcot ’s Debt s,

t he Nint h Report of t he Select Com m it t ee, and t he long series of speeches in t he im peachm ent of Warren Hast ings, t he Com pany ’s Governor- General of Bengal, whom t he Com m it t ee failed t o convict .

Whet her Burke was fair t o t he Com pany and t o Hast ings is a m at t er of disput e, as is t he issue of whet her t he prosecut ion of Hast ings had m uch effect on Brit ain’s subsequent governm ent of I ndia. But t here is lit t le doubt of t he sincerit y of Burke’s convict ion t hat , as he said in his speech on t he East I ndia bill, “ Our I ndian governm ent is in it s best st at e a grievance,” 4 or of his desire t o relieve t hat grievance and do j ust ice t o t he suffering people of I ndia.

Burke him self w as I rish and had been born int o a fam ily in which t he fat her had conform ed t o t he Est ablished Church in order t o pract ice law ( a profession forbidden t o Cat holics under t he Penal Laws) , while his m ot her rem ained Cat holic. His relat ives on his m ot her’s side were num erous, and he rem ained in friendly cont act wit h t hem t hroughout his life. He had an int ense sym pat hy w it h t heir plight under t he governm ent of w hat cam e t o be called t he Prot est ant Ascendancy, and he labored long and wit h considerable success t o relieve I rish Cat holics of t heir legal burdens. His

against Popery in I reland, writ t en t hree decades earlier, when t he laws against t he Cat holics of I reland were even m ore severe.

Finally, while Burke did not t ake m uch part in t he m ovem ent t o abolish t he slavery of African blacks in t he Brit ish colonies, he did writ e a docum ent , Sket ch of t he Negro Code, t hat out lined a t ypically Burkean plan for t he gradual am eliorat ion and event ual abolit ion first of t he slave t rade and t hen of slavery it self. Once again, it shows Burke’s genuine concern for polit ically oppressed peoples. He adm ired and defended arist ocr acy, but he did so as a m an who t ruly believed t hat

noblesse oblige.

That phrase, noblesse oblige, explains what m ay seem t o be a cont radict ion in Bur ke’s at t it ude t owar d t he poor and oppressed. He st rongly opposed a governm ent policy of relieving t heir lot in England by subsidizing t heir w ages in a t im e of poor harvest s. Yet he denounced Brit ain’s

governm ent for it s policies in Am erica, I ndia, I reland, and t he slave- owning colonies.

But we m ust not ice t hat Burke never proposed t hat governm ent should support t he poor in any of t hose inst ances. Even in regard t o Negro slavery, his aim was gradually t o abolish t he slave t rade and slavery while t raining t he slaves t o learn t he social and econom ic skills necessary for

freedom , t o acquire propert y, and t hus t o be able t o support t hem selves. So also in Am erica, I ndia, and I reland. He w ant ed governm ent t o st op burdening t he peoples of t hose count ries w it h oppressive policies and t o allow t hem t he freedom t o earn t heir ow n w ay. But , he t hought , it w as sim ply not t he funct ion of governm ent t o furnish t hem wit h t heir livelihood. Doing t hat in a period of hardship was a work of privat e charit y and t he Christ ian dut y of t he arist ocracy of propert y ow ners, for w hom “ noblesse” did indeed oblige, not in j ust ice but in charit y.

Whet her t his policy would have been adequat e aft er t he I ndust rial Revolut ion had t ransform ed Great Brit ain is a valid quest ion. But alt hough t he I ndust rial Revolut ion got under way during Burke’s lat t er years ( perhaps as lat e as 1780) , it did not hit it s full st ride unt il t he following cent ury. Burke did not see w hat it w ould do t o t he rural econom ic order dom inat ed by t he land-owning arist ocracy, which he t hought , right ly or wrongly, could handle t he problem of povert y wit hout governm ent int ervent ion in such quest ions as w ages.

I have borrowed freely for t he fact ual inform at ion in t he foot not es t o t hese docum ent s, usually wit hout explicit acknowledgm ent of t he source when inform at ion could have been obt ained from ot her sources as well. The sources I have used m ost frequent ly are t he Oxford English Dict ionary;

t he Dict ionary of Nat ional Biography; The Loeb Classical Library; The Writ ings and Speeches of Edm und Burke ( general ed. Paul Langford) ; The Correspondence of Edm und Burke ( general ed. Thom as Copeland) ; Carl Cone’s t w o- volum e Burke and t he Nat ure of Polit ics; Thom as Mahoney’s

Edm und Burke and I reland; and Edm und Burke: A Bibliography of Secondary Sources t o 1982, by Clar a Gandy and Pet er St anlis, as well as several encyclopedias and general reference works.

Francis Canavan

For dham Univ ersit y

[ 1.] See below, p. 11.

[ 2.] Let t er t o Thom as Burgh, Esq., New Year’s Day, 1780, W&S 9: 550.

[ 3.] Let t er t o a Noble Lord ( 1796) , W&S 9: 152.

[ 4.] See below, p. 126.

ED I TOR’S NOTE

The t ext s used in t his volum e have been chosen from t heir original publicat ion in accordance wit h William B. Todd’s Bibliography of Edm und Burke ( Godalm ing, Surrey: St . Paul’s Bibliographies, 1982) . Burke’s Speech on t he Reform of t he Represent at ion of t he Com m ons in Parliam ent and

Sket ch of t he Negro Code, how ever, were not published in Burke’s lifet im e and w ere included by his lit erary execut ors in t heir New Edit ion of The Works of t he Right Honourable Edm und Burke

( London: F. C. and J. Rivingt on, 16 vols., 1808–27) , from vols. 10 and 9 of which, respect ively, t hey are t aken here. Thought s and Det ails on Scarcit y also did not appear in pr int in Burke’s lifet im e, but is t aken here from t he pam phlet under t hat t it le published by his execut ors prior t o t heir publicat ion of his Works ( in vol. 7 of which it is reprint ed) .

Burke’s speech at Brist ol on Novem ber 3, 1774, is t aken from Mr. Bur ke’s Speeches at His Ar r ival at Brist ol and at The Conclusion of t he Poll ( London: J. Dodsley, 2nd edit ion, 1775) .

Two Let t ers from Mr. Edm und Burke t o Gent lem en in t he Cit y of Brist ol on t he Bills Depending in Par liam ent Relat ive t o t he Tr ade of I reland, 1st edit ion, was published in London by J. Dodsley in 1778.

Burke’s speech on Fox ’s East I ndia Bill is t aken from Mr. Burke’s Speech on t he 1st Decem ber 1783, upon t he quest ion for t he Speaker’s leaving t he chair in order for t he House t o resolve it self int o a com m it t ee on Mr. Fox’s East I ndia Bill ( London: J. Dodsley, 1st edit ion, 1784) .

Burke’s Let t er t o Sir Hercules Langrishe is t aken from A Let t er from t he Right Hon. Edm und Burke, M.P. in t he Kingdom of Great Brit ain, t o Sir Hercules Langrishe, Bart . M.P. on t he subj ect of Rom an Cat holics of I reland, and t he Propriet y of Adm it t ing Them t o t he Elect ive Franchise, consist ent ly wit h t he Principles of t he Const it ut ion as Est ablished at t he Revolut ion ( London: J. Debret t , 2nd edit ion, correct ed, 1792) .

Thought s and Det ails on Scarcit y, originally present ed t o t he Right Hon. William Pit t , in t he m ont h of Novem ber, 1795, by t he lat e Right Honourable Edm und Burke was first published in London in 1800 by F. and C. Rivingt on and J. Hat chard.

Burke’s spellings ( including in part icular I ndian and ot her foreign nam es) , capit alizat ions, and use of it alics have been ret ained, st range as t hey m ay seem t o m odern eyes.

t hanks t o Ms. Carol Rosat o of t he Duane Library at Fordham Universit y for her help in providing t he t ext s of t he speech on Fox’s East I ndia Bill, t he let t er t o Sir Hercules Langrishe, and Thought s and Det ails on Scarcit y.

I also t hank m y friends and fellow Burke scholars Professors Pet er J. St anlis of Rockford College and Daniel E. Rit chie of Bet hel College for t heir very helpful com m ent s on m y w ork for t hese Libert y Fund volum es.

S

T

TH E AN N UAL REGI STER The Annual Regist er ( began publicat ion by J. Dodsley in

London in 1758, under Bur ke’s edit or ship, and cont inues publicat ion t o t he pr esent day ) .

CORR. 1 8 4 4 Burk e, Edm und, Cor r espondence of t he Right Honourable Edm und Burke bet w een t he Year 1744, and t he Per iod of his Decease, in 1797, eds. Char les William Went w or t h- Fit zw illiam , 5t h Ear l Fit zw illiam , and Sir Richar d Bour ke. 4 vols. ( London:

Francis and John Rivingt on, 1844) .

CORR. Copeland, Thom as W., gen. ed., The Correspondence of Edm und Burke. 10

vols. ( Chicago and Cam br idge: Univer sit y of Chicago Pr ess and Cam br idge Univer sit y

Pr ess, 1958–78) .

PARLI AM EN TARY HI STORY The Parliam ent ary Hist ory of England from t he Norm an Conquest in 1066 t o t he year 1803, ed. W. Cobbet t . 36 vols. London: T. C. Hansar d, 1806–20) .

WORKS The Wor ks of t he Right Honourable Edm und Burke. A New Edit ion. 16 vols.

( London: F. C. and J. Rivingt on, 1808–27) .

W & S Langford, Paul, gen. ed., The Wr it ings and Speeches of Edm und Bur ke. 12 vols. ( Oxfor d: Clar endon Pr ess, 1981–) .

S

E

B

[ Novem ber 3, 1774]

To underst and som e of t he t hings t hat Burke says in t his speech, one will need a bit of hist orical background. I n t hose days, each parliam ent ary const it uency elect ed t wo m em bers of Parliam ent . Brist ol’s previous incum bent s had been Lord Clar e ( a court esy t it le, since, if he had been a noblem an, he could not have sat in t he Com m ons) , a Whig, and Mat t hew Brickdale, a Tory. But t he Whigs were dissat isfied wit h Lord Clare, who had gone over t o t he court part y, and t hought t hey could t ake Brickdale’s seat as well in t he 1774 elect ion.

Their first nom inee w as Henry Cruger, Jr., who cam e of a prom inent com m ercial fam ily. Som e of t he Crugers had em igrat ed t o New York, and Henry ’s uncle, John Cruger, was t he Speaker of t he New York Assem bly when t hat body elect ed Edm und Burke in 1770 as t he colony’s agent at t he Brit ish royal court . Burke was acquaint ed w it h him t hrough official correspondence, and he was st ill t he

Speaker at t he t im e of t he elect ion in Brist ol.

His nephew, Henry Cruger, was a polit ical radical, as radicalism was reckoned in t hat day, and som e of his fact ion of t he Whigs had sounded out Burke for t he second candidacy. When t he t wo of t hem m et in Burke’s hom e in Beaconsfield, however, it becam e clear t hat t hey had im port ant differences in polit ical philosophy, and Cruger declined t o st and for elect ion wit h Burke. Burke’s last -m inut e no-m inat ion was t he result of Lor d Clar e’s suddenly w it hdr awing on t he day t he poll opened, because he had been assured of a safe seat in anot her const it uency. Harford and Cham pion, m en of m ore m oderat e views t han Cruger’s, now nom inat ed Burke and urged him t o com e at once t o Brist ol.

Cruger was easily elect ed, but Burke w on only aft er a closely cont est ed poll. Brickdale, following a cust om of losers st ill pract iced t o t he present day, sought t o have t he elect ion result s nullified on grounds of fraud. A large num ber of t hose who had vot ed, he alleged, were not freem en of Brist ol and t herefore not ent it led t o cast a vot e. He pet it ioned t he House of Com m ons not t o seat Burke; a

com m it t ee held hearings and report ed in Burke’s favor, and t he House accept ed it s recom m endat ion.

The im port ant part of t his speech, how ever, is Burke’s declarat ion of t he

independence t hat an elect ed represent at ive ought t o enj oy in Parliam ent . He not only st at ed his view but act ed on it , in ways which his Two Let t ers on t he Trade of I reland, print ed below, illust rat e. One m ay well believe t hat on t he issues on which Burke act ed cont rary t o t he wishes of his const it uent s, he was right and t hey w ere w rong. But t he discont ent he caused in t hem m ade it obvious t hat he could not win in t he elect ion of 1780, so he w it hdrew from t he poll and accept ed a safe seat from his parliam ent ary pat ron, Lord Rockingham , which he held unt il his ret irem ent in 1794.

MR. ED M UN D BURKE’S SPEECH TO TH E ELECTORS OF BRI STOL

G

,

I CANNOTAVOI DSYMPATHI ZI NG st r ongly wit h t he feelings of t he Gent lem an who has received t he sam e honour t hat you have conferred on m e. I f he, who was bred and passed his whole Life am ongst you; if he, who, t hrough t he easy gr adat ions of acquaint ance, friendship, and est eem , has obt ained t he honour, which seem s of it self, nat urally and alm ost insensibly, t o m eet wit h t hose, w ho, by t he even t enour of pleasing m anners and social virt ues, slide int o t he love and confidence of t heir fellow- cit izens; if he cannot speak but w it h great em ot ion on t his subj ect , surrounded as he is on all sides w it h his old friends; you will have t he goodness t o excuse m e, if m y real, unaffect ed em barrassm ent prevent s m e from expressing m y grat it ude t o you as I ought .

I w as brought hit her under t he disadvant age of being unknown, even by sight , t o any of you. No previous canvass was m ade for m e.1 I was put in nom inat ion aft er t he poll was opened. I did not appear unt il it was far advanced. I f, under all t hese accum ulat ed disadvant ages, your good opinion has carried m e t o t his happy point of success; you will pardon m e, if I can only say t o you collect ively, as I said t o you individually, sim ply and plainly, I t hank you—I am obliged t o you—I am not insensible of your kindness.

This is all t hat I am able t o say for t he inest im able favour you have conferred upon m e. But I cannot be sat isfied, wit hout saying a lit t le m ore in defence of t he right you have t o confer such a favour. The person t hat appeared here as counsel for t he Candidat e,1 who so long and so

earnest ly solicit ed your vot es, t hinks proper t o deny, t hat a very great part of you have any vot es t o give. He fixes a st andard period of t im e in his own im aginat ion, not what t he law defines, but m erely w hat t he convenience of his Client suggest s, by which he would cut off, at one st roke, all t hose freedom s, which are t he dearest privileges of your Corporat ion;2 which t he com m on law aut horizes: which your Magist rat es are com pelled t o grant ; w hich com e duly aut hent icat ed int o t his Court ;3 and are saved in t he clearest words, and wit h t he m ost religious care and

t enderness, in t hat ver y act of Parliam ent , which w as m ade t o regulat e t he Elect ions by Freem en, and t o prevent all possible abuses in m aking t hem .

I do not int end t o argue t he m at t er here. My learned Counsel has support ed your Cause w it h his usual Abilit y; t he wort hy Sheriffs have act ed wit h t heir usual equit y, and I have no doubt , t hat t he sam e equit y, which dict at es t he ret urn, will guide t he final det erm inat ion. I had t he honour, in conj unct ion w it h m any far w iser m en, t o cont ribut e a very sm all assist ance, but however som e assist ance, t o t he form ing t he Judicat ure which is t o t ry such quest ions. I t would be unnat ural in m e, t o doubt t he Just ice of t hat Court ,1 in t he t rial of m y own cause, t o which I have been so act ive t o give j urisdict ion over every ot her.

I assure t he wort hy Freem en, and t his Corporat ion, t hat , if t he Gent lem an perseveres in t he int ent ions, which his present warm t h dict at es t o him , I will at t end t heir cause wit h diligence, and I hope w it h effect . For, if I know any t hing of m yself, it is not m y ow n I nt er est in it , but m y full convict ion, t hat induces m e t o t ell you— I t hink t here is not a shadow of doubt in t he case.

sheriffs w ill bear m e w it ness, t hat I have never once m ade an at t em pt t o im pose upon t heir reason, t o surprize t heir j ust ice, or t o ruffle t heir t em per. I st ood on t he hust ings ( except w hen I gave m y t hanks t o t hose who favoured m e wit h t heir vot es) less like a Candidat e, t han an unconcerned Spect at or of a public proceeding. But here t he face of t hings is alt ered. Here is an at t em pt for a general m assacre of Suffrages; an at t em pt , by a prom iscuous carnage of friends

and foes, t o ext erm inat e above t wo t housand vot es, including seven hundred polled for t he Gent lem an him self, who now com plains, and w ho w ould dest roy t he Friends whom he has obt ained, only because he cannot obt ain as m any of t hem as he wishes.

How he will be perm it t ed, in anot her place, t o st ult ify and disable him self, and t o plead against his own act s, is anot her quest ion. The law will decide it . I shall only speak of it as it concerns t he propriet y of public conduct in t his cit y. I do not pret end t o lay down rules of decorum for ot her Gent lem en. They ar e best j udges of t he m ode of proceeding t hat will recom m end t hem t o t he favour of t heir fellow- cit izens. But I confess, I should look rat her awkward, if I had been t he very first t o produce t he new copies of freedom ,1 if I had persist ed in producing t hem t o t he last ; if I had ransacked, wit h t he m ost unrem it t ing indust ry, and t he m ost penet rat ing research, t he rem ot est corners of t he kingdom t o discover t hem ; if I were t hen, all at once, t o t urn short , and declare, t hat I had been sport ing all t his w hile w it h t he right of elect ion: and t hat I had been drawing out a Poll, upon no sort of rat ional grounds, which dist urbed t he peace of m y fellow -cit izens for a m ont h t oget her —I really, for m y part , should appear aw kward under such circum st ances.

I t would be st ill m ore awkward in m e, if I were gravely t o look t he sheriffs in t he face, and t o t ell t hem , t hey were not t o det erm ine m y cause on m y own principles; nor t o m ake t he ret urn upon t hose vot es, upon which I had rest ed m y elect ion. Such w ould be m y appearance t o t he court and m agist rat es.

But how should I appear t o t he Vot ers t hem selves? I f I had gone round t o t he cit izens int it led t o Freedom , and squeezed t hem by t he hand— “ Sir, I hum bly beg your Vot e—I shall be et ernally t hankful—m ay I hope for t he honour of your support ?—Well! —com e—we shall see you at t he Council- house.” —I f I w ere t hen t o deliver t hem t o m y m anagers, pack t hem int o t allies, vot e t hem off in court , and when I heard from t he Bar— “ Such a one only! and such a one for ever! — he’s m y m an! ” — “ Thank you, good Sir—Hah! m y w ort hy friend! t hank you kindly—t hat ’s an honest fellow—how is your good fam ily?” —Whilst t hese words were hardly out of m y m out h, if I should have wheeled round at once, and t old t hem — “ Get you gone, you pack of wort hless fellow s! you have no vot es—you are Usurpers! you are int ruders on t he right s of real freem en! I will have not hing t o do wit h you! you ought never t o have been produced at t his Elect ion, and t he sheriffs ought not t o have adm it t ed you t o poll.”

Gent lem en, I should m ake a st range figure, if m y conduct had been of t his sort . I am not so old an acquaint ance of yours as t he wort hy Gent lem an. I ndeed I could not have vent ured on such kind of freedom s wit h you. But I am bound, and I will endeavour, t o have j ust ice done t o t he right s of Freem en; even t hough I should, at t he sam e t im e, be obliged t o vindicat e t he form er1 part of m y ant agonist ’s conduct against his own present inclinat ions.

const ancy, m ore act ivit y, m ore spirit . I have been support ed wit h a zeal indeed and heart iness in m y friends, w hich ( if t heir obj ect had been at all proport ioned t o t heir endeavours) could never be sufficient ly com m ended. They support ed m e upon t he m ost liberal principles. They wished t hat t he m em bers for Brist ol should be chosen for t he Cit y, and for t heir Count ry at large, and not for t hem selves.

So far t hey are not disappoint ed. I f I possess not hing else, I am sure I possess t he t em per t hat is fit for your service. I know not hing of Brist ol, but by t he favours I have received, and t he virt ues I have seen exert ed in it .

I shall ever ret ain, what I now feel, t he m ost perfect and grat eful at t achm ent t o m y friends—and I have no enm it ies; nor resent m ent . I never can consider fidelit y t o engagem ent s, and const ancy in friendships, but wit h t he highest approbat ion; even when t hose noble qualit ies are em ployed against m y own pret ensions. The Gent lem an, w ho is not fort unat e as I have been in t his cont est , enj oys, in t his respect , a consolat ion full of honour bot h t o him self and t o his friends. They have cert ainly left not hing undone for his service.

As for t he t rifling pet ulance, which t he rage of part y st irs up in lit t le m inds, t hough it should shew it self even in t his court , it has not m ade t he slight est im pression on m e. The highest flight of such clam orous birds is winged in an inferior region of t he air. We hear t hem , and w e look upon t hem , j ust as you, Gent lem en, when you enj oy t he serene air on your loft y rocks, look down upon t he Gulls, t hat skim t he m ud of your river, w hen it is exhaust ed of it s t ide.

I am sorry I cannot conclude, w it hout saying a w ord on a t opick t ouched upon by m y w ort hy Colleague.1 I wish t hat t opick had been passed by; at a t im e when I have so lit t le leisure t o discuss it . But since he has t hought proper t o t hrow it out , I owe you a clear explanat ion of m y poor sent im ent s on t hat subj ect .

He t ells you, t hat “ t he t opick of I nst ruct ions2 has occasioned m uch alt ercat ion and uneasiness in t his Cit y” ; and he expresses him self ( if I underst and him right ly) in favour of t he coercive aut horit y of such inst ruct ions.

Cert ainly, Gent lem en, it ought t o be t he happiness and glory of a Represent at ive, t o live in t he st rict est union, t he closest correspondence, and t he m ost unreserved com m unicat ion wit h his const it uent s. Their wishes ought t o have great weight w it h him ; t heir opinion high respect ; t heir business unrem it t ed at t ent ion. I t is his dut y t o sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his

sat isfact ions, t o t heirs; and, above all, ever, and in all cases, t o prefer t heir int erest t o his own. But , his unbiassed opinion, his m at ure j udgem ent , his enlight ened conscience, he ought not t o sacrifice t o you; t o any m an, or t o any set t of m en living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from t he Law and t he Const it ut ion. They are a t rust from Providence, for t he abuse of which he is deeply answ erable. Your Represent at ive owes you, not his indust ry only, but his j udgem ent ; and he bet rays, inst ead of serving you, if he sacrifices it t o your opinion.

in which one set t of m en deliberat e, and anot her decide; and where t hose who form t he conclusion are perhaps t hree hundred m iles dist ant from t hose w ho hear t he argum ent s?

To deliver an opinion, is t he right of all m en; t hat of Const it uent s is a weight y and respect able opinion, which a Represent at ive ought always t o rej oice t o hear; and w hich he ought alw ays m ost seriously t o consider. But aut horit at ive inst ruct ions; Mandat es issued, which t he Mem ber is bound blindly and im plicit ly t o obey, t o vot e, and t o argue for, t hough cont rary t o t he clearest convict ion of his j udgem ent and conscience; t hese are t hings ut t erly unknown t o t he laws of t his land, and which arise from a fundam ent al Mist ake of t he whole order and t enour of our Const it ut ion.

Parliam ent is not a Congress of Am bassadors from different and host ile int erest s; which int erest s each m ust m aint ain, as an Agent and Advocat e, against ot her Agent s and Advocat es; but

Parliam ent is a deliberat ive Assem bly of one Nat ion, wit h one I nt erest , t hat of t he whole; where, not local Purposes, not local Prej udices ought t o guide, but t he general Good, result ing from t he general Reason of t he w hole. You chuse a Mem ber indeed; but w hen you have chosen him , he is not Mem ber of Brist ol, but he is a Mem ber of Parliam ent . I f t he local Const it uent should have an I nt erest , or should form an hast y Opinion, evident ly opposit e t o t he real good of t he rest of t he Com m unit y, t he Mem ber for t hat place ought t o be as far, as any ot her, from any endeavour t o give it Effect . I beg pardon for saying so m uch on t his subj ect . I have been unwillingly drawn int o it ; but I shall ever use a respect ful frankness of com m unicat ion w it h you. Your fait hful friend, your devot ed servant , I shall be t o t he end of m y life: A flat t erer you do not wish for. On t his point of inst ruct ions, however, I t hink it scarcely possible, we ever can have any sort of difference. Perhaps I m ay give you t oo m uch, rat her t han t oo lit t le t rouble.

From t he first hour I w as encouraged t o court your favour t o t his happy day of obt aining it , I have never prom ised you any t hing, but hum ble and persevering endeavours t o do m y dut y. The weight of t hat dut y, I confess, m akes m e t rem ble; and whoever well considers what it is, of all t hings in t he world will fly from what has t he least likeness t o a posit ive and precipit at e

engagem ent . To be a good Mem ber of Parliam ent , is, let m e t ell you, no easy t ask; especially at t his t im e, w hen t here is so st rong a disposit ion t o run int o t he perilous ext rem es of servile

com pliance, or wild popularit y. To unit e circum spect ion wit h vigour, is absolut ely necessary; but it is ext rem ely difficult . We are now Mem bers for a rich com m ercial Cit y; t his Cit y, however, is but a part of a rich com m ercial Nat ion, t he I nt erest s of which are various, m ult iform , and int ricat e. We are Mem bers for t hat great Nat ion, which however is it self but part of a great Em pire, ext ended by our Virt ue and our Fort une t o t he fart hest lim it s of t he East and of t he West . All t hese wide-spread I nt erest s m ust be considered; m ust be com pared; m ust be reconciled if possible. We are Mem bers for a free Count ry; and surely we all know, t hat t he m achine of a free Const it ut ion is no sim ple t hing; but as int ricat e and as delicat e, as it is valuable. We are Mem bers in a great and ancient Monarchy; and we m ust preserve religiously, t he t rue legal right s of t he Sovereign, which form t he Key - st one t hat binds t oget her t he noble and well- const ruct ed Arch of our Em pire and our Const it ut ion. A Const it ut ion m ade up of balanced Powers m ust ever be a crit ical t hing. As such I m ean t o t ouch t hat part of it which com es wit hin m y reach. I know m y I nabilit y, and I wish for support from every Quart er. I n part icular I shall aim at t he friendship, and shall cult ivat e t he best Correspondence, of t he w ort hy Colleague you have given m e.

give a Model for all who are in public St at ions.

FI NI S

EN D N OTES

[ 1.] I n fact , Richard Cham pion and ot hers had been w orking for t w o or t hree m ont hs t o w in support for Burke.

[ 1.] Mat t hew Brickdale.

[ 2.] The m unicipal corporat ion of Brist ol.

[ 3.] The elect orat e of Brist ol.

[ 1.] The House of Com m ons.

[ 1.] This seem s t o charge Brickdale wit h being t he first of t he candidat es who scoured t he count ryside out side t he cit y, and even places far aw ay, for persons w it h a t it le t o being freem en of Brist ol and w it h having brought t hem in t o vot e.

[ 1.] A foot not e in t he original publicat ion st at es: “ Mr. Brickdale opened his poll, it seem s, wit h a t ally of t hose very kind of freem en, and vot ed m any hundreds of t hem .”

[ 1.] Henry Cruger, Jr., w ho spoke before Burke at t he conclusion of t he poll, had pledged him self t o a “ radical” program .

[ 2.] I nst ruct ions given by const it uent s t o t heir represent at ives in Parliam ent .

S

R

R

C

P

[ May 7, 1782]

On t his day, William Pit t t he Younger ( 1759–1806) m ade a m ot ion in t he House of Com m ons for a com m it t ee t o inquire int o t he st at e of t he represent at ion of t he Com m ons in Parliam ent . The geographical dist ribut ion of seat s in t he House of Com m ons had changed lit t le in cent uries ( and was not t o be changed unt il 1832) . The right t o send represent at ives t o Parliam ent was t herefore a product of hist ory and conform ed t o no discernible rat ional pat t ern. Populous cit ies of recent growt h elect ed no m em bers of Parliam ent , while “ decayed,” t hinly populat ed, old boroughs elect ed t w o; count ies suffered disparit ies, since large count ies had only t wo m em bers of Parliam ent , j ust as sm all ones did. I n addit ion, seat s in t he Com m ons were sham elessly bought and sold.

m ovem ent was at t he beginning not a w idely popular one; t he gr eat unrepresent ed t owns showed no ent husiasm for it . England was st ill a

predom inant ly agricult ural count ry ruled by a landholding arist ocracy, and t he nat ion was cont ent t o have it so. Even t he reform ers, by and large, sought only m oderat e changes in t he represent at ive syst em , but t he Am erican, and lat er t he French, revolut ions fost ered radical ideas of dem ocracy based on t he nat ural right of individual m en t o govern t hem selves. I t was charact erist ic of Burke t hat he focussed his at t ent ion on t his radical ideology and at t acked it as a deadly t hreat t o t he arist ocrat ic const it ut ion under which England had flourished for so long.

Yet Burke, and t he Rockingham Whigs whose spokesm an he was, were, in t heir own way, reform ers. As t hey saw t he m at t er, t he corrupt ion of polit ics was due t o t he undue influence of t he Crown on elect ions t o and vot es in Parliam ent . To reduce t his influence, Burke had proposed his “ econom ical reform ” bill in 1780 ( lit t le of which was act ually passed) . I t sought t o elim inat e m any of t he sinecure j obs in t he royal household ( which could be held by m em bers of Parliam ent ) and t o t r im t he king’s civil list , w hich t he Treasury used as a cam paign fund in parliam ent ary elect ions. Fart her t han t hat , however, t he Rockingham Whigs refused t o go.

This at t it ude explains bot h why Burke wrot e his speech on Pit t ’s m ot ion and why it was never delivered. The Parliam ent ary Hist ory of England shows t hat Pit t m ade his m ot ion on t he 7t h of May and t hat it was debat ed and rej ect ed on t hat day but m akes no m ent ion of a speech by Edm und Burke. The reason probably is t hat on t he preceding day Burke had got t en leave t o int roduce anot her

econom ical reform bill, and his friends dissuaded him from alienat ing Pit t by at t acking his m ot ion, since t hey want ed his support for econom ical reform .

Burke lat er wrot e what is at least an init ial draft of t he speech he would have given, but never published it . His lit erary execut ors found it am ong his papers aft er his deat h and published it in volum e 10 of t heir edit ion of his Works, from which t he following docum ent is t aken. I ncom plet e t hough it is, it is present ed here because of t he im port ant cont ribut ion it m akes t o our underst anding of Burke’s polit ical t heory and of his idea of represent at ion in part icular.

SPEECH

[ On a Mot ion m ade in t he House of Com m ons, t he 7t h of May 1782, for a Com m it t ee t o inquire int o t he st at e of t he Represent at ion of t he Com m ons in Parliam ent ]

M

.

,

t his boast ed Const it ut ion, in t he m ost boast ed part of it , is a gross im posit ion upon t he

underst anding of m ankind, an insult t o t heir feelings, and act ing by cont rivances dest ruct ive t o t he best and m ost valuable int erest s of t he people. Our polit ical archit ect s have t aken a survey of t he fabrick of t he Brit ish Const it ut ion. I t is singular, t hat t hey report not hing against t he Crown, not hing against t he Lords; but in t he House of Com m ons every t hing is unsound; it is ruinous in every part . I t is infest ed by t he dry rot , and ready t o t um ble about our ears wit hout t heir im m ediat e help. You know by t he fault s t hey find, w hat are t heir ideas of t he alt erat ion. As all governm ent st ands upon opinion, t hey know t hat t he w ay ut t erly t o dest roy it is t o rem ove t hat opinion, t o t ake away all reverence, all confidence from it ; and t hen, at t he first blast of publick discont ent and popular t um ult , it t um bles t o t he ground.

I n considering t his quest ion, t hey, who oppose it , oppose it on different grounds; one is, in t he nat ure of a previous quest ion; t hat som e alt erat ions m ay be expedient , but t hat t his is not t he t im e for m aking t hem . The ot her is, t hat no essent ial alt erat ions are at all want ing: and t hat neit her now , nor at any t im e, is it prudent or safe t o be m eddling wit h t he fundam ent al principles, and ancient t ried usages of our Const it ut ion—t hat our Represent at ion is as nearly perfect as t he necessary im perfect ion of hum an affairs and of hum an creat ures will suffer it t o be; and t hat it is a subj ect of prudent and honest use and t hankful enj oym ent , and not of capt ious crit icism and rash experim ent .

On t he ot her side, t here are t w o part ies, w ho proceed on t wo grounds, in m y opinion, as t hey st at e t hem , ut t erly irreconcileable. The one is j uridical, t he ot her polit ical. The one is in t he nat ure of a claim of right , on t he supposed right s of m an as m an; t his part y desire t he decision of a suit . The ot her ground, as far as I can divine what it direct ly m eans, is, t hat t he Represent at ion is not so polit ically fram ed as t o answer t he t heory of it s inst it ut ion. As t o t he claim of right , t he m eanest pet it ioner, t he m ost gross and ignorant , is as good as t he best ; in som e respect s his claim is m ore favourable on account of his ignorance; his weakness, his povert y and dist r ess, only add t o his t it les; he sues in form a pauperis; 1 he ought t o be a favourit e of t he Court . But when t he ot her ground is t aken, when t he quest ion is polit ical, when a new Const it ut ion is t o be m ade on a sound t heory of governm ent , t hen t he presum pt uous pride of didact ick ignorance is t o be excluded from t he counsel in t his high and arduous m at t er, w hich oft en bids defiance t o t he experience of t he wisest . The first claim s a personal represent at ion, t he lat t er rej ect s it wit h scorn and fervour. The language of t he first part y is plain and int elligible; t hey, who plead an absolut e right , cannot be sat isfied wit h anyt hing short of personal represent at ion, because all nat ural

right s m ust be t he right s of individuals; as by nat ure t here is no such t hing as polit ick or corporat e personalit y; all t hese ideas are m ere fict ions of Law, t hey are creat ures of volunt ary inst it ut ion; m en as m en are individuals, and not hing else.1 They t herefore, who rej ect t he principle of nat ural and personal represent at ion, are essent ially and et ernally at variance w it h t hose, who claim it . As t o t he first sort of Reform ers, it is ridiculous t o t alk t o t hem of t he Brit ish Const it ut ion upon any or upon all of it s bases; for t hey lay it down, t hat every m an ought t o govern him self, and t hat where he cannot go him self he m ust send his Represent at ive; t hat all ot her governm ent is usurpat ion, and is so far from having a claim t o our obedience, it is not only our right , but our dut y, t o resist it . Nine t ent hs of t he Reform ers argue t hus, t hat is on t he nat ur al right .2 I t is im possible not t o m ake som e reflect ion on t he nat ure of t his claim , or avoid a

j ust ify such an assert ion. When you com e t o exam ine int o t his claim of right , founded on t he right of self- governm ent in each individual, you find t he t hing dem anded infinit ely short of t he principle of t he dem and. What ! one t hird only of t he Legislat ure,1 and of t he Governm ent no share at all? What sort of t reat y of part it ion is t his for t hose, who have an inherent right t o t he w hole? Give t hem all t hey ask, and your grant is st ill a cheat ; for how com es only a t hird t o be t heir younger childrens fort une in t his set t lem ent ? How cam e t hey neit her t o have t he choice of Kings, or Lords, or Judges, or Generals, or Adm irals, or Bishops, or Priest s, or Minist ers,2 or Just ices of Peace? Why, w hat have you t o answ er in favour of t he prior right s of t he Crow n and Peerage but t his— our Const it ut ion is a prescript ive Const it ut ion; it is a Const it ut ion, whose sole aut horit y is, t hat it has exist ed t im e out of m ind.3 I t is set t led in t hese t wo port ions against one, legislat ively; and in t he w hole of t he j udicat ure, t he w hole of t he federal4 capacit y, of t he execut ive, t he prudent ial and t he financial adm inist rat ion, in one alone. Nor was your House of Lords and t he prerogat ives of t he Crown set t led on any adj udicat ion in favour of nat ural right s, for t hey could never be so part it ioned. Your King, your Lords, your Judges, your Juries, grand and lit t le, all are prescript ive; and what proves it , is, t he disput es not yet concluded, and never near becom ing so, when any of t hem first originat ed. Prescript ion is t he m ost solid of all t it les, not only t o propert y, but , which is t o secure t hat propert y, t o Governm ent .1 They harm onize w it h each ot her, and give m ut ual aid t o one anot her. I t is accom panied wit h anot her ground of aut horit y in t he const it ut ion of t he hum an m ind, presum pt ion. I t is a presum pt ion in favour of any set t led schem e of governm ent against any unt ried proj ect , t hat a nat ion has long exist ed and flourished under it . I t is a bet t er presum pt ion even of t he choice of a nat ion, far bet t er t han any sudden and t em porary

arrangem ent by act ual elect ion. Because a nat ion is not an idea only of local ext ent , and

individual m om ent ary aggregat ion, but it is an idea of cont inuit y, which ext ends in t im e as w ell as in num bers, and in space. And t his is a choice not of one day, or one set of people, not a

t um ult uary and giddy choice; it is a deliberat e elect ion of ages and of generat ions; it is a Const it ut ion m ade by what is t en t housand t im es bet t er t han choice, it is m ade by t he peculiar circum st ances, occasions, t em pers, disposit ions, and m oral, civil, and social habit udes of t he people, which disclose t hem selves only in a long space of t im e. I t is a vest m ent , w hich

accom m odat es it self t o t he body. Nor is prescript ion of governm ent form ed upon blind unm eaning prej udices—for m an is a m ost unwise, and a m ost wise, being. The individual is foolish. The m ult it ude, for t he m om ent , is foolish, when t hey act wit hout deliberat ion; but t he species is wise, and when t im e is given t o it , as a species it alm ost always act s right .

The reason for t he Crown as it is, for t he Lords as t hey are, is m y reason for t he Com m ons as t hey are, t he Elect ors as t hey are. Now , if t he Crown and t he Lords, and t he Judicat ures, are all prescript ive, so is t he House of Com m ons of t he very sam e origin, and of no ot her. We and our Elect ors have t heir powers and privileges bot h m ade and circum scribed by prescript ion, as m uch t o t he full as t he ot her part s; and as such w e have alw ays claim ed t hem , and on no ot her t it le. The House of Com m ons is a legislat ive body corporat e by prescript ion, not m ade upon any given t heory, but exist ing prescript ively —j ust like t he rest . This prescript ion has m ade it essent ially what it is, an aggregat e collect ion of t hree part s, Knight s, Cit izens, Burgesses.1 The quest ion is, whet her t his has been always so, since t he House of Com m ons has t aken it s present shape and circum st ances, and has been an essent ial operat ive par t of t he Const it ut ion; which, I t ake it , it has been for at least five hundred years.

perpendicular as t o want t he hand of t he w ise and experienced archit ect s of t he day t o set it upr ight again, and t o pr op and but t r ess it up for durat ion; whet her it cont inues t rue t o t he principles, upon which it has hit hert o st ood; whet her t his be de fact o t he Const it ut ion of t he House of Com m ons, as it has been since t he t im e, t hat t he House of Com m ons has, wit hout disput e, becom e a necessary and an efficient part of t he Brit ish Const it ut ion?2 To ask w het her a t hing, which has always been t he sam e, st ands t o it s usual principle, seem s t o m e t o be perfect ly absurd; for how do you know t he principles but from t he const ruct ion? and if t hat rem ains t he sam e, t he principles rem ain t he sam e. I t is t rue, t hat t o say your Const it ut ion is what it has been, is no sufficient defence for t hose, w ho say it is a bad Const it ut ion. I t is an answer t o t hose, who say t hat it is a degenerat e Const it ut ion. To t hose, who say it is a bad one, I answer, look t o it s effect s. I n all m oral m achinery t he m oral result s are it s t est .

On what grounds do we go, t o rest ore our Const it ut ion t o what it has been at som e given period, or t o reform and re- const ruct it upon principles m ore conform able t o a sound t heory of

governm ent ? A prescript ive Governm ent , such as ours, never was t he w ork of any Legislat or, never w as m ade upon any foregone t heory. I t seem s t o m e a prepost erous way of reasoning, and a perfect confusion of ideas, t o t ake t he t heories, which learned and speculat ive m en have m ade from t hat Governm ent , and t hen supposing it m ade on t hose t heories, which were m ade from it , t o accuse t he Governm ent as not corresponding w it h t hem . I do not vilify t heory and

speculat ion—no, because t hat would be t o vilify reason it self. Neque decipit ur rat io, neque decipit unquam . 1 No; whenever I speak against t heory, I m ean always a weak, erroneous, fallacious, unfounded, or im per fect t heor y; and one of t he w ays of discovering, t hat it is a false t heory, is by com paring it wit h pract ice. This is t he t rue t ouchst one of all t heories, which regard m an and t he affairs of m en—does it suit his nat ure in general; does it suit his nat ure as m odified by his habit s?

The m ore frequent ly t his affair is discussed, t he st ronger t he case appears t o t he sense and t he feelings of m ankind. I have no m ore doubt t han I ent ert ain of m y exist ence, t hat t his very t hing, which is st at ed as an horrible t hing, is t he m eans of t he preservat ion of our Const it ut ion, whilst it last s; of curing it of m any of t he disorders, which, at t ending every species of inst it ut ion, would at t end t he principle of an exact local represent at ion, or a represent at ion on t he principle of num bers.1 I f you rej ect personal represent at ion, you are pushed upon expedience; and t hen what t hey wish us t o do is, t o prefer t heir speculat ions on t hat subj ect t o t he happy experience of t his Count ry of a growing libert y and a grow ing prosperit y for five hundred years. What ever respect I have for t heir t alent s, t his, for one, I will not do. Then what is t he st andard of

expedience? Expedience is t hat , which is good for t he com m unit y, and good for every individual in it . Now t his expedience is t he desiderat um , 2 t o be sought eit her wit hout t he experience of m eans, or wit h t hat experience. I f w it hout , as in case of t he fabricat ion of a new Com m onw ealt h, I w ill hear t he learned arguing w hat prom ises t o be expedient : but if w e are t o j udge of a

Com m onwealt h act ually exist ing, t he first t hing I inquire is, what has been found expedient or inexpedient ? And I will not t ake t heir prom ise rat her t han t he perform ance of t he Const it ut ion.

can you fairly and dist inct ly point out what one evil or gr ievance has happened, which you can refer t o t he Represent at ive not following t he opinion of his Const it uent s? What one sym pt om do we find of t his inequalit y? But it is not an arit hm et ical inequalit y, w it h w hich w e ought t o t rouble ourselves. I f t here be a m oral, a polit ical equalit y, t his is t he desiderat um in our Const it ut ion, and in ever y Const it ut ion in t he w orld. Mor al inequalit y is as bet ween places and bet ween classes. Now I ask, what advant age do you find, t hat t he places, which abound in represent at ion, possess over ot hers, in which it is m ore scant y, in securit y for freedom , in securit y for j ust ice, or in any one of t hose m eans of procuring t em poral prosperit y and et ernal happiness, t he ends, for which societ y was form ed? Are t he local int erest s of Cornwall and Wilt shire, for inst ance, t heir roads, canals, t heir prisons, t heir police, bet t er t han Yorkshire, Warwickshire, or St affordshire? Warwick has Mem bers; is Warwick, or St afford, m ore opulent , happy, or free, t han Newcast le, or t han Bir m ingham ? I s Wilt shire t he pam pered favourit e, whilst Yorkshire, like t he child of t he bond-wom an, is t urned out t o t he desert ? This is like t he unhappy persons, who live, if t hey can be said t o live, in t he St at ical Chair;1 who are ever feeling t heir pulse, and who do not j udge of healt h by t he apt it ude of t he body t o perform it s funct ions, but by t heir ideas of what ought t o be t he t rue balance bet ween t he several secret ions. I s a Com m it t ee of Cornwall, &c t hronged, and t he ot hers desert ed? No. You have an equal represent at ion, because you have m en equally int erest ed in t he prosperit y of t he w hole, w ho are involved in t he general int erest and t he general sym pat hy; and, perhaps, t hese places, furnishing a superfluit y of publick agent s and adm inist rat ors, ( whet her in st rict ness t hey are Represent at ives or not , I do not m ean t o inquire, but t hey are agent s and adm inist rat ors,) will st and clearer of local int erest s, passions, prej udices and cabals, t han t he ot hers, and t herefore preserve t he balance of t he part s, and wit h a m ore general view, and a m ore st eady hand, t han t he rest . * * * * *

hum an breast . I know t oo, and I bless God for m y safe m ediocrit y; I know t hat , if I possessed all t he t alent s of t he gent lem en on t he side of t he House I sit , and on t he ot her, I cannot by Royal favour, or by popular delusion, or by oligarchical cabal, elevat e m yself above a cert ain very lim it ed point , so as t o endanger m y own fall, or t he ruin of m y Count ry. I know t here is an order, t hat keeps t hings fast in t heir place; it is m ade t o us, and we are m ade t o it . Why not ask anot her wife, ot her children, anot her body, anot her m ind?

The great obj ect of m ost of t hese Reform ers is t o prepare t he dest ruct ion of t he Const it ut ion, by disgracing and discredit ing t he House of Com m ons. For t hey t hink, prudent ly, in m y opinion, t hat if t hey can persuade t he nat ion, t hat t he House of Com m ons is so const it ut ed as not t o secure t he publick libert y; not t o have a proper connexion wit h t he publick int erest s, so const it ut ed, as not eit her act ually or virt ually1 t o be t he Represent at ive of t he people, it will be easy t o prove, t hat a Governm ent , com posed of a Monarchy, an Oligarchy chosen by t he Crow n, and such a House of Com m ons, what ever good can be in such a syst em , can by no m eans be a syst em of free governm ent .

The Const it ut ion of England is never t o have a quiet us; it is t o be cont inually vilified, at t acked, reproached, resist ed; inst ead of being t he hope and sure anchor in all st orm s, inst ead of being t he m eans of redress t o all grievances, it self is t he grand grievance of t he nat ion, our sham e inst ead of our glory. I f t he only specifick plan proposed, individual personal represent at ion, is direct ly rej ect ed by t he person, who is looked on as t he great support of t his business, t hen t he only w ay of considering it is a quest ion of convenience. An honourable gent lem an prefers t he individual t o t he present . He t herefor e him self sees no m iddle t erm what soever, and t herefore prefers of what he sees t he individual; t his is t he only t hing dist inct and sensible, t hat has been advocat ed. He has t hen a schem e, which is t he individual represent at ion; he is not at a loss, not inconsist ent —which schem e t he ot her right honourable Gent lem an reprobat es. Now w hat does t his go t o, but t o lead direct ly t o anarchy? For t o discredit t he only Governm ent , w hich he eit her possesses or can proj ect , what is t his but t o dest roy all governm ent ; and t his is anarchy. My right honourable friend, in support ing t his m ot ion, disgraces his friends and j ust ifies his enem ies, in order t o blacken t he Const it ut ion of his Count ry, even of t hat House of Com m ons, which support ed him .1 There is a difference bet ween a m oral or polit ical exposure of a publick evil, relat ive t o t he adm inist rat ion of governm ent , whet her in m en or syst em s, and a declarat ion of defect s, r eal or supposed, in t he fundam ent al Const it ut ion of your Count ry. The first m ay be cured in t he individual by t he m ot ives of religion, virt ue, honour, fear, sham e, or int erest . Men m ay be m ade t o abandon also false syst em s, by exposing t heir absurdit y or m ischievous

t endency t o t heir own bet t er t hought s, or t o t he cont em pt or indignat ion of t he publick; and aft er all, if t hey should exist , and exist uncorrect ed, t hey only disgrace individuals as fugit ive opinions. But it is quit e ot herw ise w it h t he fram e and Const it ut ion of t he St at e; if t hat is disgraced,

pat riot ism is dest royed in it s very source. No m an has ever willingly obeyed, m uch less was desirous of defending wit h his blood, a m ischievous and absurd schem e of governm ent . Our first , our dearest , m ost com prehensive relat ion, our Count ry, is gone.

eloquent ; t he m edit at ion of t he philosopher in every part of t he wor ld. As t o Englishm en, it was t heir pride, t heir consolat ion. By it t hey lived, for it t hey were ready t o die. I t s defect s, if it had any, were part ly covered by part ialit y, and part ly born by pr udence. Now all it s excellencies are forgot , it s fault s are now forcibly dragged int o day, exaggerat ed by every art ifice of

represent at ion. I t is despised and rej ect ed of m en;1 and every device and invent ion of ingenuit y, or idleness, set up in opposit ion or in preference t o it . I t is t o t his hum our, and it is t o t he

m easures growing out of it , t hat I set m yself ( I hope not alone) in t he m ost det erm ined

opposit ion. Never before did w e at any t im e in t his Count ry m eet upon t he t heory of our fr am e of Governm ent , t o sit in j udgm ent on t he Const it ut ion of our Count ry, t o call it as a delinquent before us, and t o accuse it of every defect and every vice; t o see whet her it , an obj ect of our venerat ion, even our adorat ion, did or did not accord wit h a pre- conceived schem e in t he m inds of cert ain gent lem en. Cast your eyes on t he j ournals of Parliam ent . I t is for fear of losing t he inest im able t reasure we have, t hat I do not vent ure t o gam e it out of m y hands for t he vain hope of im proving it . I look wit h filial reverence on t he Const it ut ion of m y Count ry, and never will cut it in pieces, and put it int o t he ket t le of any m agician, in order t o boil it , w it h t he puddle of t heir com pounds, int o yout h and vigour. On t he cont rary, I will drive away such pret enders; I will nurse it s venerable age, and wit h lenient art s ext end a parent ’s breat h.

EN D N OTES

[ 1.] I n t he charact er of a pauper, which confers perm ission t o sue wit hout liabilit y for cost s.

[ 1.] Burke here st at es t he polit ical t heory of t he radical reform ers. He him self would not deny t hat t he const it ut ion of a civil societ y is a convent ion. But he would deny t hat t here is a gulf bet ween nat ure and convent ion; rat her, convent ion, when properly m ade, com plem ent s and im plem ent s nat ure. Burke sees m an as by nat ure a social and polit ical anim al whose nat ure requires civil societ y and t herefore requires a convent ional const it ut ion t hat corresponds t o t he needs of hum an nat ure. Civil societ y is t hus nat ural t o m an but exist s in convent ional and variable form s.

[ 2.] Most of t he parliam ent ary reform ers were in fact m uch m ore m oderat e in t heir proposals, but t he m ost radical of t hem argued in t hese t erm s, as Thom as Paine was t o do in his The Right s of Man, his reply t o Burke’s Reflect ions on t he Revolut ion in France.

[ 1.] The House of Com m ons was only one part of t he t ripart it e lawm aking body com posed of King, Lords, and Com m ons.

[ 2.] Burke conceived of Church and St at e as one unified whole, of which t he King ( in Parliam ent , of course) was t he head.

[ 3.] For a t reat m ent of t his m uch discussed sent ence, see Canavan, Edm und Burke: Prescript ion and Providence, chap. 6, “ Tim e Out of Mind.”

[ 4.] The power of a nat ional governm ent t o conduct relat ions wit h t he governm ent s of ot her nat ions and t o m ake com pact s or t reat ies (foedera) w it h t hem .

uncont est ed possession and overrides all earlier claim s t o t he propert y. I t m akes it im possible, aft er t he period required for prescript ion has elapsed, t o revive old claim s t o t he propert y. Then it is no longer enough t o produce docum ent s proving t hat A’s great - great - grandfat her got t he propert y by fraud from B’s great - great - grandfat her. Sim ilarly, Burke holds, t he long- cont inued exist ence of a const it ut ion under w hich a people has lived and flourished m akes it im m une t o claim s based on every m an’s right t o govern him self in t he st at e of nat ure and t herefore t o vot e for represent at ives when he ent ers civil societ y.

[ 1.] The House of Com m ons w as com posed of knight s, w ho represent ed shires ( count ies) ; cit izens, who represent ed cit ies; and burgesses, w ho represent ed boroughs.

[ 2.] That t he Const it ut ion had so “ declined from it s perpendicular” was Pit t ’s argum ent in t he speech in w hich he int roduced his m ot ion.

[ 1.] “ Reason is never deceived nor ever deceives.” The Lat in phrase, at t ribut ed t o Manilius, is found on t he t it le page of Jean LeClerc’s Logica: sive Ars Rat iocinandi ( London, 1692) , which was part of t he curriculum at Trinit y College, Dublin, when Burke was a st udent t here.

[ 1.] Represent at ion in t he House of Com m ons was of com m unit ies, each of which, regardless of size, had t wo m em bers of Parliam ent .

[ 2.] The obj ect desired.

[ 3.] The blank space here m ay indicat e eit her t hat Burke had not finished writ ing his speech when he laid it aside or t hat a page or pages had disappeared from it by t he t im e his lit erary execut ors found t he docum ent am ong his papers.

[ 1.] A w eighing chair designed t o det erm ine t he am ount of w eight a sick person had lost by perspirat ion.

[ 1.] I n proposing his m ot ion, Pit t had said t hat he and ot hers had on m any occasions

“ m aint ained t he necessit y t hat t here was for a calm revision of t he principles of t he const it ut ion, and a m oderat e reform of such defect s as had im percept ibly and gradually st ole in t o deface, and w hich t hreat ened at last t ot ally t o dest roy t he m ost beaut iful fabric of governm ent in t he w orld.”

Parliam ent ary Hist ory of England 22: 1416.

[ 2.] Societ ies t hat advocat ed parliam ent ary reform , beginning wit h t he Societ y of Support ers of t he Bill of Right s, which adopt ed a series of resolut ions in June 1771, including one t hat

dem anded full and equal represent at ion of t he people.

[ 1.] Burke defines “ virt ual represent at ion” in his Let t er t o Sir Hercules Langrishe, below , p. 240.

[ 1.] An allusion t o I saiah 53: 3.

T

L

G

B

T

I

[ April 23 and May 2, 1778]

Aft er t he Brit ish defeat at Sarat oga in 1777, Lord Nort h’s adm inist rat ion cam e t o believe t hat concessions would have t o be m ade not only t o t he rebellious Am erican colonies but t o I reland as well. Great Brit ain and I reland at t his t im e were legally dist inct kingdom s, under a com m on crown, but wit h separat e

legislat ures and governing bodies ( t hough in fact t he Brit ish governm ent kept t he I rish one firm ly under it s t hum b) . I reland chafed under t he rest rict ions t hat Brit ish legislat ion placed on t he export of I rish goods t o Great Brit ain, and was becom ing rest ive. Lord Nort h t herefore acquiesced when Earl Nugent ( an I rish lord and m em ber of t he Brit ish House of Com m ons) int roduced bills in t he Com m ons in April 1778 t o elim inat e or reduce som e of t hese rest rict ions on I rish t rade. Burke ent husiast ically support ed t hem , even t hough he and his part y, t he Rockingham Whigs, were in opposit ion t o t he governm ent .

The response from t he m anufact uring and t rading cit ies of England was an angry one, not least from Burke’s const it uency of Brist ol, which was t hen t he second great est port of t he kingdom . His const it uent s let him know t hat by his support of t hese m easures in favor of freeing I rish t rade, he w as in danger of losing his seat at t he next elect ion, as in fact he did in 1780, t hough not ent irely for t his reason.

One of t he let t ers of prot est sent t o Burke was from Sam uel Span, Mast er of t he Societ y of Mer chant Advent urers of Brist ol. Anot her was from Harford, Cowles and Co., a firm of iron m anufact urers. Burke wrot e replies t o t hese let t ers and published t hem in t his pam phlet on May 12, 1778. I n it he rej ect ed t he

m ercant ilist assum pt ion t hat t rade was a zero- sum gam e in which what I reland gained Brit ain necessarily lost . His st rat egy, how ever, w as t ypically Burkean, as he explained in a let t er aft er t he st ruggle was over (Works 9: 235–36) : “ I w as in hopes t hat we m ight obt ain, gradually, and by part s, w hat w e m ight at t em pt at once and in t he whole wit hout success; t hat one concession would lead t o anot her; and t hat t he people of England, discovering, by a progressive experience, t hat none of t he concessions act ually m ade w ere follow ed by t he consequences t hey had dreaded, t heir fears from w hat t hey w ere yet t o yield would considerably dim inish. But t hat , t o which I at t ached m yself t he m ost part icularly, was t o fix t he principle of a free t rade in all t he port s of t hese I slands, as founded in j ust ice, and beneficial t o t he whole; but principally t o t his, t he seat of t he suprem e power.”

TO SAM U EL SPAN, ESQ; MASTER OF TH E SOCI ETYOF MERCH AN TS AD V EN TU RERS OF BRI STOL

S

,