HOUSE OF COMMONS CONTRASTED WITH NATIONAL ASSEMBLY.

The British House of Commons, without shutting its doors to any merit

in any class, is, by the sure operation of adequate causes, filled

with everything illustrious in rank, in descent, in hereditary and in

acquired opulence, in cultivated talents, in military, civil, naval, and

politic distinction, that the country can afford. But supposing, what

hardly can be supposed as a case, that the House of Commons should be

composed in the same manner with the Tiers-Etat in France, would this

dominion of chicane be borne with patience, or even conceived without

horror? God forbid I should insinuate anything derogatory to that

profession, which is another priesthood, administering the rights of

sacred justice. But whilst I revere men in the functions which belong to

them, and would do as much as one man can do to prevent their exclusion

from any, I cannot, to flatter them, give the lie to nature. They are

good and useful in the composition; they must be mischievous if they

preponderate so as virtually to become the whole. Their very excellence

in their peculiar functions may be far from a qualification for others.

It cannot escape observation, that when men are too much confined

to professional and faculty habits, and as it were inveterate in the

recurrent employment of that narrow circle, they are rather disabled

than qualified for whatever depends on the knowledge of mankind, on

experience in mixed affairs, on a comprehensive, connected view of the

various, complicated, external, and internal interests, which go to the

formation of that multifarious thing called a state. After all, if

the House of Commons were to have a wholly professional and faculty

composition, what is the power of the House of Commons, circumscribed

and shut in by the immoveable barriers of law, usages, positive rules

of doctrine and practice, counterpoised by the House of Lords, and every

moment of its existence at the discretion of the crown to continue,

prorogue, or dissolve us? The power of the House of Commons, direct

or indirect, is indeed great; and long may it be able to preserve its

greatness, and the spirit belonging to true greatness, at the full; and

it will do so, as long as it can keep the breakers of law in India from

becoming the makers of law for England. The power, however, of the House

of Commons, when least diminished, is as a drop of water in the ocean,

compared to that residing in a settled majority of your National

Assembly. That assembly, since the destruction of the orders, has no

fundamental law, no strict convention, no respected usage to restrain

it. Instead of finding themselves obliged to conform to a fixed

constitution, they have a power to make a constitution which shall

conform to their designs. Nothing in heaven or upon earth can serve as

a control on them. What ought to be the heads, the hearts, the

dispositions, that are qualified, or that dare, not only to make laws

under a fixed constitution, but at one heat to strike out a totally new

constitution for a great kingdom, and every part of it, from the monarch

on the throne to the vestry of a parish? But--"fools rush in where

angels fear to tread." In such a state of unbounded power, for undefined

and indefinable purposes, the evil of a moral and almost physical

inaptitude of the man to the function, must be the greatest we can

conceive to happen in the management of human affairs.

Selections from the Speeches and Writings of Edmund Burke · 第 175 / 361 题