Читать книгу Essential Writings Volume 3 - William 1763-1835 Cobbett - Страница 4

(Political Register, January, 1809.)

Note by the Editors.—The pledge spoken of below was put by Mr. Cobbett to the candidates for Hampshire at a county meeting held previously to the election, in 1808. It was as follows: “That he will never, either directly or indirectly, either by himself or by any person related to him or dependent upon him, receive a single shilling of the public money, in any shape whatever, so long as he shall live; and that he will use the utmost of his endeavours to obtain for this burdened people a redress of all their manifold grievances, and especially of that most crying grievance of having their money voted away by those amongst whom there are many who receive part of that money.”

Mr. Herbert This gentleman’s address to the electors of Hampshire, a copy of which will be found immediately below, ^{Ref. 002} contains matter worthy of the notice, not of the people of Hampshire only, but of the whole nation. For the purpose of saving time, I have numbered the paragraphs. The First contains nothing of general interest. Not so the Second and Third, which may be looked upon, and evidently were intended, as an answer to the pledge demanded by me.

It is something, at any rate, to hear a candidate declare, that he never will accept of a pension or sinecure, and this declaration Mr. Herbert has distinctly made, in a manner the most likely to be remembered. I, therefore, conclude, that he means, under all possible circumstances, to adhere to this promise, and in that conclusion I have, I must confess, great pleasure. It is one step, at least, in the right path; and it is a step, which, with the sole exception of Lord Cochrane, no one, of late times, has, as far as I have observed, thought proper to take.

But, from place Mr. Herbert will not debar himself by any pledge. This he calls foregoing the prospects of fair ambition, and binding himself to take no share in the administration of public affairs.

The pledge, which I demanded, as the only terms upon which I would give my vote, had no such object in view. As will be seen by reference to it, all that I wished to accomplish was this, that persons, once chosen to be the guardians of the people’s money, never should, during their whole lives, pocket, either by themselves or their relations and dependents, any part of that money. I said nothing about prohibiting any one from becoming a minister, or filling any office, upon any future occasion; but, then, I clearly meant, that, supposing him to fill any office, he should do it without pay, which, in many cases, at least, a man qualified to be a member of parliament, may very well do.

But, I confess, that my wish would be, that men who are chosen members of parliament, should never become servants of the King. A man cannot serve two masters; and, it matters very little, whether he be nominally the servant of both at one and the same time; or whether he be the nominal servant of one of them, while he is paving his way for being taken into the service of the other.

But in his Third paragraph, Mr. Herbert lets us see, that he thinks it right, and even necessary for the public good, that members of parliament should, at the same time, be servants of the King; that they should, in one and the same hour, ask for money in the latter capacity, and vote it in the former. This opinion being so directly at variance with plain common sense, it is worth while to examine into the reasons upon which it is founded. He says, that, if members were to lose the right of questioning the ministers face to face, the debates would become unimportant; that the censures of the House would be little worth, and passed without a hearing; that evil counsellors, who must tremble at the awful moment when they are publicly called to account, would lull themselves in security, without the necessity and even without the means of justifying themselves to the nation; and, that the dread of meeting an able minority front to front, is, in these days, almost the only check upon the actions of ministers.

“In these days” is an important phrase; for, it is precisely because the “days” are what they are, that I wish for a change. Mr. Herbert’s doctrine is in direct opposition to the Act of Settlement, which declares persons holding places of profit under the Crown to be incapable of serving as members of parliament. This act, till base and corrupt ministers found it troublesome, remained in force, and no inconvenience was experienced from it. Nay, when the act, as far as related to this important point, was repealed, the repealers, though most profligate men, had not the impudence to do it without an appearance of preserving the principle; and, therefore, they enacted, that, if a member accepted of a place of emolument after his election, his seat should, in consequence thereof, be vacated, in order to give the people who elected him when he had no place, an opportunity of rejecting him on account of his having a place. Now, will Mr. Herbert say, that the object of this law was, and is, really what it professes to be? Will he say, that the electors do really hereby obtain the opportunity stated above? I think, he will not; for it is impossible for him to produce me a single instance of a member of parliament having been prevented from again entering the walls of the House after having accepted of a place of profit under the Crown. It is notorious, that the vacating of the seat, upon such an occasion, is a mere matter of form. The Secretaries of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the rest of them, are appointed without any one entertaining the smallest doubt of their being again returned. Nay, when a change of ministry takes place, during a session of parliament, is it not notorious, that “the Opposition,” as it is called, the regular body upon the opposite benches, abstain from all warfare, till the enemies arrive; and do we not always hear it said, that such an one cannot come into the engagement till such a day, because, until that day his return cannot arrive? That this is the fact no one can deny. But, whether it be so, or not, Mr. Herbert is left in a dilemma, if he approve of the law as it now stands; for, suppose the people to obtain an opportunity of rejecting the member that becomes a placeman, and suppose them to reject him, of which the letter of the law implies the probability and even the propriety; suppose the electors of all the members, composing a new ministry, to reject them upon the score of place, and supposing there to be no good-natured, modest gentlemen to give up their seats and their constituents to them; in that case, we should lose the amazing benefit, which Mr. Herbert perceives in the having of the ministers in the House; and, on the other hand, if this be impossible, or, if there be not the smallest chance of this, the law with respect to re-election is . . . . . . . . ; and, those, who affect to see a security for the people in it, are . . . . . . what I need not describe, and what I will not describe in terms other than those, which they so richly deserve. I will not wrong my thoughts by the using of words, which would be an inadequate expression of them.

But, the debates, Mr. Herbert says, would become frivolous and unimportant, if the King’s counsellors and servants were not in the House. The debates! All is debate. Why, there is a standing order of the House against publishing any debate; and, moreover, any member may, whenever he pleases, cause the galleries to be cleared, and the doors to be locked against all spectators and hearers. It is, to be sure, a very valuable thing that we possess; a mighty thing for our liberties, that any one member, either of those for Old Sarum, without even a seconder, may, at any time, totally deprive us of.

But, Sir, why should the debates become of no importance; of no interest at all to us, if the ministers and other placemen were kept out of the House? They might, indeed, be of little interest to those, who are now seeking for place through the means of debates; but, to the people: is it possible, that you can think, that the discussions of men, who were the real representatives of the people; who could scarcely have any views towards gain of any sort; who would be under no temptation to vote this way or that way to serve themselves, or to serve a party: is it possible, that you can think, that the discussions of such men would be less interesting to the people, than the wranglings of two parties, always opposed to each other, taking opposite positions in the House as naturally as two hostile armies, and well known to be contending for the places and emoluments which the Crown has to bestow? No, it is not possible; I assert, that it is not possible for you to believe, that the discussions of an assembly where, upon all great occasions, it is known beforehand of which side each member will speak and vote; where it is known beforehand what the result will be: I assert it to be impossible for you to believe, that the debates of such an assembly, can be so interesting as the debates of an assembly, where there is no such foreknowledge, and where there is known to exist, generally speaking, nothing to bias the judgment of the members. You must have observed, Sir, the difference which, in point of interest, is excited by the speeches of Barristers and that of the Judge. The cause of this is, not the superior ability of the Judge, for such is not always the case; not the novelty of the matter, for that has been already amply detailed: but solely the persuasion, that what is said by the Judge proceeds from an unbiassed mind. And, Sir, for this same reason, the debates of an assembly, not divided into regular parties, would, in the same degree, excite an interest greater than that which is excited by the debates of the House of Commons, as that house is now filled.

As to the advantage of “questioning the ministers face to face,” they were so questioned, when they were excluded from parliament. They were sent to the House by the King, to bear his messages; to ask for money in his name; and to give such explanations, as the representatives of the people required at their hands. There is, surely, nothing difficult in this. It is the regular and natural course of proceeding; but, can any one pretend, that it is natural; can any one pretend, that it is not a monstrous absurdity, that ministers, that the servants of the King, or, indeed, that any body else in this world, should be called to account by themselves; that they should sit in judgment, and vote, and assist in the deciding, upon the merits, or demerits, of their own conduct; and especially when it is known beforehand, when it is acknowledged to be essential to the very system, that they have, and must have, a majority in their favour, it being, according to that system, impossible for them to hold their places any longer than they have that majority?

“Tremble at the awful moment of meeting an able minority!” You surprise me, Sir. What have they, as long as they can preserve their majority, to tremble at? When did you see a ministry tremble, except for the loss of their places? And why should they? But, if there were a House of Commons, without placemen or pensioners; consisting of men not capable of being placed or pensioned; if the race could not be for power and emolument; if the members could not, in the future, discover any motive for indulgence, and lenity with respect to the past; then, indeed, wicked or foolish counsellors would have good cause to “tremble at the awful moment of meeting,” not an “able minority,” but an honest majority, in parliament, who would not waste their time in making long lawyer-like speeches, in order to show their fitness for conducting wars and negotiations; but, who, having only their own good, as connected with that of the public, in view, would busy themselves in doing that which belonged to their office, as guardians of the public treasure and the public liberty.

If the House of Commons contained no placemen; if it were unmixed with the servants of the King; if it were composed of men who never could touch the public money, can it be believed, that the public money would not be better taken care of? Besides the incompatibility of the two situations, in this respect, is it not evident, that a man, who has, for one half of the year, to fight daily battles in the House of Commons for the preservation of his place, must neglect the duties of that place? Is it not evident, that, if a man be compelled to give his mind up to debate and the preparation for debate, the duties of his office must be left to underlings, or be wholly neglected? Nay, is it not evident, that, if the possession of the place is to depend upon debates in the House of Commons, he will fashion his measures and especially his appointments and other favours to that mould which is likely to ensure him the greatest number of friends in that House; which fashioning would be useless for his purpose, were the members and the relations of the members incapable of receiving emoluments from the public purse?

The King, too, would, if this were the case, be left free in his choice of servants. He would not be compelled to take into his council a whole pack together. He would not be compelled to consider who could make the best, or, rather, the longest, speeches, and who would carry with them the greatest number of votes. He would be free to select whomsoever he thought most able and most trust-worthy; while the Commons, on their side, could have no reason for undue bias or partiality, in this respect, at the same time, that, if the King had counsellors, whom they disapproved of, they would, at all times, have the power of censuring them, of impeaching them, or of causing their removal by following the old constitutional course of refusing money; which is now, all the world knows, a power that is never exercised, nor is it ever thought of being exercised.

Is there an evil we complain of, or feel, which cannot be traced to this source? Let Mr. Herbert review all the circumstances, which led to, and which have followed, the Cintra Convention; and, I am persuaded, that, whether in the appointments, the progress of the thing itself, or the proceedings consequent upon it, he will clearly discover the prime cause to be that very system of things, of which he professes himself to be an advocate. If the war-minister, or all the ministers together, had had no debatings and dividings to look to; if they had had nobody but their master to obey; no families or particular individuals to conciliate or gratify; they would have acted upon the evidence of their senses; and being men of common discernment at least, they could not have greatly erred. But hampered, perplexed, divided in their feelings, as they constantly are, with duty on one side, and powerful importunity, not to say menace, on the other, is it any wonder that they so frequently yield to the latter, and that, of that yielding, we have so frequently to suffer and to blush for the consequences?

Such are the reasons which induced me to propose the pledge, at Winchester; and, with me, at least, these reasons will continue to operate, until I hear something more forcible opposed to them, than what I have yet met with in any writing, ancient or modern.