You see they consider
our House of Commons as only "a semblance", "a form", "a theory", "a
shadow", "a mockery", perhaps "a nuisance".
These gentlemen value themselves on being systematic, and not
without reason. They must therefore look on this gross and palpable
defect of representation, this fundamental grievance (so they call it)
as a thing not only vicious in itself, but as rendering our whole
government absolutely illegitimate, and not at all better than a
downright usurpation. Another revolution, to get rid of this
illegitimate and usurped government, would of course be perfectly
justifiable, if not absolutely necessary. Indeed, their principle,
if you observe it with any attention, goes much further than to an
alteration in the election of the House of Commons; for, if popular
representation, or choice, is necessary to the legitimacy of all
government, the House of Lords is, at one stroke, bastardized and
corrupted in blood. That House is no representative of the people at
all, even in "semblance or in form". The case of the crown is
altogether as bad. In vain the crown may endeavor to screen itself
against these gentlemen by the authority of the establishment made
on the Revolution. The Revolution which is resorted to for a title, on
their system, wants a title itself. The Revolution is built, according
to their theory, upon a basis not more solid than our present
formalities, as it was made by a House of Lords, not representing
any one but themselves, and by a House of Commons exactly such as
the present, that is, as they term it, by a mere "shadow and
mockery" of representation.
Pages:
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94