‘The power of the people must protect the animated performance of every representative’
This brings the discussion back to the principal contribution Burke made to parliamentary science. Posed as a rhetorical question, he asked himself, in my paraphrase: ‘why would anyone participate in ordered discourse if he had a good chance of being counted on the losing side when the House divided?’ That inquiry might be refined as follows: ‘what source of energy would sustain a member of Commons if he put his voice and vote in favour of or against a proposition and lost, and perhaps even lost repeatedly, session after session, Parliament after Parliament?’ Wrapping these immediate questions into a larger frame, I return to a query previously raised: what is there about the technical skills required of members that enabled or promoted Hatsell’s ‘strict adherence’, the behaviour that he found necessary for parliamentary existence?
Burke declared in Discontents that advancing the public good depends on the ‘animated performance...
of every representative in... his duty’.62 This was the case no matter how the work of ‘the House of Commons [is] modelled’, he declared. In the form of a Greek fable, Burke’s narrative may be restated with Tortoise and Hare playing their usual parts.63 Burke’s Hare was the competitor who sought and obtained ‘honours, offices, emoluments; every sort of personal gratification to avarice or vanity; and... by innumerable petty services to individuals... a spreading interest in their country’. Harecan do an infinite number of acts of generosity and kindness, and even of public spirit He can obtain a thousand favours, and avert a
thousand evils. He may, while he betrays every valuable interest of the kingdom, be a benefactor, a patron, a father, a guardian angel, to his borough.64
Burke then introduced his Tortoise, ‘a person unconnected with the Court, and in opposition to its system’ for whom
there is no office, or emolument, or title; no promotion ecclesiastical, or civil, or military, or naval, for children, or brothers, or kindred. The unfortunate independent member has nothing to offer, but harsh refusal, or pitiful excuse, or despondent representation of an hopeless interest.
Except from his private fortune... he has no way of showing any one good quality, or of making a single friend. In the House, he votes forever in a dispirited minority. Can we conceive a more discouraging post of duty than this?65Electors had it in their power to decide if any one of these ‘dispirited’ representatives of ‘a hopeless interest’ were to serve the nation in the chamber. Electors might, in line with remarks made earlier, betray the trust reposed in them and accept corruption as a tool of oppression directed against Burke’s Tortoises. Burke warned
the people of this kingdom may be assured that they cannot be firmly or faithfully served by any man. It is out of the nature of men and things that they should; and their presumption will be equal to their folly, if they expect it. The power of the people, within the laws, must show itself sufficient to protect every representative in the animated performance of his duty, or that duty cannot be performed.66
Burke’s Tortoise is a staunch, even noble, fellow. Tortoise deserves to arrive at the finish line ahead of Hare. The diligent Tortoise may thank his party - Burke is breathing life into Tortoise’s colleagues - who may be counted on to show off ‘any one good quality’ that Tortoise exhibits from the backbenches. They supply all that a member could want, by offering Tortoise more than a ‘single friend’ to comfort him.67 If Burke had his way, parties would be ‘doing good... with a bold, masterly hand, that call forth all our energies’.68 Reading Burke in this light, party spirit would redeem the trust relationship between electors of a constituency and a member of the House of Commons. ‘I may be only a Tortoise’, Burke assured electors in my paraphrase, ‘but I am not alone in any project of “doing good”.’