The late House of Commons was not accused of an interested compliance to the will of a court.  The charge against them was of a different nature.  They were charged with being actuated by an extravagant spirit of independency.  This species of offence is so closely connected with merit, this vice bears so near a resemblance to virtue, that the flight of a House of Commons above the exact temperate medium of independence ought to be correctly ascertained, lest we give encouragement to dispositions of a less generous nature, and less safe for the people; we ought to call for very solid and convincing proofs of the existence, and of the magnitude, too, of the evils which are charged to an independent spirit, before we give sanction to any measure, that, by checking a spirit so easily damped, and so hard to be excited, may affect the liberty of a part of our Constitution, which, if not free, is worse than useless.

The Editor does not deny that by possibility such an abuse may exist:  but, prima fronte, there is no reason to presume it.  The House of Commons is not, by its complexion, peculiarly subject to the distempers of an independent habit.  Very little compulsion is necessary, on the part of the people, to render it abundantly complaisant to ministers and favorites of all descriptions.  It required a great length of time, very considerable industry and perseverance, no vulgar policy, the union of many men and many tempers, and the concurrence of events which do not happen every day, to build up an independent House of Commons.  Its demolition was accomplished in a moment; and it was the work of ordinary hands.  But to construct is a matter of skill; to demolish, force and fury are sufficient.

The late House of Commons has been punished for its independence.  That example is made.  Have we an example on record of a House of Commons punished for its servility?  The rewards of a senate so disposed are manifest to the world.  Several gentlemen are very desirous of altering the constitution of the House of Commons; but they must alter the frame and constitution of human nature itself, before they can so fashion it, by any mode of election, that its conduct will not be influenced by reward and punishment, by fame and by disgrace.  If these examples take root in the minds of men, what members hereafter will be bold enough not to be corrupt, especially as the king’s highway of obsequiousness is so very broad and easy?  To make a passive member of Parliament, no dignity of mind, no principles of honor, no resolution, no ability, no industry, no learning, no experience, are in the least degree necessary.  To defend a post of importance against a powerful enemy requires an Eliot; a drunken invalid is qualified to hoist a white flag, or to deliver up the keys of the fortress on his knees.

The gentlemen chosen into this Parliament, for the purpose of this surrender, were bred to better things, and are no doubt qualified for other service.  But for this strenuous exertion of inactivity, for the vigorous task of submission and passive obedience, all their learning and ability are rather a matter of personal ornament to themselves than of the least use in the performance of their duty.