A parliamentary foreign policy?

that firmness, beauty, and magnificence of our excellent Constitution, founded on the mutual consent of Prince and People; both moving, as it were, in one orb, reciprocally influencing, attracting, and directing each other; whose united power may be compared to a machine for the determining the equality of weights; the Sovereign, and the representative Body, counterpoising each other, and the Peers preserving the equilibrium. This summary of the classic thesis of the British constitution appeared in 1791 as part of an ‘Address to the Public’ at the beginning of the first volume of the Senator, a new periodical devoted to reporting parliamentary debates, and the appearance of which indicated continued strong public interest in such reports. The image was appropriate, for the existence and nature of parliamentary government was regarded as both expressing and securing the fundamental character of the British constitution. The use of mechanistic language was also appropriate. It reflected the spirit of part of the political culture of the period and, in particular, an optimistic assessment of the possibility of establishing a political order that was consistent, predictable and stable, proof against the fallibility of human ambitions and schemes. The reality of parliamentary government was somewhat different, not least because of the tension expressed in the Senator's simile, a tension that led John Dunning, MP for Calne and, then, a supporter of Shelburne in opposition, to tell the Commons in 1771 that ‘our whole constitution is a political kind of chaos, and depends upon the preservation of opposing elements: the king has his prerogative, the peers their jurisdiction, and we our privileges’. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]