{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_15700/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_15700","id":"gutenberg_15700","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15700","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Great Britain -- Politics and government -- 1760-1820","Political science -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"Produced by Paul Murray, Susan Skinner and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team from images generously made\navailable by the Biblioth\u00e8que nationale de France\n(BnF/Gallica) at http://gallica.bnf.fr\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE WORKS\n\nOF\n\nTHE RIGHT HONOURABLE\n\nEDMUND BURKE\n\n\nIN TWELVE VOLUMES\n\nVOLUME THE FOURTH\n\n\n[Illustration: Burke Coat of Arms.]\n\n\nLONDON\nJOHN C. NIMMO\n14, KING WILLIAM STREET, STRAND, W.C.\nMDCCCLXXXVII\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS OF VOL IV.\n\n\nLETTER TO A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, IN ANSWER TO SOME\nOBJECTIONS TO HIS BOOK ON FRENCH AFFAIRS                               1\n\nAPPEAL FROM THE NEW TO THE OLD WHIGS                                  57\n\nLETTER TO A PEER OF IRELAND ON THE PENAL LAWS AGAINST IRISH\nCATHOLICS                                                            217\n\nLETTER TO SIR HERCULES LANGRISHE, ON THE SUBJECT OF THE ROMAN\nCATHOLICS OF IRELAND                                                 241\n\nHINTS FOR A MEMORIAL TO BE DELIVERED TO MONSIEUR DE M.M.             307\n\nTHOUGHTS ON FRENCH AFFAIRS                                           313\n\nHEADS FOR CONSIDERATION ON THE PRESENT STATE OF AFFAIRS              379\n\nREMARKS ON THE POLICY OF THE ALLIES WITH RESPECT TO FRANCE: WITH\nAN APPENDIX                                                          403\n\n\n\n\nA\n\nLETTER\n\nTO\n\nA MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY,\n\nIN\n\nANSWER TO SOME OBJECTIONS TO HIS BOOK ON FRENCH AFFAIRS.\n\n1791.\n\n\nSir,--I had the honor to receive your letter of the 17th of November\nlast, in which, with some exceptions, you are pleased to consider\nfavorably the letter I have written on the affairs of France. I shall\never accept any mark of approbation attended with instruction with more\npleasure than general and unqualified praises. The latter can serve only\nto flatter our vanity; the former, whilst it encourages us to proceed,\nmay help to improve us in our progress.\n\nSome of the errors you point out to me in my printed letter are really\nsuch. One only I find to be material. It is corrected in the edition\nwhich I take the liberty of sending to you. As to the cavils which may\nbe made on some part of my remarks with regard to the _gradations_ in\nyour new Constitution, you observe justly that they do not affect the\nsubstance of my objections. Whether there be a round more or less in the\nladder of representation by which your workmen ascend from their\nparochial tyranny to their federal anarchy, when the whole scale is\nfalse, appears to me of little or no importance.\n\nI published my thoughts on that Constitution, that my countrymen might\nbe enabled to estimate the wisdom of the plans which were held out to\ntheir imitation. I conceived that the true character of those plans\nwould be best collected from the committee appointed to prepare them. I\nthought that the scheme of their building would be better comprehended\nin the design of the architects than in the execution of the masons. It\nwas not worth my reader's while to occupy himself with the alterations\nby which bungling practice corrects absurd theory. Such an investigation\nwould be endless: because every day's past experience of\nimpracticability has driven, and every day's future experience will\ndrive, those men to new devices as exceptionable as the old, and which\nare no otherwise worthy of observation than as they give a daily proof\nof the delusion of their promises and the falsehood of their\nprofessions. Had I followed all these changes, my letter would have been\nonly a gazette of their wanderings, a journal of their march from error\nto error, through a dry, dreary desert, unguided by the lights of\nHeaven, or by the contrivance which wisdom has invented to supply their\nplace.\n\nI am unalterably persuaded that the attempt to oppress, degrade,\nimpoverish, confiscate, and extinguish the original gentlemen and landed\nproperty of a whole nation cannot be justified under any form it may\nassume. I am satisfied beyond a doubt, that the project of turning a\ngreat empire into a vestry, or into a collection of vestries, and of\ngoverning it in the spirit of a parochial administration, is senseless\nand absurd, in any mode or with any qualifications. I can never be\nconvinced that the scheme of placing the highest powers of the state in\nchurch-wardens and constables and other such officers, guided by the\nprudence of litigious attorneys and Jew brokers, and set in action by\nshameless women of the lowest condition, by keepers of hotels, taverns,\nand brothels, by pert apprentices, by clerks, shop-boys, hair-dressers,\nfiddlers, and dancers on the stage, (who, in such a commonwealth as\nyours, will in future overbear, as already they have overborne, the\nsober incapacity of dull, uninstructed men, of useful, but laborious\noccupations,) can never be put into any shape that must not be both\ndisgraceful and destructive. The whole of this project, even if it were\nwhat it pretends to be, and was not in reality the dominion, through\nthat disgraceful medium, of half a dozen, or perhaps fewer, intriguing\npoliticians, is so mean, so low-minded, so stupid a contrivance, in\npoint of wisdom, as well as so perfectly detestable for its wickedness,\nthat I must always consider the correctives which might make it in any\ndegree practicable to be so many new objections to it.\n\nIn that wretched state of things, some are afraid that the authors of\nyour miseries may be led to precipitate their further designs by the\nhints they may receive from the very arguments used to expose the\nabsurdity of their system, to mark the incongruity of its parts, and its\ninconsistency with their own principles,--and that your masters may be\nled to render their schemes more consistent by rendering them more\nmischievous. Excuse the liberty which your indulgence authorizes me to\ntake, when I observe to you that such apprehensions as these would\nprevent all exertion of our faculties in this great cause of mankind.\n\nA rash recourse to _force_ is not to be justified in a state of real\nweakness. Such attempts bring on disgrace, and in their failure\ndiscountenance and discourage more rational endeavors. But _reason_ is\nto be hazarded, though it may be perverted by craft and sophistry; for\nreason can suffer no loss nor shame, nor can it impede any useful plan\nof future policy. In the unavoidable uncertainty as to the effect,\nwhich attends on every measure of human prudence, nothing seems a surer\nantidote to the poison of fraud than its detection. It is true, the\nfraud may be swallowed after this discovery, and perhaps even swallowed\nthe more greedily for being a detected fraud. Men sometimes make a point\nof honor not to be disabused; and they had rather fall into an hundred\nerrors than confess one. But, after all, when neither our principles nor\nour dispositions, nor, perhaps, our talents, enable us to encounter\ndelusion with delusion, we must use our best reason to those that ought\nto be reasonable creatures, and to take our chance for the event. We\ncannot act on these anomalies in the minds of men. I do not conceive\nthat the persons who have contrived these things can be made much the\nbetter or the worse for anything which can be said to them. _They_ are\nreason-proof. Here and there, some men, who were at first carried away\nby wild, good intentions, may be led, when their first fervors are\nabated, to join in a sober survey of the schemes into which they had\nbeen deluded. To those only (and I am sorry to say they are not likely\nto make a large description) we apply with any hope. I may speak it upon\nan assurance almost approaching to absolute knowledge, that nothing has\nbeen done that has not been contrived from the beginning, even before\nthe States had assembled. _Nulla nova mihi res inopinave surgit._ They\nare the same men and the same designs that they were from the first,\nthough varied in their appearance. It was the very same animal that at\nfirst crawled about in the shape of a caterpillar that you now see rise\ninto the air and expand his wings to the sun.\n\nProceeding, therefore, as we are obliged to proceed,--that is, upon an\nhypothesis that we address rational men,--can false political principles\nbe more effectually exposed than by demonstrating that they lead to\nconsequences directly inconsistent with and subversive of the\narrangements grounded upon them? If this kind of demonstration is not\npermitted, the process of reasoning called _deductio ad absurdum_, which\neven the severity of geometry does not reject, could not be employed at\nall in legislative discussions. One of our strongest weapons against\nfolly acting with authority would be lost.\n\nYou know, Sir, that even the virtuous efforts of your patriots to\nprevent the ruin of your country have had this very turn given to them.\nIt has been said here, and in France too, that the reigning usurpers\nwould not have carried their tyranny to such destructive lengths, if\nthey had not been stimulated and provoked to it by the acrimony of your\nopposition. There is a dilemma to which every opposition to successful\niniquity must, in the nature of things, be liable. If you lie still, you\nare considered as an accomplice in the measures in which you silently\nacquiesce. If you resist, you are accused of provoking irritable power\nto new excesses. The conduct of a losing party never appears right: at\nleast, it never can possess the only infallible criterion of wisdom to\nvulgar judgments,--success.\n\nThe indulgence of a sort of undefined hope, an obscure confidence, that\nsome lurking remains of virtue, some degree of shame, might exist in the\nbreasts of the oppressors of France, has been among the causes which\nhave helped to bring on the common ruin of king and people. There is no\nsafety for honest men, but by believing all possible evil of evil men,\nand by acting with promptitude, decision, and steadiness on that belief.\nI well remember, at every epocha of this wonderful history, in every\nscene of this tragic business, that, when your sophistic usurpers were\nlaying down mischievous principles, and even applying them in direct\nresolutions, it was the fashion to say that they never intended to\nexecute those declarations in their rigor. This made men careless in\ntheir opposition, and remiss in early precaution. By holding out this\nfallacious hope, the impostors deluded sometimes one description of men,\nand sometimes another, so that no means of resistance were provided\nagainst them, when they came to execute in cruelty what they had planned\nin fraud.\n\nThere are cases in which a man would be ashamed not to have been imposed\non. There is a confidence necessary to human intercourse, and without\nwhich men are often more injured by their own suspicions than they would\nbe by the perfidy of others. But when men whom we _know_ to be wicked\nimpose upon us, we are something worse than dupes. When we know them,\ntheir fair pretences become new motives for distrust. There is one case,\nindeed, in which it would be madness not to give the fullest credit to\nthe most deceitful of men,--that is, when they make declarations of\nhostility against us.\n\nI find that some persons entertain other hopes, which I confess appear\nmore specious than those by which at first so many were deluded and\ndisarmed. They flatter themselves that the extreme misery brought upon\nthe people by their folly will at last open the eyes of the multitude,\nif not of their leaders. Much the contrary, I fear. As to the leaders in\nthis system of imposture,--you know that cheats and deceivers never can\nrepent. The fraudulent have no resource but in fraud. They have no other\ngoods in their magazine. They have no virtue or wisdom in their minds,\nto which, in a disappointment concerning the profitable effects of fraud\nand cunning, they can retreat. The wearing out of an old serves only to\nput them upon the invention of a new delusion. Unluckily, too, the\ncredulity of dupes is as inexhaustible as the invention of knaves. They\nnever give people possession; but they always keep them in hope. Your\nstate doctors do not so much as pretend that any good whatsoever has\nhitherto been derived from their operations, or that the public has\nprospered in any one instance under their management. The nation is\nsick, very sick, by their medicines. But the charlatan tells them that\nwhat is past cannot be helped;--they have taken the draught, and they\nmust wait its operation with patience;--that the first effects, indeed,\nare unpleasant, but that the very sickness is a proof that the dose is\nof no sluggish operation;--that sickness is inevitable in all\nconstitutional revolutions;--that the body must pass through pain to\nease;--that the prescriber is not an empiric who proceeds by vulgar\nexperience, but one who grounds his practice[1] on the sure rules of\nart, which cannot possibly fail. You have read, Sir, the last manifesto,\nor mountebank's bill, of the National Assembly. You see their\npresumption in their promises is not lessened by all their failures in\nthe performance. Compare this last address of the Assembly and the\npresent state of your affairs with the early engagements of that body,\nengagements which, not content with declaring, they solemnly deposed\nupon oath,--swearing lustily, that, if they were supported, they would\nmake their country glorious and happy; and then judge whether those who\ncan write such things, or those who can bear to read them, are of\n_themselves_ to be brought to any reasonable course of thought or\naction.\n\nAs to the people at large, when once these miserable sheep have broken\nthe fold, and have got themselves loose, not from the restraint, but\nfrom the protection, of all the principles of natural authority and\nlegitimate subordination, they become the natural prey of impostors.\nWhen they have once tasted of the flattery of knaves, they can no longer\nendure reason, which appears to them only in the form of censure and\nreproach. Great distress has never hitherto taught, and whilst the world\nlasts it never will teach, wise lessons to any part of mankind. Men are\nas much blinded by the extremes of misery as by the extremes of\nprosperity. Desperate situations produce desperate councils and\ndesperate measures. The people of France, almost generally, have been\ntaught to look for other resources than those which can be derived from\norder, frugality, and industry. They are generally armed; and they are\nmade to expect much from the use of arms. _Nihil non arrogant armis._\nBesides this, the retrograde order of society has something flattering\nto the dispositions of mankind. The life of adventurers, gamesters,\ngypsies, beggars, and robbers is not unpleasant. It requires restraint\nto keep men from falling into that habit. The shifting tides of fear\nand hope, the flight and pursuit, the peril and escape, the alternate\nfamine and feast of the savage and the thief, after a time; render all\ncourse of slow, steady, progressive, unvaried occupation, and the\nprospect only of a limited mediocrity at the end of long labor, to the\nlast degree tame, languid, and insipid. Those who have been once\nintoxicated with power, and have derived any kind of emolument from it,\neven though but for one year, never can willingly abandon it. They may\nbe distressed in the midst of all their power; but they will never look\nto anything but power for their relief. When did distress ever oblige a\nprince to abdicate his authority? And what effect will it have upon\nthose who are made to believe themselves a people of princes?\n\nThe more active and stirring part of the lower orders having got\ngovernment and the distribution of plunder into their hands, they will\nuse its resources in each municipality to form a body of adherents.\nThese rulers and their adherents will be strong enough to overpower the\ndiscontents of those who have not been able to assert their share of the\nspoil. The unfortunate adventurers in the cheating lottery of plunder\nwill probably be the least sagacious or the most inactive and irresolute\nof the gang. If, on disappointment, they should dare to stir, they will\nsoon be suppressed as rebels and mutineers by their brother rebels.\nScantily fed for a while with the offal of plunder, they will drop off\nby degrees; they will be driven out of sight and out of thought; and\nthey will be left to perish obscurely, like rats, in holes and corners.\n\nFrom the forced repentance of invalid mutineers and disbanded thieves\nyou can hope for no resource. Government itself, which ought to\nconstrain the more bold and dexterous of these robbers, is their\naccomplice. Its arms, its treasures, its all are in their hands.\nJudicature, which above all things should awe them, is their creature\nand their instrument. Nothing seems to me to render your internal\nsituation more desperate than this one circumstance of the state of your\njudicature. Many days are not passed since we have seen a set of men\nbrought forth by your rulers for a most critical function. Your rulers\nbrought forth a set of men, steaming from the sweat and drudgery, and\nall black with the smoke and soot, of the forge of confiscation and\nrobbery,--_ardentis mass\u00e6 fuligine lippos_,--a set of men brought forth\nfrom the trade of hammering arms of proof, offensive and defensive, in\naid of the enterprises, and for the subsequent protection, of\nhousebreakers, murderers, traitors, and malefactors,--men, who had their\nminds seasoned with theories perfectly conformable to their practice,\nand who had always laughed at possession and prescription, and defied\nall the fundamental maxims of jurisprudence. To the horror and\nstupefaction of all the honest part of this nation, and indeed of all\nnations who are spectators, we have seen, on the credit of those very\npractices and principles, and to carry them further into effect, these\nvery men placed on the sacred seat of justice in the capital city of\nyour late kingdom. We see that in future you are to be destroyed with\nmore form and regularity. This is not peace: it is only the introduction\nof a sort of discipline in their hostility. Their tyranny is complete in\ntheir justice; and their _lanterne_ is not half so dreadful as their\ncourt.\n\nOne would think, that, out of common decency, they would have given you\nmen who had not been in the habit of trampling upon law and justice in\nthe Assembly, neutral men, or men apparently neutral, for judges, who\nare to dispose of your lives and fortunes.\n\nCromwell, when he attempted to legalize his power, and to settle his\nconquered country in a state of order, did not look for dispensers of\njustice in the instruments of his usurpation. Quite the contrary. He\nsought out, with great solicitude and selection, and even from the party\nmost opposite to his designs, men of weight and decorum of\ncharacter,--men unstained with the violence of the times, and with hands\nnot fouled with confiscation and sacrilege: for he chose an Hale for his\nchief justice, though he absolutely refused to take his civic oaths, or\nto make any acknowledgment whatsoever of the legality of his government.\nCromwell told this great lawyer, that, since he did not approve his\ntitle, all he required of him was to administer, in a manner agreeable\nto his pure sentiments and unspotted character, that justice without\nwhich human society cannot subsist,--that it was not his particular\ngovernment, but civil order itself, which, as a judge, he wished him to\nsupport. Cromwell knew how to separate the institutions expedient to his\nusurpation from the administration of the public justice of his country.\nFor Cromwell was a man in whom ambition had not wholly suppressed, but\nonly suspended, the sentiments of religion, and the love (as far as it\ncould consist with his designs) of fair and honorable reputation.\nAccordingly, we are indebted to this act of his for the preservation of\nour laws, which some senseless assertors of the rights of men were then\non the point of entirely erasing, as relics of feudality and barbarism.\nBesides, he gave, in the appointment of that man, to that age, and to\nall posterity, the most brilliant example of sincere and fervent piety,\nexact justice, and profound jurisprudence.[2] But these are not the\nthings in which your philosophic usurpers choose to follow Cromwell.\n\nOne would think, that, after an honest and necessary revolution, (if\nthey had a mind that theirs should pass for such,) your masters would\nhave imitated the virtuous policy of those who have been at the head of\nrevolutions of that glorious character. Burnet tells us, that nothing\ntended to reconcile the English nation to the government of King William\nso much as the care he took to fill the vacant bishoprics with men who\nhad attracted the public esteem by their learning, eloquence, and piety,\nand above all, by their known moderation in the state. With you, in your\npurifying revolution, whom have you chosen to regulate the Church? M.\nMirabeau is a fine speaker, and a fine writer, and a fine--a very fine\nman; but, really, nothing gave more surprise to everybody here than to\nfind him the supreme head of your ecclesiastical affairs. The rest is of\ncourse. Your Assembly addresses a manifesto to France, in which they\ntell the people, with an insulting irony, that they have brought the\nChurch to its primitive condition. In one respect their declaration is\nundoubtedly true: for they have brought it to a state of poverty and\npersecution. What can be hoped for after this? Have not men, (if they\ndeserve the name,) under this new hope and head of the Church, been made\nbishops for no other merit than having acted as instruments of atheists?\nfor no other merit than having thrown the children's bread to dogs? and,\nin order to gorge the whole gang of usurers, peddlers, and itinerant\nJew discounters at the corners of streets, starved the poor of their\nChristian flocks, and their own brother pastors? Have not such men been\nmade bishops to administer in temples in which (if the patriotic\ndonations have not already stripped them of their vessels) the\nchurch-wardens ought to take security for the altar plate, and not so\nmuch as to trust the chalice in their sacrilegious hands, so long as\nJews have assignats on ecclesiastic plunder, to exchange for the silver\nstolen from churches?\n\nI am told that the very sons of such Jew jobbers have been made bishops:\npersons not to be suspected of any sort of _Christian_ superstition, fit\ncolleagues to the holy prelate of Autun, and bred at the feet of that\nGamaliel. We know who it was that drove the money-changers out of the\ntemple. We see, too, who it is that brings them in again. We have in\nLondon very respectable persons of the Jewish nation, whom we will keep;\nbut we have of the same tribe others of a very different\ndescription,--housebreakers, and receivers of stolen goods, and forgers\nof paper currency, more than we can conveniently hang. These we can\nspare to France, to fill the new episcopal thrones: men well versed in\nswearing; and who will scruple no oath which the fertile genius of any\nof your reformers can devise.\n\nIn matters so ridiculous it is hard to be grave. On a view of their\nconsequences, it is almost inhuman to treat them lightly. To what a\nstate of savage, stupid, servile insensibility must your people be\nreduced, who can endure such proceedings in their Church, their state,\nand their judicature, even for a moment! But the deluded people of\nFrance are like other madmen, who, to a miracle, bear hunger, and\nthirst, and cold, and confinement, and the chains and lash of their\nkeeper, whilst all the while they support themselves by the imagination\nthat they are generals of armies, prophets, kings, and emperors. As to a\nchange of mind in those men, who consider infamy as honor, degradation\nas preferment, bondage to low tyrants as liberty, and the practical\nscorn and contumely of their upstart masters as marks of respect and\nhomage, I look upon it as absolutely impracticable. These madmen, to be\ncured, must first, like other madmen, be subdued. The sound part of the\ncommunity, which I believe to be large, but by no means the largest\npart, has been taken by surprise, and is disjointed, terrified, and\ndisarmed. That sound part of the community must first be put into a\nbetter condition, before it can do anything in the way of deliberation\nor persuasion. This must be an act of power, as well as of wisdom: of\npower in the hands of firm, determined patriots, who can distinguish the\nmisled from traitors, who will regulate the state (if such should be\ntheir fortune) with a discriminating, manly, and provident mercy; men\nwho are purged of the surfeit and indigestion of systems, if ever they\nhave been admitted into the habit of their minds; men who will lay the\nfoundation of a real reform in effacing every vestige of that philosophy\nwhich pretends to have made discoveries in the _Terra Australia_ of\nmorality; men who will fix the state upon these bases of morals and\npolitics, which are our old and immemorial, and, I hope, will be our\neternal possession.\n\nThis power, to such men, must come from _without_. It may be given to\nyou in pity: for surely no nation ever called so pathetically on the\ncompassion of all its neighbors. It may be given by those neighbors on\nmotives of safety to themselves. Never shall I think any country in\nEurope to be secure, whilst there is established in the very centre of\nit a state (if so it may be called) founded on principles of anarchy,\nand which is in reality a college of armed fanatics, for the propagation\nof the principles of assassination, robbery, rebellion, fraud, faction,\noppression, and impiety. Mahomet, hid, as for a time he was, in the\nbottom of the sands of Arabia, had his spirit and character been\ndiscovered, would have been an object of precaution to provident minds.\nWhat if he had erected his fanatic standard for the destruction of the\nChristian religion _in luce Asi\u00e6_, in the midst of the then noonday\nsplendor of the then civilized world? The princes of Europe, in the\nbeginning of this century, did well not to suffer the monarchy of France\nto swallow up the others. They ought not now, in my opinion, to suffer\nall the monarchies and commonwealths to be swallowed up in the gulf of\nthis polluted anarchy. They may be tolerably safe at present, because\nthe comparative power of France for the present is little. But times and\noccasions make dangers. Intestine troubles may arise in other countries.\nThere is a power always on the watch, qualified and disposed to profit\nof every conjuncture, to establish its own principles and modes of\nmischief, wherever it can hope for success. What mercy would these\nusurpers have on other sovereigns, and on other nations, when they treat\ntheir own king with such unparalleled indignities, and so cruelly\noppress their own countrymen?\n\nThe king of Prussia, in concurrence with us, nobly interfered to save\nHolland from confusion. The same power, joined with the rescued Holland\nand with Great Britain, has put the Emperor in the possession of the\nNetherlands, and secured, under that prince, from all arbitrary\ninnovation, the ancient, hereditary Constitution of those provinces. The\nchamber of Wetzlar has restored the Bishop of Liege, unjustly\ndispossessed by the rebellion of his subjects. The king of Prussia was\nbound by no treaty nor alliance of blood, nor had any particular reasons\nfor thinking the Emperor's government would be more mischievous or more\noppressive to human nature than that of the Turk; yet, on mere motives\nof policy, that prince has interposed, with the threat of all his force,\nto snatch even the Turk from the pounces of the Imperial eagle. If this\nis done in favor of a barbarous nation, with a barbarous neglect of\npolice, fatal to the human race,--in favor of a nation by principle in\neternal enmity with the Christian name, a nation which will not so much\nas give the salutation of peace (_Salam_) to any of us, nor make any\npact with any Christian nation beyond a truce,--if this be done in favor\nof the Turk, shall it be thought either impolitic or unjust or\nuncharitable to employ the same power to rescue from captivity a\nvirtuous monarch, (by the courtesy of Europe considered as Most\nChristian,) who, after an intermission of one hundred and seventy-five\nyears, had called together the States of his kingdom to reform abuses,\nto establish a free government, and to strengthen his throne,--a monarch\nwho, at the very outset, without force, even without solicitation, had\ngiven to his people such a Magna Charta of privileges as never was given\nby any king to any subjects? Is it to be tamely borne by kings who love\ntheir subjects, or by subjects who love their kings, that this monarch,\nin the midst of these gracious acts, was insolently and cruelly torn\nfrom his palace by a gang of traitors and assassins, and kept in close\nprison to this very hour, whilst his royal name and sacred character\nwere used for the total ruin of those whom the laws had appointed him to\nprotect?\n\nThe only offence of this unhappy monarch towards his people was his\nattempt, under a monarchy, to give them a free Constitution. For this,\nby an example hitherto unheard of in the world, he has been deposed. It\nmight well disgrace sovereigns to take part with a deposed tyrant. It\nwould suppose in them a vicious sympathy. But not to make a common cause\nwith a just prince, dethroned by traitors and rebels, who proscribe,\nplunder, confiscate, and in every way cruelly oppress their\nfellow-citizens, in my opinion is to forget what is due to the honor and\nto the rights of all virtuous and legal government.\n\nI think the king of France to be as much an object both of policy and\ncompassion as the Grand Seignior or his states. I do not conceive that\nthe total annihilation of France (if that could be effected) is a\ndesirable thing to Europe, or even to this its rival nation. Provident\npatriots did not think it good for Rome that even Carthage should be\nquite destroyed; and he was a wise Greek, wise for the general Grecian\ninterests, as well as a brave Laced\u00e6monian enemy and generous conqueror,\nwho did not wish, by the destruction of Athens, to pluck out the other\neye of Greece.\n\nHowever, Sir, what I have here said of the interference of foreign\nprinces is only the opinion of a private individual, who is neither the\nrepresentative of any state nor the organ of any party, but who thinks\nhimself bound to express his own sentiments with freedom and energy in a\ncrisis of such importance to the whole human race.\n\nI am not apprehensive, that, in speaking freely on the subject of the\nking and queen of France, I shall accelerate (as you fear) the execution\nof traitorous designs against them. You are of opinion, Sir, that the\nusurpers may, and that they will, gladly lay hold of any pretext to\nthrow off the very name of a king: assuredly, I do not wish ill to your\nking; but better for him not to live (he does not reign) than to live\nthe passive instrument of tyranny and usurpation.\n\nI certainly meant to show, to the best of my power, that the existence\nof such an executive officer in such a system of republic as theirs is\nabsurd in the highest degree. But in demonstrating this, to _them_, at\nleast, I can have made no discovery. They only held out the royal name\nto catch those Frenchmen to whom the name of king is still venerable.\nThey calculate the duration of that sentiment; and when they find it\nnearly expiring, they will not trouble themselves with excuses for\nextinguishing the name, as they have the thing. They used it as a sort\nof navel-string to nourish their unnatural offspring from the bowels of\nroyalty itself. Now that the monster can purvey for its own subsistence,\nit will only carry the mark about it, as a token of its having torn the\nwomb it came from. Tyrants seldom want pretexts. Fraud is the ready\nminister of injustice; and whilst the currency of false pretence and\nsophistic reasoning was expedient to their designs, they were under no\nnecessity of drawing upon me to furnish them with that coin. But\npretexts and sophisms have had their day, and have done their work. The\nusurpation no longer seeks plausibility: it trusts to power.\n\nNothing that I can say, or that you can say, will hasten them, by a\nsingle hour, in the execution of a design which they have long since\nentertained. In spite of their solemn declarations, their soothing\naddresses, and the multiplied oaths which they have taken and forced\nothers to take, they will assassinate the king when his name will no\nlonger be necessary to their designs,--but not a moment sooner. They\nwill probably first assassinate the queen, whenever the renewed menace\nof such an assassination loses its effect upon the anxious mind of an\naffectionate husband. At present, the advantage which they derive from\nthe daily threats against her life is her only security for preserving\nit. They keep their sovereign alive for the purpose of exhibiting him,\nlike some wild beast at a fair,--as if they had a Bajazet in a cage.\nThey choose to make monarchy contemptible by exposing it to derision in\nthe person of the most benevolent of their kings.\n\nIn my opinion their insolence appears more odious even than their\ncrimes. The horrors of the fifth and sixth of October were less\ndetestable than the festival of the fourteenth of July. There are\nsituations (God forbid I should think that of the 5th and 6th of October\none of them!) in which the best men may be confounded with the worst,\nand in the darkness and confusion, in the press and medley of such\nextremities, it may not be so easy to discriminate the one from the\nother. Tho necessities created even by ill designs have their excuse.\nThey may be forgotten by others, when the guilty themselves do not\nchoose to cherish their recollection, and, by ruminating their\noffences, nourish themselves, through the example of their past, to the\nperpetration of future crimes. It is in the relaxation of security, it\nis in the expansion of prosperity, it is in the hour of dilatation of\nthe heart, and of its softening into festivity and pleasure, that the\nreal character of men is discerned. If there is any good in them, it\nappears then or never. Even wolves and tigers, when gorged with their\nprey, are safe and gentle. It is at such times that noble minds give all\nthe reins to their good nature. They indulge their genius even to\nintemperance, in kindness to the afflicted, in generosity to the\nconquered,--forbearing insults, forgiving injuries, overpaying benefits.\nFull of dignity themselves, they respect dignity in all, but they feel\nit sacred in the unhappy. But it is then, and basking in the sunshine of\nunmerited fortune, that low, sordid, ungenerous, and reptile souls swell\nwith their hoarded poisons; it is then that they display their odious\nsplendor, and shine out in the full lustre of their native villany and\nbaseness. It is in that season that no man of sense or honor can be\nmistaken for one of them. It was in such a season, for them of political\nease and security, though their people were but just emerged from actual\nfamine, and were ready to be plunged into a gulf of penury and beggary,\nthat your philosophic lords chose, with an ostentatious pomp and luxury,\nto feast an incredible number of idle and thoughtless people, collected\nwith art and pains from all quarters of the world. They constructed a\nvast amphitheatre in which they raised a species of pillory.[3] On this\npillory they set their lawful king and queen, with an insulting figure\nover their heads. There they exposed these objects of pity and respect\nto all good minds to the derision of an unthinking and unprincipled\nmultitude, degenerated even from the versatile tenderness which marks\nthe irregular and capricious feelings of the populace. That their cruel\ninsult might have nothing wanting to complete it, they chose the\nanniversary of that day in which they exposed the life of their prince\nto the most imminent dangers and the vilest indignities, just following\nthe instant when the assassins, whom they had hired without owning,\nfirst openly took up arms against their king, corrupted his guards,\nsurprised his castle, butchered some of the poor invalids of his\ngarrison, murdered his governor, and, like wild beasts, tore to pieces\nthe chief magistrate of his capital city, on account of his fidelity to\nhis service.\n\nTill the justice of the world is awakened, such as these will go on,\nwithout admonition, and without provocation, to every extremity. Those\nwho have made the exhibition of the fourteenth of July are capable of\nevery evil. They do not commit crimes for their designs; but they form\ndesigns that they may commit crimes. It is not their necessity, but\ntheir nature, that impels them. They are modern philosophers, which when\nyou say of them, you express everything that is ignoble, savage, and\nhard-hearted.\n\nBesides the sure tokens which are given by the spirit of their\nparticular arrangements, there are some characteristic lineaments in the\ngeneral policy of your tumultuous despotism, which, in my opinion,\nindicate, beyond a doubt, that no revolution whatsoever _in their\ndisposition_ is to be expected: I mean their scheme of educating the\nrising generation, the principles which they intend to instil and the\nsympathies which they wish to form in the mind at the season in which it\nis the most susceptible. Instead of forming their young minds to that\ndocility, to that modesty, which are the grace and charm of youth, to an\nadmiration of famous examples, and to an averseness to anything which\napproaches to pride, petulance, and self-conceit, (distempers to which\nthat time of life is of itself sufficiently liable,) they artificially\nfoment these evil dispositions, and even form them into springs of\naction. Nothing ought to be more weighed than the nature of books\nrecommended by public authority. So recommended, they soon form the\ncharacter of the age. Uncertain indeed is the efficacy, limited indeed\nis the extent, of a virtuous institution. But if education takes in\n_vice_ as any part of its system, there is no doubt but that it will\noperate with abundant energy, and to an extent indefinite. The\nmagistrate, who in favor of freedom thinks himself obliged to suffer all\nsorts of publications, is under a stricter duty than any other well to\nconsider what sort of writers he shall authorize, and shall recommend by\nthe strongest of all sanctions, that is, by public honors and rewards.\nHe ought to be cautious how he recommends authors of mixed or ambiguous\nmorality. He ought to be fearful of putting into the hands of youth\nwriters indulgent to the peculiarities of their own complexion, lest\nthey should teach the humors of the professor, rather than the\nprinciples of the science. He ought, above all, to be cautious in\nrecommending any writer who has carried marks of a deranged\nunderstanding: for where there is no sound reason, there can be no real\nvirtue; and madness is ever vicious and malignant.\n\nThe Assembly proceeds on maxims the very reverse of these. The Assembly\nrecommends to its youth a study of the bold experimenters in morality.\nEverybody knows that there is a great dispute amongst their leaders,\nwhich of them is the best resemblance of Rousseau. In truth, they all\nresemble him. His blood they transfuse into their minds and into their\nmanners. Him they study; him they meditate; him they turn over in all\nthe time they can spare from the laborious mischief of the day or the\ndebauches of the night. Rousseau is their canon of holy writ; in his\nlife he is their canon of Polycletus; he is their standard figure of\nperfection. To this man and this writer, as a pattern to authors and to\nFrenchmen, the foundries of Paris are now running for statues, with the\nkettles of their poor and the bells of their churches. If an author had\nwritten like a great genius on geometry, though his practical and\nspeculative morals were vicious in the extreme, it might appear that in\nvoting the statue they honored only the geometrician. But Rousseau is a\nmoralist or he is nothing. It is impossible, therefore, putting the\ncircumstances together, to mistake their design in choosing the author\nwith whom they have begun to recommend a course of studies.\n\nTheir great problem is, to find a substitute for all the principles\nwhich hitherto have been employed to regulate the human will and action.\nThey find dispositions in the mind of such force and quality as may fit\nmen, far better than the old morality, for the purposes of such a state\nas theirs, and may go much further in supporting their power and\ndestroying their enemies. They have therefore chosen a selfish,\nflattering, seductive, ostentatious vice, in the place of plain duty.\nTrue humility, the basis of the Christian system, is the low, but deep\nand firm foundation of all real virtue. But this, as very painful in the\npractice, and little imposing in the appearance, they have totally\ndiscarded. Their object is to merge all natural and all social sentiment\nin inordinate vanity. In a small degree, and conversant in little\nthings, vanity is of little moment. When full-grown, it is the worst of\nvices, and the occasional mimic of them all. It makes the whole man\nfalse. It leaves nothing sincere or trustworthy about him. His best\nqualities are poisoned and perverted by it, and operate exactly as the\nworst. When your lords had many writers as immoral as the object of\ntheir statue (such as Voltaire and others) they chose Rousseau, because\nin him that peculiar vice which they wished to erect into ruling virtue\nwas by far the most conspicuous.\n\nWe have had the great professor and founder of _the philosophy of\nvanity_ in England. As I had good opportunities of knowing his\nproceedings almost from day to day, he left no doubt on my mind that he\nentertained no principle, either to influence his heart or to guide his\nunderstanding, but _vanity_. With this vice he was possessed to a degree\nlittle short of madness. It is from the same deranged, eccentric vanity,\nthat this, the insane Socrates of the National Assembly, was impelled to\npublish a mad confession of his mad faults, and to attempt a new sort of\nglory from bringing hardily to light the obscure and vulgar vices which\nwe know may sometimes be blended with eminent talents. He has not\nobserved on the nature of vanity who does not know that it is\nomnivorous,--that it has no choice in its food,--that it is fond to\ntalk even of its own faults and vices, as what will excite surprise and\ndraw attention, and what will pass at worst for openness and candor.\n\nIt was this abuse and perversion, which vanity makes even of hypocrisy,\nwhich has driven Rousseau to record a life not so much as checkered or\nspotted here and there with virtues, or even distinguished by a single\ngood action. It is such a life he chooses to offer to the attention of\nmankind. It is such a life that, with a wild defiance, he flings in the\nface of his Creator, whom he acknowledges only to brave. Your Assembly,\nknowing how much more powerful example is found than precept, has chosen\nthis man (by his own account without a single virtue) for a model. To\nhim they erect their first statue. From him they commence their series\nof honors and distinctions.\n\nIt is that new-invented virtue which your masters canonize that led\ntheir moral hero constantly to exhaust the stores of his powerful\nrhetoric in the expression of universal benevolence, whilst his heart\nwas incapable of harboring one spark of common parental affection.\nBenevolence to the whole species, and want of feeling for every\nindividual with whom the professors come in contact, form the character\nof the new philosophy. Setting up for an unsocial independence, this\ntheir hero of vanity refuses the just price of common labor, as well as\nthe tribute which opulence owes to genius, and which, when paid, honors\nthe giver and the receiver; and then he pleads his beggary as an excuse\nfor his crimes. He melts with tenderness for those only who touch him by\nthe remotest relation, and then, without one natural pang, casts away,\nas a sort of offal and excrement, the spawn of his disgustful amours,\nand sends his children to the hospital of foundlings. The bear loves,\nlicks, and forms her young: but bears are not philosophers. Vanity,\nhowever, finds its account in reversing the train of our natural\nfeelings. Thousands admire the sentimental-writer; the affectionate\nfather is hardly known in his parish.\n\nUnder this philosophic instructor in _the ethics of vanity_, they have\nattempted in France a regeneration of the moral constitution of man.\nStatesmen like your present rulers exist by everything which is\nspurious, fictitious, and false,--by everything which takes the man from\nhis house, and sets him on a stage,--which makes him up an artificial\ncreature, with painted, theatric sentiments, fit to be seen by the glare\nof candle-light, and formed to be contemplated at a due distance. Vanity\nis too apt to prevail in all of us, and in all countries. To the\nimprovement of Frenchmen, it seems not absolutely necessary that it\nshould be taught upon system. But it is plain that the present rebellion\nwas its legitimate offspring, and it is piously fed by that rebellion\nwith a daily dole.\n\nIf the system of institution recommended by the Assembly is false and\ntheatric, it is because their system of government is of the same\ncharacter. To that, and to that alone, it is strictly conformable. To\nunderstand either, we must connect the morals with the politics of the\nlegislators. Your practical philosophers, systematic in everything, have\nwisely began at the source. As the relation between parents and children\nis the first among the elements of vulgar, natural morality,[4] they\nerect statues to a wild, ferocious, low-minded, hard-hearted father, of\nfine general feelings,--a lover of his kind, but a hater of his kindred.\nYour masters reject the duties of this vulgar relation, as contrary to\nliberty, as not founded in the social compact, and not binding according\nto the rights of men; because the relation is not, of course, the result\nof _free election_,--never so on the side of the children, not always on\nthe part of the parents.\n\nThe next relation which they regenerate by their statues to Rousseau is\nthat which is next in sanctity to that of a father. They differ from\nthose old-fashioned thinkers who considered pedagogues as sober and\nvenerable characters, and allied to the parental. The moralists of the\ndark times _pr\u00e6ceptorem sancti voluere parentis esse loco_. In this age\nof light they teach the people that preceptors ought to be in the place\nof gallants. They systematically corrupt a very corruptible race, (for\nsome time a growing nuisance amongst you,)--a set of pert, petulant\nliterators, to whom, instead of their proper, but severe, unostentatious\nduties, they assign the brilliant part of men of wit and pleasure, of\ngay, young, military sparks, and danglers at toilets. They call on the\nrising generation in France to take a sympathy in the adventures and\nfortunes, and they endeavor to engage their sensibility on the side, of\npedagogues who betray the most awful family trusts and vitiate their\nfemale pupils. They teach the people that the debauchers of virgins,\nalmost in the arms of their parents, may be safe inmates in their house,\nand even fit guardians of the honor of those husbands who succeed\nlegally to the office which the young literators had preoccupied\nwithout asking leave of law or conscience.\n\nThus they dispose of all the family relations of parents and children,\nhusbands and wives. Through this same instructor, by whom they corrupt\nthe morals, they corrupt the taste. Taste and elegance, though they are\nreckoned only among the smaller and secondary morals, yet are of no mean\nimportance in the regulation of life. A moral taste is not of force to\nturn vice into virtue; but it recommends virtue with something like the\nblandishments of pleasure, and it infinitely abates the evils of vice.\nRousseau, a writer of great force and vivacity, is totally destitute of\ntaste in any sense of the word. Your masters, who are his scholars,\nconceive that all refinement has an aristocratic character. The last age\nhad exhausted all its powers in giving a grace and nobleness to our\nnatural appetites, and in raising them into a higher class and order\nthan seemed justly to belong to them. Through Rousseau, your masters are\nresolved to destroy these aristocratic prejudices. The passion called\nlove has so general and powerful an influence, it makes so much of the\nentertainment, and indeed so much the occupation, of that part of life\nwhich decides the character forever, that the mode and the principles on\nwhich it engages the sympathy and strikes the imagination become of the\nutmost importance to the morals and manners of every society. Your\nrulers were well aware of this; and in their system of changing your\nmanners to accommodate them to their politics, they found nothing so\nconvenient as Rousseau. Through him they teach men to love after the\nfashion of philosophers: that is, they teach to men, to Frenchmen, a\nlove without gallantry,--a love without anything of that fine flower of\nyouthfulness and gentility which places it, if not among the virtues,\namong the ornaments of life. Instead of this passion, naturally allied\nto grace and manners, they infuse into their youth an unfashioned,\nindelicate, sour, gloomy, ferocious medley of pedantry and lewdness,--of\nmetaphysical speculations blended with the coarsest sensuality. Such is\nthe general morality of the passions to be found in their famous\nphilosopher, in his famous work of philosophic gallantry, the _Nouvelle\n\u00c9loise_.\n\nWhen the fence from the gallantry of preceptors is broken down, and your\nfamilies are no longer protected by decent pride and salutary domestic\nprejudice, there is but one step to a frightful corruption. The rulers\nin the National Assembly are in good hopes that the females of the first\nfamilies in France may become an easy prey to dancing-masters, fiddlers,\npattern-drawers, friseurs, and valets-de-chambre, and other active\ncitizens of that description, who, having the entry into your houses,\nand being half domesticated by their situation, may be blended with you\nby regular and irregular relations. By a law they have made these people\ntheir equals. By adopting the sentiments of Rousseau they have made them\nyour rivals. In this manner these great legislators complete their plan\nof levelling, and establish their rights of men on a sure foundation.\n\nI am certain that the writings of Rousseau lead directly to this kind of\nshameful evil. I have often wondered how he comes to be so much more\nadmired and followed on the Continent than he is here. Perhaps a secret\ncharm in the language may have its share in this extraordinary\ndifference. We certainly perceive, and to a degree we feel, in this\nwriter, a style glowing, animated, enthusiastic, at the same time that\nwe find it lax, diffuse, and not in the best taste of composition,--all\nthe members of the piece being pretty equally labored and expanded,\nwithout any due selection or subordination of parts. He is generally too\nmuch on the stretch, and his manner has little variety. We cannot rest\nupon, any of his works, though they contain observations which\noccasionally discover a considerable insight into human nature. But his\ndoctrines, on the whole, are so inapplicable to real life and manners,\nthat we never dream of drawing from them any rule for laws or conduct,\nor for fortifying or illustrating anything by a reference to his\nopinions. They have with us the fate of older paradoxes:--\n\n    Cum ventum ad _verum_ est, _sensus moresque_ repugnant,\n    Atque ipsa utilitas, justi prope mater et \u00e6qui.\n\nPerhaps bold speculations are more acceptable because more new to you\nthan to us, who have been, long since satiated with them. We continue,\nas in the two last ages, to read, more generally than I believe is now\ndone on the Continent, the authors of sound antiquity. These occupy our\nminds; they give us another taste and turn; and will not suffer us to be\nmore than transiently amused with paradoxical morality. It is not that I\nconsider this writer as wholly destitute of just notions. Amongst his\nirregularities, it must be reckoned that he is sometimes moral, and\nmoral in a very sublime strain. But the _general spirit and tendency_ of\nhis works is mischievous,--and the more mischievous for this mixture:\nfor perfect depravity of sentiment is not reconcilable with eloquence;\nand the mind (though corruptible, not complexionally vicious) would\nreject and throw off with disgust a lesson of pure and unmixed evil.\nThese writers make even virtue a pander to vice.\n\nHowever, I less consider the author than the system of the Assembly in\nperverting morality through his means. This I confess makes me nearly\ndespair of any attempt upon the minds of their followers, through\nreason, honor, or conscience. The great object of your tyrants is to\ndestroy the gentlemen of France; and for that purpose they destroy, to\nthe best of their power, all the effect of those relations which may\nrender considerable men powerful or even safe. To destroy that order,\nthey vitiate the whole community. That no means may exist of\nconfederating against their tyranny, by the false sympathies of this\n_Nouvelle \u00c9loise_ they endeavor to subvert those principles of domestic\ntrust and fidelity which form the discipline of social life. They\npropagate principles by which every servant may think it, if not his\nduty, at least his privilege, to betray his master. By these principles,\nevery considerable father of a family loses the sanctuary of his house.\n_Debet sua cuique domus esse perfugium tutissimum_, says the law, which\nyour legislators have taken so much pains first to decry, then to\nrepeal. They destroy all the tranquillity and security of domestic life:\nturning the asylum of the house into a gloomy prison, where the father\nof the family must drag out a miserable existence, endangered in\nproportion to the apparent means of his safety,--where he is worse than\nsolitary in a crowd of domestics, and more apprehensive from his\nservants and inmates than from the hired, bloodthirsty mob without\ndoors who are ready to pull him to the _lanterne_.\n\nIt is thus, and for the same end, that they endeavor to destroy that\ntribunal of conscience which exists independently of edicts and decrees.\nYour despots govern by terror. They know that he who fears God fears\nnothing else; and therefore they eradicate from the mind, through their\nVoltaire, their Helv\u00e9tius, and the rest of that infamous gang, that only\nsort of fear which generates true courage. Their object is, that their\nfellow-citizens may be under the dominion of no awe but that of their\nCommittee of Research and of their _lanterne_.\n\nHaving found the advantage of assassination in the formation of their\ntyranny, it is the grand resource in which they trust for the support of\nit. Whoever opposes any of their proceedings, or is suspected of a\ndesign to oppose them, is to answer it with his life, or the lives of\nhis wife and children. This infamous, cruel, and cowardly practice of\nassassination they have the impudence to call _merciful_. They boast\nthat they operated their usurpation rather by terror than by force, and\nthat a few seasonable murders have prevented the bloodshed of many\nbattles. There is no doubt they will extend these acts of mercy whenever\nthey see an occasion. Dreadful, however, will be the consequences of\ntheir attempt to avoid the evils of war by the merciful policy of\nmurder. If, by effectual punishment of the guilty, they do not wholly\ndisavow that practice, and the threat of it too, as any part of their\npolicy, if ever a foreign prince enters into France, he must enter it as\ninto a country of assassins. The mode of civilized war will not be\npractised: nor are the French who act on the present system entitled to\nexpect it. They whose known policy it is to assassinate every citizen\nwhom they suspect to be discontented by their tyranny, and to corrupt\nthe soldiery of every open enemy, must look for no modified hostility.\nAll war, which is not battle, will be military execution. This will\nbeget acts of retaliation from you; and every retaliation will beget a\nnew revenge. The hell-hounds of war, on all sides, will be uncoupled and\nunmuzzled. The new school of murder and barbarism set up in Paris,\nhaving destroyed (so far as in it lies) all the other manners and\nprinciples which have hitherto civilized Europe, will destroy also the\nmode of civilized war, which, more than anything else, has distinguished\nthe Christian world. Such is the approaching golden age which the\nVirgil[5] of your Assembly has sung to his Pollios!\n\nIn such a situation of your political, your civil, and your social\nmorals and manners, how can you be hurt by the freedom of any\ndiscussion? Caution is for those who have something to lose. What I have\nsaid, to justify myself in not apprehending any ill consequence from a\nfree discussion of the absurd consequences which flow from the relation\nof the lawful king to the usurped Constitution, will apply to my\nvindication with regard to the exposure I have made of the state of the\narmy under the same sophistic usurpation. The present tyrants want no\narguments to prove, what they must daily feel, that no good army can\nexist on their principles. They are in no want of a monitor to suggest\nto them the policy of getting rid of the army, as well as of the king,\nwhenever they are in a condition to effect that measure. What hopes may\nbe entertained of your army for the restoration of your liberties I know\nnot. At present, yielding obedience to the pretended orders of a king\nwho, they are perfectly apprised, has no will, and who never can issue a\nmandate which is not intended, in the first operation, or in its certain\nconsequences, for his own destruction, your army seems to make one of\nthe principal links in the chain of that servitude of anarchy by which a\ncruel usurpation holds an undone people at once in bondage and\nconfusion.\n\nYou ask me what I think of the conduct of General Monk. How this affects\nyour case I cannot tell. I doubt whether you possess in France any\npersons of a capacity to serve the French monarchy in the same manner in\nwhich Monk served the monarchy of England. The army which Monk commanded\nhad been formed by Cromwell to a perfection of discipline which perhaps\nhas never been exceeded. That army was besides of an excellent\ncomposition. The soldiers were men of extraordinary piety after their\nmode; of the greatest regularity, and even severity of manners; brave in\nthe field, but modest, quiet, and orderly in their quarters; men who\nabhorred the idea of assassinating their officers or any other persons,\nand who (they at least who served in this island) were firmly attached\nto those generals by whom they were well treated and ably commanded.\nSuch an army, once gained, might be depended on. I doubt much, if you\ncould now find a Monk, whether a Monk could find in France such an army.\n\nI certainly agree with you, that in all probability we owe our whole\nConstitution to the restoration of the English monarchy. The state of\nthings from which Monk relieved England was, however, by no means, at\nthat time, so deplorable, in any sense, as yours is now, and under the\npresent sway is likely to continue. Cromwell had delivered England from\nanarchy. His government, though military and despotic, had been regular\nand orderly. Under the iron, and under the yoke, the soil yielded its\nproduce. After his death the evils of anarchy were rather dreaded than\nfelt. Every man was yet safe in his house and in his property. But it\nmust be admitted that Monk freed this nation from great and just\napprehensions both of future anarchy and of probable tyranny in some\nform or other. The king whom he gave us was, indeed, the very reverse of\nyour benignant sovereign, who, in reward for his attempt to bestow\nliberty on his subjects, languishes himself in prison. The person given\nto us by Monk was a man without any sense of his duty as a prince,\nwithout any regard to the dignity of his crown, without any love to his\npeople,--dissolute, false, venal, and destitute of any positive good\nquality whatsoever, except a pleasant temper, and the manners of a\ngentleman. Yet the restoration of our monarchy, even in the person of\nsuch a prince, was everything to us; for without monarchy in England,\nmost certainly we never can enjoy either peace or liberty. It was under\nthis conviction that the very first regular step which we took, on the\nRevolution of 1688, was to fill the throne with a real king; and even\nbefore it could be done in due form, the chiefs of the nation did not\nattempt themselves to exercise authority so much as by _interim_. They\ninstantly requested the Prince of Orange to take the government on\nhimself. The throne was not effectively vacant for an hour.\n\nYour fundamental laws, as well as ours, suppose a monarchy. Your zeal,\nSir, in standing so firmly for it as you have done, shows not only a\nsacred respect for your honor and fidelity, but a well-informed\nattachment to the real welfare and true liberties of your country. I\nhave expressed myself ill, if I have given you cause to imagine that I\nprefer the conduct of those who have retired from this warfare to your\nbehavior, who, with a courage and constancy almost supernatural, have\nstruggled against tyranny, and kept the field to the last. You see I\nhave corrected the exceptionable part in the edition which I now send\nyou. Indeed, in such terrible extremities as yours, it is not easy to\nsay, in a political view, what line of conduct is the most advisable. In\nthat state of things, I cannot bring myself severely to condemn persons\nwho are wholly unable to bear so much as the sight of those men in the\nthrone of legislation who are only fit to be the objects of criminal\njustice. If fatigue, if disgust, if unsurmountable nausea drive them\naway from such spectacles, _ubi miseriarum pars non minima erat videre\net aspici_, I cannot blame them. He must have an heart of adamant who\ncould hear a set of traitors puffed up with unexpected and undeserved\npower, obtained by an ignoble, unmanly, and perfidious rebellion,\ntreating their honest fellow-citizens as _rebels_, because they refused\nto bind them selves through their conscience, against the dictates of\nconscience itself, and had declined to swear an active compliance with\ntheir own ruin. How could a man of common flesh and blood endure that\nthose who but the other day had skulked unobserved in their\nantechambers, scornfully insulting men illustrious in their rank, sacred\nin their function, and venerable in their character, now in decline of\nlife, and swimming on the wrecks of their fortunes,--that those\nmiscreants should tell such men scornfully and outrageously, after they\nhad robbed them of all their property, that it is more than enough, if\nthey are allowed what will keep them from absolute famine, and that, for\nthe rest, they must let their gray hairs fall over the plough, to make\nout a scanty subsistence with the labor of their hands? Last, and,\nworst, who could endure to hear this unnatural, insolent, and savage\ndespotism called liberty? If, at this distance, sitting quietly by my\nfire, I cannot read their decrees and speeches without indignation,\nshall I condemn those who have fled from the actual sight and hearing of\nall these horrors? No, no! mankind has no title to demand that we should\nbe slaves to their guilt and insolence, or that we should serve them in\nspite of themselves. Minds sore with the poignant sense of insulted\nvirtue, filled with high disdain against the pride of triumphant\nbaseness, often have it not in their choice to stand their ground. Their\ncomplexion (which might defy the rack) cannot go through such a trial.\nSomething very high must fortify men to that proof. But when I am driven\nto comparison, surely I cannot hesitate for a moment to prefer to such\nmen as are common those heroes who in the midst of despair perform all\nthe tasks of hope,--who subdue their feelings to their duties,--who, in\nthe cause of humanity, liberty, and honor, abandon all the satisfactions\nof life, and every day incur a fresh risk of life itself. Do me the\njustice to believe that I never can prefer any fastidious virtue (virtue\nstill) to the unconquered perseverance, to the affectionate patience, of\nthose who watch day and night by the bedside of their delirious\ncountry,--who, for their love to that dear and venerable name, bear all\nthe disgusts and all the buffets they receive from their frantic mother.\nSir, I do look on you as true martyrs; I regard you as soldiers who act\nfar more in the spirit of our Commander-in-Chief and the Captain of our\nSalvation than those who have left you: though I must first bolt myself\nvery thoroughly, and know that I could do better, before I can censure\nthem. I assure you, Sir, that, when I consider your unconquerable\nfidelity to your sovereign and to your country,--the courage, fortitude,\nmagnanimity, and long-suffering of yourself, and the Abb\u00e9 Maury, and of\nM. Cazal\u00e8s, and of many worthy persons of all orders in your\nAssembly,--I forget, in the lustre of these great qualities, that on\nyour side has been displayed an eloquence so rational, manly, and\nconvincing, that no time or country, perhaps, has ever excelled. But\nyour talents disappear in my admiration of your virtues.\n\nAs to M. Mounier and M. Lally, I have always wished to do justice to\ntheir parts, and their eloquence, and the general purity of their\nmotives. Indeed, I saw very well, from the beginning, the mischiefs\nwhich, with all these talents and good intentions, they would do their\ncountry, through their confidence in systems. But their distemper was an\nepidemic malady. They were young and inexperienced; and when will young\nand inexperienced men learn caution and distrust of themselves? And when\nwill men, young or old, if suddenly raised to far higher power than that\nwhich absolute kings and emperors commonly enjoy, learn anything like\nmoderation? Monarchs, in general, respect some settled order of things,\nwhich they find it difficult to move from its basis, and to which they\nare obliged to conform, even when there are no positive limitations to\ntheir power. These gentlemen conceived that they were chosen to\nnew-model the state, and even the whole order of civil society itself.\nNo wonder that _they_ entertained dangerous visions, when the king's\nministers, trustees for the sacred deposit of the monarchy, were so\ninfected with the contagion of project and system (I can hardly think it\nblack premeditated treachery) that they publicly advertised for plans\nand schemes of government, as if they were to provide for the rebuilding\nof an hospital that had been burned down. What was this, but to unchain\nthe fury of rash speculation amongst a people of itself but too apt to\nbe guided by a heated imagination and a wild spirit of adventure?\n\nThe fault of M. Mounier and M. Lally was very great; but it was very\ngeneral. If those gentlemen stopped, when they came to the brink of the\ngulf of guilt and public misery that yawned before them in the abyss of\nthese dark and bottomless speculations, I forgive their first error: in\nthat they were involved with many. Their repentance was their own.\n\nThey who consider Mounier and Lally as deserters must regard themselves\nas murderers and as traitors: for from what else than murder and treason\ndid they desert? For my part, I honor them for not having carried\nmistake into crime. If, indeed, I thought that they were not cured by\nexperience, that they were not made sensible that those who would reform\na state ought to assume some actual constitution of government which is\nto be reformed,--if they are not at length satisfied that it is become a\nnecessary preliminary to liberty in France, to commence by the\nre\u00ebstablishment of order and property of _every_ kind, and, through the\nre\u00ebstablishment of their monarchy, of every one of the old habitual\ndistinctions and classes of the state,--if they do not see that these\nclasses are not to be confounded in order to be afterwards revived and\nseparated,--if they are not convinced that the scheme of parochial and\nclub governments takes up the state at the wrong end, and is a low and\nsenseless contrivance, (as making the sole constitution of a supreme\npower,)--I should then allow that their early rashness ought to be\nremembered to the last moment of their lives.\n\nYou gently reprehend me, because, in holding out the picture of your\ndisastrous situation, I suggest no plan for a remedy. Alas! Sir, the\nproposition of plans, without an attention to circumstances, is the very\ncause of all your misfortunes; and never shall you find me aggravating,\nby the infusion of any speculations of mine, the evils which have arisen\nfrom the speculations of others. Your malady, in this respect, is a\ndisorder of repletion. You seem to think that my keeping back my poor\nideas may arise from an indifference to the welfare of a foreign and\nsometimes an hostile nation. No, Sir, I faithfully assure you, my\nreserve is owing to no such causes. Is this letter, swelled to a second\nbook, a mark of national antipathy, or even of national indifference? I\nshould act altogether in the spirit of the same caution, in a similar\nstate of our own domestic affairs. If I were to venture any advice, in\nany case, it would be my best. The sacred duty of an adviser (one of the\nmost inviolable that exists) would lead me, towards a real enemy, to act\nas if my best friend were the party concerned. But I dare not risk a\nspeculation with no better view of your affairs than at present I can\ncommand; my caution is not from disregard, but from solicitude for your\nwelfare. It is suggested solely from my dread of becoming the author of\ninconsiderate counsel.\n\nIt is not, that, as this strange series of actions has passed before my\neyes, I have not indulged my mind in a great variety of political\nspeculations concerning them; but, compelled by no such positive duty as\ndoes not permit me to evade an opinion, called upon by no ruling power,\nwithout authority as I am, and without confidence, I should ill answer\nmy own ideas of what would become myself, or what would be serviceable\nto others, if I were, as a volunteer, to obtrude any project of mine\nupon a nation to whose circumstances I could not be sure it might be\napplicable.\n\nPermit me to say, that, if I were as confident as I ought to be\ndiffident in my own loose, general ideas, I never should venture to\nbroach them, if but at twenty leagues' distance from the centre of your\naffairs. I must see with my own eyes, I must, in a manner, touch with my\nown hands, not only the fixed, but the momentary circumstances, before I\ncould venture to suggest any political project whatsoever. I must know\nthe power and disposition to accept, to execute, to persevere. I must\nsee all the aids and all the obstacles. I must see the means of\ncorrecting the plan, where correctives would be wanted. I must see the\nthings; I must see the men. Without a concurrence and adaptation of\nthese to the design, the very best speculative projects might become not\nonly useless, but mischievous. Plans must be made for men. We cannot\nthink of making men, and binding Nature to our designs. People at a\ndistance must judge ill of men. They do not always answer to their\nreputation, when you approach them. Nay, the perspective varies, and\nshows them quite otherwise than you thought them. At a distance, if we\njudge uncertainly of men, we must judge worse of _opportunities_, which\ncontinually vary their shapes and colors, and pass away like clouds. The\nEastern politicians never do anything without the opinion of the\nastrologers on _the fortunate moment_. They are in the right, if they\ncan do no better; for the opinion of fortune is something towards\ncommanding it. Statesmen of a more judicious prescience look for the\nfortunate moment too; but they seek it, not in the conjunctions and\noppositions of planets, but in the conjunctions and oppositions of men\nand things. These form their almanac.\n\nTo illustrate the mischief of a wise plan, without any attention to\nmeans and circumstances, it is not necessary to go farther than to your\nrecent history. In the condition in which France was found three years\nago, what better system could be proposed, what less even savoring of\nwild theory, what fitter to provide for all the exigencies whilst it\nreformed all the abuses of government, than the convention of the\nStates-General? I think nothing better could be imagined. But I have\ncensured, and do still presume to censure, your Parliament of Paris for\nnot having suggested to the king that this proper measure was of all\nmeasures the most critical and arduous, one in which the utmost\ncircumspection and the greatest number of precautions were the most\nabsolutely necessary. The very confession that a government wants either\namendment in its conformation or relief to great distress causes it to\nlose half its reputation, and as great a proportion of its strength as\ndepends upon that reputation. It was therefore necessary first to put\ngovernment out of danger, whilst at its own desire it suffered such an\noperation as a general reform at the hands of those who were much more\nfilled with a sense of the disease than provided with rational means of\na cure.\n\nIt may be said that this care and these precautions were more naturally\nthe duty of the king's ministers than that of the Parliament. They were\nso: but every man must answer in his estimation for the advice he gives,\nwhen he puts the conduct of his measure into hands who he does not know\nwill execute his plans according to his ideas. Three or four ministers\nwere not to be trusted with the being of the French monarchy, of all the\norders, and of all the distinctions, and all the property of the\nkingdom. What must be the prudence of those who could think, in the then\nknown temper of the people of Paris, of assembling the States at a place\nsituated as Versailles?\n\nThe Parliament of Paris did worse than to inspire this blind confidence\ninto the king. For, as if names were things, they took no notice of\n(indeed, they rather countenanced) the deviations, which were manifest\nin the execution, from the true ancient principles of the plan which\nthey recommended. These deviations (as guardians of the ancient laws,\nusages, and Constitution of the kingdom) the Parliament of Paris ought\nnot to have suffered, without the strongest remonstrances to the throne.\nIt ought to have sounded the alarm to the whole nation, as it had often\ndone on things of infinitely less importance. Under pretence of\nresuscitating the ancient Constitution, the Parliament saw one of the\nstrongest acts of innovation, and the most leading in its consequences,\ncarried into effect before their eyes,--and an innovation through the\nmedium of despotism: that is, they suffered the king's ministers to\nnew-model the whole representation of the _Tiers \u00c9tat_, and, in a great\nmeasure, that of the clergy too, and to destroy the ancient proportions\nof the orders. These changes, unquestionably, the king had no right to\nmake; and here the Parliaments failed in their duty, and, along with\ntheir country, have perished by this failure.\n\nWhat a number of faults have led to this multitude of misfortunes, and\nalmost all from this one source,--that of considering certain general\nmaxims, without attending to circumstances, to times, to places, to\nconjunctures, and to actors! If we do not attend scrupulously to all\nthese, the medicine of to-day becomes the poison of to-morrow. If any\nmeasure was in the abstract better than another, it was to call the\nStates: _ea visa salus morientibus una_. Certainly it had the\nappearance. But see the consequences of not attending to critical\nmoments, of not regarding the symptoms which discriminate diseases, and\nwhich distinguish constitutions, complexions, and humors.\n\n    Mox erat hoc ipsum exitio; furiisque refecti\n    Ardebant; ipsique suos, jam morte sub \u00e6gra,\n    Discissos nudis laniabant dentibus artus.\n\nThus the potion which was given to strengthen the Constitution, to heal\ndivisions, and to compose the minds of men, became the source of\ndebility, frenzy, discord, and utter dissolution.\n\nIn this, perhaps, I have answered, I think, another of your\nquestions,--Whether the British Constitution is adapted to your\ncircumstances? When I praised the British Constitution, and wished it to\nbe well studied, I did not mean that its exterior form and positive\narrangement should become a model for you or for any people servilely to\ncopy. I meant to recommend the _principles_ from which it has grown, and\nthe policy on which it has been progressively improved out of elements\ncommon to you and to us. I am sure it is no visionary theory of mine. It\nis not an advice that subjects you to the hazard of any experiment. I\nbelieved the ancient principles to be wise in all cases of a large\nempire that would be free. I thought you possessed our principles in\nyour old forms in as great a perfection as we did originally. If your\nStates agreed (as I think they did) with your circumstances, they were\nbest for you. As you had a Constitution formed upon principles similar\nto ours, my idea was, that you might have improved them as we have done,\nconforming them to the state and exigencies of the times, and the\ncondition of property in your country,--having the conservation of that\nproperty, and the substantial basis of your monarchy, as principal\nobjects in all your reforms.\n\nI do not advise an House of Lords to you. Your ancient course by\nrepresentatives of the noblesse (in your circumstances) appears to me\nrather a better institution. I know, that, with you, a set of men of\nrank have betrayed their constituents, their honor, their trust, their\nking, and their country, and levelled themselves with their footmen,\nthat through this degradation they might afterwards put themselves above\ntheir natural equals. Some of these persons have entertained a project,\nthat, in reward of this their black perfidy and corruption, they may be\nchosen to give rise to a new order, and to establish themselves into an\nHouse of Lords. Do you think, that, under the name of a British\nConstitution, I mean to recommend to you such Lords, made of such kind\nof stuff? I do not, however, include in this description all of those\nwho are fond of this scheme.\n\nIf you were now to form such an House of Peers, it would bear, in my\nopinion, but little resemblance to ours, in its origin, character, or\nthe purposes which it might answer, at the same time that it would\ndestroy your true natural nobility. But if you are not in a condition to\nframe a House of Lords, still less are you capable, in my opinion, of\nframing anything which virtually and substantially could be answerable\n(for the purposes of a stable, regular government) to our House of\nCommons. That House is, within itself, a much more subtle and artificial\ncombination of parts and powers than people are generally aware of. What\nknits it to the other members of the Constitution, what fits it to be at\nonce the great support and the great control of government, what makes\nit of such admirable service to that monarchy which, if it limits, it\nsecures and strengthens, would require a long discourse, belonging to\nthe leisure of a contemplative man, not to one whose duty it is to join\nin communicating practically to the people the blessings of such a\nConstitution.\n\nYour _Tiers \u00c9tat_ was not in effect and substance an House of Commons.\nYou stood in absolute need of something else to supply the manifest\ndefects in such a body as your _Tiers \u00c9tat_. On a sober and\ndispassionate view of your old Constitution, as connected with all the\npresent circumstances, I was fully persuaded that the crown, standing as\nthings have stood, (and are likely to stand, if you are to have any\nmonarchy at all,) was and is incapable, alone and by itself, of holding\na just balance between the two orders, and at the same time of effecting\nthe interior and exterior purposes of a protecting government. I, whose\nleading principle it is, in a reformation of the state, to make use of\nexisting materials, am of opinion that the representation of the clergy,\nas a separate order, was an institution which touched all the orders\nmore nearly than any of them touched the other; that it was well fitted\nto connect them, and to hold a place in any wise monarchical\ncommonwealth. If I refer you to your original Constitution, and think\nit, as I do, substantially a good one, I do not amuse you in this, more\nthan in other things, with any inventions of mine. A certain\nintemperance of intellect is the disease of the time, and the source of\nall its other diseases. I will keep myself as untainted by it as I can.\nYour architects build without a foundation. I would readily lend an\nhelping hand to any superstructure, when once this is effectually\nsecured,--but first I would say, [Greek: Dos pou st\u00f4].\n\nYou think, Sir, (and you might think rightly, upon the first view of the\ntheory,) that to provide for the exigencies of an empire so situated and\nso related as that of France, its king ought to be invested with powers\nvery much superior to those which the king of England possesses under\nthe letter of our Constitution. Every degree of power necessary to the\nstate, and not destructive to the rational and moral freedom of\nindividuals, to that personal liberty and personal security which\ncontribute so much to the vigor, the prosperity, the happiness, and the\ndignity of a nation,--every degree of power which does not suppose the\ntotal absence of all control and all responsibility on the part of\nministers,--a king of France, in common sense, ought to possess. But\nwhether the exact measure of authority assigned by the letter of the law\nto the king of Great Britain can answer to the exterior or interior\npurposes of the French monarchy is a point which I cannot venture to\njudge upon. Here, both in the power given, and its limitations, we have\nalways cautiously felt our way. The parts of our Constitution have\ngradually, and almost insensibly, in a long course of time, accommodated\nthemselves to each other, and to their common as well as to their\nseparate purposes. But this adaptation of contending parts, as it has\nnot been in ours, so it can never be in yours, or in any country, the\neffect of a single instantaneous regulation, and no sound heads could\never think of doing it in that manner.\n\nI believe, Sir, that many on the Continent altogether mistake the\ncondition of a king of Great Britain. He is a real king, and not an\nexecutive officer. If he will not trouble himself with contemptible\ndetails, nor wish to degrade himself by becoming a party in little\nsquabbles, I am far from sure that a king of Great Britain, in whatever\nconcerns him as a king, or indeed as a rational man, who combines his\npublic interest with his personal satisfaction, does not possess a more\nreal, solid, extensive power than the king of France was possessed of\nbefore this miserable revolution. The direct power of the king of\nEngland is considerable. His indirect, and far more certain power, is\ngreat indeed. He stands in need of nothing towards dignity,--of nothing\ntowards splendor,--of nothing towards authority,--of nothing at all\ntowards consideration abroad. When was it that a king of England wanted\nwherewithal to make him respected, courted, or perhaps even feared, in\nevery state in Europe?\n\nI am constantly of opinion that your States, in three orders, on the\nfooting on which they stood in 1614, were capable of being brought into\na proper and harmonious combination with royal authority. This\nconstitution by Estates was the natural and only just representation of\nFrance. It grew out of the habitual conditions, relations, and\nreciprocal claims of men. It grew out of the circumstances of the\ncountry, and out of the state of property. The wretched scheme of your\npresent masters is not to fit the Constitution to the people, but wholly\nto destroy conditions, to dissolve relations, to change the state of the\nnation, and to subvert property, in order to fit their country to their\ntheory of a Constitution.\n\nUntil you make out practically that great work, a combination of\nopposing forces, \"a work of labor long, and endless praise,\" the utmost\ncaution ought to have been used in the reduction of the royal power,\nwhich alone was capable of holding together the comparatively\nheterogeneous mass of your States. But at this day all these\nconsiderations are unseasonable. To what end should we discuss the\nlimitations of royal power? Your king is in prison. Why speculate on the\nmeasure and standard of liberty? I doubt much, very much indeed, whether\nFrance is at all ripe for liberty on any standard. Men are qualified for\ncivil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral\nchains upon their own appetites,--in proportion as their love to justice\nis above their rapacity,--in proportion as their soundness and sobriety\nof understanding is above their vanity and presumption,--in proportion\nas they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and\ngood, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist,\nunless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere;\nand the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It\nis ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of\nintemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.\n\nThis sentence the prevalent part of your countrymen execute on\nthemselves. They possessed not long since what was next to freedom, a\nmild, paternal monarchy. They despised it for its weakness. They were\noffered a well-poised, free Constitution. It did not suit their taste or\ntheir temper. They carved for themselves: they flew out, murdered,\nrobbed, and rebelled. They have succeeded, and put over their country an\ninsolent tyranny made up of cruel and inexorable masters, and that, too,\nof a description hitherto not known in the world. The powers and\npolicies by which they have succeeded are not those of great statesmen\nor great military commanders, but the practices of incendiaries,\nassassins, housebreakers, robbers, spreaders of false news, forgers of\nfalse orders from authority, and other delinquencies, of which ordinary\njustice takes cognizance. Accordingly, the spirit of their rule is\nexactly correspondent to the means by which they obtained it. They act\nmore in the manner of thieves who have got possession of an house than\nof conquerors who have subdued a nation.\n\nOpposed to these, in appearance, but in appearance only, is another\nband, who call themselves _the Moderate_. These, if I conceive rightly\nof their conduct, are a set of men who approve heartily of the whole\nnew Constitution, but wish to lay heavy on the most atrocious of those\ncrimes by which this fine Constitution of theirs has been obtained. They\nare a sort of people who affect to proceed as if they thought that men\nmay deceive without fraud, rob without injustice, and overturn\neverything without violence. They are men who would usurp the government\nof their country with decency and moderation. In fact, they are nothing\nmore or better than men engaged in desperate designs with feeble minds.\nThey are not honest; they are only ineffectual and unsystematic in their\niniquity. They are persons who want not the dispositions, but the energy\nand vigor, that is necessary for great evil machinations. They find that\nin such designs they fall at best into a secondary rank, and others take\nthe place and lead in usurpation which they are not qualified to obtain\nor to hold. They envy to their companions the natural fruit of their\ncrimes; they join to run them down with the hue and cry of mankind,\nwhich pursues their common offences; and then hope to mount into their\nplaces on the credit of the sobriety with which they show themselves\ndisposed to carry on what may seem most plausible in the mischievous\nprojects they pursue in common. But these men are naturally despised by\nthose who have heads to know, and hearts that are able to go through the\nnecessary demands of bold, wicked enterprises. They are naturally\nclassed below the latter description, and will only be used by them as\ninferior instruments. They will be only the Fairfaxes of your Cromwells.\nIf they mean honestly, why do they not strengthen the arms of honest men\nto support their ancient, legal, wise, and free government, given to\nthem in the spring of 1788, against the inventions of craft and the\ntheories of ignorance and folly? If they do not, they must continue the\nscorn of both parties,--sometimes the tool, sometimes the incumbrance of\nthat whose views they approve, whose conduct they decry. These people\nare only made to be the sport of tyrants. They never can obtain or\ncommunicate freedom.\n\nYou ask me, too, whether we have a Committee of Research. No, Sir,--God\nforbid! It is the necessary instrument of tyranny and usurpation; and\ntherefore I do not wonder that it has had an early establishment under\nyour present lords. We do not want it.\n\nExcuse my length. I have been somewhat occupied since I was honored with\nyour letter; and I should not have been able to answer it at all, but\nfor the holidays, which have given me means of enjoying the leisure of\nthe country. I am called to duties which I am neither able nor willing\nto evade. I must soon return to my old conflict with the corruptions and\noppressions which have prevailed in our Eastern dominions. I must turn\nmyself wholly from those of France.\n\nIn England we _cannot_ work so hard as Frenchmen. Frequent relaxation is\nnecessary to us. You are naturally more intense in your application. I\ndid not know this part of your national character, until I went into\nFrance in 1773. At present, this your disposition to labor is rather\nincreased than lessened. In your Assembly you do not allow yourselves a\nrecess even on Sundays. We have two days in the week, besides the\nfestivals, and besides five or six months of the summer and autumn. This\ncontinued, unremitted effort of the members of your Assembly I take to\nbe one among the causes of the mischief they have done. They who always\nlabor can have no true judgment. You never give yourselves time to cool.\nYou can never survey, from its proper point of sight, the work you have\nfinished, before you decree its final execution. You can never plan the\nfuture by the past. You never go into the country, soberly and\ndispassionately to observe the effect of your measures on their objects.\nYou cannot feel distinctly how far the people are rendered better and\nimproved, or more miserable and depraved, by what you have done. You\ncannot see with your own eyes the sufferings and afflictions you cause.\nYou know them but at a distance, on the statements of those who always\nflatter the reigning power, and who, amidst their representations of the\ngrievances, inflame your minds against those who are oppressed. These\nare amongst the effects of unremitted labor, when men exhaust their\nattention, burn out their candles, and are left in the dark.--_Malo\nmeorum negligentiam, quam istorum obscuram diligentiam_.\n\nI have the honor, &c.,\n\nEDMUND BURKE.\n\nBEACONSFIELD, January 19th, 1791.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] It is said in the last quackish address of the National Assembly to\nthe people of France, that they have not formed their arrangements upon\nvulgar practice, but on a theory which cannot fail,--or something to\nthat effect.\n\n[2] See Burnet's Life of Hale.\n\n[3] The pillory (_carcan_) in England is generally made very high like\nthat raised to exposing the king of France.\n\n[4] \"Filiola tua te delectari l\u00e6tor, et prohari tibi [Greek: Phusik\u00ean]\nesse [Greek: t\u00ean pros ta tekna]: etenim, si h\u00e6c non est, nulla potest\nhomini esse ad hominem natur\u00e6 adjunctio: qua sublata, vit\u00e6 societas\ntollitur. Valete Patron [Rousseau] et tui condiscipuli [L'Assembl\u00e9e\nNationale]\"--Cic. Ep. ad Atticum.\n\n[5] Mirabeau's speech concerning universal peace.\n\n\n\n\nAN\n\nAPPEAL\n\nFROM\n\nTHE NEW TO THE OLD WHIGS,\n\nIN CONSEQUENCE OF SOME LATE\n\nDISCUSSIONS IN PARLIAMENT\n\nRELATIVE TO THE\n\nREFLECTIONS ON THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.\n\n1791.\n\n\n\n\nADVERTISEMENT\n\nTO THE SECOND EDITION.\n\n\nThere are some corrections in this edition, which tend to render the\nsense less obscure in one or two places. The order of the two last\nmembers is also changed, and I believe for the better. This change was\nmade on the suggestion of a very learned person, to the partiality of\nwhose friendship I owe much; to the severity of whose judgment I owe\nmore.\n\n\n\n\nAN APPEAL\n\nFROM\n\nTHE NEW TO THE OLD WHIGS.\n\n\nAt Mr. Burke's time of life, and in his dispositions, _petere honestam\nmissionem_ was all he had to do with his political associates. This boon\nthey have not chosen to grant him. With many expressions of good-will,\nin effect they tell him he has loaded the stage too long. They conceive\nit, though an harsh, yet a necessary office, in full Parliament to\ndeclare to the present age, and to as late a posterity as shall take any\nconcern in the proceedings of our day, that by one book he has disgraced\nthe whole tenor of his life.--Thus they dismiss their old partner of the\nwar. He is advised to retire, whilst they continue to serve the public\nupon wiser principles and under better auspices.\n\nWhether Diogenes the Cynic was a true philosopher cannot easily be\ndetermined. He has written nothing. But the sayings of his which are\nhanded down by others are lively, and may be easily and aptly applied on\nmany occasions by those whose wit is not so perfect as their memory.\nThis Diogenes (as every one will recollect) was citizen of a little\nbleak town situated on the coast of the Euxine, and exposed to all the\nbuffets of that inhospitable sea. He lived at a great distance from\nthose weather-beaten walls, in ease and indolence, and in the midst of\nliterary leisure, when he was informed that his townsmen had condemned\nhim to be banished from Sinope; he answered coolly, \"And I condemn them\nto live in Sinope.\"\n\nThe gentlemen of the party in which Mr. Burke has always acted, in\npassing upon him the sentence of retirement,[6] have done nothing more\nthan to confirm the sentence which he had long before passed upon\nhimself. When that retreat was choice, which the tribunal of his peers\ninflict as punishment, it is plain he does not think their sentence\nintolerably severe. Whether they, who are to continue in the Sinope\nwhich shortly he is to leave, will spend the long years, which I hope\nremain to them, in a manner more to their satisfaction than he shall\nslide down, in silence and obscurity, the slope of his declining days,\nis best known to Him who measures out years, and days, and fortunes.\n\nThe quality of the sentence does not, however, decide on the justice of\nit. Angry friendship is sometimes as bad as calm enmity. For this reason\nthe cold neutrality of abstract justice is, to a good and clear cause, a\nmore desirable thing than an affection liable to be any way disturbed.\nWhen the trial is by friends, if the decision should happen to be\nfavorable, the honor of the acquittal is lessened; if adverse, the\ncondemnation is exceedingly embittered. It is aggravated by coming from\nlips professing friendship, and pronouncing judgment with sorrow and\nreluctance. Taking in the whole view of life, it is more safe to live\nunder the jurisdiction of severe, but steady reason, than under the\nempire of indulgent, but capricious passion. It is certainly well for\nMr. Burke that there are impartial men in the world. To them I address\nmyself, pending the appeal which on his part is made from the living to\nthe dead, from the modern Whigs to the ancient.\n\nThe gentlemen, who, in the name of the party, have passed sentence on\nMr. Burke's book, in the light of literary criticism, are judges above\nall challenge. He did not, indeed, flatter himself that as a writer he\ncould claim the approbation of men whose talents, in his judgment and in\nthe public judgment, approach to prodigies, if ever such persons should\nbe disposed to estimate the merit of a composition upon the standard of\ntheir own ability.\n\nIn their critical censure, though Mr. Burke may find himself humbled by\nit as a writer, as a man, and as an Englishman, he finds matter not only\nof consolation, but of pride. He proposed to convey to a foreign people,\nnot his own ideas, but the prevalent opinions and sentiments of a\nnation, renowned for wisdom, and celebrated in all ages for a\nwell-understood and well-regulated love of freedom. This was the avowed\npurpose of the far greater part of his work. As that work has not been\nill received, and as his critics will not only admit, but contend, that\nthis reception could not be owing to any excellence in the composition\ncapable of perverting the public judgment, it is clear that he is not\ndisavowed by the nation whose sentiments he had undertaken to describe.\nHis representation is authenticated by the verdict of his country. Had\nhis piece, as a work of skill, been thought worthy of commendation, some\ndoubt might have been entertained of the cause of his success. But the\nmatter stands exactly as he wishes it. He is more happy to have his\nfidelity in representation recognized by the body of the people than if\nhe were to be ranked in point of ability (and higher he could not be\nranked) with those whose critical censure he has had the misfortune to\nincur.\n\nIt is not from this part of their decision which the author wishes an\nappeal. There are things which touch him more nearly. To abandon them\nwould argue, not diffidence in his abilities, but treachery to his\ncause. Had his work been recognized as a pattern for dexterous argument\nand powerful eloquence, yet, if it tended to establish maxims or to\ninspire sentiments adverse to the wise and free Constitution of this\nkingdom, he would only have cause to lament that it possessed qualities\nfitted to perpetuate the memory of his offence. Oblivion would be the\nonly means of his escaping the reproaches of posterity. But, after\nreceiving the common allowance due to the common weakness of man, he\nwishes to owe no part of the indulgence of the world to its\nforgetfulness. He is at issue with the party before the present, and,\nif ever he can reach it, before the coming generation.\n\nThe author, several months previous to his publication, well knew that\ntwo gentlemen, both of them possessed of the most distinguished\nabilities, and of a most decisive authority in the party, had differed\nwith him in one of the most material points relative to the French\nRevolution: that is, in their opinion of the behavior of the French\nsoldiery, and its revolt from its officers. At the time of their public\ndeclaration on this subject, he did not imagine the opinion of these two\ngentlemen had extended a great way beyond themselves. He was, however,\nwell aware of the probability that persons of their just credit and\ninfluence would at length dispose the greater number to an agreement\nwith their sentiments, and perhaps might induce the whole body to a\ntacit acquiescence in their declarations, under a natural and not always\nan improper dislike of showing a difference with those who lead their\nparty. I will not deny that in general this conduct in parties is\ndefensible; but within what limits the practice is to be circumscribed,\nand with what exceptions the doctrine which supports it is to be\nreceived, it is not my present purpose to define. The present question\nhas nothing to do with their motives; it only regards the public\nexpression of their sentiments.\n\nThe author is compelled, however reluctantly, to receive the sentence\npronounced upon him in the House of Commons as that of the party. It\nproceeded from the mouth of him who must be regarded as its authentic\norgan. In a discussion which continued for two days, no one gentleman of\nthe opposition interposed a negative, or even a doubt, in favor of him\nor his opinions. If an idea consonant to the doctrine of his book, or\nfavorable to his conduct, lurks in the minds of any persons in that\ndescription, it is to be considered only as a peculiarity which they\nindulge to their own private liberty of thinking. The author cannot\nreckon upon it. It has nothing to do with them as members of a party. In\ntheir public capacity, in everything that meets the public ear or public\neye, the body must be considered as unanimous.\n\nThey must have been animated with a very warm zeal against those\nopinions, because they were under no _necessity_ of acting as they did,\nfrom any just cause of apprehension that the errors of this writer\nshould be taken for theirs. They might disapprove; it was not necessary\nthey should _disavow_ him, as they have done in the whole and in all the\nparts of his book; because neither in the whole nor in any of the parts\nwere they directly, or by any implication, involved. The author was\nknown, indeed, to have been warmly, strenuously, and affectionately,\nagainst all allurements of ambition, and all possibility of alienation\nfrom pride or personal pique or peevish jealousy, attached to the Whig\nparty. With one of them he has had a long friendship, which he must ever\nremember with a melancholy pleasure. To the great, real, and amiable\nvirtues, and to the unequalled abilities of that gentleman, he shall\nalways join with his country in paying a just tribute of applause. There\nare others in that party for whom, without any shade of sorrow, he bears\nas high a degree of love as can enter into the human heart, and as much\nveneration as ought to be paid to human creatures; because he firmly\nbelieves that they are endowed with as many and as great virtues as the\nnature of man is capable of producing, joined to great clearness of\nintellect, to a just judgment, to a wonderful temper, and to true\nwisdom. His sentiments with regard to them can never vary, without\nsubjecting him to the just indignation of mankind, who are bound, and\nare generally disposed, to look up with reverence to the best patterns\nof their species, and such as give a dignity to the nature of which we\nall participate. For the whole of the party he has high respect. Upon a\nview, indeed, of the composition of all parties, he finds great\nsatisfaction. It is, that, in leaving the service of his country, he\nleaves Parliament without all comparison richer in abilities than he\nfound it. Very solid and very brilliant talents distinguish the\nministerial benches. The opposite rows are a sort of seminary of genius,\nand have brought forth such and so great talents as never before\n(amongst us at least) have appeared together. If their owners are\ndisposed to serve their country, (he trusts they are,) they are in a\ncondition to render it services of the highest importance. If, through\nmistake or passion, they are led to contribute to its ruin, we shall at\nleast have a consolation denied to the ruined country that adjoins us:\nwe shall not be destroyed by men of mean or secondary capacities.\n\nAll these considerations of party attachment, of personal regard, and of\npersonal admiration rendered the author of the Reflections extremely\ncautious, lest the slightest suspicion should arise of his having\nundertaken to express the sentiments even of a single man of that\ndescription. His words at the outset of his Reflections are these:--\n\n\"In the first letter I had the honor to write to you, and which at\nlength I send, I wrote neither _for_ nor _from_ any description of men;\nnor shall I in this. My errors, if any, are _my own_. My reputation\n_alone_ is to answer for them.\" In another place he says, (p. 126,[7])\n\"I have _no man's_ proxy. I speak _only_ from _myself_, when I disclaim,\nas I do with all possible earnestness, all communion with the actors in\nthat triumph, or with the admirers of it. When I assert anything else,\nas concerning the people of England, I speak from observation, _not from\nauthority_.\"\n\nTo say, then, that the book did not contain the sentiments of their\nparty is not to contradict the author or to clear themselves. If the\nparty had denied his doctrines to be the current opinions of the\nmajority in the nation, they would have put the question on its true\nissue. There, I hope and believe, his censurers will find, on the trial,\nthat the author is as faithful a representative of the general sentiment\nof the people of England, as any person amongst them can be of the ideas\nof his own party.\n\nThe French Revolution can have no connection with the objects of any\nparties in England formed before the period of that event, unless they\nchoose to imitate any of its acts, or to consolidate any principles of\nthat Revolution with their own opinions. The French Revolution is no\npart of their original contract. The matter, standing by itself, is an\nopen subject of political discussion, like all the other revolutions\n(and there are many) which have been attempted or accomplished in our\nage. But if any considerable number of British subjects, taking a\nfactious interest in the proceedings of France, begin publicly to\nincorporate themselves for the subversion of nothing short of the\n_whole_ Constitution of this kingdom,--to incorporate themselves for the\nutter overthrow of the body of its laws, civil and ecclesiastical, and\nwith them of the whole system of its manners, in favor of the new\nConstitution and of the modern usages of the French nation,--I think no\nparty principle could bind the author not to express his sentiments\nstrongly against such a faction. On the contrary, he was perhaps bound\nto mark his dissent, when the leaders of the party were daily going out\nof their way to make public declarations in Parliament, which,\nnotwithstanding the purity of their intentions, had a tendency to\nencourage ill-designing men in their practices against our Constitution.\n\nThe members of this faction leave no doubt of the nature and the extent\nof the mischief they mean to produce. They declare it openly and\ndecisively. Their intentions are not left equivocal. They are put out of\nall dispute by the thanks which, formally and as it were officially,\nthey issue, in order to recommend and to promote the circulation of the\nmost atrocious and treasonable libels against all the hitherto cherished\nobjects of the love and veneration of this people. Is it contrary to the\nduty of a good subject to reprobate such proceedings? Is it alien to the\noffice of a good member of Parliament, when such practices increase, and\nwhen the audacity of the conspirators grows with their impunity, to\npoint out in his place their evil tendency to the happy Constitution\nwhich he is chosen to guard? Is it wrong, in any sense, to render the\npeople of England sensible how much they must suffer, if, unfortunately,\nsuch a wicked faction should become possessed in this country of the\nsame power which their allies in the very next to us have so\nperfidiously usurped and so outrageously abused? Is it inhuman to\nprevent, if possible, the spilling _their_ blood, or imprudent to guard\nagainst the effusion of _our own?_ Is it contrary to any of the honest\nprinciples of party, or repugnant to any of the known duties of\nfriendship, for any senator respectfully and amicably to caution his\nbrother members against countenancing, by inconsiderate expressions, a\nsort of proceeding which it is impossible they should deliberately\napprove?\n\nHe had undertaken to demonstrate, by arguments which he thought could\nnot be refuted, and by documents which he was sure could not be denied,\nthat no comparison was to be made between the British government and the\nFrench usurpation.--That they who endeavored madly to compare them were\nby no means making the comparison of one good system with another good\nsystem, which varied only in local and circumstantial differences; much\nless that they were holding out to us a superior pattern of legal\nliberty, which we might substitute in the place of our old, and, as they\ndescribe it, superannuated Constitution. He meant to demonstrate that\nthe French scheme was not a comparative good, but a positive evil.--That\nthe question did not at all turn, as it had been stated, on a parallel\nbetween a monarchy and a republic. He denied that the present scheme of\nthings in France did at all deserve the respectable name of a republic:\nhe had therefore no comparison between monarchies and republics to\nmake.--That what was done in France was a wild attempt to methodize\nanarchy, to perpetuate and fix disorder. That it was a foul, impious,\nmonstrous thing, wholly out of the course of moral Nature. He undertook\nto prove that it was generated in treachery, fraud, falsehood,\nhypocrisy, and unprovoked murder.--He offered to make out that those who\nhave led in that business had conducted themselves with the utmost\nperfidy to their colleagues in function, and with the most flagrant\nperjury both towards their king and their constituents: to the one of\nwhom the Assembly had sworn fealty; and to the other, when under no sort\nof violence or constraint, they had sworn a full obedience to\ninstructions.--That, by the terror of assassination, they had driven\naway a very great number of the members, so as to produce a false\nappearance of a majority.--That this fictitious majority had fabricated\na Constitution, which, as now it stands, is a tyranny far beyond any\nexample that can be found in the civilized European world of our age;\nthat therefore the lovers of it must be lovers, not of liberty, but, if\nthey really understand its nature, of the lowest and basest of all\nservitude.\n\nHe proposed to prove that the present state of things in France is not a\ntransient evil, productive, as some have too favorably represented it,\nof a lasting good; but that the present evil is only the means of\nproducing future and (if that were possible) worse evils.--That it is\nnot an undigested, imperfect, and crude scheme of liberty, which may\ngradually be mellowed and ripened into an orderly and social freedom;\nbut that it is so fundamentally wrong as to be utterly incapable of\ncorrecting itself by any length of time, or of being formed into any\nmode of polity of which a member of the House of Commons could publicly\ndeclare his approbation.\n\nIf it had been permitted to Mr. Burke, he would have shown distinctly,\nand in detail, that what the Assembly calling itself National had held\nout as a large and liberal toleration is in reality a cruel and\ninsidious religious persecution, infinitely more bitter than any which\nhad been heard of within this century.--That it had a feature in it\nworse than the old persecutions.--That the old persecutors acted, or\npretended to act, from zeal towards some system of piety and virtue:\nthey gave strong preferences to their own; and if they drove people from\none religion, they provided for them another, in which men might take\nrefuge and expect consolation.--That their new persecution is not\nagainst a variety in conscience, but against all conscience. That it\nprofesses contempt towards its object; and whilst it treats all religion\nwith scorn, is not so much as neutral about the modes: it unites the\nopposite evils of intolerance and of indifference.\n\nHe could have proved that it is so far from rejecting tests, (as\nunaccountably had been asserted,) that the Assembly had imposed tests of\na peculiar hardship, arising from a cruel and premeditated pecuniary\nfraud: tests against old principles, sanctioned by the laws, and binding\nupon the conscience.--That these tests were not imposed as titles to\nsome new honor or some new benefit, but to enable men to hold a poor\ncompensation for their legal estates, of which they had been unjustly\ndeprived; and as they had before been reduced from affluence to\nindigence, so, on refusal to swear against their conscience, they are\nnow driven from indigence to famine, and treated with every possible\ndegree of outrage, insult, and inhumanity.--That these tests, which\ntheir imposers well knew would not be taken, were intended for the very\npurpose of cheating their miserable victims out of the compensation\nwhich the tyrannic impostors of the Assembly had previously and\npurposely rendered the public unable to pay. That thus their ultimate\nviolence arose from their original fraud.\n\nHe would have shown that the universal peace and concord amongst\nnations, which these common enemies to mankind had held out with the\nsame fraudulent ends and pretences with which they had uniformly\nconducted every part of their proceeding, was a coarse and clumsy\ndeception, unworthy to be proposed as an example, by an informed and\nsagacious British senator, to any other country.--That, far from peace\nand good-will to men, they meditated war against all other governments,\nand proposed systematically to excite in them all the very worst kind of\nseditions, in order to lead to their common destruction.--That they had\ndiscovered, in the few instances in which they have hitherto had the\npower of discovering it, (as at Avignon and in the Comtat, at Cavaillon\nand at Carpentras,) in what a savage manner they mean to conduct the\nseditions and wars they have planned against their neighbors, for the\nsake of putting themselves at the head of a confederation of republics\nas wild and as mischievous as their own. He would have shown in what\nmanner that wicked scheme was carried on in those places, without being\ndirectly either owned or disclaimed, in hopes that the undone people\nshould at length be obliged to fly to their tyrannic protection, as some\nsort of refuge from their barbarous and treacherous hostility. He would\nhave shown from those examples that neither this nor any other society\ncould be in safety as long as such a public enemy was in a condition to\ncontinue directly or indirectly such practices against its peace.--That\nGreat Britain was a principal object of their machinations; and that\nthey had begun by establishing correspondences, communications, and a\nsort of federal union with the factious here.--That no practical\nenjoyment of a thing so imperfect and precarious as human happiness must\nbe, even under the very best of governments, could be a security for the\nexistence of these governments, during the prevalence of the principles\nof France, propagated from that grand school of every disorder and every\nvice.\n\nHe was prepared to show the madness of their declaration of the\npretended rights of man,--the childish, futility of some of their\nmaxims, the gross and stupid absurdity and the palpable falsity of\nothers, and the mischievous tendency of all such declarations to the\nwell-being of men and of citizens and to the safety and prosperity of\nevery just commonwealth. He was prepared to show, that, in their\nconduct, the Assembly had directly violated not only every sound\nprinciple of government, but every one, without exception, of their own\nfalse or futile maxims, and indeed every rule they had pretended to lay\ndown for their own direction.\n\nIn a word, he was ready to show that those who could, after such a full\nand fair exposure, continue to countenance the French insanity were not\nmistaken politicians, but bad men; but he thought that in this case, as\nin many others, ignorance had been the cause of admiration.\n\nThese are strong assertions. They required strong proofs. The member who\nlaid down these positions was and is ready to give, in his place, to\neach position decisive evidence, correspondent to the nature and quality\nof the several allegations.\n\nIn order to judge on the propriety of the interruption given to Mr.\nBurke, in his speech in the committee of the Quebec Bill, it is\nnecessary to inquire, First, whether, on general principles, he ought to\nhave been suffered to prove his allegations? Secondly, whether the time\nhe had chosen was so very unseasonable as to make his exercise of a\nparliamentary right productive of ill effects on his friends or his\ncountry? Thirdly, whether the opinions delivered in his book, and which\nhe had begun to expatiate upon that day, were in contradiction to his\nformer principles, and inconsistent with the general tenor of his public\nconduct?\n\nThey who have made eloquent panegyrics on the French Revolution, and who\nthink a free discussion so very advantageous in every case and under\nevery circumstance, ought not, in my opinion, to have prevented their\neulogies from being tried on the test of facts. If their panegyric had\nbeen answered with an invective, (bating the difference in point of\neloquence,) the one would have been as good as the other: that is, they\nwould both of them have been good for nothing. The panegyric and the\nsatire ought to be suffered to go to trial; and that which shrinks from\nif must be contented to stand, at best, as a mere declamation.\n\nI do not think Mr. Burke was wrong in the course he took. That which\nseemed to be recommended to him by Mr. Pitt was rather to extol the\nEnglish Constitution than to attack the French. I do not determine what\nwould be best for Mr. Pitt to do in his situation. I do not deny that\n_he_ may have good reasons for his reserve. Perhaps they might have been\nas good for a similar reserve on the part of Mr. Fox, if his zeal had\nsuffered him to listen to them. But there were no motives of ministerial\nprudence, or of that prudence which ought to guide a man perhaps on the\neve of being minister, to restrain the author of the Reflections. He is\nin no office under the crown; he is not the organ of any party.\n\nThe excellencies of the British Constitution had already exercised and\nexhausted the talents of the best thinkers and the most eloquent writers\nand speakers that the world ever saw. But in the present case a system\ndeclared to be far better, and which certainly is much newer, (to\nrestless and unstable minds no small recommendation,) was held out to\nthe admiration of the good people of England. In that case it was surely\nproper for those who had far other thoughts of the French Constitution\nto scrutinize that plan which has been recommended to our imitation by\nactive and zealous factions at home and abroad. Our complexion is such,\nthat we are palled with enjoyment, and stimulated with hope,--that we\nbecome less sensible to a long-possessed benefit from the very\ncircumstance that it is become habitual. Specious, untried, ambiguous\nprospects of new advantage recommend themselves to the spirit of\nadventure which more or less prevails in every mind. From this temper,\nmen and factions, and nations too, have sacrificed the good of which\nthey had been in assured possession, in favor of wild and irrational\nexpectations. What should hinder Mr. Burke, if he thought this temper\nlikely at one time or other to prevail in our country, from exposing to\na multitude eager to game the false calculations of this lottery of\nfraud?\n\nI allow, as I ought to do, for the effusions which come from a _general_\nzeal for liberty. This is to be indulged, and even to be encouraged, as\nlong as _the question is general_. An orator, above all men, ought to be\nallowed a full and free use of the praise of liberty. A commonplace in\nfavor of slavery and tyranny, delivered to a popular assembly, would\nindeed be a bold defiance to all the principles of rhetoric. But in a\nquestion whether any particular Constitution is or is not a plan of\nrational liberty, this kind of rhetorical flourish in favor of freedom\nin general is surely a little out of its place. It is virtually a\nbegging of the question. It is a song of triumph before the battle.\n\n\"But Mr. Fox does not make the panegyric of the new Constitution; it is\nthe destruction only of the absolute monarchy he commends.\" When that\nnameless thing which has been lately set up in France was described as\n\"the most stupendous and glorious edifice of liberty which had been\nerected on the foundation of human integrity in any time or country,\" it\nmight at first have led the hearer into an opinion that the construction\nof the new fabric was an object of admiration, as well as the demolition\nof the old. Mr. Fox, however, has explained himself; and it would be too\nlike that captious and cavilling spirit which I so perfectly detest, if\nI were to pin down the language of an eloquent and ardent mind to the\npunctilious exactness of a pleader. Then Mr. Fox did not mean to applaud\nthat monstrous thing which, by the courtesy of France, they call a\nConstitution. I easily believe it. Far from meriting the praises of a\ngreat genius like Mr. Fox, it cannot be approved by any man of common\nsense or common information. He cannot admire the change of one piece of\nbarbarism for another, and a worse. He cannot rejoice at the destruction\nof a monarchy, mitigated by manners, respectful to laws and usages, and\nattentive, perhaps but too attentive, to public opinion, in favor of the\ntyranny of a licentious, ferocious, and savage multitude, without laws,\nmanners, or morals, and which, so far from respecting the general sense\nof mankind, insolently endeavors to alter all the principles and\nopinions which have hitherto guided and contained the world, and to\nforce them into a conformity to their views and actions. His mind is\nmade to better things.\n\nThat a man should rejoice and triumph in the destruction of an absolute\nmonarchy,--that in such an event he should overlook the captivity,\ndisgrace, and degradation of an unfortunate prince, and the continual\ndanger to a life which exists only to be endangered,--that he should\noverlook the utter ruin of whole orders and classes of men, extending\nitself directly, or in its nearest consequences, to at least a million\nof our kind, and to at least the temporary wretchedness of a whole\ncommunity,--I do not deny to be in some sort natural; because, when\npeople see a political object which they ardently desire but in one\npoint of view, they are apt extremely to palliate or underrate the evils\nwhich may arise in obtaining it. This is no reflection on the humanity\nof those persons. Their good-nature I am the last man in the world to\ndispute. It only shows that they are not sufficiently informed or\nsufficiently considerate. When they come to reflect seriously on the\ntransaction, they will think themselves bound to examine what the\nobject is that has been acquired by all this havoc. They will hardly\nassert that the destruction of an absolute monarchy is a thing good in\nitself, without any sort of reference to the antecedent state of things,\nor to consequences which result from the change,--without any\nconsideration whether under its ancient rule a country was to a\nconsiderable degree flourishing and populous, highly cultivated and\nhighly commercial, and whether, under that domination, though personal\nliberty had been precarious and insecure, property at least was ever\nviolated. They cannot take the moral sympathies of the human mind along\nwith them, in abstractions separated from the good or evil condition of\nthe state, from the quality of actions, and the character of the actors.\nNone of us love absolute and uncontrolled monarchy; but we could not\nrejoice at the sufferings of a Marcus Aurelius or a Trajan, who were\nabsolute monarchs, as we do when Nero is condemned by the Senate to be\npunished _more majorum_; nor, when that monster was obliged to fly with\nhis wife Sporus, and to drink puddle, were men affected in the same\nmanner as when the venerable Galba, with all his faults and errors, was\nmurdered by a revolted mercenary soldiery. With such things before our\neyes, our feelings contradict our theories; and when this is the case,\nthe feelings are true, and the theory is false. What I contend for is,\nthat, in commending the destruction of an absolute monarchy, _all the\ncircumstances_ ought not to be wholly overlooked, as \"considerations fit\nonly for shallow and superficial minds.\" (The words of Mr. Fox, or to\nthat effect.)\n\nThe subversion of a government, to deserve any praise, must be\nconsidered but as a step preparatory to the formation of something\nbetter, either in the scheme of the government itself, or in the persons\nwho administer it, or in both. These events cannot in reason be\nseparated. For instance, when we praise our Revolution of 1688, though\nthe nation in that act was on the defensive, and was justified in\nincurring all the evils of a defensive war, we do not rest there. We\nalways combine with the subversion of the old government the happy\nsettlement which followed. When we estimate that Revolution, we mean to\ncomprehend in our calculation both the value of the thing parted with\nand the value of the thing received in exchange.\n\nThe burden of proof lies heavily on those who tear to pieces the whole\nframe and contexture of their country, that they could find no other way\nof settling a government fit to obtain its rational ends, except that\nwhich they have pursued by means unfavorable to all the present\nhappiness of millions of people, and to the utter ruin of several\nhundreds of thousands. In their political arrangements, men have no\nright to put the well-being of the present generation wholly out of the\nquestion. Perhaps the only moral trust with any certainty in our hands\nis the care of our own time. With regard to futurity, we are to treat it\nlike a ward. We are not so to attempt an improvement of his fortune as\nto put the capital of his estate to any hazard.\n\nIt is not worth our while to discuss, like sophisters, whether in no\ncase some evil for the sake of some benefit is to be tolerated. Nothing\nuniversal can be rationally affirmed on any moral or any political\nsubject. Pure metaphysical abstraction does not belong to these\nmatters. The lines of morality are not like the ideal lines of\nmathematics. They are broad and deep as well as long. They admit of\nexceptions; they demand modifications. These exceptions and\nmodifications are not made by the process of logic, but by the rules of\nprudence. Prudence is not only the first in rank of the virtues\npolitical and moral, but she is the director, the regulator, the\nstandard of them all. Metaphysics cannot live without definition; but\nPrudence is cautious how she defines. Our courts cannot be more fearful\nin suffering fictitious cases to be brought before them for eliciting\ntheir determination on a point of law than prudent moralists are in\nputting extreme and hazardous cases of conscience upon emergencies not\nexisting. Without attempting, therefore, to define, what never can be\ndefined, the case of a revolution in government, this, I think, may be\nsafely affirmed,--that a sore and pressing evil is to be removed, and\nthat a good, great in its amount and unequivocal in its nature, must be\nprobable almost to certainty, before the inestimable price of our own\nmorals and the well-being of a number of our fellow-citizens is paid for\na revolution. If ever we ought to be economists even to parsimony, it is\nin the voluntary production of evil. Every revolution contains in it\nsomething of evil.\n\nIt must always be, to those who are the greatest amateurs, or even\nprofessors, of revolutions, a matter very hard to prove, that the late\nFrench government was so bad that nothing worse in the infinite devices\nof men could come in its place. They who have brought France to its\npresent condition ought to prove also, by something better than\nprattling about the Bastile, that their subverted government was as\nincapable as the present certainly is of all improvement and\ncorrection. How dare they to say so who have never made that experiment?\nThey are experimenters by their trade. They have made an hundred others,\ninfinitely more hazardous.\n\nThe English admirers of the forty-eight thousand republics which form\nthe French federation praise them not for what they are, but for what\nthey are to become. They do not talk as politicians, but as prophets.\nBut in whatever character they choose to found panegyric on prediction,\nit will be thought a little singular to praise any work, not for its own\nmerits, but for the merits of something else which may succeed to it.\nWhen any political institution is praised, in spite of great and\nprominent faults of every kind, and in all its parts, it must be\nsupposed to have something excellent in its fundamental principles. It\nmust be shown that it is right, though imperfect,--that it is not only\nby possibility susceptible of improvement, but that it contains in it a\nprinciple tending to its melioration.\n\nBefore they attempt to show this progression of their favorite work from\nabsolute pravity to finished perfection, they will find themselves\nengaged in a civil war with those whose cause they maintain. What! alter\nour sublime Constitution, the glory of France, the envy of the world,\nthe pattern for mankind, the masterpiece of legislation, the collected\nand concentrated glory of this enlightened age? Have we not produced it\nready-made and ready-armed, mature in its birth, a perfect goddess of\nwisdom and of war, hammered by our blacksmith midwives out of the brain\nof Jupiter himself? Have we not sworn our devout, profane, believing,\ninfidel people to an allegiance to this goddess, even before she had\nburst the _dura mater_, and as yet existed only in embryo? Have we not\nsolemnly declared this Constitution unalterable by any future\nlegislature? Have we not bound it on posterity forever, though our\nabettors have declared that no one generation is competent to bind\nanother? Have we not obliged the members of every future Assembly to\nqualify themselves for their seats by swearing to its conservation?\n\nIndeed, the French Constitution always must be (if a change is not made\nin all their principles and fundamental arrangements) a government\nwholly by popular representation. It must be this or nothing. The French\nfaction considers as an usurpation, as an atrocious violation of the\nindefensible rights of man, every other description of government. Take\nit, or leave it: there is no medium. Let the irrefragable doctors fight\nout their own controversy in their own way and with their own weapons;\nand when they are tired, let them commence a treaty of peace. Let the\nplenipotentiary sophisters of England settle with the diplomatic\nsophisters of France in what manner right is to be corrected by an\ninfusion of wrong, and how truth may be rendered more true by a due\nintermixture of falsehood.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHaving sufficiently proved that nothing could make it _generally_\nimproper for Mr. Burke to prove what he had alleged concerning the\nobject of this dispute, I pass to the second question, that is, Whether\nhe was justified in choosing the committee on the Quebec Bill as the\nfield for this discussion? If it were necessary, it might be shown that\nhe was not the first to bring these discussions into Parliament, nor the\nfirst to renew them in this session. The fact is notorious. As to the\nQuebec Bill, they were introduced into the debate upon that subject for\ntwo plain reasons: First, that, as he thought it _then_ not advisable to\nmake the proceedings of the factious societies the subject of a direct\nmotion, he had no other way open to him. Nobody has attempted to show\nthat it was at all admissible into any other business before the House.\nHere everything was favorable. Here was a bill to form a new\nConstitution for a French province under English dominion. The question\nnaturally arose, whether we should settle that constitution upon English\nideas, or upon French. This furnished an opportunity for examining into\nthe value of the French Constitution, either considered as applicable to\ncolonial government, or in its own nature. The bill, too, was in a\ncommittee. By the privilege of speaking as often as he pleased, he hoped\nin some measure to supply the want of support, which he had but too much\nreason to apprehend. In a committee it was always in his power to bring\nthe questions from generalities to facts, from declamation to\ndiscussion. Some benefit he actually received from this privilege. These\nare plain, obvious, natural reasons for his conduct. I believe they are\nthe true, and the only true ones.\n\nThey who justify the frequent interruptions, which at length wholly\ndisabled him from proceeding, attribute their conduct to a very\ndifferent interpretation of his motives. They say, that, through\ncorruption, or malice, or folly, he was acting his part in a plot to\nmake his friend Mr. Fox pass for a republican, and thereby to prevent\nthe gracious intentions of his sovereign from taking effect, which at\nthat time had begun to disclose themselves in his favor.[8] This is a\npretty serious charge. This, on Mr. Burke's part, would be something\nmore than mistake, something worse than formal irregularity. Any\ncontumely, any outrage, is readily passed over, by the indulgence which\nwe all owe to sudden passion. These things are soon forgot upon\noccasions in which all men are so apt to forget themselves. Deliberate\ninjuries, to a degree, must be remembered, because they require\ndeliberate precautions to be secured against their return.\n\nI am authorized to say for Mr. Burke, that he considers that cause\nassigned for the outrage offered to him as ten times worse than the\noutrage itself. There is such a strange confusion of ideas on this\nsubject, that it is far more difficult to understand the nature of the\ncharge than to refute it when understood. Mr. Fox's friends were, it\nseems, seized with a sudden panic terror lest he should pass for a\nrepublican. I do not think they had any ground for this apprehension.\nBut let us admit they had. What was there in the Quebec Bill, rather\nthan in any other, which could subject him or them to that imputation?\nNothing in a discussion of the French Constitutions which might arise on\nthe Quebec Bill, could tend to make Mr. Fox pass for a republican,\nexcept he should take occasion to extol that state of things in France\nwhich affects to be a republic or a confederacy of republics. If such an\nencomium could make any unfavorable impression on the king's mind,\nsurely his voluntary panegyrics on that event, not so much introduced as\nintruded into other debates, with which they had little relation, must\nhave produced that effect with much more certainty and much greater\nforce. The Quebec Bill, at worst, was only one of those opportunities\ncarefully sought and industriously improved by himself. Mr. Sheridan had\nalready brought forth a panegyric on the French system in a still higher\nstrain, with full as little demand from the nature of the business\nbefore the House, in a speech too good to be speedily forgotten. Mr. Fox\nfollowed him without any direct call from the subject-matter, and upon\nthe same ground. To canvass the merits of the French Constitution on the\nQuebec Bill could not draw forth any opinions which were not brought\nforward before, with no small ostentation, and with very little of\nnecessity, or perhaps of propriety. What mode or what time of discussing\nthe conduct of the French faction in England would not equally tend to\nkindle this enthusiasm, and afford those occasions for panegyric, which,\nfar from shunning, Mr. Fox has always industriously sought? He himself\nsaid, very truly, in the debate, that no artifices were necessary to\ndraw from him his opinions upon that subject. But to fall upon Mr. Burke\nfor making an use, at worst not more irregular, of the same liberty, is\ntantamount to a plain declaration that the topic of Franco is _tabooed_\nor forbidden ground to Mr. Burke, and to Mr. Burke alone. But surely\nMr. Fox is not a republican; and what should hinder him, when such a\ndiscussion came on, from clearing himself unequivocally (as his friends\nsay he had done near a fortnight before) of all such imputations?\nInstead of being a disadvantage to him, he would have defeated all his\nenemies, and Mr. Burke, since he has thought proper to reckon him\namongst them.\n\nBut it seems some newspaper or other had imputed to him republican\nprinciples, on occasion of his conduct upon the Quebec Bill. Supposing\nMr. Burke to have seen these newspapers, (which is to suppose more than\nI believe to be true,) I would ask, When did the newspapers forbear to\ncharge Mr Fox, or Mr. Burke himself, with republican principles, or any\nother principles which they thought could render both of them odious,\nsometimes to one description of people, sometimes to another? Mr. Burke,\nsince the publication of his pamphlet, has been a thousand times charged\nin the newspapers with holding despotic principles. He could not enjoy\none moment of domestic quiet, he could not perform the least particle of\npublic duty, if he did not altogether disregard the language of those\nlibels. But, however his sensibility might be affected by such abuse, it\nwould in _him_ have been thought a most ridiculous reason for shutting\nup the mouths of Mr. Fox or Mr. Sheridan, so as to prevent their\ndelivering their sentiments of the French Revolution, that, forsooth,\n\"the newspapers had lately charged Mr. Burke with being an enemy to\nliberty.\"\n\nI allow that those gentlemen have privileges to which Mr. Burke has no\nclaim. But their friends ought to plead those privileges, and not to\nassign bad reasons, on the principle of what is fair between man and\nman, and thereby to put themselves on a level with those who can so\neasily refute them. Let them say at once that his reputation is of no\nvalue, and that he has no call to assert it,--but that theirs is of\ninfinite concern to the party and the public, and to that consideration\nhe ought to sacrifice all his opinions and all his feelings.\n\nIn that language I should hear a style correspondent to the\nproceeding,--lofty, indeed, but plain and consistent. Admit, however,\nfor a moment, and merely for argument, that this gentleman had as good a\nright to continue as they had to begin these discussions; in candor and\nequity they must allow that their voluntary descant in praise of the\nFrench Constitution was as much an oblique attack on Mr. Burke as Mr.\nBurke's inquiry into the foundation of this encomium could possibly be\nconstrued into an imputation upon them. They well knew that he felt like\nother men; and of course he would think it mean and unworthy to decline\nasserting in his place, and in the front of able adversaries, the\nprinciples of what he had penned in his closet and without an opponent\nbefore him. They could not but be convinced that declamations of this\nkind would rouse him,--that he must think, coming from men of their\ncalibre, they were highly mischievous,--that they gave countenance to\nbad men and bad designs; and though he was aware that the handling such\nmatters in Parliament was delicate, yet he was a man very likely,\nwhenever, much against his will, they were brought there, to resolve\nthat there they should be thoroughly sifted. Mr. Fox, early in the\npreceding session, had public notice from Mr. Burke of the light in\nwhich he considered every attempt to introduce the example of France\ninto the politics of this country, and of his resolution to break with\nhis host friends and to join with his worst enemies to prevent it. He\nhoped that no such necessity would ever exist; but in case it should,\nhis determination was made. The party knew perfectly that he would at\nleast defend himself. He never intended to attack Mr. Fox, nor did he\nattack him directly or indirectly. His speech kept to its matter. No\npersonality was employed, even in the remotest allusion. He never did\nimpute to that gentleman any republican principles, or any other bad\nprinciples or bad conduct whatsoever. It was far from his words; it was\nfar from his heart. It must be remembered, that, notwithstanding the\nattempt of Mr. Fox to fix on Mr. Burke an unjustifiable change of\nopinion, and the foul crime of teaching a set of maxims to a boy, and\nafterwards, when these maxims became adult in his mature age, of\nabandoning both the disciple and the doctrine, Mr. Burke never\nattempted, in any one particular, either to criminate or to recriminate.\nIt may be said that he had nothing of the kind in his power. This he\ndoes not controvert. He certainly had it not in his inclination. That\ngentleman had as little ground for the charges which he was so easily\nprovoked to make upon him.\n\nThe gentlemen of the party (I include Mr. Fox) have been kind enough to\nconsider the dispute brought on by this business, and the consequent\nseparation of Mr. Burke from their corps, as a matter of regret and\nuneasiness. I cannot be of opinion that by his exclusion they have had\nany loss at all. A man whose opinions are so very adverse to theirs,\nadverse, as it was expressed, \"as pole to pole,\" so mischievously as\nwell as so directly adverse that they found themselves under the\nnecessity of solemnly disclaiming them in full Parliament,--such a man\nmust ever be to them a most unseemly and unprofitable incumbrance. A\nco\u00f6peration with him could only serve to embarrass them in all their\ncouncils. They have besides publicly represented him as a man capable of\nabusing the docility and confidence of ingenuous youth,--and, for a bad\nreason or for no reason, of disgracing his whole public life by a\nscandalous contradiction of every one of his own acts, writings, and\ndeclarations. If these charges be true, their exclusion of such a person\nfrom their body is a circumstance which does equal honor to their\njustice and their prudence. If they express a degree of sensibility in\nbeing obliged to execute this wise and just sentence, from a\nconsideration of some amiable or some pleasant qualities which in his\nprivate life their former friend may happen to possess, they add to the\npraise of their wisdom and firmness the merit of great tenderness of\nheart and humanity of disposition.\n\nOn their ideas, the new Whig party have, in my opinion, acted as became\nthem. The author of the Reflections, however, on his part, cannot,\nwithout great shame to himself, and without entailing everlasting\ndisgrace on his posterity, admit the truth or justice of the charges\nwhich have been made upon him, or allow that he has in those Reflections\ndiscovered any principles to which honest men are bound to declare, not\na shade or two of dissent, but a total, fundamental opposition. He must\nbelieve, if he does not mean wilfully to abandon his cause and his\nreputation, that principles fundamentally at variance with those of his\nbook are fundamentally false. What those principles, the antipodes to\nhis, really are, he can only discover from their contrariety. He is very\nunwilling to suppose that the doctrines of some books lately circulated\nare the principles of the party; though, from the vehement declarations\nagainst his opinions, he is at some loss how to judge otherwise.\n\nFor the present, my plan does not render it necessary to say anything\nfurther concerning the merits either of the one set of opinions or the\nother. The author would have discussed the merits of both in his place,\nbut he was not permitted to do so.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI pass to the next head of charge,--Mr. Burke's inconsistency. It is\ncertainly a great aggravation of his fault in embracing false opinions,\nthat in doing so he is not supposed to fill up a void, but that he is\nguilty of a dereliction of opinions that are true and laudable. This is\nthe great gist of the charge against him. It is not so much that he is\nwrong in his book (that, however, is alleged also) as that he has\ntherein belied his whole life. I believe, if he could venture to value\nhimself upon anything, it is on the virtue of consistency that he would\nvalue himself the most. Strip him of this, and you leave him naked\nindeed.\n\nIn the case of any man who had written something, and spoken a great\ndeal, upon very multifarious matter, during upwards of twenty-five\nyears' public service, and in as great a variety of important events as\nperhaps have ever happened in the same number of years, it would appear\na little hard, in order to charge such a man with inconsistency, to see\ncollected by his friend a sort of digest of his sayings, even to such\nas were merely sportive and jocular. This digest, however, has been\nmade, with equal pains and partiality, and without bringing out those\npassages of his writings which might tend to show with what restrictions\nany expressions quoted from him ought to have been understood. From a\ngreat statesman he did not quite expect this mode of inquisition. If it\nonly appeared in the works of common pamphleteers, Mr. Burke might\nsafely trust to his reputation. When thus urged, he ought, perhaps, to\ndo a little more. It shall be as little as possible; for I hope not much\nis wanting. To be totally silent on his charges would not be respectful\nto Mr. Fox. Accusations sometimes derive a weight from the persons who\nmake them to which they are not entitled from their matter.\n\nHe who thinks that the British Constitution ought to consist of the\nthree members, of three very different natures, of which it does\nactually consist, and thinks it his duty to preserve each of those\nmembers in its proper place and with its proper proportion of power,\nmust (as each shall happen to be attacked) vindicate the three several\nparts on the several principles peculiarly belonging to them. He cannot\nassert the democratic part on the principles on which monarchy is\nsupported, nor can he support monarchy on the principles of democracy,\nnor can he maintain aristocracy on the grounds of the one or of the\nother or of both. All these he must support on grounds that are totally\ndifferent, though practically they may be, and happily with us they are,\nbrought into one harmonious body. A man could not be consistent in\ndefending such various, and, at first view, discordant, parts of a\nmixed Constitution, without that sort of inconsistency with which Mr.\nBurke stands charged.\n\nAs any one of the great members of this Constitution happens to be\nendangered, he that is a friend to all of them chooses and presses the\ntopics necessary for the support of the part attacked, with all the\nstrength, the earnestness, the vehemence, with all the power of stating,\nof argument, and of coloring, which he happens to possess, and which the\ncase demands. He is not to embarrass the minds of his hearers, or to\nincumber or overlay his speech, by bringing into view at once (as if he\nwere reading an academic lecture) all that may and ought, when a just\noccasion presents itself, to be said in favor of the other members. At\nthat time they are out of the court; there is no question concerning\nthem. Whilst he opposes his defence on the part where the attack is\nmade, he presumes that for his regard to the just rights of all the rest\nhe has credit in every candid mind. He ought not to apprehend that his\nraising fences about popular privileges this day will infer that he\nought on the next to concur with those who would pull down the throne;\nbecause on the next he defends the throne, it ought not to be supposed\nthat he has abandoned the rights of the people.\n\nA man, who, among various objects of his equal regard, is secure of\nsome, and full of anxiety for the fate of others, is apt to go to much\ngreater lengths in his preference of the objects of his immediate\nsolicitude than Mr. Burke has ever done. A man so circumstanced often\nseems to undervalue, to vilify, almost to reprobate and disown, those\nthat are out of danger. This is the voice of Nature and truth, and not\nof inconsistency and false pretence. The danger of anything very dear\nto us removes, for the moment, every other affection from the mind. When\nPriam had his whole thoughts employed on the body of his Hector, he\nrepels with indignation, and drives from him with a thousand reproaches,\nhis surviving sons, who with an officious piety crowded about him to\noffer their assistance. A good critic (there is no better than Mr. Fox)\nwould say that this is a masterstroke, and marks a deep understanding of\nNature in the father of poetry. He would despise a Zo\u00eflus who would\nconclude from this passage that Homer meant to represent this man of\naffliction as hating or being indifferent and cold in his affections to\nthe poor relics of his house, or that he preferred a dead carcass to his\nliving children.\n\nMr. Burke does not stand in need of an allowance of this kind, which, if\nhe did, by candid critics ought to be granted to him. If the principles\nof a mixed Constitution be admitted, he wants no more to justify to\nconsistency everything he has said and done during the course of a\npolitical life just touching to its close. I believe that gentleman has\nkept himself more clear of running into the fashion of wild, visionary\ntheories, or of seeking popularity through every means, than any man\nperhaps ever did in the same situation.\n\nHe was the first man who, on the hustings, at a popular election,\nrejected the authority of instructions from constituents,--or who, in\nany place, has argued so fully against it. Perhaps the discredit into\nwhich that doctrine of compulsive instructions under our Constitution is\nsince fallen may be due in a great degree to his opposing himself to it\nin that manner and on that occasion.\n\nThe reforms in representation, and the bills for shortening the duration\nof Parliaments, he uniformly and steadily opposed for many years\ntogether, in contradiction to many of his best friends. These friends,\nhowever, in his better days, when they had more to hope from his service\nand more to fear from his loss than now they have, never chose to find\nany inconsistency between his acts and expressions in favor of liberty\nand his votes on those questions. But there is a time for all things.\n\nAgainst the opinion of many friends, even against the solicitation of\nsome of them, he opposed those of the Church clergy who had petitioned\nthe House of Commons to be discharged from the subscription. Although he\nsupported the Dissenters in their petition for the indulgence which he\nhad refused to the clergy of the Established Church, in this, as he was\nnot guilty of it, so he was not reproached with inconsistency. At the\nsame time he promoted, and against the wish of several, the clause that\ngave the Dissenting teachers another subscription in the place of that\nwhich was then taken away. Neither at that time was the reproach of\ninconsistency brought against him. People could then distinguish between\na difference in conduct under a variation of circumstances and an\ninconsistency in principle. It was not then thought necessary to be\nfreed of him as of an incumbrance.\n\nThese instances, a few among many, are produced as an answer to the\ninsinuation of his having pursued high popular courses which in his late\nbook he has abandoned. Perhaps in his whole life he has never omitted a\nfair occasion, with whatever risk to him of obloquy as an individual,\nwith whatever detriment to his interest as a member of opposition, to\nassert the very same doctrines which appear in that book. He told the\nHouse, upon an important occasion, and pretty early in his service,\nthat, \"being warned by the ill effect of a contrary procedure in great\nexamples, he had taken his ideas of liberty very low in order that they\nshould stick to him and that he might stick to them to the end of his\nlife.\"\n\nAt popular elections the most rigorous casuists will remit a little of\ntheir severity. They will allow to a candidate some unqualified\neffusions in favor of freedom, without binding him to adhere to them in\ntheir utmost extent. But Mr. Burke put a more strict rule upon himself\nthan most moralists would put upon others. At his first offering himself\nto Bristol, where he was almost sure he should not obtain, on that or\nany occasion, a single Tory vote, (in fact, he did obtain but one,) and\nrested wholly on the Whig interest, he thought himself bound to tell to\nthe electors, both before and after his election, exactly what a\nrepresentative they had to expect in him.\n\n\"The _distinguishing_ part of our Constitution,\" he said, \"is its\nliberty. To preserve that liberty inviolate is the _peculiar_ duty and\n_proper_ trust of a member of the House of Commons. But the liberty, the\n_only_ liberty, I mean is a liberty connected with _order;_ and that not\nonly exists _with_ order and virtue, but cannot exist at all _without_\nthem. It inheres in good and steady government, as in _its substance and\nvital principle_.\"\n\nThe liberty to which Mr. Burke declared himself attached is not French\nliberty. That liberty is nothing but the rein given to vice and\nconfusion. Mr. Burke was then, as he was at the writing of his\nReflections, awfully impressed with the difficulties arising from the\ncomplex state of our Constitution and our empire, and that it might\nrequire in different emergencies different sorts of exertions, and the\nsuccessive call upon all the various principles which uphold and justify\nit. This will appear from what he said at the close of the poll.\n\n\"To be a good member of Parliament is, let me tell you, no easy\ntask,--especially at this time, when there is so strong a disposition to\nrun into the perilous extremes of _servile_ compliance or _wild\npopularity_. To unite circumspection with vigor is absolutely necessary,\nbut it is extremely difficult. We are now members for a rich commercial\n_city_; this city, however, is but a part of a rich commercial _nation_,\nthe interests of which are _various, multiform, and intricate_. We are\nmembers for that great _nation_, which, however, is itself but part of a\ngreat _empire_, extended by our virtue and our fortune to the farthest\nlimits of the East and of the West. _All_ these wide-spread interests\nmust be _considered_,--must be _compared_,--must be _reconciled_, if\npossible. We are members for a _free_ country; and surely we all know\nthat the machine of a free constitution is no _simple_ thing, but as\n_intricate_ and as _delicate_ as it is valuable. We are members in a\n_great and ancient_ MONARCHY_; and we must preserve religiously the\ntrue, legal rights of the sovereign, which form the key-stone that binds\ntogether the noble and well-constructed arch of our empire and our\nConstitution_. A constitution made up of _balanced powers_ must ever be\na critical thing. As such I mean to touch that part of it which comes\nwithin my reach.\"\n\nIn this manner Mr. Burke spoke to his constituents seventeen years ago.\nHe spoke, not like a partisan of one particular member of our\nConstitution, but as a person strongly, and on principle, attached to\nthem all. He thought these great and essential members ought to be\npreserved, and preserved each in its place,--and that the monarchy ought\nnot only to be secured in its peculiar existence, but in its preeminence\ntoo, as the presiding and connecting principle of the whole. Let it be\nconsidered whether the language of his book, printed in 1790, differs\nfrom his speech at Bristol in 1774.\n\nWith equal justice his opinions on the American war are introduced, as\nif in his late work he had belied his conduct and opinions in the\ndebates which arose upon that great event. On the American war he never\nhad any opinions which he has seen occasion to retract, or which he has\never retracted. He, indeed, differs essentially from Mr. Fox as to the\ncause of that war. Mr. Fox has been pleased to say that the Americans\nrebelled \"because they thought they had not enjoyed liberty enough.\"\nThis cause of the war, _from him_, I have heard of for the first time.\nIt is true that those who stimulated the nation to that measure did\nfrequently urge this topic. They contended that the Americans had from\nthe beginning aimed at independence,--that from the beginning they meant\nwholly to throw off the authority of the crown, and to break their\nconnection with the parent country. This Mr. Burke never believed. When\nhe moved his second conciliatory proposition, in the year 1776, he\nentered into the discussion of this point at very great length, and,\nfrom nine several heads of presumption, endeavored to prove the charge\nupon that people not to be true.\n\nIf the principles of all he has said and wrote on the occasion be viewed\nwith common temper, the gentlemen of the party will perceive, that, on a\nsupposition that the Americans had rebelled merely in order to enlarge\ntheir liberty, Mr. Burke would have thought very differently of the\nAmerican cause. What might have been in the secret thoughts of some of\ntheir leaders it is impossible to say. As far as a man so locked up as\nDr. Franklin could be expected to communicate his ideas, I believe he\nopened them to Mr. Burke. It was, I think, the very day before he set\nout for America that a very long conversation passed between them, and\nwith a greater air of openness on the Doctor's side than Mr. Burke had\nobserved in him before. In this discourse Dr. Franklin lamented, and\nwith apparent sincerity, the separation which he feared was inevitable\nbetween Great Britain and her colonies. He certainly spoke of it as an\nevent which gave him the greatest concern. America, he said, would never\nagain see such happy days as she had passed under the protection of\nEngland. He observed, that ours was the only instance of a great empire\nin which the most distant parts and members had been as well governed as\nthe metropolis and its vicinage, but that the Americans were going to\nlose the means which secured to them this rare and precious advantage.\nThe question with them was not, whether they were to remain as they had\nbeen before the troubles,--for better, he allowed, they could not hope\nto be,--but whether they were to give up so happy a situation without a\nstruggle. Mr. Burke had several other conversations with him about that\ntime, in none of which, soured and exasperated as his mind certainly\nwas, did he discover any other wish in favor of America than for a\nsecurity to its _ancient_ condition. Mr. Burke's conversation with other\nAmericans was large, indeed, and his inquiries extensive and diligent.\nTrusting to the result of all these means of information, but trusting\nmuch more in the public presumptive indications I have just referred to,\nand to the reiterated solemn declarations of their Assemblies, he always\nfirmly believed that they were purely on the defensive in that\nrebellion. He considered the Americans as standing at that time, and in\nthat controversy, in the same relation to England as England did to King\nJames the Second in 1688. He believed that they had taken up arms from\none motive only: that is, our attempting to tax them without their\nconsent,--to tax them for the purposes of maintaining civil and military\nestablishments. If this attempt of ours could have been practically\nestablished, he thought, with them, that their Assemblies would become\ntotally useless,--that, under the system of policy which was then\npursued, the Americans could have no sort of security for their laws or\nliberties, or for any part of them,--and that the very circumstance of\n_our_ freedom would have augmented the weight of _their_ slavery.\n\nConsidering the Americans on that defensive footing, he thought Great\nBritain ought instantly to have closed with them by the repeal of the\ntaxing act. He was of opinion that our general rights over that country\nwould have been preserved by this timely concession.[9] When, instead of\nthis, a Boston Port Bill, a Massachusetts Charter Bill, a Fishery Bill,\nan Intercourse Bill, I know not how many hostile bills, rushed out like\nso many tempests from all points of the compass, and were accompanied\nfirst with great fleets and armies of English, and followed afterwards\nwith great bodies of foreign troops, he thought that their cause grew\ndaily better, because daily more defensive,--and that ours, because\ndaily more offensive, grew daily worse. He therefore, in two motions, in\ntwo successive years, proposed in Parliament many concessions beyond\nwhat he had reason to think in the beginning of the troubles would ever\nbe seriously demanded.\n\nSo circumstanced, he certainly never could and never did wish the\ncolonists to be subdued by arms. He was fully persuaded, that, if such\nshould be the event, they must be held in that subdued state by a great\nbody of standing forces, and perhaps of foreign forces. He was strongly\nof opinion that such armies, first victorious over Englishmen, in a\nconflict for English constitutional rights and privileges, and\nafterwards habituated (though in America) to keep an English people in a\nstate of abject subjection, would prove fatal in the end to the\nliberties of England itself; that in the mean time this military system\nwould lie as an oppressive burden upon the national finances; that it\nwould constantly breed and feed new discussions, full of heat and\nacrimony, leading possibly to a new series of wars; and that foreign\npowers, whilst we continued in a state at once burdened and distracted,\nmust at length obtain a decided superiority over us. On what part of his\nlate publication, or on what expression that might have escaped him in\nthat work, is any man authorized to charge Mr. Burke with a\ncontradiction to the line of his conduct and to the current of his\ndoctrines on the American war? The pamphlet is in the hands of his\naccusers: let them point out the passage, if they can.\n\nIndeed, the author has been well sifted and scrutinized by his friends.\nHe is even called to an account for every jocular and light expression.\nA ludicrous picture which he made with regard to a passage in the speech\nof a late minister[10] has been brought up against him. That passage\ncontained a lamentation for the loss of monarchy to the Americans, after\nthey had separated from Great Britain. He thought it to be unseasonable,\nill-judged, and ill-sorted with the circumstances of all the parties.\nMr. Burke, it seems, considered it ridiculous to lament the loss of some\nmonarch or other to a rebel people, at the moment they had forever\nquitted their allegiance to theirs and our sovereign, at the time when\nthey had broken off all connection with this nation and had allied\nthemselves with its enemies. He certainly must have thought it open to\nridicule; and now that it is recalled to his memory, (he had, I believe,\nwholly forgotten the circumstance,) he recollects that he did treat it\nwith some levity. But is it a fair inference from a jest on this\nunseasonable lamentation, that he was then an enemy to monarchy, either\nin this or in any other country? The contrary perhaps ought to be\ninferred,--if anything at all can be argued from pleasantries good or\nbad. Is it for this reason, or for anything he has said or done relative\nto the American war, that he is to enter into an alliance offensive and\ndefensive with every rebellion, in every country, under every\ncircumstance, and raised upon whatever pretence? Is it because he did\nnot wish the Americans to be subdued by arms, that he must be\ninconsistent with himself, if he reprobates the conduct of those\nsocieties in England, who, alleging no one act of tyranny or oppression,\nand complaining of no hostile attempt against our ancient laws, rights,\nand usages, are now endeavoring to work the destruction of the crown of\nthis kingdom, and the whole of its Constitution? Is he obliged, from the\nconcessions he wished to be made to the colonies, to keep any terms with\nthose clubs and federations who hold out to us, as a pattern for\nimitation, the proceedings in France, in which a king, who had\nvoluntarily and formally divested himself of the right of taxation, and\nof all other species of arbitrary power, has been dethroned? Is it\nbecause Mr. Burke wished to have America rather conciliated than\nvanquished, that he must wish well to the army of republics which are\nset up in France,--a country wherein not the people, but the monarch,\nwas wholly on the defensive, (a poor, indeed, and feeble defensive,) to\npreserve _some fragments_ of the royal authority against a determined\nand desperate body of conspirators, whose object it was, with whatever\ncertainty of crimes, with whatever hazard of war, and every other\nspecies of calamity, to annihilate the _whole_ of that authority, to\nlevel all ranks, orders, and distinctions in the state, and utterly to\ndestroy property, not more by their acts than in their principles?\n\nMr. Burke has been also reproached with an inconsistency between his\nlate writings and his former conduct, because he had proposed in\nParliament several economical, leading to several constitutional\nreforms. Mr. Burke thought, with a majority of the House of Commons,\nthat the influence of the crown at one time was too great; but after his\nMajesty had, by a gracious message, and several subsequent acts of\nParliament, reduced it to a standard which satisfied Mr. Fox himself,\nand, apparently at least, contented whoever wished to go farthest in\nthat reduction, is Mr. Burke to allow that it would be right for us to\nproceed to indefinite lengths upon that subject? that it would therefore\nbe justifiable in a people owing allegiance to a monarchy, and\nprofessing to maintain it, not to _reduce_, but wholly to _take away\nall_ prerogative and _all_ influence whatsoever? Must his having made,\nin virtue of a plan of economical regulation, a reduction of the\ninfluence of the crown compel him to allow that it would be right in the\nFrench or in us to bring a king to so abject a state as in function not\nto be so respectable as an under-sheriff, but in person not to differ\nfrom the condition of a mere prisoner? One would think that such a thing\nas a medium had never been heard of in the moral world.\n\nThis mode of arguing from your having done _any_ thing in a certain line\nto the necessity of doing _every_ thing has political consequences of\nother moment than those of a logical fallacy. If no man can propose any\ndiminution or modification of an invidious or dangerous power or\ninfluence in government, without entitling friends turned into\nadversaries to argue him into the destruction of all prerogative, and to\na spoliation of the whole patronage of royalty, I do not know what can\nmore effectually deter persons of sober minds from engaging in any\nreform, nor how the worst enemies to the liberty of the subject could\ncontrive any method more fit to bring all correctives on the power of\nthe crown into suspicion and disrepute.\n\nIf, say his accusers, the dread of too great influence in the crown of\nGreat Britain could justify the degree of reform which he adopted, the\ndread of a return under the despotism of a monarchy might justify the\npeople of France in going much further, and reducing monarchy to its\npresent nothing.--Mr. Burke does not allow that a sufficient argument\n_ad hominem_ is inferable from these premises. If the horror of the\nexcesses of an absolute monarchy furnishes a reason for abolishing it,\nno monarchy once absolute (all have been so at one period or other)\ncould ever be limited. It must be destroyed; otherwise no way could be\nfound to quiet the fears of those who were formerly subjected to that\nsway. But the principle of Mr. Burke's proceeding ought to lead him to a\nvery different conclusion,--to this conclusion,--that a monarchy is a\nthing perfectly susceptible of reform, perfectly susceptible of a\nbalance of power, and that, when reformed and balanced, for a great\ncountry it is the best of all governments. The example of our country\nmight have led France, as it has led him, to perceive that monarchy is\nnot only reconcilable to liberty, but that it may be rendered a great\nand stable security to its perpetual enjoyment. No correctives which he\nproposed to the power of the crown could lead him to approve of a plan\nof a republic (if so it may be reputed) which has no correctives, and\nwhich he believes to be incapable of admitting any. No principle of Mr.\nBurke's conduct or writings obliged him from consistency to become an\nadvocate for an exchange of mischiefs; no principle of his could compel\nhim to justify the setting up in the place of a mitigated monarchy a new\nand far more despotic power, under which there is no trace of liberty,\nexcept what appears in confusion and in crime.\n\nMr. Burke does not admit that the faction predominant in France have\nabolished their monarchy, and the orders of their state, from any dread\nof arbitrary power that lay heavy on the minds of the people. It is not\nvery long since he has been in that country. Whilst there he conversed\nwith many descriptions of its inhabitants. A few persons of rank did, he\nallows, discover strong and manifest tokens of such a spirit of liberty\nas might be expected one day to break all bounds. Such gentlemen have\nsince had more reason to repent of their want of foresight than I hope\nany of the same class will ever have in this country. But this spirit\nwas far from general, even amongst the gentlemen. As to the lower\norders, and those little above them, in whose name the present powers\ndomineer, they were far from discovering any sort of dissatisfaction\nwith the power and prerogatives of the crown. That vain people were\nrather proud of them: they rather despised the English for not having a\nmonarch possessed of such high and perfect authority. _They_ had felt\nnothing from _lettres de cachet_. The Bastile could inspire no horrors\ninto _them_. This was a treat for their betters. It was by art and\nimpulse, it was by the sinister use made of a season of scarcity, it was\nunder an infinitely diversified succession of wicked pretences wholly\nforeign to the question of monarchy or aristocracy, that this light\npeople were inspired with their present spirit of levelling. Their old\nvanity was led by art to take another turn: it was dazzled and seduced\nby military liveries, cockades, and epaulets, until the French populace\nwas led to become the willing, but still the proud and thoughtless,\ninstrument and victim of another domination. Neither did that people\ndespise or hate or fear their nobility: on the contrary, they valued\nthemselves on the generous qualities which distinguished the chiefs of\ntheir nation.\n\nSo far as to the attack on Mr. Burke in consequence of his reforms.\n\nTo show that he has in his last publication abandoned those principles\nof liberty which have given energy to his youth, and in spite of his\ncensors will afford repose and consolation to his declining age, those\nwho have thought proper in Parliament to declare against his book ought\nto have produced something in it which directly or indirectly militates\nwith any rational plan of free government. It is something\nextraordinary, that they whose memories have so well served them with\nregard to light and ludicrous expressions, which years had consigned to\noblivion, should not have been able to quote a single passage in a piece\nso lately published, which contradicts anything he has formerly ever\nsaid in a style either ludicrous or serious. They quote his former\nspeeches and his former votes, but not one syllable from the book. It is\nonly by a collation of the one with the other that the alleged\ninconsistency can be established. But as they are unable to cite any\nsuch contradictory passage, so neither can they show anything in the\ngeneral tendency and spirit of the whole work unfavorable to a rational\nand generous spirit of liberty; unless a warm opposition to the spirit\nof levelling, to the spirit of impiety, to the spirit of proscription,\nplunder, murder, and cannibalism, be adverse to the true principles of\nfreedom.\n\nThe author of that book is supposed to have passed from extreme to\nextreme; but he has always kept himself in a medium. This charge is not\nso wonderful. It is in the nature of things, that they who are in the\ncentre of a circle should appear directly opposed to those who view them\nfrom any part of the circumference. In that middle point, however, he\nwill still remain, though he may hear people who themselves run beyond\nAurora and the Ganges cry out that he is at the extremity of the West.\n\nIn the same debate Mr. Burke was represented by Mr. Fox as arguing in a\nmanner which implied that the British Constitution could not be\ndefended, but by abusing all republics ancient and modern. He said\nnothing to give the least ground for such a censure. He never abused all\nrepublics. He has never professed himself a friend or an enemy to\nrepublics or to monarchies in the abstract. He thought that the\ncircumstances and habits of every country, which it is always perilous\nand productive of the greatest calamities to force, are to decide upon\nthe form of its government. There is nothing in his nature, his temper,\nor his faculties which should make him an enemy to any republic, modern\nor ancient. Far from it. He has studied the form and spirit of republics\nvery early in life; he has studied them with great attention, and with a\nmind undisturbed by affection or prejudice. He is, indeed, convinced\nthat the science of government would be poorly cultivated without that\nstudy. But the result in his mind from that investigation has been and\nis, that neither England nor France, without infinite detriment to them,\nas well in the event as in the experiment, could be brought into a\nrepublican form; but that everything republican which can be introduced\nwith safety into either of them must be built upon a monarchy,--built\nupon a real, not a nominal monarchy, _as its essential basis_; that all\nsuch institutions, whether aristocratic or democratic, must originate\nfrom their crown, and in all their proceedings must refer to it; that by\nthe energy of that mainspring alone those republican parts must be set\nin action, and from thence must derive their whole legal effect, (as\namongst us they actually do,) or the whole will fall into confusion.\nThese republican members have no other point but the crown in which they\ncan possibly unite.\n\nThis is the opinion expressed in Mr. Burke's book. He has never varied\nin that opinion since he came to years of discretion. But surely, if at\nany time of his life he had entertained other notions, (which, however,\nhe has never held or professed to hold,) the horrible calamities brought\nupon a great people by the wild attempt to force their country into a\nrepublic might be more than sufficient to undeceive his understanding,\nand to free it forever from such destructive fancies. He is certain that\nmany, even in France, have been made sick of their theories by their\nvery success in realizing them.\n\nTo fortify the imputation of a desertion from his principles, his\nconstant attempts to reform abuses have been brought forward. It is\ntrue, it has been the business of his strength to reform abuses in\ngovernment, and his last feeble efforts are employed in a struggle\nagainst them. Politically he has lived in that element; politically he\nwill die in it. Before he departs, I will admit for him that he deserves\nto have all his titles of merit brought forth, as they have been, for\ngrounds of condemnation, if one word justifying or supporting abuses of\nany sort is to be found in that book which has kindled so much\nindignation in the mind of a great man. On the contrary, it spares no\nexisting abuse. Its very purpose is to make war with abuses,--not,\nindeed, to make war with the dead, but with those which live, and\nflourish, and reign.\n\nThe _purpose_ for which the abuses of government are brought into view\nforms a very material consideration in the mode of treating them. The\ncomplaints of a friend are things very different from the invectives of\nan enemy. The charge of abuses on the late monarchy of France was not\nintended to lead to its reformation, but to justify its destruction.\nThey who have raked into all history for the faults of kings, and who\nhave aggravated every fault they have found, have acted consistently,\nbecause they acted as enemies. No man can be a friend to a tempered\nmonarchy who bears a decided hatred to monarchy itself. He, who, at the\npresent time, is favorable or even fair to that system, must act towards\nit as towards a friend with frailties who is under the prosecution of\nimplacable foes. I think it a duty, in that case, not to inflame the\npublic mind against the obnoxious person by any exaggeration of his\nfaults. It is our duty rather to palliate his errors and defects, or to\ncast them into the shade, and industriously to bring forward any good\nqualities that he may happen to possess. But when the man is to be\namended, and by amendment to be preserved, then the line of duty takes\nanother direction. When his safety is effectually provided for, it then\nbecomes the office of a friend to urge his faults and vices with all the\nenergy of enlightened affection, to paint them in their most vivid\ncolors, and to bring the moral patient to a better habit. Thus I think\nwith regard to individuals; thus I think with regard to ancient and\nrespected governments and orders of men. A spirit of reformation is\nnever more consistent with itself than when it refuses to be rendered\nthe means of destruction.\n\nI suppose that enough is said upon these heads of accusation. One more I\nhad nearly forgotten, but I shall soon dispatch it. The author of the\nReflections, in the opening of the last Parliament, entered on the\njournals of the House of Commons a motion for a remonstrance to the\ncrown, which is substantially a defence of the preceding Parliament,\nthat had been dissolved under displeasure. It is a defence of Mr. Fox.\nIt is a defence of the Whigs. By what connection of argument, by what\nassociation of ideas, this apology for Mr. Fox and his party is by him\nand them brought to criminate his and their apologist, I cannot easily\ndivine. It is true that Mr. Burke received no previous encouragement\nfrom Mr. Fox, nor any the least countenance or support, at the time when\nthe motion was made, from him or from any gentleman of the party,--one\nonly excepted, from whose friendship, on that and on other occasions, he\nderives an honor to which he must be dull indeed to be insensible.[11]\nIf that remonstrance, therefore, was a false or feeble defence of the\nmeasures of the party, they were in no wise affected by it. It stands on\nthe journals. This secures to it a permanence which the author cannot\nexpect to any other work of his. Let it speak for itself to the present\nage and to all posterity. The party had no concern in it; and it can\nnever be quoted against them. But in the late debate it was produced,\nnot to clear the party from an improper defence in which they had no\nshare, but for the kind purpose of insinuating an inconsistency between\nthe principles of Mr. Burke's defence of the dissolved Parliament and\nthose on which he proceeded in his late Reflections on France.\n\nIt requires great ingenuity to make out such a parallel between the two\ncases as to found a charge of inconsistency in the principles assumed in\narguing the one and the other. What relation had Mr. Fox's India Bill to\nthe Constitution of France? What relation had that Constitution to the\nquestion of right in an House of Commons to give or to withhold its\nconfidence from ministers, and to state that opinion to the crown? What\nhad this discussion to do with Mr. Burke's idea in 1784 of the ill\nconsequences which must in the end arise to the crown from setting up\nthe commons at large as an opposite interest to the commons in\nParliament? What has this discussion to do with a recorded warning to\nthe people of their rashly forming a precipitate judgment against their\nrepresentatives? What had Mr. Burke's opinion of the danger of\nintroducing new theoretic language, unknown to the records of the\nkingdom, and calculated to excite vexatious questions, into a\nParliamentary proceeding, to do with the French Assembly, which defies\nall precedent, and places its whole glory in realizing what had been\nthought the most visionary theories? What had this in common with the\nabolition of the French monarchy, or with the principles upon which the\nEnglish Revolution was justified,--a Revolution in which Parliament, in\nall its acts and all its declarations, religiously adheres to \"the form\nof sound words,\" without excluding from private discussions such terms\nof art as may serve to conduct an inquiry for which none but private\npersons are responsible? These were the topics of Mr. Burke's proposed\nremonstrance; all of which topics suppose the existence and mutual\nrelation of our three estates,--as well as the relation of the East\nIndia Company to the crown, to Parliament, and to the peculiar laws,\nrights, and usages of the people of Hindostan. What reference, I say,\nhad these topics to the Constitution of France, in which there is no\nking, no lords, no commons, no India Company to injure or support, no\nIndian empire to govern or oppress? What relation had all or any of\nthese, or any question which could arise between the prerogatives of the\ncrown and the privileges of Parliament, with the censure of those\nfactious persons in Great Britain whom Mr. Burke states to be engaged,\nnot in favor of privilege against prerogative, or of prerogative against\nprivilege, but in an open attempt against our crown and our Parliament,\nagainst our Constitution in Church and State, against all the parts and\norders which compose the one and the other?\n\nNo persons were more fiercely active against Mr. Fox, and against the\nmeasures of the House of Commons dissolved in 1784, which Mr. Burke\ndefends in that remonstrance, than several of those revolution-makers\nwhom Mr. Burke condemns alike in his remonstrance and in his book. These\nrevolutionists, indeed, may be well thought to vary in their conduct. He\nis, however, far from accusing them, in this variation, of the smallest\ndegree of inconsistency. He is persuaded that they are totally\nindifferent at which end they begin the demolition of the Constitution.\nSome are for commencing their operations with the destruction of the\ncivil powers, in order the better to pull down the ecclesiastical,--some\nwish to begin with the ecclesiastical, in order to facilitate the ruin\nof the civil; some would destroy the House of Commons through the crown,\nsome the crown through the House of Commons, and some would overturn\nboth the one and the other through what they call the people. But I\nbelieve that this injured writer will think it not at all inconsistent\nwith his present duty or with his former life strenuously to oppose all\nthe various partisans of destruction, let them begin where or when or\nhow they will. No man would set his face more determinedly against those\nwho should attempt to deprive them, or any description of men, of the\nrights they possess. No man would be more steady in preventing them from\nabusing those rights to the destruction of that happy order under which\nthey enjoy them. As to their title to anything further, it ought to be\ngrounded on the proof they give of the safety with which power may be\ntrusted in their hands. When they attempt without disguise, not to win\nit from our affections, but to force it from our fears, they show, in\nthe character of their means of obtaining it, the use they would make of\ntheir dominion. That writer is too well read in men not to know how\noften the desire and design of a tyrannic domination lurks in the claim\nof an extravagant liberty. Perhaps in the beginning it _always_ displays\nitself in that manner. No man has ever affected power which he did not\nhope from the favor of the existing government in any other mode.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe attacks on the author's consistency relative to France are (however\ngrievous they may be to his feelings) in a great degree external to him\nand to us, and comparatively of little moment to the people of England.\nThe substantial charge upon him is concerning his doctrines relative to\nthe Revolution of 1688. Here it is that they who speak in the name of\nthe party have thought proper to censure him the most loudly and with\nthe greatest asperity. Here they fasten, and, if they are right in their\nfact, with sufficient judgment in their selection. If he be guilty in\nthis point, he is equally blamable, whether he is consistent or not. If\nhe endeavors to delude his countrymen by a false representation of the\nspirit of that leading event, and of the true nature and tenure of the\ngovernment formed in consequence of it, he is deeply responsible, he is\nan enemy to the free Constitution of the kingdom. But he is not guilty\nin any sense. I maintain that in his Reflections he has stated the\nRevolution and the Settlement upon their true principles of legal reason\nand constitutional policy.\n\nHis authorities are the acts and declarations of Parliament, given in\ntheir proper words. So far as these go, nothing can be added to what he\nhas quoted. The question is, whether he has understood them rightly. I\nthink they speak plain enough. But we must now see whether he proceeds\nwith other authority than his own constructions, and, if he does, on\nwhat sort of authority he proceeds. In this part, his defence will not\nbe made by argument, but by wager of law. He takes his compurgators, his\nvouchers, his guaranties, along with him. I know that he will not be\nsatisfied with a justification proceeding on general reasons of policy.\nHe must be defended on party grounds, too, or his cause is not so\ntenable as I wish it to appear. It must be made out for him not only\nthat in his construction of these public acts and monuments he conforms\nhimself to the rules of fair, legal, and logical interpretation, but it\nmust be proved that his construction is in perfect harmony with that of\nthe ancient Whigs, to whom, against the sentence of the modern, on his\npart, I here appeal.\n\nThis July it will be twenty-six years[12] since he became connected with\na man whose memory will ever be precious to Englishmen of all parties,\nas long as the ideas of honor and virtue, public and private, are\nunderstood and cherished in this nation. That memory will be kept alive\nwith particular veneration by all rational and honorable Whigs. Mr.\nBurke entered into a connection with that party through that man, at an\nage far from raw and immature,--at those years when men are all they are\never likely to become,--when he was in the prime and vigor of his\nlife,--when the powers of his understanding, according to their\nstandard, were at the best, his memory exercised, his judgment formed,\nand his reading much fresher in the recollection and much readier in the\napplication than now it is. He was at that time as likely as most men to\nknow what were Whig and what were Tory principles. He was in a situation\nto discern what sort of Whig principles they entertained with whom it\nwas his wish to form an eternal connection. Foolish he would have been\nat that time of life (more foolish than any man who undertakes a public\ntrust would be thought) to adhere to a cause which he, amongst all those\nwho were engaged in it, had the least sanguine hopes of as a road to\npower.\n\nThere are who remember, that, on the removal of the Whigs in the year\n1766, he was as free to choose another connection as any man in the\nkingdom. To put himself out of the way of the negotiations which were\nthen carrying on very eagerly and through many channels with the Earl of\nChatham, he went to Ireland very soon after the change of ministry, and\ndid not return until the meeting of Parliament. He was at that time free\nfrom anything which looked like an engagement. He was further free at\nthe desire of his friends; for, the very day of his return, the Marquis\nof Rockingham wished him to accept an employment under the new system.\nHe believes he might have had such a situation; but again he cheerfully\ntook his fate with the party.\n\nIt would be a serious imputation upon the prudence of my friend, to have\nmade even such trivial sacrifices as it was in his power to make for\nprinciples which he did not truly embrace or did not perfectly\nunderstand. In either case the folly would have been great. The question\nnow is, whether, when he first practically professed Whig principles, he\nunderstood what principles he professed, and whether in his book he has\nfaithfully expressed them.\n\nWhen he entered into the Whig party, he did not conceive that they\npretended to any discoveries. They did not affect to be better Whigs\nthan those were who lived in the days in which principle was put to the\ntest. Some of the Whigs of those days were then living. They were what\nthe Whigs had been at the Revolution,--what they had been during the\nreign of Queen Anne,--what they had been at the accession of the present\nroyal family.\n\nWhat they were at those periods is to be seen. It rarely happens to a\nparty to have the opportunity of a clear, authentic, recorded\ndeclaration of their political tenets upon the subject of a great\nconstitutional event like that of the Revolution. The Whigs had that\nopportunity,--or to speak more properly, they made it. The impeachment\nof Dr. Sacheverell was undertaken by a Whig ministry and a Whig House of\nCommons, and carried on before a prevalent and steady majority of Whig\npeers. It was carried on for the express purpose of stating the true\ngrounds and principles of the Revolution,--what the Commons emphatically\ncalled their _foundation_. It was carried on for the purpose of\ncondemning the principles on which the Revolution was first opposed and\nafterwards calumniated, in order, by a juridical sentence of the highest\nauthority, to confirm and fix Whig principles, as they had operated both\nin the resistance to King James and in the subsequent settlement, and to\nfix them in the extent and with the limitations with which it was meant\nthey should be understood by posterity. The ministers and managers for\nthe Commons were persons who had, many of them, an active share in the\nRevolution. Most of them had seen it at an age capable of reflection.\nThe grand event, and all the discussions which led to it and followed\nit, were then alive in the memory and conversation of all men. The\nmanagers for the Commons must be supposed to have spoken on that subject\nthe prevalent ideas of the leading party in the Commons, and of the Whig\nministry. Undoubtedly they spoke also their own private opinions; and\nthe private opinions of such men are not without weight. They were not\n_umbratiles doctores_, men who had studied a free Constitution only in\nits anatomy and upon dead systems. They knew it alive and in action.\n\nIn this proceeding the Whig principles, as applied to the Revolution and\nSettlement, are to be found, or they are to be found nowhere. I wish the\nWhig readers of this Appeal first to turn to Mr. Burke's Reflections,\nfrom page 20 to page 50,[13] and then to attend to the following\nextracts from the trial of Dr. Sacheverell. After this, they will\nconsider two things: first, whether the doctrine in Mr. Burke's\nReflections be consonant to that of the Whigs of that period; and,\nsecondly, whether they choose to abandon the principles which belonged\nto the progenitors of some of them, and to the predecessors of them all,\nand to learn new principles of Whiggism, imported from France, and\ndisseminated in this country from Dissenting pulpits, from Federation\nsocieties, and from the pamphlets, which (as containing the political\ncreed of those synods) are industriously circulated in all parts of the\ntwo kingdoms. This is their affair, and they will make their option.\n\nThese new Whigs hold that the sovereignty, whether exercised by one or\nmany, did not only originate _from_ the people, (a position not denied\nnor worth denying or assenting to,) but that in the people the same\nsovereignty constantly and unalienably resides; that the people may\nlawfully depose kings, not only for misconduct, but without any\nmisconduct at all; that they may set up any new fashion of government\nfor themselves, or continue without any government, at their pleasure;\nthat the people are essentially their own rule, and their will the\nmeasure of their conduct; that the tenure of magistracy is not a proper\nsubject of contract, because magistrates have duties, but no rights;\nand that, if a contract _de facto_ is made with them in one age,\nallowing that it binds at all, it only binds those who are immediately\nconcerned in it, but does not pass to posterity. These doctrines\nconcerning _the people_ (a term which they are far from accurately\ndefining, but by which, from many circumstances, it is plain enough they\nmean their own faction, if they should grow, by early arming, by\ntreachery, or violence, into the prevailing force) tend, in my opinion,\nto the utter subversion, not only of all government, in all modes, and\nto all stable securities to rational freedom, but to all the rules and\nprinciples of morality itself.\n\nI assert that the ancient Whigs held doctrines totally different from\nthose I have last mentioned. I assert, that the foundations laid down by\nthe Commons, on the trial of Dr. Sacheverell, for justifying the\nRevolution of 1688, are the very same laid down in Mr. Burke's\nReflections,--that is to say, a breach of the _original contrast_,\nimplied and expressed in the Constitution of this country, as a scheme\nof government fundamentally and inviolably fixed in King, Lords, and\nCommons;--that the fundamental subversion of this ancient Constitution,\nby one of its parts, having been attempted, and in effect accomplished,\njustified the Revolution;--that it was justified _only_ upon the\n_necessity_ of the case, as the _only_ means left for the recovery of\nthat _ancient_ Constitution formed by the _original contract_ of the\nBritish state, as well as for the future preservation of the _same_\ngovernment. These are the points to be proved.\n\nA general opening to the charge against Dr. Sacheverell was made by the\nattorney-general, Sir John Montague; but as there is nothing in that\nopening speech which tends very accurately to settle the principle upon\nwhich the Whigs proceeded in the prosecution, (the plan of the speech\nnot requiring it,) I proceed to that of Mr. Lechmere, the manager, who\nspoke next after him. The following are extracts, given, not in the\nexact order in which they stand in the printed trial, but in that which\nis thought most fit to bring the ideas of the Whig Commons distinctly\nunder our view.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Mr. Lechmere_[14]\n\n\"It becomes an _indispensable_ duty upon us, who appear in the name and\non the behalf of all the commons of Great Britain, not only to demand\nyour Lordships' justice on such a criminal, [Dr. Sacheverell,] _but\nclearly and openly to assert our foundations_.\"\n\n[Sidenote: That the terms of our Constitution imply and express an\noriginal contract.]\n\n[Sidenote: That the contract is mutual consent, and binding at all times\nupon the parties.]\n\n[Sidenote: The mixed Constitution uniformly preserved for many ages, and\nis a proof of the contract.]\n\n\"The nature of our Constitution is that of a _limited monarchy_, wherein\nthe supreme power is communicated and divided between Queen, Lords, and\nCommons, though the executive power and administration be wholly in the\ncrown. The terms of such a Constitution do not only suppose, but\nexpress, an original contract between the crown and the people, by which\nthat supreme power was (by mutual consent, and not by accident) limited\nand lodged in more hands than one. And _the uniform preservation of such\na Constitution for so many ages, without any fundamental change,\ndemonstrates to your Lordships the continuance of the same contract_.\n\n[Sidenote: Laws the common measure to King and subject.]\n\n[Sidenote: Case of fundamental injury, and breach of original contract.]\n\n\"The consequences of such a frame of government are obvious: That the\n_laws_ are the rule to both, the common measure of the power of the\ncrown and of the obedience of the subject; and if the executive part\nendeavors the _subversion and total destruction of the government_, the\noriginal contract is thereby broke, and the right of allegiance ceases\nthat part of the government thus _fundamentally_ injured hath a right to\nsave or recover _that_ Constitution in which it had an original\ninterest.\"\n\n[Sidenote: Words _necessary means_ selected with caution.]\n\n\"_The necessary means_ (which is the phrase used by the Commons in their\nfirst article) words made choice of by them _with the greatest caution_.\nThose means are described (in the preamble to their charge) to be, that\nglorious enterprise which his late Majesty undertook, with an armed\nforce, to deliver this kingdom from Popery and arbitrary power; the\nconcurrence of many subjects of the realm, who came over with him in\nthat enterprise, and of many others, of _all ranks and orders_, who\nappeared in arms in many parts of the kingdom in aid of that enterprise.\n\n\"These were the _means_ that brought about the Revolution; and which the\nact that passed soon after, _declaring the rights and liberties of the\nsubject, and settling the succession of the crown_, intends, when his\nlate Majesty is therein called _the glorious instrument of delivering\nthe kingdom_; and which the Commons, in the last part of their first\narticle, express by the word _resistance_.\n\n[Sidenote: Regard of the Commons to their allegiance to the crown, and\nto the ancient Constitution.]\n\n\"But the Commons, who will never be unmindful of the _allegiance_ of the\nsubjects to the _crown_ of this realm, judged it highly incumbent upon\nthem, out of regard to the _safety of her Majesty's person and\ngovernment, and the ancient and legal Constitution of this kingdom_, to\ncall that resistance the _necessary_ means; thereby plainly founding\nthat power, of right and resistance, which was exercised by the people\nat the time of the happy Revolution, and which the duties of\n_self-preservation_ and religion called them to, _upon the NECESSITY of\nthe case, and at the same time effectually securing her Majesty's\ngovernment, and the due allegiance of all her subjects_.\"\n\n[Sidenote: All ages have the same interest in preservation of the\ncontract, and the same Constitution.]\n\n\"The nature of such an _original contract_ of government proves that\nthere is not only a power in the people, who have _inherited its\nfreedom_, to assert their own title to it, but they are bound in duty to\ntransmit the _same_ Constitution to their posterity also.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMr. Lechmere made a second speech. Notwithstanding the clear and\nsatisfactory manner in which he delivered himself in his first, upon\nthis arduous question, he thinks himself bound again distinctly to\nassert the same foundation, and to justify the Revolution on _the case\nof necessity only_, upon principles perfectly coinciding with those laid\ndown in Mr. Burke's letter on the French affairs.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Mr. Lechmere._\n\n[Sidenote: The Commons strictly confine their ideas of a revolution to\nnecessity alone and self-defence.]\n\n[Sidenote A: N.B. The remark implies, that allegiance would be insecure\nwithout this restriction.]\n\n\"Your Lordships were acquainted, in opening the charge, with how _great\ncaution_, and with what unfeigned regard to her Majesty and her\ngovernment, and to the _duty and allegiance_ of her subjects, the\nCommons made choice of the words _necessary means_ to express the\nresistance that was made use of to bring about the Revolution, and with\nthe condemning of which the Doctor is charged by this article: not\ndoubting but that the honor and justice of that resistance, _from the\nnecessity of that case, and to which alone we have strictly confined\nourselves_, when duly considered, would confirm and strengthen[A] and be\nunderstood to be an effectual security of the allegiance of the subject\nto the crown of this realm, _in every other case where there is not the\nsame necessity_; and that the right of the people to _self-defence, and\npreservation of their liberties, by resistance as their last remedy, is\nthe result of a case of such NECESSITY ONLY, and by which the ORIGINAL\nCONTRACT between king and people is broke. This was the principle laid\ndown and carried through all that was said with respect to ALLEGIANCE;\nand on WHICH FOUNDATION, in the name and on the behalf of all the\ncommons of Great Britain, we assert and justify that resistance by which\nthe late happy Revolution was brought about_.\"\n\n\"It appears to your Lordships and the world, that _breaking the original\ncontract between king and people_ were the words made choice of by that\nHouse of Commons,\" (the House of Commons which originated the\nDeclaration of Right,) \"with the _greatest deliberation and judgment_,\nand approved of by your Lordships, in that first and fundamental step\nmade towards the _re-establishment of the government_, which had\nreceived so great a shock from the evil counsels which had been given to\nthat unfortunate prince.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSir John Hawles, another of the managers, follows the steps of his\nbrethren, positively affirming the doctrine of non-resistance to\ngovernment to be the general moral, religious, and political rule for\nthe subject, and justifying the Revolution on the same principle with\nMr. Burke,--that is, as _an exception from necessity_. Indeed, he\ncarries the doctrine on the general idea of non-resistance much further\nthan Mr. Burke has done, and full as far as it can perhaps be supported\nby any duty of _perfect obligation_, however noble and heroic it may be\nin many cases to suffer death rather than disturb the tranquillity of\nour country.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Sir John Hawles._[15]\n\n\"Certainly it must be granted, that the doctrine that commands obedience\nto the supreme power, _though in things contrary to Nature_, even to\nsuffer death, which is the highest injustice that can be done a man,\nrather than make an opposition to the supreme power [is reasonable[16]],\nbecause the death of one or some few private persons is a less evil than\n_disturbing the whole government_; that law must needs be understood to\nforbid the doing or saying anything to disturb the government, the\nrather because the obeying that law cannot be pretended to be against\nNature: and the Doctor's refusing to obey that implicit law is the\nreason for which he is now prosecuted; though he would have it believed\nthat the reason he is now prosecuted was for the doctrine he asserted of\nobedience to the supreme power; which he might have preached as long as\nhe had pleased, and the Commons would have taken no offence at it, if\nhe had stopped there, and not have taken upon him, on that pretence or\noccasion, to have cast odious colors upon the Revolution.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGeneral Stanhope was among the managers. He begins his speech by a\nreference to the opinion of his fellow-managers, which he hoped had put\nbeyond all doubt the limits and qualifications that the Commons had\nplaced to their doctrines concerning the Revolution; yet, not satisfied\nwith this general reference, after condemning the principle of\nnon-resistance, which is asserted in the sermon _without any exception_,\nand stating, that, under the specious pretence of preaching a peaceable\ndoctrine, Sacheverell and the Jacobites meant, in reality, to excite a\nrebellion in favor of the Pretender, he explicitly limits his ideas of\nresistance with the boundaries laid down by his colleagues, and by Mr.\nBurke.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_General Stanhope._\n\n[Sidenote: Rights of the subject and the crown equally legal.]\n\n\"The Constitution of England is founded upon _compact_; and the subjects\nof this kingdom have, in their several public and private capacities,\n_as_ legal a title to what are their rights by law _as_ a prince to the\npossession of his crown.\n\n[Sidenote: Justice of resistance founded on necessity.]\n\n\"Your Lordships, and most that hear me, are witnesses, and must remember\nthe _necessities_ of those times which brought about the Revolution:\nthat _no other_ remedy was left to preserve our religion and liberties;\n_that resistance was_ necessary, _and consequently just_.\"\n\n\"Had the Doctor, in the remaining part of his sermon, preached up peace,\nquietness, and the like, and shown how happy we are under her Majesty's\nadministration, and exhorted obedience to it, he had never been called\nto answer a charge at your Lordships' bar. But the tenor of all his\nsubsequent discourse is one continued invective against the government.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMr. Walpole (afterwards Sir Robert) was one of the managers on this\noccasion. He was an honorable man and a sound Whig. He was not, as the\nJacobites and discontented Whigs of his time have represented him, and\nas ill-informed people still represent him, a prodigal and corrupt\nminister. They charged him, in their libels and seditious conversations,\nas having first reduced corruption to a system. Such was their cant. But\nhe was far from governing by corruption. He governed by party\nattachments. The charge of systematic corruption is less applicable to\nhim, perhaps, than to any minister who ever served the crown for so\ngreat a length of time. He gained over very few from the opposition.\nWithout being a genius of the first class, he was an intelligent,\nprudent, and safe minister. He loved peace, and he helped to communicate\nthe same disposition to nations at least as warlike and restless as that\nin which he had the chief direction of affairs. Though he served a\nmaster who was fond of martial fame, he kept all the establishments very\nlow. The land tax continued at two shillings in the pound for the\ngreater part of his administration. The other impositions were moderate.\nThe profound repose, the equal liberty, the firm protection of just\nlaws, during the long period of his power, were the principal causes of\nthat prosperity which afterwards took such rapid strides towards\nperfection, and which furnished to this nation ability to acquire the\nmilitary glory which it has since obtained, as well as to bear the\nburdens, the cause and consequence of that warlike reputation. With many\nvirtues, public and private, he had his faults; but his faults were\nsuperficial. A careless, coarse, and over-familiar style of discourse,\nwithout sufficient regard to persons or occasions, and an almost total\nwant of political decorum, were the errors by which he was most hurt in\nthe public opinion, and those through which his enemies obtained the\ngreatest advantage over him. But justice must be done. The prudence,\nsteadiness, and vigilance of that man, joined to the greatest possible\nlenity in his character and his politics, preserved the crown to this\nroyal family, and, with it, their laws and liberties to this country.\nWalpole had no other plan of defence for the Revolution than that of the\nother managers, and of Mr. Burke; and he gives full as little\ncountenance to any arbitrary attempts, on the part of restless and\nfactious men, for framing new governments according to their fancies.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Mr. Walpole_.\n\n[Sidenote: Case of resistance out of the law, and the highest offence.]\n\n[Sidenote: Utmost necessity justifies it.]\n\n\"Resistance is nowhere enacted to be legal, but subjected, by all the\nlaws now in being, to the greatest penalties. 'Tis what is not, cannot,\nnor ought ever to be described, or affirmed in any positive law, to be\nexcusable; when, and upon what _never-to-be-expected_ occasions, it may\nbe exercised, no man can foresee; _and ought never to be thought of, but\nwhen an utter subversion of the laws of the realm threatens the whole\nframe of a Constitution, and no redress can otherwise be hoped for_. It\ntherefore does and _ought forever_ to stand, in the eye and letter of\nthe law, as the _highest offence_. But because any man, or party of men,\nmay not, out of folly or wantonness, commit treason, or make their own\ndiscontents, ill principles, or disguised affections to another\ninterest, a pretence to resist the supreme power, will it follow from\nthence that the _utmost necessity_ ought not to engage a nation _in its\nown defence for the preservation of the whole_?\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSir Joseph Jekyl was, as I have always heard and believed, as nearly as\nany individual could be, the very standard of Whig principles in his\nage. He was a learned and an able man; full of honor, integrity, and\npublic spirit; no lover of innovation; nor disposed to change his solid\nprinciples for the giddy fashion of the hour. Let us hear this Whig.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Sir Joseph Jekyl._\n\n[Sidenote: Commons do not state the limits of submission.]\n\n[Sidenote: To secure the laws, the only aim of the Revolution.]\n\n\"In clearing up and vindicating the justice of the Revolution, which was\nthe second thing proposed, it is far from the intent of the Commons to\nstate the _limits and bounds_ of the subject's submission to the\nsovereign. That which the law hath been wisely silent in, the Commons\ndesire to be silent in too; nor will they put _any_ case of a\njustifiable resistance, but that of the Revolution only: and _they\npersuade themselves that the doing right to that resistance will be so\nfar from promoting popular license or confusion, that it will have a\ncontrary effect, and be a means of settling men's minds in the love of\nand veneration for the laws_; to rescue and secure which was the _ONLY\naim and intention of those concerned in that resistance_.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nDr. Sacheverell's counsel defended him on this principle, namely,--that,\nwhilst he enforced from the pulpit the general doctrine of\nnon-resistance, he was not obliged to take notice of the theoretic\nlimits which ought to modify that doctrine. Sir Joseph Jekyl, in his\nreply, whilst he controverts its application to the Doctor's defence,\nfully admits and even enforces the principle itself, and supports the\nRevolution of 1688, as he and all the managers had done before, exactly\nupon the same grounds on which Mr. Burke has built, in his Reflections\non the French Revolution.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Sir Joseph Jekyl._\n\n[Sidenote: Blamable to state the bounds of non-resistance.]\n\n[Sidenote: Resistance lawful only in _case_ of extreme and obvious\nnecessity.]\n\n\"If the Doctor had pretended to have stated the particular bounds and\nlimits of non-resistance, and told the people in what cases they might\nor might not resist, _he would have been much to blame_; nor was one\nword said in the articles, or by the managers, as if that was expected\nfrom him; but, _on the contrary, we have insisted that in NO case can\nresistance be lawful, but in case of EXTREME NECESSITY, and where the\nConstitution can't otherwise be preserved; and such necessity ought to\nbe plain and obvious to the sense and judgment of the whole nation: and\nthis was the case at the Revolution_.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe counsel for Doctor Sacheverell, in defending their client, were\ndriven in reality to abandon the fundamental principles of his doctrine,\nand to confess that an exception to the general doctrine of passive\nobedience and non-resistance did exist in the case of the Revolution.\nThis the managers for the Commons considered as having gained their\ncause, as their having obtained _the whole_ of what they contended for.\nThey congratulated themselves and the nation on a civil victory as\nglorious and as honorable as any that had obtained in arms during that\nreign of triumphs.\n\nSir Joseph Jekyl, in his reply to Harcourt, and the other great men who\nconducted the cause for the Tory side, spoke in the following memorable\nterms, distinctly stating the whole of what the Whig House of Commons\ncontended for, in the name of all their constituents.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Sir Joseph Jekyl._\n\n[Sidenote: Necessity creates an exception, and the Revolution a case of\nnecessity, the utmost extent of the demand of the Commons.]\n\n\"My Lords, the concessions\" (the concessions of Sacheverell's counsel)\n\"are these: That _necessity_ creates an _exception_ to the general rule\nof submission to the prince; that such exception is understood or\nimplied in the laws that require such submission; and that _the case of\nthe Revolution was a case of necessity._\n\n\"These are concessions _so ample_, and do so _fully_ answer the drift of\nthe Commons in this article, and are to _the utmost extent of their\nmeaning in it_, that I can't forbear congratulating them upon this\nsuccess of their impeachment,--that in full Parliament, this erroneous\ndoctrine of _unlimited_ non-resistance is given up and disclaimed. And\nmay it not, in after ages, be an addition to the glories of this bright\nreign, that so many of those who are honored with being in her Majesty's\nservice have been at your Lordships' bar thus successfully contending\nfor the _national_ rights of her people, and proving they are not\nprecarious or remediless?\n\n\"But to return to these concessions: I must appeal to your Lordships,\nwhether they are not a _total departure_ from the Doctor's answer.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI now proceed to show that the Whig managers for the Commons meant to\npreserve the government on a firm foundation, by asserting the perpetual\nvalidity of the settlement then made, and its coercive power upon\nposterity. I mean to show that they gave no sort of countenance to any\ndoctrine tending to impress the _people_ (taken separately from the\nlegislature, which includes the crown) with an idea that _they_ had\nacquired a moral or civil competence to alter, without breach of the\noriginal compact on the part of the king, the succession to the crown,\nat their pleasure,--much less that they had acquired any right, in the\ncase of such an event as caused the Revolution, to set up any new form\nof government. The author of the Reflections, I believe, thought that no\nman of common understanding could oppose to this doctrine the ordinary\nsovereign power as declared in the act of Queen Anne: that is, that the\nkings or queens of the realm, with the consent of Parliament, are\ncompetent to regulate and to settle the succession of the crown. This\npower is and ever was inherent in the supreme sovereignty, and was not,\nas the political divines vainly talk, acquired by the Revolution. It is\ndeclared in the old statute of Queen Elizabeth. Such a power must reside\nin the complete sovereignty of every kingdom; and it is in fact\nexercised in all of them. But this right of _competence_ in the\nlegislature, not in the people, is by the legislature itself to be\nexercised with _sound discretion_: that is to say, it is to be exercised\nor not, in conformity to the fundamental principles of this government,\nto the rules of moral obligation, and to the faith of pacts, either\ncontained in the nature of the transaction or entered into by the body\ncorporate of the kingdom,--which body in juridical construction never\ndies, and in fact never loses its members at once by death.\n\nWhether this doctrine is reconcilable to the modern philosophy of\ngovernment I believe the author neither knows nor cares, as he has\nlittle respect for any of that sort of philosophy. This may be because\nhis capacity and knowledge do not reach to it. If such be the case, he\ncannot be blamed, if he acts on the sense of that incapacity; he cannot\nbe blamed, if, in the most arduous and critical questions which can\npossibly arise, and which affect to the quick the vital parts of our\nConstitution, he takes the side which leans most to safety and\nsettlement; that he is resolved not \"to be wise beyond what is written\"\nin the legislative record and practice; that, when doubts arise on them,\nhe endeavors to interpret one statute by another, and to reconcile them\nall to established, recognized morals, and to the general, ancient,\nknown policy of the laws of England. Two things are equally evident: the\nfirst is, that the legislature possesses the power of regulating the\nsuccession of the crown; the second, that in the exercise of that right\nit has uniformly acted as if under the _restraints_ which the author has\nstated. That author makes what the ancients call _mos majorum_ not\nindeed his sole, but certainly his principal rule of policy, to guide\nhis judgment in whatever regards our laws. Uniformity and analogy can be\npreserved in them by this process only. That point being fixed, and\nlaying fast hold of a strong bottom, our speculations may swing in all\ndirections without public detriment, because they will ride with sure\nanchorage.\n\nIn this manner these things have been always considered by our\nancestors. There are some, indeed, who have the art of turning the very\nacts of Parliament which were made for securing the hereditary\nsuccession in the present royal family, by rendering it penal to doubt\nof the validity of those acts of Parliament, into an instrument for\ndefeating all their ends and purposes,--but upon grounds so very foolish\nthat it is not worth while to take further notice of such sophistry.\n\nTo prevent any unnecessary subdivision, I shall here put together what\nmay be necessary to show the perfect agreement of the Whigs with Mr.\nBurke in his assertions, that the Revolution made no \"essential change\nin the constitution of the monarchy, or in any of its ancient, sound,\nand legal principles; that the succession was settled in the Hanover\nfamily, upon the idea and in the mode of an hereditary succession\nqualified with Protestantism; that it was not settled upon _elective_\nprinciples, in any sense of the word _elective_, or under any\nmodification or description of _election_ whatsoever; but, on the\ncontrary, that the nation, after the Revolution, renewed by a fresh\ncompact the spirit of the original compact of the state, binding itself,\n_both in its existing members and all its posterity_, to adhere to the\nsettlement of an hereditary succession in the Protestant line, drawn\nfrom James the First, as the stock of inheritance.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Sir John Hawles_.\n\n[Sidenote: Necessity of settling the right of the crown, and submission\nto the settlement.]\n\n\"If he [Dr. Sacheverell] is of the opinion he pretends, I can't imagine\nhow it comes to pass that he that pays that deference to the supreme\npower has preached so directly contrary to the determinations of the\nsupreme power in this government, he very well knowing that the\nlawfulness of the Revolution, and of the means whereby it was brought\nabout, has already been determined by the aforesaid acts of\nParliament,--and do it in the worst manner that he could invent. _For\nquestioning the right to the crown here in England has procured the\nshedding of more blood and caused more slaughter than all the other\nmatters tending to disturbances in the government put together._ If,\ntherefore, the doctrine which the Apostles had laid down was only to\ncontinue the peace of the world, as thinking the death of some few\nparticular persons better to be borne with than a civil war, sure it is\nthe highest breach of that law to question the first principles of this\ngovernment.\"\n\n\"If the Doctor had been contented with the liberty he took of preaching\nup the duty of passive obedience in the most extensive manner he had\nthought fit, and would have stopped there, your Lordships would not have\nhad the trouble in relation to him that you now have; but it is plain\nthat he preached up his absolute and unconditional obedience, not _to\ncontinue the peace and tranquillity of this nation, but to set the\nsubjects at strife, and to raise a war in the bowels of this nation_:\nand it is for _this_ that he is now prosecuted; though he would fain\nhave it believed that the prosecution was for preaching the peaceable\ndoctrine of absolute obedience.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Sir Joseph Jekyl_.\n\n[Sidenote: Whole frame of government restored unhurt, on the\nRevolution.]\n\n\"The whole tenor of the administration then in being was agreed to by\nall to be a _total departure from the Constitution_. The nation was at\nthat time united in that opinion, all but the criminal part of it. And\nas the nation joined in the judgment of their disease, so they did in\nthe remedy. _They saw there was no remedy left but the last;_ and when\nthat remedy took place, _the whole frame of the government was restored\nentire and unhurt_.[17] This showed the excellent temper the nation was\nin at that time, that, after such provocations from an abuse of the\nregal power, and such a convulsion, _no one part of the Constitution was\naltered, or suffered the least damage; but, on the contrary, the whole\nreceived new life and vigor_.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Tory counsel for Dr. Sacheverell having insinuated that a great and\nessential alteration in the Constitution had been wrought by the\nRevolution, Sir Joseph Jekyl is so strong on this point, that he takes\nfire even at the insinuation of his being of such an opinion.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Sir Joseph Jekyl._\n\n[Sidenote: No innovation at the Revolution.]\n\n\"If the Doctor instructed his counsel to insinuate that there was _any\ninnovation in the Constitution wrought by the Revolution, it is an\naddition to his crime. The Revolution did not introduce any innovation;\nit was a restoration of the ancient fundamental Constitution of the\nkingdom_, and giving it its proper force and energy.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Solicitor-General, Sir Robert Eyre, distinguishes expressly the case\nof the Revolution, and its principles, from a proceeding at pleasure, on\nthe part of the people, to change their ancient Constitution, and to\nframe a new government for themselves. He distinguishes it with the same\ncare from the principles of regicide and republicanism, and the sorts of\nresistance condemned by the doctrines of the Church of England, and\nwhich ought to be condemned by the doctrines of all churches professing\nChristianity.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Mr. Solicitor-General, Sir Robert Eyre._\n\n[Sidenote: Revolution no precedent for voluntary cancelling allegiance.]\n\n[Sidenote: Revolution not like the case of Charles the First.]\n\n\"The resistance at the Revolution, which was founded in _unavoidable\nnecessity_, could be no defence to a man that was attacked _for\nasserting that the people might cancel their allegiance at pleasure, or\ndethrone and murder their sovereign by a judiciary sentence_. For it can\nnever be inferred, from the lawfulness of resistance at a time when _a\ntotal subversion of the government both in Church and State was\nintended_, that a people may take up arms and _call their sovereign to\naccount at pleasure_; and therefore, since _the Revolution could be of\nno service in giving the least color for asserting any such wicked\nprinciple_, the Doctor could never intend to put it into the mouths of\nthose new preachers and new politicians for a defence,--unless it be his\nopinion that the resistance at the Revolution can bear any parallel with\n_the execrable murder of the royal martyr, so justly detested by the\nwhole nation_.\"\n\n[Sidenote: Sacheverell's doctrine intended to bring an odium on the\nRevolution.]\n\n[Sidenote: True defence of the Revolution an absolute necessity.]\n\n\"'Tis plain that the Doctor is not impeached for preaching a general\ndoctrine, and enforcing the general duty of obedience, but for preaching\nagainst an _excepted case after he has stated the exception_. He is not\nimpeached for preaching the general doctrine of obedience, and the utter\nillegality of resistance upon any pretence whatsoever, but because,\nhaving first laid down the general doctrine as true, without any\nexception, _he states the excepted case_, the Revolution, in express\nterms, as an objection, and then assumes the consideration of that\nexcepted case, denies there was any resistance in the Revolution, and\nasserts that to impute resistance to the Revolution would cast black and\nodious colors upon it. This, my Lords, is not preaching the doctrine of\nnon-resistance in the _general_ terms used by the Homilies and the\nfathers of the Church, where cases of necessity may be _understood to be\nexcepted by a tacit implication, as the counsel have allowed_,--but is\npreaching directly against the resistance at the Revolution, which, in\nthe course of this debate, has been all along admitted to _be necessary\nand just_, and can have no other meaning than to bring a dishonor upon\nthe Revolution, and an odium upon those great and illustrious persons,\n_those friends to the monarchy and the Church, that assisted in bringing\nit about_. For had the Doctor intended anything else, he would have\ntreated the case of the Revolution in a different manner, and have\ngiven _it the true and fair answer_: he would have said that the\nresistance at the Revolution was _of absolute necessity, and the only\nmeans left to revive the Constitution, and must be therefore taken as an\nexcepted case_, and could never come within the reach or intention of\nthe general doctrine of the Church.\"\n\n\"Your Lordships take notice on what grounds the Doctor continues to\nassert the same position in his answer. But is it not most evident that\nthe general exhortations to be met with in the Homilies of the Church of\nEngland, and such like declarations in the statutes of the kingdom, are\nmeant only as rules for the civil obedience of the subject to the legal\nadministration of the supreme power in _ordinary cases_? And it is\nequally absurd to construe any words in a positive law to authorize the\ndestruction of the whole, as to expect that King, Lords, and Commons\nshould, in express terms of law, declare _such an ultimate resort as the\nright of resistance, at a time when the case supposes that the force of\nall law is ceased_.\"[18]\n\n[Sidenote: Commons abhor whatever shakes the submission of posterity to\nthe settlement of the crown.]\n\n\"The Commons must always resent, with the utmost detestation and\nabhorrence, every position that may shake the authority of that act of\nParliament whereby the crown is settled upon her Majesty, _and whereby\nthe Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do, in the name of all the\npeople of England, most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their\nheirs and posterities, to her Majesty_, which this general principle of\nabsolute non-resistance must certainly shake.\n\n\"For, if the resistance at the Revolution was illegal, the Revolution\nsettled in usurpation, and this act can have no greater force and\nauthority than an act passed under a usurper.\n\n\"And the Commons take leave to observe, that the authority of this\nParliamentary settlement is a matter of the greatest consequence to\nmaintain, in a case where the hereditary right to the crown is\ncontested.\"\n\n\"It appears by the several instances mentioned in the act declaring the\nrights and liberties of the subject and settling the succession of the\ncrown, that at the time of the Revolution there was _a total subversion\nof the constitution of government both in Church and State, which is a\ncase that the laws of England could never suppose, provide for, or have\nin view._\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSir Joseph Jekyl, so often quoted, considered the preservation of the\nmonarchy, and of the rights and prerogatives of the crown, as essential\nobjects with all sound Whigs, and that they were bound not only to\nmaintain them, when injured or invaded, but to exert themselves as much\nfor their re\u00ebstablishment, if they should happen to be overthrown by\npopular fury, as any of their own more immediate and popular rights and\nprivileges, if the latter should be at any time subverted by the crown.\nFor this reason he puts the cases of the _Revolution_, and the\n_Restoration_ exactly upon the same footing. He plainly marks, that it\nwas the object of all honest men not to sacrifice one part of the\nConstitution to another, and much more, not to sacrifice any of them to\nvisionary theories of the rights of man, but to preserve our whole\ninheritance in the Constitution, in all its members and all its\nrelations, entire and unimpaired, from generation to generation. In this\nMr. Burke exactly agrees with him.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Sir Joseph Jekyl._\n\n[Sidenote: What are the rights of the people.]\n\n[Sidenote: Restoration and Revolution.]\n\n[Sidenote: People have an equal interest in the legal rights of the\ncrown and of their own.]\n\n\"Nothing is plainer than that the people have a right to the laws and\nthe Constitution. This right the nation hath asserted, and recovered out\nof the hands of those who had dispossessed them of it at several times.\nThere are of this _two famous instances_ in the knowledge of the present\nage: I mean that of the _Restoration_, and that of the _Revolution_: in\nboth these great events were the _regal power_ and the _rights of the\npeople_ recovered. And it is _hard to say in which the people have the\ngreatest interest; for the Commons are sensible that there it not one\nlegal power belonging to the crown, but they have an interest in it; and\nI doubt not but they will always be as careful to support the rights of\nthe crown as their own privileges_.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe other Whig managers regarded (as he did) the overturning of the\nmonarchy by a republican faction with the very same horror and\ndetestation with which they regarded the destruction of the privileges\nof the people by an arbitrary monarch.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Mr. Lechmere_,\n\n[Sidenote: Constitution recovered at the Restoration and Revolution.]\n\nSpeaking of our Constitution, states it as \"a Constitution which happily\nrecovered itself, at the Restoration, from the confusions and disorders\nwhich _the horrid and detestable proceedings of faction and usurpation\nhad thrown it into_, and which after many convulsions and struggles was\nprovidentially saved at the late happy Revolution, and by the many good\nlaws passed since that time stands now upon a firmer foundation,\ntogether with the most comfortable prospect of _security to all\nposterity_ by the settlement of the crown in the Protestant line.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI mean now to show that the Whigs (if Sir Joseph Jekyl was one, and if\nhe spoke in conformity to the sense of the Whig House of Commons, and\nthe Whig ministry who employed him) did carefully guard against any\npresumption that might arise from the repeal of the non-resistance oath\nof Charles the Second, as if at the Revolution the ancient principles of\nour government were at all changed, or that republican doctrines were\ncountenanced, or any sanction given to seditious proceedings upon\ngeneral undefined ideas of misconduct, or for changing the form of\ngovernment, or for resistance upon any other ground than the _necessity_\nso often mentioned for the purpose of self-preservation. It will show\nstill more clearly the equal care of the then Whigs to prevent either\nthe regal power from being swallowed up on pretence of popular rights,\nor the popular rights from being destroyed on pretence of regal\nprerogatives.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Sir Joseph Jekyl_.\n\n[Sidenote: Mischief of broaching antimonarchical principles.]\n\n[Sidenote: Two cases of resistance: one to preserve the crown, the other\nthe rights of the subject.]\n\n\"Further, I desire it may be considered, these legislators\" (the\nlegislators who framed the non-resistance oath of Charles the Second)\n\"were guarding against the consequences of those _pernicious and\nantimonarchical principles which had been broached a little before in\nthis nation_, and those large declarations in favor of _non-resistance_\nwere made to encounter or obviate the _mischief_ of those\nprinciples,--as appears by the preamble to the fullest of those acts,\nwhich is the _Militia Act_, in the 13th and 14th of King Charles the\nSecond. The words of that act are these: _And during the late usurped\ngovernments, many evil and rebellious principles have been instilled\ninto the minds of the people of this kingdom, which may break forth,\nunless prevented, to the disturbance of the peace and quiet thereof: Be\nit therefore enacted_, &c. Here your Lordships may see the reason that\ninclined those legislators to express themselves in such a manner\nagainst resistance. _They had seen the regal rights swallowed up under\nthe pretence of popular ones_: and it is no imputation on them, that\nthey did not then foresee a _quite different case_, as was that of the\nRevolution, where, under the pretence of regal authority, a total\nsubversion of the rights of the subject was advanced, and in a manner\neffected. And this may serve to show that it was not the design of those\nlegislators to condemn resistance, in a case _of absolute necessity, for\npreserving the Constitution_, when they were guarding against principles\nwhich had so lately destroyed it.\"\n\n[Sidenote: Non-resistance oath not repealed because (with the\nrestriction of necessity) it was false, but to prevent false\ninterpretations.]\n\n\"As to the truth of the doctrine in this declaration which was repealed,\n_I'll admit it to be as true as the Doctor's counsel assert it,--that\nis, with an exception of cases of necessity_: and it was not repealed\nbecause it was false, _understanding it with that restriction_; but it\nwas repealed because it might be interpreted in _an unconfined sense,\nand exclusive of that restriction_, and, being so understood, would\nreflect on the justice of the Revolution: and this the legislature had\nat heart, and were very jealous of, and by this repeal of that\ndeclaration gave a Parliamentary or legislative admonition against\nasserting this doctrine of non-resistance _in an unlimited sense_.\"\n\n[Sidenote: General doctrine of non-resistance godly and wholesome; not\nbound to state _explicitly_ the exceptions.]\n\n\"Though the general doctrine of non-resistance, the doctrine of the\nChurch of England, as stated in her Homilies, or elsewhere delivered, by\nwhich the general duty of subjects to the higher powers is taught, be\nowned to be, as unquestionably it is, _a godly and wholesome\ndoctrine_,--though this general doctrine has been constantly inculcated\nby the reverend fathers of the Church, dead and living, and preached by\nthem as a preservative against the Popish doctrine of deposing princes,\nand as the ordinary rule of obedience,--and though the same doctrine has\nbeen preached, maintained, and avowed by our most orthodox and able\ndivines from the time of the Reformation,--and how _innocent a man_\nsoever Dr. Sacheverell had been, if, _with an honest and well-meant_\nzeal, he had preached the same doctrine in the same general terms in\nwhich he found it delivered by the Apostles of Christ, as taught by the\nHomilies and the reverend fathers of our Church, and, in imitation of\nthose great examples, had only pressed the general duty of obedience,\nand the illegality of resistance, without taking notice of any\nexception,\" &c.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAnother of the managers for the House of Commons, Sir John Holland, was\nnot less careful in guarding against a confusion of the principles of\nthe Revolution with any loose, general doctrines of a right in the\nindividual, or even in the people, to undertake for themselves, on any\nprevalent, temporary opinions of convenience or improvement, any\nfundamental change in the Constitution, or to fabricate a new\ngovernment for themselves, and thereby to disturb the public peace, and\nto unsettle the ancient Constitution of this kingdom.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Sir John Holland_.\n\n[Sidenote: Submission to the sovereign a conscientious duty, except in\ncases of necessity.]\n\n\"The Commons would not be understood as if they were pleading for a\nlicentious resistance, as if _subjects_ were left to _their_ good-will\nand pleasure when they are to _obey_ and when to _resist_. No, my Lords,\nthey know they are _obliged by all the ties of social creatures and\nChristians, for wrath and conscience' sake, to submit to their\nsovereign_. The Commons do not abet _humorsome, factious arms_: they\naver them to be _rebellions_. But yet they maintain that that resistance\nat the Revolution, which was so _necessary, was lawful and just from\nthat necessity_.\"\n\n[Sidenote: Right of resistance how to be understood.]\n\n\"These general rules of obedience may, upon a _real necessity,_ admit a\nlawful _exception_; and such a _necessary exception_ we assert the\nRevolution to be.\n\n\"'Tis with this view of _necessity_, only _absolute necessity_ of\npreserving our laws, liberties, and religion,--'tis with _this\nlimitation_, that we desire to be understood, when any of us speak of\nresistance in general. The _necessity_ of the resistance at the\nRevolution was at that time obvious to every man.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI shall conclude these extracts with a reference to the Prince of\nOrange's Declaration, in which he gives the nation the fullest assurance\nthat in his enterprise he was far from the intention of introducing any\nchange whatever in the fundamental law and Constitution of the state. He\nconsidered the object of his enterprise not to be a precedent for\nfurther revolutions, but that it was the great end of his expedition to\nmake such revolutions, so far as human power and wisdom could provide,\nunnecessary.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Extracts from the Prince of Orange's Declaration_.\n\n\"_All magistrates, who have been_ unjustly turned out, shall _forthwith\nresume their former_ employments; as well as all the boroughs of England\nshall return again to _their ancient prescriptions and charters_, and,\nmore particularly, that _the ancient_ charter of the great and famous\ncity of London shall again be in force; and that the writs for the\nmembers of Parliament shall be addressed to the _proper officers,\naccording to law and custom_.\"\n\n\"And for the doing of all other things which the two Houses of\nParliament shall find necessary for the peace, honor, and safety of the\nnation, so that there may _be no more danger of the nation's falling, at\nany time hereafter, under arbitrary government_.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Extract from the Prince of Oranges Additional Declaration_.\n\n[Sidenote: Principal nobility and gentry well affected to the Church and\ncrown, security against the design of innovation.]\n\n\"We are confident that no persons can have _such hard thoughts of us_ as\nto imagine that we have any other design in this undertaking than to\nprocure a settlement of the _religion and of the liberties and\nproperties of the subjects upon so sure a foundation that there may be\nno danger of the nation's relapsing into the like miseries at any time\nhereafter_. And as the forces that we have brought along with us are\nutterly disproportioned to that wicked design of conquering the nation,\nif we were capable of intending it, _so the great numbers of the\nprincipal nobility and gentry, that are men of eminent quality and\nestates, and persons of known integrity and zeal, both for the religion\nand government of England, many of them, also being distinguished by\ntheir constant fidelity to the crown_, who do both accompany us in this\nexpedition and have earnestly solicited us to it, will cover us from all\nsuch malicious insinuations.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn the spirit, and, upon one occasion, in the words,[19] of this\nDeclaration, the statutes passed in that reign made such provisions for\npreventing these dangers, that scarcely anything short of combination of\nKing, Lords, and Commons, for the destruction of the liberties of the\nnation, can in any probability make us liable to similar perils. In that\ndreadful, and, I hope, not to be looked-for case, any opinion of a right\nto make revolutions, grounded on this precedent, would be but a poor\nresource. Dreadful, indeed, would be our situation!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThese are the doctrines held by _the Whigs of the Revolution_, delivered\nwith as much solemnity, and as authentically at least, as any political\ndogmas were ever promulgated from the beginning of the world. If there\nbe any difference between their tenets and those of Mr. Burke, it is,\nthat the old Whigs oppose themselves still more strongly than he does\nagainst the doctrines which are now propagated with so much industry by\nthose who would be thought their successors.\n\nIt will be said, perhaps, that the old Whigs, in order to guard\nthemselves against popular odium, pretended to assert tenets contrary\nto those which they secretly held. This, if true, would prove, what Mr.\nBurke has uniformly asserted, that the extravagant doctrines which he\nmeant to expose were disagreeable to the body of the people,--who,\nthough they perfectly abhor a despotic government, certainly approached\nmore nearly to the love of mitigated monarchy than to anything which\nbears the appearance even of the best republic. But if these old Whigs\ndeceived the people, their conduct was unaccountable indeed. They\nexposed their power, as every one conversant in history knows, to the\ngreatest peril, for the propagation of opinions which, on this\nhypothesis, they did not hold. It is a new kind of martyrdom. This\nsupposition does as little credit to their integrity as their wisdom: it\nmakes them at once hypocrites and fools. I think of those great men very\ndifferently. I hold them to have been, what the world thought them, men\nof deep understanding, open sincerity, and clear honor. However, be that\nmatter as it may, what these old Whigs pretended to be Mr. Burke is.\nThis is enough for him.\n\nI do, indeed, admit, that, though Mr. Burke has proved that his opinions\nwere those of the old Whig party, solemnly declared by one House, in\neffect and substance by both Houses of Parliament, this testimony\nstanding by itself will form no proper defence for his opinions, if he\nand the old Whigs were both of them in the wrong. But it is his present\nconcern, not to vindicate these old Whigs, but to show his agreement\nwith them. He appeals to them as judges: he does not vindicate them as\nculprits. It is current that these old politicians knew little of the\nrights of men,--that they lost their way by groping about in the dark,\nand fumbling among rotten parchments and musty records. Great lights,\nthey say, are lately obtained in the world; and Mr. Burke, instead of\nshrouding himself in exploded ignorance, ought to have taken advantage\nof the blaze of illumination which has been spread about him. It may be\nso. The enthusiasts of this time, it seems, like their predecessors in\nanother faction of fanaticism, deal in lights. Hudibras pleasantly says\nof them, they\n\n    \"Have _lights_, where better eyes are blind,--\n     As pigs are said to see the wind.\"\n\nThe author of the Reflections has _heard_ a great deal concerning the\nmodern lights, but he has not yet had the good fortune to _see_ much of\nthem. He has read more than he can justify to anything but the spirit of\ncuriosity, of the works of these illuminators of the world. He has\nlearned nothing from the far greater number of them than a full\ncertainty of their shallowness, levity, pride, petulance, presumption,\nand ignorance. Where the old authors whom he has read, and the old men\nwhom he has conversed with, have left him in the dark, he is in the dark\nstill. If others, however, have obtained any of this extraordinary\nlight, they will use it to guide them in their researches and their\nconduct. I have only to wish that the nation may be as happy and as\nprosperous under the influence of the new light as it has been in the\nsober shade of the old obscurity. As to the rest, it will be difficult\nfor the author of the Reflections to conform to the principles of the\navowed leaders of the party, until they appear otherwise than\nnegatively. All we can gather from them is this,--that their principles\nare diametrically opposite to his. This is all that we know from\nauthority. Their negative declaration obliges me to have recourse to\nthe books which contain positive doctrines. They are, indeed, to those\nMr. Burke holds diametrically opposite; and if it be true (as the\noracles of the party have said, I hope hastily) that their opinions\ndiffer so widely, it should seem they are the most likely to form the\ncreed of the modern Whigs.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have stated what were the avowed sentiments of the old Whigs, not in\nthe way of argument, but narratively. It is but fair to set before the\nreader, in the same simple manner, the sentiments of the modern, to\nwhich they spare neither pains nor expense to make proselytes. I choose\nthem from the books upon which most of that industry and expenditure in\ncirculation have been employed; I choose them, not from those who speak\nwith a politic obscurity, not from those who only controvert the\nopinions of the old Whigs, without advancing any of their own, but from\nthose who speak plainly and affirmatively. The Whig reader may make his\nchoice between the two doctrines.\n\nThe doctrine, then, propagated by these societies, which gentlemen think\nthey ought to be very tender in discouraging, as nearly as possible in\ntheir own words, is as follows: That in Great Britain we are not only\nwithout a good Constitution, but that we have \"no Constitution\";--that,\n\"though it is much talked about, no such thing as a Constitution exists\nor ever did exist, and consequently that _the people have a Constitution\nyet to form_;--that since William the Conqueror the country has never\nyet _regenerated itself_, and is therefore without a Constitution;--that\nwhere it cannot be produced in a visible form there is none;--that a\nConstitution is a thing antecedent to government; and that the\nConstitution of a country is not the act of its government, but of a\npeople constituting a government;--that _everything_ in the English\ngovernment is the reverse of what it ought to be, and what it is said to\nbe in England;--that the right of war and peace resides in a metaphor\nshown at the Tower for sixpence or a shilling apiece;--that it signifies\nnot where the right resides, whether in the crown or in Parliament; war\nis the common harvest of those who participate in the division and\nexpenditure of public money;--that the portion of liberty enjoyed in\nEngland is just enough to enslave a country more productively than by\ndespotism.\"\n\nSo far as to the general state of the British Constitution.--As to our\nHouse of Lords, the chief virtual representative of our aristocracy, the\ngreat ground and pillar of security to the landed interest, and that\nmain link by which it is connected with the law and the crown, these\nworthy societies are pleased to tell us, that, \"whether we view\naristocracy before, or behind, or sideways, or any way else,\ndomestically or publicly, it is still a _monster_;--that aristocracy in\nFrance had one feature less in its countenance than what it has in some\nother countries: it did not compose a body of hereditary legislators; it\nwas not _a corporation of aristocracy_\" (for such, it seems, that\nprofound legislator, M. de La Fayette, describes the House of\nPeers);--\"that it is kept up by family tyranny and injustice;--that\nthere is an unnatural unfitness in aristocracy to be legislators for a\nnation;--that their ideas of distributive justice are corrupted at the\nvery source; they begin life by trampling on all their younger brothers\nand sisters, and relations of every kind, and are taught and educated\nso to do;--that the idea of an hereditary legislator is as absurd as an\nhereditary mathematician;--that a body holding themselves unaccountable\nto anybody ought to be trusted by nobody;--that it is continuing the\nuncivilized principles of governments founded in conquest, and the base\nidea of man having a property in man, and governing him by a personal\nright;--that aristocracy has a tendency to degenerate the human\nspecies,\" &c., &c.\n\nAs to our law of primogeniture, which with few and inconsiderable\nexceptions is the standing law of all our landed inheritance, and which\nwithout question has a tendency, and I think a most happy tendency, to\npreserve a character of consequence, weight, and prevalent influence\nover others in the whole body of the landed interest, they call loudly\nfor its destruction. They do this for political reasons that are very\nmanifest. They have the confidence to say, \"that it is a law against\nevery law of Nature, and Nature herself calls for its destruction.\nEstablish family justice, and aristocracy falls. By the aristocratical\nlaw of primogenitureship, in a family of six children, five are exposed.\nAristocracy has never but _one_ child. The rest are begotten to be\ndevoured. They are thrown to the cannibal for prey, and the natural\nparent prepares the unnatural repast.\"\n\nAs to the House of Commons, they treat it far worse than the House of\nLords or the crown have been ever treated. Perhaps they thought they had\na greater right to take this amicable freedom with those of their own\nfamily. For many years it has been the perpetual theme of their\ninvectives. \"Mockery, insult, usurpation,\" are amongst the best names\nthey bestow upon it. They damn it in the mass, by declaring \"that it\ndoes not arise out of the inherent rights of the people, as the National\nAssembly does in France, and whose name designates its original.\"\n\nOf the charters and corporations, to whose rights a few years ago these\ngentlemen were so tremblingly alive, they say, \"that, when the people of\nEngland come to reflect upon them, they will, like France, annihilate\nthose badges of oppression, those traces of a conquered nation.\"\n\nAs to our monarchy, they had formerly been more tender of that branch of\nthe Constitution, and for a good reason. The laws had guarded against\nall seditious attacks upon it with a greater degree of strictness and\nseverity. The tone of these gentlemen is totally altered since the\nFrench Revolution. They now declaim as vehemently against the monarchy\nas on former occasions they treacherously flattered and soothed it.\n\n\"When we survey the wretched condition of man under the monarchical and\nhereditary systems of government, dragged from his home by one power, or\ndriven by another, and impoverished by taxes more than by enemies, it\nbecomes evident that those systems are bad, and that a general\nrevolution in the principle and construction of governments is\nnecessary.\n\n\"What is government more than the management of the affairs of a nation?\nIt is not, and from its nature cannot be, the property of any particular\nman or family, but of the whole community, at whose expense it is\nsupported; and though by force or contrivance it has been usurped into\nan inheritance, the usurpation cannot alter the right of things.\nSovereignty, as a matter of right, appertains to the nation only, and\nnot to any individual; and a nation has at all times an inherent\nindefeasible right to abolish any form of government it finds\ninconvenient, and establish such as accords with its interest,\ndisposition, and happiness. The romantic and barbarous distinction of\nmen into kings and subjects, though it may suit the condition of\ncourtiers, cannot that of citizens, and is exploded by the principle\nupon which governments are now founded. Every citizen is a member of the\nsovereignty, and, as such, can acknowledge no personal subjection, and\nhis obedience can be only to the laws.\"\n\nWarmly recommending to us the example of Prance, where they have\ndestroyed monarchy, they say,--\n\n\"Monarchical sovereignty, the enemy of mankind, and the source of\nmisery, is abolished; and sovereignty itself is restored to its natural\nand original place, the nation. Were this the case throughout Europe,\nthe cause of wars would be taken away.\"\n\n\"But, after all, what is this metaphor called a crown? or rather, what\nis monarchy? Is it a thing, or is it a name, or is it a fraud? Is it 'a\ncontrivance of human wisdom,' or of human craft, to obtain money from a\nnation under specious pretences? Is it a thing necessary to a nation? If\nit is, in what does that necessity consist, what services does it\nperform, what is its business, and what are its merits? Doth the virtue\nconsist in the metaphor or in the man? Doth the goldsmith that makes the\ncrown make the virtue also? Doth it operate like Fortunatus's\nwishing-cap or Harlequin's wooden sword? Doth it make a man a conjurer?\nIn fine, what is it? It appears to be a something going much out of\nfashion, falling into ridicule, and rejected in some countries both as\nunnecessary and expensive. In America it is considered as an absurdity;\nand in France it has so far declined, that the goodness of the man and\nthe respect for his personal character are the only things that preserve\nthe appearance of its existence.\"\n\n\"Mr. Burke talks about what he calls an hereditary crown, as if it were\nsome production of Nature,--or as if, like time, it had a power to\noperate, not only independently, but in spite of man,--or as if it were\na thing or a subject universally consented to. Alas! it has none of\nthose properties, but is the reverse of them all. It is a thing in\nimagination, the propriety of which is more than doubted, and the\nlegality of which in a few years will be denied.\"\n\n\"If I ask the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and\ndown through all the occupations of life to the common laborer, what\nservice monarchy is to him, he can give me no answer. If I ask him what\nmonarchy is, he believes it is something like a sinecure.\"\n\n\"The French Constitution says, that the right of war and peace is in the\nnation. Where else should it reside, but in those who are to pay the\nexpense?\n\n\"In England, this right is said to reside in a _metaphor_, shown at the\nTower for sixpence or a shilling apiece: so are the lions; and it would\nbe a step nearer to reason to say it resided in them, for any inanimate\nmetaphor is no more than a hat or a cap. We can all see the absurdity of\nworshipping Aaron's molten calf, or Nebuchadnezzar's golden image; but\nwhy do men continue to practise themselves the absurdities they despise\nin others?\"\n\nThe Revolution and Hanover succession had been objects of the highest\nveneration to the old Whigs. They thought them not only proofs of the\nsober and steady spirit of liberty which guided their ancestors, but of\ntheir wisdom and provident care of posterity. The modern Whigs have\nquite other notions of these events and actions. They do not deny that\nMr. Burke has given truly the words of the acts of Parliament which\nsecured the succession, and the just sense of them. They attack not him,\nbut the law.\n\n\"Mr Burke\" (say they) \"has done some service, not to his cause, but to\nhis country, by bringing those clauses into public view. They serve to\ndemonstrate how necessary it is at all times to watch against the\nattempted encroachment of power, and to prevent its running to excess.\nIt is somewhat extraordinary, that the offence for which James the\nSecond was expelled, that of setting up power by _assumption_, should be\nre-acted, under another shape and form, by the Parliament that expelled\nhim. It shows that the rights of man were but imperfectly understood at\nthe Revolution; for certain it is, that the right which that Parliament\nset up by _assumption_ (for by delegation it had it not, and could not\nhave it, because none could give it) over the persons and freedom of\nposterity forever, was of the same tyrannical unfounded kind which James\nattempted to set up over the Parliament and the nation, and for which he\nwas expelled. The only difference is, (for in principle they differ\nnot,) that the one was an usurper over the living, and the other over\nthe unborn; and as the one has no better authority to stand upon than\nthe other, both of them must be equally null and void, and of no\neffect.\"\n\n\"As the estimation of all things is by comparison, the Revolution of\n1688, however from circumstances it may have been exalted beyond its\nvalue, will find its level. It is already on the wane, eclipsed by the\nenlarging orb of reason and the luminous Revolutions of America and\nFrance. In less than another century, it will go, as well as Mr. Burke's\nlabors, 'to the family vault of all the Capulets.' _Mankind will then\nscarcely believe that a country calling itself free would send to\nHolland for a man and clothe him with power on purpose to put themselves\nin fear of him, and give him almost a million sterling a year for leave\nto submit themselves and their posterity like bondmen and bondwomen\nforever_.\"\n\nMr. Burke having said that \"the king holds his crown in contempt of the\nchoice of the Revolution Society, who individually or collectively have\nnot\" (as most certainly they have not) \"a vote for a king amongst them,\"\nthey take occasion from thence to infer that the king who does not hold\nhis crown by election despises the people.\n\n\"'The king of England,' says he, 'holds _his_ crown' (for it does not\nbelong to the nation, according to Mr. Burke) 'in _contempt_ of the\nchoice of the Revolution Society,'\" &c.\n\n\"As to who is king in England or elsewhere, or whether there is any king\nat all, or whether the people choose a Cherokee chief or a Hessian\nhussar for a king, it is not a matter that I trouble myself about,--be\nthat to themselves; but with respect to the doctrine, so far as it\nrelates to the rights of men and nations, it is as abominable as\nanything ever uttered in the most enslaved country under heaven. Whether\nit sounds worse to my ear, by not being accustomed to hear such\ndespotism, than what it does to the ear of another person, I am not so\nwell a judge of; but of its abominable principle I am at no loss to\njudge.\"\n\nThese societies of modern Whigs push their insolence as far as it can\ngo. In order to prepare the minds of the people for treason and\nrebellion, they represent the king as tainted with principles of\ndespotism, from the circumstance of his having dominions in Germany. In\ndirect defiance of the most notorious truth, they describe his\ngovernment there to be a despotism; whereas it is a free Constitution,\nin which the states of the Electorate have their part in the government:\nand this privilege has never been infringed by the king, or, that I have\nheard of, by any of his predecessors. The Constitution of the Electoral\ndominions has, indeed, a double control, both from the laws of the\nEmpire and from the privileges of the country. Whatever rights the king\nenjoys as Elector have been always parentally exercised, and the\ncalumnies of these scandalous societies have not been authorized by a\nsingle complaint of oppression.\n\n\"When Mr. Burke says that 'his Majesty's heirs and successors, each in\ntheir time and order, will come to the crown with the _same contempt_ of\ntheir choice with which his Majesty has succeeded to that he wears,' it\nis saying too much even to the humblest individual in the country, part\nof whose daily labor goes towards making up the million sterling a year\nwhich the country gives the person it styles a king. Government with\ninsolence is despotism; but when contempt is added, it becomes worse;\nand to pay for contempt is the excess of slavery. This species of\ngovernment comes from Germany, and reminds me of what one of the\nBrunswick soldiers told me, who was taken prisoner by the Americans in\nthe late war. 'Ah!' said he, 'America is a fine free country: it is\nworth the people's fighting for. I know the difference by knowing my\nown: in my country, _if the prince says, \"Eat straw\" we eat straw_.' God\nhelp that country, thought I, be it England, or elsewhere, whose\nliberties are to be protected by _German principles of government and\nprinces of Brunswick_!\"\n\n\"It is somewhat curious to observe, that, although the people of England\nhave been in the habit of talking about kings, it is always a foreign\nhouse of kings,--hating foreigners, yet governed by them. It is now the\nHouse of Brunswick, one of the petty tribes of Germany.\"\n\n\"If government be what Mr. Burke describes it, 'a contrivance of human\nwisdom,' I might ask him if wisdom was at such a low ebb in England that\nit was become necessary to import it from Holland and from Hanover? But\nI will do the country the justice to say, that was not the case; and\neven if it was, it mistook the cargo. The wisdom of every country, when\nproperly exerted, is sufficient for all its purposes; _and there could\nexist no more real occasion in England to have sent for a Dutch\nStadtholder or a German Elector_ than there was in America to have done\na similar thing. If a country does not understand its own affairs, how\nis a foreigner to understand them, who knows neither its laws, its\nmanners, nor its language? If there existed a man so transcendently wise\nabove all others that his wisdom was necessary to instruct a nation,\nsome reason might be offered for monarchy; but when we cast our eyes\nabout a country, and observe how every part understands its own\naffairs, and when we look around the world, and see, that, of all men in\nit, the race of kings are the most insignificant in capacity, our reason\ncannot fail to ask us, What are those men kept for?\"[20]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThese are the notions which, under the idea of Whig principles, several\npersons, and among them persons of no mean mark, have associated\nthemselves to propagate. I will not attempt in the smallest degree to\nrefute them. This will probably be done (if such writings shall be\nthought to deserve any other than the refutation of criminal justice) by\nothers, who may think with Mr. Burke. He has performed his part.\n\nI do not wish to enter very much at large into the discussions which\ndiverge and ramify in all ways from this productive subject. But there\nis one topic upon which I hope I shall be excused in going a little\nbeyond my design. The factions now so busy amongst us, in order to\ndivest men of all love for their country, and to remove from their minds\nall duty with regard to the state, endeavor to propagate an opinion,\nthat the _people_, in forming their commonwealth, have by no means\nparted with their power over it. This is an impregnable citadel, to\nwhich these gentlemen retreat, whenever they are pushed by the battery\nof laws and usages and positive conventions. Indeed, it is such, and of\nso great force, that all they have done in defending their outworks is\nso much time and labor thrown away. Discuss any of their schemes, their\nanswer is, It is the act of the _people_, and that is sufficient. Are\nwe to deny to a _majority_ of the people the right of altering even the\nwhole frame of their society, if such should be their pleasure? They may\nchange it, say they, from a monarchy to a republic to-day, and to-morrow\nback again from a republic to a monarchy; and so backward and forward as\noften as they like. They are masters of the commonwealth, because in\nsubstance they are themselves the commonwealth. The French Revolution,\nsay they, was the act of the majority of the people; and if the majority\nof any other people, the people of England, for instance, wish to make\nthe same change, they have the same right.\n\nJust the same, undoubtedly. That is, none at all. Neither the few nor\nthe many have a right to act merely by their will, in any matter\nconnected with duty, trust, engagement, or obligation. The Constitution\nof a country being once settled upon some compact, tacit or expressed,\nthere is no power existing of force to alter it, without the breach of\nthe covenant, or the consent of all the parties. Such is the nature of a\ncontract. And the votes of a majority of the people, whatever their\ninfamous flatterers may teach in order to corrupt their minds, cannot\nalter the moral any more than they can alter the physical essence of\nthings. The people are not to be taught to think lightly of their\nengagements to their governors; else they teach governors to think\nlightly of their engagements towards them. In that kind of game, in the\nend, the people are sure to be losers. To flatter them into a contempt\nof faith, truth, and justice is to ruin them; for in these virtues\nconsists their whole safety. To flatter any man, or any part of mankind,\nin any description, by asserting that in engagements he or they are\nfree, whilst any other human creature is bound, is ultimately to vest\nthe rule of morality in the pleasure of those who ought to be rigidly\nsubmitted to it,--to subject the sovereign reason of the world to the\ncaprices of weak and giddy men.\n\nBut, as no one of us men can dispense with public or private faith, or\nwith any other tie of moral obligation, so neither can any number of us.\nThe number engaged in crimes, instead of turning them into laudable\nacts, only augments the quantity and intensity of the guilt. I am well\naware that men love to hear of their power, but have an extreme\ndisrelish to be told of their duty. This is of course; because every\nduty is a limitation of some power. Indeed, arbitrary power is so much\nto the depraved taste of the vulgar, of the vulgar of every description,\nthat almost all the dissensions which lacerate the commonwealth are not\nconcerning the manner in which it is to be exercised, but concerning the\nhands in which it is to be placed. Somewhere they are resolved to have\nit. Whether they desire it to be vested in the many or the few depends\nwith most men upon the chance which they imagine they themselves may\nhave of partaking in the exercise of that arbitrary sway, in the one\nmode or in the other.\n\nIt is not necessary to teach men to thirst after power. But it is very\nexpedient that by moral instruction they should be taught, and by their\ncivil constitutions they should be compelled, to put many restrictions\nupon the immoderate exercise of it, and the inordinate desire. The best\nmethod of obtaining these two great points forms the important, but at\nthe same time the difficult problem to the true statesman. He thinks of\nthe place in which political power is to be lodged with no other\nattention than as it may render the more or the less practicable its\nsalutary restraint and its prudent direction. For this reason, no\nlegislator, at any period of the world, has willingly placed the seat of\nactive power in the hands of the multitude; because there it admits of\nno control, no regulation, no steady direction whatsoever. The people\nare the natural control on authority; but to exercise and to control\ntogether is contradictory and impossible.\n\nAs the exorbitant exercise of power cannot, under popular sway, be\neffectually restrained, the other great object of political arrangement,\nthe means of abating an excessive desire of it, is in such a state still\nworse provided for. The democratic commonwealth is the foodful nurse of\nambition. Under the other forms it meets with many restraints. Whenever,\nin states which have had a democratic basis, the legislators have\nendeavored to put restraints upon ambition, their methods were as\nviolent as in the end they were ineffectual,--as violent, indeed, as any\nthe most jealous despotism could invent. The ostracism could not very\nlong save itself, and much less the state which it was meant to guard,\nfrom the attempts of ambition,--one of the natural, inbred, incurable\ndistempers of a powerful democracy.\n\nBut to return from this short digression,--which, however, is not wholly\nforeign to the question of the effect of the will of the majority upon\nthe form or the existence of their society. I cannot too often recommend\nit to the serious consideration of all men who think civil society to be\nwithin the province of moral jurisdiction, that, if we owe to it any\nduty, it is not subject to our will. Duties are not voluntary. Duty and\nwill are even contradictory terms. Now, though civil society might be at\nfirst a voluntary act, (which in many cases it undoubtedly was,) its\ncontinuance is under a permanent standing covenant, coexisting with the\nsociety; and it attaches upon every individual of that society, without\nany formal act of his own. This is warranted by the general practice,\narising out of the general sense of mankind. Men without their choice\nderive benefits from that association; without their choice they are\nsubjected to duties in consequence of these benefits; and without their\nchoice they enter into a virtual obligation as binding as any that is\nactual. Look through the whole of life and the whole system of duties.\nMuch the strongest moral obligations are such as were never the results\nof our option. I allow, that, if no Supreme Ruler exists, wise to form,\nand potent to enforce, the moral law, there is no sanction to any\ncontract, virtual or even actual, against the will of prevalent power.\nOn that hypothesis, let any set of men be strong enough to set their\nduties at defiance, and they cease to be duties any longer. We have but\nthis one appeal against irresistible power,--\n\n    Si genus humanum et mortalia temnitis arma,\n    At sperate Deos memores fandi atque nefandi.\n\nTaking it for granted that I do not write to the disciples of the\nParisian philosophy, I may assume that the awful Author of our being is\nthe Author of our place in the order of existence,--and that, having\ndisposed and marshalled us by a divine tactic, not according to our\nwill, but according to His, He has in and by that disposition virtually\nsubjected us to act the part which belongs to the place assigned us. We\nhave obligations to mankind at large, which are not in consequence of\nany special voluntary pact. They arise from the relation of man to man,\nand the relation of man to God, which relations are not matters of\nchoice. On the contrary, the force of all the pacts which we enter into\nwith any particular person or number of persons amongst mankind depends\nupon those prior obligations. In some cases the subordinate relations\nare voluntary, in others they are necessary,--but the duties are all\ncompulsive. When we marry, the choice is voluntary, but the duties are\nnot matter of choice: they are dictated by the nature of the situation.\nDark and inscrutable are the ways by which we come into the world. The\ninstincts which give rise to this mysterious process of Nature are not\nof our making. But out of physical causes, unknown to us, perhaps\nunknowable, arise moral duties, which, as we are able perfectly to\ncomprehend, we are bound indispensably to perform. Parents may not be\nconsenting to their moral relation; but, consenting or not, they are\nbound to a long train of burdensome duties towards those with whom they\nhave never made a convention of any sort. Children are not consenting to\ntheir relation; but their relation, without their actual consent, binds\nthem to its duties,--or rather it implies their consent, because the\npresumed consent of every rational creature is in unison with the\npredisposed order of things. Men come in that manner into a community\nwith the social state of their parents, endowed with all the benefits,\nloaded with all the duties of their situation. If the social ties and\nligaments, spun out of those physical relations which are the elements\nof the commonwealth, in most cases begin, and always continue,\nindependently of our will, so, without any stipulation on our own part,\nare we bound by that relation called our country, which comprehends (as\nit has been well said) \"all the charities of all.\"[21] Nor are we left\nwithout powerful instincts to make this duty as dear and grateful to us\nas it is awful and coercive. Our country is not a thing of mere physical\nlocality. It consists, in a great measure, in the ancient order into\nwhich we are born. We may have the same geographical situation, but\nanother country; as we may have the same country in another soil. The\nplace that determines our duty to our country is a social, civil\nrelation.\n\nThese are the opinions of the author whose cause I defend. I lay them\ndown, not to enforce them upon others by disputation, but as an account\nof his proceedings. On them he acts; and from them he is convinced that\nneither he, nor any man, or number of men, have a right (except what\nnecessity, which is out of and above all rule, rather imposes than\nbestows) to free themselves from that primary engagement into which\nevery man born into a community as much contracts by his being born into\nit as he contracts an obligation to certain parents by his having been\nderived from their bodies. The place of every man determines his duty.\nIf you ask, _Quem te Deus esse jussit_? you will be answered when you\nresolve this other question, _Humana qua parte locatus es in re_?[22]\n\nI admit, indeed, that in morals, as in all things else, difficulties\nwill sometimes occur. Duties will sometimes cross one another. Then\nquestions will arise, which of them is to be placed in subordination?\nwhich of them may be entirely superseded? These doubts give rise to that\npart of moral science called _casuistry_, which though necessary to be\nwell studied by those who would become expert in that learning, who aim\nat becoming what I think Cicero somewhere calls _artifices officiorum_,\nit requires a very solid and discriminating judgment, great modesty and\ncaution, and much sobriety of mind in the handling; else there is a\ndanger that it may totally subvert those offices which it is its object\nonly to methodize and reconcile. Duties, at their extreme bounds, are\ndrawn very fine, so as to become almost evanescent. In that state some\nshade of doubt will always rest on these questions, when they are\npursued with great subtilty. But the very habit of stating these extreme\ncases is not very laudable or safe; because, in general, it is not right\nto turn our duties into doubts. They are imposed to govern our conduct,\nnot to exercise our ingenuity; and therefore our opinions about them\nought not to be in a state of fluctuation, but steady, sure, and\nresolved.\n\nAmongst these nice, and therefore dangerous points of casuistry, may be\nreckoned the question so much agitated in the present hour,--Whether,\nafter the people have discharged themselves of their original power by\nan habitual delegation, no occasion can possibly occur which may\njustify the resumption of it? This question, in this latitude, is very\nhard to affirm or deny: but I am satisfied that no occasion can justify\nsuch a resumption, which would not equally authorize a dispensation with\nany other moral duty, perhaps with all of them together. However, if in\ngeneral it be not easy to determine concerning the lawfulness of such\ndevious proceedings, which must be ever on the edge of crimes, it is far\nfrom difficult to foresee the perilous consequences of the resuscitation\nof such a power in the people. The practical consequences of any\npolitical tenet go a great way in deciding upon its value. Political\nproblems do not primarily concern truth or falsehood. They relate to\ngood or evil. What in the result is likely to produce evil is\npolitically false; that which is productive of good, politically true.\n\nBelieving it, therefore, a question at least arduous in the theory, and\nin the practice very critical, it would become us to ascertain as well\nas we can what form it is that our incantations are about to call up\nfrom darkness and the sleep of ages. When the supreme authority of the\npeople is in question, before we attempt to extend or to confine it, we\nought to fix in our minds, with some degree of distinctness, an idea of\nwhat it is we mean, when we say, the PEOPLE.\n\nIn a state of _rude_ Nature there is no such thing as a people. A number\nof men in themselves have no collective capacity. The idea of a people\nis the idea of a corporation. It is wholly artificial, and made, like\nall other legal fictions, by common agreement. What the particular\nnature of that agreement was is collected from the form into which the\nparticular society has been cast. Any other is not _their_ covenant.\nWhen men, therefore, break up the original compact or agreement which\ngives its corporate form and capacity to a state, they are no longer a\npeople,--they have no longer a corporate existence,--they have no longer\na legal coactive force to bind within, nor a claim to be recognized\nabroad. They are a number of vague, loose individuals, and nothing more.\nWith them all is to begin again. Alas! they little know how many a weary\nstep is to be taken before they can form themselves into a mass which\nhas a true politic personality.\n\nWe hear much, from men who have not acquired their hardiness of\nassertion from the profundity of their thinking, about the omnipotence\nof a _majority_, in such a dissolution of an ancient society as hath\ntaken place in France. But amongst men so disbanded there can be no such\nthing as majority or minority, or power in any one person to bind\nanother. The power of acting by a majority, which the gentlemen\ntheorists seem to assume so readily, after they have violated the\ncontract out of which it has arisen, (if at all it existed,) must be\ngrounded on two assumptions: first, that of an incorporation produced by\nunanimity; and secondly, an unanimous agreement that the act of a mere\nmajority (say of one) shall pass with them and with others as the act of\nthe whole.\n\nWe are so little affected by things which are habitual, that we consider\nthis idea of the decision of a _majority_ as if it were a law of our\noriginal nature. But such constructive whole, residing in a part only,\nis one of the most violent fictions of positive law that ever has been\nor can be made on the principles of artificial incorporation. Out of\ncivil society Nature knows nothing of it; nor are men, even when\narranged according to civil order, otherwise than by very long training,\nbrought at all to submit to it. The mind is brought far more easily to\nacquiesce in the proceedings of one man, or a few, who act under a\ngeneral procuration for the state, than in the vote of a victorious\nmajority in councils in which every man has his share in the\ndeliberation. For there the beaten party are exasperated and soured by\nthe previous contention, and mortified by the conclusive defeat. This\nmode of decision, where wills may be so nearly equal, where, according\nto circumstances, the smaller number may be the stronger force, and\nwhere apparent reason may be all upon one side, and on the other little\nelse than impetuous appetite,--all this must be the result of a very\nparticular and special convention, confirmed afterwards by long habits\nof obedience, by a sort of discipline in society, and by a strong hand,\nvested with stationary, permanent power to enforce this sort of\nconstructive general will. What organ it is that shall declare the\ncorporate mind is so much a matter of positive arrangement, that several\nstates, for the validity of several of their acts, have required a\nproportion of voices much greater than that of a mere majority. These\nproportions are so entirely governed by convention that in some cases\nthe minority decides. The laws in many countries to _condemn_ require\nmore than a mere majority; less than an equal number to _acquit_. In our\njudicial trials we require unanimity either to condemn or to absolve. In\nsome incorporations one man speaks for the whole; in others, a few.\nUntil the other day, in the Constitution of Poland unanimity was\nrequired to give validity to any act of their great national council or\ndiet. This approaches much more nearly to rude Nature than the\ninstitutions of any other country. Such, indeed, every commonwealth must\nbe, without a positive law to recognize in a certain number the will of\nthe entire body.\n\nIf men dissolve their ancient incorporation in order to regenerate their\ncommunity, in that state of things each man has a right, if he pleases,\nto remain an individual. Any number of individuals, who can agree upon\nit, have an undoubted right to form themselves into a state apart and\nwholly independent. If any of these is forced into the fellowship of\nanother, this is conquest and not compact. On every principle which\nsupposes society to be in virtue of a free covenant, this compulsive\nincorporation must be null and void.\n\nAs a people can have no right to a corporate capacity without universal\nconsent, so neither have they a right to hold exclusively any lands in\nthe name and title of a corporation. On the scheme of the present rulers\nin our neighboring country, regenerated as they are, they have no more\nright to the territory called France than I have. I have a right to\npitch my tent in any unoccupied place I can find for it; and I may apply\nto my own maintenance any part of their unoccupied soil. I may purchase\nthe house or vineyard of any individual proprietor who refuses his\nconsent (and most proprietors have, as far as they dared, refused it) to\nthe new incorporation. I stand in his independent place. Who are these\ninsolent men, calling themselves the French nation, that would\nmonopolize this fair domain of Nature? Is it because they speak a\ncertain jargon? Is it their mode of chattering, to me unintelligible,\nthat forms their title to my land? Who are they who claim by\nprescription and descent from certain gangs of banditti called Franks,\nand Burgundians, and Visigoths, of whom I may have never heard, and\nninety-nine out of an hundred of themselves certainly never have heard,\nwhilst at the very time they tell me that prescription and long\npossession form no title to property? Who are they that presume to\nassert that the land which I purchased of the individual, a natural\nperson, and not a fiction of state, belongs to them, who in the very\ncapacity in which they make their claim can exist only as an imaginary\nbeing, and in virtue of the very prescription which they reject and\ndisown? This mode of arguing might be pushed into all the detail, so as\nto leave no sort of doubt, that, on their principles, and on the sort of\nfooting on which they have thought proper to place themselves, the crowd\nof men, on the other side of the Channel, who have the impudence to call\nthemselves a people, can never be the lawful, exclusive possessors of\nthe soil. By what they call reasoning without prejudice, they leave not\none stone upon another in the fabric of human society. They subvert all\nthe authority which they hold, as well as all that which they have\ndestroyed.\n\nAs in the abstract it is perfectly clear, that, out of a state of civil\nsociety, majority and minority are relations which can have no\nexistence, and that, in civil society, its own specific conventions in\neach corporation determine what it is that constitutes the people, so as\nto make their act the signification of the general will,--to come to\nparticulars, it is equally clear that neither in France nor in England\nhas the original or any subsequent compact of the state, expressed or\nimplied, constituted _a majority of men, told by the head_, to be the\nacting people of their several communities. And I see as little of\npolicy or utility as there is of right, in laying down a principle that\na majority of men told by the head are to be considered as the people,\nand that as such their will is to be law. What policy can there be found\nin arrangements made in defiance of every political principle? To enable\nmen to act with the weight and character of a people, and to answer the\nends for which they are incorporated into that capacity, we must suppose\nthem (by means immediate or consequential) to be in that state of\nhabitual social discipline in which the wiser, the more expert, and the\nmore opulent conduct, and by conducting enlighten and protect, the\nweaker, the less knowing, and the less provided with the goods of\nfortune. When the multitude are not under this discipline, they can\nscarcely be said to be in civil society. Give once a certain\nconstitution of things which produces a variety of conditions and\ncircumstances in a state, and there is in Nature and reason a principle\nwhich, for their own benefit, postpones, not the interest, but the\njudgment, of those who are _numero plures_, to those who are _virtute et\nhonore majores_. Numbers in a state (supposing, which is not the case in\nFrance, that a state does exist) are always of consideration,--but they\nare not the whole consideration. It is in things more serious than a\nplay, that it may be truly said, _Satis est equitem mihi plaudere_.\n\nA true natural aristocracy is not a separate interest in the state, or\nseparable from it. It is an essential integrant part of any large body\nrightly constituted. It is formed out of a class of legitimate\npresumptions, which, taken as generalities, must be admitted for actual\ntruths. To be bred in a place of estimation; to see nothing low and\nsordid from one's infancy; to be taught to respect one's self; to be\nhabituated to the censorial inspection of the public eye; to look early\nto public opinion; to stand upon such elevated ground as to be enabled\nto take a large view of the wide-spread and infinitely diversified\ncombinations of men and affairs in a large society; to have leisure to\nread, to reflect, to converse; to be enabled to draw the court and\nattention of the wise and learned, wherever they are to be found; to be\nhabituated in armies to command and to obey; to be taught to despise\ndanger in the pursuit of honor and duty; to be formed to the greatest\ndegree of vigilance, foresight, and circumspection, in a state of things\nin which no fault is committed with impunity and the slightest mistakes\ndraw on the most ruinous consequences; to be led to a guarded and\nregulated conduct, from a sense that you are considered as an instructor\nof your fellow-citizens in their highest concerns, and that you act as a\nreconciler between God and man; to be employed as an administrator of\nlaw and justice, and to be thereby amongst the first benefactors to\nmankind; to be a professor of high science, or of liberal and ingenuous\nart; to be amongst rich traders, who from their success are presumed to\nhave sharp and vigorous understandings, and to possess the virtues of\ndiligence, order, constancy, and regularity, and to have cultivated an\nhabitual regard to commutative justice: these are the circumstances of\nmen that form what I should call a _natural_ aristocracy, without which\nthere is no nation.\n\nThe state of civil society which necessarily generates this aristocracy\nis a state of Nature,--and much more truly so than a savage and\nincoherent mode of life. For man is by nature reasonable; and he is\nnever perfectly in his natural state, but when he is placed where reason\nmay be best cultivated and most predominates. Art is man's nature. We\nare as much, at least, in a state of Nature in formed manhood as in\nimmature and helpless infancy. Men, qualified in the manner I have just\ndescribed, form in Nature, as she operates in the common modification of\nsociety, the leading, guiding, and governing part. It is the soul to the\nbody, without which the man does not exist. To give, therefore, no more\nimportance, in the social order, to such descriptions of men than that\nof so many units is a horrible usurpation.\n\nWhen great multitudes act together, under that discipline of Nature, I\nrecognize the PEOPLE. I acknowledge something that perhaps equals, and\nought always to guide, the sovereignty of convention. In all things the\nvoice of this grand chorus of national harmony ought to have a mighty\nand decisive influence. But when you disturb this harmony,--when you\nbreak up this beautiful order, this array of truth and Nature, as well\nas of habit and prejudice,--when you separate the common sort of men\nfrom their proper chieftains, so as to form them into an adverse\narmy,--I no longer know that venerable object called the people in such\na disbanded race of deserters and vagabonds. For a while they may be\nterrible, indeed,--but in such a manner as wild beasts are terrible. The\nmind owes to them no sort of submission. They are, as they have always\nbeen reputed, rebels. They may lawfully be fought with, and brought\nunder, whenever an advantage offers. Those who attempt by outrage and\nviolence to deprive men of any advantage which they hold under the\nlaws, and to destroy the natural order of life, proclaim war against\nthem.\n\nWe have read in history of that furious insurrection of the common\npeople in France called the _Jacquerie_: for this is not the first time\nthat the people have been enlightened into treason, murder, and rapine.\nIts object was to extirpate the gentry. The Captal de Buch, a famous\nsoldier of those days, dishonored the name of a gentleman and of a man\nby taking, for their cruelties, a cruel vengeance on these deluded\nwretches: it was, however, his right and his duty to make war upon them,\nand afterwards, in moderation, to bring them to punishment for their\nrebellion; though in the sense of the French Revolution, and of some of\nour clubs, they were the _people_,--and were truly so, if you will call\nby that appellation _any majority of men told by the head_.\n\nAt a time not very remote from the same period (for these humors never\nhave affected one of the nations without some influence on the other)\nhappened several risings of the lower commons in England. These\ninsurgents were certainly the majority of the inhabitants of the\ncounties in which they resided; and Cade, Ket, and Straw, at the head of\ntheir national guards, and fomented by certain traitors of high rank,\ndid no more than exert, according to the doctrines of ours and the\nParisian societies, the sovereign power inherent in the majority.\n\nWe call the time of those events a dark age. Indeed, we are too\nindulgent to our own proficiency. The Abb\u00e9 John Ball understood the\nrights of man as well as the Abb\u00e9 Gr\u00e9goire. That reverend patriarch of\nsedition, and prototype of our modern preachers, was of opinion, with\nthe National Assembly, that all the evils which have fallen upon men had\nbeen caused by an ignorance of their \"having been born and continued\nequal as to their rights.\" Had the populace been able to repeat that\nprofound maxim, all would have gone perfectly well with them. No\ntyranny, no vexation, no oppression, no care, no sorrow, could have\nexisted in the world. This would have cured them like a charm for the\ntooth-ache. But the lowest wretches, in their most ignorant state, were\nable at all times to talk such stuff; and yet at all times have they\nsuffered many evils and many oppressions, both before and since the\nrepublication by the National Assembly of this spell of healing potency\nand virtue. The enlightened Dr. Ball, when he wished to rekindle the\nlights and fires of his audience on this point, chose for the test the\nfollowing couplet:--\n\n    When Adam delved and Eve span,\n    Who was then the gentleman?\n\nOf this sapient maxim, however, I do not give him for the inventor. It\nseems to have been handed down by tradition, and had certainly become\nproverbial; but whether then composed or only applied, thus much must be\nadmitted, that in learning, sense, energy, and comprehensiveness, it is\nfully equal to all the modern dissertations on the equality of mankind:\nand it has one advantage over them,--that it is in rhyme.[23]\n\nThere is no doubt but that this great teacher of the rights of man\ndecorated his discourse on this valuable text with lemmas, theorems,\nscholia, corollaries, and all the apparatus of science, which was\nfurnished in as great plenty and perfection out of the dogmatic and\npolemic magazines, the old horse-armory of the Schoolmen, among whom the\nRev. Dr. Ball was bred, as they can be supplied from the new arsenal at\nHackney. It was, no doubt, disposed with all the adjutancy of\ndefinition and division, in which (I speak it with submission) the old\nmarshals were as able as the modern martinets. Neither can we deny that\nthe philosophic auditory, when they had once obtained this knowledge,\ncould never return to their former ignorance, or after so instructive a\nlecture be in the same state of mind as if they had never heard it.[24]\nBut these poor people, who were not to be envied for their knowledge,\nbut pitied for their delusion, were not reasoned, (that was impossible,)\nbut beaten, out of their lights. With their teacher they were delivered\nover to the lawyers, who wrote in their blood the statutes of the land,\nas harshly, and in the same sort of ink, as they and their teachers had\nwritten the rights of man.\n\nOur doctors of the day are not so fond of quoting the opinions of this\nancient sage as they are of imitating his conduct: first, because it\nmight appear that they are not as great inventors as they would be\nthought; and next, because, unfortunately for his fame, he was not\nsuccessful. It is a remark liable to as few exceptions as any generality\ncan be, that they who applaud prosperous folly and adore triumphant\nguilt have never been known to succor or even to pity human weakness or\noffence, when they become subject to human vicissitude, and meet with\npunishment instead of obtaining power. Abating for their want of\nsensibility to the sufferings of their associates, they are not so much\nin the wrong; for madness and wickedness are things foul and deformed in\nthemselves, and stand in need of all the coverings and trappings of\nfortune to recommend them to the multitude. Nothing can be more\nloathsome in their naked nature.\n\nAberrations like these, whether ancient or modern, unsuccessful or\nprosperous, are things of passage. They furnish no argument for\nsupposing _a multitude told by the head to be the people_. Such a\nmultitude can have no sort of title to alter the seat of power in the\nsociety, in which it ever ought to be the obedient, and not the ruling\nor presiding part. What power may belong to the whole mass, in which\nmass the natural _aristocracy_, or what by convention is appointed to\nrepresent and strengthen it, acts in its proper place, with its proper\nweight, and without being subjected to violence, is a deeper question.\nBut in that case, and with that concurrence, I should have much doubt\nwhether any rash or desperate changes in the state, such as we have seen\nin France, could ever be effected.\n\nI have said that in all political questions the consequences of any\nassumed rights are of great moment in deciding upon their validity. In\nthis point of view let us a little scrutinize the effects of a right in\nthe mere majority of the inhabitants of any country of superseding and\naltering their government _at pleasure_.\n\nThe sum total of every people is composed of its units. Every individual\nmust have a right to originate what afterwards is to become the act of\nthe majority. Whatever he may lawfully originate he may lawfully\nendeavor to accomplish. He has a right, therefore, in his own\nparticular, to break the ties and engagements which bind him to the\ncountry in which he lives; and he has a right to make as many converts\nto his opinions, and to obtain as many associates in his designs, as he\ncan procure: for how can you know the dispositions of the majority to\ndestroy their government, but by tampering with some part of the body?\nYou must begin by a secret conspiracy, that you may end with a national\nconfederation. The mere pleasure of the beginner must be the sole guide;\nsince the mere pleasure of others must be the sole ultimate sanction, as\nwell as the sole actuating principle in every part of the progress.\nThus, arbitrary will (the last corruption of ruling power) step by step\npoisons the heart of every citizen. If the undertaker fails, he has the\nmisfortune of a rebel, but not the guilt. By such doctrines, all love to\nour country, all pious veneration and attachment to its laws and\ncustoms, are obliterated from our minds; and nothing can result from\nthis opinion, when grown into a principle, and animated by discontent,\nambition, or enthusiasm, but a series of conspiracies and seditions,\nsometimes ruinous to their authors, always noxious to the state. No\nsense of duty can prevent any man from being a leader or a follower in\nsuch enterprises. Nothing restrains the tempter; nothing guards the\ntempted. Nor is the new state, fabricated by such arts, safer than the\nold. What can prevent the mere will of any person, who hopes to unite\nthe wills of others to his own, from an attempt wholly to overturn it?\nIt wants nothing but a disposition to trouble the established order, to\ngive a title to the enterprise.\n\nWhen you combine this principle of the right to change a fixed and\ntolerable constitution of things at pleasure with the theory and\npractice of the French Assembly, the political, civil, and moral\nirregularity are, if possible, aggravated. The Assembly have found\nanother road, and a far more commodious, to the destruction of an old\ngovernment, and the legitimate formation of a new one, than through the\nprevious will of the majority of what they call the people. Get, say\nthey, the possession of power by any means you can into your hands; and\nthen, a subsequent consent (what they call an _address of adhesion_)\nmakes your authority as much the act of the people as if they had\nconferred upon you originally that kind and degree of power which\nwithout their permission you had seized upon. This is to give a direct\nsanction to fraud, hypocrisy, perjury, and the breach of the most sacred\ntrusts that can exist between man and man. What can sound with such\nhorrid discordance in the moral ear as this position,--that a delegate\nwith limited powers may break his sworn engagements to his constituent,\nassume an authority, never committed to him, to alter all things at his\npleasure, and then, if he can persuade a large number of men to flatter\nhim in the power he has usurped, that he is absolved in his own\nconscience, and ought to stand acquitted in the eyes of mankind? On this\nscheme, the maker of the experiment must begin with a determined\nperjury. That point is certain. He must take his chance for the\nexpiatory addresses. This is to make the success of villany the\nstandard of innocence.\n\nWithout drawing on, therefore, very shocking consequences, neither by\nprevious consent, nor by subsequent ratification of a _mere reckoned\nmajority_, can any set of men attempt to dissolve the state at their\npleasure. To apply this to our present subject. When the several orders,\nin their several bailliages, had met in the year 1789, (such of them, I\nmean, as had met peaceably and constitutionally,) to choose and to\ninstruct their representatives, so organized and so acting, (because\nthey were organized and were acting according to the conventions which\nmade them a people,) they were the _people_ of France. They had a legal\nand a natural capacity to be considered as that people. But observe,\nwhilst they were in this state, that is, whilst they were a people, in\nno one of their instructions did they charge or even hint at any of\nthose things which have drawn upon the usurping Assembly and their\nadherents the detestation of the rational and thinking part of mankind.\nI will venture to affirm, without the least apprehension of being\ncontradicted by any person who knows the then state of France, that, if\nany one of the changes were proposed, which form the fundamental parts\nof their Revolution, and compose its most distinguishing acts, it would\nnot have had one vote in twenty thousand in any order. Their\ninstructions purported the direct contrary to all those famous\nproceedings which are defended as the acts of the people. Had such\nproceedings been expected, the great probability is, that the people\nwould then have risen, as to a man, to prevent them. The whole\norganization of the Assembly was altered, the whole frame of the\nkingdom was changed, before these things could be done. It is long to\ntell, by what evil arts of the conspirators, and by what extreme\nweakness and want of steadiness in the lawful government, this equal\nusurpation on the rights of the prince and people, having first cheated,\nand then offered violence to both, has been able to triumph, and to\nemploy with success the forged signature of an imprisoned sovereign, and\nthe spurious voice of dictated addresses, to a subsequent ratification\nof things that had never received any previous sanction, general or\nparticular, expressed or implied, from the nation, (in whatever sense\nthat word is taken,) or from any part of it.\n\nAfter the weighty and respectable part of the people had been murdered,\nor driven by the menaces of murder from their houses, or were dispersed\nin exile into every country in Europe,--after the soldiery had been\ndebauched from their officers,--after property had lost its weight and\nconsideration, along with its security,--after voluntary clubs and\nassociations of factious and unprincipled men were substituted in the\nplace of all the legal corporations of the kingdom arbitrarily\ndissolved,--after freedom had been banished from those popular\nmeetings[25] whose sole recommendation is freedom,--after it had come to\nthat pass that no dissent dared to appear in any of them, but at the\ncertain price of life,--after even dissent had been anticipated, and\nassassination became as quick as suspicion,--such pretended ratification\nby addresses could be no act of what any lover of the people would\nchoose to call by their name. It is that voice which every successful\nusurpation, as well as this before us, may easily procure, even without\nmaking (as these tyrants have made) donatives from the spoil of one part\nof the citizens to corrupt the other.\n\nThe pretended _rights of man_, which have made this havoc, cannot be the\nrights of the people. For to be a people, and to have these rights, are\nthings incompatible. The one supposes the presence, the other the\nabsence, of a state of civil society. The very foundation of the French\ncommonwealth is false and self-destructive; nor can its principles be\nadopted in any country, without the certainty of bringing it to the very\nsame condition in which France is found. Attempts are made to introduce\nthem into every nation in Europe. This nation, as possessing the\ngreatest influence, they wish most to corrupt, as by that means they are\nassured the contagion must become general. I hope, therefore, I shall be\nexcused, if I endeavor to show, as shortly as the matter will admit, the\ndanger of giving to them, either avowedly or tacitly, the smallest\ncountenance.\n\nThere are times and circumstances in which not to speak out is at least\nto connive. Many think it enough for them, that the principles\npropagated by these clubs and societies, enemies to their country and\nits Constitution, are not owned by the _modern Whigs in Parliament_, who\nare so warm in condemnation of Mr. Burke and his book, and of course of\nall the principles of the ancient, constitutional Whigs of this kingdom.\nCertainly they are not owned. But are they condemned with the same zeal\nas Mr. Burke and his book are condemned? Are they condemned at all? Are\nthey rejected or discountenanced in any way whatsoever? Is any man who\nwould fairly examine into the demeanor and principles of those\nsocieties, and that too very moderately, and in the way rather of\nadmonition than of punishment, is such a man even decently treated? Is\nhe not reproached as if in condemning such principles he had belied the\nconduct of his whole life, suggesting that his life had been governed by\nprinciples similar to those which he now reprobates? The French system\nis in the mean time, by many active agents out of doors, rapturously\npraised; the British Constitution is coldly tolerated. But these\nConstitutions are different both in the foundation and in the whole\nsuperstructure; and it is plain that you cannot build up the one but on\nthe ruins of the other. After all, if the French be a superior system of\nliberty, why should we not adopt it? To what end are our praises? Is\nexcellence held out to us only that we should not copy after it? And\nwhat is there in the manners of the people, or in the climate of France,\nwhich renders that species of republic fitted for them, and unsuitable\nto us? A strong and marked difference between the two nations ought to\nbe shown, before we can admit a constant, affected panegyric, a\nstanding, annual commemoration, to be without any tendency to an\nexample.\n\nBut the leaders of party will not go the length of the doctrines taught\nby the seditious clubs. I am sure they do not mean to do so. God forbid!\nPerhaps even those who are directly carrying on the work of this\npernicious foreign faction do not all of them intend to produce all the\nmischiefs which must inevitably follow from their having any success in\ntheir proceedings. As to leaders in parties, nothing is more common than\nto see them blindly led. The world is governed by go-betweens. These\ngo-betweens influence the persons with whom they carry on the\nintercourse, by stating their own sense to each of them as the sense of\nthe other; and thus they reciprocally master both sides. It is first\nbuzzed about the ears of leaders, \"that their friends without doors are\nvery eager for some measure, or very warm about some opinion,--that you\nmust not be too rigid with them. They are useful persons, and zealous in\nthe cause. They may be a little wrong, but the spirit of liberty must\nnot be damped; and by the influence you obtain from some degree of\nconcurrence with them at present, you may be enabled to set them right\nhereafter.\"\n\nThus the leaders are at first drawn to a connivance with sentiments and\nproceedings often totally different from their serious and deliberate\nnotions. But their acquiescence answers every purpose.\n\nWith no better than such powers, the go-betweens assume a new\nrepresentative character. What at best was but an acquiescence is\nmagnified into an authority, and thence into a desire on the part of the\nleaders; and it is carried down as such to the subordinate members of\nparties. By this artifice they in their turn are led into measures which\nat first, perhaps, few of them wished at all, or at least did not desire\nvehemently or systematically.\n\nThere is in all parties, between the principal leaders in Parliament and\nthe lowest followers out of doors, a middle sort of men, a sort of\nequestrian order, who, by the spirit of that middle situation, are the\nfittest for preventing things from running to excess. But indecision,\nthough a vice of a totally different character, is the natural\naccomplice of violence. The irresolution and timidity of those who\ncompose this middle order often prevents the effect of their\ncontrolling situation. The fear of differing with the authority of\nleaders on the one hand, and of contradicting the desires of the\nmultitude on the other, induces them to give a careless and passive\nassent to measures in which they never were consulted; and thus things\nproceed, by a sort of activity of inertness, until whole bodies,\nleaders, middle-men, and followers, are all hurried, with every\nappearance and with many of the effects of unanimity, into schemes of\npolitics, in the substance of which no two of them were ever fully\nagreed, and the origin and authors of which, in this circular mode of\ncommunication, none of them find it possible to trace. In my experience,\nI have seen much of this in affairs which, though trifling in comparison\nto the present, were yet of some importance to parties; and I have known\nthem suffer by it. The sober part give their sanction, at first through\ninattention and levity; at last they give it through necessity. A\nviolent spirit is raised, which the presiding minds after a time find it\nimpracticable to stop at their pleasure, to control, to regulate, or\neven to direct.\n\nThis shows, in my opinion, how very quick and awakened all men ought to\nbe, who are looked up to by the public, and who deserve that confidence,\nto prevent a surprise on their opinions, when dogmas are spread and\nprojects pursued by which the foundations of society may be affected.\nBefore they listen even to moderate alterations in the government of\ntheir country, they ought to take care that principles are not\npropagated for that purpose which are too big for their object.\nDoctrines limited in their present application, and wide in their\ngeneral principles, are never meant to be confined to what they at\nfirst pretend. If I were to form a prognostic of the effect of the\npresent machinations on the people from their sense of any grievance\nthey suffer under this Constitution, my mind would be at ease. But there\nis a wide difference between the multitude, when they act against their\ngovernment from a sense of grievance or from zeal for some opinions.\nWhen men are thoroughly possessed with that zeal, it is difficult to\ncalculate its force. It is certain that its power is by no means in\nexact proportion to its reasonableness. It must always have been\ndiscoverable by persons of reflection, but it is now obvious to the\nworld, that a theory concerning government may become as much a cause of\nfanaticism as a dogma in religion. There is a boundary to men's\npassions, when they act from feeling; none when they are under the\ninfluence of imagination. Remove a grievance, and, when men act from\nfeeling, you go a great way towards quieting a commotion. But the good\nor bad conduct of a government, the protection men have enjoyed or the\noppression they have suffered under it, are of no sort of moment, when a\nfaction, proceeding upon speculative grounds, is thoroughly heated\nagainst its form. When a man is from system furious against monarchy or\nepiscopacy, the good conduct of the monarch or the bishop has no other\neffect than further to irritate the adversary. He is provoked at it as\nfurnishing a plea for preserving the thing which he wishes to destroy.\nHis mind will be heated as much by the sight of a sceptre, a mace, or a\nverge, as if he had been daily bruised and wounded by these symbols of\nauthority. Mere spectacles, mere names, will become sufficient causes to\nstimulate the people to war and tumult.\n\nSome gentlemen are not terrified by the facility with which government\nhas been overturned in France. \"The people of France,\" they say, \"had\nnothing to lose in the destruction of a bad Constitution; but, though\nnot the best possible, we have still a good stake in ours, which will\nhinder us from desperate risks.\" Is this any security at all against\nthose who seem to persuade themselves, and who labor to persuade others,\nthat our Constitution is an usurpation in its origin, unwise in its\ncontrivance, mischievous in its effects, contrary to the rights of man,\nand in all its parts a perfect nuisance? What motive has any rational\nman, who thinks in that manner, to spill his blood, or even to risk a\nshilling of his fortune, or to waste a moment of his leisure, to\npreserve it? If he has any duty relative to it, his duty is to destroy\nit. A Constitution on sufferance is a Constitution condemned. Sentence\nis already passed upon it. The execution is only delayed. On the\nprinciples of these gentlemen, it neither has nor ought to have any\nsecurity. So far as regards them, it is left naked, without friends,\npartisans, assertors, or protectors.\n\nLet us examine into the value of this security upon the principles of\nthose who are more sober,--of those who think, indeed, the French\nConstitution better, or at least as good as the British, without going\nto all the lengths of the warmer politicians in reprobating their own.\nTheir security amounts in reality to nothing more than this,--that the\ndifference between their republican system and the British limited\nmonarchy is not worth a civil war. This opinion, I admit, will prevent\npeople not very enterprising in their nature from an active undertaking\nagainst the British Constitution. But it is the poorest defensive\nprinciple that ever was infused into the mind of man against the\nattempts of those who will enterprise. It will tend totally to remove\nfrom their minds that very terror of a civil war which is held out as\nour sole security. They who think so well of the French Constitution\ncertainly will not be the persons to carry on a war to prevent their\nobtaining a great benefit, or at worst a fair exchange. They will not go\nto battle in favor of a cause in which their defeat might be more\nadvantageous to the public than their victory. They must at least\ntacitly abet those who endeavor to make converts to a sound opinion;\nthey must discountenance those who would oppose its propagation. In\nproportion as by these means the enterprising party is strengthened, the\ndread of a struggle is lessened. See what an encouragement this is to\nthe enemies of the Constitution! A few assassinations and a very great\ndestruction of property we know they consider as no real obstacles in\nthe way of a grand political change. And they will hope, that here, if\nantimonarchical opinions gain ground as they have done in France, they\nmay, as in France, accomplish a revolution without a war.\n\nThey who think so well of the French Constitution cannot be seriously\nalarmed by any progress made by its partisans. Provisions for security\nare not to be received from those who think that there is no danger. No!\nthere is no plan of security to be listened to but from those who\nentertain the same fears with ourselves,--from those who think that the\nthing to be secured is a great blessing, and the thing against which we\nwould secure it a great mischief. Every person of a different opinion\nmust be careless about security.\n\nI believe the author of the Reflections, whether he fears the designs of\nthat set of people with reason or not, cannot prevail on himself to\ndespise them. He cannot despise them for their numbers, which, though\nsmall, compared with the sound part of the community, are not\ninconsiderable: he cannot look with contempt on their influence, their\nactivity, or the kind of talents and tempers which they possess, exactly\ncalculated for the work they have in hand and the minds they chiefly\napply to. Do we not see their most considerable and accredited\nministers, and several of their party of weight and importance, active\nin spreading mischievous opinions, in giving sanction to seditious\nwritings, in promoting seditious anniversaries? and what part of their\ndescription has disowned them or their proceedings? When men,\ncircumstanced as these are, publicly declare such admiration of a\nforeign Constitution, and such contempt of our own, it would be, in the\nauthor of the Reflections, thinking as he does of the French\nConstitution, infamously to cheat the rest of the nation to their ruin\nto say there is no danger.\n\nIn estimating danger, we are obliged to take into our calculation the\ncharacter and disposition of the enemy into whose hands we may chance to\nfall. The genius of this faction is easily discerned, by observing with\nwhat a very different eye they have viewed the late foreign revolutions.\nTwo have passed before them: that of France, and that of Poland. The\nstate of Poland was such, that there could scarcely exist two opinions,\nbut that a reformation of its Constitution, even at some expense of\nblood, might be seen without much disapprobation. No confusion could be\nfeared in such an enterprise; because the establishment to be reformed\nwas itself a state of confusion. A king without authority; nobles\nwithout union or subordination; a people without arts, industry,\ncommerce, or liberty; no order within, no defence without; no effective\npublic force, but a foreign force, which entered, a naked country at\nwill, and disposed of everything at pleasure. Here was a state of things\nwhich seemed to invite, and might perhaps justify, bold enterprise and\ndesperate experiment. But in what manner was this chaos brought into\norder? The means were as striking to the imagination as satisfactory to\nthe reason and soothing to the moral sentiments. In contemplating that\nchange, humanity has everything to rejoice and to glory in,--nothing to\nbe ashamed of, nothing to suffer. So far as it has gone, it probably is\nthe most pure and defecated public good which ever has been conferred on\nmankind. We have seen anarchy and servitude at once removed; a throne\nstrengthened for the protection of the people, without trenching on\ntheir liberties; all foreign cabal banished, by changing the crown from\nelective to hereditary; and what was a matter of pleasing wonder, we\nhave seen a reigning king, from an heroic love to his country, exerting\nhimself with all the toil, the dexterity, the management, the intrigue,\nin favor of a family of strangers, with which ambitious men labor for\nthe aggrandizement of their own. Ten millions of men in a way of being\nfreed gradually, and therefore safely to themselves and the state, not\nfrom civil or political chains, which, bad as they are, only fetter the\nmind, but from substantial personal bondage. Inhabitants of cities,\nbefore without privileges, placed in the consideration which belongs to\nthat improved and connecting situation of social life. One of the most\nproud, numerous, and fierce bodies of nobility and gentry ever known in\nthe world arranged only in the foremost rank of free and generous\ncitizens. Not one man incurred loss or suffered degradation. All, from\nthe king to the day-laborer, were improved in their condition.\nEverything was kept in its place and order; but in that place and order\neverything was bettered. To add to this happy wonder, this unheard-of\nconjunction of wisdom and fortune, not one drop of blood was spilled; no\ntreachery; no outrage; no system of slander more cruel than the sword;\nno studied insults on religion, morals, or manners; no spoil; no\nconfiscation; no citizen beggared; none imprisoned; none exiled: the\nwhole was effected with a policy, a discretion, an unanimity and\nsecrecy, such as have never been before known on any occasion; but such\nwonderful conduct was reserved for this glorious conspiracy in favor of\nthe true and genuine rights and interests of men. Happy people, if they\nknow to proceed as they have begun! Happy prince, worthy to begin with\nsplendor or to close with glory a race of patriots and of kings, and to\nleave\n\n    A name, which every wind to heaven would bear,\n    Which men to speak, and angels joy to hear!\n\nTo finish all,--this great good, as in the instant it is, contains in it\nthe seeds of all further improvement, and may be considered as in a\nregular progress, because founded on similar principles, towards the\nstable excellence of a British Constitution.\n\nHere was a matter for congratulation and for festive remembrance through\nages. Here moralists and divines might indeed relax in their temperance,\nto exhilarate their humanity. But mark the character of our faction.\nAll their enthusiasm is kept for the French Revolution. They cannot\npretend that France had stood so much in need of a change as Poland.\nThey cannot pretend that Poland has not obtained a better system of\nliberty or of government than it enjoyed before. They cannot assert that\nthe Polish Revolution cost more dearly than that of France to the\ninterests and feelings of multitudes of men. But the cold and\nsubordinate light in which they look upon the one, and the pains they\ntake to preach up the other of these Revolutions, leave us no choice in\nfixing on their motives. Both Revolutions profess liberty as their\nobject; but in obtaining this object the one proceeds from anarchy to\norder, the other from order to anarchy. The first secures its liberty by\nestablishing its throne; the other builds its freedom on the subversion\nof its monarchy. In the one, their means are unstained by crimes, and\ntheir settlement favors morality; in the other, vice and confusion are\nin the very essence of their pursuit, and of their enjoyment. The\ncircumstances in which these two events differ must cause the difference\nwe make in their comparative estimation. These turn the scale with the\nsocieties in favor of France. _Ferrum est quod amant_. The frauds, the\nviolences, the sacrileges, the havoc and ruin of families, the\ndispersion and exile of the pride and flower of a great country, the\ndisorder, the confusion, the anarchy, the violation of property, the\ncruel murders, the inhuman confiscations, and in the end the insolent\ndomination of bloody, ferocious, and senseless clubs,--these are the\nthings which they love and admire. What men admire and love they would\nsurely act. Let us see what is done in France; and then let us\nundervalue any the slightest danger of falling into the hands of such a\nmerciless and savage faction!\n\n\"But the leaders of the factious societies are too wild to succeed in\nthis their undertaking.\" I hope so. But supposing them wild and absurd,\nis there no danger but from wise and reflecting men? Perhaps the\ngreatest mischiefs that have happened in the world have happened from\npersons as wild as those we think the wildest. In truth, they are the\nfittest beginners of all great changes. Why encourage men in a\nmischievous proceeding, because their absurdity may disappoint their\nmalice?--\"But noticing them may give them consequence.\" Certainly. But\nthey are noticed; and they are noticed, not with reproof, but with that\nkind of countenance which is given by an _apparent_ concurrence (not a\n_real_ one, I am convinced) of a great party in the praises of the\nobject which they hold out to imitation.\n\nBut I hear a language still more extraordinary, and indeed of such a\nnature as must suppose or leave us at their mercy. It is this:--\"You\nknow their promptitude in writing, and their diligence in caballing; to\nwrite, speak, or act against them will only stimulate them to new\nefforts.\" This way of considering the principle of their conduct pays\nbut a poor compliment to these gentlemen. They pretend that their\ndoctrines are infinitely beneficial to mankind; but it seems they would\nkeep them to themselves, if they were not greatly provoked. They are\nbenevolent from spite. Their oracles are like those of Proteus, (whom\nsome people think they resemble in many particulars,) who never would\ngive his responses, unless you used him as ill as possible. These cats,\nit seems, would not give out their electrical light without having\ntheir backs well rubbed. But this is not to do them perfect justice.\nThey are sufficiently communicative. Had they been quiet, the propriety\nof any agitation of topics on the origin and primary rights of\ngovernment, in opposition to their private sentiments, might possibly be\ndoubted. But, as it is notorious that they were proceeding as fast and\nas far as time and circumstances would admit, both in their discussions\nand cabals,--as it is not to be denied that they had opened a\ncorrespondence with a foreign faction the most wicked the world ever\nsaw, and established anniversaries to commemorate the most monstrous,\ncruel, and perfidious of all the proceedings of that faction,--the\nquestion is, whether their conduct was to be regarded in silence, lest\nour interference should render them outrageous. Then let them deal as\nthey please with the Constitution. Let the lady be passive, lest the\nravisher should be driven to force. Resistance will only increase his\ndesires. Yes, truly, if the resistance be feigned and feeble. But they\nwho are wedded to the Constitution will not act the part of wittols.\nThey will drive such seducers from the house on the first appearance of\ntheir love-letters and offered assignations. But if the author of the\nReflections, though a vigilant, was not a discreet guardian of the\nConstitution, let them who have the same regard to it show themselves as\nvigilant and more skilful in repelling the attacks of seduction or\nviolence. Their freedom from jealousy is equivocal, and may arise as\nwell from indifference to the object as from confidence in her virtue.\n\nOn their principle, it is the resistance, and not the assault, which\nproduces the danger. I admit, indeed, that, if we estimated the danger\nby the value of the writings, it would be little worthy of our\nattention: contemptible these writings are in every sense. But they are\nnot the cause, they are the disgusting symptoms of a frightful\ndistemper. They are not otherwise of consequence than as they show the\nevil habit of the bodies from whence they come. In that light the\nmeanest of them is a serious thing. If, however, I should underrate\nthem, and if the truth is, that they are not the result, but the cause,\nof the disorders I speak of, surely those who circulate operative\npoisons, and give to whatever force they have by their nature the\nfurther operation of their authority and adoption, are to be censured,\nwatched, and, if possible, repressed.\n\nAt what distance the direct danger from such factions may be it is not\neasy to fix. An adaptation of circumstances to designs and principles is\nnecessary. But these cannot be wanting for any long time, in the\nordinary course of sublunary affairs. Great discontents frequently arise\nin the best constituted governments from causes which no human wisdom\ncan foresee and no human power can prevent. They occur at uncertain\nperiods, but at periods which are not commonly far asunder. Governments\nof all kinds are administered only by men; and great mistakes, tending\nto inflame these discontents, may concur. The indecision of those who\nhappen to rule at the critical time, their supine neglect, or their\nprecipitate and ill-judged attention, may aggravate the public\nmisfortunes. In such a state of things, the principles, now only sown,\nwill shoot out and vegetate in full luxuriance. In such circumstances\nthe minds of the people become sore and ulcerated. They are put out of\nhumor with all public men and all public parties; they are fatigued\nwith their dissensions; they are irritated at their coalitions; they are\nmade easily to believe (what much pains are taken to make them believe)\nthat all oppositions are factious, and all courtiers base and servile.\nFrom their disgust at men, they are soon led to quarrel with their frame\nof government, which they presume gives nourishment to the vices, real\nor supposed, of those who administer in it. Mistaking malignity for\nsagacity, they are soon led to cast off all hope from a good\nadministration of affairs, and come to think that all reformation\ndepends, not on a change of actors, but upon an alteration in the\nmachinery. Then will be felt the full effect of encouraging doctrines\nwhich tend to make the citizens despise their Constitution. Then will be\nfelt the plenitude of the mischief of teaching the people to believe\nthat all ancient institutions are the results of ignorance, and that all\nprescriptive government is in its nature usurpation. Then will be felt,\nin all its energy, the danger of encouraging a spirit of litigation in\npersons of that immature and imperfect state of knowledge which serves\nto render them susceptible of doubts, but incapable of their solution.\nThen will be felt, in all its aggravation, the pernicious consequence of\ndestroying all docility in the minds of those who are not formed for\nfinding their own way in the labyrinths of political theory, and are\nmade to reject the clew and to disdain the guide. Then will be felt, and\ntoo late will be acknowledged, the ruin which follows the disjoining of\nreligion from the state, the separation of morality from policy, and the\ngiving conscience no concern and no coactive or coercive force in the\nmost material of all the social ties, the principle of our obligations\nto government.\n\nI know, too, that, besides this vain, contradictory, and\nself-destructive security which some men derive from the habitual\nattachment of the people to this Constitution, whilst they suffer it\nwith a sort of sportive acquiescence to be brought into contempt before\ntheir faces, they have other grounds for removing all apprehension from\ntheir minds. They are of opinion that there are too many men of great\nhereditary estates and influence in the kingdom to suffer the\nestablishment of the levelling system which has taken place in France.\nThis is very true, if, in order to guide the power which now attends\ntheir property, these men possess the wisdom which is involved in early\nfear. But if, through a supine security, to which such fortunes are\npeculiarly liable, they neglect the use of their influence in the season\nof their power, on the first derangement of society the nerves of their\nstrength will be cut. Their estates, instead of being the means of their\nsecurity, will become the very causes of their danger. Instead of\nbestowing influence, they will excite rapacity. They will be looked to\nas a prey.\n\nSuch will be the impotent condition of those men of great hereditary\nestates, who indeed dislike the designs that are carried on, but whose\ndislike is rather that of spectators than of parties that may be\nconcerned in the catastrophe of the piece. But riches do not in all\ncases secure even an inert and passive resistance. There are always in\nthat description men whose fortunes, when their minds are once vitiated\nby passion or by evil principle, are by no means a security from their\nactually taking their part against the public tranquillity. We see to\nwhat low and despicable passions of all kinds many men in that class\nare ready to sacrifice the patrimonial estates which might be\nperpetuated in their families with splendor, and with the fame of\nhereditary benefactors to mankind, from generation to generation. Do we\nnot see how lightly people treat their fortunes, when under the\ninfluence of the passion of gaming? The game of ambition or resentment\nwill be played by many of the rich and great as desperately, and with as\nmuch blindness to the consequences, as any other game. Was he a man of\nno rank or fortune who first set on foot the disturbances which have\nruined France? Passion blinded him to the consequences, so far as they\nconcerned himself; and as to the consequences with regard to others,\nthey were no part of his consideration,--nor ever will be with those who\nbear any resemblance to that virtuous patriot and lover of the rights of\nman.\n\nThere is also a time of insecurity, when interests of all sorts become\nobjects of speculation. Then it is that their very attachment to wealth\nand importance will induce several persons of opulence to list\nthemselves and even to take a lead with the party which they think most\nlikely to prevail, in order to obtain to themselves consideration in\nsome new order or disorder of things. They may be led to act in this\nmanner, that they may secure some portion of their own property, and\nperhaps to become partakers of the spoil of their own order. Those who\nspeculate on change always make a great number among people of rank and\nfortune, as well as amongst the low and the indigent.\n\nWhat security against all this?--All human securities are liable to\nuncertainty. But if anything bids fair for the prevention of so great a\ncalamity, it must consist in the use of the ordinary means of just\ninfluence in society, whilst those means continue unimpaired. The public\njudgment ought to receive a proper direction. All weighty men may have\ntheir share in so good a work. As yet, notwithstanding the strutting and\nlying independence of a braggart philosophy, Nature maintains her\nrights, and great names have great prevalence. Two such men as Mr. Pitt\nand Mr. Fox, adding to their authority in a point in which they concur\neven by their disunion in everything else, might frown these wicked\nopinions out of the kingdom. But if the influence of either of them, or\nthe influence of men like them, should, against their serious\nintentions, be otherwise perverted, they may countenance opinions which\n(as I have said before, and could wish over and over again to press)\nthey may in vain attempt to control. In their theory, these doctrines\nadmit no limit, no qualification whatsoever. No man can say how far he\nwill go, who joins with those who are avowedly going to the utmost\nextremities. What security is there for stopping short at all in these\nwild conceits? Why, neither more nor less than this,--that the moral\nsentiments of some few amongst them do put some check on their savage\ntheories. But let us take care. The moral sentiments, so nearly\nconnected with early prejudice as to be almost one and the same thing,\nwill assuredly not live long under a discipline which has for its basis\nthe destruction of all prejudices, and the making the mind proof against\nall dread of consequences flowing from the pretended truths that are\ntaught by their philosophy.\n\nIn this school the moral sentiments must grow weaker and weaker every\nday. The more cautious of these teachers, in laying down their maxims,\ndraw as much of the conclusion as suits, not with their premises, but\nwith their policy. They trust the rest to the sagacity of their pupils.\nOthers, and these are the most vaunted for their spirit, not only lay\ndown the same premises, but boldly draw the conclusions, to the\ndestruction of our whole Constitution in Church and State. But are these\nconclusions truly drawn? Yes, most certainly. Their principles are wild\nand wicked; but let justice be done even to frenzy and villany. These\nteachers are perfectly systematic. No man who assumes their grounds can\ntolerate the British Constitution in Church or State. These teachers\nprofess to scorn all mediocrity,--to engage for perfection,--to proceed\nby the simplest and shortest course. They build their politics, not on\nconvenience, but on truth; and they profess to conduct men to certain\nhappiness by the assertion of their undoubted rights. With them there is\nno compromise. All other governments are usurpations, which justify and\neven demand resistance.\n\nTheir principles always go to the extreme. They who go with the\nprinciples of the ancient Whigs, which are those contained in Mr.\nBurke's book, never can go too far. They may, indeed, stop short of some\nhazardous and ambiguous excellence, which they will be taught to\npostpone to any reasonable degree of good they may actually possess. The\nopinions maintained in that book never can lead to an extreme, because\ntheir foundation is laid in an opposition to extremes. The foundation of\ngovernment is there laid, not in imaginary rights of men, (which at best\nis a confusion of judicial with civil principles,) but in political\nconvenience, and in human nature,--either as that nature is universal,\nor as it is modified by local habits and social aptitudes. The\nfoundation of government (those who have read that book will recollect)\nis laid in a provision for our wants and in a conformity to our duties:\nit is to purvey for the one, it is to enforce the other. These doctrines\ndo of themselves gravitate to a middle point, or to some point near a\nmiddle. They suppose, indeed, a certain portion of liberty to be\nessential to all good government; but they infer that this liberty is to\nbe blended into the government, to harmonize with its forms and its\nrules, and to be made subordinate to its end. Those who are not with\nthat book are with its opposite; for there is no medium besides the\nmedium itself. That medium is not such because it is found there, but it\nis found there because it is conformable to truth and Nature. In this we\ndo not follow the author, but we and the author travel together upon the\nsame safe and middle path.\n\nThe theory contained in his book is not to furnish principles for making\na new Constitution, but for illustrating the principles of a\nConstitution already made. It is a theory drawn from the _fact_ of our\ngovernment. They who oppose it are bound to show that his theory\nmilitates with that fact; otherwise, their quarrel is not with his book,\nbut with the Constitution of their country. The whole scheme of our\nmixed Constitution is to prevent any one of its principles from being\ncarried as far as, taken by itself, and theoretically, it would go.\nAllow that to be the true policy of the British system, then most of the\nfaults with which that system stands charged will appear to be, not\nimperfections into which it has inadvertently fallen, but excellencies\nwhich it has studiously sought. To avoid the perfections of extreme,\nall its several parts are so constituted as not alone to answer their\nown several ends, but also each to limit and control the others;\ninsomuch that, take which of the principles you please, you will find\nits operation checked and stopped at a certain point. The whole movement\nstands still rather than that any part should proceed beyond its\nboundary. From thence it results that in the British Constitution there\nis a perpetual treaty and compromise going on, sometimes openly,\nsometimes with less observation. To him who contemplates the British\nConstitution, as to him who contemplates the subordinate material world,\nit will always be a matter of his most curious investigation to discover\nthe secret of this mutual limitation.\n\n            _Finita_ potestas denique _cuique_\n    Quanam sit ratione, atque alte terminus h\u00e6rens?\n\nThey who have acted, as in France they have done, upon a scheme wholly\ndifferent, and who aim at the abstract and unlimited perfection of power\nin the popular part, can be of no service to us in any of our political\narrangements. They who in their headlong career have overpassed the goal\ncan furnish no example to those who aim to go no further. The temerity\nof such speculators is no more an example than the timidity of others.\nThe one sort scorns the right; the other fears it; both miss it. But\nthose who by violence go beyond the barrier are without question the\nmost mischievous; because, to go beyond it, they overturn and destroy\nit. To say they have spirit is to say nothing in their praise. The\nuntempered spirit of madness, blindness, immorality, and impiety\ndeserves no commendation. He that sets his house on fire because his\nfingers are frost-bitten can never be a fit instructor in the method of\nproviding our habitations with a cheerful and salutary warmth. We want\nno foreign examples to rekindle in us the flame of liberty. The example\nof our own ancestors is abundantly sufficient to maintain the spirit of\nfreedom in its full vigor, and to qualify it in all its exertions. The\nexample of a wise, moral, well-natured, and well-tempered spirit of\nfreedom is that alone which can be useful to us, or in the least degree\nreputable or safe. Our fabric is so constituted, one part of it bears so\nmuch on the other, the parts are so made for one another, and for\nnothing else, that to introduce any foreign matter into it is to destroy\nit.\n\nWhat has been said of the Roman Empire is at least as true of the\nBritish Constitution:--\"_Octingentorum annorum fortuna disciplinaque\ncompages h\u00e6c coaluit; qu\u00e6 convelli sine convellentium exitio non\npotest_.\" This British Constitution has not been struck out at an heat\nby a set of presumptuous men, like the Assembly of pettifoggers run mad\nin Paris.\n\n    \"'Tis not the hasty product of a day,\n    But the well-ripened fruit of wise delay.\"\n\nIt is the result of the thoughts of many minds in many ages. It is no\nsimple, no superficial thing, nor to be estimated by superficial\nunderstandings. An ignorant man, who is not fool enough to meddle with\nhis clock, is, however, sufficiently confident to think he can safely\ntake to pieces and put together, at his pleasure, a moral machine of\nanother guise, importance, and complexity, composed of far other wheels\nand springs and balances and counteracting and co\u00f6perating powers. Men\nlittle think how immorally they act in rashly meddling with what they\ndo not understand. Their delusive good intention is no sort of excuse\nfor their presumption. They who truly mean well must be fearful of\nacting ill. The British Constitution may have its advantages pointed out\nto wise and reflecting minds, but it is of too high an order of\nexcellence to be adapted to those which are common. It takes in too many\nviews, it makes too many combinations, to be so much as comprehended by\nshallow and superficial understandings. Profound thinkers will know it\nin its reason and spirit. The less inquiring will recognize it in their\nfeelings and their experience. They will thank God they have a standard,\nwhich, in the most essential point of this great concern, will put them\non a par with the most wise and knowing.\n\nIf we do not take to our aid the foregone studies of men reputed\nintelligent and learned, we shall be always beginners. But men must\nlearn somewhere; and the new teachers mean no more than what they\neffect, as far as they succeed,--that is, to deprive men of the benefit\nof the collected wisdom of mankind, and to make them blind disciples of\ntheir own particular presumption. Talk to these deluded creatures (all\nthe disciples and most of the masters) who are taught to think\nthemselves so newly fitted up and furnished, and you will find nothing\nin their houses but the refuse of _Knaves' Acre_,--nothing but the\nrotten stuff, worn out in the service of delusion and sedition in all\nages, and which, being newly furbished up, patched, and varnished,\nserves well enough for those who, being unacquainted with the conflict\nwhich has always been maintained between the sense and the nonsense of\nmankind, know nothing of the former existence and the ancient\nrefutation of the same follies. It is near two thousand years since it\nhas been observed that these devices of ambition, avarice, and\nturbulence were antiquated. They are, indeed, the most ancient of all\ncommonplaces: commonplaces sometimes of good and necessary causes; more\nfrequently of the worst, but which decide upon neither. _Eadem semper\ncausa, libido et avaritia, et mutandarum rerum amor. Ceterum libertas et\nspeciosa nomina pretexuntur; nec quisquam alienum servitium, et\ndominationem sibi concupivit, ut non eadem ista vocabula usurparet_.\n\nRational and experienced men tolerably well know, and have always known,\nhow to distinguish between true and false liberty, and between the\ngenuine adherence and the false pretence to what is true. But none,\nexcept those who are profoundly studied, can comprehend the elaborate\ncontrivance of a fabric fitted to unite private and public liberty with\npublic force, with order, with peace, with justice, and, above all, with\nthe institutions formed for bestowing permanence and stability, through\nages, upon this invaluable whole.\n\nPlace, for instance, before your eyes such a man as Montesquieu. Think\nof a genius not born in every country or every time: a man gifted by\nNature with a penetrating, aquiline eye,--with a judgment prepared with\nthe most extensive erudition,--with an Herculean robustness of mind, and\nnerves not to be broken with labor,--a man who could spend twenty years\nin one pursuit. Think of a man like the universal patriarch in Milton\n(who had drawn up before him in his prophetic vision the whole series of\nthe generations which were to issue from his loins): a man capable of\nplacing in review, after having brought together from the East, the\nWest, the North, and the South, from the coarseness of the rudest\nbarbarism to the most refined and subtle civilization, all the schemes\nof government which had ever prevailed amongst mankind, weighing,\nmeasuring, collating, and comparing them all, joining fact with theory,\nand calling into council, upon all this infinite assemblage of things,\nall the speculations which have fatigued the understandings of profound\nreasoners in all times. Let us then consider, that all these were but so\nmany preparatory steps to qualify a man, and such a man, tinctured with\nno national prejudice, with no domestic affection, to admire, and to\nhold out to the admiration of mankind, the Constitution of England. And\nshall we Englishmen revoke to such a suit? Shall we, when so much more\nthan he has produced remains still to be understood and admired, instead\nof keeping ourselves in the schools of real science, choose for our\nteachers men incapable of being taught,--whose only claim to know is,\nthat they have never doubted,--from whom we can learn nothing but their\nown indocility,--who would teach us to scorn what in the silence of our\nhearts we ought to adore?\n\nDifferent from them are all the great critics. They have taught us one\nessential rule. I think the excellent and philosophic artist, a true\njudge, as well as a perfect follower of Nature, Sir Joshua Reynolds, has\nsomewhere applied it, or something like it, in his own profession. It is\nthis: that, if ever we should find ourselves disposed not to admire\nthose writers or artists (Livy and Virgil, for instance, Raphael or\nMichael Angelo) whom all the learned had admired, not to follow our own\nfancies, but to study them, until we know how and what we ought to\nadmire; and if we cannot arrive at this combination of admiration with\nknowledge, rather to believe that we are dull than that the rest of the\nworld has been imposed on. It is as good a rule, at least, with regard\nto this admired Constitution. We ought to understand it according to our\nmeasure, and to venerate where we are not able presently to comprehend.\n\nSuch admirers were our fathers, to whom we owe this splendid\ninheritance. Let us improve it with zeal, but with fear. Let us follow\nour ancestors, men not without a rational, though without an exclusive\nconfidence in themselves,--who, by respecting the reason of others, who,\nby looking backward as well as forward, by the modesty as well as by the\nenergy of their minds, went on insensibly drawing this Constitution\nnearer and nearer to its perfection, by never departing from its\nfundamental principles, nor introducing any amendment which had not a\nsubsisting root in the laws, Constitution, and usages of the kingdom.\nLet those who have the trust of political or of natural authority ever\nkeep watch against the desperate enterprises of innovation: let even\ntheir benevolence be fortified and armed. They have before their eyes\nthe example of a monarch insulted, degraded, confined, deposed; his\nfamily dispersed, scattered, imprisoned; his wife insulted to his face,\nlike the vilest of the sex, by the vilest of all populace; himself three\ntimes dragged by these wretches in an infamous triumph; his children\ntorn from him, in violation of the first right of Nature, and given into\nthe tuition of the most desperate and impious of the leaders of\ndesperate and impious clubs; his revenues dilapidated and plundered;\nhis magistrates murdered; his clergy proscribed, persecuted, famished;\nhis nobility degraded in their rank, undone in their fortunes, fugitives\nin their persons; his armies corrupted and ruined; his whole people\nimpoverished, disunited, dissolved; whilst through the bars of his\nprison, and amidst the bayonets of his keepers, he hears the tumult of\ntwo conflicting factions, equally wicked and abandoned, who agree in\nprinciples, in dispositions, and in objects, but who tear each other to\npieces about the most effectual means of obtaining their common end: the\none contending to preserve for a while his name, and his person, the\nmore easily to destroy the royal authority,--the other clamoring to cut\noff the name, the person, and the monarchy together, by one sacrilegious\nexecution. All this accumulation of calamity, the greatest that ever\nfell upon one man, has fallen upon his head, because he had left his\nvirtues unguarded by caution,--because he was not taught, that, where\npower is concerned, he who will confer benefits must take security\nagainst ingratitude.\n\nI have stated the calamities which have fallen upon a great prince and\nnation, because they were not alarmed at the approach of danger, and\nbecause, what commonly happens to men surprised, they lost all resource\nwhen they were caught in it. When I speak of danger, I certainly mean to\naddress myself to those who consider the prevalence of the new Whig\ndoctrines as an evil.\n\nThe Whigs of this day have before them, in this Appeal, their\nconstitutional ancestors; they have the doctors of the modern school.\nThey will choose for themselves. The author of the Reflections has\nchosen for himself. If a new order is coming on, and all the political\nopinions must pass away as dreams, which our ancestors have worshipped\nas revelations, I say for him, that he would rather be the last (as\ncertainly he is the least) of that race of men than the first and\ngreatest of those who have coined to themselves Whig principles from a\nFrench die, unknown to the impress of our fathers in the Constitution.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[6] Newspaper intelligence ought always to be received with some degree\nof caution. I do not know that the following paragraph is founded on any\nauthority; but it comes with an air of authority. The paper is\nprofessedly in the interest of the modern Whigs, and under their\ndirection. The paragraph is not disclaimed on their part. It professes\nto be the decision of those whom its author calls \"the great and firm\nbody of the Whigs of England.\" Who are the Whigs of a different\ncomposition, which the promulgator of the sentence considers as composed\nof fleeting and unsettled particles, I know not, nor whether there be\nany of that description. The definitive sentence of \"the great and firm\nbody of the Whigs of England\" (as this paper gives it out) is as\nfollows:--\n\n\"The great and firm body of the Whigs of England, true to their\nprinciples, have decided on the dispute between Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke;\nand the former is declared to have maintained the pure doctrines by\nwhich they are bound together, and upon which they have invariably\nacted. The consequence is, that Mr. Burke retires from\nParliament.\"--_Morning Chronicle_, May 12, 1791.\n\n[7] Reflections, &c., 1st ed., London, J. Dodsley, 1790.--Works, Vol.\nIII. p. 343, in the present edition.\n\n[8] To explain this, it will be necessary to advert to a paragraph which\nappeared in a paper in the minority interest some time before this\ndebate. \"A very dark intrigue has lately been discovered, the authors of\nwhich are well known to us; but until the glorious day shall come when\nit will not be a LIBEL to tell the TRUTH, we must not be so regardless\nof our own safety as to publish their names. We will, however, state the\nfact, leaving it to the ingenuity of our readers to discover what we\ndare not publish.\n\n\"Since the business of the armament against Russia has been under\ndiscussion, a great personage has been heard to say, 'that he was not so\nwedded to Mr. PITT as not to be very willing to give his confidence to\nMr. FOX, if the latter should be able, in a crisis like the present, to\nconduct the government of the country with greater advantage to the\npublic.'\n\n\"This patriotic declaration immediately alarmed the swarm of courtly\ninsects that live only in the sunshine of ministerial favor. It was\nthought to be the forerunner of the dismission of Mr. Pitt, and every\nengine was set at work for the purpose of preventing such an event. The\nprincipal engine employed on this occasion was CALUMNY. It was whispered\nin the ear of a great personage, that Mr. Fox was the last man in\nEngland to be trusted by a KING, because he was by PRINCIPLE a\nREPUBLICAN, and consequently an enemy to MONARCHY.\n\n\"In the discussion of the Quebec Bill which stood for yesterday, it was\nthe intention of some persons to connect with this subject the French\nRevolution, in hopes that Mr. Fox would be warmed by a collision with\nMr. Burke, and induced to defend that Revolution, in which so much power\nwas taken from, and so little left in the crown.\n\n\"Had Mr. Fox fallen into the snare, his speech on the occasion would\nhave been laid before a great personage, as a proof that a man who could\ndefend such a revolution might be a very good republican, but could not\npossibly be a friend to monarchy.\n\n\"But those who laid the snare were disappointed; for Mr. Fox, in the\nshort conversation which took place yesterday in the House of Commons,\nsaid, that he confessedly had thought favorably of the French\nRevolution, but that most certainly he never had, either in Parliament\nor out of Parliament, professed or defended republican\nprinciples.\"--_Argus_, April 22d, 1791.\n\nMr. Burke cannot answer for the truth nor prove the falsehood of the\nstory given by the friends of the party in this paper. He only knows\nthat an opinion of its being well or ill authenticated had no influence\non his conduct. He meant only, to the best of his power, to guard the\npublic against the ill designs of factions out of doors. What Mr. Burke\ndid in Parliament could hardly have been intended to draw Mr. Fox into\nany declarations unfavorable to his principles, since (by the account of\nthose who are his friends) he had long before effectually prevented the\nsuccess of any such scandalous designs. Mr. Fox's friends have\nthemselves done away that imputation on Mr. Burke.\n\n[9] See his speech on American Taxation, the 19th of April, 1774.\n\n[10] Lord Lansdowne.\n\n[11] Mr. Windham.\n\n[12] July 17th, 1765.\n\n[13] Works, Vol. III. pp. 251-276, present edition.\n\n[14] State Trials, Vol. V. p. 651.\n\n[15] Page 676.\n\n[16] The words necessary to the completion of the sentence are wanting\nin the printed trial--but the construction of the sentence, as well as\nthe foregoing part of the speech, justify the insertion of some such\nsupplemental words as the above.\n\n[17] \"What we did was, in truth and substance, and in a constitutional\nlight, a revolution, not made, but prevented. We took solid securities;\nwe settled doubtful questions; we corrected anomalies in our law. In the\nstable, fundamental parts of our Constitution we made no\nrevolution,--no, nor any alteration at all. We did not impair the\nmonarchy. Perhaps it might be shown that we strengthened it very\nconsiderably. The nation kept the same ranks, the same orders, the same\nprivileges, the same franchises, the same rules for property, the same\nsubordinations, the same order in the law, in the revenue, and in the\nmagistracy,--the same lords, the same commons, the same corporations,\nthe same electors.\"--_Mr. Burke's Speech in the House of Commons, 9th\nFebruary, 1790._--It appears how exactly he coincides in everything with\nSir Joseph Jekyl.\n\n[18] See Reflections, pp. 42, 43.--Works, Vol. III. p. 270, present\nedition.\n\n[19] Declaration of Right.\n\n[20] Vindication of the Rights of Man, recommended by the several\nsocieties.\n\n[21] \"Omnes omnium charitates patria una complectitur.\"--Cic.\n\n[22] A few lines in Persius contain a good summary of all the objects of\nmoral investigation, and hint the result of our inquiry: There human\nwill has no place.\n\n    Quid _sumus_? et quidnam _victuri gignimur_? ordo\n    Quis _datus_? et _met\u00e6_ quis mollis flexus, et unde?\n    Quis modus argento? Quid _fas optare_? Quid asper\n    Utile nummus habet? _Patri\u00e6 charisque propinquis_\n    Quantum elargiri _debet_? Quem te Deus esse\n    _Jussit_? et humana qua parte _locatus es_ in re?\n\n\n\n[23] It is no small loss to the world, that the whole of this\nenlightened and philosophic sermon, preached to _two hundred thousand_\nnational guards assembled at Blackheath (a number probably equal to the\nsublime and majestic _F\u00e9d\u00e9ration_ of the 14th of July, 1790, in the\nChamp de Mars) is not preserved. A short abstract is, however, to be\nfound in Walsingham. I have added it here for the edification of the\nmodern Whigs, who may possibly except this precious little fragment from\ntheir general contempt of ancient learning.\n\n\"Ut su\u00e2 doctrin\u00e2 plures inficeret, ad le Blackheth (ubi ducenta millia\nhominum communium fuere simul congregata) hujuscemodi sermonem est\nexorsus.\n\n    \"Whan Adam dalfe and Eve span,\n     Who was than a gentleman?\n\nContinuansque sermonem inceptum, nitebatur per verba proverbii, quod pro\nthemate sumpserat, introducere et probare, _ab initio omnes pares\ncreatos a natur\u00e2_, servitutem per injustam oppressionem nequam hominum\nintroductam contra Dei voluntatem, quia si Deo placuisset servos\ncre\u00e2sse, utique in principio mundi constituisset, quis servus, quisve\ndominus futurus fuisset. Considerarent igitur jam tempus a Deo datum\neis, in quo (deposito servitutis jugo diutius) possent, si vellent,\nlibertate diu concupit\u00e2 gaudere. Quapropter monuit ut essent viri\ncordati, et amore boni patrisfamilias excolentis agrum suum, et\nextirpantis ac resecantis noxia gramina qu\u00e6 fruges solent opprimere, et\nipsi in pr\u00e6senti facere festinarent. Prim\u00f2 _majores regni dominos\noccidendo. Deinde juridicos, justiciarios, et juratores patri\u00e6\nperimendo._ Postrem\u00f2 quoscunque scirent _in posterum communitati\nnocivos_ tollerent de terr\u00e2 su\u00e2, sic demum et _pacem_ sibimet _parerent\net securitatem_ in futurum. _Si sublatis majoribus esset inter eos \u00e6qua\nlibertas, eadem nobilitas, par dignitas, similisque potestas._\"\n\nHere is displayed at once the whole of the grand _arcanum_ pretended to\nbe found out by the National Assembly, for securing future happiness,\npeace, and tranquillity. There seems, however, to be some doubt whether\nthis venerable protomartyr of philosophy was inclined to carry his own\ndeclaration of the rights of men more rigidly into practice than the\nNational Assembly themselves. He was, like them, only preaching\nlicentiousness to the populace to obtain power for himself, if we may\nbelieve what is subjoined by the historian.\n\n\"Cumque h\u00e6c et _plura alia deliramenta_\" (think of this old fool's\ncalling all the wise maxims of the French Academy _deliramenta_!)\n\"pr\u00e6dic\u00e2sset, commune vulgus cum tanto favore prosequitur, ut\n_exclamarent eum archiepiscopum futurum, et regni cancellarium_.\"\nWhether he would have taken these situations under these names, or would\nhave changed the whole nomenclature of the State and Church, to be\nunderstood in the sense of the Revolution, is not so certain. It is\nprobable that he would have changed the names and kept the substance of\npower.\n\nWe find, too, that they had in those days their _society for\nconstitutional information_, of which the Reverend John Ball was a\nconspicuous member, sometimes under his own name, sometimes under the\nfeigned name of John Schep. Besides him it consisted (as Knyghton tells\nus) of persons who went by the real or fictitious names of Jack Mylner,\nTom Baker, Jack Straw, Jack Trewman, Jack Carter, and probably of many\nmore. Some of the choicest flowers of the publications charitably\nwritten and circulated by them gratis are upon record in Walsingham and\nKnyghton: and I am inclined to prefer the pithy and sententious brevity\nof these _bulletins_ of ancient rebellion before the loose and confused\nprolixity of the modern advertisements of constitutional information.\nThey contain more good morality and less bad politics, they had much\nmore foundation in real oppression, and they have the recommendation of\nbeing much better adapted to the capacities of those for whose\ninstruction they were intended. Whatever laudable pains the teachers of\nthe present day appear to take, I cannot compliment them so far as to\nallow that they have succeeded in writing down to the level of their\npupils, _the members of the sovereign_, with half the ability of Jack\nCarter and the Reverend John Ball. That my readers may judge for\nthemselves, I shall give them, one or two specimens.\n\nThe first is an address from the Reverend John Ball, under his _nom de\nguerre_ of John Schep. I know not against what particular \"guyle in\nborough\" the writer means to caution the people; it may have been only a\ngeneral cry against \"_rotten boroughs_,\" which it was thought\nconvenient, then as now, to make the first pretext, and place at the\nhead of the list of grievances.\n\nJOHN SCHEP.\n\n\"Iohn Schep sometime seint Mary priest of Yorke, and now of Colchester,\ngreeteth well Iohn Namelesse, and Iohn the Miller, and Iohn Carter, and\n_biddeth them that they beware of guyle in borough_, and stand together\nin Gods name, and biddeth Piers Ploweman goe to his werke, and chastise\nwell _Hob the robber_, [probably the king,] and take with you Iohn\nTrewman, and all his fellows, and no moe.\n\n    \"Iohn the Miller hath yground smal, small, small:\n     The kings sonne of heauen shal pay for all.\n     Beware or ye be woe,\n     Know your frende fro your foe,\n     Haue ynough, and say hoe:\n     And do wel and better, & flee sinne,\n     _And seeke peace and holde you therin,_\n\n& so biddeth Iohn Trewman & all his fellowes.\"\n\nThe reader has perceived, from the last lines of this curious\nstate-paper, how well the National Assembly has copied its union of the\nprofession of universal peace with the practice of murder and confusion,\nand the blast of the trumpet of sedition in all nations. He will in the\nfollowing constitutional paper observe how well, in their enigmatical\nstyle, like the Assembly and their abettors, the old philosophers\nproscribe all hereditary distinction, and bestow it only on virtue and\nwisdom, according to their estimation of both. Yet these people are\nsupposed never to have heard of \"the rights of man\"!\n\nJACK MYLNER.\n\n\"Jakke Mylner asket help to turne his mylne aright.\n\n    \"He hath grounden smal smal,\n     The Kings sone of heven he schal pay for alle.\n\nLoke thy mylne go a rygt, with the fours sayles, and the post stande in\nsteadfastnesse.\n\n    \"With rygt and with mygt,\n     With skyl and with wylle,\n     Lat mygt helpe rygt,\n     And skyl go before wille,\n     And rygt before mygt:\n     Than goth oure mylne aryght.\n     And if mygt go before ryght,\n     And wylle before skylle;\n     Than is oure mylne mys a dygt.\"\n\nJACK CARTER understood perfectly the doctrine of looking to the _end_,\nwith an indifference to the _means_, and the probability of much good\narising from great evil.\n\n\"Jakke Carter pryes yowe alle that ye make a gode _ende_ of that ye hane\nbegunnen, and doth wele and ay bettur and bettur: for at the even men\nheryth the day. _For if the ende be wele, than is alle wele._ Lat Peres\nthe Plowman my brother duelle at home and dygt us corne, and I will go\nwith yowe and helpe that y may to dygte youre mete and youre drynke,\nthat ye none fayle: lokke that Hobbe robbyoure be wele chastysed for\nlesyng of youre grace: for ye have gret nede to take God with yowe in\nalle yours dedes. For nowe is tyme to be war.\"\n\n[24] See the wise remark on this subject in the Defence of Rights of\nMan, circulated by the societies.\n\n[25] The primary assemblies.\n\n\n\n\nA\n\nLETTER\n\nTO\n\nA PEER OF IRELAND\n\nON THE\n\nPENAL LAWS AGAINST IRISH CATHOLICS,\n\nPREVIOUS TO\n\nTHE LATE REPEAL OF A PART THEREOF IN THE SESSION OF THE IRISH\nPARLIAMENT, HELD A.D. 1782.\n\n\nCHARLES STREET, LONDON, Feb. 21, 1782\n\n\nMy Lord,--I am obliged to your Lordship for your communication of the\nheads of Mr. Gardiner's bill. I had received it, in an earlier stage of\nits progress, from Mr. Braughall; and I am still in that gentleman's\ndebt, as I have not made him the proper return for the favor he has done\nme. Business, to which I was more immediately called, and in which my\nsentiments had the weight of one vote, occupied me every moment since I\nreceived his letter. This first morning which I can call my own I give\nwith great cheerfulness to the subject on which your Lordship has done\nme the honor of desiring my opinion.\n\nI have read the heads of the bill, with the amendments. Your Lordship is\ntoo well acquainted with men, and with affairs, to imagine that any true\njudgment can be formed on the value of a great measure of policy from\nthe perusal of a piece of paper. At present I am much in the dark with\nregard to the state of the country which the intended law is to be\napplied to. It is not easy for me to determine whether or no it was wise\n(for the sake of expunging the black letter of laws which, menacing as\nthey were in the language, were every day fading into disuse) solemnly\nto reaffirm the principles and to reenact the provisions of a code of\nstatutes by which you are totally excluded from THE PRIVILEGES OF THE\nCOMMONWEALTH, from the highest to the lowest, from the most material of\nthe civil professions, from the army, and even from education, where\nalone education is to be had.[26]\n\nWhether this scheme of indulgence, grounded at once on contempt and\njealousy, has a tendency gradually to produce something better and more\nliberal, I cannot tell, for want of having the actual map of the\ncountry. If this should be the case, it was right in you to accept it,\nsuch as it is. But if this should be one of the experiments which have\nsometimes been made before the temper of the nation was ripe for a real\nreformation, I think it may possibly have ill effects, by disposing the\npenal matter in a more systematic order, and thereby fixing a permanent\nbar against any relief that is truly substantial. The whole merit or\ndemerit of the measure depends upon the plans and dispositions of those\nby whom the act was made, concurring with the general temper of the\nProtestants of Ireland, and their aptitude to admit in time of some part\nof that equality without which you never can be FELLOW-CITIZENS. Of all\nthis I am wholly ignorant. All my correspondence with men of public\nimportance in Ireland has for some time totally ceased. On the first\nbill for the relief of the ROMAN CATHOLICS of Ireland, I was, without\nany call of mine, consulted both on your side of the water and on this.\nOn the present occasion, I have not heard a word from any man in office,\nand know as little of the intentions of the British government as I\nknow of the temper of the Irish Parliament. I do not find that any\nopposition was made by the principal persons of the minority in the\nHouse of Commons, or that any is apprehended from them in the House of\nLords. The whole of the difficulty seems to lie with the principal men\nin government, under whose protection this bill is supposed to be\nbrought in. This violent opposition and cordial support, coming from one\nand the same quarter, appears to me something mysterious, and hinders me\nfrom being able to make any clear judgment of the merit of the present\nmeasure, as compared with the actual state of the country and the\ngeneral views of government, without which one can say nothing that may\nnot be very erroneous.\n\nTo look at the bill in the abstract, it is neither more nor less than a\nrenewed act of UNIVERSAL, UNMITIGATED, INDISPENSABLE, EXCEPTIONLESS\nDISQUALIFICATION.\n\nOne would imagine that a bill inflicting such a multitude of\nincapacities had followed on the heels of a conquest made by a very\nfierce enemy, under the impression of recent animosity and resentment.\nNo man, on reading that bill, could imagine he was reading an act of\namnesty and indulgence, following a recital of the good behavior of\nthose who are the objects of it,--which recital stood at the head of the\nbill, as it was first introduced, but, I suppose for its incongruity\nwith the body of the piece, was afterwards omitted. This I say on\nmemory. It, however, still recites the oath, and that Catholics ought to\nbe considered as good and loyal subjects to his Majesty, his crown and\ngovernment. Then follows an universal exclusion of those GOOD and LOYAL\nsubjects from every (even the lowest) office of trust and profit,--from\nany vote at an election,--from any privilege in a town corporate,--from\nbeing even a freeman of such a corporation,--from serving on grand\njuries,--from a vote at a vestry,--from having a gun in his house,--from\nbeing a barrister, attorney, or solicitor, &c., &c., &c.\n\nThis has surely much more the air of a table of proscription than an act\nof grace. What must we suppose the laws concerning those _good_ subjects\nto have been, of which this is a relaxation? I know well that there is a\ncant language current, about the difference between an exclusion from\nemployments, even to the most rigorous extent, and an exclusion from the\nnatural benefits arising from a man's own industry. I allow, that, under\nsome circumstances, the difference is very material in point of justice,\nand that there are considerations which may render it advisable for a\nwise government to keep the leading parts of every branch of civil and\nmilitary administration in hands of the best trust; but a total\nexclusion from the commonwealth is a very different thing. When a\ngovernment subsists (as governments formerly did) on an estate of its\nown, with but few and inconsiderable revenues drawn from the subject,\nthen the few officers which existed in such establishments were\nnaturally at the disposal of that government, which paid the salaries\nout of its own coffers: there an exclusive preference could hardly merit\nthe name of proscription. Almost the whole produce of a man's industry\nat that time remained in his own purse to maintain his family. But times\nalter, and the _whole_ estate of government is from private\ncontribution. When a very great portion of the labor of individuals\ngoes to the state, and is by the state again refunded to individuals,\nthrough the medium of offices, and in this circuitous progress from the\nprivate to the public, and from the public again to the private fund,\nthe families from whom the revenue is taken are indemnified, and an\nequitable balance between the government and the subject is established.\nBut if a great body of the people who contribute to this state lottery\nare excluded from all the prizes, the stopping the circulation with\nregard to them may be a most cruel hardship, amounting in effect to\nbeing double and treble taxed; and it will be felt as such to the very\nquick, by all the families, high and low, of those hundreds of thousands\nwho are denied their chance in the returned fruits of their own\nindustry. This is the thing meant by those who look upon the public\nrevenue only as a spoil, and will naturally wish to have as few as\npossible concerned in the division of the booty. If a state should be so\nunhappy as to think it cannot subsist without such a barbarous\nproscription, the persons so proscribed ought to be indemnified by the\nremission of a large part of their taxes, by an immunity from the\noffices of public burden, and by an exemption from being pressed into\nany military or naval service.\n\nCommon sense and common justice dictate this at least, as some sort of\ncompensation to a people for their slavery. How many families are\nincapable of existing, if the little offices of the revenue and little\nmilitary commissions are denied them! To deny them at home, and to make\nthe happiness of acquiring some of them somewhere else felony or high\ntreason, is a piece of cruelty, in which, till very lately, I did not\nsuppose this age capable of persisting. Formerly a similarity of\nreligion made a sort of country for a man in some quarter or other. A\nrefugee for religion was a protected character. Now the reception is\ncold indeed; and therefore, as the asylum abroad is destroyed, the\nhardship at home is doubled. This hardship is the more intolerable\nbecause the professions are shut up. The Church is so of course. Much is\nto be said on that subject, in regard to them, and to the Protestant\nDissenters. But that is a chapter by itself. I am sure I wish well to\nthat Church, and think its ministers among the very best citizens of\nyour country. However, such as it is, a great walk in life is forbidden\nground to seventeen hundred thousand of the inhabitants of Ireland. Why\nare they excluded from the law? Do not they expend money in their suits?\nWhy may not they indemnify themselves, by profiting, in the persons of\nsome, for the losses incurred by others? Why may not they have persons\nof confidence, whom they may, if they please, employ in the agency of\ntheir affairs? The exclusion from the law, from grand juries, from\nsheriffships and under-sheriffships, as well as from freedom in any\ncorporation, may subject them to dreadful hardships, as it may exclude\nthem wholly from all that is beneficial and expose them to all that is\nmischievous in a trial by jury. This was manifestly within my own\nobservation, for I was three times in Ireland from the year 1760 to the\nyear 1767, where I had sufficient means of information concerning the\ninhuman proceedings (among which were many cruel murders, besides an\ninfinity of outrages and oppressions unknown before in a civilized age)\nwhich prevailed during that period, in consequence of a pretended\nconspiracy among _Roman Catholics_ against the king's government. I\ncould dilate upon the mischiefs that may happen, from those which have\nhappened, upon this head of disqualification, if it were at all\nnecessary.\n\nThe head of exclusion from votes for members of Parliament is closely\nconnected with the former. When you cast your eye on the statute-book,\nyou will see that no _Catholic_, even in the ferocious acts of Queen\nAnne, was disabled from voting on account of his religion. The only\nconditions required for that privilege were the oaths of allegiance and\nabjuration,--both oaths relative to a civil concern. Parliament has\nsince added another oath of the same kind; and yet a House of Commons,\nadding to the securities of government in proportion as its danger is\nconfessedly lessened, and professing both confidence and indulgence, in\neffect takes away the privilege left by an act full of jealousy and\nprofessing persecution.\n\nThe taking away of a vote is the taking away the shield which the\nsubject has, not only against the oppression of power, but that worst of\nall oppressions, the persecution of private society and private manners.\nNo candidate for Parliamentary influence is obliged to the least\nattention towards them, either in cities or counties. On the contrary,\nif they should become obnoxious to any bigoted or malignant people\namongst whom they live, it will become the interest of those who court\npopular favor to use the numberless means which always reside in\nmagistracy and influence to oppress them. The proceedings in a certain\ncounty in Munster, during the unfortunate period I have mentioned, read\na strong lecture on the cruelty of depriving men of that shield on\naccount of their speculative opinions. The Protestants of Ireland feel\nwell and naturally on the hardship of being bound by laws in the\nenacting of which they do not directly or indirectly vote. The bounds of\nthese matters are nice, and hard to be settled in theory, and perhaps\nthey have been pushed too far. But how they can avoid the necessary\napplication of the principles they use in their disputes with others to\ntheir disputes with their fellow-citizens, I know not.\n\nIt is true, the words of this act do not create a disability; but they\nclearly and evidently suppose it. There are few _Catholic_ freeholders\nto take the benefit of the privilege, if they were permitted to partake\nit; but the manner in which this very right in freeholders at large is\ndefended is not on the idea that the freeholders do really and truly\nrepresent the people, but that, all people being capable of obtaining\nfreeholds, all those who by their industry and sobriety merit this\nprivilege have the means of arriving at votes. It is the same with the\ncorporations.\n\nThe laws against foreign education are clearly the very worst part of\nthe old code. Besides your laity, you have the succession of about four\nthousand clergymen to provide for. These, having no lucrative objects in\nprospect, are taken very much out of the lower orders of the people. At\nhome they have no means whatsoever provided for their attaining a\nclerical education, or indeed any education at all. When I was in Paris,\nabout seven years ago, I looked at everything, and lived with every kind\nof people, as well as my time admitted. I saw there the Irish college of\nthe Lombard, which seemed to me a very good place of education, under\nexcellent orders and regulations, and under the government of a very\nprudent and learned man (the late Dr. Kelly). This college was possessed\nof an annual fixed revenue of more than a thousand pound a year, the\ngreatest part of which had arisen from the legacies and benefactions of\npersons educated in that college, and who had obtained promotions in\nFrance, from the emolument of which promotions they made this grateful\nreturn. One in particular I remember, to the amount of ten thousand\nlivres annually, as it is recorded on the donor's monument in their\nchapel.\n\nIt has been the custom of poor persons in Ireland to pick up such\nknowledge of the Latin tongue as, under the general discouragements, and\noccasional pursuits of magistracy, they were able to acquire; and\nreceiving orders at home, were sent abroad to obtain a clerical\neducation. By officiating in petty chaplainships, and performing now and\nthen certain offices of religion for small gratuities, they received the\nmeans of maintaining themselves until they were able to complete their\neducation. Through such difficulties and discouragements, many of them\nhave arrived at a very considerable proficiency, so as to be marked and\ndistinguished abroad. These persons afterwards, by being sunk in the\nmost abject poverty, despised and ill-treated by the higher orders among\nProtestants, and not much better esteemed or treated even by the few\npersons of fortune of their own persuasion, and contracting the habits\nand ways of thinking of the poor and uneducated, among whom they were\nobliged to live, in a few years retained little or no traces of the\ntalents and acquirements which distinguished them in the early periods\nof their lives. Can we with justice cut them off from the use of places\nof education founded for the greater part from the economy of poverty\nand exile, without providing something that is equivalent at home?\n\nWhilst this restraint of foreign and domestic education was part of an\nhorrible and impious system of servitude, the members were well fitted\nto the body. To render men patient under a deprivation of all the rights\nof human nature, everything which could give them a knowledge or feeling\nof those rights was rationally forbidden. To render humanity fit to be\ninsulted, it was fit that it should be degraded. But when we profess to\nrestore men to the capacity for property, it is equally irrational and\nunjust to deny them the power of improving their minds as well as their\nfortunes. Indeed, I have ever thought the prohibition of the means of\nimproving our rational nature to be the worst species of tyranny that\nthe insolence and perverseness of mankind ever dared to exercise. This\ngoes to all men, in all situations, to whom education can be denied.\n\nYour Lordship mentions a proposal which came from my friend, the\nProvost, whose benevolence and enlarged spirit I am perfectly convinced\nof,--which is, the proposal of erecting a few sizarships in the college,\nfor the education (I suppose) of Roman Catholic clergymen.[27] He\ncertainly meant it well; but, coming from such a man as he is, it is a\nstrong instance of the danger of suffering any description of men to\nfall into entire contempt. The charities intended for them are not\nperceived to be fresh insults; and the true nature of their wants and\nnecessities being unknown, remedies wholly unsuitable to the nature of\ntheir complaint are provided for them. It is to feed a sick Gentoo with\nbeef broth, and to foment his wounds with brandy. If the other parts of\nthe university were open to them, as well on the foundation as\notherwise, the offering of sizarships would be a proportioned part of a\n_general_ kindness. But when everything _liberal_ is withheld, and only\nthat which is _servile_ is permitted, it is easy to conceive upon what\nfooting they must be in such a place.\n\nMr. Hutchinson must well know the regard and honor I have for him; and\nhe cannot think my dissenting from him in this particular arises from a\ndisregard of his opinion: it only shows that I think he has lived in\nIreland. To have any respect for the character and person of a Popish\npriest there--oh, 'tis an uphill work indeed! But until we come to\nrespect what stands in a respectable light with others, we are very\ndeficient in the temper which qualifies us to make any laws and\nregulations about them: it even disqualifies us from being charitable to\nthem with any effect or judgment.\n\nWhen we are to provide for the education of any body of men, we ought\nseriously to consider the particular functions they are to perform in\nlife. A Roman Catholic clergyman is the minister of a very ritual\nreligion, and by his profession subject to many restraints. His life is\na life full of strict observances; and his duties are of a laborious\nnature towards himself, and of the highest possible trust towards\nothers. The duty of confession alone is sufficient to set in the\nstrongest light the necessity of his having an appropriated mode of\neducation. The theological opinions and peculiar rites of one religion\nnever can be properly taught in universities founded for the purposes\nand on the principles of another which in many points are directly\nopposite. If a Roman Catholic clergyman, intended for celibacy and the\nfunction of confession, is not strictly bred in a seminary where these\nthings are respected, inculcated, and enforced, as sacred, and not made\nthe subject of derision and obloquy, he will be ill fitted for the\nformer, and the latter will be indeed in his hands a terrible\ninstrument.\n\nThere is a great resemblance between, the whole frame and constitution\nof the Greek and Latin Churches. The secular clergy in the former, by\nbeing married, living under little restraint, and having no particular\neducation suited to their function, are universally fallen into such\ncontempt that they are never permitted to aspire to the dignities of\ntheir own Church. It is not held respectful to call them _Papas_, their\ntrue and ancient appellation, but those who wish to address them with\ncivility always call them _Hieromonachi_. In consequence of this\ndisrespect, which I venture to say, in such a Church, must be the\nconsequence of a secular life, a very great degeneracy from reputable\nChristian manners has taken place throughout almost the whole of that\ngreat member of the Christian Church.\n\nIt was so with the Latin Church, before the restraint on marriage. Even\nthat restraint gave rise to the greatest disorders before the Council of\nTrent, which, together with the emulation raised and the good examples\ngiven by the Reformed churches, wherever they were in view of each\nother, has brought on that happy amendment which we see in the Latin\ncommunion, both at home and abroad.\n\nThe Council of Trent has wisely introduced the discipline of seminaries,\nby which priests are not trusted for a clerical institution even to the\nsevere discipline of their colleges, but, after they pass through them,\nare frequently, if not for the greater part, obliged to pass through\npeculiar methods, having their particular ritual function in view. It is\nin a great measure to this, and to similar methods used in foreign\neducation, that the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, miserably provided\nfor, living among low and ill-regulated people, without any discipline\nof sufficient force to secure good manners, have been prevented from\nbecoming an intolerable nuisance to the country, instead of being, as I\nconceive they generally are, a very great service to it.\n\nThe ministers of Protestant churches require a different mode of\neducation, more liberal, and more fit for the ordinary intercourse of\nlife. That religion having little hold on the minds of people by\nexternal ceremonies and extraordinary observances, or separate habits of\nliving, the clergy make up the deficiency by cultivating their minds\nwith all kinds of ornamental learning, which the liberal provision made\nin England and Ireland for the parochial clergy, (to say nothing of the\nample Church preferments, with little or no duties annexed,) and the\ncomparative lightness of parochial duties, enables the greater part of\nthem in some considerable degree to accomplish.\n\nThis learning, which I believe to be pretty general, together with an\nhigher situation, and more chastened by the opinion of mankind, forms a\nsufficient security for the morals of the established clergy, and for\ntheir sustaining their clerical character with dignity. It is not\nnecessary to observe, that all these things are, however, collateral to\ntheir function, and that, except in preaching, which may be and is\nsupplied, and often best supplied, out of printed books, little else is\nnecessary for a Protestant minister than to be able to read the English\nlanguage,--I mean for the exercise of his function, not to the\nqualification of his admission to it. But a Popish parson in Ireland may\ndo very well without any considerable classical erudition, or any\nproficiency in pure or mixed mathematics, or any knowledge of civil\nhistory. Even if the Catholic clergy should possess those acquisitions,\nas at first many of them do, they soon lose them in the painful course\nof professional and parochial duties: but they must have all the\nknowledge, and, what is to them more important than the knowledge, the\ndiscipline, necessary to those duties. All modes of education conducted\nby those whose minds are cast in another mould, as I may say, and whose\noriginal ways of thinking are formed upon the reverse pattern, must be\nto them not only useless, but mischievous. Just as I should suppose the\neducation in a Popish ecclesiastical seminary would be ill fitted for a\nProtestant clergyman. To educate a Catholic priest in a Protestant\nseminary would be much worse. The Protestant educated amongst Catholics\nhas only something to reject: what he keeps may be useful. But a\nCatholic parish priest learns little for his peculiar purpose and duty\nin a Protestant college.\n\nAll this, my Lord, I know very well, will pass for nothing with those\nwho wish that the Popish clergy should be illiterate, and in a situation\nto produce contempt and detestation. Their minds are wholly taken up\nwith party squabbles, and I have neither leisure nor inclination to\napply any part of what I have to say to those who never think of\nreligion or of the commonwealth in any other light than as they tend to\nthe prevalence of some faction in either. I speak on a supposition that\nthere is a disposition _to take the state in the condition in which it\nis found_, and to improve it _in that state_ to the best advantage.\nHitherto the plan for the government of Ireland has been to sacrifice\nthe civil prosperity of the nation to its religious improvement. But if\npeople in power there are at length come to entertain other ideas, they\nwill consider the good order, decorum, virtue, and morality of every\ndescription of men among them as of infinitely greater importance than\nthe struggle (for it is nothing better) to change those descriptions by\nmeans which put to hazard objects which, in my poor opinion, are of more\nimportance to religion and to the state than all the polemical matter\nwhich has been agitated among men from the beginning of the world to\nthis hour.\n\nOn this idea, an education fitted _to each order and division of men,\nsuch as they are found_, will be thought an affair rather to be\nencouraged than discountenanced; and until institutions at home,\nsuitable to the occasions and necessities of the people, are\nestablished, and which are armed, as they are abroad, with authority to\ncoerce the young men to be formed in them by a strict and severe\ndiscipline, the means they have at present of a cheap and effectual\neducation in other countries should not continue to be prohibited by\npenalties and modes of inquisition not fit to be mentioned to ears that\nare organized to the chaste sounds of equity and justice.\n\nBefore I had written thus far, I heard of a scheme of giving to the\nCastle the patronage of the presiding members of the Catholic clergy. At\nfirst I could scarcely credit it; for I believe it is the first time\nthat the presentation to other people's alms has been desired in any\ncountry. If the state provides a suitable maintenance and temporality\nfor the governing members of the Irish Roman Catholic Church, and for\nthe clergy under them, I should think the project, however improper in\nother respects, to be by no means unjust. But to deprive a poor people,\nwho maintain a second set of clergy, out of the miserable remains of\nwhat is left after taxing and tithing, to deprive them of the\ndisposition of their own charities among their own communion, would, in\nmy opinion, be an intolerable hardship. Never were the members of one\nreligious sect fit to appoint the pastors to another. Those who have no\nregard for their welfare, reputation, or internal quiet will not appoint\nsuch as are proper. The seraglio of Constantinople is as equitable as we\nare, whether Catholics or Protestants,--and where their own sect is\nconcerned, full as religious. But the sport which they make of the\nmiserable dignities of the Greek Church, the little factions of the\nharem to which they make them subservient, the continual sale to which\nthey expose and re\u00ebxpose the same dignity, and by which they squeeze all\nthe inferior orders of the clergy, is (for I have had particular means\nof being acquainted with it) nearly equal to all the other oppressions\ntogether, exercised by Mussulmen over the unhappy members of the\nOriental Church. It is a great deal to suppose that even the present\nCastle would nominate bishops for the Roman Church of Ireland with a\nreligious regard for its welfare. Perhaps they cannot, perhaps they dare\nnot do it.\n\nBut suppose them to be as well inclined as I know that I am to do the\nCatholics all kind of justice, I declare I would not, if it were in my\npower, take that patronage on myself. I know I ought not to do it. I\nbelong to another community, and it would be intolerable usurpation for\nme to affect such authority, where I conferred no benefit, or even if I\ndid confer (as in some degree the seraglio does) temporal advantages.\nBut allowing that the _present_ Castle finds itself fit to administer\nthe government of a church which they solemnly forswear, and forswear\nwith very hard words and many evil epithets, and that as often as they\nqualify themselves for the power which is to give this very patronage,\nor to give anything else that they desire,--yet they cannot insure\nthemselves that a man like the late Lord Chesterfield will not succeed\nto them. This man, while he was duping the credulity of Papists with\nfine words in private, and commending their good behavior during a\nrebellion in Great Britain, (as it well deserved to be commended and\nrewarded,) was capable of urging penal laws against them in a speech\nfrom the throne, and of stimulating with provocatives the wearied and\nhalf-exhausted bigotry of the then Parliament of Ireland. They set to\nwork, but they were at a loss what to do; for they had already almost\ngone through every contrivance which could _waste the vigor_ of their\ncountry: but, after much struggle, they produced a child of their old\nage, the shocking and unnatural act about marriages, which tended to\nfinish the scheme for making the people not only two distinct parties\nforever, but keeping them as two distinct species in the same land. Mr.\nGardiner's humanity was shocked at it, as one of the worst parts of that\ntruly barbarous system, if one could well settle the preference, where\nalmost all the parts were outrages on the rights of humanity and the\nlaws of Nature.\n\nSuppose an atheist, playing the part of a bigot, should be in power\nagain in that country, do you believe that he would faithfully and\nreligiously administer the trust of appointing pastors to a church\nwhich, wanting every other support, stands in tenfold need of ministers\nwho will be dear to the people committed to their charge, and who will\nexercise a really paternal authority amongst them? But if the superior\npower was always in a disposition to dispense conscientiously, and like\nan upright trustee and guardian of these rights which he holds for those\nwith whom he is at variance, has he the capacity and means of doing it?\nHow can the Lord-Lieutenant form the least judgment of their merits, so\nas to discern which of the Popish priests is fit to be made a bishop? It\ncannot be: the idea is ridiculous. He will hand them over to\nlords-lieutenant of counties, justices of the peace, and other persons,\nwho, for the purpose of vexing and turning to derision this miserable\npeople, will pick out the worst and most obnoxious they can find amongst\nthe clergy to set over the rest. Whoever is complained against by his\nbrother will be considered as persecuted; whoever is censured by his\nsuperior will be looked upon as oppressed; whoever is careless in his\nopinions and loose in his morals will be called a liberal man, and will\nbe supposed to have incurred hatred because he was not a bigot.\nInformers, tale-bearers, perverse and obstinate men, flatterers, who\nturn their back upon their flock and court the Protestant gentlemen of\nthe country, will be the objects of preferment. And then I run no risk\nin foretelling that whatever order, quiet, and morality you have in the\ncountry will be lost. A Popish clergy who are not restrained by the most\naustere subordination will become a nuisance, a real public grievance of\nthe heaviest kind, in any country that entertains them; and instead of\nthe great benefit which Ireland does and has long derived from them, if\nthey are educated without any idea of discipline and obedience, and then\nput under bishops who do not owe their station to their good opinion,\nand whom they cannot respect, that nation will see disorders, of which,\nbad as things are, it has yet no idea. I do not say this, as thinking\nthe leading men in Ireland would exercise this trust worse than others.\nNot at all. No man, no set of men living are fit to administer the\naffairs or regulate the interior economy of a church to which they are\nenemies.\n\nAs to government, if I might recommend a prudent caution to them, it\nwould be, to innovate as little as possible, upon speculation, in\nestablishments from which, as they stand, they experience no material\ninconvenience to the repose of the country,--_quieta non movere_.\n\nI could say a great deal more; but I am tired, and am afraid your\nLordship is tired too. I have not sat to this letter a single quarter of\nan hour without interruption. It has grown long, and probably contains\nmany repetitions, from my total want of leisure to digest and\nconsolidate my thoughts; and as to my expressions, I could wish to be\nable perhaps to measure them more exactly. But my intentions are fair,\nand I certainly mean to offend nobody.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThinking over this matter more maturely, I see no reason for altering my\nopinion in any part. The act, as far as it goes, is good undoubtedly. It\namounts, I think, very nearly to a _toleration_, with respect to\nreligious ceremonies; but it puts a new bolt on civil rights, and rivets\nit to the old one in such a manner, that neither, I fear, will be easily\nloosened. What I could have wished would be, to see the civil advantages\ntake the lead; the other, of a religious toleration, I conceive, would\nfollow, (in a manner,) of course. From what I have observed, it is\npride, arrogance, and a spirit of domination, and not a bigoted spirit\nof religion, that has caused and kept up those oppressive statutes. I am\nsure I have known those who have oppressed Papists in their civil rights\nexceedingly indulgent to them in their religious ceremonies, and who\nreally wished them to continue Catholics, in order to furnish pretences\nfor oppression. These persons never saw a man (by converting) escape out\nof their power, but with grudging and regret. I have known men to whom I\nam not uncharitable in saying (though they are dead) that they would\nhave become Papists in order to oppress Protestants, if, being\nProtestants, it was not in their power to oppress Papists. It is\ninjustice, and not a mistaken conscience, that has been the principle of\npersecution,--at least, as far as it has fallen under my\nobservation.--However, as I began, so I end. I do not know the map of\nthe country. Mr. Gardiner, who conducts this great and difficult work,\nand those who support him, are better judges of the business than I can\npretend to be, who have not set my foot in Ireland these sixteen years.\nI have been given to understand that I am not considered as a friend to\nthat country; and I know that pains have been taken to lessen the credit\nthat I might have had there.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI am so convinced of the weakness of interfering in any business,\nwithout the opinion of the people in whose business I interfere, that I\ndo not know how to acquit myself of what I have now done.\n\nI have the honor to be, with high regard and esteem, my Lord,\n\nYour Lordship's most obedient\n\nAnd humble servant, &c.\n\nEDMUND BURKE.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[26] The sketch of the bill sent to Mr. Burke, along with the repeal of\nsome acts, reaffirmed many others in the penal code. It was altered\nafterwards, and the clauses reaffirming the incapacities left out; but\nthey all still exist, and are in full force.\n\n[27] It appears that Mr. Hutchinson meant this only as one of the means\nfor their relief in point of education.\n\n\n\n\nA\n\nLETTER\n\nTO\n\nSIR HERCULES LANGRISHE, BART., M.P.,\n\nON THE SUBJECT OF\n\nTHE ROMAN CATHOLICS OF IRELAND,\n\nTHE PROPRIETY OF ADMITTING THEM TO THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE, CONSISTENTLY\nWITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION, AS ESTABLISHED AT THE\nREVOLUTION.\n\n1792.\n\n\nMy Dear Sir,--Your remembrance of me, with sentiments of so much\nkindness, has given me the most sincere satisfaction. It perfectly\nagrees with the friendly and hospitable reception which my son and I\nreceived from you some time since, when, after an absence of twenty-two\nyears, I had the happiness of embracing you, among my few surviving\nfriends.\n\nI really imagined that I should not again interest myself in any public\nbusiness. I had, to the best of my moderate faculties, paid my club to\nthe society which I was born in some way or other to serve; and I\nthought I had a right to put on my night-gown and slippers, and wish a\ncheerful evening to the good company I must leave behind. But if our\nresolutions of vigor and exertion are so often broken or procrastinated\nin the execution, I think we may be excused, if we are not very punctual\nin fulfilling our engagements to indolence and inactivity. I have,\nindeed, no power of action, and am almost a cripple even with regard to\nthinking; but you descend with force into the stagnant pool, and you\ncause such a fermentation as to cure at least one impotent creature of\nhis lameness, though it cannot enable him either to run or to wrestle.\n\nYou see by the paper[28] I take that I am likely to be long, with malice\nprepense. You have brought under my view a subject always difficult, at\npresent critical. It has filled my thoughts, which I wish to lay open to\nyou with the clearness and simplicity which your friendship demands from\nme. I thank you for the communication of your ideas. I should be still\nmore pleased, if they had been more your own. What you hint I believe to\nbe the case: that, if you had not deferred to the judgment of others,\nour opinions would not differ more materially at this day than they did\nwhen we used to confer on the same subject so many years ago. If I still\npersevere in my old opinions, it is no small comfort to me that it is\nnot with regard to doctrines properly yours that I discover my\nindocility.\n\nThe case upon which your letter of the 10th of December turns is hardly\nbefore me with precision enough to enable me to form any very certain\njudgment upon it. It seems to be some plan of further indulgence\nproposed for the Catholics of Ireland. You observe, that your \"general\nprinciples are not changed, but that _times and circumstances are\naltered_.\" I perfectly agree with you, that times and circumstances,\nconsidered with reference to the public, ought very much to govern our\nconduct,--though I am far from slighting, when applied with discretion\nto those circumstances, general principles and maxims of policy. I\ncannot help observing, however, that you have said rather less upon the\ninapplicability of your own old principles to the _circumstances_ that\nare likely to influence your conduct against these principles than of\nthe _general_ maxims of state, which I can very readily believe not to\nhave great weight with you personally.\n\nIn my present state of imperfect information, you will pardon the\nerrors into which I may easily fall. The principles you lay down are,\n\"that the Roman Catholics should enjoy everything _under_ the state, but\nshould not be _the state itself_.\" And you add, \"that, when you exclude\nthem from being _a part of the state_, you rather conform to the spirit\nof the age than to any abstract doctrine\"; but you consider the\nConstitution as already established,--that our state is Protestant. \"It\nwas declared so at the Revolution. It was so provided in the acts for\nsettling the succession of the crown:--the king's coronation oath was\nenjoined in order to keep it so. The king, as first magistrate of the\nstate, is obliged to take the oath of abjuration,[29] and to subscribe\nthe Declaration; and by laws subsequent, every other magistrate and\nmember of the state, legislative and executive, are bound under the same\nobligation.\"\n\nAs to the plan to which these maxims are applied, I cannot speak, as I\ntold you, positively about it: because neither from your letter, nor\nfrom any in formation I have been able to collect, do I find anything\nsettled, either on the part of the Roman Catholics themselves, or on\nthat of any persons who may wish to conduct their affairs in Parliament.\nBut if I have leave to conjecture, something is in agitation towards\nadmitting them, under _certain qualifications_, to have _some share_ in\nthe election of members of Parliament. This I understand is the scheme\nof those who are entitled to come within your description of persons of\nconsideration, property, and character,--and firmly attached to the king\nand Constitution, as by \"law established, with a grateful sense of your\nformer concessions, and a patient reliance on the benignity of\nParliament for the further mitigation of the laws that still affect\nthem.\"--As to the low, thoughtless, wild, and profligate, who have\njoined themselves with those of other professions, but of the same\ncharacter, you are not to imagine that for a moment I can suppose them\nto be met with anything else than the manly and enlightened energy of a\nfirm government, supported by the united efforts of all virtuous men, if\never their proceedings should become so considerable as to demand its\nnotice. I really think that such associations should be crushed in their\nvery commencement.\n\nSetting, therefore, this case out of the question, it becomes an object\nof very serious consideration, whether, because wicked men of _various_\ndescriptions are engaged in seditious courses, the rational, sober, and\nvaluable part of _one_ description should not be indulged in their sober\nand rational expectations. You, who have looked deeply into the spirit\nof the Popery laws, must be perfectly sensible that a great part of the\npresent mischief which we abhor in common (if it at all exists) has\narisen from them. Their declared object was, to reduce the Catholics of\nIreland to a miserable populace, without property, without estimation,\nwithout education. The professed object was, to deprive the few men,\nwho, in spite of those laws, might hold or obtain any property amongst\nthem, of all sort of influence or authority over the rest. They divided\nthe nation into two distinct bodies, without common interest, sympathy,\nor connection. One of these bodies was to possess _all_ the franchises,\n_all_ the property, _all_ the education: the other was to be composed of\ndrawers of water and cutters of turf for them. Are we to be astonished,\nwhen, by the efforts of so much violence in conquest, and so much policy\nin regulation, continued without intermission for near an hundred years,\nwe had reduced them to a mob, that, whenever they came to act at all,\nmany of them would act exactly like a mob, without temper, measure, or\nforesight? Surely it might be just now a matter of temperate discussion,\nwhether you ought not to apply a remedy to the real cause of the evil.\nIf the disorder you speak of be real and considerable, you ought to\nraise an aristocratic interest, that is, an interest of property and\neducation, amongst them,--and to strengthen, by every prudent means, the\nauthority and influence of men of that description. It will deserve your\nbest thoughts, to examine whether this can be done without giving such\npersons the means of demonstrating to the rest that something more is to\nbe got by their temperate conduct than can be expected from the wild and\nsenseless projects of those who do not belong to their body, who have no\ninterest in their well-being, and only wish to make them the dupes of\ntheir turbulent ambition.\n\nIf the absurd persons you mention find no way of providing for liberty,\nbut by overturning this happy Constitution, and introducing a frantic\ndemocracy, let us take care how we prevent better people from any\nrational expectations of partaking in the benefits of that Constitution\n_as it stands_. The maxims you establish cut the matter short. They have\nno sort of connection with the good or the ill behavior of the persons\nwho seek relief, or with the proper or improper means by which they seek\nit. They form a perpetual bar to all pleas and to all expectations.\n\nYou begin by asserting, that \"the Catholics ought to enjoy all things\n_under_ the state, but that they ought not to _be the state_\": a\nposition which, I believe, in the latter part of it, and in the latitude\nthere expressed, no man of common sense has ever thought proper to\ndispute; because the contrary implies that the state ought to be in them\n_exclusively_. But before you have finished the line, you express\nyourself as if the other member of your proposition, namely, that \"they\nought not to be a _part_ of the state,\" were necessarily included in the\nfirst,--whereas I conceive it to be as different as a part is from the\nwhole, that is, just as different as possible. I know, indeed, that it\nis common with those who talk very differently from you, that is, with\nheat and animosity, to confound those things, and to argue the admission\nof the Catholics into any, however minute and subordinate, parts of the\nstate, as a surrender into their hands of the whole government of the\nkingdom. To them I have nothing at all to say.\n\nWishing to proceed with a deliberative spirit and temper in so very\nserious a question, I shall attempt to analyze, as well as I can, the\nprinciples you lay down, in order to fit them for the grasp of an\nunderstanding so little comprehensive as\nmine.--\"State,\"--\"Protestant,\"--\"Revolution.\" These are terms which, if\nnot well explained, may lead us into many errors. In the word _State_ I\nconceive there is much ambiguity. The state is sometimes used to signify\n_the whole commonwealth_, comprehending all its orders, with the several\nprivileges belonging to each. Sometimes it signifies only _the higher\nand ruling part_ of the commonwealth, which we commonly call _the\nGovernment_. In the first sense, to be under the state, but not the\nstate itself, _nor any part of it_, that is, to be nothing at all in the\ncommonwealth, is a situation perfectly intelligible,--but to those who\nfill that situation, not very pleasant, when it is understood. It is a\nstate of _civil servitude_, by the very force of the definition.\n_Servorum non est respublica_ is a very old and a very true maxim. This\nservitude, which makes men _subject_ to a state without being\n_citizens_, may be more or less tolerable from many circumstances; but\nthese circumstances, more or less favorable, do not alter the nature of\nthe thing. The mildness by which absolute masters exercise their\ndominion leaves them masters still. We may talk a little presently of\nthe manner in which the majority of the people of Ireland (the\nCatholics) are affected by this situation, which at present undoubtedly\nis theirs, and which you are of opinion ought so to continue forever.\n\nIn the other sense of the word _State_, by which is understood the\n_Supreme Government_ only, I must observe this upon the question: that\nto exclude whole classes of men entirely from this _part_ of government\ncannot be considered as _absolute slavery_. It only implies a lower and\ndegraded state of citizenship: such is (with more or less strictness)\nthe condition of all countries in which an hereditary nobility possess\nthe exclusive rule. This may be no bad mode of government,--provided\nthat the personal authority of individual nobles be kept in due bounds,\nthat their cabals and factions are guarded against with a severe\nvigilance, and that the people (who have no share in granting their own\nmoney) are subjected to but light impositions, and are otherwise treated\nwith attention, and with indulgence to their humors and prejudices.\n\nThe republic of Venice is one of those which strictly confines all the\ngreat functions and offices, such as are truly _stale_ functions and\n_state_ offices, to those who by hereditary right or admission are noble\nVenetians. But there are many offices, and some of them not mean nor\nunprofitable, (that of Chancellor is one,) which are reserved for the\n_cittadini_. Of these all citizens of Venice are capable. The\ninhabitants of the _terra firma_, who are mere subjects of conquest,\nthat is, as you express it, under the state, but \"not a part of it,\" are\nnot, however, subjects in so very rigorous a sense as not to be capable\nof numberless subordinate employments. It is, indeed, one of the\nadvantages attending the narrow bottom of their aristocracy, (narrow as\ncompared with their acquired dominions, otherwise broad enough,) that an\nexclusion from such employments cannot possibly be made amongst their\nsubjects. There are, besides, advantages in states so constituted, by\nwhich those who are considered as of an inferior race are indemnified\nfor their exclusion from the government, and from nobler employments. In\nall these countries, either by express law, or by usage more operative,\nthe noble castes are almost universally, in their turn, excluded from\ncommerce, manufacture, farming of land, and in general from all\nlucrative civil professions. The nobles have the monopoly of honor; the\nplebeians a monopoly of all the means of acquiring wealth. Thus some\nsort of a balance is formed among conditions; a sort of compensation is\nfurnished to those who, in a _limited sense_, are excluded from the\ngovernment of the state.\n\nBetween the extreme of _a total exclusion_, to which your maxim goes,\nand _an universal unmodified capacity_, to which the fanatics pretend,\nthere are many different degrees and stages, and a great variety of\ntemperaments, upon which prudence may give full scope to its exertions.\nFor you know that the decisions of prudence (contrary to the system of\nthe insane reasoners) differ from those of judicature; and that almost\nall the former are determined on the more or the less, the earlier or\nthe later, and on a balance of advantage and inconvenience, of good and\nevil.\n\nIn all considerations which turn upon the question of vesting or\ncontinuing the state solely and exclusively in some one description of\ncitizens, prudent legislators will consider how far _the general form\nand principles of their commonwealth render it fit to be cast into an\noligarchical shape, or to remain always in it_. We know that the\ngovernment of Ireland (the same as the British) is not in its\nconstitution _wholly_ aristocratical; and as it is not such in its form,\nso neither is it in its spirit. If it had been inveterately\naristocratical, exclusions might be more patiently submitted to. The lot\nof one plebeian would be the lot of all; and an habitual reverence and\nadmiration of certain families might make the people content to see\ngovernment wholly in hands to whom it seemed naturally to belong. But\nour Constitution has _a plebeian member_, which forms an essential\nintegrant part of it. A plebeian oligarchy is a monster; and no people,\nnot absolutely domestic or predial slaves, will long endure it. The\nProtestants of Ireland are not _alone_ sufficiently the people to form a\ndemocracy; and they are _too numerous_ to answer the ends and purposes\nof _an aristocracy_. Admiration, that first source of obedience, can be\nonly the claim or the imposture of the few. I hold it to be absolutely\nimpossible for two millions of plebeians, composing certainly a very\nclear and decided majority in that class, to become so far in love with\nsix or seven hundred thousand of their fellow-citizens (to all outward\nappearance plebeians like themselves, and many of them tradesmen,\nservants, and otherwise inferior to some of them) as to see with\nsatisfaction, or even with patience, an exclusive power vested in them,\nby which _constitutionally_ they become the absolute masters, and, by\nthe _manners_ derived from their circumstances, must be capable of\nexercising upon them, daily and hourly, an insulting and vexatious\nsuperiority. Neither are the majority of the Irish indemnified (as in\nsome aristocracies) for this state of humiliating vassalage (often\ninverting the nature of things and relations) by having the lower walks\nof industry wholly abandoned to them. They are rivalled, to say the\nleast of the matter, in every laborious and lucrative course of life;\nwhile every franchise, every honor, every trust, every place, down to\nthe very lowest and least confidential, (besides whole professions,) is\nreserved for the master caste.\n\nOur Constitution is not made for great, general, and proscriptive\nexclusions; sooner or later it will destroy them, or they will destroy\nthe Constitution. In our Constitution there has always been a difference\nbetween _a franchise_ and _an office_, and between the capacity for the\none and for the other. Franchises were supposed to belong to the\n_subject_, as _a subject_, and not as _a member of the governing part of\nthe state_. The policy of government has considered them as things very\ndifferent; for, whilst Parliament excluded by the test acts (and for a\nwhile these test acts were not a dead letter, as now they are in\nEngland) Protestant Dissenters from all civil and military employments,\nthey _never touched their right of voting for members of Parliament or\nsitting in either House_: a point I state, not as approving or\ncondemning, with regard to them, the measure of exclusion from\nemployments, but to prove that the distinction has been admitted in\nlegislature, as, in truth, it is founded in reason.\n\nI will not here examine whether the principles of the British [the\nIrish] Constitution be wise or not. I must assume that they are, and\nthat those who partake the franchises which make it partake of a\nbenefit. They who are excluded from votes (under proper qualifications\ninherent in the Constitution that gives them) are excluded, not from\n_the state_, but from _the British Constitution_. They cannot by any\npossibility, whilst they hear its praises continually rung in their\nears, and are present at the declaration which is so generally and so\nbravely made by those who possess the privilege, that the best blood in\ntheir veins ought to be shed to preserve their share in it,--they, the\ndisfranchised part, cannot, I say, think themselves in an _happy_ state,\nto be utterly excluded from all its direct and all its consequential\nadvantages. The popular part of the Constitution must be to them by far\nthe most odious part of it. To them it is not an _actual_, and, if\npossible, still less a _virtual_ representation. It is, indeed, the\ndirect contrary. It is power unlimited placed in the hands of _an\nadverse_ description _because it is an adverse description_. And if they\nwho compose the privileged body have not an interest, they must but too\nfrequently have motives of pride, passion, petulance, peevish jealousy,\nor tyrannic suspicion, to urge them to treat the excluded people with\ncontempt and rigor.\n\nThis is not a mere theory; though, whilst men are men, it is a theory\nthat cannot be false. I do not desire to revive all the particulars in\nmy memory; I wish them to sleep forever; but it is impossible I should\nwholly forget what happened in some parts of Ireland, with very few and\nshort intermissions, from the year 1761 to the year 1766, both\ninclusive. In a country of miserable police, passing from the extremes\nof laxity to the extremes of rigor, among a neglected and therefore\ndisorderly populace, if any disturbance or sedition, from any grievance\nreal or imaginary, happened to arise, it was presently perverted from\nits true nature, often criminal enough in itself to draw upon it a\nsevere, appropriate punishment: it was metamorphosed into a conspiracy\nagainst the state, and prosecuted as such. Amongst the Catholics, as\nbeing by far the most numerous and the most wretched, all sorts of\noffenders against the laws must commonly be found. The punishment of low\npeople for the offences usual among low people would warrant no\ninference against any descriptions of religion or of politics. Men of\nconsideration from their age, their profession, or their character, men\nof proprietary landed estates, substantial renters, opulent merchants,\nphysicians, and titular bishops, could not easily be suspected of riot\nin open day, or of nocturnal assemblies for the purpose of pulling down\nhedges, making breaches in park-walls, firing barns, maiming cattle, and\noutrages of a similar nature, which characterize the disorders of an\noppressed or a licentious populace. But when the evidence given on the\ntrial for such misdemeanors qualified them as overt acts of high\ntreason, and when witnesses were found (such witnesses as they were) to\ndepose to the taking of oaths of allegiance by the rioters to the king\nof France, to their being paid by his money, and embodied and exercised\nunder his officers, to overturn the state for the purposes of that\npotentate,--in that case, the rioters might (if the witness was\nbelieved) be supposed only the troops, and persons more reputable the\nleaders and commanders, in such a rebellion. All classes in the\nobnoxious description, who could not be suspected of the lower crime of\nriot, might be involved in the odium, in the suspicion, and sometimes in\nthe punishment, of a higher and far more criminal species of offence.\nThese proceedings did not arise from any one of the Popery laws since\nrepealed, but from this circumstance, that, when it answered the\npurposes of an election party or a malevolent person of influence to\nforge such plots, the people had no protection. The people of that\ndescription have no hold on the gentlemen who aspire to be popular\nrepresentatives. The candidates neither love nor respect nor fear them,\nindividually or collectively. I do not think this evil (an evil amongst\na thousand others) at this day entirely over; for I conceive I have\nlately seen some indication of a disposition perfectly similar to the\nold one,--that is, a disposition to carry the imputation of crimes from\npersons to descriptions, and wholly to alter the character and quality\nof the offences themselves.\n\nThis universal exclusion seems to me a serious evil,--because many\ncollateral oppressions, besides what I have just now stated, have arisen\nfrom it. In things of this nature it would not be either easy or proper\nto quote chapter and verse; but I have great reason to believe,\nparticularly since the Octennial Act, that several have refused at all\nto let their lands to Roman Catholics, because it would so far disable\nthem from promoting such interests in counties as they were inclined to\nfavor. They who consider also the state of all sorts of tradesmen,\nshopkeepers, and particularly publicans in towns, must soon discern the\ndisadvantages under which those labor who have no votes. It cannot be\notherwise, whilst the spirit of elections and the tendencies of human\nnature continue as they are. If property be artificially separated from\nfranchise, the franchise must in some way or other, and in some\nproportion, naturally attract property to it. Many are the collateral\ndisadvantages, amongst a _privileged_ people, which must attend on those\nwho have _no_ privileges.\n\nAmong the rich, each individual, with or without a franchise, is of\nimportance; the poor and the middling are no otherwise so than as they\nobtain some collective capacity, and can be aggregated to some corps. If\nlegal ways are not found, illegal will be resorted to; and seditious\nclubs and confederacies, such as no man living holds in greater horror\nthan I do, will grow and flourish, in spite, I am afraid, of anything\nwhich can be done to prevent the evil. Lawful enjoyment is the surest\nmethod to prevent unlawful gratification. Where there is property, there\nwill be less theft; where there is marriage, there will always be less\nfornication.\n\nI have said enough of the question of state, _as it affects the people\nmerely as such_. But it is complicated with a political question\nrelative to religion, to which it is very necessary I should say\nsomething,--because the term _Protestant_, which you apply, is too\ngeneral for the conclusions which one of your accurate understanding\nwould wish to draw from it, and because a great deal of argument will\ndepend on the use that is made of that term.\n\nIt is _not_ a fundamental part of the settlement at the Revolution that\nthe state should be Protestant _without any qualification of the term_.\nWith a qualification it is unquestionably true; not in all its latitude.\nWith the qualification, it was true before the Revolution. Our\npredecessors in legislation were not so irrational (not to say impious)\nas to form an operose ecclesiastical establishment, and even to render\nthe state itself in some degree subservient to it, when their religion\n(if such it might be called) was nothing but a mere _negation_ of some\nother,--without any positive idea, either of doctrine, discipline,\nworship, or morals, in the scheme which they professed themselves, and\nwhich they imposed upon others, even under penalties and incapacities.\nNo! No! This never could have been done, even by reasonable atheists.\nThey who think religion of no importance to the state have abandoned it\nto the conscience or caprice of the individual; they make no provision\nfor it whatsoever, but leave every club to make, or not, a voluntary\ncontribution towards its support, according to their fancies. This would\nbe consistent. The other always appeared to me to be a monster of\ncontradiction and absurdity. It was for that reason, that, some years\nago, I strenuously opposed the clergy who petitioned, to the number of\nabout three hundred, to be freed from the subscription to the\nThirty-Nine Articles, without proposing to substitute any other in their\nplace. There never has been a religion of the state (the few years of\nthe Parliament only excepted) but that of _the Episcopal Church of\nEngland_: the Episcopal Church of England, before the Reformation,\nconnected with the see of Rome; since then, disconnected, and protesting\nagainst some of her doctrines, and against the whole of her authority,\nas binding in our national church: nor did the fundamental laws of this\nkingdom (in Ireland it has been the same) ever know, at any period, any\nother church _as an object of establishment_,--or, in that light, any\nother Protestant religion. Nay, our Protestant _toleration_ itself, at\nthe Revolution, and until within a few years, required a signature of\nthirty-six, and a part of the thirty-seventh, out of the Thirty-Nine\nArticles. So little idea had they at the Revolution of _establishing_\nProtestantism indefinitely, that they did not indefinitely _tolerate_ it\nunder that name. I do not mean to praise that strictness, where nothing\nmore than merely religious toleration is concerned. Toleration, being a\npart of moral and political prudence, ought to be tender and large. A\ntolerant government ought not to be too scrupulous in its\ninvestigations, but may bear without blame, not only very ill-grounded\ndoctrines, but even many things that are positively vices, where they\nare _adulta et pr\u00e6valida_. The good of the commonwealth is the rule\nwhich rides over the rest; and to this every other must completely\nsubmit.\n\nThe Church of Scotland knows as little of Protestantism _undefined_ as\nthe Church of England and Ireland do. She has by the articles of union\nsecured to herself the perpetual establishment of _the Confession of\nFaith_, and the _Presbyterian_ Church government. In England, even\nduring the troubled interregnum, it was not thought fit to establish a\n_negative_ religion; but the Parliament settled the _Presbyterian_ as\nthe Church _discipline_, the _Directory_ as the rule of public\n_worship_, and the _Westminster Catechism_ as the institute of _faith_.\nThis is to show that at no time was the Protestant religion,\n_undefined_, established here or anywhere else, as I believe. I am sure,\nthat, when the three religions were established in Germany, they were\nexpressly characterized and declared to be the _Evangelic_, the\n_Reformed_, and the _Catholic_; each of which has its confession of\nfaith and its settled discipline: so that you always may know the best\nand the worst of them, to enable you to make the most of what is good,\nand to correct or to qualify or to guard against whatever may seem evil\nor dangerous.\n\nAs to the coronation oath, to which you allude, as opposite to admitting\na Roman Catholic to the use of any franchise whatsoever, I cannot think\nthat the king would be perjured, if he gave his assent to any regulation\nwhich Parliament might think fit to make with regard to that affair. The\nking is bound by law, as clearly specified in several acts of\nParliament, to be in communion with the Church of England. It is a part\nof the tenure by which he holds his crown; and though no provision was\nmade till the Revolution, which could be called positive and valid in\nlaw, to ascertain this great principle, I have always considered it as\nin fact fundamental, that the king of England should be of the Christian\nreligion, according to the national legal church for the time being. I\nconceive it was so before the Reformation. Since the Reformation it\nbecame doubly necessary; because the king is the head of that church, in\nsome sort an ecclesiastical person,--and it would be incongruous and\nabsurd to have the head of the Church of one faith, and the members of\nanother. The king may _inherit_ the crown as a _Protestant_; but he\ncannot _hold it_, according to law, without being a Protestant _of the\nChurch of England_.\n\nBefore we take it for granted that the king is bound by his coronation\noath not to admit any of his Catholic subjects to the rights and\nliberties which ought to belong to them as Englishmen, (not as\nreligionists,) or to settle the conditions or proportions of such\nadmission by an act of Parliament, I wish you to place before your eyes\nthat oath itself, as it is settled in the act of William and Mary.\n\n\"Will you to the utmost of your power maintain\n      1                2                 3\nthe laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel,\n           4\nand the Protestant Reformed Religion _established by_\n                            5\n_law_? And will you preserve unto the _bishops_ and clergy of this\nrealm, and to the churches committed to _their_ charge, all such rights\nand privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them, or any of\nthem?--All this I promise to do.\"\n\nHere are the coronation engagements of the king. In them I do not find\none word to preclude his Majesty from consenting to any arrangement\nwhich Parliament may make with regard to the civil privileges of any\npart of his subjects.\n\nIt may not be amiss, on account of the light which it will throw on this\ndiscussion, to look a little more narrowly into the matter of that\noath,--in order to discover how far it has hitherto operated, or how far\nin future it ought to operate, as a bar to any proceedings of the crown\nand Parliament in favor of those against whom it may be supposed that\nthe king has engaged to support the Protestant Church of England in the\ntwo kingdoms in which it is established by law. First, the king swears\nhe will maintain to the utmost of his power \"the laws of God.\" I suppose\nit means the natural moral laws.--Secondly, he swears to maintain \"the\ntrue profession of the Gospel.\" By which I suppose is understood\n_affirmatively_ the Christian religion.--Thirdly, that he will maintain\n\"the Protestant reformed religion.\" This leaves me no power of\nsupposition or conjecture; for that Protestant reformed religion is\ndefined and described by the subsequent words, \"established by law\"; and\nin this instance, to define it beyond all possibility of doubt, he\nswears to maintain the \"bishops and clergy, and the churches committed\nto their charge,\" in their rights present and future.\n\nThe oath as effectually prevents the king from doing anything to the\nprejudice of the Church, in favor of sectaries, Jews, Mahometans, or\nplain avowed infidels, as if he should do the same thing in favor of the\nCatholics. You will see that it is the same Protestant Church, so\ndescribed, that the king is to maintain and communicate with, according\nto the Act of Settlement of the 12th and 13th of William the Third. The\nact of the 5th of Anne, made in prospect of the Union, is entitled, \"An\nact for securing the Church of England as by law established.\" It meant\nto guard the Church implicitly against any other mode of Protestant\nreligion which might creep in by means of the Union. It proves beyond\nall doubt, that the legislature did not mean to guard the Church on one\npart only, and to leave it defenceless and exposed upon every other.\nThis church, in that act, is declared to be \"fundamental and essential\"\nforever, in the Constitution of the United Kingdom, so far as England is\nconcerned; and I suppose, as the law stands, even since the\nindependence, it is so in Ireland.\n\nAll this shows that the religion which the king is bound to maintain has\na positive part in it, as well as a negative,--and that the positive\npart of it (in which we are in perfect agreement with the Catholics and\nwith the Church of Scotland) is infinitely the most valuable and\nessential. Such an agreement we had with Protestant Dissenters in\nEngland, of those descriptions who came under the Toleration Act of King\nWilliam and Queen Mary: an act coeval with the Revolution; and which\nought, on the principles of the gentlemen who oppose the relief to the\nCatholics, to have been held sacred and unalterable. Whether we agree\nwith the present Protestant Dissenters in the points at the Revolution\nheld essential and fundamental among Christians, or in any other\nfundamental, at present it is impossible for us to know: because, at\ntheir own very earnest desire, we have repealed the Toleration Act of\nWilliam and Mary, and discharged them from the signature required by\nthat act; and because, for the far greater part, they publicly declare\nagainst all manner of confessions of faith, even the _Consensus_.\n\nFor reasons forcible enough at all times, but at this time particularly\nforcible with me, I dwell a little the longer upon this matter, and take\nthe more pains, to put us both in mind that it was not settled at the\nRevolution that the state should be Protestant, in the latitude of the\nterm, but in a defined and limited sense only, and that in that sense\nonly the king is sworn to maintain it. To suppose that the king has\nsworn with his utmost power to maintain what it is wholly out of his\npower to discover, or which, if he could discover, he might discover to\nconsist of things directly contradictory to each other, some of them\nperhaps impious, blasphemous, and seditious upon principle, would be not\nonly a gross, but a most mischievous absurdity. If mere dissent from the\nChurch of Rome be a merit, he that dissents the most perfectly is the\nmost meritorious. In many points we hold strongly with that church. He\nthat dissents throughout with that church will dissent with the Church\nof England, and then it will be a part of his merit that he dissents\nwith ourselves: a whimsical species of merit for any set of men to\nestablish. We quarrel to extremity with those who we know agree with us\nin many things; but we are to be so malicious even in the principle of\nour friendships, that we are to cherish in our bosom those who accord\nwith us in nothing, because, whilst they despise ourselves, they abhor,\neven more than we do, those with whom we have some disagreement. A man\nis certainly the most perfect Protestant who protests against the whole\nChristian religion. Whether a person's having no Christian religion be a\ntitle to favor, in exclusion to the largest description of Christians,\nwho hold all the doctrines of Christianity, though holding along with\nthem some errors and some superfluities, is rather more than any man,\nwho has not become recreant and apostate from his baptism, will, I\nbelieve, choose to affirm. The countenance given from a spirit of\ncontroversy to that negative religion may by degrees encourage light and\nunthinking people to a total indifference to everything positive in\nmatters of doctrine, and, in the end, of practice too. If continued, it\nwould play the game of that sort of active, proselytizing, and\npersecuting atheism which is the disgrace and calamity of our time, and\nwhich we see to be as capable of subverting a government as any mode can\nbe of misguided zeal for better things.\n\nNow let us fairly see what course has been taken relative to those\nagainst whom, in part at least, the king has sworn to maintain a church,\n_positive in its doctrine and its discipline_. The first thing done,\neven when the oath was fresh in the mouth of the sovereigns, was to give\na toleration to Protestant Dissenters _whose doctrines they\nascertained_. As to the mere civil privileges which the Dissenters held\nas subjects before the Revolution, these were not touched at all. The\nlaws have fully permitted, in a qualification for all offices, to such\nDissenters, _an occasional conformity_: a thing I believe singular,\nwhere tests are admitted. The act, called the Test Act, itself, is, with\nregard to them, grown to be hardly anything more than a dead letter.\nWhenever the Dissenters cease by their conduct to give any alarm to the\ngovernment, in Church and State, I think it very probable that even this\nmatter, rather disgustful than inconvenient to them, may be removed, or\nat least so modified as to distinguish the qualification to those\noffices which really _guide the state_ from those which are _merely\ninstrumental_, or that some other and better tests may be put in their\nplace.\n\nSo far as to England. In Ireland you have outran us. Without waiting for\nan English example, you have totally, and without any modification\nwhatsoever, repealed the test as to Protestant Dissenters. Not having\nthe repealing act by me, I ought not to say positively that there is no\nexception in it; but if it be what I suppose it is, you know very well\nthat a Jew in religion, or a Mahometan, or even _a public, declared\natheist_ and blasphemer, is perfectly qualified to be Lord-Lieutenant, a\nlord-justice, or even keeper of the king's conscience, and by virtue of\nhis office (if with you it be as it is with us) administrator to a great\npart of the ecclesiastical patronage of the crown.\n\nNow let us deal a little fairly. We must admit that Protestant Dissent\nwas one of the quarters from which danger was apprehended at the\nRevolution, and against which a part of the coronation oath was\npeculiarly directed. By this unqualified repeal you certainly did not\nmean to deny that it was the duty of the crown to preserve the Church\nagainst Protestant Dissenters; or taking this to be the true sense of\nthe two Revolution acts of King William, and of the previous and\nsubsequent Union acts of Queen Anne, you did not declare by this most\nunqualified repeal, by which you broke down all the barriers, not\ninvented, indeed, but carefully preserved, at the Revolution,--you did\nnot then and by that proceeding declare that you had advised the king to\nperjury towards God and perfidy towards the Church. No! far, very far\nfrom it! You never would have done it, if you did not think it could be\ndone with perfect repose to the royal conscience, and perfect safety to\nthe national established religion. You did this upon a full\nconsideration of the circumstances of your country. Now, if\ncircumstances required it, why should it be contrary to the king's oath,\nhis Parliament judging on those circumstances, to restore to his\nCatholic people, in such measure and with such modifications as the\npublic wisdom shall think proper to add, _some part_ in these franchises\nwhich they formerly had held without any limitation at all, and which,\nupon no sort of urgent reason at the time, they were deprived of? If\nsuch means can with any probability be shown, from circumstances, rather\nto add strength to our mixed ecclesiastical and secular Constitution\nthan to weaken it, surely they are means infinitely to be preferred to\npenalties, incapacities, and proscriptions, continued from generation to\ngeneration. They are perfectly consistent with the other parts of the\ncoronation oath, in which the king swears to maintain \"the laws of God\nand the true profession of the Gospel, and to govern the people\naccording to the statutes in Parliament agreed upon, and the laws and\ncustoms of the realm.\" In consenting to such a statute, the crown would\nact at least as agreeable to the laws of God, and to the true profession\nof the Gospel, and to the laws and customs of the kingdom, as George the\nFirst did, when he passed the statute which took from the body of the\npeople everything which to that hour, and even after the monstrous acts\nof the 2nd and 8th of Anne, (the objects of our common hatred,) they\nstill enjoyed inviolate.\n\nIt is hard to distinguish with the last degree of accuracy what laws are\nfundamental, and what not. However, there is a distinction between them,\nauthorized by the writers on jurisprudence, and recognized in some of\nour statutes. I admit the acts of King William and Queen Anne to be\nfundamental, but they are not the only fundamental laws. The law called\n_Magna Charta_, by which it is provided that \"no man shall be disseised\nof his liberties and free customs but by the judgment of his peers or\nthe laws of the land,\" (meaning clearly, for some proved crime tried and\nadjudged,) I take to be _a fundamental law._ Now, although this Magna\nCharta, or some of the statutes establishing it, provide that that law\nshall be perpetual, and all statutes contrary to it shall be void, yet I\ncannot go so far as to deny the authority of statutes made in defiance\nof Magna Charta and all its principles. This, however, I will say,--that\nit is a very venerable law, made by very wise and learned men, and that\nthe legislature, in their attempt to perpetuate it, even against the\nauthority of future Parliaments, have shown their judgment that it is\n_fundamental_, on the same grounds and in the same manner that the act\nof the fifth of Anne has considered and declared the establishment of\nthe Church of England to be fundamental. Magna Charta, which secured\nthese franchises to the subjects, regarded the rights of freeholders in\ncounties to be as much a fundamental part of the Constitution as the\nestablishment of the Church of England was thought either at that time,\nor in the act of King William, or in the act of Queen Anne.\n\nThe churchmen who led in that transaction certainly took care of the\nmaterial interest of which they were the natural guardians. It is the\nfirst article of Magna Charta, \"that the Church of England shall be\nfree,\" &c, &c. But at that period, churchmen and barons and knights took\ncare of the franchises and free customs of the people, too. Those\nfranchises are part of the Constitution itself, and inseparable from it.\nIt would be a very strange thing, if there should not only exist\nanomalies in our laws, a thing not easy to prevent, but that the\nfundamental parts of the Constitution should be perpetually and\nirreconcilably at variance with each other. I cannot persuade myself\nthat the lovers of our church are not as able to find effectual ways of\nreconciling its safety with the franchises of the people as the\necclesiastics of the thirteenth century were able to do; I cannot\nconceive how anything worse can be said of the Protestant religion of\nthe Church of England than this,--that, wherever it is judged proper to\ngive it a legal establishment, it becomes necessary to deprive the body\nof the people, if they adhere to their old opinions, of \"their liberties\nand of all their free customs,\" and to reduce them to a state of _civil_\nservitude.\n\nThere is no man on earth, I believe, more willing than I am to lay it\ndown as a fundamental of the Constitution, that the Church of England\nshould be united and even identified with it; but, allowing this, I\ncannot allow that all _laws of regulation_, made from time to time, in\nsupport of that fundamental law, are of course equally fundamental and\nequally unchangeable. This would be to confound all the branches of\nlegislation and of jurisprudence. The _crown_ and the personal safety of\nthe monarch are _fundamentals_ in our Constitution: yet I hope that no\nman regrets that the rabble of statutes got together during the reign of\nHenry the Eighth, by which treasons are multiplied with so prolific an\nenergy, have been all repealed in a body; although they were all, or\nmost of them, made in support of things truly fundamental in our\nConstitution. So were several of the acts by which the crown exercised\nits supremacy: such as the act of Elizabeth for making the _high\ncommission courts_, and the like; as well as things made treason in the\ntime of Charles the Second. None of this species of _secondary and\nsubsidiary laws_ have been held fundamental. They have yielded to\ncircumstances; particularly where they were thought, even in their\nconsequences, or obliquely, to affect other fundamentals. How much more,\ncertainly, ought they to give way, when, as in our case, they affect,\nnot here and there, in some particular point, or in their consequence,\nbut universally, collectively, and directly, the fundamental franchises\nof a people equal to the whole inhabitants of several respectable\nkingdoms and states: equal to the subjects of the kings of Sardinia or\nof Denmark; equal to those of the United Netherlands; and more than are\nto be found in all the states of Switzerland. This way of proscribing\nmen by whole nations, as it were, from all the benefits of the\nConstitution to which they were born, I never can believe to be politic\nor expedient, much less necessary for the existence of any state or\nchurch in the world. Whenever I shall be convinced, which will be late\nand reluctantly, that the safety of the Church is utterly inconsistent\nwith all the civil rights whatsoever of the far larger part of the\ninhabitants of our country, I shall be extremely sorry for it; because I\nshall think the Church to be truly in danger. It is putting things into\nthe position of an ugly alternative, into which I hope in God they never\nwill be put.\n\nI have said most of what occurs to me on the topics you touch upon,\nrelative to the religion of the king, and his coronation oath. I shall\nconclude the observations which I wished to submit to you on this point\nby assuring you that I think you the most remote that can be conceived\nfrom the metaphysicians of our times, who are the most foolish of men,\nand who, dealing in universals and essences, see no difference between\nmore and less,--and who of course would think that the reason of the law\nwhich obliged the king to be a communicant of the Church of England\nwould be as valid to exclude a Catholic from being an exciseman, or to\ndeprive a man who has five hundred a year, under that description, from\nvoting on a par with a factitious Protestant Dissenting freeholder of\nforty shillings.\n\nRecollect, my dear friend, that it was a fundamental principle in the\nFrench monarchy, whilst it stood, that the state should be Catholic; yet\nthe Edict of Nantes gave, not a full ecclesiastical, but a complete\ncivil _establishment_, with places of which only they were capable, to\nthe Calvinists of France,--and there were very few employments, indeed,\nof which they were not capable. The world praised the Cardinal de\nRichelieu, who took the first opportunity to strip them of their\nfortified places and cautionary towns. The same world held and does hold\nin execration (so far as that business is concerned) the memory of Louis\nthe Fourteenth, for the total repeal of that favorable edict; though the\ntalk of \"fundamental laws, established religion, religion of the prince,\nsafety to the state,\" &c., &c., was then as largely held, and with as\nbitter a revival of the animosities of the civil confusions during the\nstruggles between the parties, as now they can be in Ireland.\n\nPerhaps there are persons who think that the same reason does not hold,\nwhen the religious relation of the sovereign and subject is changed; but\nthey who have their shop full of false weights and measures, and who\nimagine that the adding or taking away the name of Protestant or\nPapist, Guelph or Ghibelline, alters all the principles of equity,\npolicy, and prudence, leave us no common data upon which we can reason.\nI therefore pass by all this, which on you will make no impression, to\ncome to what seems to be a serious consideration in your mind: I mean\nthe dread you express of \"reviewing, for the purpose of altering, the\n_principles of the Revolution_.\" This is an interesting topic, on which\nI will, as fully as your leisure and mine permits, lay before you the\nideas I have formed.\n\nFirst, I cannot possibly confound in my mind all the things which were\ndone at the Revolution with the _principles_ of the Revolution. As in\nmost great changes, many things were done from the necessities of the\ntime, well or ill understood, from passion or from vengeance, which were\nnot only not perfectly agreeable to its principles, but in the most\ndirect contradiction to them. I shall not think that the _deprivation of\nsome millions of people of all the rights of citizens, and all interest\nin the Constitution, in and to which they were born_, was a thing\nconformable to the _declared principles_ of the Revolution. This I am\nsure is true relatively to England (where the operation of these\n_anti-principles_ comparatively were of little extent); and some of our\nlate laws, in repealing acts made immediately after the Revolution,\nadmit that some things then done were not done in the true spirit of the\nRevolution. But the Revolution operated differently in England and\nIreland, in many, and these essential particulars. Supposing the\nprinciples to have been altogether the same in both kingdoms, by the\napplication of those principles to very different objects the whole\nspirit of the system was changed, not to say reversed. In England it\nwas the struggle of the _great body_ of the people for the establishment\nof their liberties, against the efforts of a very _small faction_, who\nwould have oppressed them. In Ireland it was the establishment of the\npower of the smaller number, at the expense of the civil liberties and\nproperties of the far greater part, and at the expense of the political\nliberties of the whole. It was, to say the truth, not a revolution, but\na conquest: which is not to say a great deal in its favor. To insist on\neverything done in Ireland at the Revolution would be to insist on the\nsevere and jealous policy of a conqueror, in the crude settlement of his\nnew acquisition, as _a permanent_ rule for its future government. This\nno power, in no country that ever I heard of, has done or professed to\ndo,--except in Ireland; where it is done, and possibly by some people\nwill be professed. Time has, by degrees, in all other places and\nperiods, blended and coalited the conquered with the conquerors. So,\nafter some time, and after one of the most rigid conquests that we read\nof in history, the Normans softened into the English. I wish you to turn\nyour recollection to the fine speech of Cerealis to the Gauls, made to\ndissuade them from revolt. Speaking of the Romans,--\"_Nos_ quamvis\ntoties lacessiti, jure victori\u00e6 id solum vobis addidimus, quo pacem\ntueremur: nam neque quies gentium sine armis, neque arma sine\nstipendiis, neque stipendia sine tributis haberi queant. _Caetera in\ncommuni sita sunt_: ipsi plerumque nostris exercitibus _praesidetis_:\nipsi has aliasque provincias _regitis: nil separatum clausumve_. Proinde\npacem et urbem, quam _victores victique eodem jure obtinemus_, amate,\ncolite.\" You will consider whether the arguments used by that Roman to\nthese Gauls would apply to the case in Ireland,--and whether you could\nuse so plausible a preamble to any severe warning you might think it\nproper to hold out to those who should resort to sedition, instead of\nsupplication, to obtain any object that they may pursue with the\ngoverning power.\n\nFor a much longer period than that which had sufficed to blend the\nRomans with the nation to which of all others they were the most\nadverse, the Protestants settled in Ireland considered themselves in no\nother light than that of a sort of a colonial garrison, to keep the\nnatives in subjection to the other state of Great Britain. The whole\nspirit of the Revolution in Ireland was that of not the mildest\nconqueror. In truth, the spirit of those proceedings did not commence at\nthat era, nor was religion of any kind their primary object. What was\ndone was not in the spirit of a contest between two religious factions,\nbut between two adverse nations. The statutes of Kilkenny show that the\nspirit of the Popery laws, and some even of their actual provisions, as\napplied between Englishry and Irishry, had existed in that harassed\ncountry before the words _Protestant_ and _Papist_ were heard of in the\nworld. If we read Baron Finglas, Spenser, and Sir John Davies, we cannot\nmiss the true genius and policy of the English government there before\nthe Revolution, as well as during the whole reign of Queen Elizabeth.\nSir John Davies boasts of the benefits received by the natives, by\nextending to them the English law, and turning the whole kingdom into\nshire ground. But the appearance of things alone was changed. The\noriginal scheme was never deviated from for a single hour. Unheard-of\nconfiscations were made in the northern parts, upon grounds of plots and\nconspiracies, never proved upon their supposed authors. The war of\nchicane succeeded to the war of arms and of hostile statutes; and a\nregular series of operations was carried on, particularly from\nChichester's time, in the ordinary courts of justice, and by special\ncommissions and inquisitions,--first under pretence of tenures, and then\nof titles in the crown, for the purpose of the total extirpation of the\ninterest of the natives in their own soil,--until this species of subtle\nravage, being carried to the last excess of oppression and insolence\nunder Lord Strafford, it kindled the flames of that rebellion which\nbroke out in 1641. By the issue of that war, by the turn which the Earl\nof Clarendon gave to things at the Restoration, and by the total\nreduction of the kingdom of Ireland in 1691, the ruin of the native\nIrish, and, in a great measure, too, of the first races of the English,\nwas completely accomplished. The new English interest was settled with\nas solid a stability as anything in human affairs can look for. All the\npenal laws of that unparalleled code of oppression, which were made\nafter the last event, were manifestly the effects of national hatred and\nscorn towards a conquered people, whom the victors delighted to trample\nupon and were not at all afraid to provoke. They were not the effect of\ntheir fears, but of their security. They who carried on this system\nlooked to the irresistible force of Great Britain for their support in\ntheir acts of power. They were quite certain that no complaints of the\nnatives would be heard on this side of the water with any other\nsentiments than those of contempt and indignation. Their cries served\nonly to augment their torture. Machines which could answer their\npurposes so well must be of an excellent contrivance. Indeed, in\nEngland, the double name of the complainants, Irish and Papists, (it\nwould be hard to say which singly was the most odious,) shut up the\nhearts of every one against them. Whilst that temper prevailed, (and it\nprevailed in all its force to a time within our memory,) every measure\nwas pleasing and popular just in proportion as it tended to harass and\nruin a set of people who were looked upon as enemies to God and man,\nand, indeed, as a race of bigoted savages who were a disgrace to human\nnature itself.\n\nHowever, as the English in Ireland began to be domiciliated, they began\nalso to recollect that they had a country. The _English interest_, at\nfirst by faint and almost insensible degrees, but at length openly and\navowedly, became an _independent Irish interest_,--full as independent\nas it could ever have been if it had continued in the persons of the\nnative Irish; and it was maintained with more skill and more consistency\nthan probably it would have been in theirs. With their views, the\n_Anglo-Irish_ changed their maxims: it was necessary to demonstrate to\nthe whole people that there was something, at least, of a common\ninterest, combined with the independency, which was to become the object\nof common exertions. The mildness of government produced the first\nrelaxation towards the Irish; the necessities, and, in part, too, the\ntemper that predominated at this great change, produced the second and\nthe most important of these relaxations. English government and Irish\nlegislature felt jointly the propriety of this measure. The Irish\nParliament and nation became independent.\n\nThe true revolution to you, that which most intrinsically and\nsubstantially resembled the English Revolution of 1688, was the Irish\nRevolution of 1782. The Irish Parliament of 1782 bore little resemblance\nto that which sat in that kingdom after the period of the first of these\nrevolutions. It bore a much nearer resemblance to that which sat under\nKing James. The change of the Parliament in 1782 from the character of\nthe Parliament which, as a token of its indignation, had burned all the\njournals indiscriminately of the former Parliament in the\nCouncil-Chamber, was very visible. The address of King William's\nParliament, the Parliament which assembled after the Revolution, amongst\nother causes of complaint (many of them sufficiently just) complains of\nthe repeal by their predecessors of Poynings's law,--no absolute idol\nwith the Parliament of 1782.\n\nGreat Britain, finding the Anglo-Irish highly animated with a spirit\nwhich had indeed shown itself before, though with little energy and many\ninterruptions, and therefore suffered a multitude of uniform precedents\nto be established against it, acted, in my opinion, with the greatest\ntemperance and wisdom. She saw that the disposition of the _leading\npart_ of the nation would not permit them to act any longer the part of\na _garrison_. She saw that true policy did not require that they ever\nshould have appeared in that character; or if it had done so formerly,\nthe reasons had now ceased to operate. She saw that the Irish of her\nrace were resolved to build their Constitution and their politics upon\nanother bottom. With those things under her view, she instantly complied\nwith the whole of your demands, without any reservation whatsoever. She\nsurrendered that boundless superiority, for the preservation of which,\nand the acquisition, she had supported the English colonies in Ireland\nfor so long a time, and at so vast an expense (according to the standard\nof those ages) of her blood and treasure.\n\nWhen we bring before us the matter which history affords for our\nselection, it is not improper to examine the spirit of the several\nprecedents which are candidates for our choice. Might it not be as well\nfor your statesmen, on the other side of the water, to take an example\nfrom this latter and surely more conciliatory revolution, as a pattern\nfor your conduct towards your own fellow-citizens, than from that of\n1688, when a paramount sovereignty over both you and them was more\nloftily claimed and more sternly exerted than at any former or at any\nsubsequent period? Great Britain in 1782 rose above the vulgar ideas of\npolicy, the ordinary jealousies of state, and all the sentiments of\nnational pride and national ambition. If she had been more disposed\n(than, I thank God for it, she was) to listen to the suggestions of\npassion than to the dictates of prudence, she might have urged the\nprinciples, the maxims, the policy, the practice of the Revolution,\nagainst the demands of the leading description in Ireland, with full as\nmuch plausibility and full as good a grace as any amongst them can\npossibly do against the supplications of so vast and extensive a\ndescription of their own people.\n\nA good deal, too, if the spirit of domination and exclusion had\nprevailed in England, might have been excepted against some of the means\nthen employed in Ireland, whilst her claims were in agitation. They\nwere at least as much out of ordinary course as those which are now\nobjected against admitting your people to any of the benefits of an\nEnglish Constitution. Most certainly, neither with you nor here was any\none ignorant of what was at that time said, written, and done. But on\nall sides we separated the means from the end: and we separated the\ncause of the moderate and rational from the ill-intentioned and\nseditious, which on such occasions are so frequently apt to march\ntogether. At that time, on your part, you were not afraid to review what\nwas done at the Revolution of 1688, and what had been continued during\nthe subsequent flourishing period of the British empire. The change then\nmade was a great and fundamental alteration. In the execution, it was an\noperose business on both sides of the water. It required the repeal of\nseveral laws, the modification of many, and a new course to be given to\nan infinite number of legislative, judicial, and official practices and\nusages in both kingdoms. This did not frighten any of us. You are now\nasked to give, in some moderate measure, to your fellow-citizens, what\nGreat Britain gave to you without any measure at all. Yet,\nnotwithstanding all the difficulties at the time, and the apprehensions\nwhich some very well-meaning people entertained, through the admirable\ntemper in which this revolution (or restoration in the nature of a\nrevolution) was conducted in both kingdoms, it has hitherto produced no\ninconvenience to either; and I trust, with the continuance of the same\ntemper, that it never will. I think that this small, inconsiderable\nchange, (relative to an exclusive statute not made at the Revolution,)\nfor restoring the people to the benefits from which the green soreness\nof a civil war had not excluded them, will be productive of no sort of\nmischief whatsoever. Compare what was done in 1782 with what is wished\nin 1792; consider the spirit of what has been done at the several\nperiods of reformation; and weigh maturely whether it be exactly true\nthat conciliatory concessions are of good policy only in discussions\nbetween nations, but that among descriptions in the same nation they\nmust always be irrational and dangerous. What have you suffered in your\npeace, your prosperity, or, in what ought ever to be dear to a nation,\nyour glory, by the last act by which you took the property of that\npeople under the protection of the _laws_? What reasons have you to\ndread the consequences of admitting the people possessing that property\nto some share in the protection of the _Constitution_?\n\nI do not mean to trouble you with anything to remove the objections, I\nwill not call them arguments, against this measure, taken from a\nferocious hatred to all that numerous description of Christians. It\nwould be to pay a poor compliment to your understanding or your heart.\nNeither _your_ religion nor _your_ politics consist \"in odd, perverse\nantipathies.\" You are not resolved to persevere in proscribing from the\nConstitution so many millions of your countrymen, because, in\ncontradiction to experience and to common sense, you think proper to\nimagine that their principles are subversive of common human society. To\nthat I shall only say, that whoever has a temper which can be gratified\nby indulging himself in these good-natured fancies ought to do a great\ndeal more. For an exclusion from the privileges of British subjects is\nnot a cure for so terrible a distemper of the human mind as they are\npleased to suppose in their countrymen. I rather conceive a\nparticipation in those privileges to be itself a remedy for some mental\ndisorders.\n\nAs little shall I detain you with matters that can as little obtain\nadmission into a mind like yours: such as the fear, or pretence of fear,\nthat, in spite of your own power and the trifling power of Great\nBritain, you may be conquered by the Pope; or that this commodious\nbugbear (who is of infinitely more use to those who pretend to fear than\nto those who love him) will absolve his Majesty's subjects from their\nallegiance, and send over the Cardinal of York to rule you as his\nviceroy; or that, by the plenitude of his power, he will take that\nfierce tyrant, the king of the French, out of his jail, and arm that\nnation (which on all occasions treats his Holiness so very politely)\nwith his bulls and pardons, to invade poor old Ireland, to reduce you to\nPopery and slavery, and to force the free-born, naked feet of your\npeople into the wooden shoes of that arbitrary monarch. I do not believe\nthat discourses of this kind are held, or that anything like them will\nbe held, by any who walk about without a keeper. Yet I confess, that, on\noccasions of this nature, I am the most afraid of the weakest\nreasonings, because they discover the strongest passions. These things\nwill never be brought out in definite propositions. They would not\nprevent pity towards any persons; they would only cause it for those who\nwere capable of talking in such a strain. But I know, and am sure, that\nsuch ideas as no man will distinctly produce to another, or hardly\nventure to bring in any plain shape to his own mind, he will utter in\nobscure, ill-explained doubts, jealousies, surmises, fears, and\napprehensions, and that in such a fog they will appear to have a good\ndeal of size, and will make an impression, when, if they were clearly\nbrought forth and defined, they would meet with nothing but scorn and\nderision.\n\nThere is another way of taking an objection to this concession, which I\nadmit to be something more plausible, and worthy of a more attentive\nexamination. It is, that this numerous class of people is mutinous,\ndisorderly, prone to sedition, and easy to be wrought upon by the\ninsidious arts of wicked and designing men; that, conscious of this, the\nsober, rational, and wealthy part of that body, who are totally of\nanother character, do by no means desire any participation for\nthemselves, or for any one else of their description, in the franchises\nof the British Constitution.\n\nI have great doubt of the exactness of any part of this observation. But\nlet us admit that the body of the Catholics are prone to sedition, (of\nwhich, as I have said, I entertain much doubt,) is it possible that any\nfair observer or fair reasoner can think of confining this description\nto them only? I believe it to be possible for men to be mutinous and\nseditious who feel no grievance, but I believe no man will assert\nseriously, that, when people are of a turbulent spirit, the best way to\nkeep them in order is to furnish them with something substantial to\ncomplain of.\n\nYou separate, very properly, the sober, rational, and substantial part\nof their description from the rest. You give, as you ought to do, weight\nonly to the former. What I have always thought of the matter is\nthis,--that the most poor, illiterate, and uninformed creatures upon\nearth are judges of a _practical_ oppression. It is a matter of feeling;\nand as such persons generally have felt most of it, and are not of an\nover-lively sensibility, they are the best judges of it. But for _the\nreal cause_, or _the appropriate remedy_, they ought never to be called\ninto council about the one or the other. They ought to be totally shut\nout: because their reason is weak; because, when once roused, their\npassions are ungoverned; because they want information; because the\nsmallness of the property which individually they possess renders them\nless attentive to the consequence of the measures they adopt in affairs\nof moment. When I find a great cry amongst the people who speculate\nlittle, I think myself called seriously to examine into it, and to\nseparate the real cause from the ill effects of the passion it may\nexcite, and the bad use which artful men may make of an irritation of\nthe popular mind. Here we must be aided by persons of a contrary\ncharacter; we must not listen to the desperate or the furious: but it is\ntherefore necessary for us to distinguish who are the _really_ indigent\nand the _really_ intemperate. As to the persons who desire this part in\nthe Constitution, I have no reason to imagine that they are men who have\nnothing to lose and much to look for in public confusion. The popular\nmeeting from which apprehensions have been entertained has assembled. I\nhave accidentally had conversation with two friends of mine who know\nsomething of the gentleman who was put into the chair upon that\noccasion: one of them has had money transactions with him; the other,\nfrom curiosity, has been to see his concerns: they both tell me he is a\nman of some property: but you must be the best judge of this, who by\nyour office are likely to know his transactions. Many of the others are\ncertainly persons of fortune; and all, or most, fathers of families,\nmen in respectable ways of life, and some of them far from contemptible,\neither for their information, or for the abilities which they have shown\nin the discussion of their interests. What such men think it for their\nadvantage to acquire ought not, _prima facie_, to be considered as rash\nor heady or incompatible with the public safety or welfare.\n\nI admit, that men of the best fortunes and reputations, and of the best\ntalents and education too, may by accident show themselves furious and\nintemperate in their desires. This is a great misfortune, when it\nhappens; for the first presumptions are undoubtedly in their favor. We\nhave two standards of judging, in this case, of the sanity and sobriety\nof any proceedings,--of unequal certainty, indeed, but neither of them\nto be neglected: the first is by the value of the object sought; the\nnext is by the means through which it is pursued.\n\nThe object pursued by the Catholics is, I understand, and have all along\nreasoned as if it were so, in some degree or measure to be again\nadmitted to the franchises of the Constitution. Men are considered as\nunder some derangement of their intellects, when they see good and evil\nin a different light from other men,--when they choose nauseous and\nunwholesome food, and reject such as to the rest of the world seems\npleasant and is known to be nutritive. I have always considered the\nBritish Constitution not to be a thing in itself so vicious as that none\nbut men of deranged understanding and turbulent tempers could desire a\nshare in it: on the contrary, I should think very indifferently of the\nunderstanding and temper of any body of men who did not wish to partake\nof this great and acknowledged benefit. I cannot think quite so\nfavorably either of the sense or temper of those, if any such there are,\nwho would voluntarily persuade their brethren that the object is not fit\nfor them, or they for the object. Whatever may be my thoughts concerning\nthem, I am quite sure that they who hold such language must forfeit all\ncredit with the rest. This is infallible,--if they conceive any opinion\nof their judgment, they cannot possibly think them their friends. There\nis, indeed, one supposition which would reconcile the conduct of such\ngentlemen to sound reason, and to the purest affection towards their\nfellow-sufferers: it is, that they act under the impression of a\nwell-grounded fear for the general interest. If they should be told, and\nshould believe the story, that, if they dare attempt to make their\ncondition better, they will infallibly make it worse,--that, if they aim\nat obtaining liberty, they will have their slavery doubled,--that their\nendeavor to put themselves upon anything which approaches towards an\nequitable footing with their fellow-subjects will be considered as an\nindication of a seditious and rebellious disposition,--such a view of\nthings ought perfectly to restore the gentlemen, who so anxiously\ndissuade their countrymen from wishing a participation with the\nprivileged part of the people, to the good opinion of their fellows. But\nwhat is to _them_ a very full justification is not quite so honorable to\nthat power from whose maxims and temper so good a ground of rational\nterror is furnished. I think arguments of this kind will never be used\nby the friends of a government which I greatly respect, or by any of the\nleaders of an opposition whom I have the honor to know and the sense to\nadmire. I remember Polybius tells us, that, during his captivity in\nItaly as a Peloponnesian hostage, he solicited old Cato to intercede\nwith the Senate for his release, and that of his countrymen: this old\npolitician told him that he had better continue in his present\ncondition, however irksome, than apply again to that formidable\nauthority for their relief; that he ought to imitate the wisdom of his\ncountryman Ulysses, who, when he was once out of the den of the Cyclops,\nhad too much sense to venture again into the same cavern. But I conceive\ntoo high an opinion of the Irish legislature to think that they are to\ntheir fellow-citizens what the grand oppressors of mankind were to a\npeople whom the fortune of war had subjected to their power. For though\nCato could use such a parallel with regard to his Senate, I should\nreally think it nothing short of impious to compare an Irish Parliament\nto a den of Cyclops. I hope the people, both here and with you, will\nalways apply to the House of Commons with becoming modesty, but at the\nsame time with minds unembarrassed with any sort of terror.\n\nAs to the means which the Catholics employ to obtain this object, so\nworthy of sober and rational minds, I do admit that such means may be\nused in the pursuit of it as may make it proper for the legislature, in\nthis case, to defer their compliance until the demandants are brought to\na proper sense of their duty. A concession in which the governing power\nof our country loses its dignity is dearly bought even by him who\nobtains his object. All the people have a deep interest in the dignity\nof Parliament. But as the refusal of franchises which are drawn out of\nthe first vital stamina of the British Constitution is a very serious\nthing, we ought to be very sure that the manner and spirit of the\napplication is offensive and dangerous indeed, before we ultimately\nreject all applications of this nature. The mode of application, I hear,\nis by petition. It is the manner in which all the sovereign powers of\nthe world are approached; and I never heard (except in the case of James\nthe Second) that any prince considered this manner of supplication to be\ncontrary to the humility of a subject or to the respect due to the\nperson or authority of the sovereign. This rule, and a correspondent\npractice, are observed from the Grand Seignior down to the most petty\nprince or republic in Europe.\n\nYou have sent me several papers, some in print, some in manuscript. I\nthink I had seen all of them, except the formula of association. I\nconfess they appear to me to contain matter mischievous, and capable of\ngiving alarm, if the spirit in which they are written should be found to\nmake any considerable progress. But I am at a loss to know how to apply\nthem as objections to the case now before us. When I find that _the\nGeneral Committee_ which acts for the Roman Catholics in Dublin prefers\nthe association proposed in the written draught you have sent me to a\nrespectful application in Parliament, I shall think the persons who sign\nsuch a paper to be unworthy of any privilege which may be thought fit to\nbe granted, and that such men ought, _by name_, to be excepted from any\nbenefit under the Constitution to which they offer this violence. But I\ndo not find that this form of a seditious league has been signed by any\nperson whatsoever, either on the part of the supposed projectors, or on\nthe part of those whom it is calculated to seduce. I do not find, on\ninquiry, that such a thing was mentioned, or even remotely alluded to,\nin the general meeting of the Catholics from which so much violence was\napprehended. I have considered the other publications, signed by\nindividuals on the part of certain societies,--I may mistake, for I have\nnot the honor of knowing them personally, but I take Mr. Butler and Mr.\nTandy not to be Catholics, but members of the Established Church. Not\n_one_ that I recollect of these publications, which you and I equally\ndislike, appears to be written by persons of that persuasion. Now, if,\nwhilst a man is dutifully soliciting a favor from Parliament, any person\nshould choose in an improper manner to show his inclination towards the\ncause depending, and if that _must_ destroy the cause of the petitioner,\nthen, not only the petitioner, but the legislature itself, is in the\npower of any weak friend or artful enemy that the supplicant or that the\nParliament may have. A man must be judged by his own actions only.\nCertain Protestant Dissenters make seditious propositions to the\nCatholics, which it does not appear that they have yet accepted. It\nwould be strange that the tempter should escape all punishment, and that\nhe who, under circumstances full of seduction and full of provocation,\nhas resisted the temptation should incur the penalty. You know, that,\nwith regard to the Dissenters, who are _stated_ to be the chief movers\nin this vile scheme of altering the principles of election to a right of\nvoting by the head, you are not able (if you ought even to wish such a\nthing) to deprive them of any part of the franchises and privileges\nwhich they hold on a footing of perfect equality with yourselves. _They_\nmay do what they please with constitutional impunity; but the others\ncannot even listen with civility to an invitation from them to an\nill-judged scheme of liberty, without forfeiting forever all hopes of\nany of those liberties which we admit to be sober and rational.\n\nIt is known, I believe, that the greater as well as the sounder part of\nour excluded countrymen have not adopted the wild ideas and wilder\nengagements which have been held out to them, but have rather chosen to\nhope small and safe concessions from the legal power than boundless\nobjects from trouble and confusion. This mode of action seems to me to\nmark men of sobriety, and to distinguish them from those who are\nintemperate, from circumstance or from nature. But why do they not\ninstantly disclaim and disavow those who make such advances to them? In\nthis, too, in my opinion, they show themselves no less sober and\ncircumspect. In the present moment nothing short of insanity could\ninduce them to take such a step. Pray consider the circumstances.\nDisclaim, says somebody, all union with the Dissenters;--right.--But\nwhen this your injunction is obeyed, shall I obtain the object which I\nsolicit from _you_?--Oh, no, nothing at all like it!--But, in punishing\nus, by an exclusion from the Constitution through the great gate, for\nhaving been invited to enter into it by a postern, will you punish by\ndeprivation of their privileges, or mulet in any other way, those who\nhave tempted us?--Far from it;--we mean to preserve all _their_\nliberties and immunities, as _our_ life-blood. We mean to cultivate\n_them_, as brethren whom we love and respect;--with _you_ we have no\nfellowship. We can bear with patience their enmity to ourselves; but\ntheir friendship with you we will not endure. But mark it well! All our\nquarrels with _them_ are always to be revenged upon _you_. Formerly, it\nis notorious that we should have resented with the highest indignation\nyour presuming to show any ill-will to them. You must not suffer them,\nnow, to show any good-will to you. Know--and take it once for all--that\nit is, and ever has been, and ever will be, a fundamental maxim in our\npolitics, that you are not to have any part or shadow or name of\ninterest whatever in our state; that we look upon you as under an\nirreversible outlawry from our Constitution,--as perpetual and\nunalliable aliens.\n\nSuch, my dear Sir, is the plain nature of the argument drawn from the\nRevolution maxims, enforced by a supposed disposition in the Catholics\nto unite with the Dissenters. Such it is, though it were clothed in\nnever such bland and civil forms, and wrapped up, as a poet says, in a\nthousand \"artful folds of sacred lawn.\" For my own part, I do not know\nin what manner to shape such arguments, so as to obtain admission for\nthem into a rational understanding. Everything of this kind is to be\nreduced at last to threats of power. I cannot say, _V\u00e6 victis_! and then\nthrow the sword into the scale. I have no sword; and if I had, in this\ncase, most certainly, I would not use it as a makeweight in political\nreasoning.\n\nObserve, on these principles, the difference between the procedure of\nthe Parliament and the Dissenters towards the people in question. One\nemploys courtship, the other force. The Dissenters offer bribes, the\nParliament nothing but the _front n\u00e9gatif_ of a stern and forbidding\nauthority. A man may be very wrong in his ideas of what is good for\nhim. But no man affronts me, nor can therefore justify my affronting\nhim, by offering to make me as happy as himself, according to his own\nideas of happiness. This the Dissenters do to the Catholics. You are on\nthe different extremes. The Dissenters offer, with regard to\nconstitutional rights and civil advantages of all sorts, _everything_;\nyou refuse _everything_. With them, there is boundless, though not very\nassured hope; with you, a very sure and very unqualified despair. The\nterms of alliance from the Dissenters offer a representation of the\ncommons, chosen out of the people by the head. This is absurdly and\ndangerously large, in my opinion; and that scheme of election is known\nto have been at all times perfectly odious to me. But I cannot think it\nright of course to punish the Irish Roman Catholics by an universal\nexclusion, because others, whom you would not punish at all, propose an\nuniversal admission. I cannot dissemble to myself, that, in this very\nkingdom, many persons who are not in the situation of the Irish\nCatholics, but who, on the contrary, enjoy the full benefit of the\nConstitution as it stands, and some of whom, from the effect of their\nfortunes, enjoy it in a large measure, had some years ago associated to\nprocure great and undefined changes (they considered them as reforms) in\nthe popular part of the Constitution. Our friend, the late Mr. Flood,\n(no slight man,) proposed in his place, and in my hearing, a\nrepresentation not much less extensive than this, for England,--in which\nevery house was to be inhabited by a voter, _in addition_ to all the\nactual votes by other titles (some of the corporate) which we know do\nnot require a house or a shed. Can I forget that a person of the very\nhighest rank, of very large fortune, and of the first class of ability,\nbrought a bill into the House of Lords, in the head-quarters of\naristocracy, containing identically the same project for the supposed\nadoption of which by a club or two it is thought right to extinguish all\nhopes in the Roman Catholics of Ireland? I cannot say it was very\neagerly embraced or very warmly pursued. But the Lords neither did\ndisavow the bill, nor treat it with any disregard, nor express any sort\nof disapprobation of its noble author, who has never lost, with king or\npeople, the least degree of the respect and consideration which so\njustly belongs to him.\n\nI am not at all enamored, as I have told you, with this plan of\nrepresentation; as little do I relish any bandings or associations for\nprocuring it. But if the question was to be put to you and\nme,--_Universal_ popular representation, or _none at all for us and\nours_,--we should find ourselves in a very awkward position. I do not\nlike this kind of dilemmas, especially when they are practical.\n\nThen, since our oldest fundamental laws follow, or rather couple,\nfreehold with franchise,--since no principle of the Revolution shakes\nthese liberties,--since the oldest and one of the best monuments of the\nConstitution demands for the Irish the privilege which they\nsupplicate,--since the principles of the Revolution coincide with the\ndeclarations of the Great Charter,--since the practice of the\nRevolution, in this point, did not contradict its principles,--since,\nfrom that event, twenty-five years had elapsed, before a domineering\nparty, on a party principle, had ventured to disfranchise, without any\nproof whatsoever of abuse, the greater part of the community,--since the\nking's coronation oath does not stand in his way to the performance of\nhis duty to all his subjects,--since you have given to all other\nDissenters these privileges without limit which are hitherto withheld\nwithout any limitation whatsoever from the Catholics,--since no nation\nin the world has ever been known to exclude so great a body of men (not\nborn slaves) from the civil state, and all the benefits of its\nConstitution,--the whole question comes before Parliament as a matter\nfor its prudence. I do not put the thing on a question of right. That\ndiscretion, which in judicature is well said by Lord Coke to be a\ncrooked cord, in legislature is a golden rule. Supplicants ought not to\nappear too much in the character of litigants. If the subject thinks so\nhighly and reverently of the sovereign authority as not to claim\nanything of right, so that it may seem to be independent of the power\nand free choice of its government,--and if the sovereign, on his part,\nconsiders the advantages of the subjects as their right, and all their\nreasonable wishes as so many claims,--in the fortunate conjunction of\nthese mutual dispositions are laid the foundations of a happy and\nprosperous commonwealth. For my own part, desiring of all things that\nthe authority of the legislature under which I was born, and which I\ncherish, not only with a dutiful awe, but with a partial and cordial\naffection, to be maintained in the utmost possible respect, I never will\nsuffer myself to suppose that at bottom their discretion will be found\nto be at variance with their justice.\n\nThe whole being at discretion, I beg leave just to suggest some matters\nfor your consideration:--Whether the government in Church or State is\nlikely to be more secure by continuing causes of grounded discontent to\na very great number (say two millions) of the subjects? or whether the\nConstitution, combined and balanced as it is, will be rendered more\nsolid by depriving so large a part of the people of all concern or\ninterest or share in its representation, actual or _virtual_? I here\nmean to lay an emphasis on the word _virtual_. Virtual representation is\nthat in which there is a communion of interests and a sympathy in\nfeelings and desires between those who act in the name of any\ndescription of people and the people in whose name they act, though the\ntrustees are not actually chosen by them. This is virtual\nrepresentation. Such a representation I think to be in many cases even\nbetter than the actual. It possesses most of its advantages, and is free\nfrom many of its inconveniences; it corrects the irregularities in the\nliteral representation, when the shifting current of human affairs or\nthe acting of public interests in different ways carry it obliquely from\nits first line of direction. The people may err in their choice; but\ncommon interest and common sentiment are rarely mistaken. But this sort\nof virtual representation cannot have a long or sure existence, if it\nhas not a substratum in the actual. The member must have some relation\nto the constituent. As things stand, the Catholic, as a Catholic, and\nbelonging to a description, has no _virtual_ relation to the\nrepresentative,--but the _contrary_. There is a relation in mutual\nobligation. Gratitude may not always have a very lasting power; but the\nfrequent recurrence of an application for favors will revive and refresh\nit, and will necessarily produce some degree of mutual attention. It\nwill produce, at least, acquaintance. The several descriptions of people\nwill not be kept so much apart as they now are, as if they were not\nonly separate nations, but separate species. The stigma and reproach,\nthe hideous mask will be taken off, and men will see each other as they\nare. Sure I am that there have been thousands in Ireland who have never\nconversed with a Roman Catholic in their whole lives, unless they\nhappened to talk to their gardener's workmen, or to ask their way, when\nthey had lost it in their sports,--or, at best, who had known them only\nas footmen, or other domestics, of the second and third order: and so\naverse were they, some time ago, to have them near their persons, that\nthey would not employ even those who could never find their way beyond\nthe stable. I well remember a great, and in many respects a good man,\nwho advertised for a blacksmith, but at the same time added, he must be\na Protestant. It is impossible that such a state of things, though\nnatural goodness in many persons will undoubtedly make exceptions, must\nnot produce alienation on the one side and pride and insolence on the\nother.\n\nReduced to a question of discretion, and that discretion exercised\nsolely upon what will appear best for the conservation of the state on\nits present basis, I should recommend it to your serious thoughts,\nwhether the narrowing of the foundation is always the best way to secure\nthe building? The body of disfranchised men will not be perfectly\nsatisfied to remain always in that state. If they are not satisfied, you\nhave two millions of subjects in your bosom full of uneasiness: not that\nthey cannot overturn the Act of Settlement, and put themselves and you\nunder an arbitrary master; or that they are not permitted to spawn a\nhydra of wild republics, on principles of a pretended natural equality\nin man; but because you will not suffer them to enjoy the ancient,\nfundamental, tried advantages of a British Constitution,--that you will\nnot permit them to profit of the protection of a common father or the\nfreedom of common citizens, and that the only reason which can be\nassigned for this disfranchisement has a tendency more deeply to\nulcerate their minds than the act of exclusion itself. What the\nconsequence of such feelings must be it is for you to look to. To warn\nis not to menace.\n\nI am far from asserting that men will not excite disturbances without\njust cause. I know that such an assertion is not true. But neither is it\ntrue that disturbances have never just complaints for their origin. I am\nsure that it is hardly prudent to furnish them with such causes of\ncomplaint as every man who thinks the British Constitution a benefit may\nthink at least colorable and plausible.\n\nSeveral are in dread of the manoeuvres of certain persons among the\nDissenters, who turn this ill humor to their own ill purposes. You know,\nbetter than I can, how much these proceedings of certain among the\nDissenters are to be feared. You are to weigh, with the temper which is\nnatural to you, whether it may be for the safety of our establishment\nthat the Catholics should be ultimately persuaded that they have no hope\nto enter into the Constitution but through the Dissenters.\n\nThink whether this be the way to prevent or dissolve factious\ncombinations against the Church or the State. Reflect seriously on the\npossible consequences of keeping in the heart of your country a bank of\ndiscontent, every hour accumulating, upon which every description of\nseditious men may draw at pleasure. They whose principles of faction\nwill dispose them to the establishment of an arbitrary monarchy will\nfind a nation of men who have no sort of interest in freedom, but who\nwill have an interest in that equality of justice or favor with which a\nwise despot must view all his subjects who do not attack the foundations\nof his power. Love of liberty itself may, in such men, become the means\nof establishing an arbitrary domination. On the other hand, they who\nwish for a democratic republic will find a set of men who have no choice\nbetween civil servitude and the entire ruin of a mixed Constitution.\n\nSuppose the people of Ireland divided into three parts. Of these, (I\nspeak within compass,) two are Catholic; of the remaining third, one\nhalf is composed of Dissenters. There is no natural union between those\ndescriptions. It may be produced. If the two parts Catholic be driven\ninto a close confederacy with half the third part of Protestants, with a\nview to a change in the Constitution in Church or State or both, and you\nrest the whole of their security on a handful of gentlemen, clergy, and\ntheir dependents,--compute the strength _you have in Ireland_, to oppose\nto grounded discontent, to capricious innovation, to blind popular fury,\nand to ambitious, turbulent intrigue.\n\nYou mention that the minds of some gentlemen are a good deal heated, and\nthat it is often said, that, rather than submit to such persons, having\na share in their franchises, they would throw up their independence, and\nprecipitate an union with Great Britain. I have heard a discussion\nconcerning such an union amongst all sorts of men ever since I remember\nanything. For my own part, I have never been able to bring my mind to\nanything clear and decisive upon the subject. There cannot be a more\narduous question. As far as I can form an opinion, it would not be for\nthe mutual advantage of the two kingdoms. Persons, however, more able\nthan I am think otherwise. But whatever the merits of this union may be,\nto make it a _menace_, it must be shown to be an _evil_, and an evil\nmore particularly to those who are threatened with it than to those who\nhold it out as a terror. I really do not see how this threat of an union\ncan operate, or that the Catholics are more likely to be losers by that\nmeasure than the churchmen.\n\nThe humors of the people, and of politicians too, are so variable in\nthemselves, and are so much under the occasional influence of some\nleading men, that it is impossible to know what turn the public mind\nhere would take on such an event. There is but one thing certain\nconcerning it. Great divisions and vehement passions would precede this\nunion, both on the measure itself and on its terms; and particularly,\nthis very question of a share in the representation for the Catholics,\nfrom whence the project of an union originated, would form a principal\npart in the discussion; and in the temper in which some gentlemen seem\ninclined to throw themselves, by a sort of high, indignant passion, into\nthe scheme, those points would not be deliberated with all possible\ncalmness.\n\nFrom my best observation, I should greatly doubt, whether, in the end,\nthese gentlemen would obtain their object, so as to make the exclusion\nof two millions of their countrymen a fundamental article in the union.\nThe demand would be of a nature quite unprecedented. You might obtain\nthe union; and yet a gentleman, who, under the new union establishment,\nwould aspire to the honor of representing his county, might possibly be\nas much obliged, as he may fear to be under the old separate\nestablishment, to the unsupportable mortification of asking his\nneighbors, who have a different opinion concerning the elements in the\nsacrament, for their votes.\n\nI believe, nay, I am sure, that the people of Great Britain, with or\nwithout an union, might be depended upon, in oases of any real danger,\nto aid the government of Ireland, with the same cordiality as they would\nsupport their own, against any wicked attempts to shake the security of\nthe happy Constitution in Church and State. But before Great Britain\nengages in any quarrel, the _cause of the dispute_ would certainly be a\npart of her consideration. If confusions should arise in that kingdom\nfrom too steady an attachment to a proscriptive, monopolizing system,\nand from the resolution of regarding the franchise, and in it the\nsecurity of the subject, as belonging rather to religious opinions than\nto civil qualification and civil conduct, I doubt whether you might\nquite certainly reckon on obtaining an aid of force from hence for the\nsupport of that system. We might extend your distractions to this\ncountry by taking part in them. England will be indisposed, I suspect,\nto send an army for the conquest of Ireland. What was done in 1782 is a\ndecisive proof of her sentiments of justice and moderation. She will not\nbe fond of making another American war in Ireland. The principles of\nsuch a war would but too much resemble the former one. The well-disposed\nand the ill-disposed in England would (for different reasons perhaps)\nbe equally averse to such an enterprise. The confiscations, the public\nauctions, the private grants, the plantations, the transplantations,\nwhich formerly animated so many adventurers, even among sober citizens,\nto such Irish expeditions, and which possibly might have animated some\nof them to the American, can have no existence in the case that we\nsuppose.\n\nLet us form a supposition, (no foolish or ungrounded supposition,) that,\nin an age when men are infinitely more disposed to heat themselves with\npolitical than religious controversies, the former should entirely\nprevail, as we see that in some places they have prevailed, over the\nlatter,--and that the Catholics of Ireland, from the courtship paid them\non the one hand, and the high tone of refusal on the other, should, in\norder to enter into all the rights of subjects, all become Protestant\nDissenters, and, as the others do, take all your oaths. They would all\nobtain their civil objects; and the change, for anything I know to the\ncontrary, (in the dark as I am about the Protestant Dissenting tenets,)\nmight be of use to the health of their souls. But what security our\nConstitution, in Church or State, could derive from that event, I cannot\npossibly discern. Depend upon it, it is as true as Nature is true, that,\nif you force them out of the religion of habit, education, or opinion,\nit is not to yours they will ever go. Shaken in their minds, they will\ngo to that where the dogmas are fewest,--where they are the most\nuncertain,--where they lead them the least to a consideration of what\nthey have abandoned. They will go to that uniformly democratic system to\nwhose first movements they owed their emancipation. I recommend you\nseriously to turn this in your mind. Believe that it requires your best\nand maturest thoughts. Take what course you please,--union or no union;\nwhether the people remain Catholics or become Protestant Dissenters,\nsure it is that the present state of monopoly _cannot_ continue.\n\nIf England were animated, as I think she is not, with her former spirit\nof domination, and with the strong theological hatred which she once\ncherished for that description of her fellow-Christians and\nfellow-subjects, I am yet convinced, that, after the fullest success in\na ruinous struggle, you would be obliged to abandon that monopoly. We\nwere obliged to do this, even when everything promised success, in the\nAmerican business. If you should make this experiment at last, under the\npressure of any necessity, you never can do it well. But if, instead of\nfalling into a passion, the leading gentlemen of the country themselves\nshould undertake the business cheerfully, and with hearty affection\ntowards it, great advantages would follow. What is forced cannot be\nmodified: but here you may measure your concessions.\n\nIt is a consideration of great moment, that you make the desired\nadmission without altering the system of your representation in the\nsmallest degree or in any part. You may leave that deliberation of a\nParliamentary change or reform, if ever you should think fit to engage\nin it, uncomplicated and unembarrassed with the other question. Whereas,\nif they are mixed and confounded, as some people attempt to mix and\nconfound them, no one can answer for the effects on the Constitution\nitself.\n\nThere is another advantage in taking up this business singly and by an\narrangement for the single object. It is that you may proceed by\n_degrees_. We must all obey the great law of change. It is the most\npowerful law of Nature, and the means perhaps of its conservation. All\nwe can do, and that human wisdom can do, is to provide that the change\nshall proceed by insensible degrees. This has all the benefits which may\nbe in change, without any of the inconveniences of mutation. Everything\nis provided for as it arrives. This mode will, on the one hand, prevent\nthe _unfixing old interests at once_: a thing which is apt to breed a\nblack and sullen discontent in those who are at once dispossessed of all\ntheir influence and consideration. This gradual course, on the other\nside, will prevent men long under depression from being intoxicated with\na large draught of new power, which they always abuse with a licentious\ninsolence. But, wishing, as I do, the change to be gradual and cautious,\nI would, in my first steps, lean rather to the side of enlargement than\nrestriction.\n\nIt is one excellence of our Constitution, that all our rights of\nprovincial election regard rather property than person. It is another,\nthat the rights which approach more nearly to the personal are most of\nthem corporate, and suppose a restrained and strict education of seven\nyears in some useful occupation. In both cases the practice may have\nslid from the principle. The standard of qualification in both cases may\nbe so low, or not so judiciously chosen, as in some degree to frustrate\nthe end. But all this is for your prudence in the case before you. You\nmay rise a step or two the qualification of the Catholic voters. But if\nyou were to-morrow to put the Catholic freeholder on the footing of the\nmost favored forty-shilling Protestant Dissenter, you know, that, such\nis the actual state of Ireland, this would not make a sensible\nalteration in almost any _one_ election in the kingdom. The effect in\ntheir favor, even defensively, would be infinitely slow. But it would be\nhealing; it would be satisfactory and protecting. The stigma would be\nremoved. By admitting settled, permanent substance in lieu of the\nnumbers, you would avoid the great danger of our time, that of setting\nup number against property. The numbers ought never to be neglected,\nbecause (besides what is due to them as men) collectively, though not\nindividually, they have great property: they ought to have, therefore,\nprotection; they ought to have security; they ought to have even\nconsideration: but they ought not to predominate.\n\nMy dear Sir, I have nearly done. I meant to write you a long letter: I\nhave written a long dissertation. I might have done it earlier and\nbetter. I might have been more forcible and more clear, if I had not\nbeen interrupted as I have been; and this obliges me not to write to you\nin my own hand. Though my hand but signs it, my heart goes with what I\nhave written. Since I could think at all, those have been my thoughts.\nYou know that thirty-two years ago they were as fully matured in my mind\nas they are now. A letter of mine to Lord Kenmare, though not by my\ndesire, and full of lesser mistakes, has been printed in Dublin. It was\nwritten ten or twelve years ago, at the time when I began the\nemployment, which I have not yet finished, in favor of another\ndistressed people, injured by those who have vanquished them, or stolen\na dominion over them. It contained my sentiments then: you will see how\nfar they accord with my sentiments now. Time has more and more confirmed\nme in them all. The present circumstances fix them deeper in my mind.\n\nI voted last session, if a particular vote could be distinguished in\nunanimity, for an establishment of the Church of England _conjointly_\nwith the establishment, which was made some years before by act of\nParliament, of the Roman Catholic, in the French conquered country of\nCanada. At the time of making this English ecclesiastical establishment,\nwe did not think it necessary for its safety to destroy the former\nGallican Church settlement. In our first act we settled a government\naltogether monarchical, or nearly so. In that system, the Canadian\nCatholics were far from being deprived of the advantages or\ndistinctions, of any kind, which they enjoyed under their former\nmonarchy. It is true that some people, and amongst them one eminent\ndivine, predicted at that time that by this step we should lose our\ndominions in America. He foretold that the Pope would send his\nindulgences hither; that the Canadians would fall in with France, would\ndeclare independence, and draw or force our colonies into the same\ndesign. The independence happened according to his prediction; but in\ndirectly the reverse order. All our English Protestant colonies\nrevolted. They joined themselves to France; and it so happened that\nPopish Canada was the only place which preserved its fidelity, the only\nplace in which France got no footing, the only peopled colony which now\nremains to Great Britain. Vain are all the prognostics taken from ideas\nand passions, which survive the state of things which gave rise to them.\nWhen last year we gave a popular representation to the same Canada by\nthe choice of the landholders, and an aristocratic representation at the\nchoice of the crown, neither was the choice of the crown nor the\nelection of the landholders limited by a consideration of religion. We\nhad no dread for the Protestant Church which we settled there, because\nwe permitted the French Catholics, in the utmost latitude of the\ndescription, to be free subjects. They are good subjects, I have no\ndoubt; but I will not allow that any French Canadian Catholics are\nbetter men or better citizens than the Irish of the same communion.\nPassing from the extremity of the West to the extremity almost of the\nEast, I have been many years (now entering into the twelfth) employed in\nsupporting the rights, privileges, laws, and immunities of a very remote\npeople. I have not as yet been able to finish my task. I have struggled\nthrough much discouragement and much opposition, much obloquy, much\ncalumny, for a people with whom I have no tie but the common bond of\nmankind. In this I have not been left alone. We did not fly from our\nundertaking because the people are Mahometans or Pagans, and that a\ngreat majority of the Christians amongst them are Papists. Some\ngentlemen in Ireland, I dare say, have good reasons for what they may\ndo, which do not occur to me. I do not presume to condemn them; but,\nthinking and acting as I have done towards those remote nations, I\nshould not know how to show my face, here or in Ireland, if I should say\nthat all the Pagans, all the Mussulmen, and even all the Papists, (since\nthey must form the highest stage in the climax of evil,) are worthy of a\nliberal and honorable condition, except those of one of the\ndescriptions, which forms the majority of the inhabitants of the\ncountry in which you and I were born. If such are the Catholics of\nIreland, ill-natured and unjust people, from our own data, may be\ninclined not to think better of the Protestants of a soil which is\nsupposed to infuse into its sects a kind of venom unknown in other\nplaces.\n\nYou hated the old system as early as I did. Your first juvenile lance\nwas broken against that giant. I think you were even the first who\nattacked the grim phantom. You have an exceedingly good understanding,\nvery good humor, and the best heart in the world. The dictates of that\ntemper and that heart, as well as the policy pointed out by that\nunderstanding, led you to abhor the old code. You abhorred it, as I did,\nfor its vicious perfection. For I must do it justice: it was a complete\nsystem, full of coherence and consistency, well digested and well\ncomposed in all its parts. It was a machine of wise and elaborate\ncontrivance, and as well fitted for the oppression, impoverishment, and\ndegradation of a people, and the debasement, in them, of human nature\nitself, as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man. It is a\nthing humiliating enough, that we are doubtful of the effect of the\nmedicines we compound,--we are sure of our poisons. My opinion ever was,\n(in which I heartily agree with those that admired the old code,) that\nit was so constructed, that, if there was once a breach in any essential\npart of it, the ruin of the whole, or nearly of the whole, was, at some\ntime or other, a certainty. For that reason I honor and shall forever\nhonor and love you, and those who first caused it to stagger, crack, and\ngape. Others may finish; the beginners have the glory; and, take what\npart you please at this hour, (I think you will take the best,) your\nfirst services will never be forgotten by a grateful country. Adieu!\nPresent my best regards to those I know,--and as many as I know in our\ncountry I honor. There never was so much ability, nor, I believe, virtue\nin it. They have a task worthy of both. I doubt not they will perform\nit, for the stability of the Church and State, and for the union and the\nseparation of the people: for the union of the honest and peaceable of\nall sects; for their separation from all that is ill-intentioned and\nseditious in any of them.\n\nBEACONSFIELD, JANUARY 3, 1792.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[28] The letter is written on folio sheets.\n\n[29] A small error of fact as to the abjuration oath, but of no\nimportance in the argument.\n\n\n\n\nHINTS FOR A MEMORIAL\n\nTO BE DELIVERED TO\n\nMONSIEUR DE M.M.\n\nWRITTEN IN THE EARLY PART OF 1791\n\n\nThe King, my master, from his sincere desire of keeping up a good\ncorrespondence with his Most Christian Majesty and the French nation,\nhas for some time beheld with concern the condition into which that\nsovereign and nation have fallen.\n\nNotwithstanding the reality and the warmth of those sentiments, his\nBritannic Majesty has hitherto forborne in any manner to take part in\ntheir affairs, in hopes that the common interest of king and subjects\nwould render all parties sensible of the necessity of settling their\ngovernment and their freedom upon principles of moderation, as the only\nmeans of securing permanence to both those blessings, as well as\ninternal and external tranquillity to the kingdom of France, and to all\nEurope.\n\nHis Britannic Majesty finds, to his great regret, that his hopes have\nnot been realized. He finds that confusions and disorders have rather\nincreased than diminished, and that they now threaten to proceed to\ndangerous extremities.\n\nIn this situation of things, the same regard to a neighboring sovereign\nliving in friendship with Great Britain, the same spirit of good-will to\nthe kingdom of France, the same regard to the general tranquillity,\nwhich have caused him to view with concern the growth and continuance of\nthe present disorders, have induced the King of Great Britain to\ninterpose his good offices towards a reconcilement of those unhappy\ndifferences. This his Majesty does with the most cordial regard to the\ngood of all descriptions concerned, and with the most perfect sincerity,\nwholly removing from his royal mind all memory of every circumstance\nwhich might impede him in the execution of a plan of benevolence which\nhe has so much at heart.\n\nHis Majesty, having always thought it his greatest glory that he rules\nover a people perfectly and solidly, because soberly, rationally, and\nlegally free, can never be supposed to proceed in offering thus his\nroyal mediation, but with an unaffected desire and full resolution to\nconsider the settlement of a free constitution in France as the very\nbasis of any agreement between the sovereign and those of his subjects\nwho are unhappily at variance with him,--to guaranty it to them, if it\nshould be desired, in the most solemn and authentic manner, and to do\nall that in him lies to procure the like guaranty from other powers.\n\nHis Britannic Majesty, in the same manner, assures the Most Christian\nKing that he knows too well and values too highly what is due to the\ndignity and rights of crowned heads, and to the implied faith of\ntreaties which have always been made with the _crown_ of France, ever to\nlisten to any proposition by which that monarchy shall be despoiled of\nall its rights, so essential for the support of the consideration of the\nprince and the concord and welfare of the people.\n\nIf, unfortunately, a due attention should not be paid to these his\nMajesty's benevolent and neighborly offers, or if any circumstances\nshould prevent the Most Christian King from acceding (as his Majesty\nhas no doubt he is well disposed to do) to this healing mediation in\nfavor of himself and all his subjects, his Majesty has commanded me to\ntake leave of this court, as not conceiving it to be suitable to the\ndignity of his crown, and to what he owes to his faithful people, any\nlonger to keep a public minister at the court of a sovereign who is not\nin possession of his own liberty.\n\n\n\n\nTHOUGHTS\n\nON\n\nFRENCH AFFAIRS,\n\nETC., ETC.\n\nWRITTEN IN DECEMBER, 1791.\n\n\n\n\nTHOUGHTS ON FRENCH AFFAIRS.\n\n\nIn all our transactions with France, and at all periods, we have treated\nwith that state on the footing of a monarchy. Monarchy was considered in\nall the external relations of that kingdom with every power in Europe as\nits legal and constitutional government, and that in which alone its\nfederal capacity was vested.\n\n[Sidenote: Montmorin's Letter.]\n\nIt is not yet a year since Monsieur de Montmorin formally, and with as\nlittle respect as can be imagined to the king, and to all crowned heads,\nannounced a total Revolution in that country. He has informed the\nBritish ministry that its frame of government is wholly altered,--that\nhe is one of the ministers of the new system,--and, in effect, that the\nking is no longer his master, (nor does he even call him such,) but the\n\"_first of the ministers_,\" in the new system.\n\n[Sidenote: Acceptance of the Constitution ratified.]\n\nThe second notification was that of the king's acceptance of the new\nConstitution, accompanied with fanfaronades in the modern style of the\nFrench bureaus: things which have much more the air and character of the\nsaucy declamations of their clubs than the tone of regular office.\n\nIt has not been very usual to notify to foreign courts anything\nconcerning the internal arrangements of any state. In the present case,\nthe circumstance of these two notifications, with the observations with\nwhich they are attended, does not leave it in the choice of the\nsovereigns of Christendom to appear ignorant either of this French\nRevolution or (what is more important) of its principles.\n\nWe know, that, very soon after this manifesto of Monsieur de Montmorin,\nthe king of France, in whose name it was made, found himself obliged to\nfly, with his whole family,--leaving behind him a declaration in which\nhe disavows and annuls that Constitution, as having been the effect of\nforce on his person and usurpation on his authority. It is equally\nnotorious, that this unfortunate prince was, with many circumstances of\ninsult and outrage, brought back prisoner by a deputation of the\npretended National Assembly, and afterwards suspended by their authority\nfrom his government. Under equally notorious constraint, and under\nmenaces of total deposition, he has been compelled to accept what they\ncall a Constitution, and to agree to whatever else the usurped power\nwhich holds him in confinement thinks proper to impose.\n\nHis nest brother, who had fled with him, and his third brother, who had\nfled before him, all the princes of his blood who remained faithful to\nhim, and the flower of his magistracy, his clergy, and his nobility,\ncontinue in foreign countries, protesting against all acts done by him\nin his present situation, on the grounds upon which he had himself\nprotested against them at the time of his flight,--with this addition,\nthat they deny his very competence (as on good grounds they may) to\nabrogate the royalty, or the ancient constitutional orders of the\nkingdom. In this protest they are joined by three hundred of the late\nAssembly itself, and, in effect, by a great part of the French nation.\nThe new government (so far as the people dare to disclose their\nsentiments) is disdained, I am persuaded, by the greater number,--who,\nas M. de La Fayette complains, and as the truth is, have declined to\ntake any share in the new elections to the National Assembly, either as\ncandidates or electors.\n\nIn this state of things, (that is, in the case of a _divided_ kingdom,)\nby the law of nations,[30] Great Britain, like every other power, is\nfree to take any part she pleases. She may decline, with more or less\nformality, according to her discretion, to acknowledge this new system;\nor she may recognize it as a government _de facto_, setting aside all\ndiscussion of its original legality, and considering the ancient\nmonarchy as at an end. The law of nations leaves our court open to its\nchoice. We have no direction but what is found in the well-understood\npolicy of the king and kingdom.\n\nThis declaration of a _new species_ of government, on new principles,\n(such it professes itself to be,) is a real crisis in the politics of\nEurope. The conduct which prudence ought to dictate to Great Britain\nwill not depend (as hitherto our connection or quarrel with other states\nhas for some time depended) upon merely _external_ relations, but in a\ngreat measure also upon the system which we may think it right to adopt\nfor the internal government of our own country.\n\nIf it be our policy to assimilate our government to that of France, we\nought to prepare for this change by encouraging the schemes of authority\nestablished there. We ought to wink at the captivity and deposition of\na prince with whom, if not in close alliance, we were in friendship. We\nought to fall in with the ideas of Monsieur Montmorin's circular\nmanifesto, and to do business of course with the functionaries who act\nunder the new power by which that king to whom his Majesty's minister\nhas been sent to reside has been deposed and imprisoned. On that idea we\nought also to withhold all sorts of direct or indirect countenance from\nthose who are treating in Germany for the re\u00ebstablishment of the French\nmonarchy and the ancient orders of that state. This conduct is suitable\nto this policy.\n\nThe question is, whether this policy be suitable to the interests of the\ncrown and subjects of Great Britain. Let us, therefore, a little\nconsider the true nature and probable effects of the Revolution which,\nin such a very unusual manner, has been twice diplomatically announced\nto his Majesty.\n\n[Sidenote: Difference between this Revolution and others.]\n\nThere have been many internal revolutions in the government of\ncountries, both as to persons and forms, in which the neighboring states\nhave had little or no concern. Whatever the government might be with\nrespect to those persons and those forms, the stationary interests of\nthe nation concerned have most commonly influenced the new governments\nin the same manner in which they influenced the old; and the revolution,\nturning on matter of local grievance or of local accommodation, did not\nextend beyond its territory.\n\n[Sidenote: Nature of the French Revolution.]\n\nThe present Revolution in France seems to me to be quite of another\ncharacter and description, and to bear little resemblance or analogy to\nany of those which have been brought about in Europe, upon principles\nmerely political. _It is a Revolution of doctrine and theoretic dogma_.\nIt has a much greater resemblance to those changes which have been made\nupon religious grounds, in which a spirit of proselytism makes an\nessential part.\n\nThe last revolution of doctrine and theory which has happened in Europe\nis the Reformation. It is not for my purpose to take any notice here of\nthe merits of that revolution, but to state one only of its effects.\n\n[Sidenote: Its effects.]\n\nThat effect was, _to introduce other interests into all countries than\nthose which arose from their locality and natural circumstances_. The\nprinciple of the Reformation was such as, by its essence, could not be\nlocal or confined to the country in which it had its origin. For\ninstance, the doctrine of \"Justification by Faith or by Works,\" which\nwas the original basis of the Reformation, could not have one of its\nalternatives true as to Germany and false as to every other country.\nNeither are questions of theoretic truth and falsehood governed by\ncircumstances any more than by places. On that occasion, therefore, the\nspirit of proselytism expanded itself with great elasticity upon all\nsides: and great divisions were everywhere the result.\n\nThese divisions, however in appearance merely dogmatic, soon became\nmixed with the political; and their effects were rendered much more\nintense from this combination. Europe was for a long time divided into\ntwo great factions, under the name of Catholic and Protestant, which not\nonly often alienated state from state, but also divided almost every\nstate within itself. The warm parties in each state were more\naffectionately attached to those of their own doctrinal interest in\nsome other country than to their fellow-citizens or to their natural\ngovernment, when they or either of them happened to be of a different\npersuasion. These factions, wherever they prevailed, if they did not\nabsolutely destroy, at least weakened and distracted the locality of\npatriotism. The public affections came to have other motives and other\nties.\n\nIt would be to repeat the history of the two last centuries to exemplify\nthe effects of this revolution.\n\nAlthough the principles to which it gave rise did not operate with a\nperfect regularity and constancy, they never wholly ceased to operate.\nFew wars were made, and few treaties were entered into, in which they\ndid not come in for some part. They gave a color, a character, and\ndirection to all the politics of Europe.\n\n[Sidenote: New system of politics.]\n\nThese principles of internal as well as external division and coalition\nare but just now extinguished. But they who will examine into the true\ncharacter and genius of some late events must be satisfied that other\nsources of faction, combining parties among the inhabitants of different\ncountries into one connection, are opened, and that from these sources\nare likely to arise effects full as important as those which had\nformerly arisen from the jarring interests of the religious sects. The\nintention of the several actors in the change in France is not a matter\nof doubt. It is very openly professed.\n\nIn the modern world, before this time, there has been no instance of\nthis spirit of general political faction, separated from religion,\npervading several countries, and forming a principle of union between\nthe partisans in each. But the thing is not less in human nature. The\nancient world has furnished a strong and striking instance of such a\nground for faction, full as powerful and full as mischievous as our\nspirit of religions system had ever been, exciting in all the states of\nGreece (European and Asiatic) the most violent animosities and the most\ncruel and bloody persecutions and proscriptions. These ancient factions\nin each commonwealth of Greece connected themselves with those of the\nsame description in some other states; and secret cabals and public\nalliances were carried on and made, not upon a conformity of general\npolitical interests, but for the support and aggrandizement of the two\nleading states which headed the aristocratic and democratic factions.\nFor as, in later times, the king of Spain was at the head of a Catholic,\nand the king of Sweden of a Protestant interest, (France, though\nCatholic, acting subordinately to the latter,) in the like manner the\nLacedemonians were everywhere at the head of the aristocratic interests,\nand the Athenians of the democratic. The two leading powers kept alive a\nconstant cabal and conspiracy in every state, and the political dogmas\nconcerning the constitution of a republic were the great instruments by\nwhich these leading states chose to aggrandize themselves. Their choice\nwas not unwise; because the interest in opinions, (merely as opinions,\nand without any experimental reference to their effects,) when once they\ntake strong hold of the mind, become the most operative of all\ninterests, and indeed very often supersede every other.\n\nI might further exemplify the possibility of a political sentiment\nrunning through various states, and combining factions in them, from the\nhistory of the Middle Ages in the Guelfs and Ghibellines. These were\npolitical factions originally in favor of the Emperor and the Pope, with\nno mixture of religious dogmas: or if anything religiously doctrinal\nthey had in them originally, it very soon disappeared; as their first\npolitical objects disappeared also, though the spirit remained. They\nbecame no more than names to distinguish factions: but they were not the\nless powerful in their operation, when they had no direct point of\ndoctrine, either religious or civil, to assert. For a long time,\nhowever, those factions gave no small degree of influence to the foreign\nchiefs in every commonwealth in which they existed. I do not mean to\npursue further the track of these parties. I allude to this part of\nhistory only as it furnishes an instance of that species of faction\nwhich broke the locality of public affections, and united descriptions\nof citizens more with strangers than with their countrymen of different\nopinions.\n\n[Sidenote: French fundamental principle.]\n\nThe political dogma, which, upon the new French system, is to unite the\nfactions of different nations, is this: \"That the majority, told by the\nhead, of the taxable people in every country, is the perpetual, natural,\nunceasing, indefeasible sovereign; that this majority is perfectly\nmaster of the form as well as the administration of the state, and that\nthe magistrates, under whatever names they are called, are only\nfunctionaries to obey the orders (general as laws or particular as\ndecrees) which that majority may make; that this is the only natural\ngovernment; that all others are tyranny and usurpation.\"\n\n[Sidenote: Practical project.]\n\nIn order to reduce this dogma into practice, the republicans in France,\nand their associates in other countries, make it always their business,\nand often their public profession, to destroy all traces of ancient\nestablishments, and to form a new commonwealth in each country, upon the\nbasis of the French _Rights of Man_. On the principle of these rights,\nthey mean to institute in every country, and as it were the germ of the\nwhole, parochial governments, for the purpose of what they call equal\nrepresentation. From them is to grow, by some media, a general council\nand representative of all the parochial governments. In that\nrepresentative is to be vested the whole national power,--totally\nabolishing hereditary name and office, levelling all conditions of men,\n(except where money _must_ make a difference,) breaking all connection\nbetween territory and dignity, and abolishing every species of nobility,\ngentry, and Church establishments: all their priests and all their\nmagistrates being only creatures of election and pensioners at will.\n\nKnowing how opposite a permanent landed interest is to that scheme, they\nhave resolved, and it is the great drift of all their regulations, to\nreduce that description of men to a mere peasantry for the sustenance of\nthe towns, and to place the true effective government in cities, among\nthe tradesmen, bankers, and voluntary clubs of bold, presuming young\npersons,--advocates, attorneys, notaries, managers of newspapers, and\nthose cabals of literary men called academies. Their republic is to have\na first functionary, (as they call him,) under the name of King, or not,\nas they think fit. This officer, when such an officer is permitted, is,\nhowever, neither in fact nor name to be considered as sovereign, nor the\npeople as his subjects. The very use of these appellations is offensive\nto their ears.\n\n[Sidenote: Partisans of the French system.]\n\nThis system, as it has first been realized, dogmatically as well as\npractically, in France, makes France the natural head of all factions\nformed on a similar principle, wherever they may prevail, as much as\nAthens was the head and settled ally of all democratic factions,\nwherever they existed. The other system has no head.\n\nThis system has very many partisans in every country in Europe, but\nparticularly in England, where they are already formed into a body,\ncomprehending most of the Dissenters of the three leading denominations.\nTo these are readily aggregated all who are Dissenters in character,\ntemper, and disposition, though not belonging to any of their\ncongregations: that is, all the restless people who resemble them, of\nall ranks and all parties,--Whigs, and even Tories; the whole race of\nhalf-bred speculators; all the Atheists, Deists, and Socinians; all\nthose who hate the clergy and envy the nobility; a good many among the\nmoneyed people; the East Indians almost to a man, who cannot bear to\nfind that their present importance does not bear a proportion to their\nwealth. These latter have united themselves into one great, and, in my\nopinion, formidable club,[31] which, though now quiet, may be brought\ninto action with considerable unanimity and force.\n\nFormerly, few, except the ambitious great or the desperate and indigent,\nwere to be feared as instruments in revolutions. What has happened in\nFrance teaches us, with many other things, that there are more causes\nthan have commonly been taken into our consideration, by which\ngovernment may be subverted. The moneyed men, merchants, principal\ntradesmen, and men of letters (hitherto generally thought the peaceable\nand even timid part of society) are the chief actors in the French\nRevolution. But the fact is, that, as money increases and circulates,\nand as the circulation of news in politics and letters becomes more and\nmore diffused, the persons who diffuse this money and this intelligence\nbecome more and more important. This was not long undiscovered. Views of\nambition were in France, for the first time, presented to these classes\nof men: objects in the state, in the army, in the system of civil\noffices of every kind. Their eyes were dazzled with this new prospect.\nThey were, as it were, electrified, and made to lose the natural spirit\nof their situation. A bribe, great without example in the history of the\nworld, was held out to them,--the whole government of a very large\nkingdom.\n\n[Sidenote: Grounds of security supposed for England.]\n\n[Sidenote: Literary Interest.]\n\n[Sidenote: Moneyed interest.]\n\nThere are several who are persuaded that the same thing cannot happen in\nEngland, because here (they say) the occupations of merchants,\ntradesmen, and manufacturers are not held as degrading situations. I\nonce thought that the low estimation in which commerce was held in\nFrance might be reckoned among the causes of the late Revolution; and I\nam still of opinion that the exclusive spirit of the French nobility did\nirritate the wealthy of other classes. But I found long since, that\npersons in trade and business were by no means despised in France in the\nmanner I had been taught to believe. As to men of letters, they were so\nfar from being despised or neglected, that there was no country,\nperhaps, in the universe, in which they were so highly esteemed,\ncourted, caressed, and even feared: tradesmen naturally were not so much\nsought in society, (as not furnishing so largely to the fund of\nconversation as they do to the revenues of the state,) but the latter\ndescription got forward every day. M. Bailly, who made himself the\npopular mayor on the rebellion of the Bastile, and is a principal actor\nin the revolt, before the change possessed a pension or office under the\ncrown of six hundred pound English a year,--for that country, no\ncontemptible provision; and this he obtained solely as a man of letters,\nand on no other title. As to the moneyed men, whilst the monarchy\ncontinued, there is no doubt, that, merely as such, they did not enjoy\nthe _privileges_ of nobility; but nobility was of so easy an\nacquisition, that it was the fault or neglect of all of that description\nwho did not obtain its privileges, for their lives at least, in virtue\nof office. It attached under the royal government to an innumerable\nmultitude of places, real and nominal, that were vendible; and such\nnobility were as capable of everything as their degree of influence or\ninterest could make them,--that is, as nobility of no considerable rank\nor consequence. M. Necker, so far from being a French gentleman, was not\nso much as a Frenchman born, and yet we all know the rank in which he\nstood on the day of the meeting of the States.\n\n[Sidenote: Mercantile interest.]\n\nAs to the mere matter of estimation of the mercantile or any other\nclass, this is regulated by opinion and prejudice. In England, a\nsecurity against the envy of men in these classes is not so very\ncomplete as we may imagine. We must not impose upon ourselves. What\ninstitutions and manners together had done in France manners alone do\nhere. It is the natural operation of things, where there exists a crown,\na court, splendid orders of knighthood, and an hereditary\nnobility,--where there exists a fixed, permanent, landed gentry,\ncontinued in greatness and opulence by the law of primogeniture, and by\na protection given to family settlements,--where there exists a standing\narmy and navy,--where there exists a Church establishment, which bestows\non learning and parts an interest combined with that of religion and the\nstate;--in a country where such things exist, wealth, new in its\nacquisition, and precarious in its duration, can never rank first, or\neven near the first: though wealth has its natural weight further than\nas it is balanced and even preponderated amongst us, as amongst other\nnations, by artificial institutions and opinions growing out of them. At\nno period in the history of England have so few peers been taken out of\ntrade or from families newly created by commerce. In no period has so\nsmall a number of noble families entered into the counting-house. I can\ncall to mind but one in all England, and his is of near fifty years'\nstanding. Be that as it may, it appears plain to me, from my best\nobservation, that envy and ambition may, by art, management, and\ndisposition, be as much excited amongst these descriptions of men in\nEngland as in any other country, and that they are just as capable of\nacting a part in any great change.\n\n[Sidenote: Progress of the French spirit.--Its course.]\n\nWhat direction the French spirit of proselytism is likely to take, and\nin what order it is likely to prevail in the several parts of Europe, it\nis not easy to determine. The seeds are sown almost everywhere, chiefly\nby newspaper circulations, infinitely more efficacious and extensive\nthan ever they were. And they are a more important instrument than\ngenerally is imagined. They are a part of the reading of all; they are\nthe whole of the reading of the far greater number. There are thirty of\nthem in Paris alone. The language diffuses them more widely than the\nEnglish,--though the English, too, are much read. The writers of these\npapers, indeed, for the greater part, are either unknown or in contempt,\nbut they are like a battery, in which the stroke of any one ball\nproduces no great effect, but the amount of continual repetition is\ndecisive. Let us only suffer any person to tell us his story, morning\nand evening, but for one twelvemonth, and he will become our master.\n\nAll those countries in which several states are comprehended under some\ngeneral geographical description, and loosely united by some federal\nconstitution,--countries of which the members are small, and greatly\ndiversified in their forms of government, and in the titles by which\nthey are held,--these countries, as it might be well expected, are the\nprincipal objects of their hopes and machinations. Of these, the chief\nare Germany and Switzerland; after them, Italy has its place, as in\ncircumstances somewhat similar.\n\n[Sidenote: Germany.]\n\nAs to Germany, (in which, from their relation to the Emperor, I\ncomprehend the Belgic Provinces,) it appears to me to be, from several\ncircumstances, internal and external, in a very critical situation; and\nthe laws and liberties of the Empire are by no means secure from the\ncontagion of the French doctrines and the effect of French intrigues, or\nfrom the use which two of the greater German powers may make of a\ngeneral derangement to the general detriment. I do not say that the\nFrench do not mean to bestow on these German states liberties, and laws\ntoo, after their mode; but those are not what have hitherto been\nunderstood as the laws and liberties of the Empire. These exist and have\nalways existed under the principles of feodal tenure and succession,\nunder imperial constitutions, grants and concessions of sovereigns,\nfamily compacts, and public treaties, made under the sanction, and some\nof them guarantied by the sovereign powers of other nations, and\nparticularly the old government of France, the author and natural\nsupport of the Treaty of Westphalia.\n\n[Sidenote: Ecclesiastical state.]\n\nIn short, the Germanic body is a vast mass of heterogeneous states, held\ntogether by that heterogeneous body of old principles which formed the\npublic law positive and doctrinal. The modern laws and liberties, which\nthe new power in France proposes to introduce into Germany, and to\nsupport with all its force of intrigue and of arms, is of a very\ndifferent nature, utterly irreconcilable with the first, and indeed\nfundamentally the reverse of it: I mean the _rights and liberties of the\nman_, the _droit de l'homme_. That this doctrine has made an amazing\nprogress in Germany there cannot be a shadow of doubt. They are infected\nby it along the whole course of the Rhine, the Maese, the Moselle, and\nin the greater part of Suabia and Franconia. It is particularly\nprevalent amongst all the lower people, churchmen and laity, in the\ndominions of the Ecclesiastical Electors. It is not easy to find or to\nconceive governments more mild and indulgent than these Church\nsovereignties; but good government is as nothing, when the rights of\nman take possession of the mind. Indeed, the loose rein held over the\npeople in these provinces must be considered as one cause of the\nfacility with which they lend themselves to any schemes of innovation,\nby inducing them to think lightly of their governments, and to judge of\ngrievances, not by feeling, but by imagination.\n\n[Sidenote: Balance of Germany.]\n\nIt is in these Electorates that the first impressions of France are\nlikely to be made; and if they succeed, it is over with the Germanic\nbody, as it stands at present. A great revolution is preparing in\nGermany, and a revolution, in my opinion, likely to be more decisive\nupon the general fate of nations than that of France itself,--other than\nas in France is to be found the first source of all the principles which\nare in any way likely to distinguish the troubles and convulsions of our\nage. If Europe does not conceive the independence and the equilibrium of\nthe Empire to be in the very essence of the system of balanced power in\nEurope, and if the scheme of public law, or mass of laws, upon which\nthat independence and equilibrium are founded, be of no leading\nconsequence as they are preserved or destroyed, all the politics of\nEurope for more than two centuries have been miserably erroneous.\n\n[Sidenote: Prussia and Emperor.]\n\nIf the two great leading powers of Germany do not regard this danger (as\napparently they do not) in the light in which it presents itself so\nnaturally, it is because they are powers too great to have a social\ninterest. That sort of interest belongs only to those whose state of\nweakness or mediocrity is such as to give them greater cause of\napprehension from what may destroy them than of hope from anything by\nwhich they may be aggrandized.\n\nAs long as those two princes are at variance, so long the liberties of\nGermany are safe. But if ever they should so far understand one another\nas to be persuaded that they have a more direct and more certainly\ndefined interest in a proportioned mutual aggrandizement than in a\nreciprocal reduction, that is, if they come to think that they are more\nlikely to be enriched by a division of spoil than to be rendered secure\nby keeping to the old policy of preventing others from being spoiled by\neither of them, from that moment the liberties of Germany are no more.\n\nThat a junction of two in such a scheme is neither impossible nor\nimprobable is evident from the partition of Poland in 1773, which was\neffected by such a junction as made the interposition of other nations\nto prevent it not easy. Their circumstances at that time hindered any\nother three states, or indeed any two, from taking measures in common to\nprevent it, though France was at that time an existing power, and had\nnot yet learned to act upon a system of politics of her own invention.\nThe geographical position of Poland was a great obstacle to any\nmovements of France in opposition to this, at that time, unparalleled\nleague. To my certain knowledge, if Great Britain had at that time been\nwilling to concur in preventing the execution of a project so dangerous\nin the example, even exhausted as France then was by the preceding war,\nand under a lazy and unenterprising prince, she would have at every risk\ntaken an active part in this business. But a languor with regard to so\nremote an interest, and the principles and passions which were then\nstrongly at work at home, were the causes why Great Britain would not\ngive France any encouragement in such an enterprise. At that time,\nhowever, and with regard to that object, in my opinion, Great Britain\nand France had a common interest.\n\n[Sidenote: Possible project of the Emperor and king of Prussia.]\n\nBut the position of Germany is not like that of Poland, with regard to\nFrance, either for good or for evil. If a conjunction between Prussia\nand the Emperor should be formed for the purpose of secularizing and\nrendering hereditary the Ecclesiastical Electorates and the Bishopric of\nM\u00fcnster, for settling two of them on the children of the Emperor, and\nuniting Cologne and M\u00fcnster to the dominions of the king of Prussia on\nthe Rhine, or if any other project of mutual aggrandizement should be in\nprospect, and that, to facilitate such a scheme, the modern French\nshould be permitted and encouraged to shake the internal and external\nsecurity of these Ecclesiastical Electorates, Great Britain is so\nsituated that she could not with any effect set herself in opposition to\nsuch a design. Her principal arm, her marine, could here be of no sort\nof use.\n\n[Sidenote: To be resisted only by France.]\n\nFrance, the author of the Treaty of Westphalia, is the natural guardian\nof the independence and balance of Germany. Great Britain (to say\nnothing of the king's concern as one of that august body) has a serious\ninterest in preserving it; but, except through the power of France,\n_acting upon the common old principles of state policy_, in the case we\nhave supposed, she has no sort of means of supporting that interest. It\nis always the interest of Great Britain that the power of France should\nbe kept within the bounds of moderation. It is not her interest that\nthat power should be wholly annihilated in the system of Europe. Though\nat one time through France the independence of Europe was endangered, it\nis, and ever was, through her alone that the common liberty of Germany\ncan be secured against the single or the combined ambition of any other\npower. In truth, within this century the aggrandizement of other\nsovereign houses has been such that there has been a great change in the\nwhole state of Europe; and other nations as well as France may become\nobjects of jealousy and apprehension.\n\n[Sidenote: New principles of alliance.]\n\nIn this state of things, a new principle of alliances and wars is\nopened. The Treaty of Westphalia is, with France, an antiquated fable.\nThe rights and liberties she was bound to maintain are now a system of\nwrong and tyranny which she is bound to destroy. Her good and ill\ndispositions are shown by the same means. _To communicate peaceably_ the\nrights of men is the true mode of her showing her _friendship_; to force\nsovereigns to _submit_ to those rights is her mode of _hostility_. So\nthat, either as friend or foe, her whole scheme has been, and is, to\nthrow the Empire into confusion; and those statesmen who follow the old\nroutine of politics may see in this general confusion, and in the danger\nof the _lesser_ princes, an occasion, as protectors or enemies, of\nconnecting their territories to one or the other of the _two great_\nGerman powers. They do not take into consideration that the means which\nthey encourage, as leading to the event they desire, will with certainty\nnot only ravage and destroy the Empire, but, if they should for a moment\nseem to aggrandize the two great houses, will also establish principles\nand confirm tempers amongst the people which will preclude the two\nsovereigns from the possibility of holding what they acquire, or even\nthe dominions which they have inherited. It is on the side of the\nEcclesiastical Electorates that the dikes raised to support the German\nliberty first will give way.\n\n[Sidenote: Geneva.]\n\n[Sidenote: Savoy.]\n\nThe French have begun their general operations by seizing upon those\nterritories of the Pope the situation of which was the most inviting to\nthe enterprise. Their method of doing it was by exciting sedition and\nspreading massacre and desolation through these unfortunate places, and\nthen, under an idea of kindness and protection, bringing forward an\nantiquated title of the crown of France, and annexing Avignon and the\ntwo cities of the Comtat, with their territory, to the French republic.\nThey have made an attempt on Geneva, in which they very narrowly failed\nof success. It is known that they hold out from time to time the idea of\nuniting all the other provinces of which Gaul was anciently composed,\nincluding Savoy on the other side, and on this side bounding themselves\nby the Rhine.\n\n[Sidenote: Switzerland.]\n\n[Sidenote: Old French maxims the security of its independence.]\n\nAs to Switzerland, it is a country whose long union, rather than its\npossible division, is the matter of wonder. Here I know they entertain\nvery sanguine hopes. The aggregation to France of the democratic Swiss\nrepublics appears to them to be a work half done by their very form; and\nit might seem to them rather an increase of importance to these little\ncommonwealths than a derogation from their independency or a change in\nthe manner of their government. Upon any quarrel amongst the Cantons,\nnothing is more likely than such an event. As to the aristocratic\nrepublics, the general clamor and hatred which the French excite against\nthe very name, (and with more facility and success than against\nmonarchs,) and the utter impossibility of their government making any\nsort of resistance against an insurrection, where they have no troops,\nand the people are all armed and trained, render their hopes in that\nquarter far indeed from unfounded. It is certain that the republic of\nBern thinks itself obliged to a vigilance next to hostile, and to\nimprison or expel all the French whom it finds in its territories. But,\nindeed, those aristocracies, which comprehend whatever is considerable,\nwealthy, and valuable in Switzerland, do now so wholly depend upon\nopinion, and the humor of their multitude, that the lightest puff of\nwind is sufficient to blow them down. If France, under its ancient\nregimen, and upon the ancient principles of policy, was the support of\nthe Germanic Constitution, it was much more so of that of Switzerland,\nwhich almost from the very origin of that confederacy rested upon the\ncloseness of its connection with France, on which the Swiss Cantons\nwholly reposed themselves for the preservation of the parts of their\nbody in their respective rights and permanent forms, as well as for the\nmaintenance of all in their general independency.\n\nSwitzerland and Germany are the first objects of the new French\npoliticians. When I contemplate what they have done at home, which is,\nin effect, little less than an amazing conquest, wrought by a change of\nopinion, in a great part (to be sure far from altogether) very sudden, I\ncannot help letting my thoughts run along with their designs, and,\nwithout attending to geographical order, to consider the other states of\nEurope, so far as they may be any way affected by this astonishing\nRevolution. If early steps are not taken in some way or other to prevent\nthe spreading of this influence, I scarcely think any of them perfectly\nsecure.\n\n[Sidenote: Italy.]\n\n[Sidenote: Lombardy.]\n\nItaly is divided, as Germany and Switzerland are, into many smaller\nstates, and with some considerable diversity as to forms of government;\nbut as these divisions and varieties in Italy are not so considerable,\nso neither do I think the danger altogether so imminent there as in\nGermany and Switzerland. Savoy I know that the French consider as in a\nvery hopeful way, and I believe not at all without reason. They view it\nas an old member of the kingdom of France, which may be easily reunited\nin the manner and on the principles of the reunion of Avignon. This\ncountry communicates with Piedmont; and as the king of Sardinia's\ndominions were long the key of Italy, and as such long regarded by\nFrance, whilst France acted on her old maxims, and with views on\nItaly,--so, in this new French empire of sedition, if once she gets that\nkey into her hands, she can easily lay open the barrier which hinders\nthe entrance of her present politics into that inviting region. Milan, I\nam sure, nourishes great disquiets; and if Milan should stir, no part of\nLombardy is secure to the present possessors,--whether the Venetian or\nthe Austrian. Genoa is closely connected with France.\n\n[Sidenote: Bourbon princes in Italy.]\n\nThe first prince of the House of Bourbon has been obliged to give\nhimself up entirely to the new system, and to pretend even to propagate\nit with all zeal: at least, that club of intriguers who assemble at the\nFeuillants, and whose cabinet meets at Madame de Sta\u00ebl's, and makes and\ndirects all the ministers, is the real executive government of France.\nThe Emperor is perfectly in concert, and they will not long suffer any\nprince of the House of Bourbon to keep by force the French emissaries\nout of their dominions; nor whilst France has a commerce with them,\nespecially through Marseilles, (the hottest focus of sedition in\nFrance,) will it be long possible to prevent the intercourse or the\neffects.\n\nNaples has an old, inveterate disposition to republicanism, and (however\nfor some time past quiet) is as liable to explosion as its own Vesuvius.\nSicily, I think, has these dispositions in full as strong a degree. In\nneither of these countries exists anything which very well deserves the\nname of government or exact police.\n\n[Sidenote: Ecclesiastical State.]\n\nIn the States of the Church, notwithstanding their strictness in\nbanishing the French out of that country, there are not wanting the\nseeds of a revolution. The spirit of nepotism prevails there nearly as\nstrong as ever. Every Pope of course is to give origin or restoration to\na great family by the means of large donations. The foreign revenues\nhave long been gradually on the decline, and seem now in a manner dried\nup. To supply this defect, the resource of vexatious and impolitic\njobbing at home, if anything, is rather increased than lessened. Various\nwell-intended, but ill-understood practices, some of them existing, in\ntheir spirit at least, from the time of the old Roman Empire, still\nprevail; and that government is as blindly attached to old abusive\ncustoms as others are wildly disposed to all sorts of innovations and\nexperiments. These abuses were less felt whilst the Pontificate drew\nriches from abroad, which in some measure counterbalanced the evils of\ntheir remiss and jobbish government at home. But now it can subsist\nonly on the resources of domestic management; and abuses in that\nmanagement of course will be more intimately and more severely felt.\n\nIn the midst of the apparently torpid languor of the Ecclesiastical\nState, those who have had opportunity of a near observation have seen a\nlittle rippling in that smooth water, which indicates something alive\nunder it. There is in the Ecclesiastical State a personage who seems\ncapable of acting (but with more force and steadiness) the part of the\ntribune Rienzi. The people, once inflamed, will not be destitute of a\nleader. They have such an one already in the Cardinal or Archbishop\nBoncompagni. He is, of all men, if I am not ill-informed, the most\nturbulent, seditious, intriguing, bold, and desperate. He is not at all\nmade for a Roman of the present day. I think he lately held the first\noffice of their state, that of Great Chamberlain, which is equivalent to\nHigh Treasurer. At present he is out of employment, and in disgrace. If\nhe should be elected Pope, or even come to have any weight with a new\nPope, he will infallibly conjure up a democratic spirit in that country.\nHe may, indeed, be able to effect it without these advantages. The nest\ninterregnum will probably show more of him. There may be others of the\nsame character, who have not come to my knowledge. This much is\ncertain,--that the Roman people, if once the blind reverence they bear\nto the sanctity of the Pope, which is their only bridle, should relax,\nare naturally turbulent, ferocious, and headlong, whilst the police is\ndefective, and the government feeble and resourceless beyond all\nimagination.\n\n[Sidenote: Spain]\n\nAs to Spain, it is a nerveless country. It does not possess the use, it\nonly suffers the abuse, of a nobility. For some time, and even before\nthe settlement of the Bourbon dynasty, that body has been systematically\nlowered, and rendered incapable by exclusion, and for incapacity\nexcluded from affairs. In this circle the body is in a manner\nannihilated; and so little means have they of any weighty exertion\neither to control or to support the crown, that, if they at all\ninterfere, it is only by abetting desperate and mobbish insurrections,\nlike that at Madrid, which drove Squillace from his place. Florida\nBlanca is a creature of office, and has little connection and no\nsympathy with that body.\n\nAs to the clergy, they are the only thing in Spain that looks like an\nindependent order; and they are kept in some respect by the Inquisition,\nthe sole, but unhappy resource of public tranquillity and order now\nremaining in Spain. As in Venice, it is become mostly an engine of\nstate,--which, indeed, to a degree, it has always been in Spain. It wars\nno longer with Jews and heretics: it has no such war to carry on. Its\ngreat object is, to keep atheistic and republican doctrines from making\ntheir way in that kingdom. No French book upon any subject can enter\nthere which does not contain such matter. In Spain, the clergy are of\nmoment from their influence, but at the same time with the envy and\njealousy that attend great riches and power. Though the crown has by\nmanagement with the Pope got a very great share of the ecclesiastical\nrevenues into its own hands, much still remains to them. There will\nalways be about that court those who look out to a farther division of\nthe Church property as a resource, and to be obtained by shorter\nmethods than those of negotiations with the clergy and their chief. But\nat present I think it likely that they will stop, lest the business\nshould be taken out of their hands,--and lest that body, in which\nremains the only life that exists in Spain, and is not a fever, may with\ntheir property lose all the influence necessary to preserve the\nmonarchy, or, being poor and desperate, may employ whatever influence\nremains to them as active agents in its destruction.\n\n[Sidenote: Castile different from Catalonia and Aragon.]\n\nThe Castilians have still remaining a good deal of their old character,\ntheir _gravedad, lealtad_, and _el temor de Dios_; but that character\nneither is, nor ever was, exactly true, except of the Castilians only.\nThe several kingdoms which compose Spain have, perhaps, some features\nwhich run through the whole; but they are in many particulars as\ndifferent as nations who go by different names: the Catalans, for\ninstance, and the Aragonians too, in a great measure, have the spirit of\nthe Miquelets, and much more of republicanism than of an attachment to\nroyalty. They are more in the way of trade and intercourse with France,\nand, upon the least internal movement, will disclose and probably let\nloose a spirit that may throw the whole Spanish monarchy into\nconvulsions.\n\nIt is a melancholy reflection, that the spirit of melioration which has\nbeen going on in that part of Europe, more or less, during this century,\nand the various schemes very lately on foot for further advancement, are\nall put a stop to at once. Reformation certainly is nearly connected\nwith innovation; and where that latter comes in for too large a share,\nthose who undertake to improve their country may risk their own safety.\nIn times where the correction, which includes the confession, of an\nabuse, is turned to criminate the authority which has long suffered it,\nrather than to honor those who would amend it, (which is the spirit of\nthis malignant French distemper,) every step out of the common course\nbecomes critical, and renders it a task full of peril for princes of\nmoderate talents to engage in great undertakings. At present the only\nsafety of Spain is the old national hatred to the French. How far that\ncan be depended upon, if any great ferments should be excited, it is\nimpossible to say.\n\nAs to Portugal, she is out of the high-road of these politics. I shall,\ntherefore, not divert my thoughts that way, but return again to the\nNorth of Europe, which at present seems the part most interested, and\nthere it appears to me that the French speculation on the Northern\ncountries may be valued in the following or some such manner.\n\n[Sidenote: Denmark.]\n\n[Sidenote: Sweden.]\n\nDenmark and Norway do not appear to furnish any of the materials of a\ndemocratic revolution, or the dispositions to it. Denmark can only be\n_consequentially_ affected by anything done in Prance; but of Sweden I\nthink quite otherwise. The present power in Sweden is too new a system,\nand too green and too sore from its late Revolution, to be considered as\nperfectly assured. The king, by his astonishing activity, his boldness,\nhis decision, his ready versatility, and by rousing and employing the\nold military spirit of Sweden, keeps up the top with continual agitation\nand lashing. The moment it ceases to spin, the royalty is a dead bit of\nbox. Whenever Sweden is quiet externally for some time, there is great\ndanger that all the republican elements she contains will be animated\nby the new French spirit, and of this I believe the king is very\nsensible.\n\n[Sidenote: Russia.]\n\nThe Russian government is of all others the most liable to be subverted\nby military seditions, by court conspiracies, and sometimes by headlong\nrebellions of the people, such as the turbinating movement of Pugatchef.\nIt is not quite so probable that in any of these changes the spirit of\nsystem may mingle, in the manner it has done in France. The Muscovites\nare no great speculators; but I should not much rely on their\nuninquisitive disposition, if any of their ordinary motives to sedition\nshould arise. The little catechism of the Rights of Men is soon learned;\nand the inferences are in the passions.\n\n[Sidenote: Poland.]\n\n[Sidenote: Saxony.]\n\nPoland, from one cause or other, is always unquiet. The new Constitution\nonly serves to supply that restless people with new means, at least new\nmodes, of cherishing their turbulent disposition. The bottom of the\ncharacter is the same. It is a great question, whether the joining that\ncrown with the Electorate of Saxony will contribute most to strengthen\nthe royal authority of Poland or to shake the ducal in Saxony. The\nElector is a Catholic; the people of Saxony are, six sevenths at the\nvery least, Protestants. He _must_ continue a Catholic, according to the\nPolish law, if he accepts that crown. The pride of the Saxons, formerly\nflattered by having a crown in the house of their prince, though an\nhonor which cost them dear,--the German probity, fidelity, and\nloyalty,--the weight of the Constitution of the Empire under the Treaty\nof Westphalia,--the good temper and good-nature of the princes of the\nHouse of Saxony, had formerly removed from the people all apprehension\nwith regard to their religion, and kept them perfectly quiet, obedient,\nand even affectionate. The Seven Years' War made some change in the\nminds of the Saxons. They did not, I believe, regret the loss of what\nmight be considered almost as the succession to the crown of Poland, the\npossession of which, by annexing them to a foreign interest, had often\nobliged them to act an arduous part, towards the support of which that\nforeign interest afforded no proportionable strength. In this very\ndelicate situation of their political interests, the speculations of the\nFrench and German _Economists_, and the cabals, and the secret, as well\nas public doctrines of the _Illuminatenorden_, and _Freemasons_, have\nmade a considerable progress in that country; and a turbulent spirit,\nunder color of religion, but in reality arising from the French rights\nof man, has already shown itself, and is ready on every occasion to\nblaze out.\n\nThe present Elector is a prince of a safe and quiet temper, of great\nprudence and goodness. He knows, that, in the actual state of things,\nnot the power and respect belonging to sovereigns, but their very\nexistence, depends on a reasonable frugality. It is very certain that\nnot one sovereign in Europe can either promise for the continuance of\nhis authority in a state of indigence and insolvency, or dares to\nventure on a new imposition to relieve himself. Without abandoning\nwholly the ancient magnificence of his court, the Elector has conducted\nhis affairs with infinitely more economy than any of his predecessors,\nso as to restore his finances beyond what was thought possible from the\nstate in which the Seven Years' War had left Saxony. Saxony, during the\nwhole of that dreadful period, having been in the hands of an\nexasperated enemy, rigorous by resentment, by nature, and by necessity,\nwas obliged to bear in a manner the whole burden of the war; in the\nintervals when their allies prevailed, the inhabitants of that country\nwere not better treated.\n\nThe moderation and prudence of the present Elector, in my opinion,\nrather, perhaps, respites the troubles than secures the peace of the\nElectorate. The offer of the succession to the crown of Poland is truly\ncritical, whether he accepts or whether he declines it. If the States\nwill consent to his acceptance, it will add to the difficulties, already\ngreat, of his situation between the king of Prussia and the\nEmperor.--But these thoughts lead me too far, when I mean to speak only\nof the interior condition of these princes. It has always, however, some\nnecessary connection with their foreign politics.\n\n[Sidenote: Holland.]\n\nWith regard to Holland, and the ruling party there, I do not think it at\nall tainted, or likely to be so, except by fear,--or that it is likely\nto be misled, unless indirectly and circuitously. But the predominant\nparty in Holland is not Holland. The suppressed faction, though\nsuppressed, exists. Under the ashes, the embers of the late commotions\nare still warm. The anti-Orange party has from the day of its origin\nbeen French, though alienated in some degree for some time, through the\npride and folly of Louis the Fourteenth. It will ever hanker after a\nFrench connection; and now that the internal government in France has\nbeen assimilated in so considerable a degree to that which the\nimmoderate republicans began so very lately to introduce into Holland,\ntheir connection, as still more natural, will be more desired. I do not\nwell understand the present exterior politics of the Stadtholder, nor\nthe treaty into which the newspapers say he has entered for the States\nwith the Emperor. But the Emperor's own politics with regard to the\nNetherlands seem to me to be exactly calculated to answer the purpose of\nthe French Revolutionists. He endeavors to crush the aristocratic party,\nand to nourish one in avowed connection with the most furious\ndemocratists in France.\n\nThese Provinces in which the French game is so well played they consider\nas part of the old French Empire: certainly they were amongst the oldest\nparts of it. These they think very well situated, as their party is well\ndisposed to a reunion. As to the greater nations, they do not aim at\nmaking a direct conquest of them, but, by disturbing them through a\npropagation of their principles, they hope to weaken, as they will\nweaken them, and to keep them in perpetual alarm and agitation, and thus\nrender all their efforts against them utterly impracticable, whilst they\nextend the dominion of their sovereign anarchy on all sides.\n\n[Sidenote: England.]\n\nAs to England, there may be some apprehension from vicinity, from\nconstant communication, and from the very name of liberty, which, as it\nought to be very dear to us, in its worst abuses carries something\nseductive. It is the abuse of the first and best of the objects which we\ncherish. I know that many, who sufficiently dislike the system of\nFrance, have yet no apprehensions of its prevalence here. I say nothing\nto the ground of this security in the attachment of the people to their\nConstitution, and their satisfaction in the discreet portion of liberty\nwhich it measures out to them. Upon this I have said all I have to say,\nin the Appeal I have published. That security is something, and not\ninconsiderable; but if a storm arises, I should not much rely upon it.\n\n[Sidenote: Objection to the stability of the French system.]\n\nThere are other views of things which may be used to give us a perfect\n(though in my opinion a delusive) assurance of our own security. The\nfirst of these is from the weakness and rickety nature of the new system\nin the place of its first formation. It is thought that the monster of a\ncommonwealth cannot possibly live,--that at any rate the ill contrivance\nof their fabric will make it fall in pieces of itself,--that the\nAssembly must be bankrupt,--and that this bankruptcy will totally\ndestroy that system from the contagion of which apprehensions are\nentertained.\n\nFor my part I have long thought that one great cause of the stability of\nthis wretched scheme of things in France was an opinion that it could\nnot stand, and therefore that all external measures to destroy it were\nwholly useless.\n\n[Sidenote: Bankruptcy.]\n\nAs to the bankruptcy, that event has happened long ago, as much as it is\never likely to happen. As soon as a nation compels a creditor to take\npaper currency in discharge of his debt, there is a bankruptcy. The\ncompulsory paper has in some degree answered,--not because there was a\nsurplus from Church lands, but because faith has not been kept with the\nclergy. As to the holders of the old funds, to them the payments will be\ndilatory, but they will be made; and whatever may be the discount on\npaper, whilst paper is taken, paper will be issued.\n\n[Sidenote: Resources.]\n\nAs to the rest, they have shot out three branches of revenue to supply\nall those which they have destroyed: that is, _the Universal Register of\nall Transactions_, the heavy and universal _Stamp Duty_, and the new\n_Territorial Impost_, levied chiefly on the reduced estates of the\ngentlemen. These branches of the revenue, especially as they take\nassignats in payment, answer their purpose in a considerable degree, and\nkeep up the credit of their paper: for, as they receive it in their\ntreasury, it is in reality funded upon all their taxes and future\nresources of all kinds, as well as upon the Church estates. As this\npaper is become in a manner the only visible maintenance of the whole\npeople, the dread of a bankruptcy is more apparently connected with the\ndelay of a counter-revolution than with the duration of this republic;\nbecause the interest of the new republic manifestly leans upon it, and,\nin my opinion, the counter-revolution cannot exist along with it. The\nabove three projects ruined some ministers under the old government,\nmerely for having conceived them. They are the salvation of the present\nrulers.\n\nAs the Assembly has laid a most unsparing and cruel hand on all men who\nhave lived by the bounty, the justice, or the abuses of the old\ngovernment, they have lessened many expenses. The royal establishment,\nthough excessively and ridiculously great for _their_ scheme of things,\nis reduced at least one half; the estates of the king's brothers, which\nunder the ancient government had been in truth royal revenues, go to the\ngeneral stock of the confiscation; and as to the crown lands, though\nunder the monarchy they never yielded two hundred and fifty thousand a\nyear, by many they are thought at least worth three times as much.\n\nAs to the ecclesiastical charge, whether as a compensation for losses,\nor a provision for religion, of which they made at first a great parade,\nand entered into a solemn engagement in favor of it, it was estimated at\na much larger sum than they could expect from the Church property,\nmovable or immovable: they are completely bankrupt as to that article.\nIt is just what they wish; and it is not productive of any serious\ninconvenience. The non-payment produces discontent and occasional\nsedition; but is only by fits and spasms, and amongst the country\npeople, who are of no consequence. These seditions furnish new pretexts\nfor non-payment to the Church establishment, and help the Assembly\nwholly to get rid of the clergy, and indeed of any form of religion,\nwhich is not only their real, but avowed object.\n\n[Sidenote: Want of money how supplied.]\n\nThey are embarrassed, indeed, in the highest degree, but not wholly\nresourceless. They are without the species of money. Circulation of\nmoney is a great convenience, but a substitute for it may be found.\nWhilst the great objects of production and consumption, corn, cattle,\nwine, and the like, exist in a country, the means of giving them\ncirculation, with more or less convenience, cannot be _wholly_ wanting.\nThe great confiscation of the Church and of the crown lands, and of the\nappanages of the princes, for the purchase of all which their paper is\nalways received at par, gives means of continually destroying and\ncontinually creating; and this perpetual destruction and renovation\nfeeds the speculative market, and prevents, and will prevent, till that\nfund of confiscation begins to fail, a _total_ depreciation.\n\n[Sidenote: Moneyed interest not necessary to them.]\n\nBut all consideration of public credit in France is of little avail at\npresent. The action, indeed, of the moneyed interest was of absolute\nnecessity at the beginning of this Revolution; but the French republic\ncan stand without any assistance from that description of men, which, as\nthings are now circumstanced, rather stands in need of assistance itself\nfrom the power which alone substantially exists in France: I mean the\nseveral districts and municipal republics, and the several clubs which\ndirect all their affairs and appoint all their magistrates. This is the\npower now paramount to everything, even to the Assembly itself called\nNational and that to which tribunals, priesthood, laws, finances, and\nboth descriptions of military power are wholly subservient, so far as\nthe military power of either description yields obedience to any name of\nauthority.\n\nThe world of contingency and political combination is much larger than\nwe are apt to imagine. We never can say what may or may not happen,\nwithout a view to all the actual circumstances. Experience, upon other\ndata than those, is of all things the most delusive. Prudence in new\ncases can do nothing on grounds of retrospect. A constant vigilance and\nattention to the train of things as they successively emerge, and to act\non what they direct, are the only sure courses. The physician that let\nblood, and by blood-letting cured one kind of plague, in the next added\nto its ravages. That power goes with property is not universally true,\nand the idea that the operation of it is certain and invariable may\nmislead us very fatally.\n\n[Sidenote: Power separated from property.]\n\nWhoever will take an accurate view of the state of those republics, and\nof the composition of the present Assembly deputed by them, (in which\nAssembly there are not quite fifty persons possessed of an income\namounting to 100_l._ sterling yearly,) must discern clearly, _that the\npolitical and civil power of France is wholly separated from its\nproperty of every description_, and of course that neither the landed\nnor the moneyed interest possesses the smallest weight or consideration\nin the direction of any public concern. The whole kingdom is directed by\n_the refuse of its chicane_, with the aid of the bustling, presumptuous\nyoung clerks of counting-houses and shops, and some intermixture of\nyoung gentlemen of the same character in the several towns. The rich\npeasants are bribed with Church lands; and the poorer of that\ndescription are, and can be, counted for nothing. They may rise in\nferocious, ill-directed tumults,--but they can only disgrace themselves\nand signalize the triumph of their adversaries.\n\n[Sidenote: Effects of the rota.]\n\nThe _truly_ active citizens, that is, the above descriptions, are all\nconcerned in intrigue respecting the various objects in their local or\ntheir general government. The rota, which the French have established\nfor their National Assembly, holds out the highest objects of ambition\nto such vast multitudes as in an unexampled measure to widen the bottom\nof a new species of interest merely political, and wholly unconnected\nwith birth or property. This scheme of a rota, though it enfeebles the\nstate, considered as one solid body, and indeed wholly disables it from\nacting as such, gives a great, an equal, and a diffusive strength to the\ndemocratic scheme. Seven hundred and fifty people, every two years\nraised to the supreme power, has already produced at least fifteen\nhundred bold, acting politicians: a great number for even so great a\ncountry as France. These men never will quietly settle in ordinary\noccupations, nor submit to any scheme which must reduce them to an\nentirely private condition, or to the exercise of a steady, peaceful,\nbut obscure and unimportant industry. Whilst they sit in the Assembly,\nthey are denied offices of trust and profit,--but their short duration\nmakes this no restraint: during their probation and apprenticeship they\nare all salaried with an income to the greatest part of them immense;\nand after they have passed the novitiate, those who take any sort of\nlead are placed in very lucrative offices, according to their influence\nand credit, or appoint those who divide their profits with them.\n\nThis supply of recruits to the corps of the highest civil ambition goes\non with a regular progression. In very few years it must amount to many\nthousands. These, however, will be as nothing in comparison to the\nmultitude of municipal officers, and officers of district and\ndepartment, of all sorts, who have tasted of power and profit, and who\nhunger for the periodical return of the meal. To these needy agitators,\nthe glory of the state, the general wealth and prosperity of the nation,\nand the rise or fall of public credit are as dreams; nor have arguments\ndeduced from these topics any sort of weight with them. The indifference\nwith which the Assembly regards the state of their colonies, the only\nvaluable part of the French commerce, is a full proof how little they\nare likely to be affected by anything but the selfish game of their own\nambition, now universally diffused.\n\n[Sidenote: Impracticability of resistance.]\n\nIt is true, amidst all these turbulent means of security to their\nsystem, very great discontents everywhere prevail. But they only produce\nmisery to those who nurse them at home, or exile, beggary, and in the\nend confiscation, to those who are so impatient as to remove from them.\nEach municipal republic has a _Committee_, or something in the nature of\na _Committee of Research_. In these petty republics the tyranny is so\nnear its object that it becomes instantly acquainted with every act of\nevery man. It stifles conspiracy in its very first movements. Their\npower is absolute and uncontrollable. No stand can be made against it.\nThese republics are besides so disconnected, that very little\nintelligence of what happens in them is to be obtained beyond their own\nbounds, except by the means of their clubs, who keep up a constant\ncorrespondence, and who give what color they please to such facts as\nthey choose to communicate out of the track of their correspondence.\nThey all have some sort of communication, just as much or as little as\nthey please, with the centre. By this confinement of all communication\nto the ruling faction, any combination, grounded on the abuses and\ndiscontents in one, scarcely can reach the other. There is not one man,\nin any one place, to head them. The old government had so much\nabstracted the nobility from the cultivation of provincial interest,\nthat no man in France exists, whose power, credit, or consequence\nextends to two districts, or who is capable of uniting them in any\ndesign, even if any man could assemble ten men together without being\nsure of a speedy lodging in a prison. One must not judge of the state of\nFrance by what has been observed elsewhere. It does not in the least\nresemble any other country. Analogical reasoning from history or from\nrecent experience in other places is wholly delusive.\n\nIn my opinion, there never was seen so strong a government internally as\nthat of the French municipalities. If ever any rebellion can arise\nagainst the present system, it must begin, where the Revolution which\ngave birth to it did, at the capital. Paris is the only place in which\nthere is the least freedom of intercourse. But even there, so many\nservants as any man has, so many spies and irreconcilable domestic\nenemies.\n\n[Sidenote: Gentlemen are fugitives.]\n\nBut that place being the chief seat of the power and intelligence of the\nruling faction, and the place of occasional resort for their fiercest\nspirits, even there a revolution is not likely to have anything to feed\nit. The leaders of the aristocratic party have been drawn out of the\nkingdom by order of the princes, on the hopes held out by the Emperor\nand the king of Prussia at Pilnitz; and as to the democratic factions in\nParis, amongst them there are no leaders possessed of an influence for\nany other purpose but that of maintaining the present state of things.\nThe moment they are seen to warp, they are reduced to nothing. They have\nno attached army,--no party that is at all personal.\n\nIt is not to be imagined, because a political system is, under certain\naspects, very unwise in its contrivance, and very mischievous in its\neffects, that it therefore can have no long duration. Its very defects\nmay tend to its stability, because they are agreeable to its nature. The\nvery faults in the Constitution of Poland made it last; the _veto_ which\ndestroyed all its energy preserved its life. What can be conceived so\nmonstrous as the republic of Algiers, and that no less strange republic\nof the Mamelukes in Egypt? They are of the worst form imaginable, and\nexercised in the worst manner, yet they have existed as a nuisance on\nthe earth for several hundred years.\n\n[Sidenote: Conclusions.]\n\nFrom all these considerations, and many more that crowd upon me, three\nconclusions have long since arisen in my mind.\n\nFirst, that no counter revolution is to be expected in France from\ninternal causes solely.\n\nSecondly, that, the longer the present system exists, the greater will\nbe its strength, the greater its power to destroy discontents at home,\nand to resist all foreign attempts in favor of these discontents.\n\nThirdly, that, as long as it exists in France, it will be the interest\nof the managers there, and it is in the very essence of their plan, to\ndisturb and distract all other governments, and their endless succession\nof restless politicians will continually stimulate them to new attempts.\n\n[Sidenote: Proceedings of princes; defensive plans.]\n\nPrinces are generally sensible that this is their common cause; and two\nof them have made a public declaration of their opinion to this effect.\nAgainst this common danger, some of them, such as the king of Spain, the\nking of Sardinia, and the republic of Bern, are very diligent in using\ndefensive measures.\n\nIf they were to guard against an invasion from France, the merits of\nthis plan of a merely defensive resistance might be supported by\nplausible topics; but as the attack does not operate against these\ncountries externally, but by an internal corruption, (a sort of dry\nrot,) they who pursue this merely defensive plan against a danger which\nthe plan itself supposes to be serious cannot possibly escape it. For\nit is in the nature of all defensive measures to be sharp and vigorous\nunder the impressions of the first alarm, and to relax by degrees, until\nat length the danger, by not operating instantly, comes to appear as a\nfalse alarm,--so much so, that the next menacing appearance will look\nless formidable, and will be less provided against. But to those who are\non the offensive it is not necessary to be always alert. Possibly it is\nmore their interest not to be so. For their unforeseen attacks\ncontribute to their success.\n\n[Sidenote: The French party how composed.]\n\nIn the mean time a system of French conspiracy is gaining ground in\nevery country. This system, happening to be founded on principles the\nmost delusive indeed, but the most flattering to the natural\npropensities of the unthinking multitude, and to the speculations of all\nthose who think, without thinking very profoundly, must daily extend its\ninfluence. A predominant inclination towards it appears in all those who\nhave no religion, when otherwise their disposition leads them to be\nadvocates even for despotism. Hence Hume, though I cannot say that he\ndoes not throw out some expressions of disapprobation on the proceedings\nof the levellers in the reign of Richard the Second, yet affirms that\nthe doctrines of John Ball were \"conformable to the ideas of primitive\nequality _which are engraven in the hearts of all men_.\"\n\nBoldness formerly was not the character of atheists as such. They were\neven of a character nearly the reverse; they were formerly like the old\nEpicureans, rather an unenterprising race. But of late they are grown\nactive, designing, turbulent, and seditious. They are sworn enemies to\nkings, nobility, and priesthood. We have seen all the Academicians at\nParis, with Condorcet, the friend and correspondent of Priestley, at\ntheir head, the most furious of the extravagant republicans.\n\n[Sidenote: Condorcet.]\n\nThe late Assembly, after the last captivity of the king, had actually\nchosen this Condorcet, by a majority on the ballot, for preceptor to the\nDauphin, who was to be taken out of the hands and direction of his\nparents, and to be delivered over to this fanatic atheist and furious\ndemocratic republican. His untractability to these leaders, and his\nfigure in the club of Jacobins, which at that time they wished to bring\nunder, alone prevented that part of the arrangement, and others in the\nsame style, from being carried into execution. Whilst he was candidate\nfor this office, he produced his title to it by promulgating the\nfollowing ideas of the title of his royal pupil to the crown. In a paper\nwritten by him, and published with his name, against the re\u00ebstablishment\neven of the appearance of monarchy under any qualifications, he says:--\n\n[Sidenote: Doctrine of the French.]\n\n\"Jusqu'\u00e0 ce moment, ils [l'Assembl\u00e9e Nationale] n'ont rien pr\u00e9jug\u00e9\nencore. En se r\u00e9servant de nommer un gouverneur au Dauphin, ils n'ont\npas prononc\u00e9 _que cet enfant d\u00fbt r\u00e9gner_, mais seulement qu'il _\u00e9tait\npossible_ que la Constitution l'y destin\u00e2t; ils ont voulu que\nl'\u00e9ducation effa\u00e7\u00e2t tout ce que _les prestiges du tr\u00f4ne_ ont pu lui\ninspirer de pr\u00e9jug\u00e9s sur les droits pr\u00e9tendus de sa naissance; qu'elle\nlui f\u00eet conna\u00eetre de bonne heure et _l'\u00e9galit\u00e9 naturelle des hommes et\nla souverainet\u00e9 du peuple_; qu'elle lui appr\u00eet \u00e0 ne pas oublier que\nc'est _du peuple_ qu'il tiendra le titre de Roi, et que _le peuple n'a\npas m\u00eame le droit de renoncer \u00e0 celui de l'en d\u00e9pouiller_.\n\n\"Ils ont voulu que cette \u00e9ducation le rend\u00eet \u00e9galement digne, par ses\nlumi\u00e8res et ses vertus, de recevoir _avec r\u00e9signation_ le fardeau\ndangereux d'une couronne, ou de la _d\u00e9poser avec joie_ entre les mains\nde ses fr\u00e8res; qu'il sent\u00eet que le devoir et la gloire du roi d'un\npeuple libre sont de h\u00e2ter le moment de n'\u00eatre plus qu'un citoyen\nordinaire.\n\n\"Ils ont voulu que _l'inutilit\u00e9 d'un roi_, la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 de chercher les\nmoyens de remplacer _un pouvoir fond\u00e9 sur des illusions_, f\u00fbt une des\npremi\u00e8res v\u00e9rit\u00e9s offertes \u00e0 sa raison; _l'obligation d'y concourir\nlui-m\u00eame, un des premiers devoirs de sa morale; et le d\u00e9sir de n'\u00eatre\nplus affranchi du joug de la loi par une injurieuse inviolabilit\u00e9, le\npremier sentiment de son coeur_. Ils n'ignorent pas que dans ce moment\nil s'agit bien moins de former un roi que de lui apprendre _\u00e0 savoir \u00e0\nvouloir ne plus l'\u00eatre_.\"[32]\n\nSuch are the sentiments of the man who has occasionally filled the chair\nof the National Assembly, who is their perpetual secretary, their only\nstanding officer, and the most important by far. He leads them to peace\nor war. He is the great theme of the republican faction in England.\nThese ideas of M. Condorcet are the principles of those to whom kings\nare to intrust their successors and the interests of their succession.\nThis man would be ready to plunge the poniard in the heart of his pupil,\nor to whet the axe for his neck. Of all men, the most dangerous is a\nwarm, hot-headed, zealous atheist. This sort of man aims at dominion,\nand his means are the words he always has in his mouth,--\"_L'\u00e9galit\u00e9\nnaturelle des hommes, et la souverainet\u00e9 du peuple_.\"\n\nAll former attempts, grounded on these rights of men, had proved\nunfortunate. The success of this last makes a mighty difference in the\neffect of the doctrine. Here is a principle of a nature to the multitude\nthe most seductive, always existing before their eyes _as a thing\nfeasible in practice_. After so many failures, such an enterprise,\nprevious to the French experiment, carried ruin to the contrivers, on\nthe face of it; and if any enthusiast was so wild as to wish to engage\nin a scheme of that nature, it was not easy for him to find followers:\nnow there is a party almost in all countries, ready-made, animated with\nsuccess, with a sure ally in the very centre of Europe. There is no\ncabal so obscure in any place, that they do not protect, cherish,\nfoster, and endeavor to raise it into importance at home and abroad.\nFrom the lowest, this intrigue will creep up to the highest. Ambition,\nas well as enthusiasm, may find its account in the party and in the\nprinciple.\n\n[Sidenote: Character of ministers.]\n\nThe ministers of other kings, like those of the king of France, (not one\nof whom was perfectly free from this guilt, and some of whom were very\ndeep in it,) may themselves be the persons to foment such a disposition\nand such a faction. Hertzberg, the king of Prussia's late minister, is\nso much of what is called a philosopher, that he was of a faction with\nthat sort of politicians in everything, and in every place. Even when he\ndefends himself from the imputation of giving extravagantly into these\nprinciples, he still considers the Revolution of France as a great\npublic good, by giving credit to their fraudulent declaration of their\nuniversal benevolence and love of peace. Nor are his Prussian Majesty's\npresent ministers at all disinclined to the same system. Their\nostentatious preamble to certain late edicts demonstrates (if their\nactions had not been sufficiently explanatory of their cast of mind)\nthat they are deeply infected with the same distemper of dangerous,\nbecause plausible, though trivial and shallow, speculation.\n\nMinisters, turning their backs on the reputation which properly belongs\nto them, aspire at the glory of being speculative writers. The duties of\nthese two situations are in general directly opposite to each other.\nSpeculators ought to be neutral. A minister cannot be so. He is to\nsupport the interest of the public as connected with that of his master.\nHe is his master's trustee, advocate, attorney, and steward,--and he is\nnot to indulge in any speculation which contradicts that character, or\neven detracts from its efficacy. Necker had an extreme thirst for this\nsort of glory; so had others; and this pursuit of a misplaced and\nmisunderstood reputation was one of the causes of the ruin of these\nministers, and of their unhappy, master. The Prussian ministers in\nforeign courts have (at least not long since) talked the most democratic\nlanguage with regard to Prance, and in the most unmanaged terms.\n\n[Sidenote: Corps diplomatique.]\n\nThe whole _corps diplomatique_, with very few exceptions, leans that\nway. What cause produces in them a turn of mind which at first one would\nthink unnatural to their situation it is not impossible to explain. The\ndiscussion would, however, be somewhat long and somewhat invidious. The\nfact itself is indisputable, however they may disguise it to their\nseveral courts. This disposition is gone to so very great a length in\nthat corps, in itself so important, and so important as _furnishing_ the\nintelligence which sways all cabinets, that, if princes and states do\nnot very speedily attend with a vigorous control to that source of\ndirection and information, very serious evils are likely to befall them.\n\n[Sidenote: Sovereigns--their dispositions.]\n\nBut, indeed, kings are to guard against the same sort of dispositions in\nthemselves. They are very easily alienated from all the higher orders of\ntheir subjects, whether civil or military, laic or ecclesiastical. It is\nwith persons of condition that sovereigns chiefly come into contact. It\nis from them that they generally experience opposition to their will. It\nis with _their_ pride and impracticability that princes are most hurt.\nIt is with _their_ servility and baseness that they are most commonly\ndisgusted. It is from their humors and cabals that they find their\naffairs most frequently troubled and distracted. But of the common\npeople, in pure monarchical governments, kings know little or nothing;\nand therefore being unacquainted with their faults, (which are as many\nas those of the great, and much more decisive in their effects, when\naccompanied with power,) kings generally regard them with tenderness and\nfavor, and turn their eyes towards that description of their subjects,\nparticularly when hurt by opposition from the higher orders. It was thus\nthat the king of France (a perpetual example to all sovereigns) was\nruined. I have it from very sure information, (and it was, indeed,\nobvious enough, from the measures which were taken previous to the\nassembly of the States and afterwards,) that the king's counsellors had\nfilled him with a strong dislike to his nobility, his clergy, and the\ncorps of his magistracy. They represented to him, that he had tried them\nall severally, in several ways, and found them all untractable: that he\nhad twice called an assembly (the Notables) composed of the first men of\nthe clergy, the nobility, and the magistrates; that he had himself named\nevery one member in those assemblies, and that, though so picked out, he\nhad not, in this their collective state, found them more disposed to a\ncompliance with his will than they had been separately; that there\nremained for him, with the least prospect of advantage to his authority\nin the States-General, which were to be composed of the same sorts of\nmen, but not chosen by him, only the _Tiers \u00c9tat_: in this alone he\ncould repose any hope of extricating himself from his difficulties, and\nof settling him in a clear and permanent authority. They represented,\n(these are the words of one of my informants,) \"that the royal\nauthority, compressed with the weight of these aristocratic bodies, full\nof ambition and of faction, when once unloaded, would rise of itself,\nand occupy its natural place without disturbance or control\"; that the\ncommon people would protect, cherish, and support, instead of crushing\nit. \"The people\" (it was said) \"could entertain no objects of ambition\";\nthey were out of the road of intrigue and cabal, and could possibly have\nno other view than the support of the mild and parental authority by\nwhich they were invested, for the first time collectively, with real\nimportance in the state, and protected in their peaceable and useful\nemployments.\n\n[Sidenote: King of France.]\n\nThis unfortunate king (not without a large share of blame to himself)\nwas deluded to his ruin by a desire to humble and reduce his nobility,\nclergy, and big corporate magistracy: not that I suppose he meant wholly\nto eradicate these bodies, in the manner since effected by the\ndemocratic power; I rather believe that even Necker's designs did not go\nto that extent. With his own hand, however, Louis the Sixteenth pulled\ndown the pillars which upheld his throne; and this he did, because he\ncould not bear the inconveniences which are attached to everything\nhuman,--because he found himself cooped up, and in durance, by those\nlimits which Nature prescribes to desire and imagination, and was taught\nto consider as low and degrading that mutual dependence which Providence\nhas ordained that all men should have on one another. He is not at this\nminute, perhaps, cured of the dread of the power and credit like to be\nacquired by those who would save and rescue him. He leaves those who\nsuffer in his cause to their fate,--and hopes, by various mean, delusive\nintrigues, in which I am afraid he is encouraged from abroad, to regain,\namong traitors and regicides, the power he has joined to take from his\nown family, whom he quietly sees proscribed before his eyes, and called\nto answer to the lowest of his rebels, as the vilest of all criminals.\n\n[Sidenote: Emperor.]\n\nIt is to be hoped that the Emperor may be taught better things by this\nfatal example. But it is sure that he has advisers who endeavor to fill\nhim with the ideas which have brought his brother-in-law to his present\nsituation. Joseph the Second was far gone in this philosophy, and some,\nif not most, who serve the Emperor, would kindly initiate him into all\nthe mysteries of this freemasonry. They would persuade him to look on\nthe National Assembly, not with the hatred of an enemy, but the jealousy\nof a rival. They would make him desirous of doing, in his own dominions,\nby a royal despotism, what has been done in France by a democratic.\nRather than abandon such enterprises, they would persuade him to a\nstrange alliance between those extremes. Their grand object being now,\nas in his brother's time, at any rate to destroy the higher orders, they\nthink he cannot compass this end, as certainly he cannot, without\nelevating the lower. By depressing the one and by raising the other they\nhope in the first place to increase his treasures and his army; and with\nthese common instruments of royal power they flatter him that the\ndemocracy, which they help in his name to create, will give him but\nlittle trouble. In defiance of the freshest experience, which might show\nhim that old impossibilities are become modern probabilities, and that\nthe extent to which evil principles may go, when left to their own\noperation, is beyond the power of calculation, they will endeavor to\npersuade him that such a democracy is a thing which cannot subsist by\nitself; that in whose ever hands the military command is placed, he must\nbe, in the necessary course of affairs, sooner or later the master; and\nthat, being the master of various unconnected countries, he may keep\nthem all in order by employing a military force which to each of them is\nforeign. This maxim, too, however formerly plausible, will not now hold\nwater. This scheme is full of intricacy, and may cause him everywhere to\nlose the hearts of his people. These counsellors forget that a corrupted\narmy was the very cause of the ruin of his brother-in-law, and that he\nis himself far from secure from a similar corruption.\n\n[Sidenote: Brabant.]\n\nInstead of reconciling himself heartily and _bon\u00e2 fide_, according to\nthe most obvious rules of policy, to the States of Brabant, _as they are\nconstituted_, and who in _the present state of things_ stand on the same\nfoundation with the monarchy itself, and who might have been gained with\nthe greatest facility, they have advised him to the most unkingly\nproceeding which, either in a good or in a bad light, has ever been\nattempted. Under a pretext taken from the spirit of the lowest chicane,\nthey have counselled him wholly to break the public faith, to annul the\namnesty, as well as the other conditions through which he obtained an\nentrance into the Provinces of the Netherlands under the guaranty of\nGreat Britain and Prussia. He is made to declare his adherence to the\nindemnity in a criminal sense, but he is to keep alive in his own name,\nand to encourage in others, a _civil_ process in the nature of an\naction of damages for what has been suffered during the troubles.\nWhilst he keeps up this hopeful lawsuit in view of the damages he may\nrecover against individuals, he loses the hearts of a whole people, and\nthe vast subsidies which his ancestors had been used to receive from\nthem.\n\n[Sidenote: Emperor's conduct with regard to France.]\n\nThis design once admitted unriddles the mystery of the whole conduct of\nthe Emperor's ministers with regard to France. As soon as they saw the\nlife of the king and queen of France no longer, as they thought, in\ndanger, they entirely changed their plan with regard to the French\nnation. I believe that the chiefs of the Revolution (those who led the\nconstituting Assembly) have contrived, as far as they can do it, to give\nthe Emperor satisfaction on this head. He keeps a continual tone and\nposture of menace to secure this his only point. But it must be\nobserved, that he all along grounds his departure from the engagement at\nPilnitz to the princes on the will and actions of _the king_ and the\nmajority of the people, without any regard to the natural and\nconstitutional orders of the state, or to the opinions of the whole\nHouse of Bourbon. Though it is manifestly under the constraint of\nimprisonment and the fear of death that this unhappy man has been guilty\nof all those humilities which have astonished mankind, the advisers of\nthe Emperor will consider nothing but the _physical_ person of Louis,\nwhich, even in his present degraded and infamous state, they regard as\nof sufficient authority to give a complete sanction to the persecution\nand utter ruin of all his family, and of every person who has shown any\ndegree of attachment or fidelity to him or to his cause, as well as\ncompetent to destroy the whole ancient constitution and frame of the\nFrench monarchy.\n\nThe present policy, therefore, of the Austrian politicians is, to\nrecover despotism through democracy,--or, at least, at any expense,\neverywhere to ruin the description of men who are everywhere the objects\nof their settled and systematic aversion, but more especially in the\nNetherlands. Compare this with the Emperor's refusing at first all\nintercourse with the present powers in France, with his endeavoring to\nexcite all Europe against them, and then, his not only withdrawing all\nassistance and all countenance from the fugitives who had been drawn by\nhis declarations from their houses, situations, and military\ncommissions, many even from the means of their very existence, but\ntreating them with every species of insult and outrage.\n\nCombining this unexampled conduct in the Emperor's advisers with the\ntimidity (operating as perfidy) of the king of France, a fatal example\nis held out to all subjects, tending to show what little support, or\neven countenance, they are to expect from those for whom their principle\nof fidelity may induce them to risk life and fortune. The Emperor's\nadvisers would not for the world rescind one of the acts of this or of\nthe late French Assembly; nor do they wish anything better at present\nfor their master's brother of France than that he should really be, as\nhe is nominally, at the head of the system of persecution of religion\nand good order, and of all descriptions of dignity, natural and\ninstituted: they only wish all this done with a little more respect to\nthe king's person, and with more appearance of consideration for his new\nsubordinate office,--in hopes, that, yielding himself for the present\nto the persons who have effected these changes, he may be able to game\nfor the rest hereafter. On no other principles than these can the\nconduct of the court of Vienna be accounted for. The subordinate court\nof Brussels talks the language of a club of Feuillants and Jacobins.\n\n[Sidenote: Moderate party.]\n\nIn this state of general rottenness among subjects, and of delusion and\nfalse politics in princes, comes a new experiment. The king of France is\nin the hands of the chiefs of the regicide faction,--the Barnaves,\nLameths, Fayettes, P\u00e9rigords, Duports, Robespierres, Camuses, &c., &c.,\n&c. They who had imprisoned, suspended, and conditionally deposed him\nare his confidential counsellors. The next desperate of the desperate\nrebels call themselves the _moderate_ party. They are the chiefs of the\nfirst Assembly, who are confederated to support their power during their\nsuspension from the present, and to govern the existent body with as\nsovereign a sway as they had done the last. They have, for the greater\npart, succeeded; and they have many advantages towards procuring their\nsuccess in future. Just before the close of their regular power, they\nbestowed some appearance of prerogatives on the king, which in their\nfirst plans they had refused to him,--particularly the mischievous, and,\nin his situation, dreadful prerogative of a _veto_. This prerogative,\n(which they hold as their bit in the mouth of the National Assembly for\nthe time being,) without the direct assistance of their club, it was\nimpossible for the king to show even the desire of exerting with the\nsmallest effect, or even with safety to his person. However, by playing,\nthrough this _veto_, the Assembly against the king, and the king\nagainst the Assembly, they have made themselves masters of both. In this\nsituation, having destroyed the old government by their sedition, they\nwould preserve as much of order as is necessary for the support of their\nown usurpation.\n\n[Sidenote: French ambassador.]\n\nIt is believed that this, by far the worst party of the miscreants of\nFrance, has received direct encouragement from the counsellors who\nbetray the Emperor. Thus strengthened by the possession of the captive\nking, (now captive in his mind as well as in body,) and by a good hope\nof the Emperor, they intend to send their ministers to every court in\nEurope,--having sent before them such a denunciation of terror and\nsuperiority to every nation without exception as has no example in the\ndiplomatic world. Hitherto the ministers to foreign courts had been of\nthe appointment of the sovereign of France _previous to the Revolution_;\nand, either from inclination, duty, or decorum, most of them were\ncontented with a merely passive obedience to the new power. At present,\nthe king, being entirely in the hands of his jailors, and his mind\nbroken to his situation, can send none but the enthusiasts of the\nsystem,--men framed by the secret committee of the Feuillants, who meet\nin the house of Madame de Sta\u00ebl, M. Necker's daughter. Such is every man\nwhom they have talked of sending hither. These ministers will be so many\nspies and incendiaries, so many active emissaries of democracy. Their\nhouses will become places of rendezvous here, as everywhere else, and\ncentres of cabal for whatever is mischievous and malignant in this\ncountry, particularly among those of rank and fashion. As the minister\nof the National Assembly will be admitted at this court, at least with\nhis usual rank, and as entertainments will be naturally given and\nreceived by the king's own ministers, any attempt to discountenance the\nresort of other people to that minister would be ineffectual, and indeed\nabsurd, and full of contradiction. The women who come with these\nambassadors will assist in fomenting factions amongst ours, which cannot\nfail of extending the evil. Some of them I hear are already arrived.\nThere is no doubt they will do as much mischief as they can.\n\n[Sidenote: Connection of clubs.]\n\nWhilst the public ministers are received under the general law of the\ncommunication between nations, the correspondences between the factious\nclubs in France and ours will be, as they now are, kept up; but this\npretended embassy will be a closer, more steady, and more effectual link\nbetween the partisans of the new system on both sides of the water. I do\nnot mean that these Anglo-Gallic clubs in London, Manchester, &c., are\nnot dangerous in a high degree. The appointment of festive anniversaries\nhas ever in the sense of mankind been held the best method of keeping\nalive the spirit of any institution. We have one settled in London; and\nat the last of them, that of the 14th of July, the strong discountenance\nof government, the unfavorable time of the year, and the then\nuncertainty of the disposition of foreign powers, did not hinder the\nmeeting of at least nine hundred people, with good coats on their backs,\nwho could afford to pay half a guinea a head to show their zeal for the\nnew principles. They were with great difficulty, and all possible\naddress, hindered from inviting the French ambassador. His real\nindisposition, besides the fear of offending any party, sent him out of\ntown. But when our court shall have recognized a government in France\nfounded on the principles announced in Montmorin's letter, how can the\nFrench ambassador be frowned upon for an attendance on those meetings\nwherein the establishment of the government he represents is celebrated?\nAn event happened a few days ago, which in many particulars was very\nridiculous; yet, even from the ridicule and absurdity of the\nproceedings, it marks the more strongly the spirit of the French\nAssembly: I mean the reception they have given to the Frith Street\nAlliance. This, though the delirium of a low, drunken alehouse club,\nthey have publicly announced as a formal alliance with the people of\nEngland, as such ordered it to be presented to their king, and to be\npublished in every province in France. This leads, more directly and\nwith much greater force than any proceeding with a regular and rational\nappearance, to two very material considerations. First, it shows that\nthey are of opinion that the current opinions of the English have the\ngreatest influence on the minds of the people in France, and indeed of\nall the people in Europe, since they catch with such astonishing\neagerness at every the most trifling show of such opinions in their\nfavor. Next, and what appears to me to be full as important, it shows\nthat they are willing publicly to countenance, and even to adopt, every\nfactious conspiracy that can be formed in this nation, however low and\nbase in itself, in order to excite in the most miserable wretches here\nan idea of their own sovereign importance, and to encourage them to look\nup to France, whenever they may be matured into something of more force,\nfor assistance in the subversion of their domestic government. This\naddress of the alehouse club was actually proposed and accepted by the\nAssembly as an _alliance_. The procedure was in my opinion a high\nmisdemeanor in those who acted thus in England, if they were not so very\nlow and so very base that no acts of theirs can be called high, even as\na description of criminality; and the Assembly, in accepting,\nproclaiming, and publishing this forged alliance, has been guilty of a\nplain aggression, which would justify our court in demanding a direct\ndisavowal, if our policy should not lead us to wink at it.\n\nWhilst I look over this paper to have it copied, I see a manifesto of\nthe Assembly, as a preliminary to a declaration of war against the\nGerman princes on the Rhine. This manifesto contains the whole substance\nof the French politics with regard to foreign states. They have ordered\nit to be circulated amongst the people in every country of Europe,--even\npreviously to its acceptance by the king, and his new privy council, the\nclub of the Feuillants. Therefore, as a summary of their policy avowed\nby themselves, let us consider some of the circumstances attending that\npiece, as well as the spirit and temper of the piece itself.\n\n[Sidenote: Declaration against the Emperor.]\n\nIt was preceded by a speech from Brissot, full of unexampled insolence\ntowards all the sovereign states of Germany, if not of Europe. The\nAssembly, to express their satisfaction in the sentiments which it\ncontained, ordered it to be printed. This Brissot had been in the lowest\nand basest employ under the deposed monarchy,--a sort of thief-taker, or\nspy of police,--in which character he acted after the manner of persons\nin that description. He had been employed by his master, the\n_Lieutenant de Police_, for a considerable time in London, in the same\nor some such honorable occupation. The Revolution, which has brought\nforward all merit of that kind, raised him, with others of a similar\nclass and disposition, to fame and eminence. On the Revolution he became\na publisher of an infamous newspaper, which he still continues. He is\ncharged, and I believe justly, as the first mover of the troubles in\nHispaniola. There is no wickedness, if I am rightly informed, in which\nhe is not versed, and of which he is not perfectly capable. His quality\nof news-writer, now an employment of the first dignity in France, and\nhis practices and principles, procured his election into the Assembly,\nwhere he is one of the leading members. M. Condorcet produced on the\nsame day a draught of a declaration to the king, which the Assembly\npublished before it was presented.\n\nCondorcet (though no marquis, as he styled himself before the\nRevolution) is a man of another sort of birth, fashion, and occupation\nfrom Brissot,--but in every principle, and every disposition to the\nlowest as well as the highest and most determined villanies, fully his\nequal. He seconds Brissot in the Assembly, and is at once his coadjutor\nand his rival in a newspaper, which, in his own name, and as successor\nto M. Garat, a member also of the Assembly, he has just set up in that\nempire of gazettes. Condorcet was chosen to draw the first declaration\npresented by the Assembly to the king, as a threat to the Elector of\nTreves, and the other princes on the Rhine. In that piece, in which both\nFeuillants and Jacobins concurred, they declared publicly, and most\nproudly and insolently, the principle on which they mean to proceed in\ntheir future disputes with any of the sovereigns of Europe; for they\nsay, \"that it is not with fire and sword they mean to attack their\nterritories, but by what will be _more dreadful_ to them, the\nintroduction of liberty.\"--I have not the paper by me, to give the exact\nwords, but I believe they are nearly as I state them.--_Dreadful_,\nindeed, will be their hostility, if they should be able to carry it on\naccording to the example of _their_ modes of introducing liberty. They\nhave shown a perfect model of their whole design, very complete, though\nin little. This gang of murderers and savages have wholly laid waste and\nutterly ruined the beautiful and happy country of the Comtat Venaissin\nand the city of Avignon. This cruel and treacherous outrage the\nsovereigns of Europe, in my opinion, with a great mistake of their honor\nand interest, have permitted, even without a remonstrance, to be carried\nto the desired point, on the principles on which they are now themselves\nthreatened in their own states; and this, because, according to the poor\nand narrow spirit now in fashion, their brother sovereign, whose\nsubjects have been thus traitorously and inhumanly treated in violation\nof the law of Nature and of nations, has a name somewhat different from\ntheirs, and, instead of being styled King, or Duke, or Landgrave, is\nusually called Pope.\n\n[Sidenote: State of the Empire.]\n\nThe Electors of Treves and Mentz were frightened with the menace of a\nsimilar mode of war. The Assembly, however, not thinking that the\nElectors of Treves and Mentz had done enough under their first terror,\nhave again brought forward Condorcet, preceded by Brissot, as I have\njust stated. The declaration, which they have ordered now to be\ncirculated in all countries, is in substance the same as the first, but\nstill more insolent, because more full of detail. There they have the\nimpudence to state that they aim at no conquest: insinuating that all\nthe old, lawful powers of the world had each made a constant, open\nprofession of a design of subduing his neighbors. They add, that, if\nthey are provoked, their war will be directed only against those who\nassume to be _masters_; but to the _people_ they will bring peace, law,\nliberty, &c, &c. There is not the least hint that they consider those\nwhom they call persons \"_assuming to be matters_\" to be the lawful\ngovernment of their country, or persons to be treated with the least\nmanagement or respect. They regard them as usurpers and enslavers of the\npeople. If I do not mistake, they are described by the name of tyrants\nin Condorcet's first draught. I am sure they are so in Brissot's speech,\nordered by the Assembly to be printed at the same time and for the same\npurposes. The whole is in the same strain, full of false philosophy and\nfalse rhetoric,--both, however, calculated to captivate and influence\nthe vulgar mind, and to excite sedition in the countries in which it is\nordered to be circulated. Indeed, it is such, that, if any of the\nlawful, acknowledged sovereigns of Europe had publicly ordered such a\nmanifesto to be circulated in the dominions of another, the ambassador\nof that power would instantly be ordered to quit every court without an\naudience.\n\n[Sidenote: Effect of fear on the sovereign powers.]\n\nThe powers of Europe have a pretext for concealing their fears, by\nsaying that this language is not used by the king; though they well know\nthat there is in effect no such person,--that the Assembly is in\nreality, and by that king is acknowledged to be, _the master_,--that\nwhat he does is but matter of formality,--and that he can neither cause\nnor hinder, accelerate nor retard, any measure whatsoever, nor add to\nnor soften the manifesto which the Assembly has directed to be\npublished, with the declared purpose of exciting mutiny and rebellion in\nthe several countries governed by these powers. By the generality also\nof the menaces contained in this paper, (though infinitely aggravating\nthe outrage,) they hope to remove from each power separately the idea of\na distinct affront. The persons first pointed at by the menace are\ncertainly the princes of Germany, who harbor the persecuted House of\nBourbon and the nobility of France; the declaration, however, is\ngeneral, and goes to every state with which they may have a cause of\nquarrel. But the terror of France has fallen upon all nations. A few\nmonths since all sovereigns seemed disposed to unite against her; at\npresent they all seem to combine in her favor. At no period has the\npower of France ever appeared with so formidable an aspect. In\nparticular the liberties of the Empire can have nothing more than an\nexistence the most tottering and precarious, whilst France exists with a\ngreat power of fomenting rebellion, and the greatest in the\nweakest,--but with neither power nor disposition to support the smaller\nstates in their independence against the attempts of the more powerful.\n\nI wind up all in a full conviction within my own breast, and the\nsubstance of which I must repeat over and over again, that the state of\nFrance is the first consideration in the politics of Europe, and of each\nstate, externally as well as internally considered.\n\nMost of the topics I have used are drawn from fear and apprehension.\nTopics derived from fear or addressed to it are, I well know, of\ndoubtful appearance. To be sure, hope is in general the incitement to\naction. Alarm some men,--you do not drive them to provide for their\nsecurity; you put them to a stand; you induce them, not to take measures\nto prevent the approach of danger, but to remove so unpleasant an idea\nfrom their minds; you persuade them to remain as they are, from a new\nfear that their activity may bring on the apprehended mischief before\nits time. I confess freely that this evil sometimes happens from an\noverdone precaution; but it is when the measures are rash, ill-chosen,\nor ill-combined, and the effects rather of blind terror than of\nenlightened foresight. But the few to whom I wish to submit my thoughts\nare of a character which will enable them to see danger without\nastonishment, and to provide against it without perplexity.\n\nTo what lengths this method of circulating mutinous manifestoes, and of\nkeeping emissaries of sedition in every court under the name of\nambassadors, to propagate the same principles and to follow the\npractices, will go, and how soon they will operate, it is hard to say;\nbut go on it will, more or less rapidly, according to events, and to the\nhumor of the time. The princes menaced with the revolt of their\nsubjects, at the same time that they have obsequiously obeyed the\nsovereign mandate of the new Roman senate, have received with\ndistinction, in a public character, ambassadors from those who in the\nsame act had circulated the manifesto of sedition in their dominions.\nThis was the only thing wanting to the degradation and disgrace of the\nGermanic body.\n\nThe ambassadors from the rights of man, and their admission into the\ndiplomatic system, I hold to be a new era in this business. It will be\nthe most important step yet taken to affect the existence of sovereigns,\nand the higher classes of life: I do not mean to exclude its effects\nupon all classes; but the first blow is aimed at the more prominent\nparts in the ancient order of things.\n\nWhat is to be done?\n\nIt would be presumption in me to do more than to make a case. Many\nthings occur. But as they, like all political measures, depend on\ndispositions, tempers, means, and external circumstances, for all their\neffect, not being well assured of these, I do not know how to let loose\nany speculations of mine on the subject. The evil is stated, in my\nopinion, as it exists. The remedy must be where power, wisdom, and\ninformation, I hope, are more united with good intentions than they can\nbe with me. I have done with this subject, I believe, forever. It has\ngiven me many anxious moments for the two last years. If a great change\nis to be made in human affairs, the minds of men will be fitted to it,\nthe general opinions and feelings will draw that way. Every fear, every\nhope, will forward it; and then they who persist in opposing this mighty\ncurrent in human affairs will appear rather to resist the decrees of\nProvidence itself than the mere designs of men. They will not be\nresolute and firm, but perverse and obstinate.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[30] See Vattel, B. II. c. 4, sect 56, and B. III. c 18, sect. 296.\n\n[31] Originally called the Bengal Club; but since opened to persons from\nthe other Presidencies, for the purpose of consolidating the whole\nIndian interest.\n\n[32] \"Until now, they [the National Assembly] have prejudged nothing.\nReserving to themselves a right to appoint a preceptor to the Dauphin,\nthey did not declare _that this child was to reign_, but only that\n_possibly_ the Constitution _might_ destine him to it: they willed,\nthat, while education should efface from his mind all the prejudices\narising from _the delusions of the throne_ respecting his pretended\nbirthright, it should also teach him not to forget that it is _from the\npeople_ he is to receive the title of King, and that _the people do not\neven possess the right of giving up their power to take it from him_.\n\n\"They willed that this education should render him worthy, by his\nknowledge and by his virtues, both to receive _with submission_ the\ndangerous burden of a crown, and _to resign it with pleasure_ into the\nhands of his brethren; that he should be conscious that the hastening of\nthat moment when he is to be only a common citizen constitutes the duty\nand the glory of a king of a free people.\n\n\"They willed that _the uselessness of a king_, the necessity of seeking\nmeans to establish something in lieu of _a power founded on illusions_,\nshould be one of the first truths offered to his reason; _the obligation\nof conforming himself to this, the first of his moral duties; and the\ndesire of no longer being freed from the yoke of the law by an injurious\ninviolability, the first and chief sentiment of his heart_. They are not\nignorant that in the present moment the object is less to form a king\nthan to teach him _that he should know how to wish no longer to be\nsuch_.\"\n\n\n\n\nHEADS FOR CONSIDERATION\n\nON THE\n\nPRESENT STATE OF AFFAIRS.\n\nWRITTEN IN NOVEMBER, 1792.\n\n\nThat France by its mere geographical position, independently of every\nother circumstance, must affect every state of Europe: some of them\nimmediately, all of them through mediums not very remote.\n\nThat the standing policy of this kingdom ever has been to watch over the\n_external_ proceedings of France, (whatever form the _interior_\ngovernment of that kingdom might take,) and to prevent the extension of\nits dominion or its ruling influence over other states.\n\nThat there is nothing in the present _internal_ state of things in\nFrance which alters the national policy with regard to the exterior\nrelations of that country.\n\nThat there are, on the contrary, many things in the internal\ncircumstances of France (and perhaps of this country, too) which tend to\nfortify the principles of that fundamental policy, and which render the\nactive assertion of those principles more pressing at this than at any\nformer time.\n\nThat, by a change effected in about three weeks, France has been able to\npenetrate into the heart of Germany, to make an absolute conquest of\nSavoy, to menace an immediate invasion of the Netherlands, and to awe\nand overbear the whole Helvetic body, which is in a most perilous\nsituation: the great aristocratic Cantons having, perhaps, as much or\nmore to dread from their own people, whom they arm, but do not choose\nor dare to employ, as from the foreign enemy, which against all public\nfaith has butchered their troops serving by treaty in France. To this\npicture it is hardly necessary to add the means by which Prance has been\nenabled to effect all this,--namely, the apparently entire destruction\nof one of the largest and certainly the highest disciplined and best\nappointed army ever seen, headed by the first military sovereign in\nEurope, with a captain under him of the greatest renown; and that\nwithout a blow given or received on any side. This state of things seems\nto me, even if it went no further, truly serious.\n\nCircumstances have enabled France to do all this by _land_. On the other\nelement she has begun to exert herself; and she must succeed in her\ndesigns, if enemies very different from those she has hitherto had to\nencounter do not resist her.\n\nShe has fitted out a naval force, now actually at sea, by which she is\nenabled to give law to the whole Mediterranean. It is known as a fact,\n(and if not so known, it is in the nature of things highly probable,)\nthat she proposes the ravage of the Ecclesiastical State and the pillage\nof Rome, as her first object; that nest she means to bombard Naples,--to\nawe, to humble, and thus to command, all Italy,--to force it to a\nnominal neutrality, but to a real dependence,--to compel the Italian\nprinces and republics to admit the free entrance of the French commerce,\nan open intercourse, and, the sure concomitant of that intercourse, the\n_affiliated societies_, in a manner similar to those she has established\nat Avignon, the Comtat, Chamb\u00e9ry, London, Manchester, &c, &c., which are\nso many colonies planted in all these countries, for extending the\ninfluence and securing the dominion of the French republic.\n\nThat there never has been hitherto a period in which this kingdom would\nhave suffered a French fleet to domineer in the Mediterranean, and to\nforce Italy to submit to such terms as France would think fit to\nimpose,--to say nothing of what has been done upon land in support of\nthe same system. The great object for which we preserved Minorca, whilst\nwe could keep it, and for which we still retain Gibraltar, both at a\ngreat expense, was, and is, to prevent the predominance of France over\nthe Mediterranean.\n\nThus far as to the certain and immediate effect of that armament upon\nthe Italian States. The probable effect which that armament, and the\nother armaments preparing at Toulon and other ports, may have upon\nSpain, on the side of the Mediterranean, is worthy of the serious\nattention of the British councils.\n\nThat it is most probable, we may say in a manner certain, that, if there\nshould be a rupture between France and Spain, France will not confine\nher offensive piratical operations against Spain to her efforts in the\nMediterranean; on which side, however, she may grievously affect Spain,\nespecially if she excites Morocco and Algiers, which undoubtedly she\nwill, to fall upon that power.\n\nThat she will fit out armaments upon the ocean, by which the flota\nitself may be intercepted, and thus the treasures of all Europe, as well\nas the largest and surest resources of the Spanish monarchy, may be\nconveyed into France, and become powerful instruments for the annoyance\nof all her neighbors.\n\nThat she makes no secret of her designs.\n\nThat, if the inward and outward bound flota should escape, still France\nhas more and better means of dissevering many of the provinces in the\nWest and East Indies from the state of Spain than Holland had, when she\nsucceeded in the same attempt. The French marine resembles not a little\nthe old armaments of the Flibustiers, which about a century back, in\nconjunction with pirates of our nation, brought such calamities upon the\nSpanish colonies. They differ only in this,--that the present piratical\nforce is out of all measure and comparison greater: one hundred and\nfifty ships of the line and frigates being ready-built, most of them in\na manner new, and all applicable in different ways to that service.\nPrivateers and Moorish corsairs possess not the best seamanship, and\nvery little discipline, and indeed can make no figure in regular\nservice; but in desperate adventures, and animated with a lust of\nplunder, they are truly formidable.\n\nThat the land forces of France are well adapted to concur with their\nmarine in conjunct expeditions of this nature. In such expeditions,\nenterprise supplies the want of discipline, and perhaps more than\nsupplies it. Both for this, and for other service, (however contemptible\ntheir military is in other respects,) one arm is extremely good, the\nengineering and artillery branch. The old officer corps in both being\ncomposed for the greater part of those who were not gentlemen, or\ngentlemen newly such, few have abandoned the service, and the men are\nveterans, well enough disciplined, and very expert. In this piratical\nway they must make war with good advantage. They must do so, even on the\nside of Flanders, either offensively or defensively. This shows the\ndifference between the policy of Louis the Fourteenth, who built a wall\nof brass about his kingdom, and that of Joseph the Second, who\npremeditatedly uncovered his whole frontier.\n\nThat Spain, from the actual and expected prevalence of French power, is\nin a most perilous situation,--perfectly dependent on the mercy of that\nrepublic. If Austria is broken, or even humbled, she will not dare to\ndispute its mandates.\n\nIn the present state of things, we have nothing at all to dread from the\npower of Spain by sea or by land, or from any rivalry in commerce.\n\nThat we have much to dread from the connections into which Spain may be\nforced.\n\nFrom the circumstances of her territorial possessions, of her resources,\nand the whole of her civil and political state, we may be authorized\nsafely and with undoubted confidence to affirm that\n\n_Spain is not a substantive power_.\n\nThat she must lean on France or on England.\n\nThat it is as much for the interest of Great Britain to prevent the\npredominancy of a French interest in that kingdom as if Spain were a\nprovince of the crown of Great Britain, or a state actually dependent on\nit,--full as much so as ever Portugal was reputed to be. This is a\ndependency of much greater value; and its destruction, or its being\ncarried to any other dependency, of much more serious misfortune.\n\nOne of these two things must happen: either Spain must submit to\ncircumstances and take such conditions as France will impose, or she\nmust engage in hostilities along with the Emperor and the king of\nSardinia.\n\nIf Spain should be forced or awed into a treaty with the republic of\nFrance, she must open her ports and her commerce, as well as the land\ncommunication for the French laborers, who were accustomed annually to\ngather in the harvest in Spain. Indeed, she must grant a free\ncommunication for travellers and traders through her whole country. In\nthat case it is not conjectural, it is certain, the clubs will give law\nin the provinces; Bourgoing, or some such miscreant, will give law at\nMadrid.\n\nIn this England may acquiesce, if she pleases; and France will conclude\na triumphant peace with Spain under her absolute dependence, with a\nbroad highway into that, and into every state of Europe. She actually\ninvites Great Britain to divide with her the spoils of the New World,\nand to make a partition of the Spanish monarchy. Clearly, it is better\nto do so than to suffer France to possess those spoils and that\nterritory alone; which, without doubt, unresisted by us, she is\naltogether as able as she is willing to do.\n\nThis plan is proposed by the French in the way in which they propose all\ntheir plans,--and in the only way in which, indeed, they can propose\nthem, where there is no regular communication between his Majesty and\ntheir republic.\n\nWhat they propose is _a plan_. It is _a plan_ also to resist their\npredatory project. To remain quiet, and to suffer them to make their own\nuse of a naval power before our face, so as to awe and bully Spain into\na submissive peace, or to drive them into a ruinous war, without any\nmeasure on our part, I fear is no plan at all.\n\nHowever, if the plan of co\u00f6peration which France desires, and which her\naffiliated societies here ardently wish and are constantly writing up,\nshould not be adopted, and the war between the Emperor and France\nshould continue, I think it not at all likely that Spain should not be\ndrawn into the quarrel. In that case, the neutrality of England will be\na thing absolutely impossible. The time only is the subject of\ndeliberation.\n\nThen the question will be, whether we are to defer putting ourselves\ninto a posture for the common defence, either by armament, or\nnegotiation, or both, until Spain is actually attacked,--that is,\nwhether our court will take a decided part for Spain, whilst Spain, on\nher side, is yet in a condition to act with whatever degree of vigor she\nmay have, whilst that vigor is yet unexhausted,--or whether we shall\nconnect ourselves with her broken fortunes, after she shall have\nreceived material blows, and when we shall have the whole slow length of\nthat always unwieldy and ill-constructed, and then wounded and crippled\nbody, to drag after us, rather than to aid us. Whilst our disposition is\nuncertain, Spain will not dare to put herself in such a state of defence\nas will make her hostility formidable or her neutrality respectable.\n\nIf the decision is such as the solution of this question (I take it to\nbe the true question) conducts to, no time is to be lost. But the\nmeasures, though prompt, ought not to be rash and indigested. They ought\nto be well chosen, well combined, and well pursued. The system must be\ngeneral; but it must be executed, not successively, or with\ninterruption, but all together, _uno flatu_, in one melting, and one\nmould.\n\nFor this purpose we must put Europe before us, which plainly is, just\nnow, in all its parts, in a state of dismay, derangement, and confusion,\nand, very possibly amongst all its sovereigns, full of secret\nheartburning, distrust, and mutual accusation. Perhaps it may labor\nunder worse evils. There is no vigor anywhere, except the distempered\nvigor and energy of France. That country has but too much life in it,\nwhen everything around is so disposed to tameness and languor. The very\nvices of the French system at home tend to give force to foreign\nexertions. The generals _must_ join the armies. They must lead them to\nenterprise, or they are likely to perish by their hands. Thus, without\nlaw or government of her own, France gives law to all the governments in\nEurope.\n\nThis great mass of political matter must have been always under the view\nof thinkers for the public, whether they act in office or not. Amongst\nevents, even the late calamitous events were in the book of contingency.\nOf course they must have been in design, at least, provided for. A plan\nwhich takes in as many as possible of the states concerned will rather\ntend to facilitate and simplify a rational scheme for preserving Spain\n(if that were our sole, as I think it ought to be our principal object)\nthan to delay and perplex it.\n\nIf we should think that a provident policy (perhaps now more than\nprovident, urgent and necessary) should lead us to act, we cannot take\nmeasures as if nothing had been done. We must see the faults, if any,\nwhich have conducted to the present misfortunes: not for the sake of\ncriticism, military or political, or from the common motives of blaming\npersons and counsels which have not been successful, but in order, if we\ncan, to administer some remedy to these disasters, by the adoption of\nplans more bottomed in principle, and built on with more discretion.\nMistakes may be lessons.\n\nThere seem, indeed, to have been several mistakes in the political\nprinciples on which the war was entered into, as well as in the plans\nupon which it was conducted,--some of them very fundamental, and not\nonly visibly, but I may say palpably erroneous; and I think him to have\nless than the discernment of a very ordinary statesman, who could not\nforesee, from the very beginning, unpleasant consequences from those\nplans, though not the unparalleled disgraces and disasters which really\ndid attend them: for they were, both principles and measures, wholly new\nand out of the common course, without anything apparently very grand in\nthe conception to justify this total departure from all rule.\n\nFor, in the first place, the united sovereigns very much injured their\ncause by admitting that they had nothing to do with the interior\narrangements of France,--in contradiction to the whole tenor of the\npublic law of Europe, and to the correspondent practice of all its\nstates, from the time we have any history of them. In this particular,\nthe two German courts seem to have as little consulted the publicists of\nGermany as their own true interests, and those of all the sovereigns of\nGermany and Europe. This admission of a false principle in the law of\nnations brought them into an apparent contradiction, when they insisted\non the re\u00ebstablishment of the royal authority in France. But this\nconfused and contradictory proceeding gave rise to a practical error of\nworse consequence. It was derived from one and the same root: namely,\nthat the person of the monarch of France was everything; and the\nmonarchy, and the intermediate orders of the state, by which the\nmonarchy was upheld, were nothing. So that, if the united potentates had\nsucceeded so far as to re\u00ebstablish the authority of that king, and that\nhe should be so ill-advised as to confirm all the confiscations, and to\nrecognize as a lawful body and to class himself with that rabble of\nmurderers, (and there wanted not persons who would so have advised him,)\nthere was nothing in the principle or in the proceeding of the united\npowers to prevent such an arrangement.\n\nAn expedition to free a brother sovereign from prison was undoubtedly a\ngenerous and chivalrous undertaking. But the spirit and generosity would\nnot have been less, if the policy had been more profound and more\ncomprehensive,--that is, if it had taken in those considerations and\nthose persons by whom, and, in some measure, for whom, monarchy exists.\nThis would become a bottom for a system of solid and permanent policy,\nand of operations conformable to that system.\n\nThe same fruitful error was the cause why nothing was done to impress\nthe people of France (so far as we can at all consider the inhabitants\nof France as a people) with an idea that the government was ever to be\nreally French, or indeed anything else than the nominal government of a\nmonarch, a monarch absolute as over them, but whose sole support was to\narise from foreign potentates, and who was to be kept on his throne by\nGerman forces,--in short, that the king of France was to be a viceroy to\nthe Emperor and the king of Prussia.\n\nIt was the first time that foreign powers, interfering in the concerns\nof a nation divided into parties, have thought proper to thrust wholly\nout of their councils, to postpone, to discountenance, to reject, and,\nin a manner, to disgrace, the party whom those powers came to support.\nThe single person of a king cannot be a party. Woe to the king who is\nhimself his party! The royal party, with the king or his representatives\nat its head, is the _royal cause_. Foreign powers have hitherto chosen\nto give to such wars as this the appearance of a civil contest, and not\nthat of an hostile invasion. When the Spaniards, in the sixteenth\ncentury, sent aids to the chiefs of the League, they appeared as allies\nto that league, and to the imprisoned king (the Cardinal de Bourbon)\nwhich that league had set up. When the Germans came to the aid of the\nProtestant princes, in the same series of civil wars, they came as\nallies. When the English came to the aid of Henry the Fourth, they\nappeared as allies to that prince. So did the French always, when they\nintermeddled in the affairs of Germany: they came to aid a party there.\nWhen the English and Dutch intermeddled in the succession of Spain, they\nappeared as allies to the Emperor, Charles the Sixth. In short, the\npolicy has been as uniform as its principles were obvious to an ordinary\neye.\n\nAccording to all the old principles of law and policy, a regency ought\nto have been appointed by the French princes of the blood, nobles, and\nparliaments, and then recognized by the combined powers. Fundamental law\nand ancient usage, as well as the clear reason of the thing, have always\nordained it during an imprisonment of the king of France: as in the case\nof John, and of Francis the First. A monarchy ought not to be left a\nmoment without a representative having an interest in the succession.\nThe orders of the state ought also to have been recognized in those\namongst whom alone they existed in freedom, that is, in the emigrants.\n\nThus, laying down a firm foundation on the recognition of the\nauthorities of the kingdom of France, according to Nature and to its\nfundamental laws, and not according to the novel and inconsiderate\nprinciples of the usurpation which the united powers were come to\nextirpate, the king of Prussia and the Emperor, as allies of the ancient\nkingdom of France, would have proceeded with dignity, first, to free the\nmonarch, if possible,--if not, to secure the monarchy as principal in\nthe design; and in order to avoid all risks to that great object, (the\nobject of other ages than the present, and of other countries than that\nof France,) they would of course avoid proceeding with more haste or in\na different manner than what the nature of such an object required.\n\nAdopting this, the only rational system, the rational mode of proceeding\nupon it was to commence with an effective siege of Lisle, which the\nFrench generals must have seen taken before their faces, or be forced to\nfight. A plentiful country of friends, from whence to draw supplies,\nwould have been behind them; a plentiful country of enemies, from whence\nto force supplies, would have been before them. Good towns were always\nwithin reach to deposit their hospitals and magazines. The march from\nLisle to Paris is through a less defensible country, and the distance is\nhardly so great as from Longwy to Paris.\n\nIf the _old_ politic and military ideas had governed, the advanced guard\nwould have been formed of those who best knew the country and had some\ninterest in it, supported by some of the best light troops and light\nartillery, whilst the grand solid body of an army disciplined to\nperfection proceeded leisurely, and in close connection with all its\nstores, provisions, and heavy cannon, to support the expedite body in\ncase of misadventure, or to improve and complete its success.\n\nThe direct contrary of all this was put in practice. In consequence of\nthe original sin of this project, the army of the French princes was\neverywhere thrown into the rear, and no part of it brought forward to\nthe last moment, the time of the commencement of the secret negotiation.\nThis naturally made an ill impression on the people, and furnished an\noccasion for the rebels at Paris to give out that the faithful subjects\nof the king were distrusted, despised, and abhorred by his allies. The\nmarch was directed through a skirt of Lorraine, and thence into a part\nof Champagne, the Duke of Brunswick leaving all the strongest places\nbehind him,--leaving also behind him the strength of his artillery,--and\nby this means giving a superiority to the French, in the only way in\nwhich the present France is able to oppose a German force.\n\nIn consequence of the adoption of those false politics, which turned\neverything on the king's sole and single person, the whole plan of the\nwar was reduced to nothing but a _coup de main_, in order to set that\nprince at liberty. If that failed, everything was to be given up.\n\nThe scheme of a _coup de main_ might (under favorable circumstances) be\nvery fit for a partisan at the head of a light corps, by whose failure\nnothing material would be deranged. But for a royal army of eighty\nthousand men, headed by a king in person, who was to march an hundred\nand fifty miles through an enemy's country,--surely, this was a plan\nunheard of.\n\nAlthough this plan was not well chosen, and proceeded upon principles\naltogether ill-judged and impolitic, the superiority of the military\nforce might in a great degree have supplied the defects, and furnished a\ncorrective to the mistakes. The greater probability was, that the Duke\nof Brunswick would make his way to Paris over the bellies of the rabble\nof drunkards, robbers, assassins, rioters, mutineers, and half-grown\nboys, under the ill-obeyed command of a theatrical, vaporing, reduced\ncaptain of cavalry, who opposed that great commander and great army.\nBut--_Diis aliter visum_. He began to treat,--the winds blew and the\nrains beat,--the house fell, because it was built upon sand,--and great\nwas the fall thereof. This march was not an exact copy of either of the\ntwo marches made by the Duke of Parma into France.\n\nThere is some secret. Sickness and weather may defeat an army pursuing a\nwrong plan: not that I believe the sickness to have been so great as it\nhas been reported; but there is a great deal of superfluous humiliation\nin this business, a perfect prodigality of disgrace. Some advantage,\nreal or imaginary, must compensate to a great sovereign and to a great\ngeneral for so immense a loss of reputation. Longwy, situated as it is,\nmight (one should think) be evacuated without a capitulation with a\nrepublic just proclaimed by the king of Prussia as an usurping and\nrebellious body. He was not far from Luxembourg. He might have taken\naway the obnoxious French in his flight. It does not appear to have been\nnecessary that those magistrates who declared for their own king, on the\nfaith and under the immediate protection of the king of Prussia, should\nbe delivered over to the gallows. It was not necessary that the\nemigrant nobility and gentry who served with the king of Prussia's army,\nunder his immediate command, should be excluded from the cartel, and\ngiven up to be hanged as rebels. Never was so gross and so cruel a\nbreach of the public faith, not with an enemy, but with a friend.\nDumouriez has dropped very singular hints. Custine has spoken out more\nbroadly. These accounts have never been contradicted. They tend to make\nan eternal rupture between the powers. The French have given out, that\nthe Duke of Brunswick endeavored to negotiate some name and place for\nthe captive king, amongst the murderers and proscribers of those who\nhave lost their all for his cause. Even this has not been denied.\n\nIt is singular, and, indeed, a thing, under all its circumstances,\ninconceivable, that everything should by the Emperor be abandoned to the\nking of Prussia. That monarch was considered as principal. In the nature\nof things, as well as in his position with regard to the war, he was\nonly an ally, and a new ally, with crossing interests in many\nparticulars, and of a policy rather uncertain. At best, and supposing\nhim to act with the greatest fidelity, the Emperor and the Empire to him\nmust be but secondary objects. Countries out of Germany must affect him\nin a still more remote manner. France, other than from the fear of its\ndoctrinal principles, can to him be no object at all. Accordingly, the\nRhine, Sardinia, and the Swiss are left to their fate. The king of\nPrussia has no _direct_ and immediate concern with France;\n_consequentially_, to be sure, a great deal: but the Emperor touches\nFrance _directly_ in many parts; he is a near neighbor to Sardinia, by\nhis Milanese territories; he borders on Switzerland; Cologne, possessed\nby his uncle, is between Mentz, Treves, and the king of Prussia's\nterritories on the Lower Rhine. The Emperor is the natural guardian of\nItaly and Germany,--the natural balance against the ambition of France,\nwhether republican or monarchical. His ministers and his generals,\ntherefore, ought to have had their full share in every material\nconsultation,--which I suspect they had not. If he has no minister\ncapable of plans of policy which comprehend the superintendency of a\nwar, or no general with the least of a political head, things have been\nas they must be. However, in all the parts of this strange proceeding\nthere must be a secret.\n\nIt is probably known to ministers. I do not mean to penetrate into it.\nMy speculations on this head must be only conjectural. If the king of\nPrussia, under the pretext or on the reality of some information\nrelative to ill practice on the part of the court of Vienna, takes\nadvantage of his being admitted into the heart of the Emperor's\ndominions in the character of an ally, afterwards to join the common\nenemy, and to enable France to seize the Netherlands, and to reduce and\nhumble the Empire, I cannot conceive, upon every principle, anything\nmore alarming for this country, separately, and as a part of the general\nsystem. After all, we may be looking in vain in the regions of politics\nfor what is only the operation of temper and character upon accidental\ncircumstances. But I never knew accidents to decide the _whole_ of any\ngreat business; and I never knew temper to act, but that some system of\npolitics agreeable to its peculiar spirit was blended with it,\nstrengthened it, and got strength from it. Therefore the politics can\nhardly be put out of the question.\n\nGreat mistakes have been committed: at least I hope so. If there have\nbeen none, the case in future is desperate. I have endeavored to point\nout some of those which have occurred to me, and most of them very\nearly.\n\nWhatever may be the cause of the present state of things, on a full and\nmature view and comparison of the historical matter, of the transactions\nthat have passed before our eyes, and of the future prospect, I think I\nam authorized to form an opinion without the least hesitation.\n\nThat there never was, nor is, nor ever will be, nor ever can be, the\nleast rational hope of making an impression on France by any Continental\npowers, if England is not a part, is not the directing part, is not the\nsoul, of the whole confederacy against it.\n\nThis, so far as it is an anticipation of future, is grounded on the\nwhole tenor of former history. In speculation it is to be accounted for\non two plain principles.\n\nFirst, That Great Britain is likely to take a more fair and equal part\nin the alliance than the other powers, as having less of crossing\ninterest or perplexed discussion with any of them.\n\nSecondly, Because France cannot have to deal with any of these\nContinental sovereigns, without their feeling that nation, as a maritime\npower, greatly superior to them all put together,--a force which is only\nto be kept in check by England.\n\nEngland, except during the eccentric aberration of Charles the Second,\nhas always considered it as her duty and interest to take her place in\nsuch a confederacy. Her chief disputes must ever be with France; and if\nEngland shows herself indifferent and unconcerned, when these powers are\ncombined against the enterprises of France, she is to look with\ncertainty for the same indifference on the part of these powers, when\nshe may be at war with that nation. This will tend totally to disconnect\nthis kingdom from the system of Europe, in which if she ought not rashly\nto meddle, she ought never wholly to withdraw herself from it.\n\nIf, then, England is put in motion, whether by a consideration of the\ngeneral safety, or of the influence of France upon Spain, or by the\nprobable operations of this new system on the Netherlands, it must\nembrace in its project the whole as much as possible, and the part it\ntakes ought to be as much as possible a leading and presiding part.\n\nI therefore beg leave to suggest,--\n\nFirst, That a minister should forthwith be sent to Spain, to encourage\nthat court to persevere in the measures they have adopted against\nFrance,--to make a close alliance and guaranty of possessions, as\nagainst France, with that power,--and, whilst the formality of the\ntreaty is pending, to assure them of our protection, postponing any\nlesser disputes to another occasion.\n\nSecondly, To assure the court of Vienna of our desire to enter into our\nancient connections with her, and to support her effectually in the war\nwhich France has declared against her.\n\nThirdly, To animate the Swiss and the king of Sardinia to take a part,\nas the latter once did on the principles of the Grand Alliance.\n\nFourthly, To put an end to our disputes with Russia, and mutually to\nforget the past. I believe, if she is satisfied of this oblivion, she\nwill return to her old sentiments with regard to this court, and will\ntake a more forward part in this business than any other power.\n\nFifthly, If what has happened to the king of Prussia is only in\nconsequence of a sort of panic or of levity, and an indisposition to\npersevere long in one design, the support and concurrence of Russia will\ntend to steady him, and to give him resolution. If he be ill-disposed,\nwith that power on his back, and without one ally in Europe, I conceive\nhe will not be easily led to derange the plan.\n\nSixthly, To use the joint influence of our court, and of our then allied\npowers, with Holland, to arm as fully as she can by sea, and to make\nsome addition by land.\n\nSeventhly, To acknowledge the king of France's next brother (assisted by\nsuch a council and such representatives of the kingdom of France as\nshall be thought proper) regent of France, and to send that prince a\nsmall supply of money, arms, clothing, and artillery.\n\nEighthly, To give force to these negotiations, an instant naval armament\nought to be adopted,--one squadron for the Mediterranean, another for\nthe Channel. The season is convenient,--most of our trade being, as I\ntake it, at home.\n\nAfter speaking of a plan formed upon the ancient policy and practice of\nGreat Britain and of Europe, to which this is exactly conformable in\nevery respect, with no deviation whatsoever, and which is, I conceive,\nmuch more strongly called for by the present circumstances than by any\nformer, I must take notice of another, which I hear, but cannot persuade\nmyself to believe, is in agitation. This plan is grounded upon the very\nsame view of things which is here stated,--namely, the danger to all\nsovereigns, and old republics, from the prevalence of French power and\ninfluence.\n\nIt is, to form a congress of all the European powers for the purpose of\na general defensive alliance, the objects of which should be,--\n\nFirst, The recognition of this new republic, (which they well know is\nformed on the principles and for the declared purpose of the destruction\nof all kings,) and, whenever the heads of this new republic shall\nconsent to release the royal captives, to make peace with them.\n\nSecondly, To defend themselves with their joint forces against the open\naggressions, or the secret practices, intrigues, and writings, which are\nused to propagate the French principles.\n\nIt is easy to discover from whose shop this commodity comes. It is so\nperfectly absurd, that, if that or anything like it meets with a serious\nentertainment in any cabinet, I should think it the effect of what is\ncalled a judicial blindness, the certain forerunner of the destruction\nof all crowns and kingdoms.\n\nAn _offensive_ alliance, in which union is preserved by common efforts\nin common dangers against a common active enemy, may preserve its\nconsistency, and may produce for a given time some considerable effect:\nthough this is not easy, and for any very long period can hardly be\nexpected. But a _defensive_ alliance, formed of long discordant\ninterests, with innumerable discussions existing, having no one pointed\nobject to which it is directed, which is to be held together with an\nunremitted vigilance, as watchful in peace as in war, is so evidently\nimpossible, is such a chimera, is so contrary to human nature and the\ncourse of human affairs, that I am persuaded no person in his senses,\nexcept those whose country, religion, and sovereign are deposited in the\nFrench funds, could dream of it. There is not the slightest petty\nboundary suit, no difference between a family arrangement, no sort of\nmisunderstanding or cross purpose between the pride and etiquette of\ncourts, that would not entirely disjoint this sort of alliance, and\nrender it as futile in its effects as it is feeble in its principle. But\nwhen we consider that the main drift of that defensive alliance must be\nto prevent the operation of intrigue, mischievous doctrine, and evil\nexample, in the success of unprovoked rebellion, regicide, and\nsystematic assassination and massacre, the absurdity of such a scheme\nbecomes quite lamentable. Open the communication with France, and the\nrest follows of course.\n\nHow far the interior circumstances of this country support what is said\nwith regard to its foreign polities must be left to bettor judgments. I\nam sure the French faction here is infinitely strengthened by the\nsuccess of the assassins on the other side of the water. This evil in\nthe heart of Europe must be extirpated from that centre, or no part of\nthe circumference can be free from the mischief which radiates from it,\nand which will spread, circle beyond circle, in spite of all the little\ndefensive precautions which can be employed against it.\n\nI do not put my name to these hints submitted to the consideration of\nreflecting men. It is of too little importance to suppose the name of\nthe writer could add any weight to the state of things contained in this\npaper. That state of things presses irresistibly on my judgment, and it\nlies, and has long lain, with a heavy weight upon my mind. I cannot\nthink that what is done in France is beneficial to the human race. If it\nwere, the English Constitution ought no more to stand against it than\nthe ancient Constitution of the kingdom in which the new system\nprevails. I thought it the duty of a man not unconcerned for the public,\nand who is a faithful subject to the king, respectfully to submit this\nstate of facts, at this new step in the progress of the French arms and\npolitics, to his Majesty, to his confidential servants, and to those\npersons who, though not in office, by their birth, their rank, their\nfortune, their character, and their reputation for wisdom, seem to me to\nhave a large stake in the stability of the ancient order of things.\n\nBATH, November 5, 1792.\n\n\n\n\nREMARKS\n\nON\n\nTHE POLICY OF THE ALLIES\n\nWITH RESPECT TO FRANCE.\n\nBEGUN IN OCTOBER, 1793.\n\n\n\n\nON THE POLICY OF THE ALLIES.\n\n\nAs the proposed manifesto is, I understand, to promulgate to the world\nthe general idea of a plan for the regulation of a great kingdom, and\nthrough the regulation of that kingdom probably to decide the fate of\nEurope forever, nothing requires a more serious deliberation with regard\nto the time of making it, the circumstances of those to whom it is\naddressed, and the matter it is to contain.\n\nAs to the time, (with the due diffidence in my own opinion,) I have some\ndoubts whether it is not rather unfavorable to the issuing any manifesto\nwith regard to the intended government of France, and for this reason:\nthat it is (upon the principal point of our attack) a time of calamity\nand defeat. Manifestoes of this nature are commonly made when the army\nof some sovereign enters into the enemy's country in great force, and\nunder the imposing authority of that force employs menaces towards those\nwhom he desires to awe, and makes promises to those whom he wishes to\nengage in his favor.\n\nAs to a party, what has been done at Toulon leaves no doubt that the\nparty for which we declare must be that which substantially declares for\nroyalty as the basis of the government.\n\nAs to menaces, nothing, in my opinion, can contribute more effectually\nto lower any sovereign in the public estimation, and to turn his\ndefeats into disgraces, than to threaten in a moment of impotence. The\nsecond manifesto of the Duke of Brunswick appeared, therefore, to the\nworld to be extremely ill-timed. However, if his menaces in that\nmanifesto had been seasonable, they were not without an object. Great\ncrimes then apprehended, and great evils then impending, were to be\nprevented. At this time, every act which early menaces might possibly\nhave _prevented_ is done. Punishment and vengeance alone remain,--and\nGod forbid that they should ever be forgotten! But the punishment of\nenormous offenders will not be the less severe, or the less exemplary,\nwhen it is not threatened at a moment when we have it not in our power\nto execute our threats. On the other side, to pass by proceedings of\nsuch a nefarious nature, in all kinds, as have been carried on in\nFrance, without any signification of resentment, would be in effect to\nratify them, and thus to become accessaries after the fact in all those\nenormities which it is impossible to repeat or think of without horror.\nAn absolute silence appears to me to be at this time the only safe\ncourse.\n\nThe second usual matter of manifestoes is composed of _promises_ to\nthose who cooperate with our designs. These promises depend in a great\nmeasure, if not wholly, on the apparent power of the person who makes\nthem to fulfil his engagements. A time of disaster on the part of the\npromiser seems not to add much to the dignity of his person or to the\neffect of his offers. One would hardly wish to seduce any unhappy\npersons to give the last provocation to a merciless tyranny, without\nvery effectual means of protecting them.\n\nThe time, therefore, seems (as I said) not favorable to a general\nmanifesto, on account of the unpleasant situation of our affairs.\nHowever, I write in a changing scene, when a measure very imprudent\nto-day may be very proper to-morrow. Some great victory may alter the\nwhole state of the question, so far as it regards our _power_ of\nfulfilling any engagement we may think fit to make.\n\nBut there is another consideration of far greater importance for all the\npurposes of this manifesto. The public, and the parties concerned, will\nlook somewhat to the disposition of the promiser indicated by his\nconduct, as well as to his power of fulfilling his engagements.\n\nSpeaking of this nation as part of a general combination of powers, are\nwe quite sure that others can believe us to be sincere, or that we can\nbe even fully assured of our own sincerity, in the protection of those\nwho shall risk their lives for the restoration of monarchy in France,\nwhen the world sees that those who are the natural, legal,\nconstitutional representatives of that monarchy, if it has any, have not\nhad their names so much as mentioned in any one public act, that in no\nway whatever are their persons brought forward, that their rights have\nnot been expressly or implicitly allowed, and that they have not been in\nthe least consulted on the important interests they have at stake? On\nthe contrary, they are kept in a state of obscurity and contempt, and in\na degree of indigence at times bordering on beggary. They are, in fact,\nlittle less prisoners in the village of Hanau than the royal captives\nwho are locked up in the tower of the Temple. What is this, according to\nthe common indications which guide the judgment of mankind, but, under\nthe pretext of protecting the crown of France, in reality to usurp it?\n\nI am also very apprehensive that there are other circumstances which\nmust tend to weaken the force of our declarations. No partiality to the\nallied powers can prevent great doubts on the fairness of our intentions\nas supporters of the crown of France, or of the true principles of\nlegitimate government in opposition to Jacobinism, when it is visible\nthat the two leading orders of the state of France, who are now the\nvictims, and who must always be the true and sole supports of monarchy\nin that country, are, at best, in some of their descriptions, considered\nonly as objects of charity, and others are, when employed, employed only\nas mercenary soldiers,--that they are thrown back out of all reputable\nservice, are in a manner disowned, considered as nothing in their own\ncause, and never once consulted in the concerns of their king, their\ncountry, their laws, their religion, and their property. We even affect\nto be ashamed of them. In all our proceedings we carefully avoid the\nappearance of being of a party with them. In all our ideas of treaty we\ndo not regard them as what they are, the two leading orders of the\nkingdom. If we do not consider them in that light, we must recognize the\nsavages by whom they have been ruined, and who have declared war upon\nEurope, whilst they disgrace and persecute human nature, and openly defy\nthe God that made them, as real proprietors of France.\n\nI am much afraid, too, that we shall scarcely be believed fair\nsupporters of lawful monarchy against Jacobinism, so long as we continue\nto make and to observe cartels with the Jacobins, and on fair terms\nexchange prisoners with them, whilst the Royalists, invited to our\nstandard, and employed under our public faith against the Jacobins, if\ntaken by that savage faction, are given up to the executioner without\nthe least attempt whatsoever at reprisal. For this we are to look at the\nking of Prussia's conduct, compared with his manifestoes about a\ntwelvemonth ago. For this we are to look at the capitulations of Mentz\nand Valenciennes, made in the course of the present campaign. By those\ntwo capitulations the Christian Royalists were excluded from any\nparticipation in the cause of the combined powers. They were considered\nas the outlaws of Europe. Two armies were in effect sent against them.\nOne of those armies (that which surrendered Mentz) was very near\noverpowering the Christians of Poitou, and the other (that which\nsurrendered at Valenciennes) has actually crushed the people whom\noppression and despair had driven to resistance at Lyons, has massacred\nseveral thousands of them in cold blood, pillaged the whole substance of\nthe place, and pursued their rage to the very houses, condemning that\nnoble city to desolation, in the unheard-of manner we have seen it\ndevoted.\n\nIt is, then, plain, by a conduct which overturns a thousand\ndeclarations, that we take the Royalists of France only as an instrument\nof some convenience in a temporary hostility with the Jacobins, but that\nwe regard those atheistic and murderous barbarians as the _bon\u00e2 fide_\npossessors of the soil of France. It appears, at least, that we consider\nthem as a fair government _de facto_, if not _de jure_, a resistance to\nwhich, in favor of the king of Prance, by any man who happened to be\nborn within that country, might equitably be considered by other\nnations as the crime of treason.\n\nFor my part, I would sooner put my hand into the fire than sign an\ninvitation to oppressed men to fight under my standard, and then, on\nevery sinister event of war, cruelly give them up to be punished as the\nbasest of traitors, as long as I had one of the common enemy in my hands\nto be put to death in order to secure those under my protection, and to\nvindicate the common honor of sovereigns. We hear nothing of this kind\nof security in favor of those whom we invite to the support of our\ncause. Without it, I am not a little apprehensive that the proclamations\nof the combined powers might (contrary to their intention, no doubt) be\nlooked upon as frauds, and cruel traps laid for their lives.\n\nSo far as to the correspondence between our declarations and our\nconduct: let the declaration be worded as it will, the conduct is the\npractical comment by which, and which alone, it can be understood. This\nconduct, acting on the declaration, leaves a monarchy without a monarch,\nand without any representative or trustee for the monarch and the\nmonarchy. It supposes a kingdom without states and orders, a territory\nwithout proprietors, and faithful subjects who are to be left to the\nfate of rebels and traitors.\n\nThe affair of the establishment of a government is a very difficult\nundertaking for foreign powers to act in as _principals_; though as\n_auxiliaries and mediators_ it has been not at all unusual, and may be a\nmeasure full of policy and humanity and true dignity.\n\nThe first thing we ought to do, supposing us not giving the law as\nconquerors, but acting as friendly powers applied to for counsel and\nassistance in the settlement of a distracted country, is well to\nconsider the composition, nature, and temper of its objects, and\nparticularly of those who actually do or who ought to exercise power in\nthat state. It is material to know who they are, and how constituted,\nwhom we consider as _the people of France_.\n\nThe next consideration is, through whom our arrangements are to be made,\nand on what principles the government we propose is to be established.\n\nThe first question on the people is this: Whether we are to consider the\nindividuals _now actually in France, numerically taken and arranged into\nJacobin clubs_, as the body politic, constituting the nation of\nFrance,--or whether we consider the original individual proprietors of\nlands, expelled since the Revolution, and the states and the bodies\npolitic, such as the colleges of justice called Parliaments, the\ncorporations, noble and not noble, of bailliages and towns and cities,\nthe bishops and the clergy, as the true constituent parts of the nation,\nand forming the legally organized parts of the people of France.\n\nIn this serious concern it is very necessary that we should have the\nmost distinct ideas annexed to the terms we employ; because it is\nevident that an abuse of the term _people_ has been the original,\nfundamental cause of those evils, the cure of which, by war and policy,\nis the present object of all the states of Europe.\n\nIf we consider the acting power in Prance, in any legal construction of\npublic law, as the people, the question is decided in favor of the\nrepublic one and indivisible. But we have decided for monarchy. If so,\nwe have a king and subjects; and that king and subjects have rights and\nprivileges which ought to be supported at home: for I do not suppose\nthat the government of that kingdom can or ought to be regulated by the\narbitrary mandate of a foreign confederacy.\n\nAs to the faction exercising power, to suppose that monarchy can be\nsupported by principled regicides, religion by professed atheists, order\nby clubs of Jacobins, property by committees of proscription, and\njurisprudence by revolutionary tribunals, is to be sanguine in a degree\nof which I am incapable. On them I decide, for myself, that these\npersons are not the legal corporation of France, and that it is not with\nthem we can (if we would) settle the government of France.\n\nSince, then, we have decided for monarchy in that kingdom, we ought also\nto settle who is to be the monarch, who is to be the guardian of a\nminor, and how the monarch and monarchy is to be modified and supported;\nif the monarch is to be elected, who the electors are to be,--if\nhereditary, what order is established, corresponding with an hereditary\nmonarchy, and fitted to maintain it; who are to modify it in its\nexercise; who are to restrain its powers, where they ought to be\nlimited, to strengthen them, where they are to be supported, or, to\nenlarge them, where the object, the time, and the circumstances may\ndemand their extension. These are things which, in the outline, ought to\nbe made distinct and clear; for if they are not, (especially with regard\nto those great points, who are the proprietors of the soil, and what is\nthe corporation of the kingdom,) there is nothing to hinder the complete\nestablishment of a Jacobin republic, (such as that formed in 1790 and\n1791,) under the name of a _D\u00e9mocratie Royale_. Jacobinism does not\nconsist in the having or not having a certain pageant under the name of\na king, but \"in taking the people as equal individuals, without any\ncorporate name or description, without attention to property, without\ndivision of powers, and forming the government of delegates from a\nnumber of men so constituted,--in destroying or confiscating property,\nand bribing the public creditors, or the poor, with the spoils, now of\none part of the community, now of another, without regard to\nprescription or possession.\"\n\nI hope no one can be so very blind as to imagine that monarchy can be\nacknowledged and supported in France upon any other basis than that of\nits property, _corporate and individual_,--or that it can enjoy a\nmoment's permanence or security upon any scheme of things which sets\naside all the ancient corporate capacities and distinctions of the\nkingdom, and subverts the whole fabric of its ancient laws and usages,\npolitical, civil, and religious, to introduce a system founded on the\nsupposed _rights of man, and the absolute equality of the human race_.\nUnless, therefore, we declare clearly and distinctly in favor of the\n_restoration_ of property, and confide to the hereditary property of the\nkingdom the limitation and qualifications of its hereditary monarchy,\nthe blood and treasure of Europe is wasted for the establishment of\nJacobinism in France. There is no doubt that Danton and Robespierre,\nChaumette and Bar\u00e8re, that Condorcet, that Thomas Paine, that La\nFayette, and the ex-Bishop of Autun, the _Abb\u00e9 Gr\u00e9goire_, with all the\ngang of the Siey\u00e8ses, the Henriots, and the Santerres, if they could\nsecure themselves in the fruits of their rebellion and robbery, would\nbe perfectly indifferent, whether the most unhappy of all infants, whom\nby the lessons of the shoemaker, his governor and guardian, they are\ntraining up studiously and methodically to be an idiot, or, what is\nworse, the most wicked and base of mankind, continues to receive his\ncivic education in the Temple or the Tuileries, whilst they, and such as\nthey, really govern the kingdom.\n\nIt cannot be too often and too strongly inculcated, that monarchy and\nproperty must, in France, go together, or neither can exist. To think of\nthe possibility of the existence of a permanent and hereditary royalty,\n_where nothing else is hereditary or permanent in point either of\npersonal or corporate dignity_, is a ruinous chimera, worthy of the Abb\u00e9\nSiey\u00e8s, and those wicked fools, his associates, who usurped power by the\nmurders of the 19th of July and the 6th of October, 1789, and who\nbrought forth the monster which they called _D\u00e9mocratie Royale_, or the\nConstitution.\n\nI believe that most thinking men would prefer infinitely some sober and\nsensible form of a republic, in which there was no mention at all of a\nking, but which held out some reasonable security to property, life, and\npersonal freedom, to a scheme of tilings like this _D\u00e9mocratie Royale,_\nfounded on impiety, immorality, fraudulent currencies, the confiscation\nof innocent individuals, and the pretended rights of man,--and which, in\neffect, excluding the whole body of the nobility, clergy, and landed\nproperty of a great nation, threw everything into the hands of a\ndesperate set of obscure adventurers, who led to every mischief a blind\nand bloody band of _sans-culottes._ At the head, or rather at the tail,\nof this system was a miserable pageant, as its ostensible instrument,\nwho was to be treated with every species of indignity, till the moment\nwhen he was conveyed from the palace of contempt to the dungeon of\nhorror, and thence led by a brewer of his capital, through the applauses\nof an hired, frantic, drunken multitude, to lose his head upon a\nscaffold.\n\nThis is the Constitution, or _D\u00e9mocratie Royale_; and this is what\ninfallibly would be again set up in France, to run exactly the same\nround, if the predominant power should so far be forced to submit as to\nreceive the name of a king, leaving it to the Jacobins (that is, to\nthose who have subverted royalty and destroyed property) to modify the\none and to distribute the other as spoil. By the Jacobins I mean\nindiscriminately the Brissotins and the Maratists, knowing no sort of\ndifference between them. As to any other party, none exists in that\nunhappy country. The Royalists (those in Poitou excepted) are banished\nand extinguished; and as to what they call the Constitutionalists, or\n_Democrates Royaux_, they never had an existence of the smallest degree\nof power, consideration, or authority, nor, if they differ at all from\nthe rest of the atheistic banditti, (which from their actions and\nprinciples I have no reason to think,) were they ever any other than the\ntemporary tools and instruments of the more determined, able, and\nsystematic regicides. Several attempts have been made to support this\nchimerical _D\u00e9mocratie Royale_: the first was by La Fayette, the last by\nDumouriez: they tended only to show that this absurd project had no\nparty to support it. The Girondists under Wimpfen, and at Bordeaux, have\nmade some struggle. The Constitutionalists never could make any, and\nfor a very plain reason: they were _leaders in rebellion_. All their\nprinciples and their whole scheme of government being republican, they\ncould never excite the smallest degree of enthusiasm in favor of the\nunhappy monarch, whom they had rendered contemptible, to make him the\nexecutive officer in their new commonwealth. They only appeared as\ntraitors to their own Jacobin cause, not as faithful adherents to the\nking.\n\nIn an address to France, in an attempt to treat with it, or in\nconsidering any scheme at all relative to it, it is impossible we should\nmean the geographical, we must always mean the moral and political\ncountry. I believe we shall be in a great error, if we act upon an idea\nthat there exists in that country any organized body of men who might be\nwilling to treat on equitable terms for the restoration of their\nmonarchy, but who are nice in balancing those terms, and who would\naccept such as to them appeared reasonable, but who would quietly submit\nto the predominant power, if they were not gratified in the fashion of\nsome constitution which suited with their fancies.\n\n[Sidenote: No individual influence, civil or military.]\n\nI take the state of France to be totally different. I know of no such\nbody, and of no such party. So far from a combination of twenty men,\n(always excepting Poitou,) I never yet heard that _a single man_ could\nbe named of sufficient force or influence to answer for another man,\nmuch less for the smallest district in the country, or for the most\nincomplete company of soldiers in the army. We see every man that the\nJacobins choose to apprehend taken up in his village or in his house,\nand conveyed to prison without the least shadow of resistance,--_and\nthis indifferently_, whether he is suspected of Royalism, or Federalism,\nModerantism, Democracy Royal, or any other of the names of faction which\nthey start by the hour. What is much more astonishing, (and, if we did\nnot carefully attend to the genius and circumstances of this Revolution,\nmust indeed appear incredible,) all their most accredited military men,\nfrom a generalissimo to a corporal, may be arrested, (each in the midst\nof his camp, and covered with the laurels of accumulated victories,)\ntied neck and heels, thrown into a cart, and sent to Paris to be\ndisposed of at the pleasure of the Revolutionary tribunals.\n\n[Sidenote: No corporations of justice, commerce, or police.]\n\nAs no individuals have power and influence, so there are no\ncorporations, whether of lawyers or burghers, existing. The Assembly\ncalled Constituent, destroyed all such institutions very early. The\nprimary and secondary assemblies, by their original constitution, were\nto be dissolved when they answered the purpose of electing the\nmagistrates, and were expressly disqualified from performing any\ncorporate act whatsoever. The transient magistrates have been almost all\nremoved before the expiration of their terms, and new have been lately\nimposed upon the people without the form or ceremony of an election.\nThese magistrates during their existence are put under, as all the\nexecutive authorities are from first to last, the popular societies\n(called Jacobin clubs) of the several countries, and this by an express\norder of the National Convention: it is even made a case of death to\noppose or attack those clubs. They, too, have been lately subjected to\nan expurgatory scrutiny, to drive out from them everything savoring of\nwhat they call the crime of _moderantism_, of which offence, however,\nfew were guilty. But as people began to take refuge from their\npersecutions amongst themselves, they have driven them from that last\nasylum.\n\nThe state of France is perfectly simple. It consists of but two\ndescriptions,--the oppressors and the oppressed.\n\nThe first has the whole authority of the state in their hands,--all the\narms, all the revenues of the public, all the confiscations of\nindividuals and corporations. They have taken the lower sort from their\noccupations and have put them into pay, that they may form them into a\nbody of janizaries to overrule and awe property. The heads of these\nwretches they never suffer to cool. They supply them with a food for\nfury varied by the day,--besides the sensual state of intoxication, from\nwhich they are rarely free. They have made the priests and people\nformally abjure the Divinity; they have estranged them from every civil,\nmoral, and social, or even natural and instinctive sentiment, habit, and\npractice, and have rendered them systematically savages, to make it\nimpossible for them to be the instruments of any sober and virtuous\narrangement, or to be reconciled to any state of order, under any name\nwhatsoever.\n\nThe other description--_the oppressed_--are people of some property:\nthey are the small relics of the persecuted landed interest; they are\nthe burghers and the farmers. By the very circumstance of their being of\nsome property, though numerous in some points of view, they cannot be\nvery considerable as _a number_. In cities the nature of their\noccupations renders them domestic and feeble; in the country it\nconfines them to their farm for subsistence. The national guards are all\nchanged and reformed. Everything suspicious in the description of which\nthey were composed is rigorously disarmed. Committees, called of\nvigilance and safety, are everywhere formed: a most severe and\nscrutinizing inquisition, far more rigid than anything ever known or\nimagined. Two persons cannot meet and confer without hazard to their\nliberty, and even to their lives. Numbers scarcely credible have been\nexecuted, and their property confiscated. At Paris, and in most other\ntowns, the bread they buy is a daily dole,--which they cannot obtain\nwithout a daily ticket delivered to them by their masters. Multitudes of\nall ages and sexes are actually imprisoned. I have reason to believe\nthat in France there are not, for various state crimes, so few as twenty\nthousand[33] actually in jail,--a large proportion of people of property\nin any state. If a father of a family should show any disposition to\nresist or to withdraw himself from their power, his wife and children\nare cruelly to answer for it. It is by means of these hostages that they\nkeep the troops, which they force by masses (as they call it) into the\nfield, true to their colors.\n\nAnother of their resources is not to be forgotten. They have lately\nfound a way of giving a sort of ubiquity to the supreme sovereign\nauthority, which no monarch has been able yet to give to any\nrepresentation of his.\n\nThe commissioners of the National Convention, who are the members of the\nConvention itself, and really exercise all its powers, make continual\ncircuits through every province, and visits to every army. There they\nsupersede all the ordinary authorities, civil and military, and change\nand alter everything at their pleasure. So that, in effect, no\ndeliberative capacity exists in any portion of the inhabitants.\n\nToulon, republican in principle, having taken its decision _in a moment\nunder the guillotine_, and before the arrival of these\ncommissioners,--Toulon, being a place regularly fortified, and having in\nits bosom a navy in part highly discontented, has escaped, though by a\nsort of miracle: and it would not have escaped, if two powerful fleets\nhad not been at the door, to give them not only strong, but prompt and\nimmediate succor, especially as neither this nor any other seaport town\nin France can be depended on, from the peculiarly savage dispositions,\nmanners, and connections among the lower sort of people in those places.\nThis I take to be the true state of things in France, _so far as it\nregards any existing bodies, whether of legal or voluntary association,\ncapable of acting or of treating in corps_.\n\nAs to the oppressed _individuals_, they are many, and as discontented as\nmen must be under the monstrous and complicated tyranny of all sorts\nwith which they are crushed. They want no stimulus to throw off this\ndreadful yoke; but they do want, not manifestoes, which they have had\neven to surfeit, but real protection, force, and succor.\n\nThe disputes and questions of men at their ease do not at all affect\ntheir minds, or ever can occupy the minds of men in their situation.\nThese theories are long since gone by; they have had their day, and have\ndone their mischief. The question is not between the rabble of systems,\nFayettism, Condorcetism, Monarchism, or Democratism, or Federalism, on\nthe one side, and the fundamental laws of France on the other,--or\nbetween all these systems amongst themselves. It is a controversy (weak,\nindeed, and unequal, on the one part) between the proprietor and the\nrobber, between the prisoner and the jailer, between the neck and the\nguillotine. Four fifths of the French inhabitants would thankfully take\nprotection from the emperor of Morocco, and would never trouble their\nheads about the abstract principles of the power by which they were\nsnatched from imprisonment, robbery, and murder. But then these men can\ndo little or nothing for themselves. They have no arms, nor magazines,\nnor chiefs, nor union, nor the possibility of these things within\nthemselves. On the whole, therefore, I lay it down as a certainty, that\nin the Jacobins no change of mind is to be expected, and that no others\nin the territory of France have an independent and deliberative\nexistence.\n\nThe truth is, that France is out of itself,--the moral France is\nseparated from the geographical. The master of the house is expelled,\nand the robbers are in possession. If we look for the _corporate people_\nof France, existing as corporate in the eye and intention of public law,\n(that corporate people, I mean, who are free to deliberate and to\ndecide, and who have a capacity to treat and conclude,) they are in\nFlanders, and Germany, in Switzerland, Spain, Italy, and England. There\nare all the princes of the blood, there are all the orders of the state,\nthere are all the parliaments of the kingdom.\n\nThis being, as I conceive, the true state of France, as it exists\n_territorially_, and as it exists _morally_, the question will be, with\nwhom we are to concert our arrangements, and whom we are to use as our\ninstruments in the reduction, in the pacification, and in the settlement\nof France. The work to be done must indicate the workmen. Supposing us\nto have national objects, we have two principal and one secondary. The\nfirst two are so intimately connected as not to be separated even in\nthought: the re\u00ebstablishment of royalty, and the re\u00ebstablishment of\nproperty. One would think it requires not a great deal of argument to\nprove that the most serious endeavors to restore royalty will be made by\nRoyalists. Property will be most energetically restored by the ancient\nproprietors of that kingdom.\n\nWhen I speak of Royalists, I wish to be understood of those who were\nalways such from principle. Every arm lifted up for royalty from the\nbeginning was the arm of a man so principled. I do not think there are\nten exceptions.\n\nThe principled Royalists are certainly not of force to effect these\nobjects by themselves. If they were, the operations of the present great\ncombination would be wholly unnecessary. What I contend for is, that\nthey should be consulted with, treated with, and employed; and that no\nforeigners whatsoever are either in interest so engaged, or in judgment\nand local knowledge so competent to answer all these purposes, as the\nnatural proprietors of the country.\n\nTheir number, for an exiled party, is also considerable. Almost the\nwhole body of the landed proprietors of France, ecclesiastical and\ncivil, have been steadily devoted to the monarchy. This body does not\namount to less than seventy thousand,--a very great number in the\ncomposition of the respectable classes in any society. I am sure, that,\nif half that number of the same description were taken out of this\ncountry, it would leave hardly anything that I should call the people of\nEngland. On the faith of the Emperor and the king of Prussia, a body of\nten thousand nobility on horseback, with the king's two brothers at\ntheir head, served with the king of Prussia in the campaign of 1792, and\nequipped themselves with the last shilling of their ruined fortunes and\nexhausted credit.[34] It is not now the question, how that great force\ncame to be rendered useless and totally dissipated. I state it now, only\nto remark that a great part of the same force exists, and would act, if\nit were enabled. I am sure everything has shown us that in this war with\nFrance one Frenchman is worth twenty foreigners. La Vend\u00e9e is a proof of\nthis.\n\nIf we wish to make an impression on the minds of any persons in France,\nor to persuade them to join our standard, it is impossible that they\nshould not be more easily led, and more readily formed and disciplined,\n(civilly and martially disciplined,) by those who speak their language,\nwho are acquainted with their manners, who are conversant with their\nusages and habits of thinking, and who have a local knowledge of their\ncountry, and some remains of ancient credit and consideration, than with\na body congregated from all tongues and tribes. Where none of the\nrespectable native interests are seen in the transaction, it is\nimpossible that any declarations can convince those that are within, or\nthose that are without, that anything else than some sort of hostility\nin the style of a conqueror is meant. At best, it will appear to such\nwavering persons, (if such there are,) whom we mean to fix with us, a\nchoice whether they are to continue a prey to domestic banditti, or to\nbe fought for as a carrion carcass and picked to the bone by all the\ncrows and vultures of the sky. They may take protection, (and they\nwould, I doubt not,) but they can have neither alacrity nor zeal in such\na cause. When they see nothing but bands of English, Spaniards,\nNeapolitans, Sardinians, Prussians, Austrians, Hungarians, Bohemians,\nSlavonians, Croatians, _acting as principals_, it is impossible they\nshould think we come with a beneficent design. Many of those fierce and\nbarbarous people have already given proofs how little they regard any\nFrench party whatsoever. Some of these nations the people of France are\njealous of: such are the English and the Spaniards;--others they\ndespise: such are the Italians;--others they hate and dread: such are\nthe German and Danubian powers. At best, such interposition of ancient\nenemies excites apprehension; but in this case, how can they suppose\nthat we come to maintain their legitimate monarchy in a truly paternal\nFrench government, to protect their privileges, their laws, their\nreligion, and their property, when they see us make use of no one person\nwho has any interest in them, any knowledge of them, or any the least\nzeal for them? On the contrary, they see that we do not suffer any of\nthose who have shown a zeal in that cause which we seem to make our own\nto come freely into any place in which the allies obtain any footing.\n\nIf we wish to gain upon any people, it is right to see what it is they\nexpect. We have had a proposal from the Royalists of Poitou. They are\nwell entitled, after a bloody war maintained for eight months against\nall the powers of anarchy, to speak the sentiments of the Royalists of\nFrance. Do they desire us to exclude their princes, their clergy, their\nnobility? The direct contrary. They earnestly solicit that men of every\none of these descriptions should be sent to them. They do not call for\nEnglish, Austrian, or Prussian officers. They call for French emigrant\nofficers. They call for the exiled priests. They have demanded the Comte\nd'Artois to appear at their head. These are the demands (quite natural\ndemands) of those who are ready to follow the standard of monarchy.\n\nThe great means, therefore, of restoring the monarchy, which we have\nmade _the main object of the war_, is, to assist the dignity, the\nreligion, and the property of France to repossess themselves of the\nmeans of their natural influence. This ought to be the primary object of\nall our politics and all our military operations. Otherwise everything\nwill move in a preposterous order, and nothing but confusion and\ndestruction will follow.\n\nI know that misfortune is not made to win respect from ordinary minds. I\nknow that there is a leaning to prosperity, however obtained, and a\nprejudice in its favor. I know there is a disposition to hope something\nfrom the variety and inconstancy of villany, rather than from the\ntiresome uniformity of fixed principle. There have been, I admit,\nsituations in which a guiding person or party might be gained over, and\nthrough him or them the whole body of a nation. For the hope of such a\nconversion, and of deriving advantage from enemies, it might be politic\nfor a while to throw your friends into the shade. But examples drawn\nfrom history in occasions like the present will be found dangerously to\nmislead us. France has no resemblance to other countries which have\nundergone troubles and been purified by them. If France, Jacobinized as\nit has been for four full years, did contain any bodies of authority and\ndisposition to treat with you, (most assuredly she does not,) such is\nthe levity of those who have expelled everything respectable in their\ncountry, such their ferocity, their arrogance, their mutinous spirit,\ntheir habits of defying everything human and divine, that no engagement\nwould hold with them for three months; nor, indeed, could they cohere\ntogether for any purpose of civilized society, if left as they now are.\nThere must be a means, not only of breaking their strength within\nthemselves, but of _civilizing_ them; and these two things must go\ntogether, before we can possibly treat with them, not only as a nation,\nbut with any division of them. Descriptions of men of their own race,\nbut better in rank, superior in property and decorum, of honorable,\ndecent, and orderly habits, are absolutely necessary to bring them to\nsuch a frame as to qualify them so much as to come into contact with a\ncivilized nation. A set of those ferocious savages with arms in their\nhands, left to themselves in one part of the country whilst you proceed\nto another, would break forth into outrages at least as bad as their\nformer. They must, as fast as gained, (if ever they are gained,) be put\nunder the guide, direction, and government of better Frenchmen than\nthemselves, or they will instantly relapse into a fever of aggravated\nJacobinism.\n\nWe must not judge of other parts of France by the temporary submission\nof Toulon, with two vast fleets in its harbor, and a garrison far more\nnumerous than all the inhabitants able to bear arms. If they were left\nto themselves, I am quite sure they would not retain their attachment to\nmonarchy of any name for a single week.\n\nTo administer the only cure for the unheard-of disorders of that undone\ncountry, I think it infinitely happy for us that God has given into our\nhands more effectual remedies than human contrivance could point out. We\nhave in our bosom, and in the bosom of other civilized states, nearer\nforty than thirty thousand persons, providentially preserved, not only\nfrom the cruelty and violence, but from the contagion of the horrid\npractices, sentiments, and language of the Jacobins, and even sacredly\nguarded from the view of such abominable scenes. If we should obtain, in\nany considerable district, a footing in France, we possess an immense\nbody of physicians and magistrates of the mind, whom we now know to be\nthe most discreet, gentle, well-tempered, conciliatory, virtuous, and\npious persons who in any order probably existed in the world. You will\nhave a missioner of peace and order in every parish. Never was a wiser\nnational economy than in the charity of the English and of other\ncountries. Never was money better expended than in the maintenance of\nthis body of civil troops for re\u00ebstablishing order in France, and for\nthus securing its civilization to Europe. This means, if properly used,\nis of value inestimable.\n\nNor is this corps of instruments of civilization confined to the first\norder of that state,--I mean the clergy. The allied powers possess also\nan exceedingly numerous, well-informed, sensible, ingenious,\nhigh-principled, and spirited body of cavaliers in the expatriated\nlanded interest of France, as well qualified, at least, as I (who have\nbeen taught by time and experience to moderate my calculation of the\nexpectancy of human abilities) ever expected to see in the body of any\nlanded gentlemen and soldiers by their birth. France is well winnowed\nand sifted. Its virtuous men are, I believe, amongst the most virtuous,\nas its wicked are amongst the most abandoned upon earth. Whatever in the\nterritory of France may be found to be in the middle between these must\nbe attracted to the better part. This will be compassed, when every\ngentleman, everywhere being restored to his landed estate, each on his\npatrimonial ground, may join the clergy in reanimating the loyalty,\nfidelity, and religion of the people,--that these gentlemen proprietors\nof land may sort that people according to the trust they severally\nmerit, that they may arm the honest and well-affected, and disarm and\ndisable the factious and ill-disposed. No foreigner can make this\ndiscrimination nor these arrangements. The ancient corporations of\nburghers according to their several modes should be restored, and placed\n(as they ought to be) in the hands of men of gravity and property in the\ncities or bailliages, according to the proper constitutions of the\ncommons or third estate of France. They will restrain and regulate the\nseditious rabble there, as the gentlemen will on their own estates. In\nthis way, and _in this way alone_, the country (once broken in upon by\nforeign force well directed) may be gained and settled. It must be\ngained and settled by _itself_, and through the medium of its _own_\nnative dignity and property. It is not honest, it is not decent, still\nless is it politic, for foreign powers themselves to attempt anything in\nthis minute, internal, local detail, in which they could show nothing\nbut ignorance, imbecility, confusion, and oppression. As to the prince\nwho has a just claim to exercise the regency of France, like other men\nhe is not without his faults and his defects. But faults or defects\n(always supposing them faults of common human infirmity) are not what in\nany country destroy a legal title to government. These princes are kept\nin a poor, obscure, country town of the king of Prussia's. Their\nreputation is entirely at the mercy of every calumniator. They cannot\nshow themselves, they cannot explain themselves, as princes ought to do.\nAfter being well informed as any man here can be, I do not find that\nthese blemishes in this eminent person are at all considerable, or that\nthey at all affect a character which is full of probity, honor,\ngenerosity, and real goodness. In some points he has but too much\nresemblance to his unfortunate brother, who, with all his weaknesses,\nhad a good understanding, and many parts of an excellent man and a good\nking. But Monsieur, without supposing the other deficient, (as he was\nnot,) excels him in general knowledge, and in a sharp and keen\nobservation, with something of a better address, and an happier mode of\nspeaking and of writing. His conversation is open, agreeable, and\ninformed; his manners gracious and princely. His brother, the Comte\nd'Artois, sustains still better the representation of his place. He is\neloquent, lively, engaging in the highest degree, of a decided\ncharacter, full of energy and activity. In a word, he is a brave,\nhonorable, and accomplished cavalier. Their brethren of royalty, if they\nwere true to their own cause and interest, instead of relegating these\nillustrious persons to an obscure town, would bring them forward in\ntheir courts and camps, and exhibit them to (what they would speedily\nobtain) the esteem, respect, and affection of mankind.\n\n[Sidenote: Objection made to the regent's endeavor to go to Spain.]\n\nAs to their knocking at every door, (which seems to give offence,) can\nanything be more natural? Abandoned, despised, rendered in a manner\noutlaws by all the powers of Europe, who have treated their unfortunate\nbrethren with all the giddy pride and improvident insolence of blind,\nunfeeling prosperity, who did not even send them a compliment of\ncondolence on the murder of their brother and sister, in such a state is\nit to be wondered at, or blamed, that they tried every way, likely or\nunlikely, well or ill chosen, to get out of the horrible pit into which\nthey are fallen, and that in particular they tried whether the princes\nof their own blood might at length be brought to think the cause of\nkings, and of kings of their race, wounded in the murder and exile of\nthe branch of France, of as much importance as the killing of a brace of\npartridges? If they were absolutely idle, and only eat in sloth their\nbread of sorrow and dependence, they would be forgotten, or at best\nthought of as wretches unworthy of their pretensions, which they had\ndone nothing to support. If they err from _our_ interests, what care has\nbeen taken to keep them in those interests? or what desire has ever\nbeen shown to employ them in any other way than as instruments of their\nown degradation, shame, and ruin?\n\nThe Parliament of Paris, by whom the title of the regent is to be\nrecognized, (not made,) according to the laws of the kingdom, is ready\nto recognize it, and to register it, if a place of meeting was given to\nthem, which might be within their own jurisdiction, supposing that only\nlocality was required for the exercise of their functions: for it is one\nof the advantages of monarchy to have no local seat. It may maintain its\nrights out of the sphere of its territorial jurisdiction, if other\npowers will suffer it.\n\nI am well apprised that the little intriguers, and whisperers, and\nself-conceited, thoughtless babblers, worse than either, run about to\ndepreciate the fallen virtue of a great nation. But whilst they talk, we\nmust make our choice,--they or the Jacobins. We have no other option. As\nto those who in the pride of a prosperity not obtained by their wisdom,\nvalor, or industry, think so well of themselves, and of their own\nabilities and virtues, and so ill of other men, truth obliges me to say\nthat they are not founded in their presumption concerning themselves,\nnor in their contempt of the French princes, magistrates, nobility, and\nclergy. Instead of inspiring me with dislike and distrust of the\nunfortunate, engaged with us in a common cause against our Jacobin\nenemy, they take away all my esteem for their own characters, and all my\ndeference to their judgment.\n\nThere are some few French gentlemen, indeed, who talk a language not\nwholly different from this jargon. Those whom I have in my eye I respect\nas gallant soldiers, as much as any one can do; but on their political\njudgment and prudence I have not the slightest reliance, nor on their\nknowledge of their own country, or of its laws and Constitution. They\nare, if not enemies, at least not friends, to the orders of their own\nstate,--not to the princes, the clergy, or the nobility; they possess\nonly an attachment to the monarchy, or rather to the persons of the late\nking and queen. In all other respects their conversation is Jacobin. I\nam afraid they, or some of them, go into the closets of ministers, and\ntell them that the affairs of France will be better arranged by the\nallied powers than by the landed proprietors of the kingdom, or by the\nprinces who have a right to govern; and that, if any French are at all\nto be employed in the settlement of their country, it ought to be only\nthose who have never declared any decided opinion, or taken any active\npart in the Revolution.[35]\n\nI suspect that the authors of this opinion are mere soldiers of fortune,\nwho, though men of integrity and honor, would as gladly receive military\nrank from Russia, or Austria, or Prussia, as from the regent of France.\nPerhaps their not having as much importance at his court as they could\nwish may incline them to this strange imagination. Perhaps, having no\nproperty in old France, they are more indifferent about its restoration.\nTheir language is certainly flattering to all ministers in all courts.\nWe all are men; we all love to be told of the extent of our own power\nand our own faculties. If we love glory, we are jealous of partners, and\nafraid even of our own instruments. It is of all modes of flattery the\nmost effectual, to be told that you can regulate the affairs of another\nkingdom better than its hereditary proprietors. It is formed to flatter\nthe principle of conquest so natural to all men. It is this principle\nwhich is now making the partition of Poland. The powers concerned have\nbeen told by some perfidious Poles, and perhaps they believe, that their\nusurpation is a great benefit to the people, especially to the common\npeople. However this may turn out with regard to Poland, I am quite sure\nthat France could not be so well under a foreign direction as under that\nof the representatives of its own king and its own ancient estates.\n\nI think I have myself studied France as much as most of those whom the\nallied courts are likely to employ in such a work. I have likewise of\nmyself as partial and as vain an opinion as men commonly have of\nthemselves. But if I could command the whole military arm of Europe, I\nam sure that a bribe of the best province in that kingdom would not\ntempt me to intermeddle in their affairs, except in perfect concurrence\nand concert with the natural, legal interests of the country, composed\nof the ecclesiastical, the military, the several corporate bodies of\njustice and of burghership, making under a monarch (I repeat it again\nand again) _the French nation according to its fundamental\nConstitution_. No considerate statesman would undertake to meddle with\nit upon any other condition.\n\nThe government of that kingdom is fundamentally monarchical. The public\nlaw of Europe has never recognized in it any other form of government.\nThe potentates of Europe have, by that law, a right, an interest, and a\nduty to know with what government they are to treat, and what they are\nto admit into the federative society,--or, in other words, into the\ndiplomatic republic of Europe. This right is clear and indisputable.\n\nWhat other and further interference they have a right to in the interior\nof the concerns of another people is a matter on which, as on every\npolitical subject, no very definite or positive rule can well be laid\ndown. Our neighbors are men; and who will attempt to dictate the laws\nunder which it is allowable or forbidden to take a part in the concerns\nof men, whether they are considered individually or in a collective\ncapacity, whenever charity to them, or a care of my own safety, calls\nforth my activity? Circumstances perpetually variable, directing a moral\nprudence and discretion, the _general_ principles of which never vary,\nmust alone prescribe a conduct fitting on such occasions. The latest\ncasuists of public law are rather of a republican cast, and, in my mind,\nby no means so averse as they ought to be to a right in the people (a\nword which, ill defined, is of the most dangerous use) to make changes\nat their pleasure in the fundamental laws of their country. These\nwriters, however, when a country is divided, leave abundant liberty for\na neighbor to support any of the parties according to his choice.[36]\nThis interference must, indeed, always be a right, whilst the privilege\nof doing good to others, and of averting from them every sort of evil,\nis a right: circumstances may render that right a duty. It depends\nwholly on this, whether it be a _bon\u00e2 fide_ charity to a party, and a\nprudent precaution with regard to yourself, or whether, under the\npretence of aiding one of the parties in a nation, you act in such a\nmanner as to aggravate its calamities and accomplish its final\ndestruction. In truth, it is not the interfering or keeping aloof, but\niniquitous intermeddling, or treacherous inaction, which is praised or\nblamed by the decision of an equitable judge.\n\nIt will be a just and irresistible presumption against the fairness of\nthe interposing power, that he takes with him no party or description of\nmen in the divided state. It is not probable that these parties should\nall, and all alike, be more adverse to the true interests of their\ncountry, and less capable of forming a judgment upon them, than those\nwho are absolute strangers to their affairs, and to the character of the\nactors in them, and have but a remote, feeble, and secondary sympathy\nwith their interest. Sometimes a calm and healing arbiter may be\nnecessary; but he is to compose differences, not to give laws. It is\nimpossible that any one should not feel the full force of that\npresumption. Even people, whose politics for the supposed good of their\nown country lead them to take advantage of the dissensions of a\nneighboring nation in order to ruin it, will not directly propose to\nexclude the natives, but they will take that mode of consulting and\nemploying them which most nearly approaches to an exclusion. In some\nparticulars they propose what amounts to that exclusion, in others they\ndo much worse. They recommend to ministry, \"that no Frenchman who has\ngiven a decided opinion or acted a decided part in this great\nRevolution, for or against it, should be countenanced, brought forward,\ntrusted, or employed, even in the strictest subordination to the\nministers of the allied powers.\" Although one would think that this\nadvice would stand condemned on the first proposition, yet, as it has\nbeen made popular, and has been proceeded upon practically, I think it\nright to give it a full consideration.\n\nAnd first, I have asked myself who these Frenchmen are, that, in the\nstate their own country has been in for these last five years, of all\nthe people of Europe, have alone not been able to form a decided\nopinion, or have been unwilling to act a decided part?\n\nLooking over all the names I have heard of in this great revolution in\nall human affairs, I find no man of any distinction who has remained in\nthat more than Stoical apathy, but the Prince de Conti. This mean,\nstupid, selfish, swinish, and cowardly animal, universally known and\ndespised as such, has indeed, except in one abortive attempt to elope,\nbeen perfectly neutral. However, his neutrality, which it seems would\nqualify him for trust, and on a competition must set aside the Prince de\nCond\u00e9, can be of no sort of service. His moderation has not been able to\nkeep him from a jail. The allied powers must draw him from that jail,\nbefore they can have the full advantage of the exertions of this great\nneutralist.\n\nExcept him, I do not recollect a man of rank or talents, who by his\nspeeches or his votes, by his pen or by his sword, has not been active\non this scene. The time, indeed, could admit no neutrality in any person\nworthy of the name of man. There were originally two great divisions in\nFrance: the one is that which overturned the whole of the government in\nChurch and State, and erected a republic on the basis of atheism. Their\ngrand engine was the Jacobin Club, a sort of secession from which, but\nexactly on the same principles, begat another short-lived one, called\nthe Club of Eighty-Nine,[37] which was chiefly guided by the court\nrebels, who, in addition to the crimes of which they were guilty in\ncommon with the others, had the merit of betraying a gracious master and\na kind benefactor. Subdivisions of this faction, which since we have\nseen, do not in the least differ from each other in their principles,\ntheir dispositions, or the means they have employed. Their only quarrel\nhas been about power: in that quarrel, like wave succeeding wave, one\nfaction has got the better and expelled the other. Thus, La Fayette for\na while got the better of Orl\u00e9ans; and Orl\u00e9ans afterwards prevailed over\nLa Fayette. Brissot overpowered Orl\u00e9ans; Bar\u00e8re and Robespierre, and\ntheir faction, mastered them both, and cut off their heads. All who were\nnot Royalists have been listed in some or other of these divisions. If\nit were of any use to settle a precedence, the elder ought to have his\nrank. The first authors, plotters, and contrivers of this monstrous\nscheme seem to me entitled to the first place in our distrust and\nabhorrence. I have seen some of those who are thought the best amongst\nthe original rebels, and I have not neglected the means of being\ninformed concerning the others. I can very truly say, that I have not\nfound, by observation, or inquiry, that any sense of the evils produced\nby their projects has produced in them, or any _one_ of them, the\nsmallest degree of repentance. Disappointment and mortification\nundoubtedly they feel; but to them repentance is a thing impossible.\nThey are atheists. This wretched opinion, by which they are possessed\neven to the height of fanaticism, leading them to exclude from their\nideas of a commonwealth the vital principle of the physical, the moral,\nand the political world engages them in a thousand absurd contrivances\nto fill up this dreadful void. Incapable of innoxious repose or\nhonorable action or wise speculation in the lurking-holes of a foreign\nland, into which (in a common ruin) they are driven to hide their heads\namongst the innocent victims of their madness, they are at this very\nhour as busy in the confection of the dirt-pies of their imaginary\nconstitutions as if they had not been quite fresh from destroying, by\ntheir impious and desperate vagaries, the finest country upon earth.\n\nIt is, however, out of these, or of such as these, guilty and\nimpenitent, despising the experience of others, and their own, that some\npeople talk of choosing their negotiators with those Jacobins who they\nsuppose may be recovered to a sounder mind. They flatter themselves, it\nseems, that the friendly habits formed during their original partnership\nof iniquity, a similarity of character, and a conformity in the\ngroundwork of their principles, might facilitate their conversion, and\ngain them over to some recognition of royalty. But surely this is to\nread human nature very ill. The several sectaries in this schism of the\nJacobins are the very last men in the world to trust each other.\nFellowship in treason is a bad ground of confidence. The last quarrels\nare the sorest; and the injuries received or offered by your own\nassociates are ever the most bitterly resented. The people of France, of\nevery name and description, would a thousand times sooner listen to the\nPrince de Cond\u00e9, or to the Archbishop of Aix, or the Bishop of St. Pol,\nor to Monsieur de Cazal\u00e8s, then to La Fayette, or Dumouriez, or the\nVicomte de Noailles, or the Bishop of Autun, or Necker, or his disciple\nLally Tollendal. Against the first description they have not the\nsmallest animosity, beyond that of a merely political dissension. The\nothers they regard as traitors.\n\nThe first description is that of the Christian Royalists, men who as\nearnestly wished for reformation, as they opposed innovation in the\nfundamental parts of their Church and State. _Their_ part has been _very\ndecided_. Accordingly, they are to be set aside in the restoration of\nChurch and State. It is an odd kind of disqualification, where the\nrestoration of religion and monarchy is the question. If England should\n(God forbid it should!) fall into the same misfortune with France, and\nthat the court of Vienna should undertake the restoration of our\nmonarchy, I think it would be extraordinary to object to the admission\nof Mr. Pitt or Lord Grenville or Mr. Dundas into any share in the\nmanagement of that business, because in a day of trial they have stood\nup firmly and manfully, as I trust they always will do, and with\ndistinguished powers, for the monarchy and the legitimate Constitution\nof their country. I am sure, if I were to suppose myself at Vienna at\nsuch a time, I should, as a man, as an Englishman, and as a Royalist,\nprotest in that case, as I do in this, against a weak and ruinous\nprinciple of proceeding, which can have no other tendency than to make\nthose who wish to support the crown meditate too profoundly on the\nconsequences of the part they take, and consider whether for their open\nand forward zeal in the royal cause they may not be thrust out from any\nsort of confidence and employment, where the interest of crowned heads\nis concerned.\n\nThese are the _parties_. I have said, and said truly, that I know of no\nneutrals. But, as a general observation on this general principle of\nchoosing neutrals on such occasions as the present, I have this to say,\nthat it amounts to neither more nor less than this shocking\nproposition,--that we ought to exclude men of honor and ability from\nserving theirs and our cause, and to put the dearest interests of\nourselves and our posterity into the hands of men of no decided\ncharacter, without judgment to choose and without courage to profess any\nprinciple whatsoever.\n\nSuch men can serve no cause, for this plain reason,--they have no cause\nat heart. They can, at best, work only as mere mercenaries. They have\nnot been guilty of great crimes; but it is only because they have not\nenergy of mind to rise to any height of wickedness. They are not hawks\nor kites: they are only miserable fowls whose flight is not above their\ndunghill or hen-roost. But they tremble before the authors of these\nhorrors. They admire them at a safe and respectful distance. There never\nwas a mean and abject mind that did not admire an intrepid and dexterous\nvillain. In the bottom of their hearts they believe such hardy\nmiscreants to be the only men qualified for great affairs. If you set\nthem to transact with such persons, they are instantly subdued. They\ndare not so much as look their antagonist in the face. They are made to\nbe their subjects, not to be their arbiters or controllers.\n\nThese men, to be sure, can look at atrocious acts without indignation,\nand can behold suffering virtue without sympathy. Therefore they are\nconsidered as sober, dispassionate men. But they have their passions,\nthough of another kind, and which are infinitely more likely to carry\nthem out of the path of their duty. They are of a tame, timid, languid,\ninert temper, wherever the welfare of _others_ is concerned. In such\ncauses, as they have no motives to action, they never possess any real\nability, and are totally destitute of all resource.\n\nBelieve a man who has seen much and observed something. I have seen, in\nthe course of my life, a great many of that family of men. They are\ngenerally chosen because they have no opinion of their own; and as far\nas they can be got in good earnest to embrace any opinion, it is that of\nwhoever happens to employ them, (neither longer nor shorter, narrower\nnor broader,) with whom they have no discussion or consultation. The\nonly thing which occurs to such a man, when he has got a business for\nothers into his hands, is, how to make his own fortune out of it. The\nperson he is to treat with is not, with him, an adversary over whom he\nis to prevail, but a new friend he is to gain; therefore he always\nsystematically betrays some part of his trust. Instead of thinking how\nhe shall defend his ground to the last, and, if forced to retreat, how\nlittle he shall give up, this kind of man considers how much of the\ninterest of his employer he is to sacrifice to his adversary. Having\nnothing but himself in view, he knows, that, in serving his principal\nwith zeal, he must probably incur some resentment from the opposite\nparty. His object is, to obtain the good-will of the person with whom he\ncontends, that, when an agreement is made, he may join in rewarding him.\nI would not take one of these as my arbitrator in a dispute for so much\nas a fish-pond; for, if he reserved the mud to me, he would be sure to\ngive the water that fed the pool to my adversary. In a great cause, I\nshould certainly wish that my agent should possess conciliating\nqualities: that he should be of a frank, open, and candid disposition,\nsoft in his nature, and of a temper to soften animosities and to win\nconfidence. He ought not to be a man odious to the person he treats\nwith, by personal injury, by violence, or by deceit, or, above all, by\nthe dereliction of his cause in any former transactions. But I would be\nsure that my negotiator should be _mine_,--that he should be as earnest\nin the cause as myself, and known to be so,--that he should not be\nlooked upon as a stipendiary advocate, but as a principled partisan. In\nall treaty it is a great point that all idea of gaining your agent is\nhopeless. I would not trust the cause of royalty with a man who,\nprofessing neutrality, is half a republican. The enemy has already a\ngreat part of his suit without a struggle,--and he contends with\nadvantage for all the rest. The common principle allowed between your\nadversary and your agent gives your adversary the advantage in every\ndiscussion.\n\nBefore I shut up this discourse about neutral agency, (which I conceive\nis not to be found, or, if found, ought not to be used,) I have a few\nother remarks to make on the cause which I conceive gives rise to it.\n\nIn all that we do, whether in the struggle or after it, it is necessary\nthat we should constantly have in our eye the nature and character of\nthe enemy we have to contend with. The Jacobin Revolution is carried on\nby men of no rank, of no consideration, of wild, savage minds, full of\nlevity, arrogance, and presumption, without morals, without probity,\nwithout prudence. What have they, then, to supply their innumerable\ndefects, and to make them terrible even to the firmest minds? _One_\nthing, and _one_ thing only,--but that one thing is worth a\nthousand;--they have _energy_. In France, all things being put into an\nuniversal ferment, in the decomposition of society, no man comes forward\nbut by his spirit of enterprise and the vigor of his mind. If we meet\nthis dreadful and portentous energy, restrained by no consideration of\nGod or man, that is always vigilant, always on the attack, that allows\nitself no repose, and suffers none to rest an hour with impunity,--if we\nmeet this energy with poor commonplace proceeding, with trivial maxims,\npaltry old saws, with doubts, fears, and suspicions, with a languid,\nuncertain hesitation, with a formal, official spirit, which is turned\naside by every obstacle from its purpose, and which never sees a\ndifficulty but to yield to it, or at best to evade it,--down we go to\nthe bottom of the abyss, and nothing short of Omnipotence can save us.\nWe must meet a vicious and distempered energy with a manly and rational\nvigor. As virtue is limited in its resources, we are doubly bound to use\nall that in the circle drawn about us by our morals we are able to\ncommand.\n\nI do not contend against the advantages of distrust. In the world we\nlive in it is but too necessary. Some of old called it the very sinews\nof discretion. But what signify commonplaces that always run parallel\nand equal? Distrust is good, or it is bad, according to our position and\nour purpose. Distrust is a defensive principle. They who have much to\nlose have much to fear. But in France we hold nothing. We are to break\nin upon a power in possession; we are to carry everything by storm, or\nby surprise, or by intelligence, or by all. Adventure, therefore, and\nnot caution, is our policy. Here to be too presuming is the better\nerror.\n\nThe world will judge of the spirit of our proceeding in those places of\nFrance which may fall into our power by our conduct in those that are\nalready in our hands. Our wisdom should not be vulgar. Other times,\nperhaps other measures; but in this awful hour our politics ought to be\nmade up of nothing but courage, decision, manliness, and rectitude. We\nshould have all the magnanimity of good faith. This is a royal and\ncommanding policy; and as long as we are true to it, we may give the\nlaw. Never can we assume this command, if we will not risk the\nconsequences. For which reason we ought to be bottomed enough in\nprinciple not to be carried away upon the first prospect of any sinister\nadvantage. For depend upon it, that, if we once give way to a sinister\ndealing, we shall teach others the game, and we shall be outwitted and\noverborne; the Spaniards, the Prussians, God knows who, will put us\nunder contribution at their pleasure; and instead of being at the head\nof a great confederacy, and the arbiters of Europe, we shall, by our\nmistakes, break up a great design into a thousand little selfish\nquarrels, the enemy will triumph, and we shall sit down under the terms\nof unsafe and dependent peace, weakened, mortified, and disgraced,\nwhilst all Europe, England included, is left open and defenceless on\nevery part, to Jacobin principles, intrigues, and arms. In the case of\nthe king of France, declared to be our friend and ally, we will still be\nconsidering ourselves in the contradictory character of an enemy. This\ncontradiction, I am afraid, will, in spite of us, give a color of fraud\nto all our transactions, or at least will so complicate our politics\nthat we shall ourselves be inextricably entangled in them.\n\nI have Toulon in my eye. It was with infinite sorrow I heard, that, in\ntaking the king of France's fleet in trust, we instantly unrigged and\ndismasted the ships, instead of keeping them in a condition to escape in\ncase of disaster, and in order to fulfil our trust,--that is, to hold\nthem for the use of the owner, and in the mean time to employ them for\nour common service. These ships are now so circumstanced, that, if we\nare forced to evacuate Toulon, they must fall into the hands of the\nenemy or be burnt by ourselves. I know this is by some considered as a\nfine thing for us. But the Athenians ought not to be better than the\nEnglish, or Mr. Pitt less virtuous than Aristides.\n\nAre we, then, so poor in resources that we can do no better with\neighteen or twenty ships of the line than to burn them? Had we sent for\nFrench Royalist naval officers, of which some hundreds are to be had,\nand made them select such seamen as they could trust, and filled the\nrest with our own and Mediterranean seamen, which are all over Italy to\nbe had by thousands, and put them under judicious English\ncommanders-in-chief, and with a judicious mixture of our own\nsubordinates, the West Indies would at this day have been ours. It may\nbe said that these French officers would take them for the king of\nFrance, and that they would not be in our power. Be it so. The islands\nwould not be ours, but they would not be Jacobinized. This is, however,\na thing impossible. They must in effect and substance be ours. But all\nis upon that false principle of distrust, which, not confiding in\nstrength, can never have the full use of it. They that pay, and feed,\nand equip, must direct. But I must speak plain upon this subject. The\nFrench islands, if they were all our own, ought not to be all kept. A\nfair partition only ought to be made of those territories. This is a\nsubject of policy very serious, which has many relations and aspects.\nJust here I only hint at it as answering an objection, whilst I state\nthe mischievous consequences which suffer us to be surprised into a\nvirtual breach of faith by confounding our ally with our enemy, because\nthey both belong to the same geographical territory.\n\nMy clear opinion is, that Toulon ought to be made, what we set out with,\na royal French city. By the necessity of the case, it must be under the\ninfluence, civil and military, of the allies. But the only way of\nkeeping that jealous and discordant mass from tearing its component\nparts to pieces, and hazarding the loss of the whole, is, to put the\nplace into the nominal government of the regent, his officers being\napproved by us. This, I say, is absolutely necessary for a poise amongst\nourselves. Otherwise is it to be believed that the Spaniards, who hold\nthat place with us in a sort of partnership, contrary to our mutual\ninterest, will see us absolute masters of the Mediterranean, with\nGibraltar on one side and Toulon on the other, with a quiet and composed\nmind, whilst we do little less than declare that we are to take the\nwhole West Indies into our hands, leaving the vast, unwieldy, and feeble\nbody of the Spanish dominions in that part of the world absolutely at\nour mercy, without any power to balance us in the smallest degree?\nNothing is so fatal to a nation as an extreme of self-partiality, and\nthe total want of consideration of what others will naturally hope or\nfear. Spain must think she sees that we are taking advantage of the\nconfusions which reign in France to disable that country, and of course\nevery country, from affording her protection, and in the end to turn the\nSpanish monarchy into a province. If she saw things in a proper point of\nlight, to be sure, she would not consider any other plan of politics as\nof the least moment in comparison of the extinction of Jacobinism. But\nher ministers (to say the best of them) are vulgar politicians. It is no\nwonder that they should postpone this great point, or balance it by\nconsiderations of the common politics, that is, the questions of power\nbetween _state and state_. If we manifestly endeavor to destroy the\nbalance, especially the maritime and commercial balance, both in Europe\nand the West Indies, (the latter their sore and vulnerable part,) from\nfear of what France may do for Spain hereafter, is it to be wondered\nthat Spain, infinitely weaker than we are, (weaker, indeed, than such a\nmass of empire ever was,) should feel the same fears from our\nuncontrolled power that we give way to ourselves from a supposed\nresurrection of the ancient power of France under a monarchy? It\nsignifies nothing whether we are wrong or right in the abstract; but in\nrespect to our relation to Spain, with such principles followed up in\npractice, it is absolutely impossible that any cordial alliance can\nsubsist between the two nations. If Spain goes, Naples will speedily\nfollow. Prussia is quite certain, and thinks of nothing but making a\nmarket of the present confusions. Italy is broken and divided.\nSwitzerland is Jacobinized, I am afraid, completely. I have long seen\nwith pain the progress of French principles in that country. Things\ncannot go on upon the present bottom. The possession of Toulon, which,\nwell managed, might be of the greatest advantage, will be the greatest\nmisfortune that ever happened to this nation. The more we multiply\ntroops there, the more we shall multiply causes and means of quarrel\namongst ourselves. I know but one way of avoiding it, which is, to give\na greater degree of simplicity to our politics. Our situation does\nnecessarily render them a good deal involved. And to this evil, instead\nof increasing it, we ought to apply all the remedies in our power.\n\nSee what is in that place the consequence (to say nothing of every\nother) of this complexity. Toulon has, as it were, two gates,--an\nEnglish and a Spanish. The English gate is by our policy fast barred\nagainst the entrance of any Royalists. The Spaniards open theirs, I\nfear, upon no fixed principle, and with very little judgment. By means,\nhowever, of this foolish, mean, and jealous policy on our side, all the\nRoyalists whom the English might select as most practicable, and most\nsubservient to honest views, are totally excluded. Of those admitted the\nSpaniards are masters. As to the inhabitants, they are a nest of\nJacobins, which is delivered into our hands, not from principle, but\nfrom fear. The inhabitants of Toulon may be described in a few words. It\nis _differtum nautis, cauponibus atque malignis_. The rest of the\nseaports are of the same description.\n\nAnother thing which I cannot account for is, the sending for the Bishop\nof Toulon and afterwards forbidding his entrance. This is as directly\ncontrary to the declaration as it is to the practice of the allied\npowers. The king of Prussia did better. When he took Verdun, he actually\nreinstated the bishop and his chapter. When he thought he should be the\nmaster of Chalons, he called the bishop from Flanders, to put him into\npossession. The Austrians have restored the clergy wherever they\nobtained possession. We have proposed to restore religion as well as\nmonarchy; and in Toulon we have restored neither the one nor the other.\nIt is very likely that the Jacobin _sans-culottes_, or some of them,\nobjected to this measure, who rather choose to have the atheistic\nbuffoons of clergy they have got to sport with, till they are ready to\ncome forward, with the rest of their worthy brethren, in Paris and other\nplaces, to declare that they are a set of impostors, that they never\nbelieved in God, and never will preach any sort of religion. If we give\nway to our Jacobins in this point, it is fully and fairly putting the\ngovernment, civil and ecclesiastical, not in the king of France, to\nwhom, as the protector and governor, and in substance the head of the\nGallican Church, the nomination to the bishoprics belonged, and who made\nthe Bishop of Toulon,--it does not leave it with him, or even in the\nhands of the king of England, or the king of Spain,--but in the basest\nJacobins of a low seaport, to exercise, _pro tempore_, the sovereignty.\nIf this point of religion is thus given up, the grand instrument for\nreclaiming France is abandoned. We cannot, if we would, delude ourselves\nabout the true state of this dreadful contest. _It is a religious war_.\nIt includes in its object, undoubtedly, every other interest of society\nas well as this; but this is the principal and leading feature. It is\nthrough this destruction of religion that our enemies propose the\naccomplishment of all their other views. The French Revolution, impious\nat once and fanatical, had no other plan for domestic power and foreign\nempire. Look at all the proceedings of the National Assembly, from the\nfirst day of declaring itself such, in the year 1789, to this very hour,\nand you will find full half of their business to be directly on this\nsubject. In fact, it is the spirit of the whole. The religious system,\ncalled the Constitutional Church, was, on the face of the whole\nproceeding, set up only as a mere temporary amusement to the people, and\nso constantly stated in all their conversations, till the time should\ncome when they might with safety cast off the very appearance of all\nreligion whatsoever, and persecute Christianity throughout Europe with\nfire and sword. The Constitutional clergy are not the ministers of any\nreligion: they are the agents and instruments of this horrible\nconspiracy against all morals. It was from a sense of this, that, in the\nEnglish addition to the articles proposed at St. Domingo, tolerating all\nreligions, we very wisely refused to suffer that kind of traitors and\nbuffoons.\n\nThis religious war is not a controversy between sect and sect, as\nformerly, but a war against all sects and all religions. The question is\nnot, whether you are to overturn the Catholic, to set up the Protestant.\nSuch an idea, in the present state of the world, is too contemptible.\nOur business is, to leave to the schools the discussion of the\ncontroverted points, abating as much as we can the acrimony of\ndisputants on all sides. It is for Christian statesmen, as the world is\nnow circumstanced, to secure their common basis, and not to risk the\nsubversion of the whole fabric by pursuing these distinctions with an\nill-timed zeal. We have in the present grand alliance all modes of\ngovernment, as well as all modes of religion. In government, we mean to\nrestore that which, notwithstanding our diversity of forms, we are all\nagreed in as fundamental in government. The same principle ought to\nguide us in the religious part: conforming the mode, not to our\nparticular ideas, (for in that point we have no ideas in common,) but to\nwhat will best promote the great, general ends of the alliance. As\nstatesmen, we are to see which of those modes best suits with the\ninterests of such a commonwealth as we wish to secure and promote. There\ncan be no doubt but that the Catholic religion, which is fundamentally\nthe religion of France, must go with the monarchy of France. We know\nthat the monarchy did not survive the hierarchy, no, not even in\nappearance, for many months,--in substance, not for a single hour. As\nlittle can it exist in future, if that pillar is taken away, or even\nshattered and impaired.\n\nIf it should please God to give to the allies the means of restoring\npeace and order in that focus of war and confusion, I would, as I said\nin the beginning of this memorial, first replace the whole of the old\nclergy; because we have proof more than sufficient, that, whether they\nerr or not in the scholastic disputes with us, they are not tainted with\natheism, the great political evil of the time. I hope I need not\napologize for this phrase, as if I thought religion nothing but policy:\nit is far from my thoughts, and I hope it is not to be inferred from my\nexpressions. But in the light of policy alone I am here considering the\nquestion. I speak of policy, too, in a large light; in which large\nlight, policy, too, is a sacred thing.\n\nThere are many, perhaps half a million or more, calling themselves\nProtestants, in the South of France, and in other of the provinces. Some\nraise them to a much greater number; but I think this nearer to the\nmark. I am sorry to say that they have behaved shockingly since the very\nbeginning of this rebellion, and have been uniformly concerned in its\nworst and most atrocious acts. Their clergy are just the same atheists\nwith those of the Constitutional Catholics, but still more wicked and\ndaring. Three of their number have met from their republican associates\nthe reward of their crimes.\n\nAs the ancient Catholic religion is to be restored for the body of\nFrance, the ancient Calvinistic religion ought to be restored for the\nProtestants, with every kind of protection and privilege. But not one\nminister concerned in this rebellion ought to be suffered amongst them.\nIf they have not clergy of their own, men well recommended, as untainted\nwith Jacobinism, by the synods of those places where Calvinism prevails\nand French is spoken, ought to be sought. Many such there are. The\nPresbyterian discipline ought, in my opinion, to be established in its\nvigor, and the people professing it ought to be bound to its\nmaintenance. No man, under the false and hypocritical pretence of\nliberty of conscience, ought to be suffered to have no conscience at\nall. The king's commissioner ought also to sit in their synods, as\nbefore the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. I am conscious that this\ndiscipline disposes men to republicanism: but it is still a discipline,\nand it is a cure (such as it is) for the perverse and undisciplined\nhabits which for some time have prevailed. Republicanism repressed may\nhave its use in the composition of a state. Inspection may be\npracticable, and responsibility in the teachers and elders may be\nestablished, in such an hierarchy as the Presbyterian. For a time like\nours, it is a great point gained, that people should be taught to meet,\nto combine, and to be classed and arrayed in some other way than in\nclubs of Jacobins. If it be not the best mode of Protestantism under a\nmonarchy, it is still an orderly Christian church, orthodox in the\nfundamentals, and, what is to our point, capable enough of rendering men\nuseful citizens. It was the impolitic abolition of their discipline,\nwhich exposed them to the wild opinions and conduct that have prevailed\namongst the Huguenots. The toleration in 1787 was owing to the good\ndisposition of the late king; but it was modified by the profligate\nfolly of his atheistic minister, the Cardinal de Lom\u00e9nie. This\nmischievous minister did not follow, in the edict of toleration, the\nwisdom of the Edict of Nantes. But his toleration was granted to\n_non-Catholics_,--a dangerous word, which might signify anything, and\nwas but too expressive of a fatal indifference with regard to all piety.\nI speak for myself: I do not wish any man to be converted from his sect.\nThe distinctions which we have reformed from animosity to emulation may\nbe even useful to the cause of religion. By some moderate contention\nthey keep alive zeal. Whereas people who change, except under strong\nconviction, (a thing now rather rare,) the religion of their early\nprejudices, especially if the conversion is brought about by any\npolitical machine, are very apt to degenerate into indifference, laxity,\nand often downright atheism.\n\nAnother political question arises about the mode of government which\nought to be established. I think the proclamation (which I read before I\nhad proceeded far in this memorial) puts it on the best footing, by\npostponing that arrangement to a time of peace.\n\nWhen our politics lead us to enterprise a great and almost total\npolitical revolution in Europe, we ought to look seriously into the\nconsequences of what we are about to do. Some eminent persons discover\nan apprehension that the monarchy, if restored in France, may be\nrestored in too great strength for the liberty and happiness of the\nnatives, and for the tranquillity of other states. They are therefore of\nopinion that terms ought to be made for the modification of that\nmonarchy. They are persons too considerable, from the powers of their\nmind, and from their situation, as well as from the real respect I have\nfor them, who seem to entertain these apprehensions, to let me pass them\nby unnoticed.\n\nAs to the power of France as a state, and in its exterior relations, I\nconfess my fears are on the part of its extreme reduction. There is\nundoubtedly something in the vicinity of France, which makes it\nnaturally and properly an object of our watchfulness and jealousy,\nwhatever form its government may take. But the difference is great\nbetween a plan for our own security and a scheme for the utter\ndestruction of France. If there were no other countries in the political\nmap but these two, I admit that policy might justify a wish to lower our\nneighbor to a standard which would even render her in some measure, if\nnot wholly, our dependant. But the system of Europe is extensive and\nextremely complex. However formidable to us, as taken in this one\nrelation, France is not equally dreadful to all other states. On the\ncontrary, my clear opinion is, that the liberties of Europe cannot\npossibly be preserved but by her remaining a very great and\npreponderating power. The design at present evidently pursued by the\ncombined potentates, or of the two who lead, is totally to destroy her\nas such a power. For Great Britain resolves that she shall have no\ncolonies, no commerce, and no marine. Austria means to take away the\nwhole frontier, from the borders of Switzerland to Dunkirk. It is their\nplan also to render the interior government lax and feeble, by\nprescribing, by force of the arms of rival and jealous nations, and\nwithout consulting the natural interests of the kingdom, such\narrangements as, in the actual state of Jacobinism in France, and the\nunsettled state in which property must remain for a long time, will\ninevitably produce such distraction and debility in government as to\nreduce it to nothing, or to throw it back into its old confusion. One\ncannot conceive so frightful a state of a nation. A maritime country\nwithout a marine and without commerce; a continental country without a\nfrontier, and for a thousand miles surrounded with powerful, warlike,\nand ambitious neighbors! It is possible that she might submit to lose\nher commerce and her colonies: her security she never can abandon. If,\ncontrary to all expectations, under such a disgraced and impotent\ngovernment, any energy should remain in that country, she will make\nevery effort to recover her security, which will involve Europe for a\ncentury in war and blood. What has it cost to France to make that\nfrontier? What will it cost to recover it? Austria thinks that without a\nfrontier she cannot secure the _Netherlands_. But without her frontier\nFrance cannot secure _herself_. Austria has been, however, secure for an\nhundred years in those very Netherlands, and has never been dispossessed\nof them by the chance of war without a moral certainty of receiving them\nagain on the restoration of peace. Her late dangers have arisen not from\nthe power or ambition of the king of France. They arose from her own ill\npolicy, which dismantled all her towns, and discontented all her\nsubjects by Jacobinical innovations. She dismantles her own towns, and\nthen says, \"Give me the frontier of France!\" But let us depend upon it,\nwhatever tends, under the name of security, to aggrandize Austria, will\ndiscontent and alarm Prussia. Such a length of frontier on the side of\nFrance, separated from itself, and separated from the mass of the\nAustrian country, will be weak, unless connected at the expense of the\nElector of Bavaria (the Elector Palatine) and other lesser princes, or\nby such exchanges as will again convulse the Empire.\n\nTake it the other way, and let us suppose that France so broken in\nspirit as to be content to remain naked and defenceless by sea and by\nland. Is such a country no prey? Have other nations no views? Is Poland\nthe only country of which it is worth while to make a partition? We\ncannot be so childish as to imagine that ambition is local, and that no\nothers can be infected with it but those who rule within certain\nparallels of latitude and longitude. In this way I hold war equally\ncertain. But I can conceive that both these principles may operate:\nambition on the part of Austria to cut more and more from France; and\nFrench impatience under her degraded and unsafe condition. In such a\ncontest will the other powers stand by? Will not Prussia call for\nindemnity, as well as Austria and England? Is she satisfied with her\ngains in Poland? By no means. Germany must pay; or we shall infallibly\nsee Prussia leagued with France and Spain, and possibly with other\npowers, for the reduction of Austria; and such may be the situation of\nthings, that it will not be so easy to decide what part England may take\nin such a contest.\n\nI am well aware how invidious a task it is to oppose anything which\ntends to the apparent aggrandizement of our own country. But I think no\ncountry can be aggrandized whilst France is Jacobinized. This post\nremoved, it will be a serious question how far her further reduction\nwill contribute to the general safety, which I always consider as\nincluded. Among precautions against ambition, it may not be amiss to\ntake one precaution against our _own_. I must fairly say, I dread our\n_own_ power and our _own_ ambition; I dread our being too much dreaded.\nIt is ridiculous to say we are not men, and that, as men, we shall never\nwish to aggrandize ourselves in some way or other. Can we say that even\nat this very hour we are not invidiously aggrandized? We are already in\npossession of almost all the commerce of the world. Our empire in India\nis an awful thing. If we should come to be in a condition not only to\nhave all this ascendant in commerce, but to be absolutely able, without\nthe least control, to hold the commerce of all other nations totally\ndependent upon our good pleasure, we may say that we shall not abuse\nthis astonishing and hitherto unheard-of power. But every other nation\nwill think we shall abuse it. It is impossible but that, sooner or\nlater, this state of things must produce a combination against us which\nmay end in our ruin.\n\nAs to France, I must observe that for a long time she has been\nstationary. She has, during this whole century, obtained far less by\nconquest or negotiation than any of the three great Continental powers.\nSome part of Lorraine excepted, I recollect nothing she has gained,--no,\nnot a village. In truth, this Lorraine acquisition does little more than\nsecure her barrier. In effect and substance it was her own before.\n\nHowever that may be, I consider these things at present chiefly in one\npoint of view, as obstructions to the war on Jacobinism, which _must_\nstand as long as the powers think its extirpation but a _secondary_\nobject, and think of taking advantage, under the name of _indemnity_ and\n_security_, to make war upon the whole nation of France, royal and\nJacobin, for the aggrandizement of the allies, on the ordinary\nprinciples of interest, as if no Jacobinism existed in the world.\n\nSo far is France from being formidable to its neighbors for its domestic\nstrength, that I conceive it will be as much as all its neighbors can\ndo, by a steady guaranty, to keep that monarchy at all upon its basis.\nIt will be their business to nurse France, not to exhaust it. France,\nsuch as it is, is indeed highly formidable: not formidable, however, as\na great republic; but as the most dreadful gang of robbers and murderers\nthat ever was embodied. But this distempered strength of France will be\nthe cause of proportionable weakness on its recovery. Never was a\ncountry so completely ruined; and they who calculate the resurrection of\nher power by former examples have not sufficiently considered what is\nthe present state of things. Without detailing the inventory of what\norgans of government have been destroyed, together with the very\nmaterials of which alone they can be recomposed, I wish it to be\nconsidered what an operose affair the whole system of taxation is in the\nold states of Europe. It is such as never could be made but in a long\ncourse of years. In France all taxes are abolished. The present powers\nresort to the capital, and to the capital in kind. But a savage,\nundisciplined people suffer a _robbery_ with more patience than an\n_impost_. The former is in their habits and their dispositions. They\nconsider it as transient, and as what, in their turn, they may exercise.\nBut the terrors of the present power are such as no regular government\ncan possibly employ. They who enter into France do not succeed to\n_their_ resources. They have not a system to reform, but a system to\nbegin. The whole estate of government is to be reacquired.\n\nWhat difficulties this will meet with in a country exhausted by the\ntaking of the capital, and among a people in a manner new-principled,\ntrained, and actually disciplined to anarchy, rebellion, disorder, and\nimpiety, may be conceived by those who know what Jacobin France is, and\nwho may have occupied themselves by revolving in their thoughts what\nthey were to do, if it fell to their lot to re\u00ebstablish the affairs of\nFrance. What support or what limitations the restored monarchy must have\nmay be a doubt, or how it will pitch and settle at last. But one thing I\nconceive to be far beyond a doubt: that the settlement cannot be\nimmediate; but that it must be preceded by some sort of power, equal at\nleast in vigor, vigilance, promptitude, and decision, to a military\ngovernment. For such a _preparatory_ government, no slow-paced,\nmethodical, formal, lawyer-like system, still less that of a showy,\nsuperficial, trifling, intriguing court, guided by cabals of ladies, or\nof men like ladies, least of all a philosophic, theoretic, disputatious\nschool of sophistry,--none of these ever will or ever can lay the\nfoundations of an order that can last. Whoever claims a right by birth\nto govern there must find in his breast, or must conjure up in it, an\nenergy not to be expected, perhaps not always to be wished for, in\nwell-ordered states. The lawful prince must have, in everything but\ncrime, the character of an usurper. He is gone, if he imagines himself\nthe quiet possessor of a throne. He is to contend for it as much after\nan apparent conquest as before. His task is, to win it: he must leave\nposterity to enjoy and to adorn it. No velvet cushions for him. He is to\nbe always (I speak nearly to the letter) on horseback. This opinion is\nthe result of much patient thinking on the subject, which I conceive no\nevent is likely to alter.\n\nA valuable friend of mine, who I hope will conduct these affairs, so far\nas they fall to his share, with great ability, asked me what I thought\nof acts of general indemnity and oblivion, as a means of settling\nFrance, and reconciling it to monarchy. Before I venture upon any\nopinion of my own in this matter, I totally disclaim the interference of\nforeign powers in a business that properly belongs to the government\nwhich we have declared legal. That government is likely to be the best\njudge of what is to be done towards the security of that kingdom, which\nit is their duty and their interest to provide for by such measures of\njustice or of lenity as at the time they should find best. But if we\nweaken it not only by arbitrary limitations of our own, but preserve\nsuch persons in it as are disposed to disturb its future peace, as they\nhave its past, I do not know how a more direct declaration can be made\nof a disposition to perpetual hostility against a government. The\npersons saved from the justice of the native magistrate by foreign\nauthority will owe nothing to his clemency. He will, and must, look to\nthose to whom he is indebted for the power he has of dispensing it. A\nJacobin faction, constantly fostered with the nourishment of foreign\nprotection, will be kept alive.\n\nThis desire of securing the safety of the actors in the present scene is\nowing to more laudable motives. Ministers have been made to consider the\nbrothers of the late merciful king, and the nobility of France who have\nbeen faithful to their honor and duty, as a set of inexorable and\nremorseless tyrants. How this notion has been infused into them I cannot\nbe quite certain. I am sure it is not justified by anything they have\ndone. Never were the two princes guilty, in the day of their power, of a\nsingle hard or ill-natured act. No one instance of cruelty on the part\nof the gentlemen ever came to my ears. It is true that the _English_\nJacobins, (the natives have not thought of it,) as an excuse for their\ninfernal system of murder, have so represented them. It is on this\nprinciple that the massacres in the month of September, 1792, were\njustified by a writer in the Morning Chronicle. _He_ says, indeed, that\n\"the whole French nation is to be given up to the hands of an irritated\nand revengeful noblesse\";--and, judging of others by himself and his\nbrethren, he says, \"Whoever succeeds in a civil war will be cruel. But\nhere the emigrants, flying to revenge in the cars of military victory,\nwill almost insatiably call for their victims and their booty; and a\nbody of emigrant traitors were attending the King of Prussia and the\nDuke of Brunswick, to suggest the most sanguinary counsels.\" So says\nthis wicked Jacobin; but so cannot say the King of Prussia nor the Duke\nof Brunswick, who never did receive any sanguinary counsel; nor did the\nking's brothers, or that great body of gentlemen who attended those\nprinces, commit one single cruel action, or hurt the person or property\nof one individual. It would be right to quote the instance. It is like\nthe military luxury attributed to these unfortunate sufferers in our\ncommon cause.\n\nIf these princes had shown a tyrannic disposition, it would be much to\nbe lamented. We have no others to govern France. If we screened the body\nof murderers from their justice, we should only leave the innocent in\nfuture to the mercy of men of fierce and sanguinary dispositions, of\nwhich, in spite of all our intermeddling in their Constitution, we could\nnot prevent the effects. But as we have much more reason to fear their\nfeeble lenity than any blamable rigor, we ought, in my opinion, to leave\nthe matter to themselves.\n\nIf, however, I were asked to give an advice merely as such, here are my\nideas. I am not for a total indemnity, nor a general punishment. And\nfirst, the body and mass of the people never ought to be treated as\ncriminal. They may become an object of more or less constant\nwatchfulness and suspicion, as their preservation may best require, but\nthey can never become an object of punishment. This is one of the few\nfundamental and unalterable principles of politics.\n\nTo punish them capitally would be to make massacres. Massacres only\nincrease the ferocity of men, and teach them to regard their own lives\nand those of others as of little value; whereas the great policy of\ngovernment is, to teach the people to think both of great importance in\nthe eyes of God and the state, and never to be sacrificed or even\nhazarded to gratify their passions, or for anything but the duties\nprescribed by the rules of morality, and under the direction of public\nlaw and public authority. To punish them with lesser penalties would be\nto debilitate the commonwealth, and make the nation miserable, which it\nis the business of government to render happy and flourishing.\n\nAs to crimes, too, I would draw a strong line of limitation. For no one\noffence, _politically an offence of rebellion_, by council, contrivance,\npersuasion, or compulsion, for none properly a _military offence of\nrebellion_, or anything done by open hostility in the field, should any\nman at all be called in question; because such seems to be the proper\nand natural death of civil dissensions. The offences of war are\nobliterated by peace.\n\nAnother class will of course be included in the indemnity,--namely, all\nthose who by their activity in restoring lawful government shall\nobliterate their offences. The offence previously known, the acceptance\nof service is a pardon for crimes. I fear that this class of men will\nnot be very numerous.\n\nSo far as to indemnity. But where are the objects of justice, and of\nexample, and of future security to the public peace? They are naturally\npointed out, not by their having outraged political and civil laws, nor\ntheir having rebelled against the state as a state, but by their having\nrebelled against the law of Nature and outraged man as man. In this\nlist, all the regicides in general, all those who laid sacrilegious\nhands on the king, who, without anything in their own rebellious mission\nto the Convention to justify them, brought him to his trial and\nunanimously voted him guilty,--all those who had a share in the cruel\nmurder of the queen, and the detestable proceedings with regard to the\nyoung king and the unhappy princesses,--all those who committed\ncold-blooded murder anywhere, and particularly in their revolutionary\ntribunals, where every idea of natural justice and of their own declared\nrights of man have been trod under foot with the most insolent\nmockery,--all men concerned in the burning and demolition of houses or\nchurches, with audacious and marked acts of sacrilege and scorn offered\nto religion,--in general, all the leaders of Jacobin clubs,--not one of\nthese should escape a punishment suitable to the nature, quality, and\ndegree of their offence, by a steady, but a measured justice.\n\nIn the first place, no man ought to be subject to any penalty, from the\nhighest to the lowest, but by a trial according to the course of law,\ncarried on with all that caution and deliberation which has been used in\nthe best times and precedents of the French jurisprudence, the criminal\nlaw of which country, faulty to be sure in some particulars, was highly\nlaudable and tender of the lives of men. In restoring order and justice,\neverything like retaliation ought to be religiously avoided; and an\nexample ought to be set of a total alienation from the Jacobin\nproceedings in their accursed revolutionary tribunals. Everything like\nlumping men in masses, and of forming tables of proscription, ought to\nbe avoided.\n\nIn all these punishments, anything which can be alleged in mitigation of\nthe offence should be fully considered. Mercy is not a thing opposed to\njustice. It is an essential part of it,--as necessary in criminal cases\nas in civil affairs equity is to law. It is only for the Jacobins never\nto pardon. They have not done it in a single instance. A council of\nmercy ought therefore to be appointed, with powers to report on each\ncase, to soften the penalty, or entirely to remit it, according to\ncircumstances.\n\nWith these precautions, the very first foundation of settlement must be\nto call to a strict account those bloody and merciless offenders.\nWithout it, government cannot stand a year. People little consider the\nutter impossibility of getting those who, having emerged from very low,\nsome from the lowest classes of society, have exercised a power so high,\nand with such unrelenting and bloody a rage, quietly to fall back into\ntheir old ranks, and become humble, peaceable, laborious, and useful\nmembers of society. It never can be. On the other hand, is it to be\nbelieved that any worthy and virtuous subject, restored to the ruins of\nhis house, will with patience see the cold-blooded murderer of his\nfather, mother, wife, or children, or perhaps all of these relations,\n(such things have been,) nose him in his own village, and insult him\nwith the riches acquired from the plunder of his goods, ready again to\nhead a Jacobin faction to attack his life? He is unworthy of the name of\nman who would suffer it. It is unworthy of the name of a government,\nwhich, taking justice out of the private hand, will not exercise it for\nthe injured by the public arm.\n\nI know it sounds plausible, and is readily adopted by those who have\nlittle sympathy with the sufferings of others, to wish to jumble the\ninnocent and guilty into one mass by a general indemnity. This cruel\nindifference dignifies itself with the name of humanity.\n\nIt is extraordinary, that, as the wicked arts of this regicide and\ntyrannous faction increase in number, variety, and atrocity, the desire\nof punishing them becomes more and more faint, and the talk of an\nindemnity towards them every day stronger and stronger. Our ideas of\njustice appear to be fairly conquered and overpowered by guilt, when it\nis grown gigantic. It is not the point of view in which we are in the\nhabit of viewing guilt. The crimes we every day punish are really below\nthe penalties we inflict. The criminals are obscure and feeble. This is\nthe view in which we see ordinary crimes and criminals. But when guilt\nis seen, though but for a time, to be furnished with the arms and to be\ninvested with the robes of power, it seems to assume another nature, and\nto get, as it were, out of our jurisdiction. This I fear is the case\nwith many. But there is another cause full as powerful towards this\nsecurity to enormous guilt,--the desire which possesses people who have\nonce obtained power to enjoy it at their ease. It is not humanity, but\nlaziness and inertness of mind, which produces the desire of this kind\nof indemnities. This description of men love general and short methods.\nIf they punish, they make a promiscuous massacre; if they spare, they\nmake a general act of oblivion. This is a want of disposition to proceed\nlaboriously according to the cases, and according to the rules and\nprinciples of justice on each case: a want of disposition to assort\ncriminals, to discriminate the degrees and modes of guilt, to separate\naccomplices from principals, leaders from followers, seducers from the\nseduced, and then, by following the same principles in the same detail,\nto class punishments, and to fit them to the nature and kind of the\ndelinquency. If that were once attempted, we should soon see that the\ntask was neither infinite nor the execution cruel. There would be\ndeaths, but, for the number of criminals and the extent of France, not\nmany. There would be cases of transportation, cases of labor to restore\nwhat has been wickedly destroyed, cases of imprisonment, and cases of\nmere exile. But be this as it may, I am sure, that, if justice is not\ndone there, there can be neither peace nor justice there, nor in any\npart of Europe.\n\nHistory is resorted to for other acts of indemnity in other times. The\nprinces are desired to look back to Henry the Fourth. We are desired to\nlook to the restoration of King Charles. These things, in my opinion,\nhave no resemblance whatsoever. They were cases of a civil war,--in\nFrance more ferocious, in England more moderate than common. In neither\ncountry were the orders of society subverted, religion and morality\ndestroyed on principle, or property totally annihilated. In England, the\ngovernment of Cromwell was, to be sure, somewhat rigid, but, for a new\npower, no savage tyranny. The country was nearly as well in his hands as\nin those of Charles the Second, and in some points much better. The laws\nin general had their course, and were admirably administered. The king\ndid not in reality grant an act of indemnity; the prevailing power, then\nin a manner the nation, in effect granted an indemnity to _him_. The\nidea of a preceding rebellion was not at all admitted in that\nconvention and that Parliament. The regicides were a common enemy, and\nas such given up.\n\nAmong the ornaments of their place which eminently distinguish them, few\npeople are better acquainted with the history of their own country than\nthe illustrious princes now in exile; but I caution them not to be led\ninto error by that which has been supposed to be the guide of life. I\nwould give the same caution to all princes. Not that I derogate from the\nuse of history. It is a great improver of the understanding, by showing\nboth men and affairs in a great variety of views. From this source much\npolitical wisdom may be learned,--that is, may be learned as habit, not\nas precept,--and as an exercise to strengthen the mind, as furnishing\nmaterials to enlarge and enrich it, not as a repertory of cases and\nprecedents for a lawyer: if it were, a thousand times better would it be\nthat a statesman had never learned to read,--_vellem nescirent literas_.\nThis method turns their understanding from the object before them, and\nfrom the present exigencies of the world, to comparisons with former\ntimes, of which, after all, we can know very little and very\nimperfectly; and our guides, the historians, who are to give us their\ntrue interpretation, are often prejudiced, often ignorant, often fonder\nof system than of truth. Whereas, if a man with reasonable good parts\nand natural sagacity, and not in the leading-strings of any master, will\nlook steadily on the business before him, without being diverted by\nretrospect and comparison, he may be capable of forming a reasonable\ngood judgment of what is to be done. There are some fundamental points\nin which Nature never changes; but they are few and obvious, and belong\nrather to morals than to politics. But so far as regards political\nmatter, the human mind and human affairs are susceptible of infinite\nmodifications, and of combinations wholly new and unlooked-for. Very\nfew, for instance, could have imagined that property, which has been\ntaken for natural dominion, should, through the whole of a vast kingdom,\nlose all its importance, and even its influence. This is what history or\nbooks of speculation could hardly have taught us. How many could have\nthought that the most complete and formidable revolution in a great\nempire should be made by men of letters, not as subordinate instruments\nand trumpeters of sedition, but as the chief contrivers and managers,\nand in a short time as the open administrators and sovereign rulers? Who\ncould have imagined that atheism could produce one of the most violently\noperative principles of fanaticism? Who could have imagined, that, in a\ncommonwealth in a manner cradled in war, and in an extensive and\ndreadful war, military commanders should be of little or no account,\n--that the Convention should not contain one military man of name,--that\nadministrative bodies, in a state of the utmost confusion, and of but a\nmomentary duration, and composed of men with not one imposing part of\ncharacter, should be able to govern the country and its armies with an\nauthority which the most settled senates and the most respected monarchs\nscarcely ever had in the same degree? This, for one, I confess I did not\nforesee, though all the rest was present to me very early, and not out\nof my apprehension even for several years.\n\nI believe very few were able to enter into the effects of mere _terror_,\nas a principle not only for the support of power in given hands or\nforms, but in those things in which the soundest political speculators\nwere of opinion that the least appearance of force would be totally\ndestructive,--such is the market, whether of money, provision, or\ncommodities of any kind. Yet for four years we have seen loans made,\ntreasuries supplied, and armies levied and maintained, more numerous\nthan France ever showed in the field, _by the effects of fear alone_.\n\nHere is a state of things of which in its totality if history furnishes\nany examples at all, they are very remote and feeble. I therefore am not\nso ready as some are to tax with folly or cowardice those who were not\nprepared to meet an evil of this nature. Even now, after the events, all\nthe causes may be somewhat difficult to ascertain. Very many are,\nhowever, traceable. But these things history and books of speculation\n(as I have already said) did not teach men to foresee, and of course to\nresist. Now that they are no longer a matter of sagacity, but of\nexperience, of recent experience, of our own experience, it would be\nunjustifiable to go back to the records of other times to instruct us to\nmanage what they never enabled us to foresee.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[33] Some accounts make them five times as many.\n\n[34] Before the Revolution, the French noblesse were so reduced in\nnumbers that they did not much exceed twenty thousand at least of\nfull-grown men. As they have been very cruelly formed into entire corps\nof soldiers, it is estimated, that, by the sword, and distempers in the\nfield, they have not lost less than five thousand men; and if this\ncourse is pursued, it is to be feared that the whole body of the French\nnobility may be extinguished. Several hundreds have also perished by\nfamine, and various accidents.\n\n[35] This was the language of the Ministerialists.\n\n[36] Vattel.\n\n[37] The first object of this club was the propagation of Jacobin\nprinciples.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\nEXTRACTS FROM VATTEL'S LAW OF NATIONS.\n\n[The Titles, Marginal Abstracts, and Notes are by Mr. BURKE, excepting\nsuch of the Notes as are here distinguished.]\n\n\nCASES OF INTERFERENCE WITH INDEPENDENT POWERS.\n\n\"If, then, there is anywhere a nation of a _restless and mischievous_\ndisposition, always ready _to injure others, to traverse their designs,\nand to raise domestic troubles_[38] it is not to be doubted that all\nhave a right to join _in order to repress, chastise, and put it ever\nafter out of its power_ to injure them. Such should be the just fruits\nof the policy which Machiavel praises in C\u00e6sar Borgia. The conduct\nfollowed by Philip the Second, King of Spain, _was adapted to unite all\nEurope against him_; and it was from just reasons that Henry the Great\nformed the design of humbling a power _formidable by its forces and\npernicious by its maxims_.\"--Book II. ch. iv. \u00a7 53.\n\n\"Let us apply to the unjust what we have said above (\u00a7 53) of a\nmischievous or maleficent nation. If there be any that makes an open\nprofession _of trampling justice under foot, of despising and violating\nthe right of others_,[39] whenever it finds an opportunity, _the\ninterest of human society will authorize all others to unite in order to\nhumble and chastise it_. We do not here forget the maxim established in\nour preliminaries, that it does not belong to nations to usurp the power\nof being judges of each other. In particular cases, liable to the least\ndoubt, it ought to be supposed that each of the parties may have some\nright; and the injustice of that which has committed the injury may\nproceed from error, and not from a general contempt of justice. _But if,\nby constant maxims, and by a continued conduct_, one nation shows that\nit has evidently this pernicious disposition, and that it considers no\nright as sacred, the safety of the human race requires that it should be\nsuppressed. To form and support an unjust pretension is to do an injury\n_not only to him who is interested in this pretension, but to mock at\njustice in general, and to injure all nations_.\"--Ibid. ch. v. \u00a7 70.\n\n[Sidenote: To succor against tyranny.]\n\n[Sidenote: Case of English Revolution.]\n\n[Sidenote: An odious tyrant.]\n\n[Sidenote: Rebellious people.]\n\n[Sidenote: Case of civil war.]\n\n[Sidenote: Sovereign and his people, when distinct powers.]\n\n\"If the prince, attacking the fundamental laws, gives his subjects a\nlegal right to resist him, if tyranny, _becoming insupportable_, obliges\nthe nation to rise in their defence, every foreign power has a right to\nsuccor an oppressed people who implore their assistance. The English\njustly complained of James the Second. _The nobility and the most\ndistinguished patriots_ resolved to put a check on his enterprises,\nwhich manifestly tended to overthrow the Constitution and to destroy the\nliberties and the religion of the people, _and therefore applied for\nassistance to the United Provinces_. The authority of the Prince of\nOrange had, doubtless, an influence on the deliberations of the\nStates-General; but it did not make them commit injustice: for when a\npeople, from good reasons, take up arms against an oppressor, _justice\nand generosity require that brave men should be assisted in the defence\nof their liberties_. Whenever, therefore, a civil war is kindled in a\nstate, foreign powers may assist that party which appears to them to\nhave justice on their side. _He who assists an odious tyrant, he who\ndeclares FOR AN UNJUST AND REBELLIOUS PEOPLE, offends against his duty_.\nWhen the bands of the political society are broken, or at least\nsuspended between the sovereign and his people, they may then be\nconsidered as two distinct powers; and since each is independent of all\nforeign authority, nobody has a right to judge them. Either may be in\nthe right, and each of those who grant their assistance may believe that\nhe supports a good cause. It follows, then, in virtue of the voluntary\nlaw of nations, (see Prelim. \u00a7 21,) that the two parties may act as\nhaving an equal right, and behave accordingly, till the decision of the\naffair.\n\n[Sidenote: Not to be pursued to an extreme.]\n\n[Sidenote: Endeavor to persuade subjects to a revolt.]\n\n\"But we ought not to abuse this maxim for authorizing odious proceedings\nagainst the tranquillity of states. It is a violation of the law of\nnations _to persuade those subjects to revolt who actually obey their\nsovereign, though they complain of his government_.\n\n[Sidenote: Attempt to excite subjects to revolt.]\n\n\"The practice of nations is conformable to our maxims. When the German\nProtestants came to the assistance of the Reformed in France, the court\nnever undertook to treat them otherwise than as common enemies, and\naccording to the laws of war. France at the same time assisted the\nNetherlands, which took up arms against Spain, and did not pretend that\nher troops should be considered upon any other footing than as\nauxiliaries in a regular war. _But no power avoids complaining of an\natrocious injury, if any one attempts by his emissaries to excite his\nsubjects to revolt_.\n\n[Sidenote: Tyrants.]\n\n\"As to those monsters, who, under the title of sovereigns, render\nthemselves the scourges and horror of the human race,--these are savage\nbeasts, from which every brave man may justly purge the earth. All\nantiquity has praised Hercules for delivering the world from an Ant\u00e6us,\na Busiris, and a Diomedes.\"--Ibid. ch. iv. \u00a7 56.\n\nAfter stating that nations have no right to interfere in domestic\nconcerns, he proceeds,--\"But this rule does not preclude them from\nespousing the quarrel of a dethroned king, and assisting him, if he\nappears to have justice on his side. They then declare themselves\nenemies of the nation which has acknowledged his rival; as, when two\n_different nations_ are at war, they are at liberty to assist that whose\nquarrel they shall think has the fairest appearance.\"--Book IV. ch. ii.\n\u00a7 14.\n\n\nCASE OF ALLIANCES.\n\n[Sidenote: When an alliance to preserve a king takes place.]\n\n[Sidenote: King does not lose his quality by the loss of his kingdom.]\n\n\"It is asked if that alliance subsists with the king and the royal\nfamily when by some revolution they are deprived of their crown. We have\nlately remarked, (\u00a7 194,) that a personal alliance expires with the\nreign of him who contracted it: but that is to be understood of an\nalliance with the state, limited, as to its duration, to the reign of\nthe contracting king. This of which we are here speaking is of another\nnature. For though it binds the state, since it is bound by all the\npublic acts of its sovereign, it is made directly in favor of the king\nand his family; it would therefore be absurd for it to terminate _at the\nmoment when they have need of it, and at an event against which it was\nmade_. Besides, the king does not lose his quality merely by the loss of\nhis kingdom. _If he is stripped of it unjustly by an usurper, or by\nrebels, he preserves his rights, in the number of which are his\nalliances_.[40]\n\n[Sidenote: Case wherein aid may be given to a deposed king.]\n\n\"But who shall judge if the king be dethroned lawfully or by violence?\nAn independent nation acknowledges no judge. If the body of the nation\ndeclares the king deprived of his rights by the abuse he has made of\nthem, and deposes him, it may justly do it _when its grievances are well\nfounded_, and no other power has a right to censure it. The personal\nally of this king ought not then to assist him against the nation that\nhas made use of its right in deposing him: if he attempts it, he injures\nthat nation. England declared war against Louis the Fourteenth, in the\nyear 1688, for supporting the interest of James the Second, who was\ndeposed in form by the nation. The same country declared war against him\na second time, at the beginning of the present century, because that\nprince acknowledged the son of the deposed James, under the name of\nJames the Third. In doubtful cases, and _when the body of the nation has\nnot pronounced, or HAS NOT PRONOUNCED FREELY_, a sovereign may naturally\nsupport and defend an ally; and it is then that the voluntary law of\nnations subsists between different states. The party that has driven out\nthe king pretends to have right on its side; this unhappy king and his\nally flatter themselves with having the same advantage; and as they have\nno common judge upon earth, they have no other method to take but to\napply to arms to terminate the dispute; they therefore engage in a\nformal war.\n\n[Sidenote: Not obliged to pursue his right beyond a certain point.]\n\n\"In short, when the foreign prince has faithfully fulfilled his\nengagements towards an unfortunate monarch, when he has done in his\ndefence, or to procure his restoration, all he was obliged to perform in\nvirtue of the alliance, if his efforts are ineffectual, the dethroned\nprince cannot require him to support an endless war in his favor, or\nexpect that he will eternally remain the enemy of the nation or of the\nsovereign who has deprived him of the throne. He must think of peace,\nabandon the ally, and consider him as having himself abandoned his right\nthrough necessity. Thus Louis the Fourteenth was obliged to abandon\nJames the Second, and to acknowledge King William, though he had at\nfirst treated him as an usurper.\n\n[Sidenote: Case of defence against subjects.]\n\n[Sidenote: Case where real alliances may be renounced.]\n\n\"The same question presents itself in real alliances, and, in general,\nin all alliances made with the state, and not in particular with a king\nfor the defence of his person. An ally ought, doubtless, to be defended\nagainst every invasion, against every foreign violence, _and even\nagainst his rebellious subjects: in the same manner a republic ought to\nbe defended against the enterprises of one who attempts to destroy the\npublic liberty_. But it ought to be remembered that an ally of the state\nor the nation is not its judge. If the nation has deposed its king in\nform,--if the people of a republic have driven out their magistrates and\nset themselves at liberty, or acknowledged the authority of an usurper,\neither expressly or tacitly,--to oppose these domestic regulations, by\ndisputing their justice or validity, would be to interfere in the\ngovernment of the nation, and to do it an injury. (See \u00a7 54, and\nfollowing, of this Book.) The ally remains the ally of the state,\nnotwithstanding the change that has happened in it. _However, when this\nchange renders the alliance useless, dangerous, or disagreeable, it may\nrenounce it; for it may say, upon a good foundation, that it would not\nhave entered into an alliance with that nation, had it been under the\npresent form of government._\n\n[Sidenote: Not an eternal war.]\n\n\"We may say here, what we have said on a personal alliance: however\njust the cause of that king may be who is driven from the throne either\nby his subjects or by a foreign usurper, his aides are not obliged to\nsupport _an eternal war_ in his favor. After having made ineffectual\nefforts to restore him, they must at length give peace to their people,\nand come to an accommodation with the usurper, and for that purpose\ntreat with him as with a lawful sovereign. Louis the Fourteenth,\nexhausted by a bloody and unsuccessful war, offered at Gertruydenberg to\nabandon his grandson, whom he had placed on the throne of Spain; and\nwhen affairs had changed their appearance, Charles of Austria, the rival\nof Philip, saw himself, in his turn, abandoned by his allies. They grew\nweary of exhausting their states in order to give him the possession of\na crown which they believed to be his due, but which, to all appearance,\nthey should never be able to procure for him.\"--Book II. ch. xii. \u00a7\u00a7\n196, 197.\n\n\nDANGEROUS POWER.\n\n[Sidenote: All nations may join.]\n\n\"It is still easier to prove, that, should this formidable power betray\nany unjust and ambitious dispositions by doing the least injustice to\nanother, every nation may avail themselves of the occasion, and join\ntheir forces to those of the party injured, in order to reduce that\nambitious power, and disable it from so easily oppressing its neighbors,\nor keeping them in continual awe and fear. For an injury gives a nation\na right to provide for its future safety by taking away from the\nviolator the means of oppression. It is lawful, and even praiseworthy,\nto assist those who are oppressed, or unjustly attacked.\"--Book III. ch.\niii. \u00a7 45.\n\n\nSYSTEM OF EUROPE.\n\n[Sidenote: Europe a republic to preserve order and liberty.]\n\n\"Europe forms a political system, a body where the whole is connected by\nthe relations and different interests of nations inhabiting this part of\nthe world. It is not, as anciently, a confused heap of detached pieces,\neach of which thought itself very little concerned in the fate of\nothers, and seldom regarded things which did not immediately relate to\nit. The continual attention of sovereigns to what is on the carpet, the\nconstant residence of ministers, and _the perpetual negotiations, make\nEurope a kind of a republic, the members of which, though independent,\nunite, through the ties of common interest, for the maintenance of order\nand liberty_. Hence arose that famous scheme of the political\nequilibrium, or balance of power, by which is understood such a\ndisposition of things as no power is able absolutely to predominate or\nto prescribe laws to others.\"--Book III. ch. iii. \u00a7 47.\n\n\"Confederacies would be a sure way of preserving the equilibrium, and\nsupporting the liberty of nations, did all princes thoroughly understand\ntheir true interests, and regulate all their steps for the good of the\nstate.\"--Ibid. \u00a7 49.\n\n\nCONTRIBUTIONS IN THE ENEMY'S COUNTRY.\n\n[Sidenote: To be moderate.]\n\n\"Instead of the pillage of the country and defenceless places, a custom\nhas been substituted more humane and more advantageous to the sovereign\nmaking war: I mean that of contributions. Whoever carries on _a just\nwar[41] has a right of making the enemy's country contribute to the\nsupport of the army, and towards defraying all the charges of the war_.\nThus he obtains a part of what is due to him, and the subjects of the\nenemy, on submitting to this imposition, are secured from pillage, and\nthe country is preserved. But a general who would not sully his\nreputation is to moderate his contributions, and proportion them to\nthose on whom they are imposed. An excess in this point is not without\nthe reproach of cruelty and inhumanity: if it shows less ferocity than\nravage and destruction, it glares with avarice.\"--Book III. ch. ix. \u00a7\n165.\n\n\nASYLUM.\n\n\"If an exile or banished man is driven from his country for any crime,\nit does _not_ belong to the nation in which he has taken refuge to\npunish him for a fault committed in a foreign country. For Nature gives\nto mankind and to nations the right of punishing only for their defence\nand safety (\u00a7 169): whence it follows that he can only be punished by\nthose he has offended.\n\n\"But this reason shows, that, if the justice of each nation ought in\ngeneral to be confined to the punishment of crimes committed in its own\nterritories, we ought to except from this rule the villains who, by the\nquality and habitual frequency of their crimes, violate all public\nsecurity, and declare themselves the enemies of the human race.\nPoisoners, assassins, and incendiaries by profession may be exterminated\nwherever they are seized; for they attack and injure all nations by\ntrampling under foot the foundations of their common safety. Thus\npirates are brought to the gibbet by the first into whose hands they\nfall. If the sovereign of the country where crimes of that nature have\nbeen committed reclaims the authors of them in order to bring them to\npunishment, they ought to be restored to him, as to one who is\n_principally_ interested in punishing them in an exemplary manner: and\nit being proper to convict the guilty, and to try them according to some\nform of law, this is a _second_ [not sole] reason why malefactors are\nusually delivered up at the desire of the state where their crimes have\nbeen committed.\"--Book I. ch. xix. \u00a7\u00a7 232, 233.\n\n\"Every nation has a right of refusing to admit a stranger into the\ncountry, when he cannot enter it without putting it in evident danger,\nor without doing it a remarkable prejudice.\"[42]--Ibid. \u00a7 230.\n\n\nFOREIGN MINISTERS.\n\n\"The obligation does not go so far as to suffer at all times perpetual\nministers, who are desirous of residing with a sovereign, though they\nhave nothing to negotiate. It is natural, indeed, and very agreeable to\nthe sentiments which nations owe to each other, that these resident\nministers, _when there it nothing to be feared from their stay_, should\nbe friendly received; but if there be any solid reason against this,\nwhat is for the good of the state ought unquestionably to be preferred:\nand the foreign sovereign cannot take it amiss, if his minister, who has\nconcluded the affairs of his commission, and has no other affairs to\nnegotiate, be desired to depart.[43] The custom of keeping everywhere\nministers continually resident is now so strongly established, that the\nrefusal of a conformity to it would, without _very good reasons_, give\noffence. These reasons may arise from _particular_ conjunctures; but\nthere are also common reasons always subsisting, and such as relate to\n_the constitution of a government and the state of a nation_. The\nrepublics have often very good reasons of the latter kind to excuse\nthemselves from continually suffering foreign ministers who _corrupt the\ncitizens in order to gain them over to their masters, to the great\nprejudice of the republic and fomenting of the parties_, &c. And should\nthey only diffuse among a nation, formerly plain, frugal, and virtuous,\na taste for luxury, avidity for money, and the manners of courts, these\nwould be more than sufficient for wise and provident rulers to dismiss\nthem.\"--Book IV. ch. v. \u00a7 66.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[38] This is the case of France:--Semonville at Turin,--Jacobin\nclubs,--Liegeois meeting,--Flemish meeting,--La Fayette's\nanswer,--Clootz's embassy,--Avignon.\n\n[39] The French acknowledge no power not directly emanating from the\npeople.\n\n[40] By the seventh article of the Treaty of TRIPLE ALLIANCE, between\nFrance, England, and Holland, signed at the Hague, in the year 1717, it\nis stipulated, \"that, if the kingdoms, countries, or provinces of any of\nthe allies are disturbed by intestine quarrels, or _by rebellions, on\naccount of the said successions_,\" (the Protestant succession to the\nthrone of Great Britain, and the succession to the throne of France, as\nsettled by the Treaty of Utrecht,) \"or _under any other pretext\nwhatever_, the ally thus in trouble shall have full right to demand of\nhis allies the succors above mentioned\": that is to say, the same\nsuccors as in the case of an invasion from any foreign power,--8,000\nfoot and 2,000 horse to be furnished by France or England, and 4,000\nfoot and 1,000 horse by the States-General.\n\nBy the fourth article of the Treaty of QUADRUPLE ALLIANCE, between\nEngland, France, Holland, and the Emperor of Germany, signed in the year\n1718, the contracting powers \"promise and oblige themselves that they\nwill and ought to maintain, guaranty, and defend the right of succession\nin the kingdom of France, according to the tenor of the treaties made at\nUtrecht the 11th day of April, 1713; ... and this they shall perform\n_against all persons whosoever who may presume to disturb the order of\nthe said succession_, in contradiction to the previous acts and treaties\nsubsequent thereon.\"\n\nThe above treaties have been revived and confirmed by every subsequent\ntreaty of peace between Great Britain and France.--EDIT.\n\n[41] Contributions raised by the Duke of Brunswick in France. Compare\nthese with the contributions raised by the French in the\nNetherlands.--EDIT.\n\n[42] The third article of the Treaty of Triple Alliance and the latter\npart of the fourth article of the Treaty of Quadruple Alliance\nstipulate, that no kind of refuge or protection shall be given to\nrebellious subjects of the contracting powers.--EDIT.\n\n[43] Dismission of M. Chauvelin.--EDIT.\n\n\n\n\n\nEND OF VOL. IV.","title":"The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, Vol. 04 (of 12)","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":135175}