{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_3742/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_3742","id":"gutenberg_3742","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3742","summary":null,"tags":["Banned Books from Anne Haight's list","Burke, Edmund, 1729-1797. Reflections on the revolution in France","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - European","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","France -- History -- Revolution, 1789-1799 -- Causes","Great Britain -- Politics and government -- 1760-1820","Political science"],"text":"Produced by Norman M. Wolcott\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE WRITINGS OF THOMAS PAINE, VOLUME II.\n\nBy Thomas Paine\n\nCollected And Edited By\n\nMoncure Daniel Conway\n\n\n1779 - 1792\n\n\n\n[Redactor's Note: Reprinted from the \"The Writings of Thomas Paine\nVolume I\" (1894 - 1896). The author's notes are preceded by a \"*\". A\nTable of Contents has been added for each part for the convenience of\nthe reader which is not included in the printed edition. Notes are at\nthe end of Part II. ]\n\n\n\n\n                         TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n                       XIII The Rights of Man\n\n                            PART THE FIRST\n    BEING AN ANSWER TO MR. BURKE'S ATTACK ON THE FRENCH REVOLUTION\n\n  *  Editor's Introduction\n  *  Dedication to George Washington\n  *  Preface to the English Edition\n  *  Preface to the French Edition\n  *  Rights of Man\n  *  Miscellaneous Chapter\n  *  Conclusion\n\n                       XIV The Rights of Man\n\n                           PART THE SECOND\n                   COMBINING PRINCIPLE AND PRACTICE\n\n  *  French Translator's Preface\n  *  Dedication to M. de la Fayette\n  *  Preface\n  *  Introduction\n  *  Chapter I   Of Society and Civilisation\n  *  Chapter II  Of the Origin of the Present Old Governments\n  *  Chapter III Of the Old and New Systems of Government\n  *  Chapter IV  Of Constitutions\n  *  Chapter V   Ways and Means of Improving the Condition of Europe,\n     Interspersed with Miscellaneous Observations\n\n  *  Appendix\n  *  Notes\n\n\n\n\nXIII. RIGHTS OF MAN.\n\n\n\n\nEDITOR'S INTRODUCTION.\n\n\nWHEN Thomas Paine sailed from America for France, in April, 1787, he was\nperhaps as happy a man as any in the world. His most intimate friend,\nJefferson, was Minister at Paris, and his friend Lafayette was the idol\nof France. His fame had preceded him, and he at once became, in Paris,\nthe centre of the same circle of savants and philosophers that had\nsurrounded Franklin. His main reason for proceeding at once to Paris was\nthat he might submit to the Academy of Sciences his invention of an iron\nbridge, and with its favorable verdict he came to England, in September.\nHe at once went to his aged mother at Thetford, leaving with a publisher\n(Ridgway), his \"Prospects on the Rubicon.\" He next made arrangements to\npatent his bridge, and to construct at Rotherham the large model of it\nexhibited on Paddington Green, London. He was welcomed in England by\nleading statesmen, such as Lansdowne and Fox, and above all by Edmund\nBurke, who for some time had him as a guest at Beaconsfield, and drove\nhim about in various parts of the country. He had not the slightest\nrevolutionary purpose, either as regarded England or France. Towards\nLouis XVI. he felt only gratitude for the services he had rendered\nAmerica, and towards George III. he felt no animosity whatever. His four\nmonths' sojourn in Paris had convinced him that there was approaching a\nreform of that country after the American model, except that the Crown\nwould be preserved, a compromise he approved, provided the throne should\nnot be hereditary. Events in France travelled more swiftly than he had\nanticipated, and Paine was summoned by Lafayette, Condorcet, and others,\nas an adviser in the formation of a new constitution.\n\nSuch was the situation immediately preceding the political and literary\nduel between Paine and Burke, which in the event turned out a tremendous\nwar between Royalism and Republicanism in Europe. Paine was, both in\nFrance and in England, the inspirer of moderate counsels. Samuel Rogers\nrelates that in early life he dined at a friend's house in London\nwith Thomas Paine, when one of the toasts given was the \"memory of\nJoshua,\"--in allusion to the Hebrew leader's conquest of the kings of\nCanaan, and execution of them. Paine observed that he would not treat\nkings like Joshua. \"I 'm of the Scotch parson's opinion,\" he said,\n\"when he prayed against Louis XIV.--`Lord, shake him over the mouth of\nhell, but don't let him drop!'\" Paine then gave as his toast, \"The\nRepublic of the World,\"--which Samuel Rogers, aged twenty-nine, noted\nas a sublime idea. This was Paine's faith and hope, and with it he\nconfronted the revolutionary storms which presently burst over France\nand England.\n\nUntil Burke's arraignment of France in his parliamentary speech\n(February 9, 1790), Paine had no doubt whatever that he would sympathize\nwith the movement in France, and wrote to him from that country as\nif conveying glad tidings. Burke's \"Reflections on the Revolution in\nFrance\" appeared November 1, 1790, and Paine at once set himself to\nanswer it. He was then staying at the Angel Inn, Islington. The inn\nhas been twice rebuilt since that time, and from its contents there is\npreserved only a small image, which perhaps was meant to represent\n\"Liberty,\"--possibly brought from Paris by Paine as an ornament for his\nstudy. From the Angel he removed to a house in Harding Street, Fetter\nLane. Rickman says Part First of \"Rights of Man\" was finished at\nVersailles, but probably this has reference to the preface only, as I\ncannot find Paine in France that year until April 8. The book had been\nprinted by Johnson, in time for the opening of Parliament, in February;\nbut this publisher became frightened after a few copies were out (there\nis one in the British Museum), and the work was transferred to J. S.\nJordan, 166 Fleet Street, with a preface sent from Paris (not contained\nin Johnson's edition, nor in the American editions). The pamphlet,\nthough sold at the same price as Burke's, three shillings, had a vast\ncirculation, and Paine gave the proceeds to the Constitutional Societies\nwhich sprang up under his teachings in various parts of the country.\n\nSoon after appeared Burke's \"Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs.\" In\nthis Burke quoted a good deal from \"Rights of Man,\" but replied to it\nonly with exclamation points, saying that the only answer such ideas\nmerited was \"criminal justice.\" Paine's Part Second followed, published\nFebruary 17, 1792. In Part First Paine had mentioned a rumor that Burke\nwas a masked pensioner (a charge that will be noticed in connection with\nits detailed statement in a further publication); and as Burke had\nbeen formerly arraigned in Parliament, while Paymaster, for a very\nquestionable proceeding, this charge no doubt hurt a good deal. Although\nthe government did not follow Burke's suggestion of a prosecution\nat that time, there is little doubt that it was he who induced the\nprosecution of Part Second. Before the trial came on, December 18, 1792,\nPaine was occupying his seat in the French Convention, and could only be\noutlawed.\n\nBurke humorously remarked to a friend of Paine and himself, \"We hunt\nin pairs.\" The severally representative character and influence of these\ntwo men in the revolutionary era, in France and England, deserve more\nadequate study than they have received. While Paine maintained freedom\nof discussion, Burke first proposed criminal prosecution for sentiments\nby no means libellous (such as Paine's Part First). While Paine was\nendeavoring to make the movement in France peaceful, Burke fomented the\nleague of monarchs against France which maddened its people, and brought\non the Reign of Terror. While Paine was endeavoring to preserve the\nFrench throne (\"phantom\" though he believed it), to prevent bloodshed,\nBurke was secretly writing to the Queen of France, entreating her not\nto compromise, and to \"trust to the support of foreign armies\"\n(\"Histoire de France depuis 1789.\" Henri Martin, i., 151). While Burke\nthus helped to bring the King and Queen to the guillotine, Paine pleaded\nfor their lives to the last moment. While Paine maintained the right of\nmankind to improve their condition, Burke held that \"the awful Author\nof our being is the author of our place in the order of existence;\nand that, having disposed and marshalled us by a divine tactick, not\naccording to our will, but according to his, he has, in and by that\ndisposition, virtually subjected us to act the part which belongs to\nthe place assigned us.\" Paine was a religious believer in eternal\nprinciples; Burke held that \"political problems do not primarily\nconcern truth or falsehood. They relate to good or evil. What in the\nresult is likely to produce evil is politically false, that which is\nproductive of good politically is true.\" Assuming thus the visionary's\nright to decide before the result what was \"likely to produce evil,\"\nBurke vigorously sought to kindle war against the French Republic which\nmight have developed itself peacefully, while Paine was striving for\nan international Congress in Europe in the interest of peace. Paine\nhad faith in the people, and believed that, if allowed to choose\nrepresentatives, they would select their best and wisest men; and that\nwhile reforming government the people would remain orderly, as they had\ngenerally remained in America during the transition from British rule\nto selfgovernment. Burke maintained that if the existing political order\nwere broken up there would be no longer a people, but \"a number of\nvague, loose individuals, and nothing more.\" \"Alas!\" he exclaims,\n\"they little know how many a weary step is to be taken before they can\nform themselves into a mass, which has a true personality.\" For the sake\nof peace Paine wished the revolution to be peaceful as the advance of\nsummer; he used every endeavor to reconcile English radicals to some\nmodus vivendi with the existing order, as he was willing to retain Louis\nXVI. as head of the executive in France: Burke resisted every tendency\nof English statesmanship to reform at home, or to negotiate with the\nFrench Republic, and was mainly responsible for the King's death and the\nwar that followed between England and France in February, 1793. Burke\nbecame a royal favorite, Paine was outlawed by a prosecution originally\nproposed by Burke. While Paine was demanding religious liberty, Burke\nwas opposing the removal of penal statutes from Unitarians, on the\nground that but for those statutes Paine might some day set up a church\nin England. When Burke was retiring on a large royal pension, Paine\nwas in prison, through the devices of Burke's confederate, the American\nMinister in Paris. So the two men, as Burke said, \"hunted in pairs.\"\n\nSo far as Burke attempts to affirm any principle he is fairly quoted in\nPaine's work, and nowhere misrepresented. As for Paine's own ideas, the\nreader should remember that \"Rights of Man\" was the earliest complete\nstatement of republican principles. They were pronounced to be the\nfundamental principles of the American Republic by Jefferson, Madison,\nand Jackson,-the three Presidents who above all others represented the\nrepublican idea which Paine first allied with American Independence.\nThose who suppose that Paine did but reproduce the principles of\nRousseau and Locke will find by careful study of his well-weighed\nlanguage that such is not the case. Paine's political principles were\nevolved out of his early Quakerism. He was potential in George Fox. The\nbelief that every human soul was the child of God, and capable of\ndirect inspiration from the Father of all, without mediator or priestly\nintervention, or sacramental instrumentality, was fatal to all privilege\nand rank. The universal Fatherhood implied universal Brotherhood, or\nhuman equality. But the fate of the Quakers proved the necessity of\nprotecting the individual spirit from oppression by the majority as well\nas by privileged classes. For this purpose Paine insisted on surrounding\nthe individual right with the security of the Declaration of Rights,\nnot to be invaded by any government; and would reduce government to an\nassociation limited in its operations to the defence of those rights\nwhich the individual is unable, alone, to maintain.\n\nFrom the preceding chapter it will be seen that Part Second of \"Rights\nof Man\" was begun by Paine in the spring of 1791. At the close of that\nyear, or early in 1792, he took up his abode with his friend Thomas\n\"Clio\" Rickman, at No. 7 Upper Marylebone Street. Rickman was a radical\npublisher; the house remains still a book-binding establishment, and\nseems little changed since Paine therein revised the proofs of Part\nSecond on a table which Rickman marked with a plate, and which is now in\npossession of Mr. Edward Truelove. As the plate states, Paine wrote on\nthe same table other works which appeared in England in 1792.\n\nIn 1795 D. I. Eaton published an edition of \"Rights of Man,\" with a\npreface purporting to have been written by Paine while in Luxembourg\nprison. It is manifestly spurious. The genuine English and French\nprefaces are given.\n\n\n\n\nRIGHTS OF MAN\n\nBeing An Answer To Mr. Burke's Attack On The French Revoloution\n\nBy Thomas Paine\n\nSecretary For Foreign Affairs To Congress In The American War, And\nAuthor Of The Works Entitled \"Common Sense\" And \"A Letter To Abbe\nRaynal\"\n\n\n\n                              DEDICATION\n\n  George Washington\n\n  President Of The United States Of America\n\n  Sir,\n\n  I present you a small treatise in defence of those principles of\n  freedom which your exemplary virtue hath so eminently contributed to\n  establish. That the Rights of Man may become as universal as your\n  benevolence can wish, and that you may enjoy the happiness of seeing\n  the New World regenerate the Old, is the prayer of\n\n  Sir,\n\n  Your much obliged, and\n\n     Obedient humble Servant,\n\n      Thomas Paine\n\n\n\n\nPAINE'S PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION\n\nFrom the part Mr. Burke took in the American Revolution, it was natural\nthat I should consider him a friend to mankind; and as our acquaintance\ncommenced on that ground, it would have been more agreeable to me to\nhave had cause to continue in that opinion than to change it.\n\nAt the time Mr. Burke made his violent speech last winter in the English\nParliament against the French Revolution and the National Assembly, I\nwas in Paris, and had written to him but a short time before to inform\nhim how prosperously matters were going on. Soon after this I saw his\nadvertisement of the Pamphlet he intended to publish: As the attack\nwas to be made in a language but little studied, and less understood in\nFrance, and as everything suffers by translation, I promised some of\nthe friends of the Revolution in that country that whenever Mr. Burke's\nPamphlet came forth, I would answer it. This appeared to me the more\nnecessary to be done, when I saw the flagrant misrepresentations which\nMr. Burke's Pamphlet contains; and that while it is an outrageous\nabuse on the French Revolution, and the principles of Liberty, it is an\nimposition on the rest of the world.\n\nI am the more astonished and disappointed at this conduct in Mr. Burke,\nas (from the circumstances I am going to mention) I had formed other\nexpectations.\n\nI had seen enough of the miseries of war, to wish it might never more\nhave existence in the world, and that some other mode might be found\nout to settle the differences that should occasionally arise in the\nneighbourhood of nations. This certainly might be done if Courts were\ndisposed to set honesty about it, or if countries were enlightened\nenough not to be made the dupes of Courts. The people of America had\nbeen bred up in the same prejudices against France, which at that time\ncharacterised the people of England; but experience and an acquaintance\nwith the French Nation have most effectually shown to the Americans the\nfalsehood of those prejudices; and I do not believe that a more cordial\nand confidential intercourse exists between any two countries than\nbetween America and France.\n\nWhen I came to France, in the spring of 1787, the Archbishop of\nThoulouse was then Minister, and at that time highly esteemed. I became\nmuch acquainted with the private Secretary of that Minister, a man of\nan enlarged benevolent heart; and found that his sentiments and my own\nperfectly agreed with respect to the madness of war, and the wretched\nimpolicy of two nations, like England and France, continually worrying\neach other, to no other end than that of a mutual increase of burdens\nand taxes. That I might be assured I had not misunderstood him, nor he\nme, I put the substance of our opinions into writing and sent it to him;\nsubjoining a request, that if I should see among the people of England,\nany disposition to cultivate a better understanding between the two\nnations than had hitherto prevailed, how far I might be authorised\nto say that the same disposition prevailed on the part of France? He\nanswered me by letter in the most unreserved manner, and that not for\nhimself only, but for the Minister, with whose knowledge the letter was\ndeclared to be written.\n\nI put this letter into the hands of Mr. Burke almost three years ago,\nand left it with him, where it still remains; hoping, and at the same\ntime naturally expecting, from the opinion I had conceived of him, that\nhe would find some opportunity of making good use of it, for the purpose\nof removing those errors and prejudices which two neighbouring nations,\nfrom the want of knowing each other, had entertained, to the injury of\nboth.\n\nWhen the French Revolution broke out, it certainly afforded to Mr. Burke\nan opportunity of doing some good, had he been disposed to it; instead\nof which, no sooner did he see the old prejudices wearing away, than he\nimmediately began sowing the seeds of a new inveteracy, as if he were\nafraid that England and France would cease to be enemies. That there are\nmen in all countries who get their living by war, and by keeping up the\nquarrels of Nations, is as shocking as it is true; but when those who\nare concerned in the government of a country, make it their study to sow\ndiscord and cultivate prejudices between Nations, it becomes the more\nunpardonable.\n\nWith respect to a paragraph in this work alluding to Mr. Burke's having\na pension, the report has been some time in circulation, at least two\nmonths; and as a person is often the last to hear what concerns him\nthe most to know, I have mentioned it, that Mr. Burke may have an\nopportunity of contradicting the rumour, if he thinks proper.\n\n      Thomas Paine\n\n\n\n\nPAINE'S PREFACE TO THE FRENCH EDITION\n\nThe astonishment which the French Revolution has caused throughout\nEurope should be considered from two different points of view: first as\nit affects foreign peoples, secondly as it affects their governments.\n\nThe cause of the French people is that of all Europe, or rather of the\nwhole world; but the governments of all those countries are by no means\nfavorable to it. It is important that we should never lose sight of this\ndistinction. We must not confuse the peoples with their governments;\nespecially not the English people with its government.\n\nThe government of England is no friend of the revolution of France.\nOf this we have sufficient proofs in the thanks given by that weak and\nwitless person, the Elector of Hanover, sometimes called the King of\nEngland, to Mr. Burke for the insults heaped on it in his book, and in\nthe malevolent comments of the English Minister, Pitt, in his speeches\nin Parliament.\n\nIn spite of the professions of sincerest friendship found in the\nofficial correspondence of the English government with that of France,\nits conduct gives the lie to all its declarations, and shows us clearly\nthat it is not a court to be trusted, but an insane court, plunging in\nall the quarrels and intrigues of Europe, in quest of a war to satisfy\nits folly and countenance its extravagance.\n\nThe English nation, on the contrary, is very favorably disposed towards\nthe French Revolution, and to the progress of liberty in the whole\nworld; and this feeling will become more general in England as the\nintrigues and artifices of its government are better known, and the\nprinciples of the revolution better understood. The French should know\nthat most English newspapers are directly in the pay of government, or,\nif indirectly connected with it, always under its orders; and that those\npapers constantly distort and attack the revolution in France in order\nto deceive the nation. But, as it is impossible long to prevent the\nprevalence of truth, the daily falsehoods of those papers no longer have\nthe desired effect.\n\nTo be convinced that the voice of truth has been stifled in England, the\nworld needs only to be told that the government regards and prosecutes\nas a libel that which it should protect.*[1] This outrage on morality is\ncalled law, and judges are found wicked enough to inflict penalties on\ntruth.\n\nThe English government presents, just now, a curious phenomenon. Seeing\nthat the French and English nations are getting rid of the prejudices\nand false notions formerly entertained against each other, and which\nhave cost them so much money, that government seems to be placarding its\nneed of a foe; for unless it finds one somewhere, no pretext exists for\nthe enormous revenue and taxation now deemed necessary.\n\nTherefore it seeks in Russia the enemy it has lost in France, and\nappears to say to the universe, or to say to itself. \"If nobody will be\nso kind as to become my foe, I shall need no more fleets nor armies,\nand shall be forced to reduce my taxes. The American war enabled me to\ndouble the taxes; the Dutch business to add more; the Nootka humbug gave\nme a pretext for raising three millions sterling more; but unless I can\nmake an enemy of Russia the harvest from wars will end. I was the first\nto incite Turk against Russian, and now I hope to reap a fresh crop of\ntaxes.\"\n\nIf the miseries of war, and the flood of evils it spreads over a\ncountry, did not check all inclination to mirth, and turn laughter\ninto grief, the frantic conduct of the government of England would only\nexcite ridicule. But it is impossible to banish from one's mind the\nimages of suffering which the contemplation of such vicious policy\npresents. To reason with governments, as they have existed for ages,\nis to argue with brutes. It is only from the nations themselves that\nreforms can be expected. There ought not now to exist any doubt that the\npeoples of France, England, and America, enlightened and enlightening\neach other, shall henceforth be able, not merely to give the world an\nexample of good government, but by their united influence enforce its\npractice.\n\n(Translated from the French)\n\n\n\n\nRIGHTS OF MAN. PART THE FIRST BEING AN ANSWER TO MR. BURKE'S ATTACK ON\nTHE FRENCH REVOLUTION\n\n\nAmong the incivilities by which nations or individuals provoke and\nirritate each other, Mr. Burke's pamphlet on the French Revolution is an\nextraordinary instance. Neither the People of France, nor the National\nAssembly, were troubling themselves about the affairs of England, or\nthe English Parliament; and that Mr. Burke should commence an unprovoked\nattack upon them, both in Parliament and in public, is a conduct that\ncannot be pardoned on the score of manners, nor justified on that of\npolicy.\n\nThere is scarcely an epithet of abuse to be found in the English\nlanguage, with which Mr. Burke has not loaded the French Nation and the\nNational Assembly. Everything which rancour, prejudice, ignorance or\nknowledge could suggest, is poured forth in the copious fury of near\nfour hundred pages. In the strain and on the plan Mr. Burke was writing,\nhe might have written on to as many thousands. When the tongue or the\npen is let loose in a frenzy of passion, it is the man, and not the\nsubject, that becomes exhausted.\n\nHitherto Mr. Burke has been mistaken and disappointed in the opinions\nhe had formed of the affairs of France; but such is the ingenuity of his\nhope, or the malignancy of his despair, that it furnishes him with new\npretences to go on. There was a time when it was impossible to make Mr.\nBurke believe there would be any Revolution in France. His opinion then\nwas, that the French had neither spirit to undertake it nor fortitude to\nsupport it; and now that there is one, he seeks an escape by condemning\nit.\n\nNot sufficiently content with abusing the National Assembly, a great\npart of his work is taken up with abusing Dr. Price (one of the\nbest-hearted men that lives) and the two societies in England known by\nthe name of the Revolution Society and the Society for Constitutional\nInformation.\n\nDr. Price had preached a sermon on the 4th of November, 1789, being\nthe anniversary of what is called in England the Revolution, which took\nplace 1688. Mr. Burke, speaking of this sermon, says: \"The political\nDivine proceeds dogmatically to assert, that by the principles of\nthe Revolution, the people of England have acquired three fundamental\nrights:\n\n1. To choose our own governors.\n\n2. To cashier them for misconduct.\n\n3. To frame a government for ourselves.\"\n\nDr. Price does not say that the right to do these things exists in this\nor in that person, or in this or in that description of persons, but\nthat it exists in the whole; that it is a right resident in the nation.\nMr. Burke, on the contrary, denies that such a right exists in the\nnation, either in whole or in part, or that it exists anywhere; and,\nwhat is still more strange and marvellous, he says: \"that the people\nof England utterly disclaim such a right, and that they will resist\nthe practical assertion of it with their lives and fortunes.\" That men\nshould take up arms and spend their lives and fortunes, not to maintain\ntheir rights, but to maintain they have not rights, is an entirely new\nspecies of discovery, and suited to the paradoxical genius of Mr. Burke.\n\nThe method which Mr. Burke takes to prove that the people of England\nhave no such rights, and that such rights do not now exist in the\nnation, either in whole or in part, or anywhere at all, is of the same\nmarvellous and monstrous kind with what he has already said; for his\narguments are that the persons, or the generation of persons, in whom\nthey did exist, are dead, and with them the right is dead also. To prove\nthis, he quotes a declaration made by Parliament about a hundred years\nago, to William and Mary, in these words: \"The Lords Spiritual and\nTemporal, and Commons, do, in the name of the people aforesaid\" (meaning\nthe people of England then living) \"most humbly and faithfully submit\nthemselves, their heirs and posterities, for Ever.\" He quotes a clause\nof another Act of Parliament made in the same reign, the terms of which\nhe says, \"bind us\" (meaning the people of their day), \"our heirs and our\nposterity, to them, their heirs and posterity, to the end of time.\"\n\nMr. Burke conceives his point sufficiently established by producing\nthose clauses, which he enforces by saying that they exclude the\nright of the nation for ever. And not yet content with making such\ndeclarations, repeated over and over again, he farther says, \"that if\nthe people of England possessed such a right before the Revolution\"\n(which he acknowledges to have been the case, not only in England, but\nthroughout Europe, at an early period), \"yet that the English Nation\ndid, at the time of the Revolution, most solemnly renounce and abdicate\nit, for themselves, and for all their posterity, for ever.\"\n\nAs Mr. Burke occasionally applies the poison drawn from his horrid\nprinciples, not only to the English nation, but to the French Revolution\nand the National Assembly, and charges that august, illuminated and\nilluminating body of men with the epithet of usurpers, I shall, sans\nceremonie, place another system of principles in opposition to his.\n\nThe English Parliament of 1688 did a certain thing, which, for\nthemselves and their constituents, they had a right to do, and which\nit appeared right should be done. But, in addition to this right, which\nthey possessed by delegation, they set up another right by assumption,\nthat of binding and controlling posterity to the end of time. The case,\ntherefore, divides itself into two parts; the right which they possessed\nby delegation, and the right which they set up by assumption. The first\nis admitted; but with respect to the second, I reply: There never\ndid, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any\ndescription of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed\nof the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to\nthe \"end of time,\" or of commanding for ever how the world shall be\ngoverned, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts\nor declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have\nneither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in\nthemselves null and void. Every age and generation must be as free to\nact for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded\nit. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most\nridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in man;\nneither has any generation a property in the generations which are to\nfollow. The Parliament or the people of 1688, or of any other period,\nhad no more right to dispose of the people of the present day, or to\nbind or to control them in any shape whatever, than the parliament or\nthe people of the present day have to dispose of, bind or control those\nwho are to live a hundred or a thousand years hence. Every generation\nis, and must be, competent to all the purposes which its occasions\nrequire. It is the living, and not the dead, that are to be\naccommodated. When man ceases to be, his power and his wants cease with\nhim; and having no longer any participation in the concerns of this\nworld, he has no longer any authority in directing who shall be\nits governors, or how its government shall be organised, or how\nadministered.\n\nI am not contending for nor against any form of government, nor for nor\nagainst any party, here or elsewhere. That which a whole nation chooses\nto do it has a right to do. Mr. Burke says, No. Where, then, does the\nright exist? I am contending for the rights of the living, and against\ntheir being willed away and controlled and contracted for by the\nmanuscript assumed authority of the dead, and Mr. Burke is contending\nfor the authority of the dead over the rights and freedom of the living.\nThere was a time when kings disposed of their crowns by will upon their\ndeath-beds, and consigned the people, like beasts of the field, to\nwhatever successor they appointed. This is now so exploded as scarcely\nto be remembered, and so monstrous as hardly to be believed. But the\nParliamentary clauses upon which Mr. Burke builds his political church\nare of the same nature.\n\nThe laws of every country must be analogous to some common principle.\nIn England no parent or master, nor all the authority of Parliament,\nomnipotent as it has called itself, can bind or control the personal\nfreedom even of an individual beyond the age of twenty-one years. On\nwhat ground of right, then, could the Parliament of 1688, or any other\nParliament, bind all posterity for ever?\n\nThose who have quitted the world, and those who have not yet arrived\nat it, are as remote from each other as the utmost stretch of mortal\nimagination can conceive. What possible obligation, then, can exist\nbetween them--what rule or principle can be laid down that of two\nnonentities, the one out of existence and the other not in, and who\nnever can meet in this world, the one should control the other to the\nend of time?\n\nIn England it is said that money cannot be taken out of the pockets\nof the people without their consent. But who authorised, or who could\nauthorise, the Parliament of 1688 to control and take away the freedom\nof posterity (who were not in existence to give or to withhold their\nconsent) and limit and confine their right of acting in certain cases\nfor ever?\n\nA greater absurdity cannot present itself to the understanding of man\nthan what Mr. Burke offers to his readers. He tells them, and he tells\nthe world to come, that a certain body of men who existed a hundred\nyears ago made a law, and that there does not exist in the nation, nor\never will, nor ever can, a power to alter it. Under how many subtilties\nor absurdities has the divine right to govern been imposed on the\ncredulity of mankind? Mr. Burke has discovered a new one, and he\nhas shortened his journey to Rome by appealing to the power of this\ninfallible Parliament of former days, and he produces what it has done\nas of divine authority, for that power must certainly be more than human\nwhich no human power to the end of time can alter.\n\nBut Mr. Burke has done some service--not to his cause, but to his\ncountry--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 II. was\nexpelled, that of setting up power by assumption, should be re-acted,\nunder another shape and form, by the Parliament that expelled him. It\nshows that the Rights of Man were but imperfectly understood at the\nRevolution, for certain it is that the right which that Parliament set\nup by assumption (for by the delegation it had not, and could not\nhave it, because none could give it) over the persons and freedom of\nposterity for ever 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 not)\nthat the one was an usurper over living, and the other over the unborn;\nand as the one has no better authority to stand upon than the other,\nboth of them must be equally null and void, and of no effect.\n\nFrom what, or from whence, does Mr. Burke prove the right of any human\npower to bind posterity for ever? He has produced his clauses, but he\nmust produce also his proofs that such a right existed, and show how it\nexisted. If it ever existed it must now exist, for whatever appertains\nto the nature of man cannot be annihilated by man. It is the nature of\nman to die, and he will continue to die as long as he continues to be\nborn. But Mr. Burke has set up a sort of political Adam, in whom all\nposterity are bound for ever. He must, therefore, prove that his Adam\npossessed such a power, or such a right.\n\nThe weaker any cord is, the less will it bear to be stretched, and the\nworse is the policy to stretch it, unless it is intended to break it.\nHad anyone proposed the overthrow of Mr. Burke's positions, he would\nhave proceeded as Mr. Burke has done. He would have magnified the\nauthorities, on purpose to have called the right of them into question;\nand the instant the question of right was started, the authorities must\nhave been given up.\n\nIt requires but a very small glance of thought to perceive that although\nlaws made in one generation often continue in force through succeeding\ngenerations, yet they continue to derive their force from the consent of\nthe living. A law not repealed continues in force, not because it cannot\nbe repealed, but because it is not repealed; and the non-repealing\npasses for consent.\n\nBut Mr. Burke's clauses have not even this qualification in their\nfavour. They become null, by attempting to become immortal. The nature\nof them precludes consent. They destroy the right which they might have,\nby grounding it on a right which they cannot have. Immortal power is\nnot a human right, and therefore cannot be a right of Parliament. The\nParliament of 1688 might as well have passed an act to have authorised\nthemselves to live for ever, as to make their authority live for ever.\nAll, therefore, that can be said of those clauses is that they are a\nformality of words, of as much import as if those who used them had\naddressed a congratulation to themselves, and in the oriental style of\nantiquity had said: O Parliament, live for ever!\n\nThe circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the\nopinions of men change also; and as government is for the living, and\nnot for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it.\nThat which may be thought right and found convenient in one age may be\nthought wrong and found inconvenient in another. In such cases, who is\nto decide, the living or the dead?\n\nAs almost one hundred pages of Mr. Burke's book are employed upon these\nclauses, it will consequently follow that if the clauses themselves, so\nfar as they set up an assumed usurped dominion over posterity for ever,\nare unauthoritative, and in their nature null and void; that all his\nvoluminous inferences, and declamation drawn therefrom, or founded\nthereon, are null and void also; and on this ground I rest the matter.\n\nWe now come more particularly to the affairs of France. Mr. Burke's book\nhas the appearance of being written as instruction to the French nation;\nbut if I may permit myself the use of an extravagant metaphor, suited\nto the extravagance of the case, it is darkness attempting to illuminate\nlight.\n\nWhile I am writing this there are accidentally before me some proposals\nfor a declaration of rights by the Marquis de la Fayette (I ask his\npardon for using his former address, and do it only for distinction's\nsake) to the National Assembly, on the 11th of July, 1789, three\ndays before the taking of the Bastille, and I cannot but remark with\nastonishment how opposite the sources are from which that gentleman and\nMr. Burke draw their principles. Instead of referring to musty records\nand mouldy parchments to prove that the rights of the living are lost,\n\"renounced and abdicated for ever,\" by those who are now no more, as\nMr. Burke has done, M. de la Fayette applies to the living world,\nand emphatically says: \"Call to mind the sentiments which nature has\nengraved on the heart of every citizen, and which take a new force when\nthey are solemnly recognised by all:--For a nation to love liberty, it\nis sufficient that she knows it; and to be free, it is sufficient that\nshe wills it.\" How dry, barren, and obscure is the source from which Mr.\nBurke labors! and how ineffectual, though gay with flowers, are all his\ndeclamation and his arguments compared with these clear, concise, and\nsoul-animating sentiments! Few and short as they are, they lead on to a\nvast field of generous and manly thinking, and do not finish, like Mr.\nBurke's periods, with music in the ear, and nothing in the heart.\n\nAs I have introduced M. de la Fayette, I will take the liberty of adding\nan anecdote respecting his farewell address to the Congress of America\nin 1783, and which occurred fresh to my mind, when I saw Mr. Burke's\nthundering attack on the French Revolution. M. de la Fayette went to\nAmerica at the early period of the war, and continued a volunteer in her\nservice to the end. His conduct through the whole of that enterprise is\none of the most extraordinary that is to be found in the history of a\nyoung man, scarcely twenty years of age. Situated in a country that was\nlike the lap of sensual pleasure, and with the means of enjoying it, how\nfew are there to be found who would exchange such a scene for the woods\nand wildernesses of America, and pass the flowery years of youth in\nunprofitable danger and hardship! but such is the fact. When the\nwar ended, and he was on the point of taking his final departure, he\npresented himself to Congress, and contemplating in his affectionate\nfarewell the Revolution he had seen, expressed himself in these words:\n\"May this great monument raised to liberty serve as a lesson to the\noppressor, and an example to the oppressed!\" When this address came to\nthe hands of Dr. Franklin, who was then in France, he applied to Count\nVergennes to have it inserted in the French Gazette, but never\ncould obtain his consent. The fact was that Count Vergennes was an\naristocratical despot at home, and dreaded the example of the American\nRevolution in France, as certain other persons now dread the example of\nthe French Revolution in England, and Mr. Burke's tribute of fear (for\nin this light his book must be considered) runs parallel with Count\nVergennes' refusal. But to return more particularly to his work.\n\n\"We have seen,\" says Mr. Burke, \"the French rebel against a mild and\nlawful monarch, with more fury, outrage, and insult, than any people\nhas been known to rise against the most illegal usurper, or the most\nsanguinary tyrant.\" This is one among a thousand other instances, in\nwhich Mr. Burke shows that he is ignorant of the springs and principles\nof the French Revolution.\n\nIt was not against Louis XVI. but against the despotic principles of\nthe Government, that the nation revolted. These principles had not their\norigin in him, but in the original establishment, many centuries back:\nand they were become too deeply rooted to be removed, and the Augean\nstables of parasites and plunderers too abominably filthy to be cleansed\nby anything short of a complete and universal Revolution. When it\nbecomes necessary to do anything, the whole heart and soul should go\ninto the measure, or not attempt it. That crisis was then arrived, and\nthere remained no choice but to act with determined vigor, or not to\nact at all. The king was known to be the friend of the nation, and this\ncircumstance was favorable to the enterprise. Perhaps no man bred up in\nthe style of an absolute king, ever possessed a heart so little disposed\nto the exercise of that species of power as the present King of France.\nBut the principles of the Government itself still remained the same. The\nMonarch and the Monarchy were distinct and separate things; and it was\nagainst the established despotism of the latter, and not against the\nperson or principles of the former, that the revolt commenced, and the\nRevolution has been carried.\n\nMr. Burke does not attend to the distinction between men and principles,\nand, therefore, he does not see that a revolt may take place against the\ndespotism of the latter, while there lies no charge of despotism against\nthe former.\n\nThe natural moderation of Louis XVI. contributed nothing to alter\nthe hereditary despotism of the monarchy. All the tyrannies of former\nreigns, acted under that hereditary despotism, were still liable to be\nrevived in the hands of a successor. It was not the respite of a reign\nthat would satisfy France, enlightened as she was then become. A casual\ndiscontinuance of the practice of despotism, is not a discontinuance of\nits principles: the former depends on the virtue of the individual who\nis in immediate possession of the power; the latter, on the virtue and\nfortitude of the nation. In the case of Charles I. and James II. of\nEngland, the revolt was against the personal despotism of the men;\nwhereas in France, it was against the hereditary despotism of the\nestablished Government. But men who can consign over the rights of\nposterity for ever on the authority of a mouldy parchment, like Mr.\nBurke, are not qualified to judge of this Revolution. It takes in\na field too vast for their views to explore, and proceeds with a\nmightiness of reason they cannot keep pace with.\n\nBut there are many points of view in which this Revolution may be\nconsidered. When despotism has established itself for ages in a country,\nas in France, it is not in the person of the king only that it resides.\nIt has the appearance of being so in show, and in nominal authority; but\nit is not so in practice and in fact. It has its standard everywhere.\nEvery office and department has its despotism, founded upon custom and\nusage. Every place has its Bastille, and every Bastille its despot.\nThe original hereditary despotism resident in the person of the king,\ndivides and sub-divides itself into a thousand shapes and forms, till\nat last the whole of it is acted by deputation. This was the case in\nFrance; and against this species of despotism, proceeding on through\nan endless labyrinth of office till the source of it is scarcely\nperceptible, there is no mode of redress. It strengthens itself by\nassuming the appearance of duty, and tyrannizes under the pretence of\nobeying.\n\nWhen a man reflects on the condition which France was in from the nature\nof her government, he will see other causes for revolt than those which\nimmediately connect themselves with the person or character of Louis\nXVI. There were, if I may so express it, a thousand despotisms to be\nreformed in France, which had grown up under the hereditary despotism\nof the monarchy, and became so rooted as to be in a great measure\nindependent of it. Between the Monarchy, the Parliament, and the\nChurch there was a rivalship of despotism; besides the feudal despotism\noperating locally, and the ministerial despotism operating everywhere.\nBut Mr. Burke, by considering the king as the only possible object of\na revolt, speaks as if France was a village, in which everything that\npassed must be known to its commanding officer, and no oppression could\nbe acted but what he could immediately control. Mr. Burke might have\nbeen in the Bastille his whole life, as well under Louis XVI. as Louis\nXIV., and neither the one nor the other have known that such a man as\nBurke existed. The despotic principles of the government were the same\nin both reigns, though the dispositions of the men were as remote as\ntyranny and benevolence.\n\nWhat Mr. Burke considers as a reproach to the French Revolution (that of\nbringing it forward under a reign more mild than the preceding ones)\nis one of its highest honors. The Revolutions that have taken place in\nother European countries, have been excited by personal hatred. The rage\nwas against the man, and he became the victim. But, in the instance of\nFrance we see a Revolution generated in the rational contemplation of\nthe Rights of Man, and distinguishing from the beginning between persons\nand principles.\n\nBut Mr. Burke appears to have no idea of principles when he is\ncontemplating Governments. \"Ten years ago,\" says he, \"I could have\nfelicitated France on her having a Government, without inquiring what\nthe nature of that Government was, or how it was administered.\" Is this\nthe language of a rational man? Is it the language of a heart feeling as\nit ought to feel for the rights and happiness of the human race? On\nthis ground, Mr. Burke must compliment all the Governments in the world,\nwhile the victims who suffer under them, whether sold into slavery, or\ntortured out of existence, are wholly forgotten. It is power, and\nnot principles, that Mr. Burke venerates; and under this abominable\ndepravity he is disqualified to judge between them. Thus much for his\nopinion as to the occasions of the French Revolution. I now proceed to\nother considerations.\n\nI know a place in America called Point-no-Point, because as you proceed\nalong the shore, gay and flowery as Mr. Burke's language, it continually\nrecedes and presents itself at a distance before you; but when you have\ngot as far as you can go, there is no point at all. Just thus it is with\nMr. Burke's three hundred and sixty-six pages. It is therefore difficult\nto reply to him. But as the points he wishes to establish may be\ninferred from what he abuses, it is in his paradoxes that we must look\nfor his arguments.\n\nAs to the tragic paintings by which Mr. Burke has outraged his own\nimagination, and seeks to work upon that of his readers, they are\nvery well calculated for theatrical representation, where facts are\nmanufactured for the sake of show, and accommodated to produce, through\nthe weakness of sympathy, a weeping effect. But Mr. Burke should\nrecollect that he is writing history, and not plays, and that his\nreaders will expect truth, and not the spouting rant of high-toned\nexclamation.\n\nWhen we see a man dramatically lamenting in a publication intended to be\nbelieved that \"The age of chivalry is gone! that The glory of Europe is\nextinguished for ever! that The unbought grace of life (if anyone knows\nwhat it is), the cheap defence of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment\nand heroic enterprise is gone!\" and all this because the Quixot age of\nchivalry nonsense is gone, what opinion can we form of his judgment, or\nwhat regard can we pay to his facts? In the rhapsody of his imagination\nhe has discovered a world of wind mills, and his sorrows are that there\nare no Quixots to attack them. But if the age of aristocracy, like that\nof chivalry, should fall (and they had originally some connection) Mr.\nBurke, the trumpeter of the Order, may continue his parody to the end,\nand finish with exclaiming: \"Othello's occupation's gone!\"\n\nNotwithstanding Mr. Burke's horrid paintings, when the French Revolution\nis compared with the Revolutions of other countries, the astonishment\nwill be that it is marked with so few sacrifices; but this astonishment\nwill cease when we reflect that principles, and not persons, were the\nmeditated objects of destruction. The mind of the nation was acted\nupon by a higher stimulus than what the consideration of persons could\ninspire, and sought a higher conquest than could be produced by the\ndownfall of an enemy. Among the few who fell there do not appear to be\nany that were intentionally singled out. They all of them had their fate\nin the circumstances of the moment, and were not pursued with that long,\ncold-blooded unabated revenge which pursued the unfortunate Scotch in\nthe affair of 1745.\n\nThrough the whole of Mr. Burke's book I do not observe that the Bastille\nis mentioned more than once, and that with a kind of implication as if\nhe were sorry it was pulled down, and wished it were built up again. \"We\nhave rebuilt Newgate,\" says he, \"and tenanted the mansion; and we have\nprisons almost as strong as the Bastille for those who dare to libel the\nqueens of France.\"*[2] As to what a madman like the person called Lord\nGeorge Gordon might say, and to whom Newgate is rather a bedlam than a\nprison, it is unworthy a rational consideration. It was a madman that\nlibelled, and that is sufficient apology; and it afforded an opportunity\nfor confining him, which was the thing that was wished for. But certain\nit is that Mr. Burke, who does not call himself a madman (whatever other\npeople may do), has libelled in the most unprovoked manner, and in\nthe grossest style of the most vulgar abuse, the whole representative\nauthority of France, and yet Mr. Burke takes his seat in the British\nHouse of Commons! From his violence and his grief, his silence on some\npoints and his excess on others, it is difficult not to believe that Mr.\nBurke is sorry, extremely sorry, that arbitrary power, the power of the\nPope and the Bastille, are pulled down.\n\nNot one glance of compassion, not one commiserating reflection that I\ncan find throughout his book, has he bestowed on those who lingered out\nthe most wretched of lives, a life without hope in the most miserable of\nprisons. It is painful to behold a man employing his talents to corrupt\nhimself. Nature has been kinder to Mr. Burke than he is to her. He is\nnot affected by the reality of distress touching his heart, but by the\nshowy resemblance of it striking his imagination. He pities the plumage,\nbut forgets the dying bird. Accustomed to kiss the aristocratical hand\nthat hath purloined him from himself, he degenerates into a composition\nof art, and the genuine soul of nature forsakes him. His hero or his\nheroine must be a tragedy-victim expiring in show, and not the real\nprisoner of misery, sliding into death in the silence of a dungeon.\n\nAs Mr. Burke has passed over the whole transaction of the Bastille (and\nhis silence is nothing in his favour), and has entertained his readers\nwith refections on supposed facts distorted into real falsehoods, I will\ngive, since he has not, some account of the circumstances which preceded\nthat transaction. They will serve to show that less mischief could\nscarcely have accompanied such an event when considered with the\ntreacherous and hostile aggravations of the enemies of the Revolution.\n\nThe mind can hardly picture to itself a more tremendous scene than what\nthe city of Paris exhibited at the time of taking the Bastille, and for\ntwo days before and after, nor perceive the possibility of its quieting\nso soon. At a distance this transaction has appeared only as an act of\nheroism standing on itself, and the close political connection it had\nwith the Revolution is lost in the brilliancy of the achievement. But\nwe are to consider it as the strength of the parties brought man to man,\nand contending for the issue. The Bastille was to be either the prize\nor the prison of the assailants. The downfall of it included the idea\nof the downfall of despotism, and this compounded image was become as\nfiguratively united as Bunyan's Doubting Castle and Giant Despair.\n\nThe National Assembly, before and at the time of taking the Bastille,\nwas sitting at Versailles, twelve miles distant from Paris. About a week\nbefore the rising of the Partisans, and their taking the Bastille, it\nwas discovered that a plot was forming, at the head of which was\nthe Count D'Artois, the king's youngest brother, for demolishing the\nNational Assembly, seizing its members, and thereby crushing, by a coup\nde main, all hopes and prospects of forming a free government. For\nthe sake of humanity, as well as freedom, it is well this plan did not\nsucceed. Examples are not wanting to show how dreadfully vindictive and\ncruel are all old governments, when they are successful against what\nthey call a revolt.\n\nThis plan must have been some time in contemplation; because, in order\nto carry it into execution, it was necessary to collect a large military\nforce round Paris, and cut off the communication between that city\nand the National Assembly at Versailles. The troops destined for this\nservice were chiefly the foreign troops in the pay of France, and who,\nfor this particular purpose, were drawn from the distant provinces where\nthey were then stationed. When they were collected to the amount of\nbetween twenty-five and thirty thousand, it was judged time to put the\nplan into execution. The ministry who were then in office, and who were\nfriendly to the Revolution, were instantly dismissed and a new ministry\nformed of those who had concerted the project, among whom was Count de\nBroglio, and to his share was given the command of those troops.\nThe character of this man as described to me in a letter which I\ncommunicated to Mr. Burke before he began to write his book, and from\nan authority which Mr. Burke well knows was good, was that of \"a\nhigh-flying aristocrat, cool, and capable of every mischief.\"\n\nWhile these matters were agitating, the National Assembly stood in the\nmost perilous and critical situation that a body of men can be supposed\nto act in. They were the devoted victims, and they knew it. They had the\nhearts and wishes of their country on their side, but military authority\nthey had none. The guards of Broglio surrounded the hall where the\nAssembly sat, ready, at the word of command, to seize their persons,\nas had been done the year before to the Parliament of Paris. Had the\nNational Assembly deserted their trust, or had they exhibited signs of\nweakness or fear, their enemies had been encouraged and their country\ndepressed. When the situation they stood in, the cause they were engaged\nin, and the crisis then ready to burst, which should determine their\npersonal and political fate and that of their country, and probably of\nEurope, are taken into one view, none but a heart callous with prejudice\nor corrupted by dependence can avoid interesting itself in their\nsuccess.\n\nThe Archbishop of Vienne was at this time President of the National\nAssembly--a person too old to undergo the scene that a few days or a few\nhours might bring forth. A man of more activity and bolder fortitude\nwas necessary, and the National Assembly chose (under the form of a\nVice-President, for the Presidency still resided in the Archbishop) M.\nde la Fayette; and this is the only instance of a Vice-President being\nchosen. It was at the moment that this storm was pending (July 11th)\nthat a declaration of rights was brought forward by M. de la Fayette,\nand is the same which is alluded to earlier. It was hastily drawn up,\nand makes only a part of the more extensive declaration of rights agreed\nupon and adopted afterwards by the National Assembly. The particular\nreason for bringing it forward at this moment (M. de la Fayette has\nsince informed me) was that, if the National Assembly should fall in\nthe threatened destruction that then surrounded it, some trace of its\nprinciples might have the chance of surviving the wreck.\n\nEverything now was drawing to a crisis. The event was freedom or\nslavery. On one side, an army of nearly thirty thousand men; on the\nother, an unarmed body of citizens--for the citizens of Paris, on whom\nthe National Assembly must then immediately depend, were as unarmed and\nas undisciplined as the citizens of London are now. The French guards\nhad given strong symptoms of their being attached to the national cause;\nbut their numbers were small, not a tenth part of the force that Broglio\ncommanded, and their officers were in the interest of Broglio.\n\nMatters being now ripe for execution, the new ministry made their\nappearance in office. The reader will carry in his mind that the\nBastille was taken the 14th July; the point of time I am now speaking of\nis the 12th. Immediately on the news of the change of ministry reaching\nParis, in the afternoon, all the playhouses and places of entertainment,\nshops and houses, were shut up. The change of ministry was considered as\nthe prelude of hostilities, and the opinion was rightly founded.\n\nThe foreign troops began to advance towards the city. The Prince de\nLambesc, who commanded a body of German cavalry, approached by the Place\nof Louis Xv., which connects itself with some of the streets. In his\nmarch, he insulted and struck an old man with a sword. The French are\nremarkable for their respect to old age; and the insolence with which it\nappeared to be done, uniting with the general fermentation they were\nin, produced a powerful effect, and a cry of \"To arms! to arms!\" spread\nitself in a moment over the city.\n\nArms they had none, nor scarcely anyone who knew the use of them; but\ndesperate resolution, when every hope is at stake, supplies, for a\nwhile, the want of arms. Near where the Prince de Lambesc was drawn up,\nwere large piles of stones collected for building the new bridge, and\nwith these the people attacked the cavalry. A party of French guards\nupon hearing the firing, rushed from their quarters and joined the\npeople; and night coming on, the cavalry retreated.\n\nThe streets of Paris, being narrow, are favourable for defence, and the\nloftiness of the houses, consisting of many stories, from which great\nannoyance might be given, secured them against nocturnal enterprises;\nand the night was spent in providing themselves with every sort of\nweapon they could make or procure: guns, swords, blacksmiths' hammers,\ncarpenters' axes, iron crows, pikes, halberts, pitchforks, spits, clubs,\netc., etc. The incredible numbers in which they assembled the next\nmorning, and the still more incredible resolution they exhibited,\nembarrassed and astonished their enemies. Little did the new ministry\nexpect such a salute. Accustomed to slavery themselves, they had no idea\nthat liberty was capable of such inspiration, or that a body of unarmed\ncitizens would dare to face the military force of thirty thousand men.\nEvery moment of this day was employed in collecting arms, concerting\nplans, and arranging themselves into the best order which such an\ninstantaneous movement could afford. Broglio continued lying round the\ncity, but made no further advances this day, and the succeeding night\npassed with as much tranquility as such a scene could possibly produce.\n\nBut defence only was not the object of the citizens. They had a cause\nat stake, on which depended their freedom or their slavery. They every\nmoment expected an attack, or to hear of one made on the National\nAssembly; and in such a situation, the most prompt measures are\nsometimes the best. The object that now presented itself was the\nBastille; and the eclat of carrying such a fortress in the face of such\nan army, could not fail to strike terror into the new ministry, who had\nscarcely yet had time to meet. By some intercepted correspondence this\nmorning, it was discovered that the Mayor of Paris, M. Defflesselles,\nwho appeared to be in the interest of the citizens, was betraying them;\nand from this discovery, there remained no doubt that Broglio would\nreinforce the Bastille the ensuing evening. It was therefore necessary\nto attack it that day; but before this could be done, it was first\nnecessary to procure a better supply of arms than they were then\npossessed of.\n\nThere was, adjoining to the city a large magazine of arms deposited at\nthe Hospital of the Invalids, which the citizens summoned to surrender;\nand as the place was neither defensible, nor attempted much defence,\nthey soon succeeded. Thus supplied, they marched to attack the Bastille;\na vast mixed multitude of all ages, and of all degrees, armed with all\nsorts of weapons. Imagination would fail in describing to itself the\nappearance of such a procession, and of the anxiety of the events which\na few hours or a few minutes might produce. What plans the ministry\nwere forming, were as unknown to the people within the city, as what\nthe citizens were doing was unknown to the ministry; and what movements\nBroglio might make for the support or relief of the place, were to the\ncitizens equally as unknown. All was mystery and hazard.\n\nThat the Bastille was attacked with an enthusiasm of heroism, such only\nas the highest animation of liberty could inspire, and carried in the\nspace of a few hours, is an event which the world is fully possessed of.\nI am not undertaking the detail of the attack, but bringing into view\nthe conspiracy against the nation which provoked it, and which fell\nwith the Bastille. The prison to which the new ministry were dooming the\nNational Assembly, in addition to its being the high altar and castle of\ndespotism, became the proper object to begin with. This enterprise\nbroke up the new ministry, who began now to fly from the ruin they had\nprepared for others. The troops of Broglio dispersed, and himself fled\nalso.\n\nMr. Burke has spoken a great deal about plots, but he has never once\nspoken of this plot against the National Assembly, and the liberties\nof the nation; and that he might not, he has passed over all the\ncircumstances that might throw it in his way. The exiles who have fled\nfrom France, whose case he so much interests himself in, and from whom\nhe has had his lesson, fled in consequence of the miscarriage of this\nplot. No plot was formed against them; they were plotting against\nothers; and those who fell, met, not unjustly, the punishment they\nwere preparing to execute. But will Mr. Burke say that if this plot,\ncontrived with the subtilty of an ambuscade, had succeeded, the\nsuccessful party would have restrained their wrath so soon? Let the\nhistory of all governments answer the question.\n\nWhom has the National Assembly brought to the scaffold? None. They\nwere themselves the devoted victims of this plot, and they have not\nretaliated; why, then, are they charged with revenge they have not\nacted? In the tremendous breaking forth of a whole people, in which all\ndegrees, tempers and characters are confounded, delivering themselves,\nby a miracle of exertion, from the destruction meditated against them,\nis it to be expected that nothing will happen? When men are sore with\nthe sense of oppressions, and menaced with the prospects of new ones,\nis the calmness of philosophy or the palsy of insensibility to be looked\nfor? Mr. Burke exclaims against outrage; yet the greatest is that which\nhimself has committed. His book is a volume of outrage, not apologised\nfor by the impulse of a moment, but cherished through a space of ten\nmonths; yet Mr. Burke had no provocation--no life, no interest, at\nstake.\n\nMore of the citizens fell in this struggle than of their opponents: but\nfour or five persons were seized by the populace, and instantly put to\ndeath; the Governor of the Bastille, and the Mayor of Paris, who was\ndetected in the act of betraying them; and afterwards Foulon, one of the\nnew ministry, and Berthier, his son-in-law, who had accepted the office\nof intendant of Paris. Their heads were stuck upon spikes, and carried\nabout the city; and it is upon this mode of punishment that Mr. Burke\nbuilds a great part of his tragic scene. Let us therefore examine how\nmen came by the idea of punishing in this manner.\n\nThey learn it from the governments they live under; and retaliate the\npunishments they have been accustomed to behold. The heads stuck upon\nspikes, which remained for years upon Temple Bar, differed nothing in\nthe horror of the scene from those carried about upon spikes at Paris;\nyet this was done by the English Government. It may perhaps be said that\nit signifies nothing to a man what is done to him after he is dead; but\nit signifies much to the living; it either tortures their feelings or\nhardens their hearts, and in either case it instructs them how to punish\nwhen power falls into their hands.\n\nLay then the axe to the root, and teach governments humanity. It is\ntheir sanguinary punishments which corrupt mankind. In England the\npunishment in certain cases is by hanging, drawing and quartering;\nthe heart of the sufferer is cut out and held up to the view of the\npopulace. In France, under the former Government, the punishments were\nnot less barbarous. Who does not remember the execution of Damien, torn\nto pieces by horses? The effect of those cruel spectacles exhibited to\nthe populace is to destroy tenderness or excite revenge; and by the\nbase and false idea of governing men by terror, instead of reason,\nthey become precedents. It is over the lowest class of mankind that\ngovernment by terror is intended to operate, and it is on them that it\noperates to the worst effect. They have sense enough to feel they are\nthe objects aimed at; and they inflict in their turn the examples of\nterror they have been instructed to practise.\n\nThere is in all European countries a large class of people of that\ndescription, which in England is called the \"mob.\" Of this class were\nthose who committed the burnings and devastations in London in 1780, and\nof this class were those who carried the heads on iron spikes in Paris.\nFoulon and Berthier were taken up in the country, and sent to Paris,\nto undergo their examination at the Hotel de Ville; for the National\nAssembly, immediately on the new ministry coming into office, passed a\ndecree, which they communicated to the King and Cabinet, that they (the\nNational Assembly) would hold the ministry, of which Foulon was one,\nresponsible for the measures they were advising and pursuing; but the\nmob, incensed at the appearance of Foulon and Berthier, tore them from\ntheir conductors before they were carried to the Hotel de Ville, and\nexecuted them on the spot. Why then does Mr. Burke charge outrages\nof this kind on a whole people? As well may he charge the riots and\noutrages of 1780 on all the people of London, or those in Ireland on all\nhis countrymen.\n\nBut everything we see or hear offensive to our feelings and derogatory\nto the human character should lead to other reflections than those\nof reproach. Even the beings who commit them have some claim to our\nconsideration. How then is it that such vast classes of mankind as are\ndistinguished by the appellation of the vulgar, or the ignorant mob,\nare so numerous in all old countries? The instant we ask ourselves\nthis question, reflection feels an answer. They rise, as an unavoidable\nconsequence, out of the ill construction of all old governments in\nEurope, England included with the rest. It is by distortedly exalting\nsome men, that others are distortedly debased, till the whole is out\nof nature. A vast mass of mankind are degradedly thrown into the\nback-ground of the human picture, to bring forward, with greater glare,\nthe puppet-show of state and aristocracy. In the commencement of a\nrevolution, those men are rather the followers of the camp than of the\nstandard of liberty, and have yet to be instructed how to reverence it.\n\nI give to Mr. Burke all his theatrical exaggerations for facts, and I\nthen ask him if they do not establish the certainty of what I here lay\ndown? Admitting them to be true, they show the necessity of the French\nRevolution, as much as any one thing he could have asserted. These\noutrages were not the effect of the principles of the Revolution, but\nof the degraded mind that existed before the Revolution, and which the\nRevolution is calculated to reform. Place them then to their proper\ncause, and take the reproach of them to your own side.\n\nIt is the honour of the National Assembly and the city of Paris that,\nduring such a tremendous scene of arms and confusion, beyond the control\nof all authority, they have been able, by the influence of example\nand exhortation, to restrain so much. Never were more pains taken to\ninstruct and enlighten mankind, and to make them see that their interest\nconsisted in their virtue, and not in their revenge, than have been\ndisplayed in the Revolution of France. I now proceed to make some\nremarks on Mr. Burke's account of the expedition to Versailles, October\nthe 5th and 6th.\n\nI can consider Mr. Burke's book in scarcely any other light than a\ndramatic performance; and he must, I think, have considered it in the\nsame light himself, by the poetical liberties he has taken of omitting\nsome facts, distorting others, and making the whole machinery bend to\nproduce a stage effect. Of this kind is his account of the expedition to\nVersailles. He begins this account by omitting the only facts which as\ncauses are known to be true; everything beyond these is conjecture, even\nin Paris; and he then works up a tale accommodated to his own passions\nand prejudices.\n\nIt is to be observed throughout Mr. Burke's book that he never speaks\nof plots against the Revolution; and it is from those plots that all the\nmischiefs have arisen. It suits his purpose to exhibit the consequences\nwithout their causes. It is one of the arts of the drama to do so. If\nthe crimes of men were exhibited with their sufferings, stage effect\nwould sometimes be lost, and the audience would be inclined to approve\nwhere it was intended they should commiserate.\n\nAfter all the investigations that have been made into this intricate\naffair (the expedition to Versailles), it still remains enveloped in all\nthat kind of mystery which ever accompanies events produced more from a\nconcurrence of awkward circumstances than from fixed design. While the\ncharacters of men are forming, as is always the case in revolutions,\nthere is a reciprocal suspicion, and a disposition to misinterpret each\nother; and even parties directly opposite in principle will sometimes\nconcur in pushing forward the same movement with very different views,\nand with the hopes of its producing very different consequences. A great\ndeal of this may be discovered in this embarrassed affair, and yet the\nissue of the whole was what nobody had in view.\n\nThe only things certainly known are that considerable uneasiness was at\nthis time excited at Paris by the delay of the King in not sanctioning\nand forwarding the decrees of the National Assembly, particularly that\nof the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and the decrees of the fourth\nof August, which contained the foundation principles on which the\nconstitution was to be erected. The kindest, and perhaps the fairest\nconjecture upon this matter is, that some of the ministers intended to\nmake remarks and observations upon certain parts of them before they\nwere finally sanctioned and sent to the provinces; but be this as it\nmay, the enemies of the Revolution derived hope from the delay, and the\nfriends of the Revolution uneasiness.\n\nDuring this state of suspense, the Garde du Corps, which was composed as\nsuch regiments generally are, of persons much connected with the\nCourt, gave an entertainment at Versailles (October 1) to some foreign\nregiments then arrived; and when the entertainment was at the height, on\na signal given, the Garde du Corps tore the national cockade from their\nhats, trampled it under foot, and replaced it with a counter-cockade\nprepared for the purpose. An indignity of this kind amounted to\ndefiance. It was like declaring war; and if men will give challenges\nthey must expect consequences. But all this Mr. Burke has carefully kept\nout of sight. He begins his account by saying: \"History will record that\non the morning of the 6th October, 1789, the King and Queen of France,\nafter a day of confusion, alarm, dismay, and slaughter, lay down under\nthe pledged security of public faith to indulge nature in a few hours\nof respite, and troubled melancholy repose.\" This is neither the sober\nstyle of history, nor the intention of it. It leaves everything to\nbe guessed at and mistaken. One would at least think there had been a\nbattle; and a battle there probably would have been had it not been\nfor the moderating prudence of those whom Mr. Burke involves in his\ncensures. By his keeping the Garde du Corps out of sight Mr. Burke has\nafforded himself the dramatic licence of putting the King and Queen in\ntheir places, as if the object of the expedition was against them. But\nto return to my account this conduct of the Garde du Corps, as might\nwell be expected, alarmed and enraged the Partisans. The colors of\nthe cause, and the cause itself, were become too united to mistake the\nintention of the insult, and the Partisans were determined to call\nthe Garde du Corps to an account. There was certainly nothing of the\ncowardice of assassination in marching in the face of the day to demand\nsatisfaction, if such a phrase may be used, of a body of armed men who\nhad voluntarily given defiance. But the circumstance which serves\nto throw this affair into embarrassment is, that the enemies of the\nRevolution appear to have encouraged it as well as its friends. The one\nhoped to prevent a civil war by checking it in time, and the other to\nmake one. The hopes of those opposed to the Revolution rested in making\nthe King of their party, and getting him from Versailles to Metz,\nwhere they expected to collect a force and set up a standard. We have,\ntherefore, two different objects presenting themselves at the same time,\nand to be accomplished by the same means: the one to chastise the Garde\ndu Corps, which was the object of the Partisans; the other to render the\nconfusion of such a scene an inducement to the King to set off for Metz.\n\nOn the 5th of October a very numerous body of women, and men in the\ndisguise of women, collected around the Hotel de Ville or town-hall at\nParis, and set off for Versailles. Their professed object was the Garde\ndu Corps; but prudent men readily recollect that mischief is more easily\nbegun than ended; and this impressed itself with the more force from the\nsuspicions already stated, and the irregularity of such a cavalcade.\nAs soon, therefore, as a sufficient force could be collected, M. de la\nFayette, by orders from the civil authority of Paris, set off after\nthem at the head of twenty thousand of the Paris militia. The Revolution\ncould derive no benefit from confusion, and its opposers might. By an\namiable and spirited manner of address he had hitherto been fortunate in\ncalming disquietudes, and in this he was extraordinarily successful; to\nfrustrate, therefore, the hopes of those who might seek to improve\nthis scene into a sort of justifiable necessity for the King's quitting\nVersailles and withdrawing to Metz, and to prevent at the same time\nthe consequences that might ensue between the Garde du Corps and this\nphalanx of men and women, he forwarded expresses to the King, that he\nwas on his march to Versailles, by the orders of the civil authority of\nParis, for the purpose of peace and protection, expressing at the same\ntime the necessity of restraining the Garde du Corps from firing upon\nthe people.*[3]\n\nHe arrived at Versailles between ten and eleven at night. The Garde du\nCorps was drawn up, and the people had arrived some time before, but\neverything had remained suspended. Wisdom and policy now consisted in\nchanging a scene of danger into a happy event. M. de la Fayette became\nthe mediator between the enraged parties; and the King, to remove the\nuneasiness which had arisen from the delay already stated, sent for the\nPresident of the National Assembly, and signed the Declaration of the\nRights of Man, and such other parts of the constitution as were in\nreadiness.\n\nIt was now about one in the morning. Everything appeared to be composed,\nand a general congratulation took place. By the beat of a drum a\nproclamation was made that the citizens of Versailles would give the\nhospitality of their houses to their fellow-citizens of Paris. Those\nwho could not be accommodated in this manner remained in the streets, or\ntook up their quarters in the churches; and at two o'clock the King and\nQueen retired.\n\nIn this state matters passed till the break of day, when a fresh\ndisturbance arose from the censurable conduct of some of both parties,\nfor such characters there will be in all such scenes. One of the Garde\ndu Corps appeared at one of the windows of the palace, and the people\nwho had remained during the night in the streets accosted him with\nreviling and provocative language. Instead of retiring, as in such a\ncase prudence would have dictated, he presented his musket, fired, and\nkilled one of the Paris militia. The peace being thus broken, the people\nrushed into the palace in quest of the offender. They attacked the\nquarters of the Garde du Corps within the palace, and pursued them\nthroughout the avenues of it, and to the apartments of the King. On this\ntumult, not the Queen only, as Mr. Burke has represented it, but every\nperson in the palace, was awakened and alarmed; and M. de la Fayette had\na second time to interpose between the parties, the event of which was\nthat the Garde du Corps put on the national cockade, and the matter\nended as by oblivion, after the loss of two or three lives.\n\nDuring the latter part of the time in which this confusion was acting,\nthe King and Queen were in public at the balcony, and neither of them\nconcealed for safety's sake, as Mr. Burke insinuates. Matters being thus\nappeased, and tranquility restored, a general acclamation broke forth of\nLe Roi a Paris--Le Roi a Paris--The King to Paris. It was the shout of\npeace, and immediately accepted on the part of the King. By this measure\nall future projects of trapanning the King to Metz, and setting up the\nstandard of opposition to the constitution, were prevented, and the\nsuspicions extinguished. The King and his family reached Paris in the\nevening, and were congratulated on their arrival by M. Bailly, the Mayor\nof Paris, in the name of the citizens. Mr. Burke, who throughout his\nbook confounds things, persons, and principles, as in his remarks on\nM. Bailly's address, confounded time also. He censures M. Bailly for\ncalling it \"un bon jour,\" a good day. Mr. Burke should have informed\nhimself that this scene took up the space of two days, the day on which\nit began with every appearance of danger and mischief, and the day on\nwhich it terminated without the mischiefs that threatened; and that\nit is to this peaceful termination that M. Bailly alludes, and to the\narrival of the King at Paris. Not less than three hundred thousand\npersons arranged themselves in the procession from Versailles to Paris,\nand not an act of molestation was committed during the whole march.\n\nMr. Burke on the authority of M. Lally Tollendal, a deserter from the\nNational Assembly, says that on entering Paris, the people shouted \"Tous\nles eveques a la lanterne.\" All Bishops to be hanged at the lanthorn\nor lamp-posts. It is surprising that nobody could hear this but Lally\nTollendal, and that nobody should believe it but Mr. Burke. It has not\nthe least connection with any part of the transaction, and is totally\nforeign to every circumstance of it. The Bishops had never been\nintroduced before into any scene of Mr. Burke's drama: why then are\nthey, all at once, and altogether, tout a coup, et tous ensemble,\nintroduced now? Mr. Burke brings forward his Bishops and his\nlanthorn-like figures in a magic lanthorn, and raises his scenes by\ncontrast instead of connection. But it serves to show, with the rest of\nhis book what little credit ought to be given where even probability is\nset at defiance, for the purpose of defaming; and with this reflection,\ninstead of a soliloquy in praise of chivalry, as Mr. Burke has done, I\nclose the account of the expedition to Versailles.*[4]\n\nI have now to follow Mr. Burke through a pathless wilderness of\nrhapsodies, and a sort of descant upon governments, in which he asserts\nwhatever he pleases, on the presumption of its being believed, without\noffering either evidence or reasons for so doing.\n\nBefore anything can be reasoned upon to a conclusion, certain facts,\nprinciples, or data, to reason from, must be established, admitted, or\ndenied. Mr. Burke with his usual outrage, abused the Declaration of\nthe Rights of Man, published by the National Assembly of France, as\nthe basis on which the constitution of France is built. This he calls\n\"paltry and blurred sheets of paper about the rights of man.\" Does Mr.\nBurke mean to deny that man has any rights? If he does, then he must\nmean that there are no such things as rights anywhere, and that he has\nnone himself; for who is there in the world but man? But if Mr. Burke\nmeans to admit that man has rights, the question then will be: What are\nthose rights, and how man came by them originally?\n\nThe error of those who reason by precedents drawn from antiquity,\nrespecting the rights of man, is that they do not go far enough into\nantiquity. They do not go the whole way. They stop in some of the\nintermediate stages of an hundred or a thousand years, and produce what\nwas then done, as a rule for the present day. This is no authority at\nall. If we travel still farther into antiquity, we shall find a direct\ncontrary opinion and practice prevailing; and if antiquity is to be\nauthority, a thousand such authorities may be produced, successively\ncontradicting each other; but if we proceed on, we shall at last come\nout right; we shall come to the time when man came from the hand of his\nMaker. What was he then? Man. Man was his high and only title, and a\nhigher cannot be given him. But of titles I shall speak hereafter.\n\nWe are now got at the origin of man, and at the origin of his rights.\nAs to the manner in which the world has been governed from that day to\nthis, it is no farther any concern of ours than to make a proper use of\nthe errors or the improvements which the history of it presents. Those\nwho lived an hundred or a thousand years ago, were then moderns, as we\nare now. They had their ancients, and those ancients had others, and we\nalso shall be ancients in our turn. If the mere name of antiquity is to\ngovern in the affairs of life, the people who are to live an hundred or\na thousand years hence, may as well take us for a precedent, as we make\na precedent of those who lived an hundred or a thousand years ago. The\nfact is, that portions of antiquity, by proving everything, establish\nnothing. It is authority against authority all the way, till we come\nto the divine origin of the rights of man at the creation. Here our\nenquiries find a resting-place, and our reason finds a home. If a\ndispute about the rights of man had arisen at the distance of an hundred\nyears from the creation, it is to this source of authority they must\nhave referred, and it is to this same source of authority that we must\nnow refer.\n\nThough I mean not to touch upon any sectarian principle of religion,\nyet it may be worth observing, that the genealogy of Christ is traced\nto Adam. Why then not trace the rights of man to the creation of man? I\nwill answer the question. Because there have been upstart governments,\nthrusting themselves between, and presumptuously working to un-make man.\n\nIf any generation of men ever possessed the right of dictating the\nmode by which the world should be governed for ever, it was the\nfirst generation that existed; and if that generation did it not, no\nsucceeding generation can show any authority for doing it, nor can set\nany up. The illuminating and divine principle of the equal rights of man\n(for it has its origin from the Maker of man) relates, not only to the\nliving individuals, but to generations of men succeeding each other.\nEvery generation is equal in rights to generations which preceded it,\nby the same rule that every individual is born equal in rights with his\ncontemporary.\n\nEvery history of the creation, and every traditionary account, whether\nfrom the lettered or unlettered world, however they may vary in their\nopinion or belief of certain particulars, all agree in establishing one\npoint, the unity of man; by which I mean that men are all of one degree,\nand consequently that all men are born equal, and with equal natural\nright, in the same manner as if posterity had been continued by creation\ninstead of generation, the latter being the only mode by which the\nformer is carried forward; and consequently every child born into the\nworld must be considered as deriving its existence from God. The world\nis as new to him as it was to the first man that existed, and his\nnatural right in it is of the same kind.\n\nThe Mosaic account of the creation, whether taken as divine authority or\nmerely historical, is full to this point, the unity or equality of man.\nThe expression admits of no controversy. \"And God said, Let us make man\nin our own image. In the image of God created he him; male and female\ncreated he them.\" The distinction of sexes is pointed out, but no other\ndistinction is even implied. If this be not divine authority, it is at\nleast historical authority, and shows that the equality of man, so far\nfrom being a modern doctrine, is the oldest upon record.\n\nIt is also to be observed that all the religions known in the world are\nfounded, so far as they relate to man, on the unity of man, as being all\nof one degree. Whether in heaven or in hell, or in whatever state man\nmay be supposed to exist hereafter, the good and the bad are the only\ndistinctions. Nay, even the laws of governments are obliged to slide\ninto this principle, by making degrees to consist in crimes and not in\npersons.\n\nIt is one of the greatest of all truths, and of the highest advantage to\ncultivate. By considering man in this light, and by instructing him to\nconsider himself in this light, it places him in a close connection with\nall his duties, whether to his Creator or to the creation, of which he\nis a part; and it is only when he forgets his origin, or, to use a more\nfashionable phrase, his birth and family, that he becomes dissolute. It\nis not among the least of the evils of the present existing governments\nin all parts of Europe that man, considered as man, is thrown back to a\nvast distance from his Maker, and the artificial chasm filled up with a\nsuccession of barriers, or sort of turnpike gates, through which he has\nto pass. I will quote Mr. Burke's catalogue of barriers that he has\nset up between man and his Maker. Putting himself in the character of a\nherald, he says: \"We fear God--we look with awe to kings--with affection\nto Parliaments with duty to magistrates--with reverence to priests,\nand with respect to nobility.\" Mr. Burke has forgotten to put in\n\"'chivalry.\" He has also forgotten to put in Peter.\n\nThe duty of man is not a wilderness of turnpike gates, through which he\nis to pass by tickets from one to the other. It is plain and simple, and\nconsists but of two points. His duty to God, which every man must feel;\nand with respect to his neighbor, to do as he would be done by. If those\nto whom power is delegated do well, they will be respected: if not,\nthey will be despised; and with regard to those to whom no power is\ndelegated, but who assume it, the rational world can know nothing of\nthem.\n\nHitherto we have spoken only (and that but in part) of the natural\nrights of man. We have now to consider the civil rights of man, and\nto show how the one originates from the other. Man did not enter into\nsociety to become worse than he was before, nor to have fewer rights\nthan he had before, but to have those rights better secured. His natural\nrights are the foundation of all his civil rights. But in order to\npursue this distinction with more precision, it will be necessary to\nmark the different qualities of natural and civil rights.\n\nA few words will explain this. Natural rights are those which appertain\nto man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual\nrights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an\nindividual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to\nthe natural rights of others. Civil rights are those which appertain to\nman in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for\nits foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but\nto the enjoyment of which his individual power is not, in all cases,\nsufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to\nsecurity and protection.\n\nFrom this short review it will be easy to distinguish between that class\nof natural rights which man retains after entering into society and\nthose which he throws into the common stock as a member of society.\n\nThe natural rights which he retains are all those in which the Power to\nexecute is as perfect in the individual as the right itself. Among\nthis class, as is before mentioned, are all the intellectual rights, or\nrights of the mind; consequently religion is one of those rights. The\nnatural rights which are not retained, are all those in which, though\nthe right is perfect in the individual, the power to execute them is\ndefective. They answer not his purpose. A man, by natural right, has a\nright to judge in his own cause; and so far as the right of the mind is\nconcerned, he never surrenders it. But what availeth it him to judge,\nif he has not power to redress? He therefore deposits this right in the\ncommon stock of society, and takes the ann of society, of which he is\na part, in preference and in addition to his own. Society grants him\nnothing. Every man is a proprietor in society, and draws on the capital\nas a matter of right.\n\nFrom these premisses two or three certain conclusions will follow:\n\nFirst, That every civil right grows out of a natural right; or, in other\nwords, is a natural right exchanged.\n\nSecondly, That civil power properly considered as such is made up of\nthe aggregate of that class of the natural rights of man, which becomes\ndefective in the individual in point of power, and answers not his\npurpose, but when collected to a focus becomes competent to the Purpose\nof every one.\n\nThirdly, That the power produced from the aggregate of natural rights,\nimperfect in power in the individual, cannot be applied to invade the\nnatural rights which are retained in the individual, and in which the\npower to execute is as perfect as the right itself.\n\nWe have now, in a few words, traced man from a natural individual to a\nmember of society, and shown, or endeavoured to show, the quality of\nthe natural rights retained, and of those which are exchanged for civil\nrights. Let us now apply these principles to governments.\n\nIn casting our eyes over the world, it is extremely easy to distinguish\nthe governments which have arisen out of society, or out of the social\ncompact, from those which have not; but to place this in a clearer light\nthan what a single glance may afford, it will be proper to take a review\nof the several sources from which governments have arisen and on which\nthey have been founded.\n\nThey may be all comprehended under three heads.\n\nFirst, Superstition.\n\nSecondly, Power.\n\nThirdly, The common interest of society and the common rights of man.\n\nThe first was a government of priestcraft, the second of conquerors, and\nthe third of reason.\n\nWhen a set of artful men pretended, through the medium of oracles, to\nhold intercourse with the Deity, as familiarly as they now march up\nthe back-stairs in European courts, the world was completely under the\ngovernment of superstition. The oracles were consulted, and whatever\nthey were made to say became the law; and this sort of government lasted\nas long as this sort of superstition lasted.\n\nAfter these a race of conquerors arose, whose government, like that of\nWilliam the Conqueror, was founded in power, and the sword assumed the\nname of a sceptre. Governments thus established last as long as the\npower to support them lasts; but that they might avail themselves of\nevery engine in their favor, they united fraud to force, and set up\nan idol which they called Divine Right, and which, in imitation of the\nPope, who affects to be spiritual and temporal, and in contradiction to\nthe Founder of the Christian religion, twisted itself afterwards into an\nidol of another shape, called Church and State. The key of St. Peter\nand the key of the Treasury became quartered on one another, and the\nwondering cheated multitude worshipped the invention.\n\nWhen I contemplate the natural dignity of man, when I feel (for Nature\nhas not been kind enough to me to blunt my feelings) for the honour and\nhappiness of its character, I become irritated at the attempt to govern\nmankind by force and fraud, as if they were all knaves and fools, and\ncan scarcely avoid disgust at those who are thus imposed upon.\n\nWe have now to review the governments which arise out of society, in\ncontradistinction to those which arose out of superstition and conquest.\n\nIt has been thought a considerable advance towards establishing the\nprinciples of Freedom to say that Government is a compact between those\nwho govern and those who are governed; but this cannot be true, because\nit is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have\nexisted before governments existed, there necessarily was a time when\ngovernments did not exist, and consequently there could originally exist\nno governors to form such a compact with.\n\nThe fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his\nown personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other\nto produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments\nhave a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right\nto exist.\n\nTo possess ourselves of a clear idea of what government is, or ought\nto be, we must trace it to its origin. In doing this we shall easily\ndiscover that governments must have arisen either out of the people\nor over the people. Mr. Burke has made no distinction. He investigates\nnothing to its source, and therefore he confounds everything; but he has\nsignified his intention of undertaking, at some future opportunity, a\ncomparison between the constitution of England and France. As he thus\nrenders it a subject of controversy by throwing the gauntlet, I take him\nupon his own ground. It is in high challenges that high truths have the\nright of appearing; and I accept it with the more readiness because it\naffords me, at the same time, an opportunity of pursuing the subject\nwith respect to governments arising out of society.\n\nBut it will be first necessary to define what is meant by a\nConstitution. It is not sufficient that we adopt the word; we must fix\nalso a standard signification to it.\n\nA constitution is not a thing in name only, but in fact. It has not an\nideal, but a real existence; and wherever it cannot be produced in a\nvisible form, there is none. A constitution is a thing antecedent to a\ngovernment, and a government is only the creature of a constitution. The\nconstitution of a country is not the act of its government, but of the\npeople constituting its government. It is the body of elements, to which\nyou can refer, and quote article by article; and which contains the\nprinciples on which the government shall be established, the manner\nin which it shall be organised, the powers it shall have, the mode\nof elections, the duration of Parliaments, or by what other name\nsuch bodies may be called; the powers which the executive part of the\ngovernment shall have; and in fine, everything that relates to the\ncomplete organisation of a civil government, and the principles on which\nit shall act, and by which it shall be bound. A constitution, therefore,\nis to a government what the laws made afterwards by that government\nare to a court of judicature. The court of judicature does not make the\nlaws, neither can it alter them; it only acts in conformity to the laws\nmade: and the government is in like manner governed by the constitution.\n\nCan, then, Mr. Burke produce the English Constitution? If he cannot,\nwe may fairly conclude that though it has been so much talked about, no\nsuch thing as a constitution exists, or ever did exist, and consequently\nthat the people have yet a constitution to form.\n\nMr. Burke will not, I presume, deny the position I have already\nadvanced--namely, that governments arise either out of the people or\nover the people. The English Government is one of those which arose out\nof a conquest, and not out of society, and consequently it arose over\nthe people; and though it has been much modified from the opportunity of\ncircumstances since the time of William the Conqueror, the country has\nnever yet regenerated itself, and is therefore without a constitution.\n\nI readily perceive the reason why Mr. Burke declined going into the\ncomparison between the English and French constitutions, because he\ncould not but perceive, when he sat down to the task, that no such a\nthing as a constitution existed on his side the question. His book\nis certainly bulky enough to have contained all he could say on this\nsubject, and it would have been the best manner in which people could\nhave judged of their separate merits. Why then has he declined the only\nthing that was worth while to write upon? It was the strongest ground he\ncould take, if the advantages were on his side, but the weakest if they\nwere not; and his declining to take it is either a sign that he could\nnot possess it or could not maintain it.\n\nMr. Burke said, in a speech last winter in Parliament, \"that when the\nNational Assembly first met in three Orders (the Tiers Etat, the Clergy,\nand the Noblesse), France had then a good constitution.\" This shows,\namong numerous other instances, that Mr. Burke does not understand what\na constitution is. The persons so met were not a constitution, but a\nconvention, to make a constitution.\n\nThe present National Assembly of France is, strictly speaking, the\npersonal social compact. The members of it are the delegates of\nthe nation in its original character; future assemblies will be the\ndelegates of the nation in its organised character. The authority of\nthe present Assembly is different from what the authority of future\nAssemblies will be. The authority of the present one is to form a\nconstitution; the authority of future assemblies will be to legislate\naccording to the principles and forms prescribed in that constitution;\nand if experience should hereafter show that alterations, amendments,\nor additions are necessary, the constitution will point out the mode by\nwhich such things shall be done, and not leave it to the discretionary\npower of the future government.\n\nA government on the principles on which constitutional governments\narising out of society are established, cannot have the right of\naltering itself. If it had, it would be arbitrary. It might make itself\nwhat it pleased; and wherever such a right is set up, it shows there\nis no constitution. The act by which the English Parliament empowered\nitself to sit seven years, shows there is no constitution in England. It\nmight, by the same self-authority, have sat any great number of years,\nor for life. The bill which the present Mr. Pitt brought into Parliament\nsome years ago, to reform Parliament, was on the same erroneous\nprinciple. The right of reform is in the nation in its original\ncharacter, and the constitutional method would be by a general\nconvention elected for the purpose. There is, moreover, a paradox in the\nidea of vitiated bodies reforming themselves.\n\nFrom these preliminaries I proceed to draw some comparisons. I have\nalready spoken of the declaration of rights; and as I mean to be as\nconcise as possible, I shall proceed to other parts of the French\nConstitution.\n\nThe constitution of France says that every man who pays a tax of sixty\nsous per annum (2s. 6d. English) is an elector. What article will Mr.\nBurke place against this? Can anything be more limited, and at the same\ntime more capricious, than the qualification of electors is in England?\nLimited--because not one man in an hundred (I speak much within compass)\nis admitted to vote. Capricious--because the lowest character that can\nbe supposed to exist, and who has not so much as the visible means of an\nhonest livelihood, is an elector in some places: while in other places,\nthe man who pays very large taxes, and has a known fair character, and\nthe farmer who rents to the amount of three or four hundred pounds a\nyear, with a property on that farm to three or four times that amount,\nis not admitted to be an elector. Everything is out of nature, as Mr.\nBurke says on another occasion, in this strange chaos, and all sorts of\nfollies are blended with all sorts of crimes. William the Conqueror and\nhis descendants parcelled out the country in this manner, and bribed\nsome parts of it by what they call charters to hold the other parts of\nit the better subjected to their will. This is the reason why so many\nof those charters abound in Cornwall; the people were averse to the\nGovernment established at the Conquest, and the towns were garrisoned\nand bribed to enslave the country. All the old charters are the badges\nof this conquest, and it is from this source that the capriciousness of\nelection arises.\n\nThe French Constitution says that the number of representatives for\nany place shall be in a ratio to the number of taxable inhabitants or\nelectors. What article will Mr. Burke place against this? The county\nof York, which contains nearly a million of souls, sends two county\nmembers; and so does the county of Rutland, which contains not an\nhundredth part of that number. The old town of Sarum, which contains\nnot three houses, sends two members; and the town of Manchester, which\ncontains upward of sixty thousand souls, is not admitted to send any.\nIs there any principle in these things? It is admitted that all this\nis altered, but there is much to be done yet, before we have a fair\nrepresentation of the people. Is there anything by which you can trace\nthe marks of freedom, or discover those of wisdom? No wonder then Mr.\nBurke has declined the comparison, and endeavored to lead his readers\nfrom the point by a wild, unsystematical display of paradoxical\nrhapsodies.\n\nThe French Constitution says that the National Assembly shall be elected\nevery two years. What article will Mr. Burke place against this? Why,\nthat the nation has no right at all in the case; that the government is\nperfectly arbitrary with respect to this point; and he can quote for his\nauthority the precedent of a former Parliament.\n\nThe French Constitution says there shall be no game laws, that the\nfarmer on whose lands wild game shall be found (for it is by the produce\nof his lands they are fed) shall have a right to what he can take; that\nthere shall be no monopolies of any kind--that all trades shall be free\nand every man free to follow any occupation by which he can procure\nan honest livelihood, and in any place, town, or city throughout the\nnation. What will Mr. Burke say to this? In England, game is made the\nproperty of those at whose expense it is not fed; and with respect to\nmonopolies, the country is cut up into monopolies. Every chartered\ntown is an aristocratical monopoly in itself, and the qualification of\nelectors proceeds out of those chartered monopolies. Is this freedom? Is\nthis what Mr. Burke means by a constitution?\n\nIn these chartered monopolies, a man coming from another part of the\ncountry is hunted from them as if he were a foreign enemy. An Englishman\nis not free of his own country; every one of those places presents a\nbarrier in his way, and tells him he is not a freeman--that he has no\nrights. Within these monopolies are other monopolies. In a city, such\nfor instance as Bath, which contains between twenty and thirty thousand\ninhabitants, the right of electing representatives to Parliament is\nmonopolised by about thirty-one persons. And within these monopolies\nare still others. A man even of the same town, whose parents were not\nin circumstances to give him an occupation, is debarred, in many cases,\nfrom the natural right of acquiring one, be his genius or industry what\nit may.\n\nAre these things examples to hold out to a country regenerating itself\nfrom slavery, like France? Certainly they are not, and certain am I,\nthat when the people of England come to reflect upon them they will,\nlike France, annihilate those badges of ancient oppression, those traces\nof a conquered nation. Had Mr. Burke possessed talents similar to the\nauthor of \"On the Wealth of Nations.\" he would have comprehended all\nthe parts which enter into, and, by assemblage, form a constitution.\nHe would have reasoned from minutiae to magnitude. It is not from his\nprejudices only, but from the disorderly cast of his genius, that he is\nunfitted for the subject he writes upon. Even his genius is without a\nconstitution. It is a genius at random, and not a genius constituted.\nBut he must say something. He has therefore mounted in the air like a\nballoon, to draw the eyes of the multitude from the ground they stand\nupon.\n\nMuch is to be learned from the French Constitution. Conquest and tyranny\ntransplanted themselves with William the Conqueror from Normandy into\nEngland, and the country is yet disfigured with the marks. May, then,\nthe example of all France contribute to regenerate the freedom which a\nprovince of it destroyed!\n\nThe French Constitution says that to preserve the national\nrepresentation from being corrupt, no member of the National Assembly\nshall be an officer of the government, a placeman or a pensioner. What\nwill Mr. Burke place against this? I will whisper his answer: Loaves and\nFishes. Ah! this government of loaves and fishes has more mischief in\nit than people have yet reflected on. The National Assembly has made the\ndiscovery, and it holds out the example to the world. Had governments\nagreed to quarrel on purpose to fleece their countries by taxes, they\ncould not have succeeded better than they have done.\n\nEverything in the English government appears to me the reverse of\nwhat it ought to be, and of what it is said to be. The Parliament,\nimperfectly and capriciously elected as it is, is nevertheless supposed\nto hold the national purse in trust for the nation; but in the manner in\nwhich an English Parliament is constructed it is like a man being both\nmortgagor and mortgagee, and in the case of misapplication of trust it\nis the criminal sitting in judgment upon himself. If those who vote the\nsupplies are the same persons who receive the supplies when voted, and\nare to account for the expenditure of those supplies to those who voted\nthem, it is themselves accountable to themselves, and the Comedy of\nErrors concludes with the pantomime of Hush. Neither the Ministerial\nparty nor the Opposition will touch upon this case. The national purse\nis the common hack which each mounts upon. It is like what the country\npeople call \"Ride and tie--you ride a little way, and then I.\"*[5] They\norder these things better in France.\n\nThe 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\nIn England this right is said to reside in a metaphor shown at the Tower\nfor sixpence or a shilling a piece: so are the lions; and it would be\na 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\nIt may with reason be said that in the manner the English nation is\nrepresented it signifies not where the right resides, whether in the\nCrown or in the Parliament. War is the common harvest of all those who\nparticipate in the division and expenditure of public money, in all\ncountries. It is the art of conquering at home; the object of it is an\nincrease of revenue; and as revenue cannot be increased without taxes,\na pretence must be made for expenditure. In reviewing the history of the\nEnglish Government, its wars and its taxes, a bystander, not blinded\nby prejudice nor warped by interest, would declare that taxes were not\nraised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes.\n\nMr. Burke, as a member of the House of Commons, is a part of the English\nGovernment; and though he professes himself an enemy to war, he abuses\nthe French Constitution, which seeks to explode it. He holds up the\nEnglish Government as a model, in all its parts, to France; but he\nshould first know the remarks which the French make upon it. They\ncontend in favor of their own, that the portion of liberty enjoyed in\nEngland is just enough to enslave a country more productively than by\ndespotism, and that as the real object of all despotism is revenue,\na government so formed obtains more than it could do either by direct\ndespotism, or in a full state of freedom, and is, therefore on the\nground of interest, opposed to both. They account also for the readiness\nwhich always appears in such governments for engaging in wars by\nremarking on the different motives which produced them. In despotic\ngovernments wars are the effect of pride; but in those governments in\nwhich they become the means of taxation, they acquire thereby a more\npermanent promptitude.\n\nThe French Constitution, therefore, to provide against both these evils,\nhas taken away the power of declaring war from kings and ministers, and\nplaced the right where the expense must fall.\n\nWhen the question of the right of war and peace was agitating in the\nNational Assembly, the people of England appeared to be much interested\nin the event, and highly to applaud the decision. As a principle it\napplies as much to one country as another. William the Conqueror, as\na conqueror, held this power of war and peace in himself, and his\ndescendants have ever since claimed it under him as a right.\n\nAlthough Mr. Burke has asserted the right of the Parliament at the\nRevolution to bind and control the nation and posterity for ever, he\ndenies at the same time that the Parliament or the nation had any right\nto alter what he calls the succession of the crown in anything but in\npart, or by a sort of modification. By his taking this ground he throws\nthe case back to the Norman Conquest, and by thus running a line of\nsuccession springing from William the Conqueror to the present day, he\nmakes it necessary to enquire who and what William the Conqueror was,\nand where he came from, and into the origin, history and nature of what\nare called prerogatives. Everything must have had a beginning, and the\nfog of time and antiquity should be penetrated to discover it. Let,\nthen, Mr. Burke bring forward his William of Normandy, for it is to this\norigin that his argument goes. It also unfortunately happens, in running\nthis line of succession, that another line parallel thereto presents\nitself, which is that if the succession runs in the line of the\nconquest, the nation runs in the line of being conquered, and it ought\nto rescue itself from this reproach.\n\nBut it will perhaps be said that though the power of declaring war\ndescends in the heritage of the conquest, it is held in check by the\nright of Parliament to withhold the supplies. It will always happen when\na thing is originally wrong that amendments do not make it right, and it\noften happens that they do as much mischief one way as good the other,\nand such is the case here, for if the one rashly declares war as a\nmatter of right, and the other peremptorily withholds the supplies as a\nmatter of right, the remedy becomes as bad, or worse, than the disease.\nThe one forces the nation to a combat, and the other ties its hands;\nbut the more probable issue is that the contest will end in a collusion\nbetween the parties, and be made a screen to both.\n\nOn this question of war, three things are to be considered. First, the\nright of declaring it: secondly, the expense of supporting it: thirdly,\nthe mode of conducting it after it is declared. The French Constitution\nplaces the right where the expense must fall, and this union can only\nbe in the nation. The mode of conducting it after it is declared,\nit consigns to the executive department. Were this the case in all\ncountries, we should hear but little more of wars.\n\nBefore I proceed to consider other parts of the French Constitution,\nand by way of relieving the fatigue of argument, I will introduce an\nanecdote which I had from Dr. Franklin.\n\nWhile the Doctor resided in France as Minister from America, during\nthe war, he had numerous proposals made to him by projectors of every\ncountry and of every kind, who wished to go to the land that floweth\nwith milk and honey, America; and among the rest, there was one who\noffered himself to be king. He introduced his proposal to the Doctor by\nletter, which is now in the hands of M. Beaumarchais, of Paris--stating,\nfirst, that as the Americans had dismissed or sent away*[6] their King,\nthat they would want another. Secondly, that himself was a Norman.\nThirdly, that he was of a more ancient family than the Dukes of\nNormandy, and of a more honorable descent, his line having never been\nbastardised. Fourthly, that there was already a precedent in England of\nkings coming out of Normandy, and on these grounds he rested his offer,\nenjoining that the Doctor would forward it to America. But as the Doctor\nneither did this, nor yet sent him an answer, the projector wrote a\nsecond letter, in which he did not, it is true, threaten to go over and\nconquer America, but only with great dignity proposed that if his offer\nwas not accepted, an acknowledgment of about L30,000 might be made to\nhim for his generosity! Now, as all arguments respecting succession must\nnecessarily connect that succession with some beginning, Mr. Burke's\narguments on this subject go to show that there is no English origin of\nkings, and that they are descendants of the Norman line in right of the\nConquest. It may, therefore, be of service to his doctrine to make this\nstory known, and to inform him, that in case of that natural extinction\nto which all mortality is subject, Kings may again be had from Normandy,\non more reasonable terms than William the Conqueror; and consequently,\nthat the good people of England, at the revolution of 1688, might have\ndone much better, had such a generous Norman as this known their wants,\nand they had known his. The chivalric character which Mr. Burke so much\nadmires, is certainly much easier to make a bargain with than a hard\ndealing Dutchman. But to return to the matters of the constitution: The\nFrench Constitution says, There shall be no titles; and, of consequence,\nall that class of equivocal generation which in some countries is called\n\"aristocracy\" and in others \"nobility,\" is done away, and the peer is\nexalted into the Man.\n\nTitles are but nicknames, and every nickname is a title. The thing is\nperfectly harmless in itself, but it marks a sort of foppery in the\nhuman character, which degrades it. It reduces man into the diminutive\nof man in things which are great, and the counterfeit of women in things\nwhich are little. It talks about its fine blue ribbon like a girl, and\nshows its new garter like a child. A certain writer, of some antiquity,\nsays: \"When I was a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a\nman, I put away childish things.\"\n\nIt is, properly, from the elevated mind of France that the folly of\ntitles has fallen. It has outgrown the baby clothes of Count and Duke,\nand breeched itself in manhood. France has not levelled, it has exalted.\nIt has put down the dwarf, to set up the man. The punyism of a senseless\nword like Duke, Count or Earl has ceased to please. Even those who\npossessed them have disowned the gibberish, and as they outgrew the\nrickets, have despised the rattle. The genuine mind of man, thirsting\nfor its native home, society, contemns the gewgaws that separate him\nfrom it. Titles are like circles drawn by the magician's wand, to\ncontract the sphere of man's felicity. He lives immured within the\nBastille of a word, and surveys at a distance the envied life of man.\n\nIs it, then, any wonder that titles should fall in France? Is it not a\ngreater wonder that they should be kept up anywhere? What are they? What\nis their worth, and \"what is their amount?\" When we think or speak of\na Judge or a General, we associate with it the ideas of office and\ncharacter; we think of gravity in one and bravery in the other; but when\nwe use the word merely as a title, no ideas associate with it. Through\nall the vocabulary of Adam there is not such an animal as a Duke or a\nCount; neither can we connect any certain ideas with the words. Whether\nthey mean strength or weakness, wisdom or folly, a child or a man, or\nthe rider or the horse, is all equivocal. What respect then can be paid\nto that which describes nothing, and which means nothing? Imagination\nhas given figure and character to centaurs, satyrs, and down to all\nthe fairy tribe; but titles baffle even the powers of fancy, and are a\nchimerical nondescript.\n\nBut this is not all. If a whole country is disposed to hold them in\ncontempt, all their value is gone, and none will own them. It is\ncommon opinion only that makes them anything, or nothing, or worse\nthan nothing. There is no occasion to take titles away, for they take\nthemselves away when society concurs to ridicule them. This species of\nimaginary consequence has visibly declined in every part of Europe, and\nit hastens to its exit as the world of reason continues to rise. There\nwas a time when the lowest class of what are called nobility was more\nthought of than the highest is now, and when a man in armour riding\nthroughout Christendom in quest of adventures was more stared at than\na modern Duke. The world has seen this folly fall, and it has fallen\nby being laughed at, and the farce of titles will follow its fate. The\npatriots of France have discovered in good time that rank and dignity in\nsociety must take a new ground. The old one has fallen through. It must\nnow take the substantial ground of character, instead of the chimerical\nground of titles; and they have brought their titles to the altar, and\nmade of them a burnt-offering to Reason.\n\nIf no mischief had annexed itself to the folly of titles they would not\nhave been worth a serious and formal destruction, such as the National\nAssembly have decreed them; and this makes it necessary to enquire\nfarther into the nature and character of aristocracy.\n\nThat, then, which is called aristocracy in some countries and nobility\nin others arose out of the governments founded upon conquest. It was\noriginally a military order for the purpose of supporting military\ngovernment (for such were all governments founded in conquest); and\nto keep up a succession of this order for the purpose for which it\nwas established, all the younger branches of those families were\ndisinherited and the law of primogenitureship set up.\n\nThe nature and character of aristocracy shows itself to us in this law.\nIt is the law against every other law of nature, and Nature herself\ncalls for its destruction. Establish family justice, and aristocracy\nfalls. By the aristocratical law of primogenitureship, in a family\nof six children five are exposed. Aristocracy has never more than one\nchild. The rest are begotten to be devoured. They are thrown to the\ncannibal for prey, and the natural parent prepares the unnatural repast.\n\nAs everything which is out of nature in man affects, more or less,\nthe interest of society, so does this. All the children which the\naristocracy disowns (which are all except the eldest) are, in general,\ncast like orphans on a parish, to be provided for by the public, but\nat a greater charge. Unnecessary offices and places in governments and\ncourts are created at the expense of the public to maintain them.\n\nWith what kind of parental reflections can the father or mother\ncontemplate their younger offspring? By nature they are children, and\nby marriage they are heirs; but by aristocracy they are bastards and\norphans. They are the flesh and blood of their parents in the one line,\nand nothing akin to them in the other. To restore, therefore, parents to\ntheir children, and children to their parents relations to each other,\nand man to society--and to exterminate the monster aristocracy, root\nand branch--the French Constitution has destroyed the law of\nPrimogenitureship. Here then lies the monster; and Mr. Burke, if he\npleases, may write its epitaph.\n\nHitherto we have considered aristocracy chiefly in one point of view.\nWe have now to consider it in another. But whether we view it before or\nbehind, or sideways, or any way else, domestically or publicly, it is\nstill a monster.\n\nIn France aristocracy had one feature less in its countenance than what\nit has in some other countries. It did not compose a body of hereditary\nlegislators. It was not \"a corporation of aristocracy,\" for such I have\nheard M. de la Fayette describe an English House of Peers. Let us then\nexamine the grounds upon which the French Constitution has resolved\nagainst having such a House in France.\n\nBecause, in the first place, as is already mentioned, aristocracy is\nkept up by family tyranny and injustice.\n\nSecondly. Because there is an unnatural unfitness in an aristocracy to\nbe legislators for a nation. Their ideas of distributive justice are\ncorrupted at the very source. They begin life by trampling on all their\nyounger brothers and sisters, and relations of every kind, and are\ntaught and educated so to do. With what ideas of justice or honour can\nthat man enter a house of legislation, who absorbs in his own person\nthe inheritance of a whole family of children or doles out to them some\npitiful portion with the insolence of a gift?\n\nThirdly. Because the idea of hereditary legislators is as inconsistent\nas that of hereditary judges, or hereditary juries; and as absurd as an\nhereditary mathematician, or an hereditary wise man; and as ridiculous\nas an hereditary poet laureate.\n\nFourthly. Because a body of men, holding themselves accountable to\nnobody, ought not to be trusted by anybody.\n\nFifthly. Because it is continuing the uncivilised principle of\ngovernments founded in conquest, and the base idea of man having\nproperty in man, and governing him by personal right.\n\nSixthly. Because aristocracy has a tendency to deteriorate the human\nspecies. By the universal economy of nature it is known, and by the\ninstance of the Jews it is proved, that the human species has a tendency\nto degenerate, in any small number of persons, when separated from the\ngeneral stock of society, and inter-marrying constantly with each other.\nIt defeats even its pretended end, and becomes in time the opposite of\nwhat is noble in man. Mr. Burke talks of nobility; let him show what\nit is. The greatest characters the world have known have arisen on the\ndemocratic floor. Aristocracy has not been able to keep a proportionate\npace with democracy. The artificial Noble shrinks into a dwarf before\nthe Noble of Nature; and in the few instances of those (for there are\nsome in all countries) in whom nature, as by a miracle, has survived in\naristocracy, Those Men Despise It.--But it is time to proceed to a new\nsubject.\n\nThe French Constitution has reformed the condition of the clergy. It has\nraised the income of the lower and middle classes, and taken from the\nhigher. None are now less than twelve hundred livres (fifty pounds\nsterling), nor any higher than two or three thousand pounds. What will\nMr. Burke place against this? Hear what he says.\n\nHe says: \"That the people of England can see without pain or grudging,\nan archbishop precede a duke; they can see a Bishop of Durham, or a\nBishop of Winchester in possession of L10,000 a-year; and cannot see why\nit is in worse hands than estates to a like amount, in the hands of this\nearl or that squire.\" And Mr. Burke offers this as an example to France.\n\nAs to the first part, whether the archbishop precedes the duke, or the\nduke the bishop, it is, I believe, to the people in general, somewhat\nlike Sternhold and Hopkins, or Hopkins and Sternhold; you may put which\nyou please first; and as I confess that I do not understand the merits\nof this case, I will not contest it with Mr. Burke.\n\nBut with respect to the latter, I have something to say. Mr. Burke has\nnot put the case right. The comparison is out of order, by being put\nbetween the bishop and the earl or the squire. It ought to be put\nbetween the bishop and the curate, and then it will stand thus:--\"The\npeople of England can see without pain or grudging, a Bishop of Durham,\nor a Bishop of Winchester, in possession of ten thousand pounds a-year,\nand a curate on thirty or forty pounds a-year, or less.\" No, sir, they\ncertainly do not see those things without great pain or grudging. It is\na case that applies itself to every man's sense of justice, and is one\namong many that calls aloud for a constitution.\n\nIn France the cry of \"the church! the church!\" was repeated as often\nas in Mr. Burke's book, and as loudly as when the Dissenters' Bill was\nbefore the English Parliament; but the generality of the French clergy\nwere not to be deceived by this cry any longer. They knew that whatever\nthe pretence might be, it was they who were one of the principal objects\nof it. It was the cry of the high beneficed clergy, to prevent any\nregulation of income taking place between those of ten thousand pounds\na-year and the parish priest. They therefore joined their case to\nthose of every other oppressed class of men, and by this union obtained\nredress.\n\nThe French Constitution has abolished tythes, that source of perpetual\ndiscontent between the tythe-holder and the parishioner. When land is\nheld on tythe, it is in the condition of an estate held between two\nparties; the one receiving one-tenth, and the other nine-tenths of the\nproduce: and consequently, on principles of equity, if the estate can be\nimproved, and made to produce by that improvement double or treble what\nit did before, or in any other ratio, the expense of such improvement\nought to be borne in like proportion between the parties who are to\nshare the produce. But this is not the case in tythes: the farmer\nbears the whole expense, and the tythe-holder takes a tenth of the\nimprovement, in addition to the original tenth, and by this means gets\nthe value of two-tenths instead of one. This is another case that calls\nfor a constitution.\n\nThe French Constitution hath abolished or renounced Toleration and\nIntolerance also, and hath established Universal Right Of Conscience.\n\nToleration is not the opposite of Intolerance, but is the counterfeit\nof it. Both are despotisms. The one assumes to itself the right of\nwithholding Liberty of Conscience, and the other of granting it. The\none is the Pope armed with fire and faggot, and the other is the Pope\nselling or granting indulgences. The former is church and state, and the\nlatter is church and traffic.\n\nBut Toleration may be viewed in a much stronger light. Man worships not\nhimself, but his Maker; and the liberty of conscience which he claims is\nnot for the service of himself, but of his God. In this case, therefore,\nwe must necessarily have the associated idea of two things; the mortal\nwho renders the worship, and the Immortal Being who is worshipped.\nToleration, therefore, places itself, not between man and man, nor\nbetween church and church, nor between one denomination of religion and\nanother, but between God and man; between the being who worships, and\nthe Being who is worshipped; and by the same act of assumed authority\nwhich it tolerates man to pay his worship, it presumptuously and\nblasphemously sets itself up to tolerate the Almighty to receive it.\n\nWere a bill brought into any Parliament, entitled, \"An Act to tolerate\nor grant liberty to the Almighty to receive the worship of a Jew or\nTurk,\" or \"to prohibit the Almighty from receiving it,\" all men would\nstartle and call it blasphemy. There would be an uproar. The presumption\nof toleration in religious matters would then present itself unmasked;\nbut the presumption is not the less because the name of \"Man\" only\nappears to those laws, for the associated idea of the worshipper and the\nworshipped cannot be separated. Who then art thou, vain dust and ashes!\nby whatever name thou art called, whether a King, a Bishop, a Church,\nor a State, a Parliament, or anything else, that obtrudest thine\ninsignificance between the soul of man and its Maker? Mind thine own\nconcerns. If he believes not as thou believest, it is a proof that\nthou believest not as he believes, and there is no earthly power can\ndetermine between you.\n\nWith respect to what are called denominations of religion, if every\none is left to judge of its own religion, there is no such thing as\na religion that is wrong; but if they are to judge of each other's\nreligion, there is no such thing as a religion that is right; and\ntherefore all the world is right, or all the world is wrong. But with\nrespect to religion itself, without regard to names, and as directing\nitself from the universal family of mankind to the Divine object of all\nadoration, it is man bringing to his Maker the fruits of his heart; and\nthough those fruits may differ from each other like the fruits of the\nearth, the grateful tribute of every one is accepted.\n\nA Bishop of Durham, or a Bishop of Winchester, or the archbishop who\nheads the dukes, will not refuse a tythe-sheaf of wheat because it is\nnot a cock of hay, nor a cock of hay because it is not a sheaf of wheat;\nnor a pig, because it is neither one nor the other; but these same\npersons, under the figure of an established church, will not permit\ntheir Maker to receive the varied tythes of man's devotion.\n\nOne of the continual choruses of Mr. Burke's book is \"Church and State.\"\nHe does not mean some one particular church, or some one particular\nstate, but any church and state; and he uses the term as a general\nfigure to hold forth the political doctrine of always uniting the church\nwith the state in every country, and he censures the National Assembly\nfor not having done this in France. Let us bestow a few thoughts on this\nsubject.\n\nAll religions are in their nature kind and benign, and united with\nprinciples of morality. They could not have made proselytes at first by\nprofessing anything that was vicious, cruel, persecuting, or immoral.\nLike everything else, they had their beginning; and they proceeded by\npersuasion, exhortation, and example. How then is it that they lose\ntheir native mildness, and become morose and intolerant?\n\nIt proceeds from the connection which Mr. Burke recommends. By\nengendering the church with the state, a sort of mule-animal, capable\nonly of destroying, and not of breeding up, is produced, called the\nChurch established by Law. It is a stranger, even from its birth, to any\nparent mother, on whom it is begotten, and whom in time it kicks out and\ndestroys.\n\nThe inquisition in Spain does not proceed from the religion originally\nprofessed, but from this mule-animal, engendered between the church\nand the state. The burnings in Smithfield proceeded from the same\nheterogeneous production; and it was the regeneration of this strange\nanimal in England afterwards, that renewed rancour and irreligion among\nthe inhabitants, and that drove the people called Quakers and Dissenters\nto America. Persecution is not an original feature in any religion;\nbut it is alway the strongly-marked feature of all law-religions, or\nreligions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and\nevery religion re-assumes its original benignity. In America, a catholic\npriest is a good citizen, a good character, and a good neighbour; an\nepiscopalian minister is of the same description: and this proceeds\nindependently of the men, from there being no law-establishment in\nAmerica.\n\nIf also we view this matter in a temporal sense, we shall see the ill\neffects it has had on the prosperity of nations. The union of church and\nstate has impoverished Spain. The revoking the edict of Nantes drove the\nsilk manufacture from that country into England; and church and state\nare now driving the cotton manufacture from England to America and\nFrance. Let then Mr. Burke continue to preach his antipolitical doctrine\nof Church and State. It will do some good. The National Assembly\nwill not follow his advice, but will benefit by his folly. It was by\nobserving the ill effects of it in England, that America has been warned\nagainst it; and it is by experiencing them in France, that the National\nAssembly have abolished it, and, like America, have established\nUniversal Right Of Conscience, And Universal Right Of Citizenship.*[7]\n\nI will here cease the comparison with respect to the principles of the\nFrench Constitution, and conclude this part of the subject with a few\nobservations on the organisation of the formal parts of the French and\nEnglish governments.\n\nThe executive power in each country is in the hands of a person styled\nthe King; but the French Constitution distinguishes between the King and\nthe Sovereign: It considers the station of King as official, and places\nSovereignty in the nation.\n\nThe representatives of the nation, who compose the National Assembly,\nand who are the legislative power, originate in and from the people\nby election, as an inherent right in the people.--In England it is\notherwise; and this arises from the original establishment of what\nis called its monarchy; for, as by the conquest all the rights of the\npeople or the nation were absorbed into the hands of the Conqueror, and\nwho added the title of King to that of Conqueror, those same matters\nwhich in France are now held as rights in the people, or in the nation,\nare held in England as grants from what is called the crown. The\nParliament in England, in both its branches, was erected by patents from\nthe descendants of the Conqueror. The House of Commons did not originate\nas a matter of right in the people to delegate or elect, but as a grant\nor boon.\n\nBy the French Constitution the nation is always named before the king.\nThe third article of the declaration of rights says: \"The nation is\nessentially the source (or fountain) of all sovereignty.\" Mr. Burke\nargues that in England a king is the fountain--that he is the fountain\nof all honour. But as this idea is evidently descended from the conquest\nI shall make no other remark upon it, than that it is the nature of\nconquest to turn everything upside down; and as Mr. Burke will not be\nrefused the privilege of speaking twice, and as there are but two parts\nin the figure, the fountain and the spout, he will be right the second\ntime.\n\nThe French Constitution puts the legislative before the executive, the\nlaw before the king; la loi, le roi. This also is in the natural\norder of things, because laws must have existence before they can have\nexecution.\n\nA king in France does not, in addressing himself to the National\nAssembly, say, \"My Assembly,\" similar to the phrase used in England\nof my \"Parliament\"; neither can he use it consistently with the\nconstitution, nor could it be admitted. There may be propriety in the\nuse of it in England, because as is before mentioned, both Houses\nof Parliament originated from what is called the crown by patent or\nboon--and not from the inherent rights of the people, as the National\nAssembly does in France, and whose name designates its origin.\n\nThe President of the National Assembly does not ask the King to grant to\nthe Assembly liberty of speech, as is the case with the English House\nof Commons. The constitutional dignity of the National Assembly cannot\ndebase itself. Speech is, in the first place, one of the natural rights\nof man always retained; and with respect to the National Assembly the\nuse of it is their duty, and the nation is their authority. They were\nelected by the greatest body of men exercising the right of election\nthe European world ever saw. They sprung not from the filth of rotten\nboroughs, nor are they the vassal representatives of aristocratical\nones. Feeling the proper dignity of their character they support it.\nTheir Parliamentary language, whether for or against a question, is\nfree, bold and manly, and extends to all the parts and circumstances of\nthe case. If any matter or subject respecting the executive department\nor the person who presides in it (the king) comes before them it is\ndebated on with the spirit of men, and in the language of gentlemen; and\ntheir answer or their address is returned in the same style. They stand\nnot aloof with the gaping vacuity of vulgar ignorance, nor bend with the\ncringe of sycophantic insignificance. The graceful pride of truth knows\nno extremes, and preserves, in every latitude of life, the right-angled\ncharacter of man.\n\nLet us now look to the other side of the question. In the addresses\nof the English Parliaments to their kings we see neither the intrepid\nspirit of the old Parliaments of France, nor the serene dignity of the\npresent National Assembly; neither do we see in them anything of the\nstyle of English manners, which border somewhat on bluntness. Since\nthen they are neither of foreign extraction, nor naturally of English\nproduction, their origin must be sought for elsewhere, and that origin\nis the Norman Conquest. They are evidently of the vassalage class of\nmanners, and emphatically mark the prostrate distance that exists in\nno other condition of men than between the conqueror and the conquered.\nThat this vassalage idea and style of speaking was not got rid of even\nat the Revolution of 1688, is evident from the declaration of Parliament\nto William and Mary in these words: \"We do most humbly and faithfully\nsubmit ourselves, our heirs and posterities, for ever.\" Submission is\nwholly a vassalage term, repugnant to the dignity of freedom, and an\necho of the language used at the Conquest.\n\nAs the estimation of all things is given by comparison, the Revolution\nof 1688, 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\nlabours, \"to the family vault of all the Capulets.\" Mankind will then\nscarcely believe that a country calling itself free would send\nto Holland for a man, and clothe him with power on purpose to put\nthemselves in fear of him, and give him almost a million sterling a year\nfor leave to submit themselves and their posterity, like bondmen and\nbondwomen, for ever.\n\nBut there is a truth that ought to be made known; I have had the\nopportunity of seeing it; which is, that notwithstanding appearances,\nthere is not any description of men that despise monarchy so much as\ncourtiers. But they well know, that if it were seen by others, as it is\nseen by them, the juggle could not be kept up; they are in the condition\nof men who get their living by a show, and to whom the folly of that\nshow is so familiar that they ridicule it; but were the audience to be\nmade as wise in this respect as themselves, there would be an end to the\nshow and the profits with it. The difference between a republican and\na courtier with respect to monarchy, is that the one opposes monarchy,\nbelieving it to be something; and the other laughs at it, knowing it to\nbe nothing.\n\nAs I used sometimes to correspond with Mr. Burke believing him then to\nbe a man of sounder principles than his book shows him to be, I wrote\nto him last winter from Paris, and gave him an account how prosperously\nmatters were going on. Among other subjects in that letter, I referred\nto the happy situation the National Assembly were placed in; that they\nhad taken ground on which their moral duty and their political interest\nwere united. They have not to hold out a language which they do not\nthemselves believe, for the fraudulent purpose of making others believe\nit. Their station requires no artifice to support it, and can only be\nmaintained by enlightening mankind. It is not their interest to cherish\nignorance, but to dispel it. They are not in the case of a ministerial\nor an opposition party in England, who, though they are opposed, are\nstill united to keep up the common mystery. The National Assembly must\nthrow open a magazine of light. It must show man the proper character of\nman; and the nearer it can bring him to that standard, the stronger the\nNational Assembly becomes.\n\nIn contemplating the French Constitution, we see in it a rational order\nof things. The principles harmonise with the forms, and both with their\norigin. It may perhaps be said as an excuse for bad forms, that they\nare nothing more than forms; but this is a mistake. Forms grow out of\nprinciples, and operate to continue the principles they grow from. It\nis impossible to practise a bad form on anything but a bad principle.\nIt cannot be ingrafted on a good one; and wherever the forms in any\ngovernment are bad, it is a certain indication that the principles are\nbad also.\n\nI will here finally close this subject. I began it by remarking that Mr.\nBurke had voluntarily declined going into a comparison of the English\nand French Constitutions. He apologises (in page 241) for not doing it,\nby saying that he had not time. Mr. Burke's book was upwards of eight\nmonths in hand, and is extended to a volume of three hundred and\nsixty-six pages. As his omission does injury to his cause, his apology\nmakes it worse; and men on the English side of the water will begin to\nconsider, whether there is not some radical defect in what is called the\nEnglish constitution, that made it necessary for Mr. Burke to suppress\nthe comparison, to avoid bringing it into view.\n\nAs Mr. Burke has not written on constitutions so neither has he written\non the French Revolution. He gives no account of its commencement or its\nprogress. He only expresses his wonder. \"It looks,\" says he, \"to me, as\nif I were in a great crisis, not of the affairs of France alone, but\nof all Europe, perhaps of more than Europe. All circumstances taken\ntogether, the French Revolution is the most astonishing that has\nhitherto happened in the world.\"\n\nAs wise men are astonished at foolish things, and other people at\nwise ones, I know not on which ground to account for Mr. Burke's\nastonishment; but certain it is, that he does not understand the French\nRevolution. It has apparently burst forth like a creation from a chaos,\nbut it is no more than the consequence of a mental revolution priorily\nexisting in France. The mind of the nation had changed beforehand,\nand the new order of things has naturally followed the new order of\nthoughts. I will here, as concisely as I can, trace out the growth of\nthe French Revolution, and mark the circumstances that have contributed\nto produce it.\n\nThe despotism of Louis XIV., united with the gaiety of his Court, and\nthe gaudy ostentation of his character, had so humbled, and at the same\ntime so fascinated the mind of France, that the people appeared to have\nlost all sense of their own dignity, in contemplating that of their\nGrand Monarch; and the whole reign of Louis XV., remarkable only for\nweakness and effeminacy, made no other alteration than that of spreading\na sort of lethargy over the nation, from which it showed no disposition\nto rise.\n\nThe only signs which appeared to the spirit of Liberty during those\nperiods, are to be found in the writings of the French philosophers.\nMontesquieu, President of the Parliament of Bordeaux, went as far as a\nwriter under a despotic government could well proceed; and being obliged\nto divide himself between principle and prudence, his mind often appears\nunder a veil, and we ought to give him credit for more than he has\nexpressed.\n\nVoltaire, who was both the flatterer and the satirist of despotism, took\nanother line. His forte lay in exposing and ridiculing the superstitions\nwhich priest-craft, united with state-craft, had interwoven with\ngovernments. It was not from the purity of his principles, or his love\nof mankind (for satire and philanthropy are not naturally concordant),\nbut from his strong capacity of seeing folly in its true shape, and his\nirresistible propensity to expose it, that he made those attacks. They\nwere, however, as formidable as if the motive had been virtuous; and he\nmerits the thanks rather than the esteem of mankind.\n\nOn the contrary, we find in the writings of Rousseau, and the Abbe\nRaynal, a loveliness of sentiment in favour of liberty, that excites\nrespect, and elevates the human faculties; but having raised this\nanimation, they do not direct its operation, and leave the mind in love\nwith an object, without describing the means of possessing it.\n\nThe writings of Quesnay, Turgot, and the friends of those authors, are\nof the serious kind; but they laboured under the same disadvantage with\nMontesquieu; their writings abound with moral maxims of government, but\nare rather directed to economise and reform the administration of the\ngovernment, than the government itself.\n\nBut all those writings and many others had their weight; and by the\ndifferent manner in which they treated the subject of government,\nMontesquieu by his judgment and knowledge of laws, Voltaire by his wit,\nRousseau and Raynal by their animation, and Quesnay and Turgot by their\nmoral maxims and systems of economy, readers of every class met with\nsomething to their taste, and a spirit of political inquiry began\nto diffuse itself through the nation at the time the dispute between\nEngland and the then colonies of America broke out.\n\nIn the war which France afterwards engaged in, it is very well known\nthat the nation appeared to be before-hand with the French ministry.\nEach of them had its view; but those views were directed to different\nobjects; the one sought liberty, and the other retaliation on England.\nThe French officers and soldiers who after this went to America, were\neventually placed in the school of Freedom, and learned the practice as\nwell as the principles of it by heart.\n\nAs it was impossible to separate the military events which took place in\nAmerica from the principles of the American Revolution, the publication\nof those events in France necessarily connected themselves with the\nprinciples which produced them. Many of the facts were in themselves\nprinciples; such as the declaration of American Independence, and the\ntreaty of alliance between France and America, which recognised the\nnatural rights of man, and justified resistance to oppression.\n\nThe then Minister of France, Count Vergennes, was not the friend of\nAmerica; and it is both justice and gratitude to say, that it was the\nQueen of France who gave the cause of America a fashion at the French\nCourt. Count Vergennes was the personal and social friend of Dr.\nFranklin; and the Doctor had obtained, by his sensible gracefulness,\na sort of influence over him; but with respect to principles Count\nVergennes was a despot.\n\nThe situation of Dr. Franklin, as Minister from America to France,\nshould be taken into the chain of circumstances. The diplomatic\ncharacter is of itself the narrowest sphere of society that man can\nact in. It forbids intercourse by the reciprocity of suspicion; and\na diplomatic is a sort of unconnected atom, continually repelling and\nrepelled. But this was not the case with Dr. Franklin. He was not the\ndiplomatic of a Court, but of Man. His character as a philosopher\nhad been long established, and his circle of society in France was\nuniversal.\n\nCount Vergennes resisted for a considerable time the publication in\nFrance of American constitutions, translated into the French language:\nbut even in this he was obliged to give way to public opinion, and\na sort of propriety in admitting to appear what he had undertaken to\ndefend. The American constitutions were to liberty what a grammar is\nto language: they define its parts of speech, and practically construct\nthem into syntax.\n\nThe peculiar situation of the then Marquis de la Fayette is another link\nin the great chain. He served in America as an American officer under a\ncommission of Congress, and by the universality of his acquaintance was\nin close friendship with the civil government of America, as well as\nwith the military line. He spoke the language of the country, entered\ninto the discussions on the principles of government, and was always a\nwelcome friend at any election.\n\nWhen the war closed, a vast reinforcement to the cause of Liberty spread\nitself over France, by the return of the French officers and soldiers.\nA knowledge of the practice was then joined to the theory; and all\nthat was wanting to give it real existence was opportunity. Man cannot,\nproperly speaking, make circumstances for his purpose, but he always has\nit in his power to improve them when they occur, and this was the case\nin France.\n\nM. Neckar was displaced in May, 1781; and by the ill-management of\nthe finances afterwards, and particularly during the extravagant\nadministration of M. Calonne, the revenue of France, which was nearly\ntwenty-four millions sterling per year, was become unequal to the\nexpenditure, not because the revenue had decreased, but because the\nexpenses had increased; and this was a circumstance which the nation\nlaid hold of to bring forward a Revolution. The English Minister, Mr.\nPitt, has frequently alluded to the state of the French finances in his\nbudgets, without understanding the subject. Had the French Parliaments\nbeen as ready to register edicts for new taxes as an English Parliament\nis to grant them, there had been no derangement in the finances, nor yet\nany Revolution; but this will better explain itself as I proceed.\n\nIt will be necessary here to show how taxes were formerly raised in\nFrance. The King, or rather the Court or Ministry acting under the use\nof that name, framed the edicts for taxes at their own discretion,\nand sent them to the Parliaments to be registered; for until they were\nregistered by the Parliaments they were not operative. Disputes had long\nexisted between the Court and the Parliaments with respect to the extent\nof the Parliament's authority on this head. The Court insisted that the\nauthority of Parliaments went no farther than to remonstrate or show\nreasons against the tax, reserving to itself the right of determining\nwhether the reasons were well or ill-founded; and in consequence\nthereof, either to withdraw the edict as a matter of choice, or to order\nit to be unregistered as a matter of authority. The Parliaments on their\npart insisted that they had not only a right to remonstrate, but to\nreject; and on this ground they were always supported by the nation.\n\nBut to return to the order of my narrative. M. Calonne wanted money: and\nas he knew the sturdy disposition of the Parliaments with respect to new\ntaxes, he ingeniously sought either to approach them by a more gentle\nmeans than that of direct authority, or to get over their heads by a\nmanoeuvre; and for this purpose he revived the project of assembling a\nbody of men from the several provinces, under the style of an \"Assembly\nof the Notables,\" or men of note, who met in 1787, and who were either\nto recommend taxes to the Parliaments, or to act as a Parliament\nthemselves. An Assembly under this name had been called in 1617.\n\nAs we are to view this as the first practical step towards the\nRevolution, it will be proper to enter into some particulars respecting\nit. The Assembly of the Notables has in some places been mistaken for\nthe States-General, but was wholly a different body, the States-General\nbeing always by election. The persons who composed the Assembly of the\nNotables were all nominated by the king, and consisted of one hundred\nand forty members. But as M. Calonne could not depend upon a majority of\nthis Assembly in his favour, he very ingeniously arranged them in such\na manner as to make forty-four a majority of one hundred and forty;\nto effect this he disposed of them into seven separate committees, of\ntwenty members each. Every general question was to be decided, not by a\nmajority of persons, but by a majority of committee, and as eleven votes\nwould make a majority in a committee, and four committees a majority of\nseven, M. Calonne had good reason to conclude that as forty-four would\ndetermine any general question he could not be outvoted. But all his\nplans deceived him, and in the event became his overthrow.\n\nThe then Marquis de la Fayette was placed in the second committee, of\nwhich the Count D'Artois was president, and as money matters were the\nobject, it naturally brought into view every circumstance connected with\nit. M. de la Fayette made a verbal charge against Calonne for selling\ncrown lands to the amount of two millions of livres, in a manner\nthat appeared to be unknown to the king. The Count D'Artois (as if to\nintimidate, for the Bastille was then in being) asked the Marquis if he\nwould render the charge in writing? He replied that he would. The Count\nD'Artois did not demand it, but brought a message from the king to that\npurport. M. de la Fayette then delivered in his charge in writing, to\nbe given to the king, undertaking to support it. No farther proceedings\nwere had upon this affair, but M. Calonne was soon after dismissed by\nthe king and set off to England.\n\nAs M. de la Fayette, from the experience of what he had seen in America,\nwas better acquainted with the science of civil government than the\ngenerality of the members who composed the Assembly of the Notables\ncould then be, the brunt of the business fell considerably to his share.\nThe plan of those who had a constitution in view was to contend with the\nCourt on the ground of taxes, and some of them openly professed their\nobject. Disputes frequently arose between Count D'Artois and M. de\nla Fayette upon various subjects. With respect to the arrears already\nincurred the latter proposed to remedy them by accommodating the\nexpenses to the revenue instead of the revenue to the expenses; and as\nobjects of reform he proposed to abolish the Bastille and all the State\nprisons throughout the nation (the keeping of which was attended with\ngreat expense), and to suppress Lettres de Cachet; but those matters\nwere not then much attended to, and with respect to Lettres de Cachet, a\nmajority of the Nobles appeared to be in favour of them.\n\nOn the subject of supplying the Treasury by new taxes the Assembly\ndeclined taking the matter on themselves, concurring in the opinion that\nthey had not authority. In a debate on this subject M. de la Fayette\nsaid that raising money by taxes could only be done by a National\nAssembly, freely elected by the people, and acting as their\nrepresentatives. Do you mean, said the Count D'Artois, the\nStates-General? M. de la Fayette replied that he did. Will you, said\nthe Count D'Artois, sign what you say to be given to the king? The other\nreplied that he would not only do this but that he would go farther,\nand say that the effectual mode would be for the king to agree to the\nestablishment of a constitution.\n\nAs one of the plans had thus failed, that of getting the Assembly to act\nas a Parliament, the other came into view, that of recommending. On\nthis subject the Assembly agreed to recommend two new taxes to be\nunregistered by the Parliament: the one a stamp-tax and the other a\nterritorial tax, or sort of land-tax. The two have been estimated\nat about five millions sterling per annum. We have now to turn our\nattention to the Parliaments, on whom the business was again devolving.\n\nThe Archbishop of Thoulouse (since Archbishop of Sens, and now a\nCardinal), was appointed to the administration of the finances soon\nafter the dismission of Calonne. He was also made Prime Minister, an\noffice that did not always exist in France. When this office did\nnot exist, the chief of each of the principal departments transacted\nbusiness immediately with the King, but when a Prime Minister was\nappointed they did business only with him. The Archbishop arrived to\nmore state authority than any minister since the Duke de Choiseul, and\nthe nation was strongly disposed in his favour; but by a line of conduct\nscarcely to be accounted for he perverted every opportunity, turned out\na despot, and sunk into disgrace, and a Cardinal.\n\nThe Assembly of the Notables having broken up, the minister sent\nthe edicts for the two new taxes recommended by the Assembly to the\nParliaments to be unregistered. They of course came first before the\nParliament of Paris, who returned for answer: \"that with such a revenue\nas the nation then supported the name of taxes ought not to be mentioned\nbut for the purpose of reducing them\"; and threw both the edicts\nout.*[8] On this refusal the Parliament was ordered to Versailles,\nwhere, in the usual form, the King held what under the old government\nwas called a Bed of justice; and the two edicts were unregistered\nin presence of the Parliament by an order of State, in the manner\nmentioned, earlier. On this the Parliament immediately returned to\nParis, renewed their session in form, and ordered the enregistering to\nbe struck out, declaring that everything done at Versailles was illegal.\nAll the members of the Parliament were then served with Lettres de\nCachet, and exiled to Troyes; but as they continued as inflexible in\nexile as before, and as vengeance did not supply the place of taxes,\nthey were after a short time recalled to Paris.\n\nThe edicts were again tendered to them, and the Count D'Artois undertook\nto act as representative of the King. For this purpose he came from\nVersailles to Paris, in a train of procession; and the Parliament were\nassembled to receive him. But show and parade had lost their influence\nin France; and whatever ideas of importance he might set off with,\nhe had to return with those of mortification and disappointment. On\nalighting from his carriage to ascend the steps of the Parliament House,\nthe crowd (which was numerously collected) threw out trite expressions,\nsaying: \"This is Monsieur D'Artois, who wants more of our money to\nspend.\" The marked disapprobation which he saw impressed him with\napprehensions, and the word Aux armes! (To arms!) was given out by the\nofficer of the guard who attended him. It was so loudly vociferated,\nthat it echoed through the avenues of the house, and produced a\ntemporary confusion. I was then standing in one of the apartments\nthrough which he had to pass, and could not avoid reflecting how\nwretched was the condition of a disrespected man.\n\nHe endeavoured to impress the Parliament by great words, and opened his\nauthority by saying, \"The King, our Lord and Master.\" The Parliament\nreceived him very coolly, and with their usual determination not to\nregister the taxes: and in this manner the interview ended.\n\nAfter this a new subject took place: In the various debates and contests\nwhich arose between the Court and the Parliaments on the subject of\ntaxes, the Parliament of Paris at last declared that although it had\nbeen customary for Parliaments to enregister edicts for taxes as a\nmatter of convenience, the right belonged only to the States-General;\nand that, therefore, the Parliament could no longer with propriety\ncontinue to debate on what it had not authority to act. The King after\nthis came to Paris and held a meeting with the Parliament, in which he\ncontinued from ten in the morning till about six in the evening, and, in\na manner that appeared to proceed from him as if unconsulted upon\nwith the Cabinet or Ministry, gave his word to the Parliament that the\nStates-General should be convened.\n\nBut after this another scene arose, on a ground different from all\nthe former. The Minister and the Cabinet were averse to calling\nthe States-General. They well knew that if the States-General were\nassembled, themselves must fall; and as the King had not mentioned any\ntime, they hit on a project calculated to elude, without appearing to\noppose.\n\nFor this purpose, the Court set about making a sort of constitution\nitself. It was principally the work of M. Lamoignon, the Keeper of the\nSeals, who afterwards shot himself. This new arrangement consisted in\nestablishing a body under the name of a Cour Pleniere, or Full Court,\nin which were invested all the powers that the Government might have\noccasion to make use of. The persons composing this Court were to be\nnominated by the King; the contended right of taxation was given up\non the part of the King, and a new criminal code of laws and law\nproceedings was substituted in the room of the former. The thing, in\nmany points, contained better principles than those upon which the\nGovernment had hitherto been administered; but with respect to the Cour\nPleniere, it was no other than a medium through which despotism was to\npass, without appearing to act directly from itself.\n\nThe Cabinet had high expectations from their new contrivance. The people\nwho were to compose the Cour Pleniere were already nominated; and as it\nwas necessary to carry a fair appearance, many of the best characters in\nthe nation were appointed among the number. It was to commence on May\n8, 1788; but an opposition arose to it on two grounds the one as to\nprinciple, the other as to form.\n\nOn the ground of Principle it was contended that Government had not a\nright to alter itself, and that if the practice was once admitted it\nwould grow into a principle and be made a precedent for any future\nalterations the Government might wish to establish: that the right\nof altering the Government was a national right, and not a right of\nGovernment. And on the ground of form it was contended that the Cour\nPleniere was nothing more than a larger Cabinet.\n\nThe then Duke de la Rochefoucault, Luxembourg, De Noailles, and many\nothers, refused to accept the nomination, and strenuously opposed the\nwhole plan. When the edict for establishing this new court was sent to\nthe Parliaments to be unregistered and put into execution, they\nresisted also. The Parliament of Paris not only refused, but denied the\nauthority; and the contest renewed itself between the Parliament and the\nCabinet more strongly than ever. While the Parliament were sitting in\ndebate on this subject, the Ministry ordered a regiment of soldiers to\nsurround the House and form a blockade. The members sent out for beds\nand provisions, and lived as in a besieged citadel: and as this had no\neffect, the commanding officer was ordered to enter the Parliament House\nand seize them, which he did, and some of the principal members were\nshut up in different prisons. About the same time a deputation of\npersons arrived from the province of Brittany to remonstrate against the\nestablishment of the Cour Pleniere, and those the archbishop sent to the\nBastille. But the spirit of the nation was not to be overcome, and\nit was so fully sensible of the strong ground it had taken--that of\nwithholding taxes--that it contented itself with keeping up a sort of\nquiet resistance, which effectually overthrew all the plans at that time\nformed against it. The project of the Cour Pleniere was at last obliged\nto be given up, and the Prime Minister not long afterwards followed its\nfate, and M. Neckar was recalled into office.\n\nThe attempt to establish the Cour Pleniere had an effect upon the nation\nwhich itself did not perceive. It was a sort of new form of government\nthat insensibly served to put the old one out of sight and to unhinge\nit from the superstitious authority of antiquity. It was Government\ndethroning Government; and the old one, by attempting to make a new one,\nmade a chasm.\n\nThe failure of this scheme renewed the subject of convening the\nState-General; and this gave rise to a new series of politics. There was\nno settled form for convening the States-General: all that it positively\nmeant was a deputation from what was then called the Clergy, the\nNoblesse, and the Commons; but their numbers or their proportions had\nnot been always the same. They had been convened only on extraordinary\noccasions, the last of which was in 1614; their numbers were then in\nequal proportions, and they voted by orders.\n\nIt could not well escape the sagacity of M. Neckar, that the mode of\n1614 would answer neither the purpose of the then government nor of the\nnation. As matters were at that time circumstanced it would have been\ntoo contentious to agree upon anything. The debates would have been\nendless upon privileges and exemptions, in which neither the wants of\nthe Government nor the wishes of the nation for a Constitution would\nhave been attended to. But as he did not choose to take the decision\nupon himself, he summoned again the Assembly of the Notables and\nreferred it to them. This body was in general interested in the\ndecision, being chiefly of aristocracy and high-paid clergy, and they\ndecided in favor of the mode of 1614. This decision was against the\nsense of the Nation, and also against the wishes of the Court; for\nthe aristocracy opposed itself to both and contended for privileges\nindependent of either. The subject was then taken up by the Parliament,\nwho recommended that the number of the Commons should be equal to the\nother two: and they should all sit in one house and vote in one body.\nThe number finally determined on was 1,200; 600 to be chosen by the\nCommons (and this was less than their proportion ought to have been when\ntheir worth and consequence is considered on a national scale), 300 by\nthe Clergy, and 300 by the Aristocracy; but with respect to the mode of\nassembling themselves, whether together or apart, or the manner in which\nthey should vote, those matters were referred.*[9]\n\nThe election that followed was not a contested election, but an animated\none. The candidates were not men, but principles. Societies were formed\nin Paris, and committees of correspondence and communication established\nthroughout the nation, for the purpose of enlightening the people, and\nexplaining to them the principles of civil government; and so orderly\nwas the election conducted, that it did not give rise even to the rumour\nof tumult.\n\nThe States-General were to meet at Versailles in April 1789, but did not\nassemble till May. They situated themselves in three separate chambers,\nor rather the Clergy and Aristocracy withdrew each into a separate\nchamber. The majority of the Aristocracy claimed what they called the\nprivilege of voting as a separate body, and of giving their consent\nor their negative in that manner; and many of the bishops and the\nhigh-beneficed clergy claimed the same privilege on the part of their\nOrder.\n\nThe Tiers Etat (as they were then called) disowned any knowledge of\nartificial orders and artificial privileges; and they were not only\nresolute on this point, but somewhat disdainful. They began to consider\nthe Aristocracy as a kind of fungus growing out of the corruption of\nsociety, that could not be admitted even as a branch of it; and from the\ndisposition the Aristocracy had shown by upholding Lettres de Cachet,\nand in sundry other instances, it was manifest that no constitution\ncould be formed by admitting men in any other character than as National\nMen.\n\nAfter various altercations on this head, the Tiers Etat or Commons (as\nthey were then called) declared themselves (on a motion made for that\npurpose by the Abbe Sieyes) \"The Representative Of The Nation; and that\nthe two Orders could be considered but as deputies of corporations, and\ncould only have a deliberate voice when they assembled in a national\ncharacter with the national representatives.\" This proceeding\nextinguished the style of Etats Generaux, or States-General, and erected\nit into the style it now bears, that of L'Assemblee Nationale, or\nNational Assembly.\n\nThis motion was not made in a precipitate manner. It was the result of\ncool deliberation, and concerned between the national representatives\nand the patriotic members of the two chambers, who saw into the folly,\nmischief, and injustice of artificial privileged distinctions. It was\nbecome evident, that no constitution, worthy of being called by that\nname, could be established on anything less than a national ground.\nThe Aristocracy had hitherto opposed the despotism of the Court, and\naffected the language of patriotism; but it opposed it as its rival (as\nthe English Barons opposed King John) and it now opposed the nation from\nthe same motives.\n\nOn carrying this motion, the national representatives, as had been\nconcerted, sent an invitation to the two chambers, to unite with them in\na national character, and proceed to business. A majority of the clergy,\nchiefly of the parish priests, withdrew from the clerical chamber, and\njoined the nation; and forty-five from the other chamber joined in\nlike manner. There is a sort of secret history belonging to this last\ncircumstance, which is necessary to its explanation; it was not judged\nprudent that all the patriotic members of the chamber styling itself the\nNobles, should quit it at once; and in consequence of this arrangement,\nthey drew off by degrees, always leaving some, as well to reason the\ncase, as to watch the suspected. In a little time the numbers increased\nfrom forty-five to eighty, and soon after to a greater number;\nwhich, with the majority of the clergy, and the whole of the national\nrepresentatives, put the malcontents in a very diminutive condition.\n\nThe King, who, very different from the general class called by that\nname, is a man of a good heart, showed himself disposed to recommend\na union of the three chambers, on the ground the National Assembly had\ntaken; but the malcontents exerted themselves to prevent it, and began\nnow to have another project in view. Their numbers consisted of a\nmajority of the aristocratical chamber, and the minority of the clerical\nchamber, chiefly of bishops and high-beneficed clergy; and these men\nwere determined to put everything to issue, as well by strength as by\nstratagem. They had no objection to a constitution; but it must be such\na one as themselves should dictate, and suited to their own views and\nparticular situations. On the other hand, the Nation disowned knowing\nanything of them but as citizens, and was determined to shut out all\nsuch up-start pretensions. The more aristocracy appeared, the more it\nwas despised; there was a visible imbecility and want of intellects in\nthe majority, a sort of je ne sais quoi, that while it affected to be\nmore than citizen, was less than man. It lost ground from contempt more\nthan from hatred; and was rather jeered at as an ass, than dreaded as a\nlion. This is the general character of aristocracy, or what are called\nNobles or Nobility, or rather No-ability, in all countries.\n\nThe plan of the malcontents consisted now of two things; either to\ndeliberate and vote by chambers (or orders), more especially on all\nquestions respecting a Constitution (by which the aristocratical chamber\nwould have had a negative on any article of the Constitution); or, in\ncase they could not accomplish this object, to overthrow the National\nAssembly entirely.\n\nTo effect one or other of these objects they began to cultivate a\nfriendship with the despotism they had hitherto attempted to rival, and\nthe Count D'Artois became their chief. The king (who has since declared\nhimself deceived into their measures) held, according to the old form,\na Bed of Justice, in which he accorded to the deliberation and vote par\ntete (by head) upon several subjects; but reserved the deliberation and\nvote upon all questions respecting a constitution to the three chambers\nseparately. This declaration of the king was made against the advice of\nM. Neckar, who now began to perceive that he was growing out of fashion\nat Court, and that another minister was in contemplation.\n\nAs the form of sitting in separate chambers was yet apparently kept up,\nthough essentially destroyed, the national representatives immediately\nafter this declaration of the King resorted to their own chambers\nto consult on a protest against it; and the minority of the chamber\n(calling itself the Nobles), who had joined the national cause, retired\nto a private house to consult in like manner. The malcontents had by\nthis time concerted their measures with the court, which the Count\nD'Artois undertook to conduct; and as they saw from the discontent which\nthe declaration excited, and the opposition making against it, that they\ncould not obtain a control over the intended constitution by a\nseparate vote, they prepared themselves for their final object--that of\nconspiring against the National Assembly, and overthrowing it.\n\nThe next morning the door of the chamber of the National Assembly was\nshut against them, and guarded by troops; and the members were\nrefused admittance. On this they withdrew to a tennis-ground in the\nneighbourhood of Versailles, as the most convenient place they could\nfind, and, after renewing their session, took an oath never to separate\nfrom each other, under any circumstance whatever, death excepted, until\nthey had established a constitution. As the experiment of shutting up\nthe house had no other effect than that of producing a closer connection\nin the members, it was opened again the next day, and the public\nbusiness recommenced in the usual place.\n\nWe are now to have in view the forming of the new ministry, which was to\naccomplish the overthrow of the National Assembly. But as force would\nbe necessary, orders were issued to assemble thirty thousand troops, the\ncommand of which was given to Broglio, one of the intended new ministry,\nwho was recalled from the country for this purpose. But as some\nmanagement was necessary to keep this plan concealed till the moment it\nshould be ready for execution, it is to this policy that a declaration\nmade by Count D'Artois must be attributed, and which is here proper to\nbe introduced.\n\nIt could not but occur while the malcontents continued to resort to\ntheir chambers separate from the National Assembly, more jealousy would\nbe excited than if they were mixed with it, and that the plot might be\nsuspected. But as they had taken their ground, and now wanted a pretence\nfor quitting it, it was necessary that one should be devised. This was\neffectually accomplished by a declaration made by the Count D'Artois:\n\"That if they took not a Part in the National Assembly, the life of the\nking would be endangered\": on which they quitted their chambers, and\nmixed with the Assembly, in one body.\n\nAt the time this declaration was made, it was generally treated as a\npiece of absurdity in Count D'Artois calculated merely to relieve the\noutstanding members of the two chambers from the diminutive situation\nthey were put in; and if nothing more had followed, this conclusion\nwould have been good. But as things best explain themselves by their\nevents, this apparent union was only a cover to the machinations which\nwere secretly going on; and the declaration accommodated itself to\nanswer that purpose. In a little time the National Assembly found itself\nsurrounded by troops, and thousands more were daily arriving. On this a\nvery strong declaration was made by the National Assembly to the King,\nremonstrating on the impropriety of the measure, and demanding the\nreason. The King, who was not in the secret of this business, as himself\nafterwards declared, gave substantially for answer, that he had no other\nobject in view than to preserve the public tranquility, which appeared\nto be much disturbed.\n\nBut in a few days from this time the plot unravelled itself M. Neckar\nand the ministry were displaced, and a new one formed of the enemies\nof the Revolution; and Broglio, with between twenty-five and thirty\nthousand foreign troops, was arrived to support them. The mask was now\nthrown off, and matters were come to a crisis. The event was that in a\nspace of three days the new ministry and their abettors found it prudent\nto fly the nation; the Bastille was taken, and Broglio and his foreign\ntroops dispersed, as is already related in the former part of this work.\n\nThere are some curious circumstances in the history of this short-lived\nministry, and this short-lived attempt at a counter-revolution. The\nPalace of Versailles, where the Court was sitting, was not more than\nfour hundred yards distant from the hall where the National Assembly\nwas sitting. The two places were at this moment like the separate\nheadquarters of two combatant armies; yet the Court was as perfectly\nignorant of the information which had arrived from Paris to the National\nAssembly, as if it had resided at an hundred miles distance. The then\nMarquis de la Fayette, who (as has been already mentioned) was chosen to\npreside in the National Assembly on this particular occasion, named by\norder of the Assembly three successive deputations to the king, on the\nday and up to the evening on which the Bastille was taken, to inform and\nconfer with him on the state of affairs; but the ministry, who knew not\nso much as that it was attacked, precluded all communication, and were\nsolacing themselves how dextrously they had succeeded; but in a few\nhours the accounts arrived so thick and fast that they had to start from\ntheir desks and run. Some set off in one disguise, and some in another,\nand none in their own character. Their anxiety now was to outride the\nnews, lest they should be stopt, which, though it flew fast, flew not so\nfast as themselves.\n\nIt is worth remarking that the National Assembly neither pursued those\nfugitive conspirators, nor took any notice of them, nor sought\nto retaliate in any shape whatever. Occupied with establishing a\nconstitution founded on the Rights of Man and the Authority of the\nPeople, the only authority on which Government has a right to exist\nin any country, the National Assembly felt none of those mean passions\nwhich mark the character of impertinent governments, founding themselves\non their own authority, or on the absurdity of hereditary succession. It\nis the faculty of the human mind to become what it contemplates, and to\nact in unison with its object.\n\nThe conspiracy being thus dispersed, one of the first works of the\nNational Assembly, instead of vindictive proclamations, as has been the\ncase with other governments, was to publish a declaration of the Rights\nof Man, as the basis on which the new constitution was to be built, and\nwhich is here subjoined:\n\n\n                             Declaration\n\n                                Of The\n\n                    Rights Of Man And Of Citizens\n\n                  By The National Assembly Of France\n\nThe representatives of the people of France, formed into a National\nAssembly, considering that ignorance, neglect, or contempt of human\nrights, are the sole causes of public misfortunes and corruptions of\nGovernment, have resolved to set forth in a solemn declaration, these\nnatural, imprescriptible, and inalienable rights: that this declaration\nbeing constantly present to the minds of the members of the body social,\nthey may be forever kept attentive to their rights and their duties;\nthat the acts of the legislative and executive powers of Government,\nbeing capable of being every moment compared with the end of political\ninstitutions, may be more respected; and also, that the future claims of\nthe citizens, being directed by simple and incontestable principles,\nmay always tend to the maintenance of the Constitution, and the general\nhappiness.\n\nFor these reasons the National Assembly doth recognize and declare, in\nthe presence of the Supreme Being, and with the hope of his blessing and\nfavour, the following sacred rights of men and of citizens:\n\nOne: Men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of\ntheir Rights. Civil distinctions, therefore, can be founded only on\nPublic Utility.\n\nTwo: The end of all Political associations is the Preservation of the\nNatural and Imprescriptible Rights of Man; and these rights are Liberty,\nProperty, Security, and Resistance of Oppression.\n\nThree: The Nation is essentially the source of all Sovereignty; nor can\nany individual, or any body of Men, be entitled to any authority which\nis not expressly derived from it.\n\nFour: Political Liberty consists in the power of doing whatever does not\nInjure another. The exercise of the Natural Rights of every Man, has no\nother limits than those which are necessary to secure to every other Man\nthe Free exercise of the same Rights; and these limits are determinable\nonly by the Law.\n\nFive: The Law ought to Prohibit only actions hurtful to Society. What is\nnot Prohibited by the Law should not be hindered; nor should anyone be\ncompelled to that which the Law does not Require.\n\nSix: the Law is an expression of the Will of the Community. All Citizens\nhave a right to concur, either personally or by their Representatives,\nin its formation. It Should be the same to all, whether it protects or\npunishes; and all being equal in its sight, are equally eligible to\nall Honours, Places, and employments, according to their different\nabilities, without any other distinction than that created by their\nVirtues and talents.\n\nSeven: No Man should be accused, arrested, or held in confinement,\nexcept in cases determined by the Law, and according to the forms which\nit has prescribed. All who promote, solicit, execute, or cause to be\nexecuted, arbitrary orders, ought to be punished, and every Citizen\ncalled upon, or apprehended by virtue of the Law, ought immediately to\nobey, and renders himself culpable by resistance.\n\nEight: The Law ought to impose no other penalties but such as are\nabsolutely and evidently necessary; and no one ought to be punished, but\nin virtue of a Law promulgated before the offence, and Legally applied.\n\nNine: Every Man being presumed innocent till he has been convicted,\nwhenever his detention becomes indispensable, all rigour to him, more\nthan is necessary to secure his person, ought to be provided against by\nthe Law.\n\nTen: No Man ought to be molested on account of his opinions, not even on\naccount of his Religious opinions, provided his avowal of them does not\ndisturb the Public Order established by the Law.\n\nEleven: The unrestrained communication of thoughts and opinions being\none of the Most Precious Rights of Man, every Citizen may speak, write,\nand publish freely, provided he is responsible for the abuse of this\nLiberty, in cases determined by the Law.\n\nTwelve: A Public force being necessary to give security to the Rights\nof Men and of Citizens, that force is instituted for the benefit of the\nCommunity and not for the particular benefit of the persons to whom it\nis intrusted.\n\nThirteen: A common contribution being necessary for the support of the\nPublic force, and for defraying the other expenses of Government,\nit ought to be divided equally among the Members of the Community,\naccording to their abilities.\n\nFourteen: every Citizen has a Right, either by himself or his\nRepresentative, to a free voice in determining the necessity of Public\nContributions, the appropriation of them, and their amount, mode of\nassessment, and duration.\n\nFifteen: every Community has a Right to demand of all its agents an\naccount of their conduct.\n\nSixteen: every Community in which a Separation of Powers and a Security\nof Rights is not Provided for, wants a Constitution.\n\nSeventeen: The Right to Property being inviolable and sacred, no one\nought to be deprived of it, except in cases of evident Public necessity,\nlegally ascertained, and on condition of a previous just Indemnity.\n\n\n\n\nOBSERVATIONS ON THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS\n\nThe first three articles comprehend in general terms the whole of a\nDeclaration of Rights, all the succeeding articles either originate\nfrom them or follow as elucidations. The 4th, 5th, and 6th define more\nparticularly what is only generally expressed in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.\n\nThe 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th articles are declaratory of principles\nupon which laws shall be constructed, conformable to rights already\ndeclared. But it is questioned by some very good people in France,\nas well as in other countries, whether the 10th article sufficiently\nguarantees the right it is intended to accord with; besides which it\ntakes off from the divine dignity of religion, and weakens its operative\nforce upon the mind, to make it a subject of human laws. It then\npresents itself to man like light intercepted by a cloudy medium, in\nwhich the source of it is obscured from his sight, and he sees nothing\nto reverence in the dusky ray.*[10]\n\nThe remaining articles, beginning with the twelfth, are substantially\ncontained in the principles of the preceding articles; but in the\nparticular situation in which France then was, having to undo what was\nwrong, as well as to set up what was right, it was proper to be more\nparticular than what in another condition of things would be necessary.\n\nWhile the Declaration of Rights was before the National Assembly some of\nits members remarked that if a declaration of rights were published\nit should be accompanied by a Declaration of Duties. The observation\ndiscovered a mind that reflected, and it only erred by not reflecting\nfar enough. A Declaration of Rights is, by reciprocity, a Declaration of\nDuties also. Whatever is my right as a man is also the right of another;\nand it becomes my duty to guarantee as well as to possess.\n\nThe three first articles are the base of Liberty, as well individual as\nnational; nor can any country be called free whose government does not\ntake its beginning from the principles they contain, and continue to\npreserve them pure; and the whole of the Declaration of Rights is of\nmore value to the world, and will do more good, than all the laws and\nstatutes that have yet been promulgated.\n\nIn the declaratory exordium which prefaces the Declaration of Rights\nwe see the solemn and majestic spectacle of a nation opening its\ncommission, under the auspices of its Creator, to establish a\nGovernment, a scene so new, and so transcendantly unequalled by anything\nin the European world, that the name of a Revolution is diminutive of\nits character, and it rises into a Regeneration of man. What are the\npresent Governments of Europe but a scene of iniquity and oppression?\nWhat is that of England? Do not its own inhabitants say it is a market\nwhere every man has his price, and where corruption is common traffic\nat the expense of a deluded people? No wonder, then, that the French\nRevolution is traduced. Had it confined itself merely to the destruction\nof flagrant despotism perhaps Mr. Burke and some others had been silent.\nTheir cry now is, \"It has gone too far\"--that is, it has gone too far\nfor them. It stares corruption in the face, and the venal tribe are all\nalarmed. Their fear discovers itself in their outrage, and they are but\npublishing the groans of a wounded vice. But from such opposition the\nFrench Revolution, instead of suffering, receives an homage. The more it\nis struck the more sparks it will emit; and the fear is it will not be\nstruck enough. It has nothing to dread from attacks; truth has given it\nan establishment, and time will record it with a name as lasting as his\nown.\n\nHaving now traced the progress of the French Revolution through most\nof its principal stages, from its commencement to the taking of the\nBastille, and its establishment by the Declaration of Rights, I will\nclose the subject with the energetic apostrophe of M. de la Fayette,\n\"May this great monument, raised to Liberty, serve as a lesson to the\noppressor, and an example to the oppressed!\"*[11]\n\n\n                        MISCELLANEOUS CHAPTER\n\nTo prevent interrupting the argument in the preceding part of this work,\nor the narrative that follows it, I reserved some observations to be\nthrown together in a Miscellaneous Chapter; by which variety might\nnot be censured for confusion. Mr. Burke's book is all Miscellany. His\nintention was to make an attack on the French Revolution; but instead of\nproceeding with an orderly arrangement, he has stormed it with a mob of\nideas tumbling over and destroying one another.\n\nBut this confusion and contradiction in Mr. Burke's Book is easily\naccounted for.--When a man in a wrong cause attempts to steer his course\nby anything else than some polar truth or principle, he is sure to be\nlost. It is beyond the compass of his capacity to keep all the parts\nof an argument together, and make them unite in one issue, by any\nother means than having this guide always in view. Neither memory nor\ninvention will supply the want of it. The former fails him, and the\nlatter betrays him.\n\nNotwithstanding the nonsense, for it deserves no better name, that Mr.\nBurke has asserted about hereditary rights, and hereditary succession,\nand that a Nation has not a right to form a Government of itself; it\nhappened to fall in his way to give some account of what Government is.\n\"Government,\" says he, \"is a contrivance of human wisdom.\"\n\nAdmitting that government is a contrivance of human wisdom, it must\nnecessarily follow, that hereditary succession, and hereditary rights\n(as they are called), can make no part of it, because it is impossible\nto make wisdom hereditary; and on the other hand, that cannot be a\nwise contrivance, which in its operation may commit the government of a\nnation to the wisdom of an idiot. The ground which Mr. Burke now\ntakes is fatal to every part of his cause. The argument changes from\nhereditary rights to hereditary wisdom; and the question is, Who is the\nwisest man? He must now show that every one in the line of hereditary\nsuccession was a Solomon, or his title is not good to be a king. What a\nstroke has Mr. Burke now made! To use a sailor's phrase, he has swabbed\nthe deck, and scarcely left a name legible in the list of Kings; and\nhe has mowed down and thinned the House of Peers, with a scythe as\nformidable as Death and Time.\n\nBut Mr. Burke appears to have been aware of this retort; and he has\ntaken care to guard against it, by making government to be not only\na contrivance of human wisdom, but a monopoly of wisdom. He puts the\nnation as fools on one side, and places his government of wisdom, all\nwise men of Gotham, on the other side; and he then proclaims, and says\nthat \"Men have a Right that their Wants should be provided for by this\nwisdom.\" Having thus made proclamation, he next proceeds to explain to\nthem what their wants are, and also what their rights are. In this\nhe has succeeded dextrously, for he makes their wants to be a want of\nwisdom; but as this is cold comfort, he then informs them, that they\nhave a right (not to any of the wisdom) but to be governed by it; and\nin order to impress them with a solemn reverence for this\nmonopoly-government of wisdom, and of its vast capacity for all\npurposes, possible or impossible, right or wrong, he proceeds with\nastrological mysterious importance, to tell to them its powers in these\nwords: \"The rights of men in government are their advantages; and these\nare often in balance between differences of good; and in compromises\nsometimes between good and evil, and sometimes between\nevil and evil. Political reason is a computing principle;\nadding--subtracting--multiplying--and dividing, morally and not\nmetaphysically or mathematically, true moral denominations.\"\n\nAs the wondering audience, whom Mr. Burke supposes himself talking to,\nmay not understand all this learned jargon, I will undertake to be\nits interpreter. The meaning, then, good people, of all this, is: That\ngovernment is governed by no principle whatever; that it can make evil\ngood, or good evil, just as it pleases. In short, that government is\narbitrary power.\n\nBut there are some things which Mr. Burke has forgotten. First, he has\nnot shown where the wisdom originally came from: and secondly, he has\nnot shown by what authority it first began to act. In the manner he\nintroduces the matter, it is either government stealing wisdom, or\nwisdom stealing government. It is without an origin, and its powers\nwithout authority. In short, it is usurpation.\n\nWhether it be from a sense of shame, or from a consciousness of some\nradical defect in a government necessary to be kept out of sight, or\nfrom both, or from any other cause, I undertake not to determine, but\nso it is, that a monarchical reasoner never traces government to its\nsource, or from its source. It is one of the shibboleths by which he\nmay be known. A thousand years hence, those who shall live in America or\nFrance, will look back with contemplative pride on the origin of their\ngovernment, and say, This was the work of our glorious ancestors! But\nwhat can a monarchical talker say? What has he to exult in? Alas he has\nnothing. A certain something forbids him to look back to a beginning,\nlest some robber, or some Robin Hood, should rise from the long\nobscurity of time and say, I am the origin. Hard as Mr. Burke laboured\nat the Regency Bill and Hereditary Succession two years ago, and much\nas he dived for precedents, he still had not boldness enough to bring\nup William of Normandy, and say, There is the head of the list! there\nis the fountain of honour! the son of a prostitute, and the plunderer of\nthe English nation.\n\nThe opinions of men with respect to government are changing fast in all\ncountries. The Revolutions of America and France have thrown a beam of\nlight over the world, which reaches into man. The enormous expense of\ngovernments has provoked people to think, by making them feel; and when\nonce the veil begins to rend, it admits not of repair. Ignorance is of a\npeculiar nature: once dispelled, it is impossible to re-establish it.\nIt is not originally a thing of itself, but is only the absence of\nknowledge; and though man may be kept ignorant, he cannot be made\nignorant. The mind, in discovering truth, acts in the same manner as it\nacts through the eye in discovering objects; when once any object has\nbeen seen, it is impossible to put the mind back to the same condition\nit was in before it saw it. Those who talk of a counter-revolution in\nFrance, show how little they understand of man. There does not exist in\nthe compass of language an arrangement of words to express so much\nas the means of effecting a counter-revolution. The means must be an\nobliteration of knowledge; and it has never yet been discovered how to\nmake man unknow his knowledge, or unthink his thoughts.\n\nMr. Burke is labouring in vain to stop the progress of knowledge; and it\ncomes with the worse grace from him, as there is a certain transaction\nknown in the city which renders him suspected of being a pensioner in\na fictitious name. This may account for some strange doctrine he has\nadvanced in his book, which though he points it at the Revolution\nSociety, is effectually directed against the whole nation.\n\n\"The King of England,\" says he, \"holds his crown (for it does not belong\nto the Nation, according to Mr. Burke) in contempt of the choice of the\nRevolution Society, who have not a single vote for a king among them\neither individually or collectively; and his Majesty's heirs 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 which he now\nwears.\"\n\nAs to who is King in England, or elsewhere, or whether there is any\nKing at 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.\nWhether it sounds worse to my ear, by not being accustomed to hear such\ndespotism, than what it does to another person, I am not so well a judge\nof; but of its abominable principle I am at no loss to judge.\n\nIt is not the Revolution Society that Mr. Burke means; it is the Nation,\nas well in its original as in its representative character; and he has\ntaken care to make himself understood, by saying that they have not\na vote either collectively or individually. The Revolution Society is\ncomposed of citizens of all denominations, and of members of both the\nHouses of Parliament; and consequently, if there is not a right to a\nvote in any of the characters, there can be no right to any either in\nthe nation or in its Parliament. This ought to be a caution to every\ncountry how to import foreign families to be kings. It is somewhat\ncurious to observe, that although the people of England had been in the\nhabit of talking about kings, it is always a Foreign House of Kings;\nhating Foreigners yet governed by them.--It is now the House of\nBrunswick, one of the petty tribes of Germany.\n\nIt has hitherto been the practice of the English Parliaments to regulate\nwhat was called the succession (taking it for granted that the Nation\nthen continued to accord to the form of annexing a monarchical branch\nof its government; for without this the Parliament could not have had\nauthority to have sent either to Holland or to Hanover, or to impose\na king upon the nation against its will). And this must be the utmost\nlimit to which Parliament can go upon this case; but the right of the\nNation goes to the whole case, because it has the right of changing its\nwhole form of government. The right of a Parliament is only a right in\ntrust, a right by delegation, and that but from a very small part of the\nNation; and one of its Houses has not even this. But the right of the\nNation is an original right, as universal as taxation. The nation is\nthe paymaster of everything, and everything must conform to its general\nwill.\n\nI remember taking notice of a speech in what is called the English House\nof Peers, by the then Earl of Shelburne, and I think it was at the time\nhe was Minister, which is applicable to this case. I do not directly\ncharge my memory with every particular; but the words and the purport,\nas nearly as I remember, were these: \"That the form of a Government was\na matter wholly at the will of the Nation at all times, that if it chose\na monarchical form, it had a right to have it so; and if it afterwards\nchose to be a Republic, it had a right to be a Republic, and to say to a\nKing, 'We have no longer any occasion for you.'\"\n\nWhen Mr. Burke says that \"His Majesty's heirs and successors, each in\ntheir time and order, will come to the crown with the same content of\ntheir choice with which His Majesty had succeeded to that he wears,\" it\nis saying too much even to the humblest individual in the country;\npart of whose daily labour goes towards making up the million sterling\na-year, which the country gives the person it styles a king. Government\nwith insolence is despotism; but when contempt is added it becomes\nworse; and to pay for contempt is the excess of slavery. This species\nof government comes from Germany; and reminds me of what one of the\nBrunswick soldiers told me, who was taken prisoner by, the Americans\nin the 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.\"\nGod help 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\nAs Mr. Burke sometimes speaks of England, sometimes of France, and\nsometimes of the world, and of government in general, it is difficult\nto answer his book without apparently meeting him on the same ground.\nAlthough principles of Government are general subjects, it is next to\nimpossible, in many cases, to separate them from the idea of place and\ncircumstance, and the more so when circumstances are put for arguments,\nwhich is frequently the case with Mr. Burke.\n\nIn the former part of his book, addressing himself to the people of\nFrance, he says: \"No experience has taught us (meaning the English),\nthat in any other course or method than that of a hereditary crown,\ncan our liberties be regularly perpetuated and preserved sacred as our\nhereditary right.\" I ask Mr. Burke, who is to take them away? M. de la\nFayette, in speaking to France, says: \"For a Nation to be free, it\nis sufficient that she wills it.\" But Mr. Burke represents England as\nwanting capacity to take care of itself, and that its liberties must be\ntaken care of by a King holding it in \"contempt.\" If England is sunk\nto this, it is preparing itself to eat straw, as in Hanover, or in\nBrunswick. But besides the folly of the declaration, it happens that\nthe facts are all against Mr. Burke. It was by the government being\nhereditary, that the liberties of the people were endangered. Charles I.\nand James II. are instances of this truth; yet neither of them went so\nfar as to hold the Nation in contempt.\n\nAs it is sometimes of advantage to the people of one country to hear\nwhat those of other countries have to say respecting it, it is possible\nthat the people of France may learn something from Mr. Burke's book, and\nthat the people of England may also learn something from the answers\nit will occasion. When Nations fall out about freedom, a wide field of\ndebate is opened. The argument commences with the rights of war, without\nits evils, and as knowledge is the object contended for, the party that\nsustains the defeat obtains the prize.\n\nMr. Burke talks about what he calls an hereditary crown, as if it\nwere some 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 a\nthing 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\nBut, to arrange this matter in a clearer view than what general\nexpression can heads under which (what is called) an hereditary crown,\nor more properly speaking, an hereditary succession to the Government of\na Nation, can be considered; which are:\n\nFirst, The right of a particular Family to establish itself.\n\nSecondly, The right of a Nation to establish a particular Family.\n\nWith respect to the first of these heads, that of a Family establishing\nitself with hereditary powers on its own authority, and independent of\nthe consent of a Nation, all men will concur in calling it despotism;\nand it would be trespassing on their understanding to attempt to prove\nit.\n\nBut the second head, that of a Nation establishing a particular Family\nwith hereditary powers, does not present itself as despotism on the\nfirst reflection; but if men will permit it a second reflection to take\nplace, and carry that reflection forward but one remove out of their own\npersons to that of their offspring, they will then see that hereditary\nsuccession becomes in its consequences the same despotism to others,\nwhich they reprobated for themselves. It operates to preclude the\nconsent of the succeeding generations; and the preclusion of consent is\ndespotism. When the person who at any time shall be in possession of\na Government, or those who stand in succession to him, shall say to a\nNation, I hold this power in \"contempt\" of you, it signifies not on what\nauthority he pretends to say it. It is no relief, but an aggravation to\na person in slavery, to reflect that he was sold by his parent; and as\nthat which heightens the criminality of an act cannot be produced to\nprove the legality of it, hereditary succession cannot be established as\na legal thing.\n\nIn order to arrive at a more perfect decision on this head, it will be\nproper to consider the generation which undertakes to establish a Family\nwith hereditary powers, apart and separate from the generations which\nare to follow; and also to consider the character in which the first\ngeneration acts with respect to succeeding generations.\n\nThe generation which first selects a person, and puts him at the head of\nits Government, either with the title of King, or any other distinction,\nacts on its own choice, be it wise or foolish, as a free agent for\nitself The person so set up is not hereditary, but selected and\nappointed; and the generation who sets him up, does not live under a\nhereditary government, but under a government of its own choice and\nestablishment. Were the generation who sets him up, and the person so\nset up, to live for ever, it never could become hereditary succession;\nand of consequence hereditary succession can only follow on the death of\nthe first parties.\n\nAs, therefore, hereditary succession is out of the question with respect\nto the first generation, we have now to consider the character in which\nthat generation acts with respect to the commencing generation, and to\nall succeeding ones.\n\nIt assumes a character, to which it has neither right nor title. It\nchanges itself from a Legislator to a Testator, and effects to make\nits Will, which is to have operation after the demise of the makers, to\nbequeath the Government; and it not only attempts to bequeath, but to\nestablish on the succeeding generation, a new and different form of\nGovernment under which itself lived. Itself, as already observed, lived\nnot under a hereditary Government but under a Government of its own\nchoice and establishment; and it now attempts, by virtue of a will and\ntestament (and which it has not authority to make), to take from the\ncommencing generation, and all future ones, the rights and free agency\nby which itself acted.\n\nBut, exclusive of the right which any generation has to act collectively\nas a testator, the objects to which it applies itself in this case, are\nnot within the compass of any law, or of any will or testament.\n\nThe rights of men in society, are neither devisable or transferable, nor\nannihilable, but are descendable only, and it is not in the power of any\ngeneration to intercept finally, and cut off the descent. If the present\ngeneration, or any other, are disposed to be slaves, it does not lessen\nthe right of the succeeding generation to be free. Wrongs cannot have\na legal descent. When Mr. Burke attempts to maintain that the English\nnation did at the Revolution of 1688, most solemnly renounce and\nabdicate their rights for themselves, and for all their posterity for\never, he speaks a language that merits not reply, and which can\nonly excite contempt for his prostitute principles, or pity for his\nignorance.\n\nIn whatever light hereditary succession, as growing out of the will\nand testament of some former generation, presents itself, it is an\nabsurdity. A cannot make a will to take from B the property of B,\nand give it to C; yet this is the manner in which (what is called)\nhereditary succession by law operates. A certain former generation made\na will, to take away the rights of the commencing generation, and all\nfuture ones, and convey those rights to a third person, who afterwards\ncomes forward, and tells them, in Mr. Burke's language, that they have\nno rights, that their rights are already bequeathed to him and that\nhe will govern in contempt of them. From such principles, and such\nignorance, good Lord deliver the world!\n\nBut, 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\n\"contrivance of human wisdom,\" or of human craft to obtain money from a\nnation under specious pretences? Is it a thing necessary to a nation?\nIf it is, in what does that necessity consist, what service does it\nperform, what is its business, and what are its merits? Does the virtue\nconsist in the metaphor, or in the man? Doth the goldsmith that makes\nthe crown, 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 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,\nand the respect for his personal character, are the only things that\npreserve the appearance of its existence.\n\nIf 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,\nthat it was become necessary to import it from Holland and from Hanover?\nBut I 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\ncould exist 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,\nhow is 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 affairs;\nand when we look around the world, and see that of all men in it, the\nrace of kings are the most insignificant in capacity, our reason cannot\nfail to ask us--What are those men kept for?\n\nIf there is anything in monarchy which we people of America do not\nunderstand, I wish Mr. Burke would be so kind as to inform us. I see\nin America, a government extending over a country ten times as large\nas England, and conducted with regularity, for a fortieth part of the\nexpense which Government costs in England. If I ask a man in America if\nhe wants a King, he retorts, and asks me if I take him for an idiot?\nHow is it that this difference happens? are we more or less wise than\nothers? I see in America the generality of people living in a style of\nplenty unknown in monarchical countries; and I see that the principle\nof its government, which is that of the equal Rights of Man, is making a\nrapid progress in the world.\n\nIf monarchy is a useless thing, why is it kept up anywhere? and if a\nnecessary thing, how can it be dispensed with? That civil government\nis necessary, all civilized nations will agree; but civil government is\nrepublican government. All that part of the government of England which\nbegins with the office of constable, and proceeds through the department\nof magistrate, quarter-sessions, and general assize, including trial by\njury, is republican government. Nothing of monarchy appears in any part\nof it, except in the name which William the Conqueror imposed upon the\nEnglish, that of obliging them to call him \"Their Sovereign Lord the\nKing.\"\n\nIt is easy to conceive that a band of interested men, such as Placemen,\nPensioners, Lords of the bed-chamber, Lords of the kitchen, Lords of\nthe necessary-house, and the Lord knows what besides, can find as many\nreasons for monarchy as their salaries, paid at the expense of the\ncountry, amount to; but if I ask the farmer, the manufacturer, the\nmerchant, the tradesman, and down through all the occupations of life to\nthe common labourer, what service monarchy is to him? he can give me no\nanswer. If I ask him what monarchy is, he believes it is something like\na sinecure.\n\nNotwithstanding the taxes of England amount to almost seventeen millions\na year, said to be for the expenses of Government, it is still evident\nthat the sense of the Nation is left to govern itself, and does\ngovern itself, by magistrates and juries, almost at its own charge, on\nrepublican principles, exclusive of the expense of taxes. The salaries\nof the judges are almost the only charge that is paid out of the\nrevenue. Considering that all the internal government is executed by the\npeople, the taxes of England ought to be the lightest of any nation\nin Europe; instead of which, they are the contrary. As this cannot be\naccounted for on the score of civil government, the subject necessarily\nextends itself to the monarchical part.\n\nWhen the people of England sent for George the First (and it would\npuzzle a wiser man than Mr. Burke to discover for what he could be\nwanted, or what service he could render), they ought at least to have\nconditioned for the abandonment of Hanover. Besides the endless German\nintrigues that must follow from a German Elector being King of England,\nthere is a natural impossibility of uniting in the same person the\nprinciples of Freedom and the principles of Despotism, or as it is\nusually called in England Arbitrary Power. A German Elector is in his\nelectorate a despot; how then could it be expected that he should be\nattached to principles of liberty in one country, while his interest in\nanother was to be supported by despotism? The union cannot exist; and it\nmight easily have been foreseen that German Electors would make German\nKings, or in Mr. Burke's words, would assume government with \"contempt.\"\nThe English have been in the habit of considering a King of England only\nin the character in which he appears to them; whereas the same person,\nwhile the connection lasts, has a home-seat in another country, the\ninterest of which is different to their own, and the principles of the\ngovernments in opposition to each other. To such a person England\nwill appear as a town-residence, and the Electorate as the estate. The\nEnglish may wish, as I believe they do, success to the principles of\nliberty in France, or in Germany; but a German Elector trembles for\nthe fate of despotism in his electorate; and the Duchy of Mecklenburgh,\nwhere the present Queen's family governs, is under the same wretched\nstate of arbitrary power, and the people in slavish vassalage.\n\nThere never was a time when it became the English to watch continental\nintrigues more circumspectly than at the present moment, and to\ndistinguish the politics of the Electorate from the politics of the\nNation. The Revolution of France has entirely changed the ground with\nrespect to England and France, as nations; but the German despots, with\nPrussia at their head, are combining against liberty; and the\nfondness of Mr. Pitt for office, and the interest which all his family\nconnections have obtained, do not give sufficient security against this\nintrigue.\n\nAs everything which passes in the world becomes matter for history, I\nwill now quit this subject, and take a concise review of the state of\nparties and politics in England, as Mr. Burke has done in France.\n\nWhether the present reign commenced with contempt, I leave to Mr. Burke:\ncertain, however, it is, that it had strongly that appearance. The\nanimosity of the English nation, it is very well remembered, ran high;\nand, had the true principles of Liberty been as well understood then\nas they now promise to be, it is probable the Nation would not have\npatiently submitted to so much. George the First and Second were\nsensible of a rival in the remains of the Stuarts; and as they could not\nbut consider themselves as standing on their good behaviour, they had\nprudence to keep their German principles of government to themselves;\nbut as the Stuart family wore away, the prudence became less necessary.\n\nThe contest between rights, and what were called prerogatives, continued\nto heat the nation till some time after the conclusion of the American\nWar, when all at once it fell a calm--Execration exchanged itself for\napplause, and Court popularity sprung up like a mushroom in a night.\n\nTo account for this sudden transition, it is proper to observe that\nthere are two distinct species of popularity; the one excited by merit,\nand the other by resentment. As the Nation had formed itself into\ntwo parties, and each was extolling the merits of its parliamentary\nchampions for and against prerogative, nothing could operate to give\na more general shock than an immediate coalition of the champions\nthemselves. The partisans of each being thus suddenly left in the lurch,\nand mutually heated with disgust at the measure, felt no other relief\nthan uniting in a common execration against both. A higher stimulus\nor resentment being thus excited than what the contest on prerogatives\noccasioned, the nation quitted all former objects of rights and wrongs,\nand sought only that of gratification. The indignation at the Coalition\nso effectually superseded the indignation against the Court as to\nextinguish it; and without any change of principles on the part of the\nCourt, the same people who had reprobated its despotism united with it\nto revenge themselves on the Coalition Parliament. The case was not,\nwhich they liked best, but which they hated most; and the least hated\npassed for love. The dissolution of the Coalition Parliament, as it\nafforded the means of gratifying the resentment of the Nation, could not\nfail to be popular; and from hence arose the popularity of the Court.\n\nTransitions of this kind exhibit a Nation under the government of\ntemper, instead of a fixed and steady principle; and having once\ncommitted itself, however rashly, it feels itself urged along to justify\nby continuance its first proceeding. Measures which at other times\nit would censure it now approves, and acts persuasion upon itself to\nsuffocate its judgment.\n\nOn the return of a new Parliament, the new Minister, Mr. Pitt, found\nhimself in a secure majority; and the Nation gave him credit, not out\nof regard to himself, but because it had resolved to do it out of\nresentment to another. He introduced himself to public notice by\na proposed Reform of Parliament, which in its operation would have\namounted to a public justification of corruption. The Nation was to be\nat the expense of buying up the rotten boroughs, whereas it ought to\npunish the persons who deal in the traffic.\n\nPassing over the two bubbles of the Dutch business and the million\na-year to sink the national debt, the matter which most presents itself,\nis the affair of the Regency. Never, in the course of my observation,\nwas delusion more successfully acted, nor a nation more completely\ndeceived. But, to make this appear, it will be necessary to go over the\ncircumstances.\n\nMr. Fox had stated in the House of Commons, that the Prince of Wales,\nas heir in succession, had a right in himself to assume the Government.\nThis was opposed by Mr. Pitt; and, so far as the opposition was\nconfined to the doctrine, it was just. But the principles which Mr. Pitt\nmaintained on the contrary side were as bad, or worse in their extent,\nthan those of Mr. Fox; because they went to establish an aristocracy\nover the nation, and over the small representation it has in the House\nof Commons.\n\nWhether the English form of Government be good or bad, is not in this\ncase the question; but, taking it as it stands, without regard to its\nmerits or demerits, Mr. Pitt was farther from the point than Mr. Fox.\n\nIt is supposed to consist of three parts:--while therefore the Nation\nis disposed to continue this form, the parts have a national standing,\nindependent of each other, and are not the creatures of each other. Had\nMr. Fox passed through Parliament, and said that the person alluded to\nclaimed on the ground of the Nation, Mr. Pitt must then have contended\nwhat he called the right of the Parliament against the right of the\nNation.\n\nBy the appearance which the contest made, Mr. Fox took the hereditary\nground, and Mr. Pitt the Parliamentary ground; but the fact is, they\nboth took hereditary ground, and Mr. Pitt took the worst of the two.\n\nWhat is called the Parliament is made up of two Houses, one of which is\nmore hereditary, and more beyond the control of the Nation than what\nthe Crown (as it is called) is supposed to be. It is an hereditary\naristocracy, assuming and asserting indefeasible, irrevocable rights\nand authority, wholly independent of the Nation. Where, then, was\nthe merited popularity of exalting this hereditary power over another\nhereditary power less independent of the Nation than what itself assumed\nto be, and of absorbing the rights of the Nation into a House over which\nit has neither election nor control?\n\nThe general impulse of the Nation was right; but it acted without\nreflection. It approved the opposition made to the right set up by\nMr. Fox, without perceiving that Mr. Pitt was supporting another\nindefeasible right more remote from the Nation, in opposition to it.\n\nWith respect to the House of Commons, it is elected but by a small part\nof the Nation; but were the election as universal as taxation, which it\nought to be, it would still be only the organ of the Nation, and cannot\npossess inherent rights.--When the National Assembly of France resolves\na matter, the resolve is made in right of the Nation; but Mr. Pitt, on\nall national questions, so far as they refer to the House of Commons,\nabsorbs the rights of the Nation into the organ, and makes the organ\ninto a Nation, and the Nation itself into a cypher.\n\nIn a few words, the question on the Regency was a question of a million\na-year, which is appropriated to the executive department: and Mr. Pitt\ncould not possess himself of any management of this sum, without setting\nup the supremacy of Parliament; and when this was accomplished, it was\nindifferent who should be Regent, as he must be Regent at his own cost.\nAmong the curiosities which this contentious debate afforded, was that\nof making the Great Seal into a King, the affixing of which to an act\nwas to be royal authority. If, therefore, Royal Authority is a Great\nSeal, it consequently is in itself nothing; and a good Constitution\nwould be of infinitely more value to the Nation than what the three\nNominal Powers, as they now stand, are worth.\n\nThe continual use of the word Constitution in the English Parliament\nshows there is none; and that the whole is merely a form of government\nwithout a Constitution, and constituting itself with what powers it\npleases. If there were a Constitution, it certainly could be referred\nto; and the debate on any constitutional point would terminate by\nproducing the Constitution. One member says this is Constitution, and\nanother says that is Constitution--To-day it is one thing; and to-morrow\nsomething else--while the maintaining of the debate proves there is\nnone. Constitution is now the cant word of Parliament, tuning itself\nto the ear of the Nation. Formerly it was the universal supremacy of\nParliament--the omnipotence of Parliament: But since the progress of\nLiberty in France, those phrases have a despotic harshness in their\nnote; and the English Parliament have catched the fashion from\nthe National Assembly, but without the substance, of speaking of\nConstitution.\n\nAs the present generation of the people in England did not make the\nGovernment, they are not accountable for any of its defects; but,\nthat sooner or later, it must come into their hands to undergo a\nconstitutional reformation, is as certain as that the same thing has\nhappened in France. If France, with a revenue of nearly twenty-four\nmillions sterling, with an extent of rich and fertile country above four\ntimes larger than England, with a population of twenty-four millions\nof inhabitants to support taxation, with upwards of ninety millions\nsterling of gold and silver circulating in the nation, and with a debt\nless than the present debt of England--still found it necessary, from\nwhatever cause, to come to a settlement of its affairs, it solves the\nproblem of funding for both countries.\n\nIt is out of the question to say how long what is called the English\nconstitution has lasted, and to argue from thence how long it is to\nlast; the question is, how long can the funding system last? It is a\nthing but of modern invention, and has not yet continued beyond the\nlife of a man; yet in that short space it has so far accumulated, that,\ntogether with the current expenses, it requires an amount of taxes at\nleast equal to the whole landed rental of the nation in acres to defray\nthe annual expenditure. That a government could not have always gone on\nby the same system which has been followed for the last seventy years,\nmust be evident to every man; and for the same reason it cannot always\ngo on.\n\nThe funding system is not money; neither is it, properly speaking,\ncredit. It, in effect, creates upon paper the sum which it appears to\nborrow, and lays on a tax to keep the imaginary capital alive by the\npayment of interest and sends the annuity to market, to be sold for\npaper already in circulation. If any credit is given, it is to the\ndisposition of the people to pay the tax, and not to the government,\nwhich lays it on. When this disposition expires, what is supposed to be\nthe credit of Government expires with it. The instance of France under\nthe former Government shows that it is impossible to compel the payment\nof taxes by force, when a whole nation is determined to take its stand\nupon that ground.\n\nMr. Burke, in his review of the finances of France, states the quantity\nof gold and silver in France, at about eighty-eight millions sterling.\nIn doing this, he has, I presume, divided by the difference of exchange,\ninstead of the standard of twenty-four livres to a pound sterling; for\nM. Neckar's statement, from which Mr. Burke's is taken, is two thousand\ntwo hundred millions of livres, which is upwards of ninety-one millions\nand a half sterling.\n\nM. Neckar in France, and Mr. George Chalmers at the Office of Trade and\nPlantation in England, of which Lord Hawkesbury is president, published\nnearly about the same time (1786) an account of the quantity of money in\neach nation, from the returns of the Mint of each nation. Mr. Chalmers,\nfrom the returns of the English Mint at the Tower of London, states\nthe quantity of money in England, including Scotland and Ireland, to be\ntwenty millions sterling.*[12]\n\nM. Neckar*[13] says that the amount of money in France, recoined from\nthe old coin which was called in, was two thousand five hundred millions\nof livres (upwards of one hundred and four millions sterling); and,\nafter deducting for waste, and what may be in the West Indies and other\npossible circumstances, states the circulation quantity at home to be\nninety-one millions and a half sterling; but, taking it as Mr. Burke has\nput it, it is sixty-eight millions more than the national quantity in\nEngland.\n\nThat the quantity of money in France cannot be under this sum, may at\nonce be seen from the state of the French Revenue, without referring to\nthe records of the French Mint for proofs. The revenue of France, prior\nto the Revolution, was nearly twenty-four millions sterling; and as\npaper had then no existence in France the whole revenue was collected\nupon gold and silver; and it would have been impossible to have\ncollected such a quantity of revenue upon a less national quantity than\nM. Neckar has stated. Before the establishment of paper in England,\nthe revenue was about a fourth part of the national amount of gold\nand silver, as may be known by referring to the revenue prior to King\nWilliam, and the quantity of money stated to be in the nation at that\ntime, which was nearly as much as it is now.\n\nIt can be of no real service to a nation, to impose upon itself, or to\npermit itself to be imposed upon; but the prejudices of some, and\nthe imposition of others, have always represented France as a nation\npossessing but little money--whereas the quantity is not only more than\nfour times what the quantity is in England, but is considerably greater\non a proportion of numbers. To account for this deficiency on the\npart of England, some reference should be had to the English system of\nfunding. It operates to multiply paper, and to substitute it in the room\nof money, in various shapes; and the more paper is multiplied, the\nmore opportunities are offered to export the specie; and it admits of\na possibility (by extending it to small notes) of increasing paper till\nthere is no money left.\n\nI know this is not a pleasant subject to English readers; but the\nmatters I am going to mention, are so important in themselves, as to\nrequire the attention of men interested in money transactions of a\npublic nature. There is a circumstance stated by M. Neckar, in his\ntreatise on the administration of the finances, which has never been\nattended to in England, but which forms the only basis whereon to\nestimate the quantity of money (gold and silver) which ought to be in\nevery nation in Europe, to preserve a relative proportion with other\nnations.\n\nLisbon and Cadiz are the two ports into which (money) gold and silver\nfrom South America are imported, and which afterwards divide and spread\nthemselves over Europe by means of commerce, and increase the quantity\nof money in all parts of Europe. If, therefore, the amount of the annual\nimportation into Europe can be known, and the relative proportion of the\nforeign commerce of the several nations by which it can be distributed\ncan be ascertained, they give a rule sufficiently true, to ascertain the\nquantity of money which ought to be found in any nation, at any given\ntime.\n\nM. Neckar shows from the registers of Lisbon and Cadiz, that the\nimportation of gold and silver into Europe, is five millions sterling\nannually. He has not taken it on a single year, but on an average of\nfifteen succeeding years, from 1763 to 1777, both inclusive; in which\ntime, the amount was one thousand eight hundred million livres, which is\nseventy-five millions sterling.*[14]\n\nFrom the commencement of the Hanover succession in 1714 to the time Mr.\nChalmers published, is seventy-two years; and the quantity imported\ninto Europe, in that time, would be three hundred and sixty millions\nsterling.\n\nIf the foreign commerce of Great Britain be stated at a sixth part of\nwhat the whole foreign commerce of Europe amounts to (which is probably\nan inferior estimation to what the gentlemen at the Exchange would\nallow) the proportion which Britain should draw by commerce of this sum,\nto keep herself on a proportion with the rest of Europe, would be also\na sixth part which is sixty millions sterling; and if the same allowance\nfor waste and accident be made for England which M. Neckar makes for\nFrance, the quantity remaining after these deductions would be fifty-two\nmillions; and this sum ought to have been in the nation (at the time Mr.\nChalmers published), in addition to the sum which was in the nation\nat the commencement of the Hanover succession, and to have made in the\nwhole at least sixty-six millions sterling; instead of which there were\nbut twenty millions, which is forty-six millions below its proportionate\nquantity.\n\nAs the quantity of gold and silver imported into Lisbon and Cadiz\nis more exactly ascertained than that of any commodity imported into\nEngland, and as the quantity of money coined at the Tower of London\nis still more positively known, the leading facts do not admit of\ncontroversy. Either, therefore, the commerce of England is unproductive\nof profit, or the gold and silver which it brings in leak continually\naway by unseen means at the average rate of about three-quarters of a\nmillion a year, which, in the course of seventy-two years, accounts for\nthe deficiency; and its absence is supplied by paper.*[15]\n\nThe Revolution of France is attended with many novel circumstances, not\nonly in the political sphere, but in the circle of money transactions.\nAmong others, it shows that a government may be in a state of insolvency\nand a nation rich. So far as the fact is confined to the late Government\nof France, it was insolvent; because the nation would no longer support\nits extravagance, and therefore it could no longer support itself--but\nwith respect to the nation all the means existed. A government may be\nsaid to be insolvent every time it applies to the nation to discharge\nits arrears. The insolvency of the late Government of France and the\npresent of England differed in no other respect than as the dispositions\nof the people differ. The people of France refused their aid to the\nold Government; and the people of England submit to taxation without\ninquiry. What is called the Crown in England has been insolvent several\ntimes; the last of which, publicly known, was in May, 1777, when it\napplied to the nation to discharge upwards of L600,000 private debts,\nwhich otherwise it could not pay.\n\nIt was the error of Mr. Pitt, Mr. Burke, and all those who were\nunacquainted with the affairs of France to confound the French nation\nwith the French Government. The French nation, in effect, endeavoured\nto render the late Government insolvent for the purpose of taking\ngovernment into its own hands: and it reserved its means for the support\nof the new Government. In a country of such vast extent and population\nas France the natural means cannot be wanting, and the political means\nappear the instant the nation is disposed to permit them. When Mr.\nBurke, in a speech last winter in the British Parliament, \"cast his eyes\nover the map of Europe, and saw a chasm that once was France,\" he talked\nlike a dreamer of dreams. The same natural France existed as before,\nand all the natural means existed with it. The only chasm was that the\nextinction of despotism had left, and which was to be filled up with\nthe Constitution more formidable in resources than the power which had\nexpired.\n\nAlthough the French Nation rendered the late Government insolvent, it\ndid not permit the insolvency to act towards the creditors; and the\ncreditors, considering the Nation as the real pay-master, and the\nGovernment only as the agent, rested themselves on the nation, in\npreference to the Government. This appears greatly to disturb Mr.\nBurke, as the precedent is fatal to the policy by which governments have\nsupposed themselves secure. They have contracted debts, with a view\nof attaching what is called the monied interest of a Nation to their\nsupport; but the example in France shows that the permanent security of\nthe creditor is in the Nation, and not in the Government; and that in\nall possible revolutions that may happen in Governments, the means are\nalways with the Nation, and the Nation always in existence. Mr.\nBurke argues that the creditors ought to have abided the fate of the\nGovernment which they trusted; but the National Assembly considered\nthem as the creditors of the Nation, and not of the Government--of the\nmaster, and not of the steward.\n\nNotwithstanding the late government could not discharge the current\nexpenses, the present government has paid off a great part of the\ncapital. This has been accomplished by two means; the one by lessening\nthe expenses of government, and the other by the sale of the monastic\nand ecclesiastical landed estates. The devotees and penitent debauchees,\nextortioners and misers of former days, to ensure themselves a better\nworld than that they were about to leave, had bequeathed immense\nproperty in trust to the priesthood for pious uses; and the priesthood\nkept it for themselves. The National Assembly has ordered it to be sold\nfor the good of the whole nation, and the priesthood to be decently\nprovided for.\n\nIn consequence of the revolution, the annual interest of the debt of\nFrance will be reduced at least six millions sterling, by paying off\nupwards of one hundred millions of the capital; which, with lessening\nthe former expenses of government at least three millions, will place\nFrance in a situation worthy the imitation of Europe.\n\nUpon a whole review of the subject, how vast is the contrast! While Mr.\nBurke has been talking of a general bankruptcy in France, the National\nAssembly has been paying off the capital of its debt; and while taxes\nhave increased near a million a year in England, they have lowered\nseveral millions a year in France. Not a word has either Mr. Burke\nor Mr. Pitt said about the French affairs, or the state of the French\nfinances, in the present Session of Parliament. The subject begins to be\ntoo well understood, and imposition serves no longer.\n\nThere is a general enigma running through the whole of Mr. Burke's\nbook. He writes in a rage against the National Assembly; but what is he\nenraged about? If his assertions were as true as they are groundless,\nand that France by her Revolution, had annihilated her power, and\nbecome what he calls a chasm, it might excite the grief of a Frenchman\n(considering himself as a national man), and provoke his rage against\nthe National Assembly; but why should it excite the rage of Mr. Burke?\nAlas! it is not the nation of France that Mr. Burke means, but the\nCourt; and every Court in Europe, dreading the same fate, is in\nmourning. He writes neither in the character of a Frenchman nor an\nEnglishman, but in the fawning character of that creature known in all\ncountries, and a friend to none--a courtier. Whether it be the Court of\nVersailles, or the Court of St. James, or Carlton-House, or the Court in\nexpectation, signifies not; for the caterpillar principle of all Courts\nand Courtiers are alike. They form a common policy throughout Europe,\ndetached and separate from the interest of Nations: and while they\nappear to quarrel, they agree to plunder. Nothing can be more terrible\nto a Court or Courtier than the Revolution of France. That which is\na blessing to Nations is bitterness to them: and as their existence\ndepends on the duplicity of a country, they tremble at the approach of\nprinciples, and dread the precedent that threatens their overthrow.\n\n                              CONCLUSION\n\nReason and Ignorance, the opposites of each other, influence the\ngreat bulk of mankind. If either of these can be rendered sufficiently\nextensive in a country, the machinery of Government goes easily on.\nReason obeys itself; and Ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to\nit.\n\nThe two modes of the Government which prevail in the world, are:\n\nFirst, Government by election and representation.\n\nSecondly, Government by hereditary succession.\n\nThe former is generally known by the name of republic; the latter by\nthat of monarchy and aristocracy.\n\nThose two distinct and opposite forms erect themselves on the two\ndistinct and opposite bases of Reason and Ignorance.--As the exercise of\nGovernment requires talents and abilities, and as talents and abilities\ncannot have hereditary descent, it is evident that hereditary succession\nrequires a belief from man to which his reason cannot subscribe, and\nwhich can only be established upon his ignorance; and the more ignorant\nany country is, the better it is fitted for this species of Government.\n\nOn the contrary, Government, in a well-constituted republic, requires no\nbelief from man beyond what his reason can give. He sees the rationale\nof the whole system, its origin and its operation; and as it is best\nsupported when best understood, the human faculties act with boldness,\nand acquire, under this form of government, a gigantic manliness.\n\nAs, therefore, each of those forms acts on a different base, the one\nmoving freely by the aid of reason, the other by ignorance; we have next\nto consider, what it is that gives motion to that species of Government\nwhich is called mixed Government, or, as it is sometimes ludicrously\nstyled, a Government of this, that and t' other.\n\nThe moving power in this species of Government is, of necessity,\nCorruption. However imperfect election and representation may be in\nmixed Governments, they still give exercise to a greater portion of\nreason than is convenient to the hereditary Part; and therefore it\nbecomes necessary to buy the reason up. A mixed Government is an\nimperfect everything, cementing and soldering the discordant parts\ntogether by corruption, to act as a whole. Mr. Burke appears highly\ndisgusted that France, since she had resolved on a revolution, did not\nadopt what he calls \"A British Constitution\"; and the regretful manner\nin which he expresses himself on this occasion implies a suspicion\nthat the British Constitution needed something to keep its defects in\ncountenance.\n\nIn mixed Governments there is no responsibility: the parts cover each\nother till responsibility is lost; and the corruption which moves the\nmachine, contrives at the same time its own escape. When it is laid down\nas a maxim, that a King can do no wrong, it places him in a state\nof similar security with that of idiots and persons insane, and\nresponsibility is out of the question with respect to himself. It then\ndescends upon the Minister, who shelters himself under a majority in\nParliament, which, by places, pensions, and corruption, he can always\ncommand; and that majority justifies itself by the same authority with\nwhich it protects the Minister. In this rotatory motion, responsibility\nis thrown off from the parts, and from the whole.\n\nWhen there is a Part in a Government which can do no wrong, it implies\nthat it does nothing; and is only the machine of another power, by whose\nadvice and direction it acts. What is supposed to be the King in the\nmixed Governments, is the Cabinet; and as the Cabinet is always a part\nof the Parliament, and the members justifying in one character what\nthey advise and act in another, a mixed Government becomes a continual\nenigma; entailing upon a country by the quantity of corruption necessary\nto solder the parts, the expense of supporting all the forms of\ngovernment at once, and finally resolving itself into a Government\nby Committee; in which the advisers, the actors, the approvers, the\njustifiers, the persons responsible, and the persons not responsible,\nare the same persons.\n\nBy this pantomimical contrivance, and change of scene and character, the\nparts help each other out in matters which neither of them singly\nwould assume to act. When money is to be obtained, the mass of variety\napparently dissolves, and a profusion of parliamentary praises passes\nbetween the parts. Each admires with astonishment, the wisdom, the\nliberality, the disinterestedness of the other: and all of them breathe\na pitying sigh at the burthens of the Nation.\n\nBut in a well-constituted republic, nothing of this soldering, praising,\nand pitying, can take place; the representation being equal throughout\nthe country, and complete in itself, however it may be arranged into\nlegislative and executive, they have all one and the same natural\nsource. The parts are not foreigners to each other, like democracy,\naristocracy, and monarchy. As there are no discordant distinctions,\nthere is nothing to corrupt by compromise, nor confound by contrivance.\nPublic measures appeal of themselves to the understanding of the Nation,\nand, resting on their own merits, disown any flattering applications to\nvanity. The continual whine of lamenting the burden of taxes, however\nsuccessfully it may be practised in mixed Governments, is inconsistent\nwith the sense and spirit of a republic. If taxes are necessary, they\nare of course advantageous; but if they require an apology, the apology\nitself implies an impeachment. Why, then, is man thus imposed upon, or\nwhy does he impose upon himself?\n\nWhen men are spoken of as kings and subjects, or when Government\nis mentioned under the distinct and combined heads of monarchy,\naristocracy, and democracy, what is it that reasoning man is to\nunderstand by the terms? If there really existed in the world two or\nmore distinct and separate elements of human power, we should then see\nthe several origins to which those terms would descriptively apply;\nbut as there is but one species of man, there can be but one element of\nhuman power; and that element is man himself. Monarchy, aristocracy, and\ndemocracy, are but creatures of imagination; and a thousand such may be\ncontrived as well as three.\n\nFrom the Revolutions of America and France, and the symptoms that have\nappeared in other countries, it is evident that the opinion of the world\nis changing with respect to systems of Government, and that revolutions\nare not within the compass of political calculations. The progress of\ntime and circumstances, which men assign to the accomplishment of great\nchanges, is too mechanical to measure the force of the mind, and the\nrapidity of reflection, by which revolutions are generated: All the old\ngovernments have received a shock from those that already appear, and\nwhich were once more improbable, and are a greater subject of wonder,\nthan a general revolution in Europe would be now.\n\nWhen we survey the wretched condition of man, under the monarchical and\nhereditary systems of Government, dragged from his home by one power,\nor driven by another, and impoverished by taxes more than by enemies,\nit becomes evident that those systems are bad, and that a general\nrevolution in the principle and construction of Governments is\nnecessary.\n\nWhat 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 and contrivance it has been usurped\ninto an inheritance, the usurpation cannot alter the right of things.\nSovereignty, as a matter of right, appertains to the Nation only,\nand not to any individual; and a Nation has at all times an inherent\nindefeasible right to abolish any form of Government it finds\ninconvenient, and to establish such as accords with its interest,\ndisposition and happiness. The romantic and barbarous distinction of men\ninto Kings and subjects, though it may suit the condition of courtiers,\ncannot that of citizens; and is exploded by the principle upon\nwhich 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\nWhen men think of what Government is, they must necessarily suppose it\nto possess a knowledge of all the objects and matters upon which its\nauthority is to be exercised. In this view of Government, the republican\nsystem, as established by America and France, operates to embrace the\nwhole of a Nation; and the knowledge necessary to the interest of\nall the parts, is to be found in the center, which the parts by\nrepresentation form: But the old Governments are on a construction that\nexcludes knowledge as well as happiness; government by Monks, who knew\nnothing of the world beyond the walls of a Convent, is as consistent as\ngovernment by Kings.\n\nWhat were formerly called Revolutions, were little more than a change\nof persons, or an alteration of local circumstances. They rose and fell\nlike things of course, and had nothing in their existence or their fate\nthat could influence beyond the spot that produced them. But what we\nnow see in the world, from the Revolutions of America and France, are\na renovation of the natural order of things, a system of principles as\nuniversal as truth and the existence of man, and combining moral with\npolitical happiness and national prosperity.\n\n\"I. Men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of\ntheir rights. Civil distinctions, therefore, can be founded only on\npublic utility.\n\n\"II. The end of all political associations is the preservation of the\nnatural and imprescriptible rights of man; and these rights are liberty,\nproperty, security, and resistance of oppression.\n\n\"III. The nation is essentially the source of all sovereignty; nor can\nany Individual, or Any Body Of Men, be entitled to any authority which\nis not expressly derived from it.\"\n\nIn these principles, there is nothing to throw a Nation into confusion\nby inflaming ambition. They are calculated to call forth wisdom and\nabilities, and to exercise them for the public good, and not for\nthe emolument or aggrandisement of particular descriptions of men or\nfamilies. Monarchical sovereignty, the enemy of mankind, and the source\nof misery, is abolished; and the sovereignty itself is restored to its\nnatural and original place, the Nation. Were this the case throughout\nEurope, the cause of wars would be taken away.\n\nIt is attributed to Henry the Fourth of France, a man of enlarged and\nbenevolent heart, that he proposed, about the year 1610, a plan for\nabolishing war in Europe. The plan consisted in constituting an European\nCongress, or as the French authors style it, a Pacific Republic; by\nappointing delegates from the several Nations who were to act as a\nCourt of arbitration in any disputes that might arise between nation and\nnation.\n\nHad such a plan been adopted at the time it was proposed, the taxes of\nEngland and France, as two of the parties, would have been at least ten\nmillions sterling annually to each Nation less than they were at the\ncommencement of the French Revolution.\n\nTo conceive a cause why such a plan has not been adopted (and that\ninstead of a Congress for the purpose of preventing war, it has been\ncalled only to terminate a war, after a fruitless expense of several\nyears) it will be necessary to consider the interest of Governments as a\ndistinct interest to that of Nations.\n\nWhatever is the cause of taxes to a Nation, becomes also the means of\nrevenue to Government. Every war terminates with an addition of taxes,\nand consequently with an addition of revenue; and in any event of\nwar, in the manner they are now commenced and concluded, the power\nand interest of Governments are increased. War, therefore, from its\nproductiveness, as it easily furnishes the pretence of necessity for\ntaxes and appointments to places and offices, becomes a principal part\nof the system of old Governments; and to establish any mode to abolish\nwar, however advantageous it might be to Nations, would be to take\nfrom such Government the most lucrative of its branches. The frivolous\nmatters upon which war is made, show the disposition and avidity of\nGovernments to uphold the system of war, and betray the motives upon\nwhich they act.\n\nWhy are not Republics plunged into war, but because the nature of their\nGovernment does not admit of an interest distinct from that of the\nNation? Even Holland, though an ill-constructed Republic, and with a\ncommerce extending over the world, existed nearly a century without\nwar: and the instant the form of Government was changed in France, the\nrepublican principles of peace and domestic prosperity and economy arose\nwith the new Government; and the same consequences would follow the\ncause in other Nations.\n\nAs war is the system of Government on the old construction, the\nanimosity which Nations reciprocally entertain, is nothing more than\nwhat the policy of their Governments excites to keep up the spirit of\nthe system. Each Government accuses the other of perfidy, intrigue,\nand ambition, as a means of heating the imagination of their respective\nNations, and incensing them to hostilities. Man is not the enemy of\nman, but through the medium of a false system of Government. Instead,\ntherefore, of exclaiming against the ambition of Kings, the exclamation\nshould be directed against the principle of such Governments; and\ninstead of seeking to reform the individual, the wisdom of a Nation\nshould apply itself to reform the system.\n\nWhether the forms and maxims of Governments which are still in practice,\nwere adapted to the condition of the world at the period they were\nestablished, is not in this case the question. The older they are, the\nless correspondence can they have with the present state of things.\nTime, and change of circumstances and opinions, have the same\nprogressive effect in rendering modes of Government obsolete as they\nhave upon customs and manners.--Agriculture, commerce, manufactures, and\nthe tranquil arts, by which the prosperity of Nations is best promoted,\nrequire a different system of Government, and a different species of\nknowledge to direct its operations, than what might have been required\nin the former condition of the world.\n\nAs it is not difficult to perceive, from the enlightened state of\nmankind, that hereditary Governments are verging to their decline,\nand that Revolutions on the broad basis of national sovereignty and\nGovernment by representation, are making their way in Europe, it\nwould be an act of wisdom to anticipate their approach, and produce\nRevolutions by reason and accommodation, rather than commit them to the\nissue of convulsions.\n\nFrom what we now see, nothing of reform in the political world ought to\nbe held improbable. It is an age of Revolutions, in which everything\nmay be looked for. The intrigue of Courts, by which the system of war\nis kept up, may provoke a confederation of Nations to abolish it: and\nan European Congress to patronise the progress of free Government, and\npromote the civilisation of Nations with each other, is an event nearer\nin probability, than once were the revolutions and alliance of France\nand America.\n\n                            END OF PART I.\n\n\n\n\nRIGHTS OF MAN. PART SECOND, COMBINING PRINCIPLE AND PRACTICE.\n\nBy Thomas Paine.\n\n\n\n\nFRENCH TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.\n\n(1792)\n\nTHE work of which we offer a translation to the public has created the\ngreatest sensation in England. Paine, that man of freedom, who seems\nborn to preach \"Common Sense\" to the whole world with the same success\nas in America, explains in it to the people of England the theory of the\npractice of the Rights of Man.\n\nOwing to the prejudices that still govern that nation, the author has\nbeen obliged to condescend to answer Mr. Burke. He has done so more\nespecially in an extended preface which is nothing but a piece of\nvery tedious controversy, in which he shows himself very sensitive to\ncriticisms that do not really affect him. To translate it seemed an\ninsult to the free French people, and similar reasons have led the\neditors to suppress also a dedicatory epistle addressed by Paine to\nLafayette.\n\nThe French can no longer endure dedicatory epistles. A man should write\nprivately to those he esteems: when he publishes a book his thoughts\nshould be offered to the public alone. Paine, that uncorrupted friend\nof freedom, believed too in the sincerity of Lafayette. So easy is it\nto deceive men of single-minded purpose! Bred at a distance from courts,\nthat austere American does not seem any more on his guard against the\nartful ways and speech of courtiers than some Frenchmen who resemble\nhim.\n\n\n                                  TO\n\n                          M. DE LA FAYETTE\n\nAfter an acquaintance of nearly fifteen years in difficult situations\nin America, and various consultations in Europe, I feel a pleasure in\npresenting to you this small treatise, in gratitude for your services\nto my beloved America, and as a testimony of my esteem for the virtues,\npublic and private, which I know you to possess.\n\nThe only point upon which I could ever discover that we differed was not\nas to principles of government, but as to time. For my own part I think\nit equally as injurious to good principles to permit them to linger,\nas to push them on too fast. That which you suppose accomplishable in\nfourteen or fifteen years, I may believe practicable in a much shorter\nperiod. Mankind, as it appears to me, are always ripe enough to\nunderstand their true interest, provided it be presented clearly to\ntheir understanding, and that in a manner not to create suspicion by\nanything like self-design, nor offend by assuming too much. Where we\nwould wish to reform we must not reproach.\n\nWhen the American revolution was established I felt a disposition to\nsit serenely down and enjoy the calm. It did not appear to me that any\nobject could afterwards arise great enough to make me quit tranquility\nand feel as I had felt before. But when principle, and not place, is the\nenergetic cause of action, a man, I find, is everywhere the same.\n\nI am now once more in the public world; and as I have not a right to\ncontemplate on so many years of remaining life as you have, I have\nresolved to labour as fast as I can; and as I am anxious for your aid\nand your company, I wish you to hasten your principles and overtake me.\n\nIf you make a campaign the ensuing spring, which it is most probable\nthere will be no occasion for, I will come and join you. Should the\ncampaign commence, I hope it will terminate in the extinction of German\ndespotism, and in establishing the freedom of all Germany. When France\nshall be surrounded with revolutions she will be in peace and safety,\nand her taxes, as well as those of Germany, will consequently become\nless.\n\nYour sincere,\n\n   Affectionate Friend,\n\n      Thomas Paine\n\nLondon, Feb. 9, 1792\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\nWhen I began the chapter entitled the \"Conclusion\" in the former part\nof the RIGHTS OF MAN, published last year, it was my intention to have\nextended it to a greater length; but in casting the whole matter in my\nmind, which I wish to add, I found that it must either make the work too\nbulky, or contract my plan too much. I therefore brought it to a close\nas soon as the subject would admit, and reserved what I had further to\nsay to another opportunity.\n\nSeveral other reasons contributed to produce this determination.\nI wished to know the manner in which a work, written in a style of\nthinking and expression different to what had been customary in England,\nwould be received before I proceeded farther. A great field was opening\nto the view of mankind by means of the French Revolution. Mr. Burke's\noutrageous opposition thereto brought the controversy into England. He\nattacked principles which he knew (from information) I would contest\nwith him, because they are principles I believe to be good, and which I\nhave contributed to establish, and conceive myself bound to defend. Had\nhe not urged the controversy, I had most probably been a silent man.\n\nAnother reason for deferring the remainder of the work was, that Mr.\nBurke promised in his first publication to renew the subject at another\nopportunity, and to make a comparison of what he called the English and\nFrench Constitutions. I therefore held myself in reserve for him. He has\npublished two works since, without doing this: which he certainly would\nnot have omitted, had the comparison been in his favour.\n\nIn his last work, his \"Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs,\" he has\nquoted about ten pages from the RIGHTS OF MAN, and having given himself\nthe trouble of doing this, says he \"shall not attempt in the smallest\ndegree to refute them,\" meaning the principles therein contained. I am\nenough acquainted with Mr. Burke to know that he would if he could. But\ninstead of contesting them, he immediately after consoles himself with\nsaying that \"he has done his part.\"--He has not done his part. He has\nnot performed his promise of a comparison of constitutions. He started\nthe controversy, he gave the challenge, and has fled from it; and he is\nnow a case in point with his own opinion that \"the age of chivalry is\ngone!\"\n\nThe title, as well as the substance of his last work, his \"Appeal,\" is\nhis condemnation. Principles must stand on their own merits, and if they\nare good they certainly will. To put them under the shelter of other\nmen's authority, as Mr. Burke has done, serves to bring them into\nsuspicion. Mr. Burke is not very fond of dividing his honours, but in\nthis case he is artfully dividing the disgrace.\n\nBut who are those to whom Mr. Burke has made his appeal? A set of\nchildish thinkers, and half-way politicians born in the last century,\nmen who went no farther with any principle than as it suited their\npurposes as a party; the nation was always left out of the question; and\nthis has been the character of every party from that day to this.\nThe nation sees nothing of such works, or such politics, worthy its\nattention. A little matter will move a party, but it must be something\ngreat that moves a nation.\n\nThough I see nothing in Mr. Burke's \"Appeal\" worth taking much notice\nof, there is, however, one expression upon which I shall offer a few\nremarks. After quoting largely from the RIGHTS OF MAN, and declining to\ncontest the principles contained in that work, he says: \"This will most\nprobably be done (if such writings shall be thought to deserve any other\nrefutation than that of criminal justice) by others, who may think with\nMr. Burke and with the same zeal.\"\n\nIn the first place, it has not yet been done by anybody. Not less, I\nbelieve, than eight or ten pamphlets intended as answers to the former\npart of the RIGHTS OF MAN have been published by different persons, and\nnot one of them to my knowledge, has extended to a second edition, nor\nare even the titles of them so much as generally remembered. As I am\naverse to unnecessary multiplying publications, I have answered none of\nthem. And as I believe that a man may write himself out of reputation\nwhen nobody else can do it, I am careful to avoid that rock.\n\nBut as I would decline unnecessary publications on the one hand, so\nwould I avoid everything that might appear like sullen pride on the\nother. If Mr. Burke, or any person on his side the question, will\nproduce an answer to the RIGHTS OF MAN that shall extend to a half, or\neven to a fourth part of the number of copies to which the Rights Of Man\nextended, I will reply to his work. But until this be done, I shall so\nfar take the sense of the public for my guide (and the world knows I am\nnot a flatterer) that what they do not think worth while to read, is not\nworth mine to answer. I suppose the number of copies to which the\nfirst part of the RIGHTS OF MAN extended, taking England, Scotland, and\nIreland, is not less than between forty and fifty thousand.\n\nI now come to remark on the remaining part of the quotation I have made\nfrom Mr. Burke.\n\n\"If,\" says he, \"such writings shall be thought to deserve any other\nrefutation than that of criminal justice.\"\n\nPardoning the pun, it must be criminal justice indeed that should\ncondemn a work as a substitute for not being able to refute it.\nThe greatest condemnation that could be passed upon it would be a\nrefutation. But in proceeding by the method Mr. Burke alludes to, the\ncondemnation would, in the final event, pass upon the criminality of\nthe process and not upon the work, and in this case, I had rather be the\nauthor, than be either the judge or the jury that should condemn it.\n\nBut to come at once to the point. I have differed from some professional\ngentlemen on the subject of prosecutions, and I since find they are\nfalling into my opinion, which I will here state as fully, but as\nconcisely as I can.\n\nI will first put a case with respect to any law, and then compare it\nwith a government, or with what in England is, or has been, called a\nconstitution.\n\nIt would be an act of despotism, or what in England is called arbitrary\npower, to make a law to prohibit investigating the principles, good or\nbad, on which such a law, or any other is founded.\n\nIf a law be bad it is one thing to oppose the practice of it, but it is\nquite a different thing to expose its errors, to reason on its defects,\nand to show cause why it should be repealed, or why another ought to be\nsubstituted in its place. I have always held it an opinion (making it\nalso my practice) that it is better to obey a bad law, making use at the\nsame time of every argument to show its errors and procure its repeal,\nthan forcibly to violate it; because the precedent of breaking a bad law\nmight weaken the force, and lead to a discretionary violation, of those\nwhich are good.\n\nThe case is the same with respect to principles and forms of government,\nor to what are called constitutions and the parts of which they are,\ncomposed.\n\nIt is for the good of nations and not for the emolument or\naggrandisement of particular individuals, that government ought to be\nestablished, and that mankind are at the expense of supporting it. The\ndefects of every government and constitution both as to principle and\nform, must, on a parity of reasoning, be as open to discussion as the\ndefects of a law, and it is a duty which every man owes to society to\npoint them out. When those defects, and the means of remedying them, are\ngenerally seen by a nation, that nation will reform its government or\nits constitution in the one case, as the government repealed or reformed\nthe law in the other. The operation of government is restricted to the\nmaking and the administering of laws; but it is to a nation that the\nright of forming or reforming, generating or regenerating constitutions\nand governments belong; and consequently those subjects, as subjects\nof investigation, are always before a country as a matter of right, and\ncannot, without invading the general rights of that country, be made\nsubjects for prosecution. On this ground I will meet Mr. Burke whenever\nhe please. It is better that the whole argument should come out than to\nseek to stifle it. It was himself that opened the controversy, and he\nought not to desert it.\n\nI do not believe that monarchy and aristocracy will continue seven years\nlonger in any of the enlightened countries in Europe. If better reasons\ncan be shown for them than against them, they will stand; if the\ncontrary, they will not. Mankind are not now to be told they shall not\nthink, or they shall not read; and publications that go no farther than\nto investigate principles of government, to invite men to reason and to\nreflect, and to show the errors and excellences of different systems,\nhave a right to appear. If they do not excite attention, they are not\nworth the trouble of a prosecution; and if they do, the prosecution will\namount to nothing, since it cannot amount to a prohibition of reading.\nThis would be a sentence on the public, instead of the author, and would\nalso be the most effectual mode of making or hastening revolution.\n\nOn all cases that apply universally to a nation, with respect to systems\nof government, a jury of twelve men is not competent to decide. Where\nthere are no witnesses to be examined, no facts to be proved, and where\nthe whole matter is before the whole public, and the merits or demerits\nof it resting on their opinion; and where there is nothing to be known\nin a court, but what every body knows out of it, every twelve men is\nequally as good a jury as the other, and would most probably reverse\neach other's verdict; or, from the variety of their opinions, not be\nable to form one. It is one case, whether a nation approve a work, or a\nplan; but it is quite another case, whether it will commit to any such\njury the power of determining whether that nation have a right to, or\nshall reform its government or not. I mention those cases that Mr. Burke\nmay see I have not written on Government without reflecting on what is\nLaw, as well as on what are Rights.--The only effectual jury in such\ncases would be a convention of the whole nation fairly elected; for\nin all such cases the whole nation is the vicinage. If Mr. Burke will\npropose such a jury, I will waive all privileges of being the citizen\nof another country, and, defending its principles, abide the issue,\nprovided he will do the same; for my opinion is, that his work and his\nprinciples would be condemned instead of mine.\n\nAs to the prejudices which men have from education and habit, in favour\nof any particular form or system of government, those prejudices have\nyet to stand the test of reason and reflection. In fact, such prejudices\nare nothing. No man is prejudiced in favour of a thing, knowing it to be\nwrong. He is attached to it on the belief of its being right; and\nwhen he sees it is not so, the prejudice will be gone. We have but a\ndefective idea of what prejudice is. It might be said, that until men\nthink for themselves the whole is prejudice, and not opinion; for that\nonly is opinion which is the result of reason and reflection. I offer\nthis remark, that Mr. Burke may not confide too much in what have been\nthe customary prejudices of the country.\n\nI do not believe that the people of England have ever been fairly and\ncandidly dealt by. They have been imposed upon by parties, and by men\nassuming the character of leaders. It is time that the nation should\nrise above those trifles. It is time to dismiss that inattention which\nhas so long been the encouraging cause of stretching taxation to excess.\nIt is time to dismiss all those songs and toasts which are calculated to\nenslave, and operate to suffocate reflection. On all such subjects men\nhave but to think, and they will neither act wrong nor be misled. To\nsay that any people are not fit for freedom, is to make poverty their\nchoice, and to say they had rather be loaded with taxes than not. If\nsuch a case could be proved, it would equally prove that those who\ngovern are not fit to govern them, for they are a part of the same\nnational mass.\n\nBut admitting governments to be changed all over Europe; it certainly\nmay be done without convulsion or revenge. It is not worth making\nchanges or revolutions, unless it be for some great national benefit:\nand when this shall appear to a nation, the danger will be, as in\nAmerica and France, to those who oppose; and with this reflection I\nclose my Preface.\n\n                    THOMAS PAINE\n\nLondon, Feb. 9, 1792\n\n\n\n\nRIGHTS OF MAN PART II.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\nWhat Archimedes said of the mechanical powers, may be applied to Reason\nand Liberty. \"Had we,\" said he, \"a place to stand upon, we might raise\nthe world.\"\n\nThe revolution of America presented in politics what was only theory in\nmechanics. So deeply rooted were all the governments of the old\nworld, and so effectually had the tyranny and the antiquity of habit\nestablished itself over the mind, that no beginning could be made in\nAsia, Africa, or Europe, to reform the political condition of man.\nFreedom had been hunted round the globe; reason was considered as\nrebellion; and the slavery of fear had made men afraid to think.\n\nBut such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks,--and all\nit wants,--is the liberty of appearing. The sun needs no inscription\nto distinguish him from darkness; and no sooner did the American\ngovernments display themselves to the world, than despotism felt a shock\nand man began to contemplate redress.\n\nThe independence of America, considered merely as a separation from\nEngland, would have been a matter but of little importance, had it\nnot been accompanied by a revolution in the principles and practice of\ngovernments. She made a stand, not for herself only, but for the\nworld, and looked beyond the advantages herself could receive. Even\nthe Hessian, though hired to fight against her, may live to bless his\ndefeat; and England, condemning the viciousness of its government,\nrejoice in its miscarriage.\n\nAs America was the only spot in the political world where the principle\nof universal reformation could begin, so also was it the best in the\nnatural world. An assemblage of circumstances conspired, not only to\ngive birth, but to add gigantic maturity to its principles. The scene\nwhich that country presents to the eye of a spectator, has something in\nit which generates and encourages great ideas. Nature appears to him in\nmagnitude. The mighty objects he beholds, act upon his mind by enlarging\nit, and he partakes of the greatness he contemplates.--Its first\nsettlers were emigrants from different European nations, and of\ndiversified professions of religion, retiring from the governmental\npersecutions of the old world, and meeting in the new, not as enemies,\nbut as brothers. The wants which necessarily accompany the cultivation\nof a wilderness produced among them a state of society, which countries\nlong harassed by the quarrels and intrigues of governments, had\nneglected to cherish. In such a situation man becomes what he ought. He\nsees his species, not with the inhuman idea of a natural enemy, but as\nkindred; and the example shows to the artificial world, that man must go\nback to Nature for information.\n\nFrom the rapid progress which America makes in every species of\nimprovement, it is rational to conclude that, if the governments of\nAsia, Africa, and Europe had begun on a principle similar to that of\nAmerica, or had not been very early corrupted therefrom, those countries\nmust by this time have been in a far superior condition to what they\nare. Age after age has passed away, for no other purpose than to behold\ntheir wretchedness. Could we suppose a spectator who knew nothing of the\nworld, and who was put into it merely to make his observations, he would\ntake a great part of the old world to be new, just struggling with the\ndifficulties and hardships of an infant settlement. He could not suppose\nthat the hordes of miserable poor with which old countries abound\ncould be any other than those who had not yet had time to provide for\nthemselves. Little would he think they were the consequence of what in\nsuch countries they call government.\n\nIf, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those\nwhich are in an advanced stage of improvement we still find the greedy\nhand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice\nof industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is\ncontinually exercised to furnish new pretences for revenue and taxation.\nIt watches prosperity as its prey, and permits none to escape without a\ntribute.\n\nAs revolutions have begun (and as the probability is always greater\nagainst a thing beginning, than of proceeding after it has begun), it\nis natural to expect that other revolutions will follow. The amazing and\nstill increasing expenses with which old governments are conducted, the\nnumerous wars they engage in or provoke, the embarrassments they throw\nin the way of universal civilisation and commerce, and the oppression\nand usurpation acted at home, have wearied out the patience, and\nexhausted the property of the world. In such a situation, and with such\nexamples already existing, revolutions are to be looked for. They are\nbecome subjects of universal conversation, and may be considered as the\nOrder of the day.\n\nIf systems of government can be introduced less expensive and more\nproductive of general happiness than those which have existed, all\nattempts to oppose their progress will in the end be fruitless. Reason,\nlike time, will make its own way, and prejudice will fall in a combat\nwith interest. If universal peace, civilisation, and commerce are\never to be the happy lot of man, it cannot be accomplished but by a\nrevolution in the system of governments. All the monarchical governments\nare military. War is their trade, plunder and revenue their objects.\nWhile such governments continue, peace has not the absolute security\nof a day. What is the history of all monarchical governments but a\ndisgustful picture of human wretchedness, and the accidental respite of\na few years' repose? Wearied with war, and tired with human butchery,\nthey sat down to rest, and called it peace. This certainly is not the\ncondition that heaven intended for man; and if this be monarchy, well\nmight monarchy be reckoned among the sins of the Jews.\n\nThe revolutions which formerly took place in the world had nothing in\nthem that interested the bulk of mankind. They extended only to a change\nof persons and measures, but not of principles, and rose or fell among\nthe common transactions of the moment. What we now behold may not\nimproperly be called a \"counter-revolution.\" Conquest and tyranny,\nat some earlier period, dispossessed man of his rights, and he is now\nrecovering them. And as the tide of all human affairs has its ebb\nand flow in directions contrary to each other, so also is it in this.\nGovernment founded on a moral theory, on a system of universal peace, on\nthe indefeasible hereditary Rights of Man, is now revolving from west\nto east by a stronger impulse than the government of the sword revolved\nfrom east to west. It interests not particular individuals, but nations\nin its progress, and promises a new era to the human race.\n\nThe danger to which the success of revolutions is most exposed is that\nof attempting them before the principles on which they proceed, and the\nadvantages to result from them, are sufficiently seen and understood.\nAlmost everything appertaining to the circumstances of a nation, has\nbeen absorbed and confounded under the general and mysterious word\ngovernment. Though it avoids taking to its account the errors it\ncommits, and the mischiefs it occasions, it fails not to arrogate to\nitself whatever has the appearance of prosperity. It robs industry of\nits honours, by pedantically making itself the cause of its effects; and\npurloins from the general character of man, the merits that appertain to\nhim as a social being.\n\nIt may therefore be of use in this day of revolutions to discriminate\nbetween those things which are the effect of government, and those\nwhich are not. This will best be done by taking a review of society\nand civilisation, and the consequences resulting therefrom, as things\ndistinct from what are called governments. By beginning with this\ninvestigation, we shall be able to assign effects to their proper causes\nand analyse the mass of common errors.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. OF SOCIETY AND CIVILISATION\n\nGreat part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect\nof government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the\nnatural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and\nwould exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual\ndependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the\nparts of civilised community upon each other, create that great chain\nof connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer,\nthe manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation,\nprospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the\nwhole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law;\nand the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than\nthe laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost\neverything which is ascribed to government.\n\nTo understand the nature and quantity of government proper for man,\nit is necessary to attend to his character. As Nature created him for\nsocial life, she fitted him for the station she intended. In all cases\nshe made his natural wants greater than his individual powers. No one\nman is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants,\nand those wants, acting upon every individual, impel the whole of them\ninto society, as naturally as gravitation acts to a centre.\n\nBut she has gone further. She has not only forced man into society by\na diversity of wants which the reciprocal aid of each other can supply,\nbut she has implanted in him a system of social affections, which,\nthough not necessary to his existence, are essential to his happiness.\nThere is no period in life when this love for society ceases to act. It\nbegins and ends with our being.\n\nIf we examine with attention into the composition and constitution\nof man, the diversity of his wants, and the diversity of talents in\ndifferent men for reciprocally accommodating the wants of each other,\nhis propensity to society, and consequently to preserve the advantages\nresulting from it, we shall easily discover, that a great part of what\nis called government is mere imposition.\n\nGovernment is no farther necessary than to supply the few cases to which\nsociety and civilisation are not conveniently competent; and instances\nare not wanting to show, that everything which government can usefully\nadd thereto, has been performed by the common consent of society,\nwithout government.\n\nFor upwards of two years from the commencement of the American War,\nand to a longer period in several of the American States, there were no\nestablished forms of government. The old governments had been abolished,\nand the country was too much occupied in defence to employ its attention\nin establishing new governments; yet during this interval order and\nharmony were preserved as inviolate as in any country in Europe. There\nis a natural aptness in man, and more so in society, because it embraces\na greater variety of abilities and resource, to accommodate itself to\nwhatever situation it is in. The instant formal government is abolished,\nsociety begins to act: a general association takes place, and common\ninterest produces common security.\n\nSo far is it from being true, as has been pretended, that the abolition\nof any formal government is the dissolution of society, that it acts by\na contrary impulse, and brings the latter the closer together. All\nthat part of its organisation which it had committed to its government,\ndevolves again upon itself, and acts through its medium. When men, as\nwell from natural instinct as from reciprocal benefits, have habituated\nthemselves to social and civilised life, there is always enough of its\nprinciples in practice to carry them through any changes they may find\nnecessary or convenient to make in their government. In short, man is so\nnaturally a creature of society that it is almost impossible to put him\nout of it.\n\nFormal government makes but a small part of civilised life; and when\neven the best that human wisdom can devise is established, it is a thing\nmore in name and idea than in fact. It is to the great and fundamental\nprinciples of society and civilisation--to the common usage universally\nconsented to, and mutually and reciprocally maintained--to the unceasing\ncirculation of interest, which, passing through its million channels,\ninvigorates the whole mass of civilised man--it is to these things,\ninfinitely more than to anything which even the best instituted\ngovernment can perform, that the safety and prosperity of the individual\nand of the whole depends.\n\nThe more perfect civilisation is, the less occasion has it for\ngovernment, because the more does it regulate its own affairs, and\ngovern itself; but so contrary is the practice of old governments to the\nreason of the case, that the expenses of them increase in the proportion\nthey ought to diminish. It is but few general laws that civilised life\nrequires, and those of such common usefulness, that whether they are\nenforced by the forms of government or not, the effect will be nearly\nthe same. If we consider what the principles are that first condense\nmen into society, and what are the motives that regulate their mutual\nintercourse afterwards, we shall find, by the time we arrive at what is\ncalled government, that nearly the whole of the business is performed by\nthe natural operation of the parts upon each other.\n\nMan, with respect to all those matters, is more a creature of\nconsistency than he is aware, or than governments would wish him to\nbelieve. All the great laws of society are laws of nature. Those\nof trade and commerce, whether with respect to the intercourse of\nindividuals or of nations, are laws of mutual and reciprocal interest.\nThey are followed and obeyed, because it is the interest of the parties\nso to do, and not on account of any formal laws their governments may\nimpose or interpose.\n\nBut how often is the natural propensity to society disturbed or\ndestroyed by the operations of government! When the latter, instead of\nbeing ingrafted on the principles of the former, assumes to exist for\nitself, and acts by partialities of favour and oppression, it becomes\nthe cause of the mischiefs it ought to prevent.\n\nIf we look back to the riots and tumults which at various times have\nhappened in England, we shall find that they did not proceed from the\nwant of a government, but that government was itself the generating\ncause; instead of consolidating society it divided it; it deprived it\nof its natural cohesion, and engendered discontents and disorders\nwhich otherwise would not have existed. In those associations which men\npromiscuously form for the purpose of trade, or of any concern in which\ngovernment is totally out of the question, and in which they act merely\non the principles of society, we see how naturally the various parties\nunite; and this shows, by comparison, that governments, so far from\nbeing always the cause or means of order, are often the destruction\nof it. The riots of 1780 had no other source than the remains of those\nprejudices which the government itself had encouraged. But with respect\nto England there are also other causes.\n\nExcess and inequality of taxation, however disguised in the means, never\nfail to appear in their effects. As a great mass of the community are\nthrown thereby into poverty and discontent, they are constantly on the\nbrink of commotion; and deprived, as they unfortunately are, of the\nmeans of information, are easily heated to outrage. Whatever the\napparent cause of any riots may be, the real one is always want of\nhappiness. It shows that something is wrong in the system of government\nthat injures the felicity by which society is to be preserved.\n\nBut as a fact is superior to reasoning, the instance of America presents\nitself to confirm these observations. If there is a country in the world\nwhere concord, according to common calculation, would be least expected,\nit is America. Made up as it is of people from different nations,*[16]\naccustomed to different forms and habits of government, speaking\ndifferent languages, and more different in their modes of worship, it\nwould appear that the union of such a people was impracticable; but by\nthe simple operation of constructing government on the principles of\nsociety and the rights of man, every difficulty retires, and all the\nparts are brought into cordial unison. There the poor are not oppressed,\nthe rich are not privileged. Industry is not mortified by the splendid\nextravagance of a court rioting at its expense. Their taxes are few,\nbecause their government is just: and as there is nothing to render them\nwretched, there is nothing to engender riots and tumults.\n\nA metaphysical man, like Mr. Burke, would have tortured his invention\nto discover how such a people could be governed. He would have supposed\nthat some must be managed by fraud, others by force, and all by some\ncontrivance; that genius must be hired to impose upon ignorance, and\nshow and parade to fascinate the vulgar. Lost in the abundance of\nhis researches, he would have resolved and re-resolved, and finally\noverlooked the plain and easy road that lay directly before him.\n\nOne of the great advantages of the American Revolution has been, that it\nled to a discovery of the principles, and laid open the imposition, of\ngovernments. All the revolutions till then had been worked within the\natmosphere of a court, and never on the grand floor of a nation. The\nparties were always of the class of courtiers; and whatever was\ntheir rage for reformation, they carefully preserved the fraud of the\nprofession.\n\nIn all cases they took care to represent government as a thing made up\nof mysteries, which only themselves understood; and they hid from the\nunderstanding of the nation the only thing that was beneficial to know,\nnamely, That government is nothing more than a national association\nadding on the principles of society.\n\nHaving thus endeavoured to show that the social and civilised state of\nman is capable of performing within itself almost everything necessary\nto its protection and government, it will be proper, on the other hand,\nto take a review of the present old governments, and examine whether\ntheir principles and practice are correspondent thereto.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. OF THE ORIGIN OF THE PRESENT OLD GOVERNMENTS\n\nIt is impossible that such governments as have hitherto existed in the\nworld, could have commenced by any other means than a total violation of\nevery principle sacred and moral. The obscurity in which the origin\nof all the present old governments is buried, implies the iniquity and\ndisgrace with which they began. The origin of the present government of\nAmerica and France will ever be remembered, because it is honourable\nto record it; but with respect to the rest, even Flattery has consigned\nthem to the tomb of time, without an inscription.\n\nIt could have been no difficult thing in the early and solitary ages\nof the world, while the chief employment of men was that of attending\nflocks and herds, for a banditti of ruffians to overrun a country, and\nlay it under contributions. Their power being thus established, the\nchief of the band contrived to lose the name of Robber in that of\nMonarch; and hence the origin of Monarchy and Kings.\n\nThe origin of the Government of England, so far as relates to what is\ncalled its line of monarchy, being one of the latest, is perhaps the\nbest recorded. The hatred which the Norman invasion and tyranny begat,\nmust have been deeply rooted in the nation, to have outlived the\ncontrivance to obliterate it. Though not a courtier will talk of the\ncurfew-bell, not a village in England has forgotten it.\n\nThose bands of robbers having parcelled out the world, and divided it\ninto dominions, began, as is naturally the case, to quarrel with each\nother. What at first was obtained by violence was considered by others\nas lawful to be taken, and a second plunderer succeeded the first. They\nalternately invaded the dominions which each had assigned to himself,\nand the brutality with which they treated each other explains the\noriginal character of monarchy. It was ruffian torturing ruffian.\nThe conqueror considered the conquered, not as his prisoner, but his\nproperty. He led him in triumph rattling in chains, and doomed him, at\npleasure, to slavery or death. As time obliterated the history of their\nbeginning, their successors assumed new appearances, to cut off the\nentail of their disgrace, but their principles and objects remained the\nsame. What at first was plunder, assumed the softer name of revenue; and\nthe power originally usurped, they affected to inherit.\n\nFrom such beginning of governments, what could be expected but a\ncontinued system of war and extortion? It has established itself into a\ntrade. The vice is not peculiar to one more than to another, but is the\ncommon principle of all. There does not exist within such governments\nsufficient stamina whereon to engraft reformation; and the shortest and\nmost effectual remedy is to begin anew on the ground of the nation.\n\nWhat scenes of horror, what perfection of iniquity, present themselves\nin contemplating the character and reviewing the history of such\ngovernments! If we would delineate human nature with a baseness of\nheart and hypocrisy of countenance that reflection would shudder at and\nhumanity disown, it is kings, courts and cabinets that must sit for the\nportrait. Man, naturally as he is, with all his faults about him, is not\nup to the character.\n\nCan we possibly suppose that if governments had originated in a right\nprinciple, and had not an interest in pursuing a wrong one, the world\ncould have been in the wretched and quarrelsome condition we have seen\nit? What inducement has the farmer, while following the plough, to lay\naside his peaceful pursuit, and go to war with the farmer of another\ncountry? or what inducement has the manufacturer? What is dominion to\nthem, or to any class of men in a nation? Does it add an acre to any\nman's estate, or raise its value? Are not conquest and defeat each of\nthe same price, and taxes the never-failing consequence?--Though this\nreasoning may be good to a nation, it is not so to a government. War is\nthe Pharo-table of governments, and nations the dupes of the game.\n\nIf there is anything to wonder at in this miserable scene of governments\nmore than might be expected, it is the progress which the peaceful arts\nof agriculture, manufacture and commerce have made beneath such a long\naccumulating load of discouragement and oppression. It serves to show\nthat instinct in animals does not act with stronger impulse than\nthe principles of society and civilisation operate in man. Under all\ndiscouragements, he pursues his object, and yields to nothing but\nimpossibilities.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. OF THE OLD AND NEW SYSTEMS OF GOVERNMENT\n\nNothing can appear more contradictory than the principles on which the\nold governments began, and the condition to which society, civilisation\nand commerce are capable of carrying mankind. Government, on the old\nsystem, is an assumption of power, for the aggrandisement of itself; on\nthe new, a delegation of power for the common benefit of society.\nThe former supports itself by keeping up a system of war; the latter\npromotes a system of peace, as the true means of enriching a nation.\nThe one encourages national prejudices; the other promotes universal\nsociety, as the means of universal commerce. The one measures its\nprosperity, by the quantity of revenue it extorts; the other proves its\nexcellence, by the small quantity of taxes it requires.\n\nMr. Burke has talked of old and new whigs. If he can amuse himself with\nchildish names and distinctions, I shall not interrupt his pleasure. It\nis not to him, but to the Abbe Sieyes, that I address this chapter. I\nam already engaged to the latter gentleman to discuss the subject of\nmonarchical government; and as it naturally occurs in comparing the old\nand new systems, I make this the opportunity of presenting to him my\nobservations. I shall occasionally take Mr. Burke in my way.\n\nThough it might be proved that the system of government now called the\nNew, is the most ancient in principle of all that have existed, being\nfounded on the original, inherent Rights of Man: yet, as tyranny and\nthe sword have suspended the exercise of those rights for many centuries\npast, it serves better the purpose of distinction to call it the new,\nthan to claim the right of calling it the old.\n\nThe first general distinction between those two systems, is, that the\none now called the old is hereditary, either in whole or in part;\nand the new is entirely representative. It rejects all hereditary\ngovernment:\n\nFirst, As being an imposition on mankind.\n\nSecondly, As inadequate to the purposes for which government is\nnecessary.\n\nWith respect to the first of these heads--It cannot be proved by what\nright hereditary government could begin; neither does there exist\nwithin the compass of mortal power a right to establish it. Man has no\nauthority over posterity in matters of personal right; and, therefore,\nno man, or body of men, had, or can have, a right to set up hereditary\ngovernment. Were even ourselves to come again into existence, instead of\nbeing succeeded by posterity, we have not now the right of taking from\nourselves the rights which would then be ours. On what ground, then, do\nwe pretend to take them from others?\n\nAll hereditary government is in its nature tyranny. An heritable crown,\nor an heritable throne, or by what other fanciful name such things may\nbe called, have no other significant explanation than that mankind are\nheritable property. To inherit a government, is to inherit the people,\nas if they were flocks and herds.\n\nWith respect to the second head, that of being inadequate to the\npurposes for which government is necessary, we have only to consider\nwhat government essentially is, and compare it with the circumstances to\nwhich hereditary succession is subject.\n\nGovernment ought to be a thing always in full maturity. It ought to\nbe so constructed as to be superior to all the accidents to which\nindividual man is subject; and, therefore, hereditary succession, by\nbeing subject to them all, is the most irregular and imperfect of all\nthe systems of government.\n\nWe have heard the Rights of Man called a levelling system; but the\nonly system to which the word levelling is truly applicable, is the\nhereditary monarchical system. It is a system of mental levelling.\nIt indiscriminately admits every species of character to the same\nauthority. Vice and virtue, ignorance and wisdom, in short, every\nquality good or bad, is put on the same level. Kings succeed each other,\nnot as rationals, but as animals. It signifies not what their mental or\nmoral characters are. Can we then be surprised at the abject state of\nthe human mind in monarchical countries, when the government itself is\nformed on such an abject levelling system?--It has no fixed character.\nTo-day it is one thing; to-morrow it is something else. It changes with\nthe temper of every succeeding individual, and is subject to all the\nvarieties of each. It is government through the medium of passions and\naccidents. It appears under all the various characters of childhood,\ndecrepitude, dotage, a thing at nurse, in leading-strings, or in\ncrutches. It reverses the wholesome order of nature. It occasionally\nputs children over men, and the conceits of nonage over wisdom and\nexperience. In short, we cannot conceive a more ridiculous figure of\ngovernment, than hereditary succession, in all its cases, presents.\n\nCould it be made a decree in nature, or an edict registered in heaven,\nand man could know it, that virtue and wisdom should invariably\nappertain to hereditary succession, the objection to it would be\nremoved; but when we see that nature acts as if she disowned and sported\nwith the hereditary system; that the mental character of successors, in\nall countries, is below the average of human understanding; that one is\na tyrant, another an idiot, a third insane, and some all three together,\nit is impossible to attach confidence to it, when reason in man has\npower to act.\n\nIt is not to the Abbe Sieyes that I need apply this reasoning; he has\nalready saved me that trouble by giving his own opinion upon the\ncase. \"If it be asked,\" says he, \"what is my opinion with respect to\nhereditary right, I answer without hesitation, That in good theory, an\nhereditary transmission of any power of office, can never accord with\nthe laws of a true representation. Hereditaryship is, in this sense, as\nmuch an attaint upon principle, as an outrage upon society. But let\nus,\" continues he, \"refer to the history of all elective monarchies and\nprincipalities: is there one in which the elective mode is not worse\nthan the hereditary succession?\"\n\nAs to debating on which is the worst of the two, it is admitting both\nto be bad; and herein we are agreed. The preference which the Abbe has\ngiven, is a condemnation of the thing that he prefers. Such a mode of\nreasoning on such a subject is inadmissible, because it finally amounts\nto an accusation upon Providence, as if she had left to man no other\nchoice with respect to government than between two evils, the best of\nwhich he admits to be \"an attaint upon principle, and an outrage upon\nsociety.\"\n\nPassing over, for the present, all the evils and mischiefs which\nmonarchy has occasioned in the world, nothing can more effectually\nprove its uselessness in a state of civil government, than making it\nhereditary. Would we make any office hereditary that required wisdom and\nabilities to fill it? And where wisdom and abilities are not necessary,\nsuch an office, whatever it may be, is superfluous or insignificant.\n\nHereditary succession is a burlesque upon monarchy. It puts it in the\nmost ridiculous light, by presenting it as an office which any child or\nidiot may fill. It requires some talents to be a common mechanic; but\nto be a king requires only the animal figure of man--a sort of breathing\nautomaton. This sort of superstition may last a few years more, but it\ncannot long resist the awakened reason and interest of man.\n\nAs to Mr. Burke, he is a stickler for monarchy, not altogether as a\npensioner, if he is one, which I believe, but as a political man. He\nhas taken up a contemptible opinion of mankind, who, in their turn, are\ntaking up the same of him. He considers them as a herd of beings that\nmust be governed by fraud, effigy, and show; and an idol would be as\ngood a figure of monarchy with him, as a man. I will, however, do him\nthe justice to say that, with respect to America, he has been very\ncomplimentary. He always contended, at least in my hearing, that the\npeople of America were more enlightened than those of England, or of\nany country in Europe; and that therefore the imposition of show was not\nnecessary in their governments.\n\nThough the comparison between hereditary and elective monarchy,\nwhich the Abbe has made, is unnecessary to the case, because the\nrepresentative system rejects both: yet, were I to make the comparison,\nI should decide contrary to what he has done.\n\nThe civil wars which have originated from contested hereditary\nclaims, are more numerous, and have been more dreadful, and of longer\ncontinuance, than those which have been occasioned by election. All the\ncivil wars in France arose from the hereditary system; they were either\nproduced by hereditary claims, or by the imperfection of the hereditary\nform, which admits of regencies or monarchy at nurse. With respect to\nEngland, its history is full of the same misfortunes. The contests\nfor succession between the houses of York and Lancaster lasted a whole\ncentury; and others of a similar nature have renewed themselves\nsince that period. Those of 1715 and 1745 were of the same kind. The\nsuccession war for the crown of Spain embroiled almost half Europe. The\ndisturbances of Holland are generated from the hereditaryship of the\nStadtholder. A government calling itself free, with an hereditary\noffice, is like a thorn in the flesh, that produces a fermentation which\nendeavours to discharge it.\n\nBut I might go further, and place also foreign wars, of whatever kind,\nto the same cause. It is by adding the evil of hereditary succession\nto that of monarchy, that a permanent family interest is created, whose\nconstant objects are dominion and revenue. Poland, though an elective\nmonarchy, has had fewer wars than those which are hereditary; and it is\nthe only government that has made a voluntary essay, though but a small\none, to reform the condition of the country.\n\nHaving thus glanced at a few of the defects of the old, or hereditary\nsystems of government, let us compare it with the new, or representative\nsystem.\n\nThe representative system takes society and civilisation for its basis;\nnature, reason, and experience, for its guide.\n\nExperience, in all ages, and in all countries, has demonstrated that it\nis impossible to control Nature in her distribution of mental powers.\nShe gives them as she pleases. Whatever is the rule by which she,\napparently to us, scatters them among mankind, that rule remains\na secret to man. It would be as ridiculous to attempt to fix the\nhereditaryship of human beauty, as of wisdom. Whatever wisdom\nconstituently is, it is like a seedless plant; it may be reared when\nit appears, but it cannot be voluntarily produced. There is always a\nsufficiency somewhere in the general mass of society for all purposes;\nbut with respect to the parts of society, it is continually changing\nits place. It rises in one to-day, in another to-morrow, and has most\nprobably visited in rotation every family of the earth, and again\nwithdrawn.\n\nAs this is in the order of nature, the order of government must\nnecessarily follow it, or government will, as we see it does, degenerate\ninto ignorance. The hereditary system, therefore, is as repugnant to\nhuman wisdom as to human rights; and is as absurd as it is unjust.\n\nAs the republic of letters brings forward the best literary productions,\nby giving to genius a fair and universal chance; so the representative\nsystem of government is calculated to produce the wisest laws, by\ncollecting wisdom from where it can be found. I smile to myself when I\ncontemplate the ridiculous insignificance into which literature and all\nthe sciences would sink, were they made hereditary; and I carry the same\nidea into governments. An hereditary governor is as inconsistent as an\nhereditary author. I know not whether Homer or Euclid had sons; but\nI will venture an opinion that if they had, and had left their works\nunfinished, those sons could not have completed them.\n\nDo we need a stronger evidence of the absurdity of hereditary government\nthan is seen in the descendants of those men, in any line of life, who\nonce were famous? Is there scarcely an instance in which there is not\na total reverse of the character? It appears as if the tide of mental\nfaculties flowed as far as it could in certain channels, and then\nforsook its course, and arose in others. How irrational then is the\nhereditary system, which establishes channels of power, in company\nwith which wisdom refuses to flow! By continuing this absurdity, man is\nperpetually in contradiction with himself; he accepts, for a king, or a\nchief magistrate, or a legislator, a person whom he would not elect for\na constable.\n\nIt appears to general observation, that revolutions create genius and\ntalents; but those events do no more than bring them forward. There is\nexisting in man, a mass of sense lying in a dormant state, and which,\nunless something excites it to action, will descend with him, in that\ncondition, to the grave. As it is to the advantage of society that\nthe whole of its faculties should be employed, the construction of\ngovernment ought to be such as to bring forward, by a quiet and regular\noperation, all that extent of capacity which never fails to appear in\nrevolutions.\n\nThis cannot take place in the insipid state of hereditary government,\nnot only because it prevents, but because it operates to benumb. When\nthe mind of a nation is bowed down by any political superstition in its\ngovernment, such as hereditary succession is, it loses a considerable\nportion of its powers on all other subjects and objects. Hereditary\nsuccession requires the same obedience to ignorance, as to wisdom;\nand when once the mind can bring itself to pay this indiscriminate\nreverence, it descends below the stature of mental manhood. It is fit\nto be great only in little things. It acts a treachery upon itself, and\nsuffocates the sensations that urge the detection.\n\nThough the ancient governments present to us a miserable picture of the\ncondition of man, there is one which above all others exempts itself\nfrom the general description. I mean the democracy of the Athenians. We\nsee more to admire, and less to condemn, in that great, extraordinary\npeople, than in anything which history affords.\n\nMr. Burke is so little acquainted with constituent principles of\ngovernment, that he confounds democracy and representation together.\nRepresentation was a thing unknown in the ancient democracies. In those\nthe mass of the people met and enacted laws (grammatically speaking) in\nthe first person. Simple democracy was no other than the common hall of\nthe ancients. It signifies the form, as well as the public principle of\nthe government. As those democracies increased in population, and the\nterritory extended, the simple democratical form became unwieldy and\nimpracticable; and as the system of representation was not known, the\nconsequence was, they either degenerated convulsively into monarchies,\nor became absorbed into such as then existed. Had the system of\nrepresentation been then understood, as it now is, there is no reason\nto believe that those forms of government, now called monarchical or\naristocratical, would ever have taken place. It was the want of\nsome method to consolidate the parts of society, after it became too\npopulous, and too extensive for the simple democratical form, and also\nthe lax and solitary condition of shepherds and herdsmen in other parts\nof the world, that afforded opportunities to those unnatural modes of\ngovernment to begin.\n\nAs it is necessary to clear away the rubbish of errors, into which the\nsubject of government has been thrown, I will proceed to remark on some\nothers.\n\nIt has always been the political craft of courtiers and\ncourt-governments, to abuse something which they called republicanism;\nbut what republicanism was, or is, they never attempt to explain. Let us\nexamine a little into this case.\n\nThe only forms of government are the democratical, the aristocratical,\nthe monarchical, and what is now called the representative.\n\nWhat is called a republic is not any particular form of government. It\nis wholly characteristical of the purport, matter or object for which\ngovernment ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed,\nRes-Publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally\ntranslated, the public thing. It is a word of a good original, referring\nto what ought to be the character and business of government; and in\nthis sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a\nbase original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual\nperson; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is\nthe object.\n\nEvery government that does not act on the principle of a Republic, or\nin other words, that does not make the res-publica its whole and sole\nobject, is not a good government. Republican government is no other than\ngovernment established and conducted for the interest of the public, as\nwell individually as collectively. It is not necessarily connected\nwith any particular form, but it most naturally associates with the\nrepresentative form, as being best calculated to secure the end for\nwhich a nation is at the expense of supporting it.\n\nVarious forms of government have affected to style themselves a\nrepublic. Poland calls itself a republic, which is an hereditary\naristocracy, with what is called an elective monarchy. Holland calls\nitself a republic, which is chiefly aristocratical, with an hereditary\nstadtholdership. But the government of America, which is wholly on the\nsystem of representation, is the only real Republic, in character and in\npractice, that now exists. Its government has no other object than the\npublic business of the nation, and therefore it is properly a republic;\nand the Americans have taken care that This, and no other, shall\nalways be the object of their government, by their rejecting everything\nhereditary, and establishing governments on the system of representation\nonly. Those who have said that a republic is not a form of government\ncalculated for countries of great extent, mistook, in the first\nplace, the business of a government, for a form of government; for\nthe res-publica equally appertains to every extent of territory and\npopulation. And, in the second place, if they meant anything with\nrespect to form, it was the simple democratical form, such as was the\nmode of government in the ancient democracies, in which there was no\nrepresentation. The case, therefore, is not, that a republic cannot be\nextensive, but that it cannot be extensive on the simple democratical\nform; and the question naturally presents itself, What is the best form\nof government for conducting the Res-Publica, or the Public Business\nof a nation, after it becomes too extensive and populous for the simple\ndemocratical form? It cannot be monarchy, because monarchy is subject\nto an objection of the same amount to which the simple democratical form\nwas subject.\n\nIt is possible that an individual may lay down a system of principles,\non which government shall be constitutionally established to any extent\nof territory. This is no more than an operation of the mind, acting by\nits own powers. But the practice upon those principles, as applying to\nthe various and numerous circumstances of a nation, its agriculture,\nmanufacture, trade, commerce, etc., etc., a knowledge of a different\nkind, and which can be had only from the various parts of society. It is\nan assemblage of practical knowledge, which no individual can possess;\nand therefore the monarchical form is as much limited, in useful\npractice, from the incompetency of knowledge, as was the democratical\nform, from the multiplicity of population. The one degenerates, by\nextension, into confusion; the other, into ignorance and incapacity, of\nwhich all the great monarchies are an evidence. The monarchical form,\ntherefore, could not be a substitute for the democratical, because it\nhas equal inconveniences.\n\nMuch less could it when made hereditary. This is the most effectual of\nall forms to preclude knowledge. Neither could the high democratical\nmind have voluntarily yielded itself to be governed by children and\nidiots, and all the motley insignificance of character, which attends\nsuch a mere animal system, the disgrace and the reproach of reason and\nof man.\n\nAs to the aristocratical form, it has the same vices and defects with\nthe monarchical, except that the chance of abilities is better from the\nproportion of numbers, but there is still no security for the right use\nand application of them.*[17]\n\nReferring them to the original simple democracy, it affords the true\ndata from which government on a large scale can begin. It is incapable\nof extension, not from its principle, but from the inconvenience of its\nform; and monarchy and aristocracy, from their incapacity. Retaining,\nthen, democracy as the ground, and rejecting the corrupt systems of\nmonarchy and aristocracy, the representative system naturally presents\nitself; remedying at once the defects of the simple democracy as to\nform, and the incapacity of the other two with respect to knowledge.\n\nSimple democracy was society governing itself without the aid of\nsecondary means. By ingrafting representation upon democracy, we arrive\nat a system of government capable of embracing and confederating all the\nvarious interests and every extent of territory and population; and that\nalso with advantages as much superior to hereditary government, as the\nrepublic of letters is to hereditary literature.\n\nIt is on this system that the American government is founded. It is\nrepresentation ingrafted upon democracy. It has fixed the form by a\nscale parallel in all cases to the extent of the principle. What Athens\nwas in miniature America will be in magnitude. The one was the wonder of\nthe ancient world; the other is becoming the admiration of the present.\nIt is the easiest of all the forms of government to be understood and\nthe most eligible in practice; and excludes at once the ignorance and\ninsecurity of the hereditary mode, and the inconvenience of the simple\ndemocracy.\n\nIt is impossible to conceive a system of government capable of acting\nover such an extent of territory, and such a circle of interests, as is\nimmediately produced by the operation of representation. France, great\nand populous as it is, is but a spot in the capaciousness of the system.\nIt is preferable to simple democracy even in small territories. Athens,\nby representation, would have outrivalled her own democracy.\n\nThat which is called government, or rather that which we ought to\nconceive government to be, is no more than some common center in which\nall the parts of society unite. This cannot be accomplished by any\nmethod so conducive to the various interests of the community, as by the\nrepresentative system. It concentrates the knowledge necessary to the\ninterest of the parts, and of the whole. It places government in a state\nof constant maturity. It is, as has already been observed, never young,\nnever old. It is subject neither to nonage, nor dotage. It is never\nin the cradle, nor on crutches. It admits not of a separation between\nknowledge and power, and is superior, as government always ought to be,\nto all the accidents of individual man, and is therefore superior to\nwhat is called monarchy.\n\nA nation is not a body, the figure of which is to be represented by\nthe human body; but is like a body contained within a circle, having a\ncommon center, in which every radius meets; and that center is formed by\nrepresentation. To connect representation with what is called monarchy,\nis eccentric government. Representation is of itself the delegated\nmonarchy of a nation, and cannot debase itself by dividing it with\nanother.\n\nMr. Burke has two or three times, in his parliamentary speeches, and in\nhis publications, made use of a jingle of words that convey no ideas.\nSpeaking of government, he says, \"It is better to have monarchy for its\nbasis, and republicanism for its corrective, than republicanism for its\nbasis, and monarchy for its corrective.\"--If he means that it is\nbetter to correct folly with wisdom, than wisdom with folly, I will no\notherwise contend with him, than that it would be much better to reject\nthe folly entirely.\n\nBut what is this thing which Mr. Burke calls monarchy? Will he explain\nit? All men can understand what representation is; and that it must\nnecessarily include a variety of knowledge and talents. But what\nsecurity is there for the same qualities on the part of monarchy? or,\nwhen the monarchy is a child, where then is the wisdom? What does\nit know about government? Who then is the monarch, or where is the\nmonarchy? If it is to be performed by regency, it proves to be a farce.\nA regency is a mock species of republic, and the whole of monarchy\ndeserves no better description. It is a thing as various as imagination\ncan paint. It has none of the stable character that government ought\nto possess. Every succession is a revolution, and every regency a\ncounter-revolution. The whole of it is a scene of perpetual court cabal\nand intrigue, of which Mr. Burke is himself an instance. To render\nmonarchy consistent with government, the next in succession should\nnot be born a child, but a man at once, and that man a Solomon. It is\nridiculous that nations are to wait and government be interrupted till\nboys grow to be men.\n\nWhether I have too little sense to see, or too much to be imposed upon;\nwhether I have too much or too little pride, or of anything else,\nI leave out of the question; but certain it is, that what is called\nmonarchy, always appears to me a silly, contemptible thing. I compare it\nto something kept behind a curtain, about which there is a great deal of\nbustle and fuss, and a wonderful air of seeming solemnity; but when, by\nany accident, the curtain happens to be open--and the company see what\nit is, they burst into laughter.\n\nIn the representative system of government, nothing of this can happen.\nLike the nation itself, it possesses a perpetual stamina, as well of\nbody as of mind, and presents itself on the open theatre of the world in\na fair and manly manner. Whatever are its excellences or defects, they\nare visible to all. It exists not by fraud and mystery; it deals not in\ncant and sophistry; but inspires a language that, passing from heart to\nheart, is felt and understood.\n\nWe must shut our eyes against reason, we must basely degrade our\nunderstanding, not to see the folly of what is called monarchy. Nature\nis orderly in all her works; but this is a mode of government that\ncounteracts nature. It turns the progress of the human faculties upside\ndown. It subjects age to be governed by children, and wisdom by folly.\n\nOn the contrary, the representative system is always parallel with the\norder and immutable laws of nature, and meets the reason of man in every\npart. For example:\n\nIn the American Federal Government, more power is delegated to the\nPresident of the United States than to any other individual member of\nCongress. He cannot, therefore, be elected to this office under the\nage of thirty-five years. By this time the judgment of man becomes more\nmatured, and he has lived long enough to be acquainted with men and\nthings, and the country with him.--But on the monarchial plan (exclusive\nof the numerous chances there are against every man born into the world,\nof drawing a prize in the lottery of human faculties), the next in\nsuccession, whatever he may be, is put at the head of a nation, and of\na government, at the age of eighteen years. Does this appear like an\naction of wisdom? Is it consistent with the proper dignity and the manly\ncharacter of a nation? Where is the propriety of calling such a lad the\nfather of the people?--In all other cases, a person is a minor until the\nage of twenty-one years. Before this period, he is not trusted with the\nmanagement of an acre of land, or with the heritable property of a flock\nof sheep, or an herd of swine; but, wonderful to tell! he may, at the\nage of eighteen years, be trusted with a nation.\n\nThat monarchy is all a bubble, a mere court artifice to procure money,\nis evident (at least to me) in every character in which it can be\nviewed. It would be impossible, on the rational system of representative\ngovernment, to make out a bill of expenses to such an enormous amount\nas this deception admits. Government is not of itself a very chargeable\ninstitution. The whole expense of the federal government of America,\nfounded, as I have already said, on the system of representation, and\nextending over a country nearly ten times as large as England, is but\nsix hundred thousand dollars, or one hundred and thirty-five thousand\npounds sterling.\n\nI presume that no man in his sober senses will compare the character\nof any of the kings of Europe with that of General Washington. Yet, in\nFrance, and also in England, the expense of the civil list only, for the\nsupport of one man, is eight times greater than the whole expense of\nthe federal government in America. To assign a reason for this, appears\nalmost impossible. The generality of people in America, especially the\npoor, are more able to pay taxes, than the generality of people either\nin France or England.\n\nBut the case is, that the representative system diffuses such a body\nof knowledge throughout a nation, on the subject of government, as to\nexplode ignorance and preclude imposition. The craft of courts cannot be\nacted on that ground. There is no place for mystery; nowhere for it\nto begin. Those who are not in the representation, know as much of\nthe nature of business as those who are. An affectation of mysterious\nimportance would there be scouted. Nations can have no secrets; and the\nsecrets of courts, like those of individuals, are always their defects.\n\nIn the representative system, the reason for everything must publicly\nappear. Every man is a proprietor in government, and considers it a\nnecessary part of his business to understand. It concerns his interest,\nbecause it affects his property. He examines the cost, and compares it\nwith the advantages; and above all, he does not adopt the slavish custom\nof following what in other governments are called Leaders.\n\nIt can only be by blinding the understanding of man, and making him\nbelieve that government is some wonderful mysterious thing, that\nexcessive revenues are obtained. Monarchy is well calculated to ensure\nthis end. It is the popery of government; a thing kept up to amuse the\nignorant, and quiet them into taxes.\n\nThe government of a free country, properly speaking, is not in the\npersons, but in the laws. The enacting of those requires no great\nexpense; and when they are administered, the whole of civil government\nis performed--the rest is all court contrivance.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV. OF CONSTITUTIONS\n\nThat men mean distinct and separate things when they speak of\nconstitutions and of governments, is evident; or why are those terms\ndistinctly and separately used? A constitution is not the act of a\ngovernment, but of a people constituting a government; and government\nwithout a constitution, is power without a right.\n\nAll power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It\nmust either be delegated or assumed. There are no other sources. All\ndelegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does\nnot alter the nature and quality of either.\n\nIn viewing this subject, the case and circumstances of America present\nthemselves as in the beginning of a world; and our enquiry into the\norigin of government is shortened, by referring to the facts that have\narisen in our own day. We have no occasion to roam for information into\nthe obscure field of antiquity, nor hazard ourselves upon conjecture.\nWe are brought at once to the point of seeing government begin, as if we\nhad lived in the beginning of time. The real volume, not of history,\nbut of facts, is directly before us, unmutilated by contrivance, or the\nerrors of tradition.\n\nI will here concisely state the commencement of the American\nconstitutions; by which the difference between constitutions and\ngovernments will sufficiently appear.\n\nIt may not appear improper to remind the reader that the United\nStates of America consist of thirteen separate states, each of\nwhich established a government for itself, after the declaration of\nindependence, done the 4th of July, 1776. Each state acted independently\nof the rest, in forming its governments; but the same general principle\npervades the whole. When the several state governments were formed, they\nproceeded to form the federal government, that acts over the whole in\nall matters which concern the interest of the whole, or which relate to\nthe intercourse of the several states with each other, or with foreign\nnations. I will begin with giving an instance from one of the state\ngovernments (that of Pennsylvania) and then proceed to the federal\ngovernment.\n\nThe state of Pennsylvania, though nearly of the same extent of territory\nas England, was then divided into only twelve counties. Each of those\ncounties had elected a committee at the commencement of the dispute with\nthe English government; and as the city of Philadelphia, which also\nhad its committee, was the most central for intelligence, it became\nthe center of communication to the several country committees. When\nit became necessary to proceed to the formation of a government, the\ncommittee of Philadelphia proposed a conference of all the committees,\nto be held in that city, and which met the latter end of July, 1776.\n\nThough these committees had been duly elected by the people, they were\nnot elected expressly for the purpose, nor invested with the authority\nof forming a constitution; and as they could not, consistently with the\nAmerican idea of rights, assume such a power, they could only confer\nupon the matter, and put it into a train of operation. The conferees,\ntherefore, did no more than state the case, and recommend to the several\ncounties to elect six representatives for each county, to meet in\nconvention at Philadelphia, with powers to form a constitution, and\npropose it for public consideration.\n\nThis convention, of which Benjamin Franklin was president, having met\nand deliberated, and agreed upon a constitution, they next ordered it to\nbe published, not as a thing established, but for the consideration of\nthe whole people, their approbation or rejection, and then adjourned to\na stated time. When the time of adjournment was expired, the convention\nre-assembled; and as the general opinion of the people in approbation of\nit was then known, the constitution was signed, sealed, and proclaimed\non the authority of the people and the original instrument deposited\nas a public record. The convention then appointed a day for the general\nelection of the representatives who were to compose the government, and\nthe time it should commence; and having done this they dissolved, and\nreturned to their several homes and occupations.\n\nIn this constitution were laid down, first, a declaration of rights;\nthen followed the form which the government should have, and the powers\nit should possess--the authority of the courts of judicature, and of\njuries--the manner in which elections should be conducted, and the\nproportion of representatives to the number of electors--the time which\neach succeeding assembly should continue, which was one year--the mode\nof levying, and of accounting for the expenditure, of public money--of\nappointing public officers, etc., etc., etc.\n\nNo article of this constitution could be altered or infringed at\nthe discretion of the government that was to ensue. It was to that\ngovernment a law. But as it would have been unwise to preclude the\nbenefit of experience, and in order also to prevent the accumulation of\nerrors, if any should be found, and to preserve an unison of government\nwith the circumstances of the state at all times, the constitution\nprovided that, at the expiration of every seven years, a convention\nshould be elected, for the express purpose of revising the constitution,\nand making alterations, additions, or abolitions therein, if any such\nshould be found necessary.\n\nHere we see a regular process--a government issuing out of a\nconstitution, formed by the people in their original character; and that\nconstitution serving, not only as an authority, but as a law of control\nto the government. It was the political bible of the state. Scarcely a\nfamily was without it. Every member of the government had a copy; and\nnothing was more common, when any debate arose on the principle of a\nbill, or on the extent of any species of authority, than for the members\nto take the printed constitution out of their pocket, and read the\nchapter with which such matter in debate was connected.\n\nHaving thus given an instance from one of the states, I will show the\nproceedings by which the federal constitution of the United States arose\nand was formed.\n\nCongress, at its two first meetings, in September 1774, and May 1775,\nwas nothing more than a deputation from the legislatures of the several\nprovinces, afterwards states; and had no other authority than what arose\nfrom common consent, and the necessity of its acting as a public body.\nIn everything which related to the internal affairs of America, congress\nwent no further than to issue recommendations to the several provincial\nassemblies, who at discretion adopted them or not. Nothing on the\npart of congress was compulsive; yet, in this situation, it was more\nfaithfully and affectionately obeyed than was any government in\nEurope. This instance, like that of the national assembly in France,\nsufficiently shows, that the strength of government does not consist in\nany thing itself, but in the attachment of a nation, and the interest\nwhich a people feel in supporting it. When this is lost, government is\nbut a child in power; and though, like the old government in France, it\nmay harass individuals for a while, it but facilitates its own fall.\n\nAfter the declaration of independence, it became consistent with the\nprinciple on which representative government is founded, that the\nauthority of congress should be defined and established. Whether that\nauthority should be more or less than congress then discretionarily\nexercised was not the question. It was merely the rectitude of the\nmeasure.\n\nFor this purpose, the act, called the act of confederation (which was a\nsort of imperfect federal constitution), was proposed, and, after long\ndeliberation, was concluded in the year 1781. It was not the act of\ncongress, because it is repugnant to the principles of representative\ngovernment that a body should give power to itself. Congress first\ninformed the several states, of the powers which it conceived were\nnecessary to be invested in the union, to enable it to perform the\nduties and services required from it; and the states severally agreed\nwith each other, and concentrated in congress those powers.\n\nIt may not be improper to observe that in both those instances (the one\nof Pennsylvania, and the other of the United States), there is no such\nthing as the idea of a compact between the people on one side, and the\ngovernment on the other. The compact was that of the people with each\nother, to produce and constitute a government. To suppose that any\ngovernment can be a party in a compact with the whole people, is to\nsuppose it to have existence before it can have a right to exist. The\nonly instance in which a compact can take place between the people and\nthose who exercise the government, is, that the people shall pay them,\nwhile they choose to employ them.\n\nGovernment is not a trade which any man, or any body of men, has a right\nto set up and exercise for his own emolument, but is altogether a trust,\nin right of those by whom that trust is delegated, and by whom it is\nalways resumeable. It has of itself no rights; they are altogether\nduties.\n\nHaving thus given two instances of the original formation of a\nconstitution, I will show the manner in which both have been changed\nsince their first establishment.\n\nThe powers vested in the governments of the several states, by the state\nconstitutions, were found, upon experience, to be too great; and those\nvested in the federal government, by the act of confederation, too\nlittle. The defect was not in the principle, but in the distribution of\npower.\n\nNumerous publications, in pamphlets and in the newspapers, appeared,\non the propriety and necessity of new modelling the federal government.\nAfter some time of public discussion, carried on through the channel\nof the press, and in conversations, the state of Virginia, experiencing\nsome inconvenience with respect to commerce, proposed holding a\ncontinental conference; in consequence of which, a deputation from five\nor six state assemblies met at Annapolis, in Maryland, in 1786. This\nmeeting, not conceiving itself sufficiently authorised to go into the\nbusiness of a reform, did no more than state their general opinions of\nthe propriety of the measure, and recommend that a convention of all the\nstates should be held the year following.\n\nThe convention met at Philadelphia in May, 1787, of which General\nWashington was elected president. He was not at that time connected\nwith any of the state governments, or with congress. He delivered up\nhis commission when the war ended, and since then had lived a private\ncitizen.\n\nThe convention went deeply into all the subjects; and having, after a\nvariety of debate and investigation, agreed among themselves upon the\nseveral parts of a federal constitution, the next question was, the\nmanner of giving it authority and practice.\n\nFor this purpose they did not, like a cabal of courtiers, send for a\nDutch Stadtholder, or a German Elector; but they referred the whole\nmatter to the sense and interest of the country.\n\nThey first directed that the proposed constitution should be published.\nSecondly, that each state should elect a convention, expressly for the\npurpose of taking it into consideration, and of ratifying or rejecting\nit; and that as soon as the approbation and ratification of any nine\nstates should be given, that those states shall proceed to the election\nof their proportion of members to the new federal government; and that\nthe operation of it should then begin, and the former federal government\ncease.\n\nThe several states proceeded accordingly to elect their conventions.\nSome of those conventions ratified the constitution by very large\nmajorities, and two or three unanimously. In others there were much\ndebate and division of opinion. In the Massachusetts convention, which\nmet at Boston, the majority was not above nineteen or twenty, in\nabout three hundred members; but such is the nature of representative\ngovernment, that it quietly decides all matters by majority. After the\ndebate in the Massachusetts convention was closed, and the vote taken,\nthe objecting members rose and declared, \"That though they had argued\nand voted against it, because certain parts appeared to them in a\ndifferent light to what they appeared to other members; yet, as the vote\nhad decided in favour of the constitution as proposed, they should give\nit the same practical support as if they had for it.\"\n\nAs soon as nine states had concurred (and the rest followed in the\norder their conventions were elected), the old fabric of the federal\ngovernment was taken down, and the new one erected, of which General\nWashington is president.--In this place I cannot help remarking, that\nthe character and services of this gentleman are sufficient to put all\nthose men called kings to shame. While they are receiving from the sweat\nand labours of mankind, a prodigality of pay, to which neither their\nabilities nor their services can entitle them, he is rendering every\nservice in his power, and refusing every pecuniary reward. He accepted\nno pay as commander-in-chief; he accepts none as president of the United\nStates.\n\nAfter the new federal constitution was established, the state of\nPennsylvania, conceiving that some parts of its own constitution\nrequired to be altered, elected a convention for that purpose. The\nproposed alterations were published, and the people concurring therein,\nthey were established.\n\nIn forming those constitutions, or in altering them, little or no\ninconvenience took place. The ordinary course of things was not\ninterrupted, and the advantages have been much. It is always the\ninterest of a far greater number of people in a nation to have things\nright, than to let them remain wrong; and when public matters are open\nto debate, and the public judgment free, it will not decide wrong,\nunless it decides too hastily.\n\nIn the two instances of changing the constitutions, the governments then\nin being were not actors either way. Government has no right to make\nitself a party in any debate respecting the principles or modes of\nforming, or of changing, constitutions. It is not for the benefit of\nthose who exercise the powers of government that constitutions, and the\ngovernments issuing from them, are established. In all those matters the\nright of judging and acting are in those who pay, and not in those who\nreceive.\n\nA constitution is the property of a nation, and not of those who\nexercise the government. All the constitutions of America are declared\nto be established on the authority of the people. In France, the word\nnation is used instead of the people; but in both cases, a constitution\nis a thing antecedent to the government, and always distinct there from.\n\nIn England it is not difficult to perceive that everything has a\nconstitution, except the nation. Every society and association that is\nestablished, first agreed upon a number of original articles, digested\ninto form, which are its constitution. It then appointed its officers,\nwhose powers and authorities are described in that constitution, and the\ngovernment of that society then commenced. Those officers, by whatever\nname they are called, have no authority to add to, alter, or abridge the\noriginal articles. It is only to the constituting power that this right\nbelongs.\n\nFrom the want of understanding the difference between a constitution\nand a government, Dr. Johnson, and all writers of his description, have\nalways bewildered themselves. They could not but perceive, that there\nmust necessarily be a controlling power existing somewhere, and they\nplaced this power in the discretion of the persons exercising the\ngovernment, instead of placing it in a constitution formed by the\nnation. When it is in a constitution, it has the nation for its support,\nand the natural and the political controlling powers are together. The\nlaws which are enacted by governments, control men only as individuals,\nbut the nation, through its constitution, controls the whole government,\nand has a natural ability to do so. The final controlling power,\ntherefore, and the original constituting power, are one and the same\npower.\n\nDr. Johnson could not have advanced such a position in any country where\nthere was a constitution; and he is himself an evidence that no such\nthing as a constitution exists in England. But it may be put as a\nquestion, not improper to be investigated, that if a constitution does\nnot exist, how came the idea of its existence so generally established?\n\nIn order to decide this question, it is necessary to consider a\nconstitution in both its cases:--First, as creating a government and\ngiving it powers. Secondly, as regulating and restraining the powers so\ngiven.\n\nIf we begin with William of Normandy, we find that the government of\nEngland was originally a tyranny, founded on an invasion and conquest of\nthe country. This being admitted, it will then appear, that the exertion\nof the nation, at different periods, to abate that tyranny, and render\nit less intolerable, has been credited for a constitution.\n\nMagna Charta, as it was called (it is now like an almanack of the same\ndate), was no more than compelling the government to renounce a part of\nits assumptions. It did not create and give powers to government in a\nmanner a constitution does; but was, as far as it went, of the nature of\na re-conquest, and not a constitution; for could the nation have totally\nexpelled the usurpation, as France has done its despotism, it would then\nhave had a constitution to form.\n\nThe history of the Edwards and the Henries, and up to the commencement\nof the Stuarts, exhibits as many instances of tyranny as could be acted\nwithin the limits to which the nation had restricted it. The Stuarts\nendeavoured to pass those limits, and their fate is well known. In\nall those instances we see nothing of a constitution, but only of\nrestrictions on assumed power.\n\nAfter this, another William, descended from the same stock, and claiming\nfrom the same origin, gained possession; and of the two evils, James\nand William, the nation preferred what it thought the least; since, from\ncircumstances, it must take one. The act, called the Bill of Rights,\ncomes here into view. What is it, but a bargain, which the parts of\nthe government made with each other to divide powers, profits, and\nprivileges? You shall have so much, and I will have the rest; and with\nrespect to the nation, it said, for your share, You shall have the right\nof petitioning. This being the case, the bill of rights is more properly\na bill of wrongs, and of insult. As to what is called the convention\nparliament, it was a thing that made itself, and then made the authority\nby which it acted. A few persons got together, and called themselves by\nthat name. Several of them had never been elected, and none of them for\nthe purpose.\n\nFrom the time of William a species of government arose, issuing out\nof this coalition bill of rights; and more so, since the corruption\nintroduced at the Hanover succession by the agency of Walpole; that can\nbe described by no other name than a despotic legislation. Though the\nparts may embarrass each other, the whole has no bounds; and the only\nright it acknowledges out of itself, is the right of petitioning. Where\nthen is the constitution either that gives or restrains power?\n\nIt is not because a part of the government is elective, that makes it\nless a despotism, if the persons so elected possess afterwards, as a\nparliament, unlimited powers. Election, in this case, becomes separated\nfrom representation, and the candidates are candidates for despotism.\n\nI cannot believe that any nation, reasoning on its own rights, would\nhave thought of calling these things a constitution, if the cry of\nconstitution had not been set up by the government. It has got into\ncirculation like the words bore and quoz [quiz], by being chalked up in\nthe speeches of parliament, as those words were on window shutters and\ndoorposts; but whatever the constitution may be in other respects, it\nhas undoubtedly been the most productive machine of taxation that was\never invented. The taxes in France, under the new constitution, are not\nquite thirteen shillings per head,*[18] and the taxes in England, under\nwhat is called its present constitution, are forty-eight shillings\nand sixpence per head--men, women, and children--amounting to nearly\nseventeen millions sterling, besides the expense of collecting, which is\nupwards of a million more.\n\nIn a country like England, where the whole of the civil Government is\nexecuted by the people of every town and county, by means of parish\nofficers, magistrates, quarterly sessions, juries, and assize; without\nany trouble to what is called the government or any other expense to the\nrevenue than the salary of the judges, it is astonishing how such a mass\nof taxes can be employed. Not even the internal defence of the country\nis paid out of the revenue. On all occasions, whether real or contrived,\nrecourse is continually had to new loans and new taxes. No wonder,\nthen, that a machine of government so advantageous to the advocates of\na court, should be so triumphantly extolled! No wonder, that St. James's\nor St. Stephen's should echo with the continual cry of constitution;\nno wonder, that the French revolution should be reprobated, and the\nres-publica treated with reproach! The red book of England, like the red\nbook of France, will explain the reason.*[19]\n\nI will now, by way of relaxation, turn a thought or two to Mr. Burke. I\nask his pardon for neglecting him so long.\n\n\"America,\" says he (in his speech on the Canada Constitution bill),\n\"never dreamed of such absurd doctrine as the Rights of Man.\"\n\nMr. Burke is such a bold presumer, and advances his assertions and his\npremises with such a deficiency of judgment, that, without troubling\nourselves about principles of philosophy or politics, the mere logical\nconclusions they produce, are ridiculous. For instance,\n\nIf governments, as Mr. Burke asserts, are not founded on the Rights of\nMan, and are founded on any rights at all, they consequently must be\nfounded on the right of something that is not man. What then is that\nsomething?\n\nGenerally speaking, we know of no other creatures that inhabit the\nearth than man and beast; and in all cases, where only two things offer\nthemselves, and one must be admitted, a negation proved on any one,\namounts to an affirmative on the other; and therefore, Mr. Burke, by\nproving against the Rights of Man, proves in behalf of the beast; and\nconsequently, proves that government is a beast; and as difficult things\nsometimes explain each other, we now see the origin of keeping wild\nbeasts in the Tower; for they certainly can be of no other use than\nto show the origin of the government. They are in the place of a\nconstitution. O John Bull, what honours thou hast lost by not being a\nwild beast. Thou mightest, on Mr. Burke's system, have been in the Tower\nfor life.\n\nIf Mr. Burke's arguments have not weight enough to keep one serious, the\nfault is less mine than his; and as I am willing to make an apology to\nthe reader for the liberty I have taken, I hope Mr. Burke will also make\nhis for giving the cause.\n\nHaving thus paid Mr. Burke the compliment of remembering him, I return\nto the subject.\n\nFrom the want of a constitution in England to restrain and regulate the\nwild impulse of power, many of the laws are irrational and tyrannical,\nand the administration of them vague and problematical.\n\nThe attention of the government of England (for I rather choose to\ncall it by this name than the English government) appears, since its\npolitical connection with Germany, to have been so completely engrossed\nand absorbed by foreign affairs, and the means of raising taxes, that it\nseems to exist for no other purposes. Domestic concerns are neglected;\nand with respect to regular law, there is scarcely such a thing.\n\nAlmost every case must now be determined by some precedent, be that\nprecedent good or bad, or whether it properly applies or not; and\nthe practice is become so general as to suggest a suspicion, that it\nproceeds from a deeper policy than at first sight appears.\n\nSince the revolution of America, and more so since that of France,\nthis preaching up the doctrines of precedents, drawn from times and\ncircumstances antecedent to those events, has been the studied practice\nof the English government. The generality of those precedents are\nfounded on principles and opinions, the reverse of what they ought; and\nthe greater distance of time they are drawn from, the more they are to\nbe suspected. But by associating those precedents with a superstitious\nreverence for ancient things, as monks show relics and call them holy,\nthe generality of mankind are deceived into the design. Governments now\nact as if they were afraid to awaken a single reflection in man. They\nare softly leading him to the sepulchre of precedents, to deaden his\nfaculties and call attention from the scene of revolutions. They feel\nthat he is arriving at knowledge faster than they wish, and their policy\nof precedents is the barometer of their fears. This political popery,\nlike the ecclesiastical popery of old, has had its day, and is hastening\nto its exit. The ragged relic and the antiquated precedent, the monk and\nthe monarch, will moulder together.\n\nGovernment by precedent, without any regard to the principle of the\nprecedent, is one of the vilest systems that can be set up. In numerous\ninstances, the precedent ought to operate as a warning, and not as an\nexample, and requires to be shunned instead of imitated; but instead of\nthis, precedents are taken in the lump, and put at once for constitution\nand for law.\n\nEither the doctrine of precedents is policy to keep a man in a state of\nignorance, or it is a practical confession that wisdom degenerates in\ngovernments as governments increase in age, and can only hobble along by\nthe stilts and crutches of precedents. How is it that the same persons\nwho would proudly be thought wiser than their predecessors, appear at\nthe same time only as the ghosts of departed wisdom? How strangely is\nantiquity treated! To some purposes it is spoken of as the times of\ndarkness and ignorance, and to answer others, it is put for the light of\nthe world.\n\nIf the doctrine of precedents is to be followed, the expenses of\ngovernment need not continue the same. Why pay men extravagantly, who\nhave but little to do? If everything that can happen is already in\nprecedent, legislation is at an end, and precedent, like a dictionary,\ndetermines every case. Either, therefore, government has arrived at\nits dotage, and requires to be renovated, or all the occasions for\nexercising its wisdom have occurred.\n\nWe now see all over Europe, and particularly in England, the curious\nphenomenon of a nation looking one way, and the government the\nother--the one forward and the other backward. If governments are to go\non by precedent, while nations go on by improvement, they must at last\ncome to a final separation; and the sooner, and the more civilly they\ndetermine this point, the better.*[20]\n\nHaving thus spoken of constitutions generally, as things distinct from\nactual governments, let us proceed to consider the parts of which a\nconstitution is composed.\n\nOpinions differ more on this subject than with respect to the whole.\nThat a nation ought to have a constitution, as a rule for the conduct\nof its government, is a simple question in which all men, not directly\ncourtiers, will agree. It is only on the component parts that questions\nand opinions multiply.\n\nBut this difficulty, like every other, will diminish when put into a\ntrain of being rightly understood.\n\nThe first thing is, that a nation has a right to establish a\nconstitution.\n\nWhether it exercises this right in the most judicious manner at first\nis quite another case. It exercises it agreeably to the judgment it\npossesses; and by continuing to do so, all errors will at last be\nexploded.\n\nWhen this right is established in a nation, there is no fear that it\nwill be employed to its own injury. A nation can have no interest in\nbeing wrong.\n\nThough all the constitutions of America are on one general principle,\nyet no two of them are exactly alike in their component parts, or in the\ndistribution of the powers which they give to the actual governments.\nSome are more, and others less complex.\n\nIn forming a constitution, it is first necessary to consider what are\nthe ends for which government is necessary? Secondly, what are the best\nmeans, and the least expensive, for accomplishing those ends?\n\nGovernment is nothing more than a national association; and the\nobject of this association is the good of all, as well individually as\ncollectively. Every man wishes to pursue his occupation, and to enjoy\nthe fruits of his labours and the produce of his property in peace\nand safety, and with the least possible expense. When these things\nare accomplished, all the objects for which government ought to be\nestablished are answered.\n\nIt has been customary to consider government under three distinct\ngeneral heads. The legislative, the executive, and the judicial.\n\nBut if we permit our judgment to act unincumbered by the habit of\nmultiplied terms, we can perceive no more than two divisions of power,\nof which civil government is composed, namely, that of legislating or\nenacting laws, and that of executing or administering them. Everything,\ntherefore, appertaining to civil government, classes itself under one or\nother of these two divisions.\n\nSo far as regards the execution of the laws, that which is called the\njudicial power, is strictly and properly the executive power of every\ncountry. It is that power to which every individual has appeal, and\nwhich causes the laws to be executed; neither have we any other clear\nidea with respect to the official execution of the laws. In England, and\nalso in America and France, this power begins with the magistrate, and\nproceeds up through all the courts of judicature.\n\nI leave to courtiers to explain what is meant by calling monarchy the\nexecutive power. It is merely a name in which acts of government are\ndone; and any other, or none at all, would answer the same purpose. Laws\nhave neither more nor less authority on this account. It must be from\nthe justness of their principles, and the interest which a nation feels\ntherein, that they derive support; if they require any other than this,\nit is a sign that something in the system of government is imperfect.\nLaws difficult to be executed cannot be generally good.\n\nWith respect to the organization of the legislative power, different\nmodes have been adopted in different countries. In America it is\ngenerally composed of two houses. In France it consists but of one, but\nin both countries, it is wholly by representation.\n\nThe case is, that mankind (from the long tyranny of assumed power) have\nhad so few opportunities of making the necessary trials on modes and\nprinciples of government, in order to discover the best, that government\nis but now beginning to be known, and experience is yet wanting to\ndetermine many particulars.\n\nThe objections against two houses are, first, that there is an\ninconsistency in any part of a whole legislature, coming to a final\ndetermination by vote on any matter, whilst that matter, with respect\nto that whole, is yet only in a train of deliberation, and consequently\nopen to new illustrations.\n\nSecondly, That by taking the vote on each, as a separate body, it always\nadmits of the possibility, and is often the case in practice, that the\nminority governs the majority, and that, in some instances, to a degree\nof great inconsistency.\n\nThirdly, That two houses arbitrarily checking or controlling each other\nis inconsistent; because it cannot be proved on the principles of just\nrepresentation, that either should be wiser or better than the other.\nThey may check in the wrong as well as in the right therefore to give\nthe power where we cannot give the wisdom to use it, nor be assured\nof its being rightly used, renders the hazard at least equal to the\nprecaution.*[21]\n\nThe objection against a single house is, that it is always in a\ncondition of committing itself too soon.--But it should at the same\ntime be remembered, that when there is a constitution which defines the\npower, and establishes the principles within which a legislature\nshall act, there is already a more effectual check provided, and more\npowerfully operating, than any other check can be. For example,\n\nWere a Bill to be brought into any of the American legislatures similar\nto that which was passed into an act by the English parliament, at\nthe commencement of George the First, to extend the duration of the\nassemblies to a longer period than they now sit, the check is in the\nconstitution, which in effect says, Thus far shalt thou go and no\nfurther.\n\nBut in order to remove the objection against a single house (that of\nacting with too quick an impulse), and at the same time to avoid the\ninconsistencies, in some cases absurdities, arising from two houses, the\nfollowing method has been proposed as an improvement upon both.\n\nFirst, To have but one representation.\n\nSecondly, To divide that representation, by lot, into two or three\nparts.\n\nThirdly, That every proposed bill shall be first debated in those parts\nby succession, that they may become the hearers of each other, but\nwithout taking any vote. After which the whole representation to\nassemble for a general debate and determination by vote.\n\nTo this proposed improvement has been added another, for the purpose of\nkeeping the representation in the state of constant renovation; which\nis, that one-third of the representation of each county, shall go out at\nthe expiration of one year, and the number be replaced by new elections.\nAnother third at the expiration of the second year replaced in like\nmanner, and every third year to be a general election.*[22]\n\nBut in whatever manner the separate parts of a constitution may be\narranged, there is one general principle that distinguishes freedom from\nslavery, which is, that all hereditary government over a people is to\nthem a species of slavery, and representative government is freedom.\n\nConsidering government in the only light in which it should be\nconsidered, that of a National Association, it ought to be so\nconstructed as not to be disordered by any accident happening among the\nparts; and, therefore, no extraordinary power, capable of producing such\nan effect, should be lodged in the hands of any individual. The death,\nsickness, absence or defection, of any one individual in a government,\nought to be a matter of no more consequence, with respect to the nation,\nthan if the same circumstance had taken place in a member of the English\nParliament, or the French National Assembly.\n\nScarcely anything presents a more degrading character of national\ngreatness, than its being thrown into confusion, by anything happening\nto or acted by any individual; and the ridiculousness of the scene is\noften increased by the natural insignificance of the person by whom it\nis occasioned. Were a government so constructed, that it could not go on\nunless a goose or a gander were present in the senate, the difficulties\nwould be just as great and as real, on the flight or sickness of\nthe goose, or the gander, as if it were called a King. We laugh at\nindividuals for the silly difficulties they make to themselves, without\nperceiving that the greatest of all ridiculous things are acted in\ngovernments.*[23]\n\nAll the constitutions of America are on a plan that excludes the\nchildish embarrassments which occur in monarchical countries. No\nsuspension of government can there take place for a moment, from any\ncircumstances whatever. The system of representation provides for\neverything, and is the only system in which nations and governments can\nalways appear in their proper character.\n\nAs extraordinary power ought not to be lodged in the hands of any\nindividual, so ought there to be no appropriations of public money\nto any person, beyond what his services in a state may be worth. It\nsignifies not whether a man be called a president, a king, an emperor,\na senator, or by any other name which propriety or folly may devise or\narrogance assume; it is only a certain service he can perform in the\nstate; and the service of any such individual in the routine of office,\nwhether such office be called monarchical, presidential, senatorial, or\nby any other name or title, can never exceed the value of ten thousand\npounds a year. All the great services that are done in the world are\nperformed by volunteer characters, who accept nothing for them; but\nthe routine of office is always regulated to such a general standard\nof abilities as to be within the compass of numbers in every country\nto perform, and therefore cannot merit very extraordinary recompense.\nGovernment, says Swift, is a Plain thing, and fitted to the capacity of\nmany heads.\n\nIt is inhuman to talk of a million sterling a year, paid out of the\npublic taxes of any country, for the support of any individual, whilst\nthousands who are forced to contribute thereto, are pining with want,\nand struggling with misery. Government does not consist in a contrast\nbetween prisons and palaces, between poverty and pomp; it is not\ninstituted to rob the needy of his mite, and increase the wretchedness\nof the wretched.--But on this part of the subject I shall speak\nhereafter, and confine myself at present to political observations.\n\nWhen extraordinary power and extraordinary pay are allotted to any\nindividual in a government, he becomes the center, round which every\nkind of corruption generates and forms. Give to any man a million a\nyear, and add thereto the power of creating and disposing of places,\nat the expense of a country, and the liberties of that country are no\nlonger secure. What is called the splendour of a throne is no other\nthan the corruption of the state. It is made up of a band of parasites,\nliving in luxurious indolence, out of the public taxes.\n\nWhen once such a vicious system is established it becomes the guard and\nprotection of all inferior abuses. The man who is in the receipt of a\nmillion a year is the last person to promote a spirit of reform, lest,\nin the event, it should reach to himself. It is always his interest to\ndefend inferior abuses, as so many outworks to protect the citadel; and\non this species of political fortification, all the parts have such a\ncommon dependence that it is never to be expected they will attack each\nother.*[24]\n\nMonarchy would not have continued so many ages in the world, had it not\nbeen for the abuses it protects. It is the master-fraud, which shelters\nall others. By admitting a participation of the spoil, it makes itself\nfriends; and when it ceases to do this it will cease to be the idol of\ncourtiers.\n\nAs the principle on which constitutions are now formed rejects all\nhereditary pretensions to government, it also rejects all that catalogue\nof assumptions known by the name of prerogatives.\n\nIf there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety\nbe entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of\nAmerica. The president of the United States of America is elected only\nfor four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the\nword, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying\nhim. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be\na native of the country.\n\nIn a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the\ndifference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In\nEngland the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner;\nalways half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is\nnever in full natural or political connection with the country, is not\nresponsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet\nsuch a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the\nknowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.\n\nBut this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the\ngovernment in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage\nconnections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end.\nHe cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can\nform a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing.\nUnder such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not\nsituated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under\nthe dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually\ngoverned by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government\nhad been the means.\n\nThe presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive)\nis the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it\nis the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member\nof Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any\nreason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where\nmischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest\nand attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in\nthe great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with\nmore precision into the nature and business of that department which is\ncalled the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are\nevery one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called\nthe executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political\nsuperfluity or a chaos of unknown things.\n\nSome kind of official department, to which reports shall be made from\nthe different parts of a nation, or from abroad, to be laid before the\nnational representatives, is all that is necessary; but there is no\nconsistency in calling this the executive; neither can it be considered\nin any other light than as inferior to the legislative. The sovereign\nauthority in any country is the power of making laws, and everything\nelse is an official department.\n\nNext to the arrangement of the principles and the organization of the\nseveral parts of a constitution, is the provision to be made for\nthe support of the persons to whom the nation shall confide the\nadministration of the constitutional powers.\n\nA nation can have no right to the time and services of any person at his\nown expense, whom it may choose to employ or entrust in any department\nwhatever; neither can any reason be given for making provision for the\nsupport of any one part of a government and not for the other.\n\nBut admitting that the honour of being entrusted with any part of a\ngovernment is to be considered a sufficient reward, it ought to be so to\nevery person alike. If the members of the legislature of any country\nare to serve at their own expense that which is called the executive,\nwhether monarchical or by any other name, ought to serve in like manner.\nIt is inconsistent to pay the one, and accept the service of the other\ngratis.\n\nIn America, every department in the government is decently provided for;\nbut no one is extravagantly paid. Every member of Congress, and of\nthe Assemblies, is allowed a sufficiency for his expenses. Whereas in\nEngland, a most prodigal provision is made for the support of one part\nof the Government, and none for the other, the consequence of which is\nthat the one is furnished with the means of corruption and the other is\nput into the condition of being corrupted. Less than a fourth part of\nsuch expense, applied as it is in America, would remedy a great part of\nthe corruption.\n\nAnother reform in the American constitution is the exploding all oaths\nof personality. The oath of allegiance in America is to the nation only.\nThe putting any individual as a figure for a nation is improper.\nThe happiness of a nation is the superior object, and therefore the\nintention of an oath of allegiance ought not to be obscured by being\nfiguratively taken, to, or in the name of, any person. The oath, called\nthe civic oath, in France, viz., \"the nation, the law, and the king,\" is\nimproper. If taken at all, it ought to be as in America, to the nation\nonly. The law may or may not be good; but, in this place, it can have no\nother meaning, than as being conducive to the happiness of a nation, and\ntherefore is included in it. The remainder of the oath is improper, on\nthe ground, that all personal oaths ought to be abolished. They are the\nremains of tyranny on one part and slavery on the other; and the name of\nthe Creator ought not to be introduced to witness the degradation of\nhis creation; or if taken, as is already mentioned, as figurative of the\nnation, it is in this place redundant. But whatever apology may be made\nfor oaths at the first establishment of a government, they ought not to\nbe permitted afterwards. If a government requires the support of oaths,\nit is a sign that it is not worth supporting, and ought not to be\nsupported. Make government what it ought to be, and it will support\nitself.\n\nTo conclude this part of the subject:--One of the greatest improvements\nthat have been made for the perpetual security and progress of\nconstitutional liberty, is the provision which the new constitutions\nmake for occasionally revising, altering, and amending them.\n\nThe principle upon which Mr. Burke formed his political creed, that of\n\"binding and controlling posterity to the end of time, and of renouncing\nand abdicating the rights of all posterity, for ever,\" is now become too\ndetestable to be made a subject of debate; and therefore, I pass it over\nwith no other notice than exposing it.\n\nGovernment is but now beginning to be known. Hitherto it has been the\nmere exercise of power, which forbade all effectual enquiry into rights,\nand grounded itself wholly on possession. While the enemy of liberty was\nits judge, the progress of its principles must have been small indeed.\n\nThe constitutions of America, and also that of France, have either\naffixed a period for their revision, or laid down the mode by which\nimprovement shall be made. It is perhaps impossible to establish\nanything that combines principles with opinions and practice, which the\nprogress of circumstances, through a length of years, will not in some\nmeasure derange, or render inconsistent; and, therefore, to prevent\ninconveniences accumulating, till they discourage reformations or\nprovoke revolutions, it is best to provide the means of regulating them\nas they occur. The Rights of Man are the rights of all generations of\nmen, and cannot be monopolised by any. That which is worth following,\nwill be followed for the sake of its worth, and it is in this that\nits security lies, and not in any conditions with which it may be\nencumbered. When a man leaves property to his heirs, he does not connect\nit with an obligation that they shall accept it. Why, then, should we\ndo otherwise with respect to constitutions? The best constitution that\ncould now be devised, consistent with the condition of the present\nmoment, may be far short of that excellence which a few years may\nafford. There is a morning of reason rising upon man on the subject\nof government, that has not appeared before. As the barbarism of the\npresent old governments expires, the moral conditions of nations with\nrespect to each other will be changed. Man will not be brought up with\nthe savage idea of considering his species as his enemy, because\nthe accident of birth gave the individuals existence in countries\ndistinguished by different names; and as constitutions have always some\nrelation to external as well as to domestic circumstances, the means of\nbenefitting by every change, foreign or domestic, should be a part\nof every constitution. We already see an alteration in the national\ndisposition of England and France towards each other, which, when we\nlook back to only a few years, is itself a Revolution. Who could have\nforeseen, or who could have believed, that a French National Assembly\nwould ever have been a popular toast in England, or that a friendly\nalliance of the two nations should become the wish of either? It shows\nthat man, were he not corrupted by governments, is naturally the friend\nof man, and that human nature is not of itself vicious. That spirit\nof jealousy and ferocity, which the governments of the two countries\ninspired, and which they rendered subservient to the purpose of\ntaxation, is now yielding to the dictates of reason, interest, and\nhumanity. The trade of courts is beginning to be understood, and the\naffectation of mystery, with all the artificial sorcery by which\nthey imposed upon mankind, is on the decline. It has received its\ndeath-wound; and though it may linger, it will expire. Government ought\nto be as much open to improvement as anything which appertains to man,\ninstead of which it has been monopolised from age to age, by the most\nignorant and vicious of the human race. Need we any other proof of their\nwretched management, than the excess of debts and taxes with which every\nnation groans, and the quarrels into which they have precipitated the\nworld? Just emerging from such a barbarous condition, it is too soon to\ndetermine to what extent of improvement government may yet be carried.\nFor what we can foresee, all Europe may form but one great Republic, and\nman be free of the whole.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V. WAYS AND MEANS OF IMPROVING THE CONDITION OF EUROPE\n\nINTERSPERSED WITH MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS\n\nIn contemplating a subject that embraces with equatorial magnitude the\nwhole region of humanity it is impossible to confine the pursuit in one\nsingle direction. It takes ground on every character and condition that\nappertains to man, and blends the individual, the nation, and the world.\nFrom a small spark, kindled in America, a flame has arisen not to be\nextinguished. Without consuming, like the Ultima Ratio Regum, it winds\nits progress from nation to nation, and conquers by a silent operation.\nMan finds himself changed, he scarcely perceives how. He acquires\na knowledge of his rights by attending justly to his interest, and\ndiscovers in the event that the strength and powers of despotism consist\nwholly in the fear of resisting it, and that, in order \"to be free, it\nis sufficient that he wills it.\"\n\nHaving in all the preceding parts of this work endeavoured to establish\na system of principles as a basis on which governments ought to be\nerected, I shall proceed in this, to the ways and means of rendering\nthem into practice. But in order to introduce this part of the subject\nwith more propriety, and stronger effect, some preliminary observations,\ndeducible from, or connected with, those principles, are necessary.\n\nWhatever the form or constitution of government may be, it ought to have\nno other object than the general happiness. When, instead of this, it\noperates to create and increase wretchedness in any of the parts\nof society, it is on a wrong system, and reformation is necessary.\nCustomary language has classed the condition of man under the two\ndescriptions of civilised and uncivilised life. To the one it has\nascribed felicity and affluence; to the other hardship and want. But,\nhowever our imagination may be impressed by painting and comparison,\nit is nevertheless true, that a great portion of mankind, in what are\ncalled civilised countries, are in a state of poverty and wretchedness,\nfar below the condition of an Indian. I speak not of one country, but of\nall. It is so in England, it is so all over Europe. Let us enquire into\nthe cause.\n\nIt lies not in any natural defect in the principles of civilisation,\nbut in preventing those principles having a universal operation; the\nconsequence of which is, a perpetual system of war and expense,\nthat drains the country, and defeats the general felicity of which\ncivilisation is capable. All the European governments (France\nnow excepted) are constructed not on the principle of universal\ncivilisation, but on the reverse of it. So far as those governments\nrelate to each other, they are in the same condition as we conceive of\nsavage uncivilised life; they put themselves beyond the law as well\nof God as of man, and are, with respect to principle and reciprocal\nconduct, like so many individuals in a state of nature. The inhabitants\nof every country, under the civilisation of laws, easily civilise\ntogether, but governments being yet in an uncivilised state, and almost\ncontinually at war, they pervert the abundance which civilised life\nproduces to carry on the uncivilised part to a greater extent. By thus\nengrafting the barbarism of government upon the internal civilisation of\na country, it draws from the latter, and more especially from the poor,\na great portion of those earnings, which should be applied to their\nown subsistence and comfort. Apart from all reflections of morality and\nphilosophy, it is a melancholy fact that more than one-fourth of the\nlabour of mankind is annually consumed by this barbarous system. What\nhas served to continue this evil, is the pecuniary advantage which\nall the governments of Europe have found in keeping up this state of\nuncivilisation. It affords to them pretences for power, and revenue,\nfor which there would be neither occasion nor apology, if the circle\nof civilisation were rendered complete. Civil government alone, or the\ngovernment of laws, is not productive of pretences for many taxes; it\noperates at home, directly under the eye of the country, and precludes\nthe possibility of much imposition. But when the scene is laid in\nthe uncivilised contention of governments, the field of pretences is\nenlarged, and the country, being no longer a judge, is open to every\nimposition, which governments please to act. Not a thirtieth, scarcely\na fortieth, part of the taxes which are raised in England are either\noccasioned by, or applied to, the purpose of civil government. It is\nnot difficult to see, that the whole which the actual government does\nin this respect, is to enact laws, and that the country administers\nand executes them, at its own expense, by means of magistrates, juries,\nsessions, and assize, over and above the taxes which it pays. In this\nview of the case, we have two distinct characters of government; the one\nthe civil government, or the government of laws, which operates at home,\nthe other the court or cabinet government, which operates abroad, on the\nrude plan of uncivilised life; the one attended with little charge, the\nother with boundless extravagance; and so distinct are the two, that if\nthe latter were to sink, as it were, by a sudden opening of the earth,\nand totally disappear, the former would not be deranged. It would still\nproceed, because it is the common interest of the nation that it should,\nand all the means are in practice. Revolutions, then, have for their\nobject a change in the moral condition of governments, and with this\nchange the burthen of public taxes will lessen, and civilisation will be\nleft to the enjoyment of that abundance, of which it is now deprived.\nIn contemplating the whole of this subject, I extend my views into the\ndepartment of commerce. In all my publications, where the matter would\nadmit, I have been an advocate for commerce, because I am a friend to\nits effects. It is a pacific system, operating to cordialise mankind, by\nrendering nations, as well as individuals, useful to each other. As to\nthe mere theoretical reformation, I have never preached it up. The most\neffectual process is that of improving the condition of man by means of\nhis interest; and it is on this ground that I take my stand. If commerce\nwere permitted to act to the universal extent it is capable, it would\nextirpate the system of war, and produce a revolution in the uncivilised\nstate of governments. The invention of commerce has arisen since those\ngovernments began, and is the greatest approach towards universal\ncivilisation that has yet been made by any means not immediately flowing\nfrom moral principles. Whatever has a tendency to promote the civil\nintercourse of nations by an exchange of benefits, is a subject as\nworthy of philosophy as of politics. Commerce is no other than the\ntraffic of two individuals, multiplied on a scale of numbers; and by the\nsame rule that nature intended for the intercourse of two, she intended\nthat of all. For this purpose she has distributed the materials of\nmanufactures and commerce, in various and distant parts of a nation and\nof the world; and as they cannot be procured by war so cheaply or so\ncommodiously as by commerce, she has rendered the latter the means\nof extirpating the former. As the two are nearly the opposite of each\nother, consequently, the uncivilised state of the European governments\nis injurious to commerce. Every kind of destruction or embarrassment\nserves to lessen the quantity, and it matters but little in what part\nof the commercial world the reduction begins. Like blood, it cannot be\ntaken from any of the parts, without being taken from the whole mass in\ncirculation, and all partake of the loss. When the ability in any\nnation to buy is destroyed, it equally involves the seller. Could the\ngovernment of England destroy the commerce of all other nations, she\nwould most effectually ruin her own. It is possible that a nation may be\nthe carrier for the world, but she cannot be the merchant. She cannot\nbe the seller and buyer of her own merchandise. The ability to buy must\nreside out of herself; and, therefore, the prosperity of any commercial\nnation is regulated by the prosperity of the rest. If they are poor she\ncannot be rich, and her condition, be what it may, is an index of the\nheight of the commercial tide in other nations. That the principles\nof commerce, and its universal operation may be understood, without\nunderstanding the practice, is a position that reason will not deny; and\nit is on this ground only that I argue the subject. It is one thing\nin the counting-house, in the world it is another. With respect to its\noperation it must necessarily be contemplated as a reciprocal thing;\nthat only one-half its powers resides within the nation, and that\nthe whole is as effectually destroyed by the destroying the half that\nresides without, as if the destruction had been committed on that which\nis within; for neither can act without the other. When in the last, as\nwell as in former wars, the commerce of England sunk, it was because the\nquantity was lessened everywhere; and it now rises, because commerce is\nin a rising state in every nation. If England, at this day, imports\nand exports more than at any former period, the nations with which she\ntrades must necessarily do the same; her imports are their exports, and\nvice versa. There can be no such thing as a nation flourishing alone\nin commerce: she can only participate; and the destruction of it in any\npart must necessarily affect all. When, therefore, governments are\nat war, the attack is made upon a common stock of commerce, and the\nconsequence is the same as if each had attacked his own. The present\nincrease of commerce is not to be attributed to ministers, or to any\npolitical contrivances, but to its own natural operation in consequence\nof peace. The regular markets had been destroyed, the channels of trade\nbroken up, the high road of the seas infested with robbers of every\nnation, and the attention of the world called to other objects. Those\ninterruptions have ceased, and peace has restored the deranged condition\nof things to their proper order.*[25] It is worth remarking that every\nnation reckons the balance of trade in its own favour; and therefore\nsomething must be irregular in the common ideas upon this subject. The\nfact, however, is true, according to what is called a balance; and it\nis from this cause that commerce is universally supported. Every nation\nfeels the advantage, or it would abandon the practice: but the deception\nlies in the mode of making up the accounts, and in attributing what are\ncalled profits to a wrong cause. Mr. Pitt has sometimes amused himself,\nby showing what he called a balance of trade from the custom-house\nbooks. This mode of calculating not only affords no rule that is true,\nbut one that is false. In the first place, Every cargo that departs from\nthe custom-house appears on the books as an export; and, according to\nthe custom-house balance, the losses at sea, and by foreign failures,\nare all reckoned on the side of profit because they appear as exports.\n\nSecondly, Because the importation by the smuggling trade does not appear\non the custom-house books, to arrange against the exports.\n\nNo balance, therefore, as applying to superior advantages, can be\ndrawn from these documents; and if we examine the natural operation of\ncommerce, the idea is fallacious; and if true, would soon be injurious.\nThe great support of commerce consists in the balance being a level of\nbenefits among all nations.\n\nTwo merchants of different nations trading together, will both become\nrich, and each makes the balance in his own favour; consequently, they\ndo not get rich of each other; and it is the same with respect to the\nnations in which they reside. The case must be, that each nation must\nget rich out of its own means, and increases that riches by something\nwhich it procures from another in exchange.\n\nIf a merchant in England sends an article of English manufacture abroad\nwhich costs him a shilling at home, and imports something which sells\nfor two, he makes a balance of one shilling in his favour; but this is\nnot gained out of the foreign nation or the foreign merchant, for he\nalso does the same by the articles he receives, and neither has the\nadvantage upon the other. The original value of the two articles in\ntheir proper countries was but two shillings; but by changing their\nplaces, they acquire a new idea of value, equal to double what they had\nfirst, and that increased value is equally divided.\n\nThere is no otherwise a balance on foreign than on domestic commerce.\nThe merchants of London and Newcastle trade on the same principles, as\nif they resided in different nations, and make their balances in the\nsame manner: yet London does not get rich out of Newcastle, any more\nthan Newcastle out of London: but coals, the merchandize of Newcastle,\nhave an additional value at London, and London merchandize has the same\nat Newcastle.\n\nThough the principle of all commerce is the same, the domestic, in a\nnational view, is the part the most beneficial; because the whole of the\nadvantages, an both sides, rests within the nation; whereas, in foreign\ncommerce, it is only a participation of one-half.\n\nThe most unprofitable of all commerce is that connected with foreign\ndominion. To a few individuals it may be beneficial, merely because it\nis commerce; but to the nation it is a loss. The expense of maintaining\ndominion more than absorbs the profits of any trade. It does not\nincrease the general quantity in the world, but operates to lessen it;\nand as a greater mass would be afloat by relinquishing dominion, the\nparticipation without the expense would be more valuable than a greater\nquantity with it.\n\nBut it is impossible to engross commerce by dominion; and therefore\nit is still more fallacious. It cannot exist in confined channels, and\nnecessarily breaks out by regular or irregular means, that defeat\nthe attempt: and to succeed would be still worse. France, since the\nRevolution, has been more indifferent as to foreign possessions, and\nother nations will become the same when they investigate the subject\nwith respect to commerce.\n\nTo the expense of dominion is to be added that of navies, and when the\namounts of the two are subtracted from the profits of commerce, it will\nappear, that what is called the balance of trade, even admitting it to\nexist, is not enjoyed by the nation, but absorbed by the Government.\n\nThe idea of having navies for the protection of commerce is delusive.\nIt is putting means of destruction for the means of protection. Commerce\nneeds no other protection than the reciprocal interest which every\nnation feels in supporting it--it is common stock--it exists by a\nbalance of advantages to all; and the only interruption it meets, is\nfrom the present uncivilised state of governments, and which it is its\ncommon interest to reform.*[26]\n\nQuitting this subject, I now proceed to other matters.--As it is\nnecessary to include England in the prospect of a general reformation,\nit is proper to inquire into the defects of its government. It is only\nby each nation reforming its own, that the whole can be improved, and\nthe full benefit of reformation enjoyed. Only partial advantages can\nflow from partial reforms.\n\nFrance and England are the only two countries in Europe where a\nreformation in government could have successfully begun. The one secure\nby the ocean, and the other by the immensity of its internal strength,\ncould defy the malignancy of foreign despotism. But it is with\nrevolutions as with commerce, the advantages increase by their becoming\ngeneral, and double to either what each would receive alone.\n\nAs a new system is now opening to the view of the world, the European\ncourts are plotting to counteract it. Alliances, contrary to all former\nsystems, are agitating, and a common interest of courts is forming\nagainst the common interest of man. This combination draws a line that\nruns throughout Europe, and presents a cause so entirely new as to\nexclude all calculations from former circumstances. While despotism\nwarred with despotism, man had no interest in the contest; but in a\ncause that unites the soldier with the citizen, and nation with nation,\nthe despotism of courts, though it feels the danger and meditates\nrevenge, is afraid to strike.\n\nNo question has arisen within the records of history that pressed with\nthe importance of the present. It is not whether this or that party\nshall be in or not, or Whig or Tory, high or low shall prevail; but\nwhether man shall inherit his rights, and universal civilisation take\nplace? Whether the fruits of his labours shall be enjoyed by himself\nor consumed by the profligacy of governments? Whether robbery shall be\nbanished from courts, and wretchedness from countries?\n\nWhen, in countries that are called civilised, we see age going to the\nworkhouse and youth to the gallows, something must be wrong in the\nsystem of government. It would seem, by the exterior appearance of such\ncountries, that all was happiness; but there lies hidden from the eye of\ncommon observation, a mass of wretchedness, that has scarcely any other\nchance, than to expire in poverty or infamy. Its entrance into life is\nmarked with the presage of its fate; and until this is remedied, it is\nin vain to punish.\n\nCivil government does not exist in executions; but in making such\nprovision for the instruction of youth and the support of age, as to\nexclude, as much as possible, profligacy from the one and despair from\nthe other. Instead of this, the resources of a country are lavished upon\nkings, upon courts, upon hirelings, impostors and prostitutes; and even\nthe poor themselves, with all their wants upon them, are compelled to\nsupport the fraud that oppresses them.\n\nWhy is it that scarcely any are executed but the poor? The fact is a\nproof, among other things, of a wretchedness in their condition. Bred up\nwithout morals, and cast upon the world without a prospect, they are\nthe exposed sacrifice of vice and legal barbarity. The millions that are\nsuperfluously wasted upon governments are more than sufficient to reform\nthose evils, and to benefit the condition of every man in a nation, not\nincluded within the purlieus of a court. This I hope to make appear in\nthe progress of this work.\n\nIt is the nature of compassion to associate with misfortune. In taking\nup this subject I seek no recompense--I fear no consequence. Fortified\nwith that proud integrity, that disdains to triumph or to yield, I will\nadvocate the Rights of Man.\n\nIt is to my advantage that I have served an apprenticeship to life. I\nknow the value of moral instruction, and I have seen the danger of the\ncontrary.\n\nAt an early period--little more than sixteen years of age, raw and\nadventurous, and heated with the false heroism of a master*[27] who\nhad served in a man-of-war--I began the carver of my own fortune,\nand entered on board the Terrible Privateer, Captain Death. From\nthis adventure I was happily prevented by the affectionate and moral\nremonstrance of a good father, who, from his own habits of life, being\nof the Quaker profession, must begin to look upon me as lost. But the\nimpression, much as it effected at the time, began to wear away, and I\nentered afterwards in the King of Prussia Privateer, Captain Mendez,\nand went with her to sea. Yet, from such a beginning, and with all the\ninconvenience of early life against me, I am proud to say, that with\na perseverance undismayed by difficulties, a disinterestedness that\ncompelled respect, I have not only contributed to raise a new empire in\nthe world, founded on a new system of government, but I have arrived at\nan eminence in political literature, the most difficult of all lines to\nsucceed and excel in, which aristocracy with all its aids has not been\nable to reach or to rival.*[28]\n\nKnowing my own heart and feeling myself as I now do, superior to all the\nskirmish of party, the inveteracy of interested or mistaken opponents,\nI answer not to falsehood or abuse, but proceed to the defects of the\nEnglish Government.\n\nI begin with charters and corporations.\n\nIt is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It\noperates by a contrary effect--that of taking rights away. Rights are\ninherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those\nrights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of\na few. If charters were constructed so as to express in direct terms,\n\"that every inhabitant, who is not a member of a corporation, shall\nnot exercise the right of voting,\" such charters would, in the face, be\ncharters not of rights, but of exclusion. The effect is the same under\nthe form they now stand; and the only persons on whom they operate are\nthe persons whom they exclude. Those whose rights are guaranteed, by\nnot being taken away, exercise no other rights than as members of the\ncommunity they are entitled to without a charter; and, therefore, all\ncharters have no other than an indirect negative operation. They do not\ngive rights to A, but they make a difference in favour of A by taking\naway the right of B, and consequently are instruments of injustice.\n\nBut charters and corporations have a more extensive evil effect\nthan what relates merely to elections. They are sources of endless\ncontentions in the places where they exist, and they lessen the common\nrights of national society. A native of England, under the operation of\nthese charters and corporations, cannot be said to be an Englishman in\nthe full sense of the word. He is not free of the nation, in the same\nmanner that a Frenchman is free of France, and an American of America.\nHis rights are circumscribed to the town, and, in some cases, to the\nparish of his birth; and all other parts, though in his native land, are\nto him as a foreign country. To acquire a residence in these, he must\nundergo a local naturalisation by purchase, or he is forbidden or\nexpelled the place. This species of feudality is kept up to aggrandise\nthe corporations at the ruin of towns; and the effect is visible.\n\nThe generality of corporation towns are in a state of solitary decay,\nand prevented from further ruin only by some circumstance in their\nsituation, such as a navigable river, or a plentiful surrounding\ncountry. As population is one of the chief sources of wealth (for\nwithout it land itself has no value), everything which operates to\nprevent it must lessen the value of property; and as corporations have\nnot only this tendency, but directly this effect, they cannot but be\ninjurious. If any policy were to be followed, instead of that of general\nfreedom, to every person to settle where he chose (as in France or\nAmerica) it would be more consistent to give encouragement to new comers\nthan to preclude their admission by exacting premiums from them.*[29]\n\nThe persons most immediately interested in the abolition of corporations\nare the inhabitants of the towns where corporations are established. The\ninstances of Manchester, Birmingham, and Sheffield show, by contrast,\nthe injuries which those Gothic institutions are to property and\ncommerce. A few examples may be found, such as that of London, whose\nnatural and commercial advantage, owing to its situation on the Thames,\nis capable of bearing up against the political evils of a corporation;\nbut in almost all other cases the fatality is too visible to be doubted\nor denied.\n\nThough the whole nation is not so directly affected by the depression of\nproperty in corporation towns as the inhabitants themselves, it partakes\nof the consequence. By lessening the value of property, the quantity of\nnational commerce is curtailed. Every man is a customer in proportion\nto his ability; and as all parts of a nation trade with each other,\nwhatever affects any of the parts must necessarily communicate to the\nwhole.\n\nAs one of the Houses of the English Parliament is, in a great measure,\nmade up of elections from these corporations; and as it is unnatural\nthat a pure stream should flow from a foul fountain, its vices are but a\ncontinuation of the vices of its origin. A man of moral honour and good\npolitical principles cannot submit to the mean drudgery and disgraceful\narts, by which such elections are carried. To be a successful candidate,\nhe must be destitute of the qualities that constitute a just legislator;\nand being thus disciplined to corruption by the mode of entering into\nParliament, it is not to be expected that the representative should be\nbetter than the man.\n\nMr. Burke, in speaking of the English representation, has advanced\nas bold a challenge as ever was given in the days of chivalry. \"Our\nrepresentation,\" says he, \"has been found perfectly adequate to all\nthe purposes for which a representation of the people can be desired or\ndevised.\" \"I defy,\" continues he, \"the enemies of our constitution\nto show the contrary.\"--This declaration from a man who has been in\nconstant opposition to all the measures of parliament the whole of his\npolitical life, a year or two excepted, is most extraordinary; and,\ncomparing him with himself, admits of no other alternative, than that he\nacted against his judgment as a member, or has declared contrary to it\nas an author.\n\nBut it is not in the representation only that the defects lie, and\ntherefore I proceed in the next place to the aristocracy.\n\nWhat is called the House of Peers, is constituted on a ground very\nsimilar to that, against which there is no law in other cases. It\namounts to a combination of persons in one common interest. No better\nreason can be given, why a house of legislation should be composed\nentirely of men whose occupation consists in letting landed property,\nthan why it should be composed of those who hire, or of brewers, or\nbakers, or any other separate class of men. Mr. Burke calls this house\n\"the great ground and pillar of security to the landed interest.\" Let us\nexamine this idea.\n\nWhat pillar of security does the landed interest require more than any\nother interest in the state, or what right has it to a distinct and\nseparate representation from the general interest of a nation? The only\nuse to be made of this power (and which it always has made), is to ward\noff taxes from itself, and throw the burthen upon those articles of\nconsumption by which itself would be least affected.\n\nThat this has been the consequence (and will always be the consequence)\nof constructing governments on combinations, is evident with respect to\nEngland, from the history of its taxes.\n\nNotwithstanding taxes have increased and multiplied upon every article\nof common consumption, the land-tax, which more particularly affects\nthis \"pillar,\" has diminished. In 1778 the amount of the land-tax was\nL1,950,000, which is half-a-million less than it produced almost\na hundred years ago,*[30] notwithstanding the rentals are in many\ninstances doubled since that period.\n\nBefore the coming of the Hanoverians, the taxes were divided in nearly\nequal proportions between the land and articles of consumption, the land\nbearing rather the largest share: but since that era nearly thirteen\nmillions annually of new taxes have been thrown upon consumption. The\nconsequence of which has been a constant increase in the number and\nwretchedness of the poor, and in the amount of the poor-rates. Yet here\nagain the burthen does not fall in equal proportions on the aristocracy\nwith the rest of the community. Their residences, whether in town or\ncountry, are not mixed with the habitations of the poor. They live apart\nfrom distress, and the expense of relieving it. It is in manufacturing\ntowns and labouring villages that those burthens press the heaviest; in\nmany of which it is one class of poor supporting another.\n\nSeveral of the most heavy and productive taxes are so contrived, as to\ngive an exemption to this pillar, thus standing in its own defence. The\ntax upon beer brewed for sale does not affect the aristocracy, who brew\ntheir own beer free from this duty. It falls only on those who have\nnot conveniency or ability to brew, and who must purchase it in small\nquantities. But what will mankind think of the justice of taxation,\nwhen they know that this tax alone, from which the aristocracy are from\ncircumstances exempt, is nearly equal to the whole of the land-tax,\nbeing in the year 1788, and it is not less now, L1,666,152, and with its\nproportion of the taxes on malt and hops, it exceeds it.--That a single\narticle, thus partially consumed, and that chiefly by the working part,\nshould be subject to a tax, equal to that on the whole rental of a\nnation, is, perhaps, a fact not to be paralleled in the histories of\nrevenues.\n\nThis is one of the circumstances resulting from a house of legislation,\ncomposed on the ground of a combination of common interest; for whatever\ntheir separate politics as to parties may be, in this they are united.\nWhether a combination acts to raise the price of any article for sale,\nor rate of wages; or whether it acts to throw taxes from itself upon\nanother class of the community, the principle and the effect are the\nsame; and if the one be illegal, it will be difficult to show that the\nother ought to exist.\n\nIt is no use to say that taxes are first proposed in the House of\nCommons; for as the other house has always a negative, it can\nalways defend itself; and it would be ridiculous to suppose that its\nacquiescence in the measures to be proposed were not understood\nbefore hand. Besides which, it has obtained so much influence by\nborough-traffic, and so many of its relations and connections are\ndistributed on both sides the commons, as to give it, besides an\nabsolute negative in one house, a preponderancy in the other, in all\nmatters of common concern.\n\nIt is difficult to discover what is meant by the landed interest, if\nit does not mean a combination of aristocratical landholders, opposing\ntheir own pecuniary interest to that of the farmer, and every branch of\ntrade, commerce, and manufacture. In all other respects it is the\nonly interest that needs no partial protection. It enjoys the general\nprotection of the world. Every individual, high or low, is interested\nin the fruits of the earth; men, women, and children, of all ages and\ndegrees, will turn out to assist the farmer, rather than a harvest\nshould not be got in; and they will not act thus by any other property.\nIt is the only one for which the common prayer of mankind is put up,\nand the only one that can never fail from the want of means. It is the\ninterest, not of the policy, but of the existence of man, and when it\nceases, he must cease to be.\n\nNo other interest in a nation stands on the same united support.\nCommerce, manufactures, arts, sciences, and everything else, compared\nwith this, are supported but in parts. Their prosperity or their decay\nhas not the same universal influence. When the valleys laugh and sing,\nit is not the farmer only, but all creation that rejoice. It is a\nprosperity that excludes all envy; and this cannot be said of anything\nelse.\n\nWhy then, does Mr. Burke talk of his house of peers as the pillar of\nthe landed interest? Were that pillar to sink into the earth, the same\nlanded property would continue, and the same ploughing, sowing, and\nreaping would go on. The aristocracy are not the farmers who work the\nland, and raise the produce, but are the mere consumers of the rent; and\nwhen compared with the active world are the drones, a seraglio of males,\nwho neither collect the honey nor form the hive, but exist only for lazy\nenjoyment.\n\nMr. Burke, in his first essay, called aristocracy \"the Corinthian\ncapital of polished society.\" Towards completing the figure, he has now\nadded the pillar; but still the base is wanting; and whenever a nation\nchoose to act a Samson, not blind, but bold, down will go the temple of\nDagon, the Lords and the Philistines.\n\nIf a house of legislation is to be composed of men of one class, for\nthe purpose of protecting a distinct interest, all the other interests\nshould have the same. The inequality, as well as the burthen of\ntaxation, arises from admitting it in one case, and not in all. Had\nthere been a house of farmers, there had been no game laws; or a house\nof merchants and manufacturers, the taxes had neither been so unequal\nnor so excessive. It is from the power of taxation being in the hands of\nthose who can throw so great a part of it from their own shoulders, that\nit has raged without a check.\n\nMen of small or moderate estates are more injured by the taxes being\nthrown on articles of consumption, than they are eased by warding it\nfrom landed property, for the following reasons:\n\nFirst, They consume more of the productive taxable articles, in\nproportion to their property, than those of large estates.\n\nSecondly, Their residence is chiefly in towns, and their property in\nhouses; and the increase of the poor-rates, occasioned by taxes on\nconsumption, is in much greater proportion than the land-tax has\nbeen favoured. In Birmingham, the poor-rates are not less than\nseven shillings in the pound. From this, as is already observed, the\naristocracy are in a great measure exempt.\n\nThese are but a part of the mischiefs flowing from the wretched scheme\nof an house of peers.\n\nAs a combination, it can always throw a considerable portion of taxes\nfrom itself; and as an hereditary house, accountable to nobody, it\nresembles a rotten borough, whose consent is to be courted by interest.\nThere are but few of its members, who are not in some mode or\nother participators, or disposers of the public money. One turns a\ncandle-holder, or a lord in waiting; another a lord of the bed-chamber,\na groom of the stole, or any insignificant nominal office to which a\nsalary is annexed, paid out of the public taxes, and which avoids the\ndirect appearance of corruption. Such situations are derogatory to the\ncharacter of man; and where they can be submitted to, honour cannot\nreside.\n\nTo all these are to be added the numerous dependants, the long list of\nyounger branches and distant relations, who are to be provided for\nat the public expense: in short, were an estimation to be made of the\ncharge of aristocracy to a nation, it will be found nearly equal to that\nof supporting the poor. The Duke of Richmond alone (and there are cases\nsimilar to his) takes away as much for himself as would maintain two\nthousand poor and aged persons. Is it, then, any wonder, that under such\na system of government, taxes and rates have multiplied to their present\nextent?\n\nIn stating these matters, I speak an open and disinterested language,\ndictated by no passion but that of humanity. To me, who have not only\nrefused offers, because I thought them improper, but have declined\nrewards I might with reputation have accepted, it is no wonder that\nmeanness and imposition appear disgustful. Independence is my happiness,\nand I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my\ncountry is the world, and my religion is to do good.\n\nMr. Burke, in speaking of the aristocratical law of primogeniture, says,\n\"it is the standing law of our landed inheritance; and which, without\nquestion, has a tendency, and I think,\" continues he, \"a happy tendency,\nto preserve a character of weight and consequence.\"\n\nMr. Burke may call this law what he pleases, but humanity and impartial\nreflection will denounce it as a law of brutal injustice. Were we not\naccustomed to the daily practice, and did we only hear of it as the\nlaw of some distant part of the world, we should conclude that\nthe legislators of such countries had not arrived at a state of\ncivilisation.\n\nAs to its preserving a character of weight and consequence, the case\nappears to me directly the reverse. It is an attaint upon character;\na sort of privateering on family property. It may have weight among\ndependent tenants, but it gives none on a scale of national, and much\nless of universal character. Speaking for myself, my parents were not\nable to give me a shilling, beyond what they gave me in education; and\nto do this they distressed themselves: yet, I possess more of what is\ncalled consequence, in the world, than any one in Mr. Burke's catalogue\nof aristocrats.\n\nHaving thus glanced at some of the defects of the two houses of\nparliament, I proceed to what is called the crown, upon which I shall be\nvery concise.\n\nIt signifies a nominal office of a million sterling a year, the business\nof which consists in receiving the money. Whether the person be wise\nor foolish, sane or insane, a native or a foreigner, matters not. Every\nministry acts upon the same idea that Mr. Burke writes, namely, that the\npeople must be hood-winked, and held in superstitious ignorance by some\nbugbear or other; and what is called the crown answers this purpose, and\ntherefore it answers all the purposes to be expected from it. This is\nmore than can be said of the other two branches.\n\nThe hazard to which this office is exposed in all countries, is not from\nanything that can happen to the man, but from what may happen to the\nnation--the danger of its coming to its senses.\n\nIt has been customary to call the crown the executive power, and the\ncustom is continued, though the reason has ceased.\n\nIt was called the executive, because the person whom it signified\nused, formerly, to act in the character of a judge, in administering\nor executing the laws. The tribunals were then a part of the court. The\npower, therefore, which is now called the judicial, is what was called\nthe executive and, consequently, one or other of the terms is redundant,\nand one of the offices useless. When we speak of the crown now, it means\nnothing; it signifies neither a judge nor a general: besides which it\nis the laws that govern, and not the man. The old terms are kept up, to\ngive an appearance of consequence to empty forms; and the only effect\nthey have is that of increasing expenses.\n\nBefore I proceed to the means of rendering governments more conducive to\nthe general happiness of mankind, than they are at present, it will not\nbe improper to take a review of the progress of taxation in England.\n\nIt is a general idea, that when taxes are once laid on, they are never\ntaken off. However true this may have been of late, it was not always\nso. Either, therefore, the people of former times were more watchful\nover government than those of the present, or government was\nadministered with less extravagance.\n\nIt is now seven hundred years since the Norman conquest, and the\nestablishment of what is called the crown. Taking this portion of time\nin seven separate periods of one hundred years each, the amount of the\nannual taxes, at each period, will be as follows:\n\n    Annual taxes levied by William the Conqueror,\n                           beginning in the year 1066    L400,000\n    Annual taxes at 100 years from the conquest (1166)    200,000\n    Annual taxes at 200 years from the conquest (1266)    150,000\n    Annual taxes at 300 years from the conquest (1366)    130,000\n    Annual taxes at 400 years from the conquest (1466)    100,000\n\nThese statements and those which follow, are taken from Sir John\nSinclair's History of the Revenue; by which it appears, that taxes\ncontinued decreasing for four hundred years, at the expiration of which\ntime they were reduced three-fourths, viz., from four hundred thousand\npounds to one hundred thousand. The people of England of the present\nday, have a traditionary and historical idea of the bravery of their\nancestors; but whatever their virtues or their vices might have been,\nthey certainly were a people who would not be imposed upon, and who kept\ngovernments in awe as to taxation, if not as to principle. Though they\nwere not able to expel the monarchical usurpation, they restricted it to\na republican economy of taxes.\n\nLet us now review the remaining three hundred years:\n\nAnnual amount of taxes at:\n\n             500 years from the conquest (1566)      500,000\n             600 years from the conquest (1666)    1,800,000\n             the present time (1791)              17,000,000\n\nThe difference between the first four hundred years and the last three,\nis so astonishing, as to warrant an opinion, that the national character\nof the English has changed. It would have been impossible to have\ndragooned the former English, into the excess of taxation that now\nexists; and when it is considered that the pay of the army, the navy,\nand of all the revenue officers, is the same now as it was about a\nhundred years ago, when the taxes were not above a tenth part of what\nthey are at present, it appears impossible to account for the enormous\nincrease and expenditure on any other ground, than extravagance,\ncorruption, and intrigue.*[31]\n\nWith the Revolution of 1688, and more so since the Hanover succession,\ncame the destructive system of continental intrigues, and the rage for\nforeign wars and foreign dominion; systems of such secure mystery that\nthe expenses admit of no accounts; a single line stands for millions. To\nwhat excess taxation might have extended had not the French revolution\ncontributed to break up the system, and put an end to pretences, is\nimpossible to say. Viewed, as that revolution ought to be, as the\nfortunate means of lessening the load of taxes of both countries, it is\nof as much importance to England as to France; and, if properly improved\nto all the advantages of which it is capable, and to which it leads,\ndeserves as much celebration in one country as the other.\n\nIn pursuing this subject, I shall begin with the matter that first\npresents itself, that of lessening the burthen of taxes; and shall then\nadd such matter and propositions, respecting the three countries of\nEngland, France, and America, as the present prospect of things appears\nto justify: I mean, an alliance of the three, for the purposes that will\nbe mentioned in their proper place.\n\nWhat has happened may happen again. By the statement before shown of\nthe progress of taxation, it is seen that taxes have been lessened to\na fourth part of what they had formerly been. Though the present\ncircumstances do not admit of the same reduction, yet they admit of such\na beginning, as may accomplish that end in less time than in the former\ncase.\n\nThe amount of taxes for the year ending at Michaelmas 1788, was as\nfollows:\n\n     Land-tax                             L 1,950,000\n     Customs                                3,789,274\n     Excise (including old and new malt)    6,751,727\n     Stamps                                 1,278,214\n     Miscellaneous taxes and incidents      1,803,755\n                                          -----------\n                                          L15,572,755\n\nSince the year 1788, upwards of one million new taxes have been laid on,\nbesides the produce of the lotteries; and as the taxes have in general\nbeen more productive since than before, the amount may be taken, in\nround numbers, at L17,000,000. (The expense of collection and the\ndrawbacks, which together amount to nearly two millions, are paid out of\nthe gross amount; and the above is the net sum paid into the exchequer).\nThis sum of seventeen millions is applied to two different purposes; the\none to pay the interest of the National Debt, the other to the current\nexpenses of each year. About nine millions are appropriated to the\nformer; and the remainder, being nearly eight millions, to the latter.\nAs to the million, said to be applied to the reduction of the debt, it\nis so much like paying with one hand and taking out with the other, as\nnot to merit much notice. It happened, fortunately for France, that\nshe possessed national domains for paying off her debt, and thereby\nlessening her taxes; but as this is not the case with England, her\nreduction of taxes can only take place by reducing the current expenses,\nwhich may now be done to the amount of four or five millions annually,\nas will hereafter appear. When this is accomplished it will more than\ncounter-balance the enormous charge of the American war; and the saving\nwill be from the same source from whence the evil arose. As to the\nnational debt, however heavy the interest may be in taxes, yet, as it\nserves to keep alive a capital useful to commerce, it balances by its\neffects a considerable part of its own weight; and as the quantity\nof gold and silver is, by some means or other, short of its proper\nproportion, being not more than twenty millions, whereas it should be\nsixty (foreign intrigue, foreign wars, foreign dominions, will in\na great measure account for the deficiency), it would, besides the\ninjustice, be bad policy to extinguish a capital that serves to supply\nthat defect. But with respect to the current expense, whatever is saved\ntherefrom is gain. The excess may serve to keep corruption alive, but it\nhas no re-action on credit and commerce, like the interest of the debt.\n\nIt is now very probable that the English Government (I do not mean\nthe nation) is unfriendly to the French Revolution. Whatever serves to\nexpose the intrigue and lessen the influence of courts, by lessening\ntaxation, will be unwelcome to those who feed upon the spoil. Whilst the\nclamour of French intrigue, arbitrary power, popery, and wooden shoes\ncould be kept up, the nation was easily allured and alarmed into taxes.\nThose days are now past: deception, it is to be hoped, has reaped its\nlast harvest, and better times are in prospect for both countries, and\nfor the world.\n\nTaking it for granted that an alliance may be formed between England,\nFrance, and America for the purposes hereafter to be mentioned, the\nnational expenses of France and England may consequently be lessened.\nThe same fleets and armies will no longer be necessary to either, and\nthe reduction can be made ship for ship on each side. But to accomplish\nthese objects the governments must necessarily be fitted to a common\nand correspondent principle. Confidence can never take place while an\nhostile disposition remains in either, or where mystery and secrecy on\none side is opposed to candour and openness on the other.\n\nThese matters admitted, the national expenses might be put back, for the\nsake of a precedent, to what they were at some period when France and\nEngland were not enemies. This, consequently, must be prior to the\nHanover succession, and also to the Revolution of 1688.*[32] The first\ninstance that presents itself, antecedent to those dates, is in the\nvery wasteful and profligate times of Charles the Second; at which time\nEngland and France acted as allies. If I have chosen a period of great\nextravagance, it will serve to show modern extravagance in a still worse\nlight; especially as the pay of the navy, the army, and the revenue\nofficers has not increased since that time.\n\nThe peace establishment was then as follows (see Sir John Sinclair's\nHistory of the Revenue):\n\n              Navy                 L  300,000\n              Army                    212,000\n              Ordnance                 40,000\n              Civil List              462,115\n                                      -------\n                                   L1,014,115\n\nThe parliament, however, settled the whole annual peace establishment\nat $1,200,000.*[33] If we go back to the time of Elizabeth the amount of\nall the taxes was but half a million, yet the nation sees nothing during\nthat period that reproaches it with want of consequence.\n\nAll circumstances, then, taken together, arising from the French\nrevolution, from the approaching harmony and reciprocal interest of the\ntwo nations, the abolition of the court intrigue on both sides, and\nthe progress of knowledge in the science of government, the annual\nexpenditure might be put back to one million and a half, viz.:\n\n             Navy                    L 500,000\n             Army                      500,000\n             Expenses of Government    500,000\n                                     ----------\n                                     L1,500,000\n\nEven this sum is six times greater than the expenses of government are\nin America, yet the civil internal government in England (I mean that\nadministered by means of quarter sessions, juries and assize, and which,\nin fact, is nearly the whole, and performed by the nation), is\nless expense upon the revenue, than the same species and portion of\ngovernment is in America.\n\nIt is time that nations should be rational, and not be governed like\nanimals, for the pleasure of their riders. To read the history of kings,\na man would be almost inclined to suppose that government consisted in\nstag-hunting, and that every nation paid a million a-year to a huntsman.\nMan ought to have pride, or shame enough to blush at being thus imposed\nupon, and when he feels his proper character he will. Upon all subjects\nof this nature, there is often passing in the mind, a train of ideas he\nhas not yet accustomed himself to encourage and communicate. Restrained\nby something that puts on the character of prudence, he acts the\nhypocrite upon himself as well as to others. It is, however, curious\nto observe how soon this spell can be dissolved. A single expression,\nboldly conceived and uttered, will sometimes put a whole company into\ntheir proper feelings: and whole nations are acted on in the same\nmanner.\n\nAs to the offices of which any civil government may be composed, it\nmatters but little by what names they are described. In the routine of\nbusiness, as before observed, whether a man be styled a president, a\nking, an emperor, a senator, or anything else, it is impossible that any\nservice he can perform, can merit from a nation more than ten thousand\npounds a year; and as no man should be paid beyond his services, so\nevery man of a proper heart will not accept more. Public money ought to\nbe touched with the most scrupulous consciousness of honour. It is\nnot the produce of riches only, but of the hard earnings of labour and\npoverty. It is drawn even from the bitterness of want and misery. Not\na beggar passes, or perishes in the streets, whose mite is not in that\nmass.\n\nWere it possible that the Congress of America could be so lost to their\nduty, and to the interest of their constituents, as to offer General\nWashington, as president of America, a million a year, he would not, and\nhe could not, accept it. His sense of honour is of another kind. It\nhas cost England almost seventy millions sterling, to maintain a family\nimported from abroad, of very inferior capacity to thousands in the\nnation; and scarcely a year has passed that has not produced some new\nmercenary application. Even the physicians' bills have been sent to\nthe public to be paid. No wonder that jails are crowded, and taxes and\npoor-rates increased. Under such systems, nothing is to be looked for\nbut what has already happened; and as to reformation, whenever it come,\nit must be from the nation, and not from the government.\n\nTo show that the sum of five hundred thousand pounds is more than\nsufficient to defray all the expenses of the government, exclusive of\nnavies and armies, the following estimate is added, for any country, of\nthe same extent as England.\n\nIn the first place, three hundred representatives fairly elected, are\nsufficient for all the purposes to which legislation can apply, and\npreferable to a larger number. They may be divided into two or three\nhouses, or meet in one, as in France, or in any manner a constitution\nshall direct.\n\nAs representation is always considered, in free countries, as the most\nhonourable of all stations, the allowance made to it is merely to defray\nthe expense which the representatives incur by that service, and not to\nit as an office.\n\n  If an allowance, at the rate of five hundred pounds per\n    annum, be made to every representative, deducting for\n    non-attendance, the expense, if the whole number\n    attended for six months, each year, would be           L 75,00\n\n  The official departments cannot reasonably exceed the\n    following number, with the salaries annexed:\n\n    Three offices at ten thousand pounds each             L 30,000\n    Ten ditto, at five thousand pounds each                 50,000\n    Twenty ditto, at two thousand pounds each               40,000\n    Forty ditto, at one thousand pounds each                40,000\n    Two hundred ditto, at five hundred pounds each         100,000\n    Three hundred ditto, at two hundred pounds each         60,000\n    Five hundred ditto, at one hundred pounds each          50,000\n    Seven hundred ditto, at seventy-five pounds each        52,500\n                                                          --------\n                                                          L497,500\n\nIf a nation choose, it can deduct four per cent. from all offices, and\nmake one of twenty thousand per annum.\n\nAll revenue officers are paid out of the monies they collect, and\ntherefore, are not in this estimation.\n\nThe foregoing is not offered as an exact detail of offices, but to show\nthe number of rate of salaries which five hundred thousand pounds will\nsupport; and it will, on experience, be found impracticable to find\nbusiness sufficient to justify even this expense. As to the manner in\nwhich office business is now performed, the Chiefs, in several offices,\nsuch as the post-office, and certain offices in the exchequer, etc., do\nlittle more than sign their names three or four times a year; and the\nwhole duty is performed by under-clerks.\n\nTaking, therefore, one million and a half as a sufficient peace\nestablishment for all the honest purposes of government, which is\nthree hundred thousand pounds more than the peace establishment in the\nprofligate and prodigal times of Charles the Second (notwithstanding, as\nhas been already observed, the pay and salaries of the army, navy,\nand revenue officers, continue the same as at that period), there will\nremain a surplus of upwards of six millions out of the present current\nexpenses. The question then will be, how to dispose of this surplus.\n\nWhoever has observed the manner in which trade and taxes twist\nthemselves together, must be sensible of the impossibility of separating\nthem suddenly.\n\nFirst. Because the articles now on hand are already charged with the\nduty, and the reduction cannot take place on the present stock.\n\nSecondly. Because, on all those articles on which the duty is charged\nin the gross, such as per barrel, hogshead, hundred weight, or ton, the\nabolition of the duty does not admit of being divided down so as fully\nto relieve the consumer, who purchases by the pint, or the pound. The\nlast duty laid on strong beer and ale was three shillings per barrel,\nwhich, if taken off, would lessen the purchase only half a farthing per\npint, and consequently, would not reach to practical relief.\n\nThis being the condition of a great part of the taxes, it will be\nnecessary to look for such others as are free from this embarrassment\nand where the relief will be direct and visible, and capable of\nimmediate operation.\n\nIn the first place, then, the poor-rates are a direct tax which every\nhouse-keeper feels, and who knows also, to a farthing, the sum which\nhe pays. The national amount of the whole of the poor-rates is not\npositively known, but can be procured. Sir John Sinclair, in his History\nof the Revenue has stated it at L2,100,587. A considerable part of\nwhich is expended in litigations, in which the poor, instead of being\nrelieved, are tormented. The expense, however, is the same to the parish\nfrom whatever cause it arises.\n\nIn Birmingham, the amount of poor-rates is fourteen thousand pounds\na year. This, though a large sum, is moderate, compared with the\npopulation. Birmingham is said to contain seventy thousand souls, and on\na proportion of seventy thousand to fourteen thousand pounds poor-rates,\nthe national amount of poor-rates, taking the population of England as\nseven millions, would be but one million four hundred thousand pounds.\nIt is, therefore, most probable, that the population of Birmingham\nis over-rated. Fourteen thousand pounds is the proportion upon fifty\nthousand souls, taking two millions of poor-rates, as the national\namount.\n\nBe it, however, what it may, it is no other than the consequence of\nexcessive burthen of taxes, for, at the time when the taxes were very\nlow, the poor were able to maintain themselves; and there were no\npoor-rates.*[34] In the present state of things a labouring man, with a\nwife or two or three children, does not pay less than between seven and\neight pounds a year in taxes. He is not sensible of this, because it is\ndisguised to him in the articles which he buys, and he thinks only of\ntheir dearness; but as the taxes take from him, at least, a fourth part\nof his yearly earnings, he is consequently disabled from providing for\na family, especially, if himself, or any of them, are afflicted with\nsickness.\n\nThe first step, therefore, of practical relief, would be to abolish the\npoor-rates entirely, and in lieu thereof, to make a remission of taxes\nto the poor of double the amount of the present poor-rates, viz., four\nmillions annually out of the surplus taxes. By this measure, the poor\nwould be benefited two millions, and the house-keepers two millions.\nThis alone would be equal to a reduction of one hundred and twenty\nmillions of the National Debt, and consequently equal to the whole\nexpense of the American War.\n\nIt will then remain to be considered, which is the most effectual mode\nof distributing this remission of four millions.\n\nIt is easily seen, that the poor are generally composed of large\nfamilies of children, and old people past their labour. If these two\nclasses are provided for, the remedy will so far reach to the full\nextent of the case, that what remains will be incidental, and, in a\ngreat measure, fall within the compass of benefit clubs, which, though\nof humble invention, merit to be ranked among the best of modern\ninstitutions.\n\nAdmitting England to contain seven millions of souls; if one-fifth\nthereof are of that class of poor which need support, the number will be\none million four hundred thousand. Of this number, one hundred and forty\nthousand will be aged poor, as will be hereafter shown, and for which a\ndistinct provision will be proposed.\n\nThere will then remain one million two hundred and sixty thousand\nwhich, at five souls to each family, amount to two hundred and fifty-two\nthousand families, rendered poor from the expense of children and the\nweight of taxes.\n\nThe number of children under fourteen years of age, in each of those\nfamilies, will be found to be about five to every two families; some\nhaving two, and others three; some one, and others four: some none,\nand others five; but it rarely happens that more than five are under\nfourteen years of age, and after this age they are capable of service or\nof being apprenticed.\n\nAllowing five children (under fourteen years) to every two families,\n\nThe number of children will be 630,000\n\nThe number of parents, were they all living, would be 504,000\n\nIt is certain, that if the children are provided for, the parents are\nrelieved of consequence, because it is from the expense of bringing up\nchildren that their poverty arises.\n\nHaving thus ascertained the greatest number that can be supposed to need\nsupport on account of young families, I proceed to the mode of relief or\ndistribution, which is,\n\nTo pay as a remission of taxes to every poor family, out of the surplus\ntaxes, and in room of poor-rates, four pounds a year for every child\nunder fourteen years of age; enjoining the parents of such children to\nsend them to school, to learn reading, writing, and common arithmetic;\nthe ministers of every parish, of every denomination to certify jointly\nto an office, for that purpose, that this duty is performed. The amount\nof this expense will be,\n\n    For six hundred and thirty thousand children\n     at four pounds per annum each                    L2,520,000\n\nBy adopting this method, not only the poverty of the parents will be\nrelieved, but ignorance will be banished from the rising generation, and\nthe number of poor will hereafter become less, because their abilities,\nby the aid of education, will be greater. Many a youth, with good\nnatural genius, who is apprenticed to a mechanical trade, such as\na carpenter, joiner, millwright, shipwright, blacksmith, etc., is\nprevented getting forward the whole of his life from the want of a\nlittle common education when a boy.\n\nI now proceed to the case of the aged.\n\nI divide age into two classes. First, the approach of age, beginning at\nfifty. Secondly, old age commencing at sixty.\n\nAt fifty, though the mental faculties of man are in full vigour, and\nhis judgment better than at any preceding date, the bodily powers for\nlaborious life are on the decline. He cannot bear the same quantity of\nfatigue as at an earlier period. He begins to earn less, and is\nless capable of enduring wind and weather; and in those more retired\nemployments where much sight is required, he fails apace, and sees\nhimself, like an old horse, beginning to be turned adrift.\n\nAt sixty his labour ought to be over, at least from direct necessity.\nIt is painful to see old age working itself to death, in what are called\ncivilised countries, for daily bread.\n\nTo form some judgment of the number of those above fifty years of age,\nI have several times counted the persons I met in the streets of London,\nmen, women, and children, and have generally found that the average is\nabout one in sixteen or seventeen. If it be said that aged persons\ndo not come much into the streets, so neither do infants; and a great\nproportion of grown children are in schools and in work-shops as\napprentices. Taking, then, sixteen for a divisor, the whole number of\npersons in England of fifty years and upwards, of both sexes, rich and\npoor, will be four hundred and twenty thousand.\n\nThe persons to be provided for out of this gross number will be\nhusbandmen, common labourers, journeymen of every trade and their wives,\nsailors, and disbanded soldiers, worn out servants of both sexes, and\npoor widows.\n\nThere will be also a considerable number of middling tradesmen,\nwho having lived decently in the former part of life, begin, as age\napproaches, to lose their business, and at last fall to decay.\n\nBesides these there will be constantly thrown off from the revolutions\nof that wheel which no man can stop nor regulate, a number from every\nclass of life connected with commerce and adventure.\n\nTo provide for all those accidents, and whatever else may befall, I take\nthe number of persons who, at one time or other of their lives, after\nfifty years of age, may feel it necessary or comfortable to be better\nsupported, than they can support themselves, and that not as a matter of\ngrace and favour, but of right, at one-third of the whole number, which\nis one hundred and forty thousand, as stated in a previous page, and\nfor whom a distinct provision was proposed to be made. If there be more,\nsociety, notwithstanding the show and pomposity of government, is in a\ndeplorable condition in England.\n\nOf this one hundred and forty thousand, I take one half, seventy\nthousand, to be of the age of fifty and under sixty, and the other half\nto be sixty years and upwards. Having thus ascertained the probable\nproportion of the number of aged persons, I proceed to the mode of\nrendering their condition comfortable, which is:\n\nTo pay to every such person of the age of fifty years, and until he\nshall arrive at the age of sixty, the sum of six pounds per annum out of\nthe surplus taxes, and ten pounds per annum during life after the age of\nsixty. The expense of which will be,\n\n    Seventy thousand persons, at L6 per annum      L  420,000\n    Seventy thousand persons, at L10 per annum        700,000\n                                                      -------\n                                                   L1,120,000\n\nThis support, as already remarked, is not of the nature of a charity but\nof a right. Every person in England, male and female, pays on an average\nin taxes two pounds eight shillings and sixpence per annum from the day\nof his (or her) birth; and, if the expense of collection be added, he\npays two pounds eleven shillings and sixpence; consequently, at the end\nof fifty years he has paid one hundred and twenty-eight pounds fifteen\nshillings; and at sixty one hundred and fifty-four pounds ten shillings.\nConverting, therefore, his (or her) individual tax in a tontine, the\nmoney he shall receive after fifty years is but little more than the\nlegal interest of the net money he has paid; the rest is made up from\nthose whose circumstances do not require them to draw such support, and\nthe capital in both cases defrays the expenses of government. It is on\nthis ground that I have extended the probable claims to one-third of\nthe number of aged persons in the nation.--Is it, then, better that\nthe lives of one hundred and forty thousand aged persons be rendered\ncomfortable, or that a million a year of public money be expended on\nany one individual, and him often of the most worthless or insignificant\ncharacter? Let reason and justice, let honour and humanity, let even\nhypocrisy, sycophancy and Mr. Burke, let George, let Louis,\nLeopold, Frederic, Catherine, Cornwallis, or Tippoo Saib, answer the\nquestion.*[35]\n\nThe sum thus remitted to the poor will be,\n\n  To two hundred and fifty-two thousand poor families,\n    containing six hundred and thirty thousand children  L2,520,000\n  To one hundred and forty thousand aged persons          1,120,000\n                                                         ----------\n                                                         L3,640,000\n\nThere will then remain three hundred and sixty thousand pounds out of\nthe four millions, part of which may be applied as follows:--\n\nAfter all the above cases are provided for there will still be a number\nof families who, though not properly of the class of poor, yet find it\ndifficult to give education to their children; and such children, under\nsuch a case, would be in a worse condition than if their parents were\nactually poor. A nation under a well-regulated government should permit\nnone to remain uninstructed. It is monarchical and aristocratical\ngovernment only that requires ignorance for its support.\n\nSuppose, then, four hundred thousand children to be in this condition,\nwhich is a greater number than ought to be supposed after the provisions\nalready made, the method will be:\n\nTo allow for each of those children ten shillings a year for the\nexpense of schooling for six years each, which will give them six months\nschooling each year, and half a crown a year for paper and spelling\nbooks.\n\nThe expense of this will be annually L250,000.*[36]\n\nThere will then remain one hundred and ten thousand pounds.\n\nNotwithstanding the great modes of relief which the best instituted and\nbest principled government may devise, there will be a number of smaller\ncases, which it is good policy as well as beneficence in a nation to\nconsider.\n\nWere twenty shillings to be given immediately on the birth of a child,\nto every woman who should make the demand, and none will make it whose\ncircumstances do not require it, it might relieve a great deal of\ninstant distress.\n\nThere are about two hundred thousand births yearly in England; and if\nclaimed by one fourth,\n\n        The amount would be                    L50,000\n\nAnd twenty shillings to every new-married couple who should claim in\nlike manner. This would not exceed the sum of L20,000.\n\nAlso twenty thousand pounds to be appropriated to defray the funeral\nexpenses of persons, who, travelling for work, may die at a distance\nfrom their friends. By relieving parishes from this charge, the sick\nstranger will be better treated.\n\nI shall finish this part of the subject with a plan adapted to the\nparticular condition of a metropolis, such as London.\n\nCases are continually occurring in a metropolis, different from those\nwhich occur in the country, and for which a different, or rather an\nadditional, mode of relief is necessary. In the country, even in large\ntowns, people have a knowledge of each other, and distress never rises\nto that extreme height it sometimes does in a metropolis. There is no\nsuch thing in the country as persons, in the literal sense of the word,\nstarved to death, or dying with cold from the want of a lodging. Yet\nsuch cases, and others equally as miserable, happen in London.\n\nMany a youth comes up to London full of expectations, and with little\nor no money, and unless he get immediate employment he is already half\nundone; and boys bred up in London without any means of a livelihood,\nand as it often happens of dissolute parents, are in a still worse\ncondition; and servants long out of place are not much better off. In\nshort, a world of little cases is continually arising, which busy or\naffluent life knows not of, to open the first door to distress. Hunger\nis not among the postponable wants, and a day, even a few hours, in such\na condition is often the crisis of a life of ruin.\n\nThese circumstances which are the general cause of the little thefts\nand pilferings that lead to greater, may be prevented. There yet remain\ntwenty thousand pounds out of the four millions of surplus taxes, which\nwith another fund hereafter to be mentioned, amounting to about twenty\nthousand pounds more, cannot be better applied than to this purpose. The\nplan will then be:\n\nFirst, To erect two or more buildings, or take some already erected,\ncapable of containing at least six thousand persons, and to have in each\nof these places as many kinds of employment as can be contrived, so that\nevery person who shall come may find something which he or she can do.\n\nSecondly, To receive all who shall come, without enquiring who or what\nthey are. The only condition to be, that for so much, or so many hours'\nwork, each person shall receive so many meals of wholesome food, and a\nwarm lodging, at least as good as a barrack. That a certain portion of\nwhat each person's work shall be worth shall be reserved, and given to\nhim or her, on their going away; and that each person shall stay as long\nor as short a time, or come as often as he choose, on these conditions.\n\nIf each person stayed three months, it would assist by rotation\ntwenty-four thousand persons annually, though the real number, at all\ntimes, would be but six thousand. By establishing an asylum of this\nkind, such persons to whom temporary distresses occur, would have an\nopportunity to recruit themselves, and be enabled to look out for better\nemployment.\n\nAllowing that their labour paid but one half the expense of supporting\nthem, after reserving a portion of their earnings for themselves, the\nsum of forty thousand pounds additional would defray all other charges\nfor even a greater number than six thousand.\n\nThe fund very properly convertible to this purpose, in addition to\nthe twenty thousand pounds, remaining of the former fund, will be the\nproduce of the tax upon coals, so iniquitously and wantonly applied to\nthe support of the Duke of Richmond. It is horrid that any man, more\nespecially at the price coals now are, should live on the distresses of\na community; and any government permitting such an abuse, deserves to\nbe dismissed. This fund is said to be about twenty thousand pounds per\nannum.\n\nI shall now conclude this plan with enumerating the several particulars,\nand then proceed to other matters.\n\nThe enumeration is as follows:--\n\nFirst, Abolition of two millions poor-rates.\n\nSecondly, Provision for two hundred and fifty thousand poor families.\n\nThirdly, Education for one million and thirty thousand children.\n\nFourthly, Comfortable provision for one hundred and forty thousand aged\npersons.\n\nFifthly, Donation of twenty shillings each for fifty thousand births.\n\nSixthly, Donation of twenty shillings each for twenty thousand\nmarriages.\n\nSeventhly, Allowance of twenty thousand pounds for the funeral expenses\nof persons travelling for work, and dying at a distance from their\nfriends.\n\nEighthly, Employment, at all times, for the casual poor in the cities of\nLondon and Westminster.\n\nBy the operation of this plan, the poor laws, those instruments of civil\ntorture, will be superseded, and the wasteful expense of litigation\nprevented. The hearts of the humane will not be shocked by ragged and\nhungry children, and persons of seventy and eighty years of age, begging\nfor bread. The dying poor will not be dragged from place to place to\nbreathe their last, as a reprisal of parish upon parish. Widows will\nhave a maintenance for their children, and not be carted away, on the\ndeath of their husbands, like culprits and criminals; and children will\nno longer be considered as increasing the distresses of their parents.\nThe haunts of the wretched will be known, because it will be to their\nadvantage; and the number of petty crimes, the offspring of distress and\npoverty, will be lessened. The poor, as well as the rich, will then be\ninterested in the support of government, and the cause and apprehension\nof riots and tumults will cease.--Ye who sit in ease, and solace\nyourselves in plenty, and such there are in Turkey and Russia, as well\nas in England, and who say to yourselves, \"Are we not well off?\" have ye\nthought of these things? When ye do, ye will cease to speak and feel for\nyourselves alone.\n\nThe plan is easy in practice. It does not embarrass trade by a sudden\ninterruption in the order of taxes, but effects the relief by changing\nthe application of them; and the money necessary for the purpose can be\ndrawn from the excise collections, which are made eight times a year in\nevery market town in England.\n\nHaving now arranged and concluded this subject, I proceed to the next.\n\nTaking the present current expenses at seven millions and an half, which\nis the least amount they are now at, there will remain (after the sum of\none million and an half be taken for the new current expenses and four\nmillions for the before-mentioned service) the sum of two millions; part\nof which to be applied as follows:\n\nThough fleets and armies, by an alliance with France, will, in a great\nmeasure, become useless, yet the persons who have devoted themselves to\nthose services, and have thereby unfitted themselves for other lines of\nlife, are not to be sufferers by the means that make others happy. They\nare a different description of men from those who form or hang about a\ncourt.\n\nA part of the army will remain, at least for some years, and also of the\nnavy, for which a provision is already made in the former part of this\nplan of one million, which is almost half a million more than the peace\nestablishment of the army and navy in the prodigal times of Charles the\nSecond.\n\nSuppose, then, fifteen thousand soldiers to be disbanded, and that an\nallowance be made to each of three shillings a week during life, clear\nof all deductions, to be paid in the same manner as the Chelsea College\npensioners are paid, and for them to return to their trades and their\nfriends; and also that an addition of fifteen thousand sixpences per\nweek be made to the pay of the soldiers who shall remain; the annual\nexpenses will be:\n\n    To the pay of fifteen thousand disbanded soldiers\n      at three shillings per week                        L117,000\n    Additional pay to the remaining soldiers               19,500\n    Suppose that the pay to the officers of the\n      disbanded corps be the same amount as sum allowed\n      to the men                                          117,000\n                                                         --------                                                         L253,500\n\n    To prevent bulky estimations, admit the same sum\n      to the disbanded navy as to the army,\n      and the same increase of pay                        253,500\n                                                         --------\n                                       Total             L507,000\n\nEvery year some part of this sum of half a million (I omit the odd seven\nthousand pounds for the purpose of keeping the account unembarrassed)\nwill fall in, and the whole of it in time, as it is on the ground of\nlife annuities, except the increased pay of twenty-nine thousand\npounds. As it falls in, part of the taxes may be taken off; and as, for\ninstance, when thirty thousand pounds fall in, the duty on hops may be\nwholly taken off; and as other parts fall in, the duties on candles and\nsoap may be lessened, till at last they will totally cease. There now\nremains at least one million and a half of surplus taxes.\n\nThe tax on houses and windows is one of those direct taxes, which, like\nthe poor-rates, is not confounded with trade; and, when taken off, the\nrelief will be instantly felt. This tax falls heavy on the middle class\nof people. The amount of this tax, by the returns of 1788, was:\n\n   Houses and windows:                       L       s.    d.\n    By the act of 1766                    385,459    11    7\n    By the act be 1779                    130,739    14    5 1/2\n                                          ----------------------\n                             Total        516,199     6    0 1/2\n\nIf this tax be struck off, there will then remain about one million of\nsurplus taxes; and as it is always proper to keep a sum in reserve, for\nincidental matters, it may be best not to extend reductions further in\nthe first instance, but to consider what may be accomplished by other\nmodes of reform.\n\nAmong the taxes most heavily felt is the commutation tax. I shall\ntherefore offer a plan for its abolition, by substituting another in its\nplace, which will effect three objects at once: 1, that of removing\nthe burthen to where it can best be borne; 2, restoring justice among\nfamilies by a distribution of property; 3, extirpating the overgrown\ninfluence arising from the unnatural law of primogeniture, which is\none of the principal sources of corruption at elections. The amount of\ncommutation tax by the returns of 1788, was L771,657.\n\nWhen taxes are proposed, the country is amused by the plausible language\nof taxing luxuries. One thing is called a luxury at one time, and\nsomething else at another; but the real luxury does not consist in the\narticle, but in the means of procuring it, and this is always kept out\nof sight.\n\nI know not why any plant or herb of the field should be a greater luxury\nin one country than another; but an overgrown estate in either is a\nluxury at all times, and, as such, is the proper object of taxation. It\nis, therefore, right to take those kind tax-making gentlemen up on their\nown word, and argue on the principle themselves have laid down, that of\ntaxing luxuries. If they or their champion, Mr. Burke, who, I fear, is\ngrowing out of date, like the man in armour, can prove that an estate of\ntwenty, thirty, or forty thousand pounds a year is not a luxury, I will\ngive up the argument.\n\nAdmitting that any annual sum, say, for instance, one thousand pounds,\nis necessary or sufficient for the support of a family, consequently the\nsecond thousand is of the nature of a luxury, the third still more so,\nand by proceeding on, we shall at last arrive at a sum that may not\nimproperly be called a prohibitable luxury. It would be impolitic to set\nbounds to property acquired by industry, and therefore it is right to\nplace the prohibition beyond the probable acquisition to which\nindustry can extend; but there ought to be a limit to property or the\naccumulation of it by bequest. It should pass in some other line. The\nrichest in every nation have poor relations, and those often very near\nin consanguinity.\n\nThe following table of progressive taxation is constructed on the above\nprinciples, and as a substitute for the commutation tax. It will reach\nthe point of prohibition by a regular operation, and thereby supersede\nthe aristocratical law of primogeniture.\n\n                              TABLE I\n     A tax on all estates of the clear yearly value of L50,\n              after deducting the land tax, and up\n\n           To L500                      0s   3d per pound\n           From L500 to L1,000          0    6\n           On the second   thousand     0    9\n           On the third         \"       1    0\n           On the fourth        \"       1    6\n           On the fifth         \"       2    0\n           On the sixth         \"       3    0\n           On the seventh       \"       4    0\n           On the eighth        \"       5    0\n           On the ninth         \"       6s   0d per pound\n           On the tenth         \"       7    0\n           On the eleventh      \"       8    0\n           On the twelfth       \"       9    0\n           On the thirteenth    \"      10    0\n           On the fourteenth    \"      11    0\n           On the fifteenth     \"      12    0\n           On the sixteenth     \"      13    0\n           On the seventeenth   \"      14    0\n           On the eighteenth    \"      15    0\n           On the nineteenth    \"      16    0\n           On the twentieth     \"      17    0\n           On the twenty-first  \"      18    0\n           On the twenty-second \"      19    0\n           On the twenty-third  \"      20    0\n\nThe foregoing table shows the progression per pound on every progressive\nthousand. The following table shows the amount of the tax on every\nthousand separately, and in the last column the total amount of all the\nseparate sums collected.\n\n                               TABLE II\n  An estate of:\n    L 50 per annum      at 3d per pound pays      L0   12   6\n     100  \"    \"           \"             \"         1    5   0\n     200  \"    \"           \"             \"         2   10   0\n     300  \"    \"           \"             \"         3   15   0\n     400  \"    \"           \"             \"         5    0   0\n     500  \"    \"           \"             \"         7    5   0\n\nAfter L500, the tax of 6d. per pound takes place on the second L500;\nconsequently an estate of L1,000 per annum pays L2l, 15s., and so on.\n\n                                                     Total amount\n  For the 1st L500 at   0s   3d per pound   L7   5s\n          2nd   \"       0    6              14  10     L21   15s\n          2nd 1000 at   0    9              37  11      59    5\n          3rd   \"       1    0              50   0     109    5\n                                                    (Total amount)\n          4th 1000 at   1s   6d per pound  L75   0s   L184    5s\n          5th   \"       2    0             100   0     284    5\n          6th   \"       3    0             150   0     434    5\n          7th   \"       4    0             200   0     634    5\n          8th   \"       5    0             250   0     880    5\n          9th   \"       6    0             300   0    1100    5\n         10th   \"       7    0             350   0    1530    5\n         11th   \"       8    0             400   0    1930    5\n         12th   \"       9    0             450   0    2380    5\n         13th   \"      10    0             500   0    2880    5\n         14th   \"      11    0             550   0    3430    5\n         15th   \"      12    0             600   0    4030    5\n         16th   \"      13    0             650   0    4680    5\n         17th   \"      14    0             700   0    5380    5\n         18th   \"      15    0             750   0    6130    5\n         19th   \"      16    0             800   0    6930    5\n         20th   \"      17    0             850   0    7780    5\n         21st   \"      18    0             900   0    8680    5\n                                                    (Total amount)\n         22nd 1000 at  19s   0d per pound L950   0s  L9630    5s\n         23rd   \"      20    0            1000   0   10630    5\n\nAt the twenty-third thousand the tax becomes 20s. in the pound, and\nconsequently every thousand beyond that sum can produce no profit but by\ndividing the estate. Yet formidable as this tax appears, it will not, I\nbelieve, produce so much as the commutation tax; should it produce more,\nit ought to be lowered to that amount upon estates under two or three\nthousand a year.\n\nOn small and middling estates it is lighter (as it is intended to be)\nthan the commutation tax. It is not till after seven or eight thousand\na year that it begins to be heavy. The object is not so much the produce\nof the tax as the justice of the measure. The aristocracy has screened\nitself too much, and this serves to restore a part of the lost\nequilibrium.\n\nAs an instance of its screening itself, it is only necessary to look\nback to the first establishment of the excise laws, at what is called\nthe Restoration, or the coming of Charles the Second. The aristocratical\ninterest then in power, commuted the feudal services itself was under,\nby laying a tax on beer brewed for sale; that is, they compounded with\nCharles for an exemption from those services for themselves and their\nheirs, by a tax to be paid by other people. The aristocracy do not\npurchase beer brewed for sale, but brew their own beer free of the duty,\nand if any commutation at that time were necessary, it ought to have\nbeen at the expense of those for whom the exemptions from those services\nwere intended;*[37] instead of which, it was thrown on an entirely\ndifferent class of men.\n\nBut the chief object of this progressive tax (besides the justice of\nrendering taxes more equal than they are) is, as already stated, to\nextirpate the overgrown influence arising from the unnatural law of\nprimogeniture, and which is one of the principal sources of corruption\nat elections.\n\nIt would be attended with no good consequences to enquire how such vast\nestates as thirty, forty, or fifty thousand a year could commence, and\nthat at a time when commerce and manufactures were not in a state to\nadmit of such acquisitions. Let it be sufficient to remedy the evil by\nputting them in a condition of descending again to the community by the\nquiet means of apportioning them among all the heirs and heiresses of\nthose families. This will be the more necessary, because hitherto the\naristocracy have quartered their younger children and connections upon\nthe public in useless posts, places and offices, which when abolished\nwill leave them destitute, unless the law of primogeniture be also\nabolished or superseded.\n\nA progressive tax will, in a great measure, effect this object, and that\nas a matter of interest to the parties most immediately concerned, as\nwill be seen by the following table; which shows the net produce upon\nevery estate, after subtracting the tax. By this it will appear that\nafter an estate exceeds thirteen or fourteen thousand a year, the\nremainder produces but little profit to the holder, and consequently,\nWill pass either to the younger children, or to other kindred.\n\n                            TABLE III\n     Showing the net produce of every estate from one thousand\n             to twenty-three thousand pounds a year\n\n          No of thousand       Total tax\n             per annum         subtracted       Net produce\n               L1000              L21               L979\n                2000               59               1941\n                3000              109               2891\n                4000              184               3816\n                5000              284               4716\n                6000              434               5566\n                7000              634               6366\n                8000              880               7120\n                9000             1100               7900\n              10,000             1530               8470\n              11,000             1930               9070\n              12,000             2380               9620\n              13,000             2880             10,120\n         (No of thousand      (Total tax\n             per annum)        subtracted)     (Net produce)\n              14,000             3430             10,570\n              15,000             4030             10,970\n              16,000             4680             11,320\n              17,000             5380             11,620\n              18,000             6130             11,870\n              19,000             6930             12,170\n              20,000             7780             12,220\n              21,000             8680             12,320\n              22,000             9630             12,370\n              23,000           10,630             12,370\n\nN.B. The odd shillings are dropped in this table.\n\nAccording to this table, an estate cannot produce more than L12,370\nclear of the land tax and the progressive tax, and therefore the\ndividing such estates will follow as a matter of family interest. An\nestate of L23,000 a year, divided into five estates of four thousand\neach and one of three, will be charged only L1,129 which is but five per\ncent., but if held by one possessor, will be charged L10,630.\n\nAlthough an enquiry into the origin of those estates be unnecessary, the\ncontinuation of them in their present state is another subject. It is a\nmatter of national concern. As hereditary estates, the law has created\nthe evil, and it ought also to provide the remedy. Primogeniture ought\nto be abolished, not only because it is unnatural and unjust, but\nbecause the country suffers by its operation. By cutting off (as before\nobserved) the younger children from their proper portion of inheritance,\nthe public is loaded with the expense of maintaining them; and the\nfreedom of elections violated by the overbearing influence which\nthis unjust monopoly of family property produces. Nor is this all. It\noccasions a waste of national property. A considerable part of the land\nof the country is rendered unproductive, by the great extent of parks\nand chases which this law serves to keep up, and this at a time when\nthe annual production of grain is not equal to the national\nconsumption.*[38]--In short, the evils of the aristocratical system are\nso great and numerous, so inconsistent with every thing that is just,\nwise, natural, and beneficent, that when they are considered, there\nought not to be a doubt that many, who are now classed under that\ndescription, will wish to see such a system abolished.\n\nWhat pleasure can they derive from contemplating the exposed\ncondition, and almost certain beggary of their younger offspring? Every\naristocratical family has an appendage of family beggars hanging round\nit, which in a few ages, or a few generations, are shook off, and\nconsole themselves with telling their tale in almshouses, workhouses,\nand prisons. This is the natural consequence of aristocracy. The peer\nand the beggar are often of the same family. One extreme produces the\nother: to make one rich many must be made poor; neither can the system\nbe supported by other means.\n\nThere are two classes of people to whom the laws of England are\nparticularly hostile, and those the most helpless; younger children,\nand the poor. Of the former I have just spoken; of the latter I shall\nmention one instance out of the many that might be produced, and with\nwhich I shall close this subject.\n\nSeveral laws are in existence for regulating and limiting work-men's\nwages. Why not leave them as free to make their own bargains, as the\nlaw-makers are to let their farms and houses? Personal labour is all\nthe property they have. Why is that little, and the little freedom they\nenjoy, to be infringed? But the injustice will appear stronger, if we\nconsider the operation and effect of such laws. When wages are fixed\nby what is called a law, the legal wages remain stationary, while every\nthing else is in progression; and as those who make that law still\ncontinue to lay on new taxes by other laws, they increase the expense of\nliving by one law, and take away the means by another.\n\nBut if these gentlemen law-makers and tax-makers thought it right to\nlimit the poor pittance which personal labour can produce, and on which\na whole family is to be supported, they certainly must feel themselves\nhappily indulged in a limitation on their own part, of not less than\ntwelve thousand a-year, and that of property they never acquired (nor\nprobably any of their ancestors), and of which they have made never\nacquire so ill a use.\n\nHaving now finished this subject, I shall bring the several particulars\ninto one view, and then proceed to other matters.\n\nThe first eight articles, mentioned earlier, are;\n\n1. Abolition of two millions poor-rates.\n\n2. Provision for two hundred and fifty-two thousand poor families, at\nthe rate of four pounds per head for each child under fourteen years of\nage; which, with the addition of two hundred and fifty thousand pounds,\nprovides also education for one million and thirty thousand children.\n\n3. Annuity of six pounds (per annum) each for all poor persons, decayed\ntradesmen, and others (supposed seventy thousand) of the age of fifty\nyears, and until sixty.\n\n4. Annuity of ten pounds each for life for all poor persons, decayed\ntradesmen, and others (supposed seventy thousand) of the age of sixty\nyears.\n\n5. Donation of twenty shillings each for fifty thousand births.\n\n6. Donation of twenty shillings each for twenty thousand marriages.\n\n7. Allowance of twenty thousand pounds for the funeral expenses of\npersons travelling for work, and dying at a distance from their friends.\n\n8. Employment at all times for the casual poor in the cities of London\nand Westminster.\n\nSecond Enumeration\n\n9. Abolition of the tax on houses and windows.\n\n10. Allowance of three shillings per week for life to fifteen thousand\ndisbanded soldiers, and a proportionate allowance to the officers of the\ndisbanded corps.\n\n11. Increase of pay to the remaining soldiers of L19,500 annually.\n\n12. The same allowance to the disbanded navy, and the same increase of\npay, as to the army.\n\n13. Abolition of the commutation tax.\n\n14. Plan of a progressive tax, operating to extirpate the unjust\nand unnatural law of primogeniture, and the vicious influence of the\naristocratical system.*[39]\n\nThere yet remains, as already stated, one million of surplus taxes. Some\npart of this will be required for circumstances that do not immediately\npresent themselves, and such part as shall not be wanted, will admit of\na further reduction of taxes equal to that amount.\n\nAmong the claims that justice requires to be made, the condition of the\ninferior revenue-officers will merit attention. It is a reproach to\nany government to waste such an immensity of revenue in sinecures and\nnominal and unnecessary places and officers, and not allow even a decent\nlivelihood to those on whom the labour falls. The salary of the inferior\nofficers of the revenue has stood at the petty pittance of less than\nfifty pounds a year for upwards of one hundred years. It ought to be\nseventy. About one hundred and twenty thousand pounds applied to this\npurpose, will put all those salaries in a decent condition.\n\nThis was proposed to be done almost twenty years ago, but the\ntreasury-board then in being, startled at it, as it might lead to\nsimilar expectations from the army and navy; and the event was, that the\nKing, or somebody for him, applied to parliament to have his own salary\nraised an hundred thousand pounds a year, which being done, every thing\nelse was laid aside.\n\nWith respect to another class of men, the inferior clergy, I forbear to\nenlarge on their condition; but all partialities and prejudices for,\nor against, different modes and forms of religion aside, common justice\nwill determine, whether there ought to be an income of twenty or thirty\npounds a year to one man, and of ten thousand to another. I speak on\nthis subject with the more freedom, because I am known not to be a\nPresbyterian; and therefore the cant cry of court sycophants, about\nchurch and meeting, kept up to amuse and bewilder the nation, cannot be\nraised against me.\n\nYe simple men on both sides the question, do you not see through this\ncourtly craft? If ye can be kept disputing and wrangling about church\nand meeting, ye just answer the purpose of every courtier, who lives the\nwhile on the spoils of the taxes, and laughs at your credulity. Every\nreligion is good that teaches man to be good; and I know of none that\ninstructs him to be bad.\n\nAll the before-mentioned calculations suppose only sixteen millions\nand an half of taxes paid into the exchequer, after the expense of\ncollection and drawbacks at the custom-house and excise-office are\ndeducted; whereas the sum paid into the exchequer is very nearly, if not\nquite, seventeen millions. The taxes raised in Scotland and Ireland are\nexpended in those countries, and therefore their savings will come out\nof their own taxes; but if any part be paid into the English exchequer,\nit might be remitted. This will not make one hundred thousand pounds a\nyear difference.\n\nThere now remains only the national debt to be considered. In the year\n1789, the interest, exclusive of the tontine, was L9,150,138. How much\nthe capital has been reduced since that time the minister best knows.\nBut after paying the interest, abolishing the tax on houses and windows,\nthe commutation tax, and the poor-rates; and making all the provisions\nfor the poor, for the education of children, the support of the aged,\nthe disbanded part of the army and navy, and increasing the pay of the\nremainder, there will be a surplus of one million.\n\nThe present scheme of paying off the national debt appears to me,\nspeaking as an indifferent person, to be an ill-concerted, if not a\nfallacious job. The burthen of the national debt consists not in its\nbeing so many millions, or so many hundred millions, but in the quantity\nof taxes collected every year to pay the interest. If this quantity\ncontinues the same, the burthen of the national debt is the same to all\nintents and purposes, be the capital more or less. The only knowledge\nwhich the public can have of the reduction of the debt, must be through\nthe reduction of taxes for paying the interest. The debt, therefore,\nis not reduced one farthing to the public by all the millions that\nhave been paid; and it would require more money now to purchase up the\ncapital, than when the scheme began.\n\nDigressing for a moment at this point, to which I shall return again, I\nlook back to the appointment of Mr. Pitt, as minister.\n\nI was then in America. The war was over; and though resentment had\nceased, memory was still alive.\n\nWhen the news of the coalition arrived, though it was a matter of no\nconcern to I felt it as a man. It had something in it which shocked, by\npublicly sporting with decency, if not with principle. It was impudence\nin Lord North; it was a want of firmness in Mr. Fox.\n\nMr. Pitt was, at that time, what may be called a maiden character in\npolitics. So far from being hackneyed, he appeared not to be initiated\ninto the first mysteries of court intrigue. Everything was in his\nfavour. Resentment against the coalition served as friendship to him,\nand his ignorance of vice was credited for virtue. With the return\nof peace, commerce and prosperity would rise of itself; yet even this\nincrease was thrown to his account.\n\nWhen he came to the helm, the storm was over, and he had nothing to\ninterrupt his course. It required even ingenuity to be wrong, and\nhe succeeded. A little time showed him the same sort of man as his\npredecessors had been. Instead of profiting by those errors which had\naccumulated a burthen of taxes unparalleled in the world, he sought,\nI might almost say, he advertised for enemies, and provoked means to\nincrease taxation. Aiming at something, he knew not what, he ransacked\nEurope and India for adventures, and abandoning the fair pretensions he\nbegan with, he became the knight-errant of modern times.\n\nIt is unpleasant to see character throw itself away. It is more so to\nsee one's-self deceived. Mr. Pitt had merited nothing, but he promised\nmuch. He gave symptoms of a mind superior to the meanness and corruption\nof courts. His apparent candour encouraged expectations; and the public\nconfidence, stunned, wearied, and confounded by a chaos of parties,\nrevived and attached itself to him. But mistaking, as he has done, the\ndisgust of the nation against the coalition, for merit in himself,\nhe has rushed into measures which a man less supported would not have\npresumed to act.\n\nAll this seems to show that change of ministers amounts to nothing.\nOne goes out, another comes in, and still the same measures, vices, and\nextravagance are pursued. It signifies not who is minister. The defect\nlies in the system. The foundation and the superstructure of the\ngovernment is bad. Prop it as you please, it continually sinks into\ncourt government, and ever will.\n\nI return, as I promised, to the subject of the national debt, that\noffspring of the Dutch-Anglo revolution, and its handmaid the Hanover\nsuccession.\n\nBut it is now too late to enquire how it began. Those to whom it is\ndue have advanced the money; and whether it was well or ill spent, or\npocketed, is not their crime. It is, however, easy to see, that as\nthe nation proceeds in contemplating the nature and principles of\ngovernment, and to understand taxes, and make comparisons between those\nof America, France, and England, it will be next to impossible to keep\nit in the same torpid state it has hitherto been. Some reform must,\nfrom the necessity of the case, soon begin. It is not whether these\nprinciples press with little or much force in the present moment. They\nare out. They are abroad in the world, and no force can stop them. Like\na secret told, they are beyond recall; and he must be blind indeed that\ndoes not see that a change is already beginning.\n\nNine millions of dead taxes is a serious thing; and this not only for\nbad, but in a great measure for foreign government. By putting the power\nof making war into the hands of the foreigners who came for what they\ncould get, little else was to be expected than what has happened.\n\nReasons are already advanced in this work, showing that whatever the\nreforms in the taxes may be, they ought to be made in the current\nexpenses of government, and not in the part applied to the interest\nof the national debt. By remitting the taxes of the poor, they will be\ntotally relieved, and all discontent will be taken away; and by striking\noff such of the taxes as are already mentioned, the nation will more\nthan recover the whole expense of the mad American war.\n\nThere will then remain only the national debt as a subject of\ndiscontent; and in order to remove, or rather to prevent this, it\nwould be good policy in the stockholders themselves to consider it as\nproperty, subject like all other property, to bear some portion of the\ntaxes. It would give to it both popularity and security, and as a great\npart of its present inconvenience is balanced by the capital which it\nkeeps alive, a measure of this kind would so far add to that balance as\nto silence objections.\n\nThis may be done by such gradual means as to accomplish all that is\nnecessary with the greatest ease and convenience.\n\nInstead of taxing the capital, the best method would be to tax the\ninterest by some progressive ratio, and to lessen the public taxes in\nthe same proportion as the interest diminished.\n\nSuppose the interest was taxed one halfpenny in the pound the first\nyear, a penny more the second, and to proceed by a certain ratio to be\ndetermined upon, always less than any other tax upon property. Such\na tax would be subtracted from the interest at the time of payment,\nwithout any expense of collection.\n\nOne halfpenny in the pound would lessen the interest and consequently\nthe taxes, twenty thousand pounds. The tax on wagons amounts to this\nsum, and this tax might be taken off the first year. The second year the\ntax on female servants, or some other of the like amount might also be\ntaken off, and by proceeding in this manner, always applying the tax\nraised from the property of the debt toward its extinction, and not\ncarry it to the current services, it would liberate itself.\n\nThe stockholders, notwithstanding this tax, would pay less taxes than\nthey do now. What they would save by the extinction of the poor-rates,\nand the tax on houses and windows, and the commutation tax, would\nbe considerably greater than what this tax, slow, but certain in its\noperation, amounts to.\n\nIt appears to me to be prudence to look out for measures that may apply\nunder any circumstances that may approach. There is, at this moment,\na crisis in the affairs of Europe that requires it. Preparation now\nis wisdom. If taxation be once let loose, it will be difficult to\nre-instate it; neither would the relief be so effectual, as if it\nproceeded by some certain and gradual reduction.\n\nThe fraud, hypocrisy, and imposition of governments, are now beginning\nto be too well understood to promise them any long career. The farce\nof monarchy and aristocracy, in all countries, is following that of\nchivalry, and Mr. Burke is dressing aristocracy, in all countries, is\nfollowing that of chivalry, and Mr. Burke is dressing for the funeral.\nLet it then pass quietly to the tomb of all other follies, and the\nmourners be comforted.\n\nThe time is not very distant when England will laugh at itself for\nsending to Holland, Hanover, Zell, or Brunswick for men, at the expense\nof a million a year, who understood neither her laws, her language, nor\nher interest, and whose capacities would scarcely have fitted them for\nthe office of a parish constable. If government could be trusted to such\nhands, it must be some easy and simple thing indeed, and materials fit\nfor all the purposes may be found in every town and village in England.\n\nWhen it shall be said in any country in the world, my poor are happy;\nneither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are\nempty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the\ntaxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I\nam the friend of its happiness: when these things can be said, then may\nthat country boast its constitution and its government.\n\nWithin the space of a few years we have seen two revolutions, those\nof America and France. In the former, the contest was long, and\nthe conflict severe; in the latter, the nation acted with such a\nconsolidated impulse, that having no foreign enemy to contend with, the\nrevolution was complete in power the moment it appeared. From both those\ninstances it is evident, that the greatest forces that can be brought\ninto the field of revolutions, are reason and common interest. Where\nthese can have the opportunity of acting, opposition dies with fear, or\ncrumbles away by conviction. It is a great standing which they have now\nuniversally obtained; and we may hereafter hope to see revolutions, or\nchanges in governments, produced with the same quiet operation by which\nany measure, determinable by reason and discussion, is accomplished.\n\nWhen a nation changes its opinion and habits of thinking, it is no\nlonger to be governed as before; but it would not only be wrong, but\nbad policy, to attempt by force what ought to be accomplished by reason.\nRebellion consists in forcibly opposing the general will of a nation,\nwhether by a party or by a government. There ought, therefore, to be in\nevery nation a method of occasionally ascertaining the state of public\nopinion with respect to government. On this point the old government of\nFrance was superior to the present government of England, because, on\nextraordinary occasions, recourse could be had what was then called the\nStates General. But in England there are no such occasional bodies; and\nas to those who are now called Representatives, a great part of them are\nmere machines of the court, placemen, and dependants.\n\nI presume, that though all the people of England pay taxes, not an\nhundredth part of them are electors, and the members of one of the\nhouses of parliament represent nobody but themselves. There is,\ntherefore, no power but the voluntary will of the people that has a\nright to act in any matter respecting a general reform; and by the same\nright that two persons can confer on such a subject, a thousand may.\nThe object, in all such preliminary proceedings, is to find out what the\ngeneral sense of a nation is, and to be governed by it. If it prefer a\nbad or defective government to a reform or choose to pay ten times more\ntaxes than there is any occasion for, it has a right so to do; and so\nlong as the majority do not impose conditions on the minority, different\nfrom what they impose upon themselves, though there may be much error,\nthere is no injustice. Neither will the error continue long. Reason and\ndiscussion will soon bring things right, however wrong they may begin.\nBy such a process no tumult is to be apprehended. The poor, in all\ncountries, are naturally both peaceable and grateful in all reforms in\nwhich their interest and happiness is included. It is only by neglecting\nand rejecting them that they become tumultuous.\n\nThe objects that now press on the public attention are, the French\nrevolution, and the prospect of a general revolution in governments.\nOf all nations in Europe there is none so much interested in the French\nrevolution as England. Enemies for ages, and that at a vast expense,\nand without any national object, the opportunity now presents itself of\namicably closing the scene, and joining their efforts to reform the rest\nof Europe. By doing this they will not only prevent the further effusion\nof blood, and increase of taxes, but be in a condition of getting rid\nof a considerable part of their present burthens, as has been already\nstated. Long experience however has shown, that reforms of this kind are\nnot those which old governments wish to promote, and therefore it is\nto nations, and not to such governments, that these matters present\nthemselves.\n\nIn the preceding part of this work, I have spoken of an alliance between\nEngland, France, and America, for purposes that were to be afterwards\nmentioned. Though I have no direct authority on the part of America,\nI have good reason to conclude, that she is disposed to enter into a\nconsideration of such a measure, provided, that the governments with\nwhich she might ally, acted as national governments, and not as courts\nenveloped in intrigue and mystery. That France as a nation, and a\nnational government, would prefer an alliance with England, is a matter\nof certainty. Nations, like individuals, who have long been enemies,\nwithout knowing each other, or knowing why, become the better friends\nwhen they discover the errors and impositions under which they had\nacted.\n\nAdmitting, therefore, the probability of such a connection, I will state\nsome matters by which such an alliance, together with that of Holland,\nmight render service, not only to the parties immediately concerned, but\nto all Europe.\n\nIt is, I think, certain, that if the fleets of England, France, and\nHolland were confederated, they could propose, with effect, a limitation\nto, and a general dismantling of, all the navies in Europe, to a certain\nproportion to be agreed upon.\n\nFirst, That no new ship of war shall be built by any power in Europe,\nthemselves included.\n\nSecond, That all the navies now in existence shall be put back, suppose\nto one-tenth of their present force. This will save to France and\nEngland, at least two millions sterling annually to each, and their\nrelative force be in the same proportion as it is now. If men will\npermit themselves to think, as rational beings ought to think,\nnothing can appear more ridiculous and absurd, exclusive of all moral\nreflections, than to be at the expense of building navies, filling them\nwith men, and then hauling them into the ocean, to try which can\nsink each other fastest. Peace, which costs nothing, is attended with\ninfinitely more advantage, than any victory with all its expense. But\nthis, though it best answers the purpose of nations, does not that\nof court governments, whose habited policy is pretence for taxation,\nplaces, and offices.\n\nIt is, I think, also certain, that the above confederated powers,\ntogether with that of the United States of America, can propose with\neffect, to Spain, the independence of South America, and the opening\nthose countries of immense extent and wealth to the general commerce of\nthe world, as North America now is.\n\nWith how much more glory, and advantage to itself, does a nation act,\nwhen it exerts its powers to rescue the world from bondage, and to\ncreate itself friends, than when it employs those powers to increase\nruin, desolation, and misery. The horrid scene that is now acting by the\nEnglish government in the East-Indies, is fit only to be told of Goths\nand Vandals, who, destitute of principle, robbed and tortured the world\nthey were incapable of enjoying.\n\nThe opening of South America would produce an immense field of commerce,\nand a ready money market for manufactures, which the eastern world does\nnot. The East is already a country full of manufactures, the importation\nof which is not only an injury to the manufactures of England, but a\ndrain upon its specie. The balance against England by this trade is\nregularly upwards of half a million annually sent out in the East-India\nships in silver; and this is the reason, together with German intrigue,\nand German subsidies, that there is so little silver in England.\n\nBut any war is harvest to such governments, however ruinous it may be\nto a nation. It serves to keep up deceitful expectations which prevent\npeople from looking into the defects and abuses of government. It is the\nlo here! and the lo there! that amuses and cheats the multitude.\n\nNever did so great an opportunity offer itself to England, and to all\nEurope, as is produced by the two Revolutions of America and France. By\nthe former, freedom has a national champion in the western world; and by\nthe latter, in Europe. When another nation shall join France, despotism\nand bad government will scarcely dare to appear. To use a trite\nexpression, the iron is becoming hot all over Europe. The insulted\nGerman and the enslaved Spaniard, the Russ and the Pole, are beginning\nto think. The present age will hereafter merit to be called the Age of\nReason, and the present generation will appear to the future as the Adam\nof a new world.\n\nWhen all the governments of Europe shall be established on the\nrepresentative system, nations will become acquainted, and the\nanimosities and prejudices fomented by the intrigue and artifice of\ncourts, will cease. The oppressed soldier will become a freeman; and\nthe tortured sailor, no longer dragged through the streets like a felon,\nwill pursue his mercantile voyage in safety. It would be better that\nnations should wi continue the pay of their soldiers during their lives,\nand give them their discharge and restore them to freedom and their\nfriends, and cease recruiting, than retain such multitudes at the\nsame expense, in a condition useless to society and to themselves. As\nsoldiers have hitherto been treated in most countries, they might be\nsaid to be without a friend. Shunned by the citizen on an apprehension\nof their being enemies to liberty, and too often insulted by those\nwho commanded them, their condition was a double oppression. But where\ngenuine principles of liberty pervade a people, every thing is restored\nto order; and the soldier civilly treated, returns the civility.\n\nIn contemplating revolutions, it is easy to perceive that they may arise\nfrom two distinct causes; the one, to avoid or get rid of some great\ncalamity; the other, to obtain some great and positive good; and the two\nmay be distinguished by the names of active and passive revolutions. In\nthose which proceed from the former cause, the temper becomes incensed\nand soured; and the redress, obtained by danger, is too often sullied by\nrevenge. But in those which proceed from the latter, the heart, rather\nanimated than agitated, enters serenely upon the subject. Reason\nand discussion, persuasion and conviction, become the weapons in the\ncontest, and it is only when those are attempted to be suppressed that\nrecourse is had to violence. When men unite in agreeing that a thing is\ngood, could it be obtained, such for instance as relief from a burden\nof taxes and the extinction of corruption, the object is more than half\naccomplished. What they approve as the end, they will promote in the\nmeans.\n\nWill any man say, in the present excess of taxation, falling so heavily\non the poor, that a remission of five pounds annually of taxes to one\nhundred and four thousand poor families is not a good thing? Will he say\nthat a remission of seven pounds annually to one hundred thousand other\npoor families--of eight pounds annually to another hundred thousand poor\nfamilies, and of ten pounds annually to fifty thousand poor and widowed\nfamilies, are not good things? And, to proceed a step further in this\nclimax, will he say that to provide against the misfortunes to which\nall human life is subject, by securing six pounds annually for all poor,\ndistressed, and reduced persons of the age of fifty and until sixty, and\nof ten pounds annually after sixty, is not a good thing?\n\nWill he say that an abolition of two millions of poor-rates to the\nhouse-keepers, and of the whole of the house and window-light tax and of\nthe commutation tax is not a good thing? Or will he say that to abolish\ncorruption is a bad thing?\n\nIf, therefore, the good to be obtained be worthy of a passive, rational,\nand costless revolution, it would be bad policy to prefer waiting for\na calamity that should force a violent one. I have no idea, considering\nthe reforms which are now passing and spreading throughout Europe, that\nEngland will permit herself to be the last; and where the occasion and\nthe opportunity quietly offer, it is better than to wait for a turbulent\nnecessity. It may be considered as an honour to the animal faculties\nof man to obtain redress by courage and danger, but it is far greater\nhonour to the rational faculties to accomplish the same object by\nreason, accommodation, and general consent.*[40]\n\nAs reforms, or revolutions, call them which you please, extend\nthemselves among nations, those nations will form connections and\nconventions, and when a few are thus confederated, the progress will\nbe rapid, till despotism and corrupt government be totally expelled, at\nleast out of two quarters of the world, Europe and America. The Algerine\npiracy may then be commanded to cease, for it is only by the malicious\npolicy of old governments, against each other, that it exists.\n\nThroughout this work, various and numerous as the subjects are, which\nI have taken up and investigated, there is only a single paragraph\nupon religion, viz. \"that every religion is good that teaches man to be\ngood.\"\n\nI have carefully avoided to enlarge upon the subject, because I am\ninclined to believe that what is called the present ministry, wish to\nsee contentions about religion kept up, to prevent the nation turning\nits attention to subjects of government. It is as if they were to say,\n\"Look that way, or any way, but this.\"\n\nBut as religion is very improperly made a political machine, and the\nreality of it is thereby destroyed, I will conclude this work with\nstating in what light religion appears to me.\n\nIf we suppose a large family of children, who, on any particular day,\nor particular circumstance, made it a custom to present to their parents\nsome token of their affection and gratitude, each of them would make a\ndifferent offering, and most probably in a different manner. Some would\npay their congratulations in themes of verse and prose, by some little\ndevices, as their genius dictated, or according to what they thought\nwould please; and, perhaps, the least of all, not able to do any of\nthose things, would ramble into the garden, or the field, and gather\nwhat it thought the prettiest flower it could find, though, perhaps, it\nmight be but a simple weed. The parent would be more gratified by such\na variety, than if the whole of them had acted on a concerted plan,\nand each had made exactly the same offering. This would have the cold\nappearance of contrivance, or the harsh one of control. But of all\nunwelcome things, nothing could more afflict the parent than to know,\nthat the whole of them had afterwards gotten together by the ears, boys\nand girls, fighting, scratching, reviling, and abusing each other about\nwhich was the best or the worst present.\n\nWhy may we not suppose, that the great Father of all is pleased with\nvariety of devotion; and that the greatest offence we can act, is that\nby which we seek to torment and render each other miserable? For my own\npart, I am fully satisfied that what I am now doing, with an endeavour\nto conciliate mankind, to render their condition happy, to unite nations\nthat have hitherto been enemies, and to extirpate the horrid practice of\nwar, and break the chains of slavery and oppression is acceptable in his\nsight, and being the best service I can perform, I act it cheerfully.\n\nI do not believe that any two men, on what are called doctrinal points,\nthink alike who think at all. It is only those who have not thought that\nappear to agree. It is in this case as with what is called the British\nconstitution. It has been taken for granted to be good, and encomiums\nhave supplied the place of proof. But when the nation comes to examine\ninto its principles and the abuses it admits, it will be found to have\nmore defects than I have pointed out in this work and the former.\n\nAs to what are called national religions, we may, with as much\npropriety, talk of national Gods. It is either political craft or the\nremains of the Pagan system, when every nation had its separate and\nparticular deity. Among all the writers of the English church clergy,\nwho have treated on the general subject of religion, the present Bishop\nof Llandaff has not been excelled, and it is with much pleasure that I\ntake this opportunity of expressing this token of respect.\n\nI have now gone through the whole of the subject, at least, as far as it\nappears to me at present. It has been my intention for the five years I\nhave been in Europe, to offer an address to the people of England on\nthe subject of government, if the opportunity presented itself before I\nreturned to America. Mr. Burke has thrown it in my way, and I thank\nhim. On a certain occasion, three years ago, I pressed him to propose a\nnational convention, to be fairly elected, for the purpose of taking\nthe state of the nation into consideration; but I found, that however\nstrongly the parliamentary current was then setting against the party\nhe acted with, their policy was to keep every thing within that field\nof corruption, and trust to accidents. Long experience had shown that\nparliaments would follow any change of ministers, and on this they\nrested their hopes and their expectations.\n\nFormerly, when divisions arose respecting governments, recourse was had\nto the sword, and a civil war ensued. That savage custom is exploded by\nthe new system, and reference is had to national conventions. Discussion\nand the general will arbitrates the question, and to this, private\nopinion yields with a good grace, and order is preserved uninterrupted.\n\nSome gentlemen have affected to call the principles upon which this\nwork and the former part of Rights of Man are founded, \"a new-fangled\ndoctrine.\" The question is not whether those principles are new or old,\nbut whether they are right or wrong. Suppose the former, I will show\ntheir effect by a figure easily understood.\n\nIt is now towards the middle of February. Were I to take a turn into\nthe country, the trees would present a leafless, wintery appearance. As\npeople are apt to pluck twigs as they walk along, I perhaps might do the\nsame, and by chance might observe, that a single bud on that twig had\nbegun to swell. I should reason very unnaturally, or rather not reason\nat all, to suppose this was the only bud in England which had this\nappearance. Instead of deciding thus, I should instantly conclude, that\nthe same appearance was beginning, or about to begin, every where; and\nthough the vegetable sleep will continue longer on some trees and plants\nthan on others, and though some of them may not blossom for two or three\nyears, all will be in leaf in the summer, except those which are rotten.\nWhat pace the political summer may keep with the natural, no human\nforesight can determine. It is, however, not difficult to perceive\nthat the spring is begun.--Thus wishing, as I sincerely do, freedom and\nhappiness to all nations, I close the Second Part.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX\n\nAs the publication of this work has been delayed beyond the time\nintended, I think it not improper, all circumstances considered, to\nstate the causes that have occasioned delay.\n\nThe reader will probably observe, that some parts in the plan contained\nin this work for reducing the taxes, and certain parts in Mr. Pitt's\nspeech at the opening of the present session, Tuesday, January 31, are\nso much alike as to induce a belief, that either the author had taken\nthe hint from Mr. Pitt, or Mr. Pitt from the author.--I will first point\nout the parts that are similar, and then state such circumstances as I\nam acquainted with, leaving the reader to make his own conclusion.\n\nConsidering it as almost an unprecedented case, that taxes should\nbe proposed to be taken off, it is equally extraordinary that such a\nmeasure should occur to two persons at the same time; and still more\nso (considering the vast variety and multiplicity of taxes) that they\nshould hit on the same specific taxes. Mr. Pitt has mentioned, in his\nspeech, the tax on Carts and Wagons--that on Female Servantsthe lowering\nthe tax on Candles and the taking off the tax of three shillings on\nHouses having under seven windows.\n\nEvery one of those specific taxes are a part of the plan contained in\nthis work, and proposed also to be taken off. Mr. Pitt's plan, it is\ntrue, goes no further than to a reduction of three hundred and twenty\nthousand pounds; and the reduction proposed in this work, to nearly six\nmillions. I have made my calculations on only sixteen millions and an\nhalf of revenue, still asserting that it was \"very nearly, if not quite,\nseventeen millions.\" Mr. Pitt states it at 16,690,000. I know enough of\nthe matter to say, that he has not overstated it. Having thus given the\nparticulars, which correspond in this work and his speech, I will state\na chain of circumstances that may lead to some explanation.\n\nThe first hint for lessening the taxes, and that as a consequence\nflowing from the French revolution, is to be found in the Address and\nDeclaration of the Gentlemen who met at the Thatched-House Tavern,\nAugust 20, 1791. Among many other particulars stated in that Address, is\nthe following, put as an interrogation to the government opposers of the\nFrench Revolution. \"Are they sorry that the pretence for new oppressive\ntaxes, and the occasion for continuing many old taxes will be at an\nend?\"\n\nIt is well known that the persons who chiefly frequent the\nThatched-House Tavern, are men of court connections, and so much did\nthey take this Address and Declaration respecting the French Revolution,\nand the reduction of taxes in disgust, that the Landlord was under the\nnecessity of informing the Gentlemen, who composed the meeting of the\n20th of August, and who proposed holding another meeting, that he could\nnot receive them.*[41]\n\nWhat was only hinted in the Address and Declaration respecting taxes and\nprinciples of government, will be found reduced to a regular system in\nthis work. But as Mr. Pitt's speech contains some of the same things\nrespecting taxes, I now come to give the circumstances before alluded\nto.\n\nThe case is: This work was intended to be published just before the\nmeeting of Parliament, and for that purpose a considerable part of\nthe copy was put into the printer's hands in September, and all the\nremaining copy, which contains the part to which Mr. Pitt's speech\nis similar, was given to him full six weeks before the meeting of\nParliament, and he was informed of the time at which it was to appear.\nHe had composed nearly the whole about a fortnight before the time of\nParliament meeting, and had given me a proof of the next sheet. It was\nthen in sufficient forwardness to be out at the time proposed, as two\nother sheets were ready for striking off. I had before told him, that\nif he thought he should be straitened for time, I could get part of\nthe work done at another press, which he desired me not to do. In this\nmanner the work stood on the Tuesday fortnight preceding the meeting of\nParliament, when all at once, without any previous intimation, though I\nhad been with him the evening before, he sent me, by one of his\nworkmen, all the remaining copy, declining to go on with the work on any\nconsideration.\n\nTo account for this extraordinary conduct I was totally at a loss, as\nhe stopped at the part where the arguments on systems and principles of\ngovernment closed, and where the plan for the reduction of taxes, the\neducation of children, and the support of the poor and the aged begins;\nand still more especially, as he had, at the time of his beginning to\nprint, and before he had seen the whole copy, offered a thousand pounds\nfor the copy-right, together with the future copy-right of the former\npart of the Rights of Man. I told the person who brought me this offer\nthat I should not accept it, and wished it not to be renewed, giving him\nas my reason, that though I believed the printer to be an honest man, I\nwould never put it in the power of any printer or publisher to suppress\nor alter a work of mine, by making him master of the copy, or give to\nhim the right of selling it to any minister, or to any other person,\nor to treat as a mere matter of traffic, that which I intended should\noperate as a principle.\n\nHis refusal to complete the work (which he could not purchase) obliged\nme to seek for another printer, and this of consequence would throw\nthe publication back till after the meeting of Parliament, otherways it\nwould have appeared that Mr. Pitt had only taken up a part of the plan\nwhich I had more fully stated.\n\nWhether that gentleman, or any other, had seen the work, or any part of\nit, is more than I have authority to say. But the manner in which the\nwork was returned, and the particular time at which this was done, and\nthat after the offers he had made, are suspicious circumstances. I know\nwhat the opinion of booksellers and publishers is upon such a case, but\nas to my own opinion, I choose to make no declaration. There are many\nways by which proof sheets may be procured by other persons before a\nwork publicly appears; to which I shall add a certain circumstance,\nwhich is,\n\nA ministerial bookseller in Piccadilly who has been employed, as common\nreport says, by a clerk of one of the boards closely connected with\nthe ministry (the board of trade and plantation, of which Hawkesbury is\npresident) to publish what he calls my Life, (I wish his own life and\nthose of the cabinet were as good), used to have his books printed at\nthe same printing-office that I employed; but when the former part of\nRights of Man came out, he took his work away in dudgeon; and about a\nweek or ten days before the printer returned my copy, he came to\nmake him an offer of his work again, which was accepted. This would\nconsequently give him admission into the printing-office where the\nsheets of this work were then lying; and as booksellers and printers are\nfree with each other, he would have the opportunity of seeing what was\ngoing on.--Be the case, however, as it may, Mr. Pitt's plan, little and\ndiminutive as it is, would have made a very awkward appearance, had this\nwork appeared at the time the printer had engaged to finish it.\n\nI have now stated the particulars which occasioned the delay, from the\nproposal to purchase, to the refusal to print. If all the Gentlemen\nare innocent, it is very unfortunate for them that such a variety of\nsuspicious circumstances should, without any design, arrange themselves\ntogether.\n\nHaving now finished this part, I will conclude with stating another\ncircumstance.\n\nAbout a fortnight or three weeks before the meeting of Parliament, a\nsmall addition, amounting to about twelve shillings and sixpence a year,\nwas made to the pay of the soldiers, or rather their pay was docked\nso much less. Some Gentlemen who knew, in part, that this work would\ncontain a plan of reforms respecting the oppressed condition of\nsoldiers, wished me to add a note to the work, signifying that the part\nupon that subject had been in the printer's hands some weeks before that\naddition of pay was proposed. I declined doing this, lest it should be\ninterpreted into an air of vanity, or an endeavour to excite suspicion\n(for which perhaps there might be no grounds) that some of the\ngovernment gentlemen had, by some means or other, made out what this\nwork would contain: and had not the printing been interrupted so as\nto occasion a delay beyond the time fixed for publication, nothing\ncontained in this appendix would have appeared.\n\n                        Thomas Paine\n\n\n\n\nTHE AUTHOR'S NOTES FOR PART ONE AND PART TWO\n\n\n[Footnote 1: The main and uniform maxim of the judges is, the greater the truth\nthe greater the libel.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Since writing the above, two other places occur in Mr. Burke's\npamphlet in which the name of the Bastille is mentioned, but in the same\nmanner. In the one he introduces it in a sort of obscure question, and\nasks: \"Will any ministers who now serve such a king, with but a decent\nappearance of respect, cordially obey the orders of those whom but the\nother day, in his name, they had committed to the Bastille?\" In the\nother the taking it is mentioned as implying criminality in the French\nguards, who assisted in demolishing it. \"They have not,\" says he,\n\"forgot the taking the king's castles at Paris.\" This is Mr. Burke, who\npretends to write on constitutional freedom.]\n\n[Footnote 3: I am warranted in asserting this, as I had it personally from M.\nde la Fayette, with whom I lived in habits of friendship for fourteen\nyears.]\n\n[Footnote 4: An account of the expedition to Versailles may be seen in No. 13 of\nthe Revolution de Paris containing the events from the 3rd to the 10th\nof October, 1789.]\n\n[Footnote 5: It is a practice in some parts of the country, when two travellers\nhave but one horse, which, like the national purse, will not carry\ndouble, that the one mounts and rides two or three miles ahead, and then\nties the horse to a gate and walks on. When the second traveller arrives\nhe takes the horse, rides on, and passes his companion a mile or two,\nand ties again, and so on--Ride and tie.]\n\n[Footnote 6: The word he used was renvoye, dismissed or sent away.]\n\n[Footnote 7: When in any country we see extraordinary circumstances taking\nplace, they naturally lead any man who has a talent for observation\nand investigation, to enquire into the causes. The manufacturers of\nManchester, Birmingham, and Sheffield, are the principal manufacturers\nin England. From whence did this arise? A little observation will\nexplain the case. The principal, and the generality of the inhabitants\nof those places, are not of what is called in England, the church\nestablished by law: and they, or their fathers, (for it is within but a\nfew years) withdrew from the persecution of the chartered towns, where\ntest-laws more particularly operate, and established a sort of asylum\nfor themselves in those places. It was the only asylum that then\noffered, for the rest of Europe was worse.--But the case is now\nchanging. France and America bid all comers welcome, and initiate them\ninto all the rights of citizenship. Policy and interest, therefore,\nwill, but perhaps too late, dictate in England, what reason and justice\ncould not. Those manufacturers are withdrawing, and arising in other\nplaces. There is now erecting in Passey, three miles from Paris, a large\ncotton manufactory, and several are already erected in America. Soon\nafter the rejecting the Bill for repealing the test-law, one of the\nrichest manufacturers in England said in my hearing, \"England, Sir, is\nnot a country for a dissenter to live in,--we must go to France.\" These\nare truths, and it is doing justice to both parties to tell them. It\nis chiefly the dissenters that have carried English manufactures to the\nheight they are now at, and the same men have it in their power to carry\nthem away; and though those manufactures would afterwards continue in\nthose places, the foreign market will be lost. There frequently appear\nin the London Gazette, extracts from certain acts to prevent machines\nand persons, as far as they can extend to persons, from going out of the\ncountry. It appears from these that the ill effects of the test-laws and\nchurch-establishment begin to be much suspected; but the remedy of force\ncan never supply the remedy of reason. In the progress of less than a\ncentury, all the unrepresented part of England, of all denominations,\nwhich is at least an hundred times the most numerous, may begin to feel\nthe necessity of a constitution, and then all those matters will come\nregularly before them.]\n\n[Footnote 8: When the English Minister, Mr. Pitt, mentions the French finances\nagain in the English Parliament, it would be well that he noticed this\nas an example.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Mr. Burke, (and I must take the liberty of telling him that he is\nvery unacquainted with French affairs), speaking upon this subject,\nsays, \"The first thing that struck me in calling the States-General,\nwas a great departure from the ancient course\";--and he soon after says,\n\"From the moment I read the list, I saw distinctly, and very nearly as\nit has happened, all that was to follow.\"--Mr. Burke certainly did not\nsee an that was to follow. I endeavoured to impress him, as well before\nas after the States-General met, that there would be a revolution; but\nwas not able to make him see it, neither would he believe it. How then\nhe could distinctly see all the parts, when the whole was out of sight,\nis beyond my comprehension. And with respect to the \"departure from the\nancient course,\" besides the natural weakness of the remark, it shows\nthat he is unacquainted with circumstances. The departure was necessary,\nfrom the experience had upon it, that the ancient course was a bad one.\nThe States-General of 1614 were called at the commencement of the civil\nwar in the minority of Louis XIII.; but by the class of arranging them\nby orders, they increased the confusion they were called to compose. The\nauthor of L'Intrigue du Cabinet, (Intrigue of the Cabinet), who\nwrote before any revolution was thought of in France, speaking of the\nStates-General of 1614, says, \"They held the public in suspense five\nmonths; and by the questions agitated therein, and the heat with which\nthey were put, it appears that the great (les grands) thought more to\nsatisfy their particular passions, than to procure the goods of the\nnation; and the whole time passed away in altercations, ceremonies and\nparade.\"--L'Intrigue du Cabinet, vol. i. p. 329.]\n\n[Footnote 10: There is a single idea, which, if it strikes rightly upon the mind,\neither in a legal or a religious sense, will prevent any man or any body\nof men, or any government, from going wrong on the subject of religion;\nwhich is, that before any human institutions of government were known in\nthe world, there existed, if I may so express it, a compact between\nGod and man, from the beginning of time: and that as the relation and\ncondition which man in his individual person stands in towards his Maker\ncannot be changed by any human laws or human authority, that religious\ndevotion, which is a part of this compact, cannot so much as be made a\nsubject of human laws; and that all laws must conform themselves to this\nprior existing compact, and not assume to make the compact conform to\nthe laws, which, besides being human, are subsequent thereto. The first\nact of man, when he looked around and saw himself a creature which he\ndid not make, and a world furnished for his reception, must have been\ndevotion; and devotion must ever continue sacred to every individual\nman, as it appears, right to him; and governments do mischief by\ninterfering.]\n\n[Footnote 11: See this work, Part I starting at line number 254.--N.B. Since the\ntaking of the Bastille, the occurrences have been published: but the\nmatters recorded in this narrative, are prior to that period; and some\nof them, as may be easily seen, can be but very little known.]\n\n[Footnote 12: See \"Estimate of the Comparative Strength of Great Britain,\" by G.\nChalmers.]\n\n[Footnote 13: See \"Administration of the Finances of France,\" vol. iii, by M.\nNeckar.]\n\n[Footnote 14: \"Administration of the Finances of France,\" vol. iii.]\n\n[Footnote 15: Whether the English commerce does not bring in money, or whether the\ngovernment sends it out after it is brought in, is a matter which the\nparties concerned can best explain; but that the deficiency exists, is\nnot in the power of either to disprove. While Dr. Price, Mr. Eden, (now\nAuckland), Mr. Chalmers, and others, were debating whether the quantity\nof money in England was greater or less than at the Revolution, the\ncircumstance was not adverted to, that since the Revolution, there\ncannot have been less than four hundred millions sterling imported into\nEurope; and therefore the quantity in England ought at least to have\nbeen four times greater than it was at the Revolution, to be on a\nproportion with Europe. What England is now doing by paper, is what she\nwould have been able to do by solid money, if gold and silver had come\ninto the nation in the proportion it ought, or had not been sent out;\nand she is endeavouring to restore by paper, the balance she has lost by\nmoney. It is certain, that the gold and silver which arrive annually\nin the register-ships to Spain and Portugal, do not remain in those\ncountries. Taking the value half in gold and half in silver, it is about\nfour hundred tons annually; and from the number of ships and galloons\nemployed in the trade of bringing those metals from South-America to\nPortugal and Spain, the quantity sufficiently proves itself, without\nreferring to the registers.\n\nIn the situation England now is, it is impossible she can increase in\nmoney. High taxes not only lessen the property of the individuals, but\nthey lessen also the money capital of the nation, by inducing smuggling,\nwhich can only be carried on by gold and silver. By the politics which\nthe British Government have carried on with the Inland Powers of Germany\nand the Continent, it has made an enemy of all the Maritime Powers, and\nis therefore obliged to keep up a large navy; but though the navy is\nbuilt in England, the naval stores must be purchased from abroad, and\nthat from countries where the greatest part must be paid for in gold\nand silver. Some fallacious rumours have been set afloat in England to\ninduce a belief in money, and, among others, that of the French refugees\nbringing great quantities. The idea is ridiculous. The general part of\nthe money in France is silver; and it would take upwards of twenty of\nthe largest broad wheel wagons, with ten horses each, to remove one\nmillion sterling of silver. Is it then to be supposed, that a few people\nfleeing on horse-back or in post-chaises, in a secret manner, and having\nthe French Custom-House to pass, and the sea to cross, could bring even\na sufficiency for their own expenses?\n\nWhen millions of money are spoken of, it should be recollected, that\nsuch sums can only accumulate in a country by slow degrees, and a long\nprocession of time. The most frugal system that England could now adopt,\nwould not recover in a century the balance she has lost in money since\nthe commencement of the Hanover succession. She is seventy millions\nbehind France, and she must be in some considerable proportion behind\nevery country in Europe, because the returns of the English mint do not\nshow an increase of money, while the registers of Lisbon and Cadiz\nshow an European increase of between three and four hundred millions\nsterling.]\n\n[Footnote 16: That part of America which is generally called New-England,\nincluding New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island, and Connecticut,\nis peopled chiefly by English descendants. In the state of New-York\nabout half are Dutch, the rest English, Scotch, and Irish. In\nNew-jersey, a mixture of English and Dutch, with some Scotch and Irish.\nIn Pennsylvania about one third are English, another Germans, and\nthe remainder Scotch and Irish, with some Swedes. The States to the\nsouthward have a greater proportion of English than the middle States,\nbut in all of them there is a mixture; and besides those enumerated,\nthere are a considerable number of French, and some few of all the\nEuropean nations, lying on the coast. The most numerous religious\ndenomination are the Presbyterians; but no one sect is established above\nanother, and all men are equally citizens.]\n\n[Footnote 17: For a character of aristocracy, the reader is referred to Rights of\nMan, Part I., starting at line number 1457.]\n\n[Footnote 18: The whole amount of the assessed taxes of France, for the present\nyear, is three hundred millions of francs, which is twelve millions\nand a half sterling; and the incidental taxes are estimated at three\nmillions, making in the whole fifteen millions and a half; which among\ntwenty-four millions of people, is not quite thirteen shillings per\nhead. France has lessened her taxes since the revolution, nearly nine\nmillions sterling annually. Before the revolution, the city of Paris\npaid a duty of upwards of thirty per cent. on all articles brought into\nthe city. This tax was collected at the city gates. It was taken off on\nthe first of last May, and the gates taken down.]\n\n[Footnote 19: What was called the livre rouge, or the red book, in France, was not\nexactly similar to the Court Calendar in England; but it sufficiently\nshowed how a great part of the taxes was lavished.]\n\n[Footnote 20: In England the improvements in agriculture, useful arts,\nmanufactures, and commerce, have been made in opposition to the genius\nof its government, which is that of following precedents. It is from\nthe enterprise and industry of the individuals, and their numerous\nassociations, in which, tritely speaking, government is neither pillow\nnor bolster, that these improvements have proceeded. No man thought\nabout government, or who was in, or who was out, when he was planning\nor executing those things; and all he had to hope, with respect to\ngovernment, was, that it would let him alone. Three or four very silly\nministerial newspapers are continually offending against the spirit of\nnational improvement, by ascribing it to a minister. They may with as\nmuch truth ascribe this book to a minister.]\n\n[Footnote 21: With respect to the two houses, of which the English parliament is\ncomposed, they appear to be effectually influenced into one, and, as a\nlegislature, to have no temper of its own. The minister, whoever he\nat any time may be, touches it as with an opium wand, and it sleeps\nobedience.\n\nBut if we look at the distinct abilities of the two houses, the\ndifference will appear so great, as to show the inconsistency of\nplacing power where there can be no certainty of the judgment to use\nit. Wretched as the state of representation is in England, it is manhood\ncompared with what is called the house of Lords; and so little is this\nnick-named house regarded, that the people scarcely enquire at any time\nwhat it is doing. It appears also to be most under influence, and the\nfurthest removed from the general interest of the nation. In the debate\non engaging in the Russian and Turkish war, the majority in the house\nof peers in favor of it was upwards of ninety, when in the other house,\nwhich was more than double its numbers, the majority was sixty-three.]\n\nThe proceedings on Mr. Fox's bill, respecting the rights of juries,\nmerits also to be noticed. The persons called the peers were not the\nobjects of that bill. They are already in possession of more privileges\nthan that bill gave to others. They are their own jury, and if any one\nof that house were prosecuted for a libel, he would not suffer, even\nupon conviction, for the first offense. Such inequality in laws ought\nnot to exist in any country. The French constitution says, that the law\nis the same to every individual, whether to Protect or to punish. All\nare equal in its sight.]\n\n[Footnote 22: As to the state of representation in England, it is too absurd to\nbe reasoned upon. Almost all the represented parts are decreasing\nin population, and the unrepresented parts are increasing. A general\nconvention of the nation is necessary to take the whole form of\ngovernment into consideration.]\n\n[Footnote 23: It is related that in the canton of Berne, in Switzerland, it has\nbeen customary, from time immemorial, to keep a bear at the public\nexpense, and the people had been taught to believe that if they had not\na bear they should all be undone. It happened some years ago that the\nbear, then in being, was taken sick, and died too suddenly to have his\nplace immediately supplied with another. During this interregnum the\npeople discovered that the corn grew, and the vintage flourished, and\nthe sun and moon continued to rise and set, and everything went on\nthe same as before, and taking courage from these circumstances, they\nresolved not to keep any more bears; for, said they, \"a bear is a very\nvoracious expensive animal, and we were obliged to pull out his claws,\nlest he should hurt the citizens.\" The story of the bear of Berne was\nrelated in some of the French newspapers, at the time of the flight of\nLouis Xvi., and the application of it to monarchy could not be mistaken\nin France; but it seems that the aristocracy of Berne applied it to\nthemselves, and have since prohibited the reading of French newspapers.]\n\n[Footnote 24: It is scarcely possible to touch on any subject, that will not\nsuggest an allusion to some corruption in governments. The simile of\n\"fortifications,\" unfortunately involves with it a circumstance, which\nis directly in point with the matter above alluded to.]\n\nAmong the numerous instances of abuse which have been acted or protected\nby governments, ancient or modern, there is not a greater than that of\nquartering a man and his heirs upon the public, to be maintained at its\nexpense.\n\nHumanity dictates a provision for the poor; but by what right, moral or\npolitical, does any government assume to say, that the person called\nthe Duke of Richmond, shall be maintained by the public? Yet, if\ncommon report is true, not a beggar in London can purchase his wretched\npittance of coal, without paying towards the civil list of the Duke of\nRichmond. Were the whole produce of this imposition but a shilling a\nyear, the iniquitous principle would be still the same; but when it\namounts, as it is said to do, to no less than twenty thousand pounds per\nannum, the enormity is too serious to be permitted to remain. This is\none of the effects of monarchy and aristocracy.\n\nIn stating this case I am led by no personal dislike. Though I think\nit mean in any man to live upon the public, the vice originates in the\ngovernment; and so general is it become, that whether the parties are in\nthe ministry or in the opposition, it makes no difference: they are sure\nof the guarantee of each other.]\n\n[Footnote 25: In America the increase of commerce is greater in proportion than in\nEngland. It is, at this time, at least one half more than at any period\nprior to the revolution. The greatest number of vessels cleared out\nof the port of Philadelphia, before the commencement of the war, was\nbetween eight and nine hundred. In the year 1788, the number was upwards\nof twelve hundred. As the State of Pennsylvania is estimated at an\neighth part of the United States in population, the whole number of\nvessels must now be nearly ten thousand.]\n\n[Footnote 26: When I saw Mr. Pitt's mode of estimating the balance of trade, in\none of his parliamentary speeches, he appeared to me to know nothing\nof the nature and interest of commerce; and no man has more wantonly\ntortured it than himself. During a period of peace it has been havocked\nwith the calamities of war. Three times has it been thrown into\nstagnation, and the vessels unmanned by impressing, within less than\nfour years of peace.]\n\n[Footnote 27: Rev. William Knowle, master of the grammar school of Thetford, in\nNorfolk.]\n\n[Footnote 28: Politics and self-interest have been so uniformly connected that\nthe world, from being so often deceived, has a right to be suspicious of\npublic characters, but with regard to myself I am perfectly easy on\nthis head. I did not, at my first setting out in public life, nearly\nseventeen years ago, turn my thoughts to subjects of government from\nmotives of interest, and my conduct from that moment to this proves the\nfact. I saw an opportunity in which I thought I could do some good, and\nI followed exactly what my heart dictated. I neither read books, nor\nstudied other people's opinion. I thought for myself. The case was\nthis:--\n\nDuring the suspension of the old governments in America, both prior to\nand at the breaking out of hostilities, I was struck with the order and\ndecorum with which everything was conducted, and impressed with the idea\nthat a little more than what society naturally performed was all the\ngovernment that was necessary, and that monarchy and aristocracy were\nfrauds and impositions upon mankind. On these principles I published the\npamphlet Common Sense. The success it met with was beyond anything since\nthe invention of printing. I gave the copyright to every state in the\nUnion, and the demand ran to not less than one hundred thousand copies.\nI continued the subject in the same manner, under the title of The\nCrisis, till the complete establishment of the Revolution.\n\nAfter the declaration of independence Congress unanimously, and unknown\nto me, appointed me Secretary in the Foreign Department. This was\nagreeable to me, because it gave me the opportunity of seeing into the\nabilities of foreign courts, and their manner of doing business. But\na misunderstanding arising between Congress and me, respecting one of\ntheir commissioners then in Europe, Mr. Silas Deane, I resigned the\noffice, and declined at the same time the pecuniary offers made by the\nMinisters of France and Spain, M. Gerald and Don Juan Mirralles.]\nI had by this time so completely gained the ear and confidence of\nAmerica, and my own independence was become so visible, as to give me a\nrange in political writing beyond, perhaps, what any man ever possessed\nin any country, and, what is more extraordinary, I held it undiminished\nto the end of the war, and enjoy it in the same manner to the present\nmoment. As my object was not myself, I set out with the determination,\nand happily with the disposition, of not being moved by praise or\ncensure, friendship or calumny, nor of being drawn from my purpose by\nany personal altercation, and the man who cannot do this is not fit for\na public character.\n\nWhen the war ended I went from Philadelphia to Borden-Town, on the east\nbank of the Delaware, where I have a small place. Congress was at this\ntime at Prince-Town, fifteen miles distant, and General Washington\nhad taken his headquarters at Rocky Hill, within the neighbourhood of\nCongress, for the purpose of resigning up his commission (the object\nfor which he accepted it being accomplished), and of retiring to private\nlife. While he was on this business he wrote me the letter which I here\nsubjoin:\n\n\"Rocky-Hill, Sept. 10, 1783.\n\n\"I have learned since I have been at this place that you are at\nBorden-Town. Whether for the sake of retirement or economy I know not.\nBe it for either, for both, or whatever it may, if you will come to this\nplace, and partake with me, I shall be exceedingly happy to see you at\nit.\n\n\"Your presence may remind Congress of your past services to this\ncountry, and if it is in my power to impress them, command my best\nexertions with freedom, as they will be rendered cheerfully by one who\nentertains a lively sense of the importance of your works, and who, with\nmuch pleasure, subscribes himself, Your sincere friend,\n\nG. Washington.\"\n\nDuring the war, in the latter end of the year 1780, I formed to myself a\ndesign of coming over to England, and communicated it to General Greene,\nwho was then in Philadelphia on his route to the southward, General\nWashington being then at too great a distance to communicate with\nimmediately. I was strongly impressed with the idea that if I could get\nover to England without being known, and only remain in safety till I\ncould get out a publication, that I could open the eyes of the country\nwith respect to the madness and stupidity of its Government. I saw that\nthe parties in Parliament had pitted themselves as far as they could go,\nand could make no new impressions on each other. General Greene entered\nfully into my views, but the affair of Arnold and Andre happening just\nafter, he changed his mind, under strong apprehensions for my safety,\nwrote very pressingly to me from Annapolis, in Maryland, to give up\nthe design, which, with some reluctance, I did. Soon after this I\naccompanied Colonel Lawrens, son of Mr. Lawrens, who was then in the\nTower, to France on business from Congress. We landed at L'orient, and\nwhile I remained there, he being gone forward, a circumstance occurred\nthat renewed my former design. An English packet from Falmouth to\nNew York, with the Government dispatches on board, was brought into\nL'orient. That a packet should be taken is no extraordinary thing, but\nthat the dispatches should be taken with it will scarcely be credited,\nas they are always slung at the cabin window in a bag loaded with\ncannon-ball, and ready to be sunk at a moment. The fact, however, is\nas I have stated it, for the dispatches came into my hands, and I\nread them. The capture, as I was informed, succeeded by the following\nstratagem:--The captain of the \"Madame\" privateer, who spoke English, on\ncoming up with the packet, passed himself for the captain of an English\nfrigate, and invited the captain of the packet on board, which, when\ndone, he sent some of his own hands back, and he secured the mail. But\nbe the circumstance of the capture what it may, I speak with certainty\nas to the Government dispatches. They were sent up to Paris to Count\nVergennes, and when Colonel Lawrens and myself returned to America we\ntook the originals to Congress.\n\nBy these dispatches I saw into the stupidity of the English Cabinet far\nmore than I otherwise could have done, and I renewed my former design.\nBut Colonel Lawrens was so unwilling to return alone, more especially\nas, among other matters, we had a charge of upwards of two hundred\nthousand pounds sterling in money, that I gave in to his wishes, and\nfinally gave up my plan. But I am now certain that if I could have\nexecuted it that it would not have been altogether unsuccessful.]\n\n[Footnote 29: It is difficult to account for the origin of charter and corporation\ntowns, unless we suppose them to have arisen out of, or been connected\nwith, some species of garrison service. The times in which they began\njustify this idea. The generality of those towns have been garrisons,\nand the corporations were charged with the care of the gates of the\ntowns, when no military garrison was present. Their refusing or granting\nadmission to strangers, which has produced the custom of giving,\nselling, and buying freedom, has more of the nature of garrison\nauthority than civil government. Soldiers are free of all corporations\nthroughout the nation, by the same propriety that every soldier is\nfree of every garrison, and no other persons are. He can follow any\nemployment, with the permission of his officers, in any corporation\ntowns throughout the nation.]\n\n[Footnote 30: See Sir John Sinclair's History of the Revenue. The land-tax in 1646\nwas L2,473,499.]\n\n[Footnote 31: Several of the court newspapers have of late made frequent mention\nof Wat Tyler. That his memory should be traduced by court sycophants and\nan those who live on the spoil of a public is not to be wondered at. He\nwas, however, the means of checking the rage and injustice of taxation\nin his time, and the nation owed much to his valour. The history is\nconcisely this:--In the time of Richard Ii. a poll tax was levied of one\nshilling per head upon every person in the nation of whatever estate or\ncondition, on poor as well as rich, above the age of fifteen years. If\nany favour was shown in the law it was to the rich rather than to the\npoor, as no person could be charged more than twenty shillings for\nhimself, family and servants, though ever so numerous; while all other\nfamilies, under the number of twenty were charged per head. Poll taxes\nhad always been odious, but this being also oppressive and unjust, it\nexcited as it naturally must, universal detestation among the poor and\nmiddle classes. The person known by the name of Wat Tyler, whose proper\nname was Walter, and a tiler by trade, lived at Deptford. The gatherer\nof the poll tax, on coming to his house, demanded tax for one of\nhis daughters, whom Tyler declared was under the age of fifteen. The\ntax-gatherer insisted on satisfying himself, and began an indecent\nexamination of the girl, which, enraging the father, he struck him with\na hammer that brought him to the ground, and was the cause of his\ndeath. This circumstance served to bring the discontent to an issue. The\ninhabitants of the neighbourhood espoused the cause of Tyler, who in a\nfew days was joined, according to some histories, by upwards of fifty\nthousand men, and chosen their chief. With this force he marched\nto London, to demand an abolition of the tax and a redress of other\ngrievances. The Court, finding itself in a forlorn condition, and,\nunable to make resistance, agreed, with Richard at its head, to hold\na conference with Tyler in Smithfield, making many fair professions,\ncourtier-like, of its dispositions to redress the oppressions. While\nRichard and Tyler were in conversation on these matters, each being on\nhorseback, Walworth, then Mayor of London, and one of the creatures of\nthe Court, watched an opportunity, and like a cowardly assassin, stabbed\nTyler with a dagger, and two or three others falling upon him, he\nwas instantly sacrificed. Tyler appears to have been an intrepid\ndisinterested man with respect to himself. All his proposals made to\nRichard were on a more just and public ground than those which had\nbeen made to John by the Barons, and notwithstanding the sycophancy of\nhistorians and men like Mr. Burke, who seek to gloss over a base action\nof the Court by traducing Tyler, his fame will outlive their falsehood.\nIf the Barons merited a monument to be erected at Runnymede, Tyler\nmerited one in Smithfield.]\n\n[Footnote 32: I happened to be in England at the celebration of the centenary of\nthe Revolution of 1688. The characters of William and Mary have always\nappeared to be detestable; the one seeking to destroy his uncle, and\nthe other her father, to get possession of power themselves; yet, as\nthe nation was disposed to think something of that event, I felt hurt at\nseeing it ascribe the whole reputation of it to a man who had undertaken\nit as a job and who, besides what he otherwise got, charged six hundred\nthousand pounds for the expense of the fleet that brought him from\nHolland. George the First acted the same close-fisted part as William\nhad done, and bought the Duchy of Bremen with the money he got from\nEngland, two hundred and fifty thousand pounds over and above his pay as\nking, and having thus purchased it at the expense of England, added it\nto his Hanoverian dominions for his own private profit. In fact, every\nnation that does not govern itself is governed as a job. England has\nbeen the prey of jobs ever since the Revolution.]\n\n[Footnote 33: Charles, like his predecessors and successors, finding that war was\nthe harvest of governments, engaged in a war with the Dutch, the expense\nof which increased the annual expenditure to L1,800,000 as stated under\nthe date of 1666; but the peace establishment was but L1,200,000.]\n\n[Footnote 34: Poor-rates began about the time of Henry VIII., when the taxes began\nto increase, and they have increased as the taxes increased ever since.]\n\n[Footnote 35: Reckoning the taxes by families, five to a family, each family pays\non an average L12 7s. 6d. per annum. To this sum are to be added the\npoor-rates. Though all pay taxes in the articles they consume, all do\nnot pay poor-rates. About two millions are exempted: some as not being\nhouse-keepers, others as not being able, and the poor themselves\nwho receive the relief. The average, therefore, of poor-rates on the\nremaining number, is forty shillings for every family of five persons,\nwhich make the whole average amount of taxes and rates L14 17s. 6d. For\nsix persons L17 17s. For seven persons L2O 16s. 6d.\nThe average of taxes in America, under the new or representative system\nof government, including the interest of the debt contracted in the\nwar, and taking the population at four millions of souls, which it now\namounts to, and it is daily increasing, is five shillings per head,\nmen, women, and children. The difference, therefore, between the two\ngovernments is as under:\n\n                                        England      America\n                                      L    s.  d.  L    s.  d.\n    For a family of five persons     14   17   6   1    5   0\n    For a family of six persons      17   17   0   1   10   0\n    For a family of seven persons    20   16   6   1   15   0\n\n[Footnote 36: Public schools do not answer the general purpose of the poor.\nThey are chiefly in corporation towns from which the country towns and\nvillages are excluded, or, if admitted, the distance occasions a great\nloss of time. Education, to be useful to the poor, should be on the\nspot, and the best method, I believe, to accomplish this is to enable\nthe parents to pay the expenses themselves. There are always persons of\nboth sexes to be found in every village, especially when growing into\nyears, capable of such an undertaking. Twenty children at ten shillings\neach (and that not more than six months each year) would be as much as\nsome livings amount to in the remotest parts of England, and there are\noften distressed clergymen's widows to whom such an income would be\nacceptable. Whatever is given on this account to children answers two\npurposes. To them it is education--to those who educate them it is a\nlivelihood.]\n\n[Footnote 37: The tax on beer brewed for sale, from which the aristocracy are\nexempt, is almost one million more than the present commutation tax,\nbeing by the returns of 1788, L1,666,152--and, consequently, they ought\nto take on themselves the amount of the commutation tax, as they are\nalready exempted from one which is almost a million greater.]\n\n[Footnote 38: See the Reports on the Corn Trade.]\n\n[Footnote 39: When enquiries are made into the condition of the poor, various\ndegrees of distress will most probably be found, to render a different\narrangement preferable to that which is already proposed. Widows with\nfamilies will be in greater want than where there are husbands living.\nThere is also a difference in the expense of living in different\ncounties: and more so in fuel.\n\n  Suppose then fifty thousand extraordinary cases, at\n    the rate of ten pounds per family per annum            L500,000\n  100,000 families, at L8 per family per annum              800,000\n  100,000 families, at L7 per family per annum              700,000\n  104,000 families, at L5 per family per annum              520,000\n\n  And instead of ten shillings per head for the education\n    of other children, to allow fifty shillings per family\n    for that purpose to fifty thousand families             250,000\n                                                         ----------\n                                                         L2,770,000\n    140,000 aged persons as before                        1,120,000\n                                                         ----------\n                                                         L3,890,000\n\nThis arrangement amounts to the same sum as stated in this work, Part\nII, line number 1068, including the L250,000 for education; but it\nprovides (including the aged people) for four hundred and four thousand\nfamilies, which is almost one third of an the families in England.]\n\n[Footnote 40: I know it is the opinion of many of the most enlightened characters\nin France (there always will be those who see further into events than\nothers), not only among the general mass of citizens, but of many of the\nprincipal members of the former National Assembly, that the monarchical\nplan will not continue many years in that country. They have found out,\nthat as wisdom cannot be made hereditary, power ought not; and that, for\na man to merit a million sterling a year from a nation, he ought to have\na mind capable of comprehending from an atom to a universe, which, if he\nhad, he would be above receiving the pay. But they wished not to appear\nto lead the nation faster than its own reason and interest dictated. In\nall the conversations where I have been present upon this subject, the\nidea always was, that when such a time, from the general opinion of the\nnation, shall arrive, that the honourable and liberal method would be,\nto make a handsome present in fee simple to the person, whoever he may\nbe, that shall then be in the monarchical office, and for him to retire\nto the enjoyment of private life, possessing his share of general rights\nand privileges, and to be no more accountable to the public for his time\nand his conduct than any other citizen.]\n\n[Footnote 41: The gentleman who signed the address and declaration as chairman of\nthe meeting, Mr. Horne Tooke, being generally supposed to be the person\nwho drew it up, and having spoken much in commendation of it, has\nbeen jocularly accused of praising his own work. To free him from this\nembarrassment, and to save him the repeated trouble of mentioning the\nauthor, as he has not failed to do, I make no hesitation in saying,\nthat as the opportunity of benefiting by the French Revolution easily\noccurred to me, I drew up the publication in question, and showed it to\nhim and some other gentlemen, who, fully approving it, held a meeting\nfor the purpose of making it public, and subscribed to the amount of\nfifty guineas to defray the expense of advertising. I believe there\nare at this time, in England, a greater number of men acting on\ndisinterested principles, and determined to look into the nature and\npractices of government themselves, and not blindly trust, as\nhas hitherto been the case, either to government generally, or to\nparliaments, or to parliamentary opposition, than at any former period.\nHad this been done a century ago, corruption and taxation had not\narrived to the height they are now at.]\n\n\n                          -END OF PART II.-","title":"The Writings of Thomas Paine \u2014 Volume 2 (1779-1792): The Rights of Man","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":93329}