{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_62757/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_62757","id":"gutenberg_62757","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/62757","summary":null,"tags":["Burke, Edmund, 1729-1797. Reflections on the revolution in France","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","France -- History -- Revolution, 1789-1799 -- Causes","Human rights","Liberty"],"text":"A\n                              VINDICATION\n                                 OF THE\n                             RIGHTS OF MEN,\n                                  IN A\n                                 LETTER\n                        TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE\n                            _EDMUND BURKE_;\n                             OCCASIONED BY\n                            HIS REFLECTIONS\n                                 ON THE\n                         REVOLUTION IN FRANCE.\n\n\n                       _By MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT._\n\n\n                          THE SECOND EDITION.\n\n\n                               _LONDON_:\n\n                        PRINTED FOR J. JOHNSON.\n                    NO. 72, ST. PAUL\u2019S CHURCH-YARD.\n\n\n                              M. DCC. XC.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                             ADVERTISEMENT.\n\n\nMr. Burke\u2019s Reflections on the French Revolution first engaged my\nattention as the transient topic of the day; and reading it more for\namusement than information, my indignation was roused by the sophistical\narguments, that every moment crossed me, in the questionable shape of\nnatural feelings and common sense.\n\nMany pages of the following letter were the effusions of the moment;\nbut, swelling imperceptibly to a considerable size, the idea was\nsuggested of publishing a short vindication of _the Rights of Men_.\n\nNot having leisure or patience to follow this desultory writer through\nall the devious tracks in which his fancy has started fresh game, I have\nconfined my strictures, in a great measure, to the grand principles at\nwhich he has levelled many ingenious arguments in a very specious garb.\n\n\n\n\n                                   A\n                                 LETTER\n                                 TO THE\n                    _Right Honourable EDMUND BURKE_.\n\n\n  SIR,\n\nIt is not necessary, with courtly insincerity, to apologise to you for\nthus intruding on your precious time, not to profess that I think it an\nhonour to discuss an important subject with a man whose literary\nabilities have raised him to notice in the state. I have not yet learned\nto twist my periods, nor, in the equivocal idiom of politeness, to\ndisguise my sentiments, and imply what I should be afraid to utter: if,\ntherefore, in the course of this epistle, I chance to express contempt,\nand even indignation, with some emphasis, I beseech you to believe that\nit is not a flight of fancy; for truth, in morals, has ever appeared to\nme the essence of the sublime; and, in taste, simplicity the only\ncriterion of the beautiful. But I war not with an individual when I\ncontend for the _rights of men_ and the liberty of reason. You see I do\nnot condescend to cull my words to avoid the invidious phrase, nor shall\nI be prevented from giving a manly definition of it, by the flimsy\nridicule which a lively fancy has interwoven with the present\nacceptation of the term. Reverencing the rights of humanity, I shall\ndare to assert them; not intimidated by the horse laugh that you have\nraised, or waiting till time has wiped away the compassionate tears\nwhich you have elaborately laboured to excite.\n\nFrom the many just sentiments interspersed through the letter before me,\nand from the whole tendency of it, I should believe you to be a good,\nthough a vain man, if some circumstances in your conduct did not render\nthe inflexibility of your integrity doubtful; and for this vanity a\nknowledge of human nature enables me to discover such extenuating\ncircumstances, in the very texture of your mind, that I am ready to call\nit amiable, and separate the public from the private character.\n\nI know that a lively imagination renders a man particularly calculated\nto shine in conversation and in those desultory productions where method\nis disregarded; and the instantaneous applause which his eloquence\nextorts is at once a reward and a spur. Once a wit and always a wit, is\nan aphorism that has received the sanction of experience; yet I am apt\nto conclude that the man who with scrupulous anxiety endeavours to\nsupport that shining character, can never nourish by reflection any\nprofound, or, if you please, metaphysical passion. Ambition becomes only\nthe tool of vanity, and his reason, the weather-cock of unrestrained\nfeelings, is only employed to varnish over the faults which it ought to\nhave corrected.\n\nSacred, however, would the infirmities and errors of a good man be, in\nmy eyes, if they were only displayed in a private circle; if the venial\nfault only rendered the wit anxious, like a celebrated beauty, to raise\nadmiration on every occasion, and excite emotion, instead of the calm\nreciprocation of mutual esteem and unimpassioned respect. Such vanity\nenlivens social intercourse, and forces the little great man to be\nalways on his guard to secure his throne; and an ingenious man, who is\never on the watch for conquest, will, in his eagerness to exhibit his\nwhole store of knowledge, furnish an attentive observer with some useful\ninformation, calcined by fancy and formed by taste.\n\nAnd though some dry reasoner might whisper that the arguments were\nsuperficial, and should even add, that the feelings which are thus\nostentatiously displayed are often the cold declamation of the head, and\nnot the effusions of the heart\u2014what will these shrewd remarks avail,\nwhen the witty arguments and ornamental feelings are on a level with the\ncomprehension of the fashionable world, and a book is found very\namusing? Even the Ladies, Sir, may repeat your sprightly sallies, and\nretail in theatrical attitudes many of your sentimental exclamations.\nSensibility is the _manie_ of the day, and compassion the virtue which\nis to cover a multitude of vices, whilst justice is left to mourn in\nsullen silence, and balance truth in vain.\n\nIn life, an honest man with a confined understanding is frequently the\nslave of his habits and the dupe of his feelings, whilst the man with a\nclearer head and colder heart makes the passions of others bend to his\ninterest; but truly sublime is the character that acts from principle,\nand governs the inferior springs of activity without slackening their\nvigour; whose feelings give vital heat to his resolves, but never hurry\nhim into feverish eccentricities.\n\nHowever, as you have informed us that respect chills love, it is natural\nto conclude, that all your pretty flights arise from your pampered\nsensibility; and that, vain of this fancied pre-eminence of organs, you\nfoster every emotion till the fumes, mounting to your brain, dispel the\nsober suggestions of reason. It is not in this view surprising, that\nwhen you should argue you become impassioned, and that reflection\ninflames your imagination, instead of enlightening your understanding.\n\nQuitting now the flowers of rhetoric, let us, Sir, reason together; and,\nbelieve me, I should not have meddled with these troubled waters, in\norder to point out your inconsistencies, if your wit had not burnished\nup some rusty, baneful opinions, and swelled the shallow current of\nridicule till it resembled the flow of reason, and presumed to be the\ntest of truth.\n\nI shall not attempt to follow you through \u201chorse-way and foot-path;\u201d\nbut, attacking the foundation of your opinions, I shall leave the\nsuperstructure to find a centre of gravity on which it may lean till\nsome strong blast puffs it into air; or your teeming fancy, which the\nripening judgment of sixty years has not tamed, produces another Chinese\nerection, to stare, at every turn, the plain country people in the face,\nwho bluntly call such an airy edifice\u2014a folly.\n\nThe birthright of man, to give you, Sir, a short definition of this\ndisputed right, is such a degree of liberty, civil and religious, as is\ncompatible with the liberty of every other individual with whom he is\nunited in a social compact, and the continued existence of that compact.\n\nLiberty, in this simple, unsophisticated sense, I acknowledge, is a fair\nidea that has never yet received a form in the various governments that\nhave been established on our beauteous globe; the demon of property has\never been at hand to encroach on the sacred rights of men, and to fence\nround with awful pomp laws that war with justice. But that it results\nfrom the eternal foundation of right\u2014from immutable truth\u2014who will\npresume to deny, that pretends to rationality\u2014if reason has led them to\nbuild their morality[1] and religion on an everlasting foundation\u2014the\nattributes of God?\n\nI glow with indignation when I attempt, methodically, to unravel your\nslavish paradoxes, in which I can find no fixed first principle to\nrefute; I shall not, therefore, condescend to shew where you affirm in\none page what you deny in another; and how frequently you draw\nconclusions without any previous premises:\u2014it would be something like\ncowardice to fight with a man who had never exercised the weapons with\nwhich his opponent chose to combat, and irksome to refute sentence after\nsentence in which the latent spirit of tyranny appeared.\n\nI perceive, from the whole tenor of your Reflections, that you have a\nmortal antipathy to reason; but, if there is any thing like argument, or\nfirst principles, in your wild declamation, behold the result:\u2014that we\nare to reverence the rust of antiquity, and term the unnatural customs,\nwhich ignorance and mistaken self-interest have consolidated, the sage\nfruit of experience: nay, that, if we do discover some errors, our\n_feelings_ should lead us to excuse, with blind love, or unprincipled\nfilial affection, the venerable vestiges of ancient days. These are\ngothic notions of beauty\u2014the ivy is beautiful, but, when it insidiously\ndestroys the trunk from which it receives support, who would not grub it\nup?\n\nFurther, that we ought cautiously to remain for ever in frozen\ninactivity, because a thaw, whilst it nourishes the soil, spreads a\ntemporary inundation; and the fear of risking any personal present\nconvenience should prevent a struggle for the most estimable advantages.\nThis is sound reasoning, I grant, in the mouth of the rich and\nshort-sighted.\n\nYes, Sir, the strong gained riches, the few have sacrificed the many to\ntheir vices; and, to be able to pamper their appetites, and supinely\nexist without exercising mind or body, they have ceased to be men.\u2014Lost\nto the relish of true pleasure, such beings would, indeed, deserve\ncompassion, if injustice was not softened by the tyrant\u2019s\nplea\u2014necessity; if prescription was not raised as an immortal boundary\nagainst innovation. Their minds, in fact, instead of being cultivated,\nhave been so warped by education, that it may require some ages to bring\nthem back to nature, and enable them to see their true interest, with\nthat degree of conviction which is necessary to influence their conduct.\n\nThe civilization which has taken place in Europe has been very partial,\nand, like every custom that an arbitrary point of honour has\nestablished, refines the manners at the expence of morals, by making\nsentiments and opinions current in conversation that have no root in the\nheart, or weight in the cooler resolves of the mind.\u2014And what has\nstopped its progress?\u2014hereditary property\u2014hereditary honours. The man\nhas been changed into an artificial monster by the station in which he\nwas born, and the consequent homage that benumbed his faculties like the\ntorpedo\u2019s touch;\u2014or a being, with a capacity of reasoning, would not\nhave failed to discover, as his faculties unfolded, that true happiness\narose from the friendship and intimacy which can only be enjoyed by\nequals; and that charity is not a condescending distribution of alms,\nbut an intercourse of good offices and mutual benefits, founded on\nrespect for justice and humanity.\n\nGoverned by these principles, the poor wretch, whose _inelegant_\ndistress extorted from a mixed feeling of disgust and animal sympathy\npresent relief, would have been considered as a man, whose misery\ndemanded a part of his birthright, supposing him to be industrious; but\nshould his vices have reduced him to poverty, he could only have\naddressed his fellow-men as weak beings, subject to like passions, who\nought to forgive, because they expect to be forgiven, for suffering the\nimpulse of the moment to silence the suggestions of conscience, or\nreason, which you will; for, in my view of things, they are synonymous\nterms.\n\nWill Mr. Burke be at the trouble to inform us, how far we are to go back\nto discover the rights of men, since the light of reason is such a\nfallacious guide that none but fools trust to its cold investigation?\n\nIn the infancy of society, confining our view to our own country,\ncustoms were established by the lawless power of an ambitious\nindividual; or a weak prince was obliged to comply with every demand of\nthe licentious barbarous insurgents, who disputed his authority with\nirrefragable arguments at the point of their swords; or the more\nspecious requests of the Parliament, who only allowed him conditional\nsupplies.\n\nAre these the venerable pillars of our constitution? And is Magna Charta\nto rest for its chief support on a former grant, which reverts to\nanother, till chaos becomes the base of the mighty structure\u2014or we\ncannot tell what?\u2014for coherence, without some pervading principle of\norder, is a solecism.\n\nSpeaking of Edward the IIId. Hume observes, that \u2018he was a prince of\ngreat capacity, not governed by favourites, not led astray by any unruly\npassion, sensible that nothing could be more essential to his interests\nthan to keep on good terms with his people: yet, on the whole, it\nappears that the government, at best, was only a barbarous monarchy, not\nregulated by any fixed maxims, or bounded by any certain or undisputed\nrights, which in practice were regularly observed. The King conducted\nhimself by one set of principles; the Barons by another; the Commons by\na third; the Clergy by a fourth. All these systems of government were\nopposite and incompatible: each of them prevailed in its turn, as\nincidents were favourable to it: a great prince rendered the monarchical\npower predominant: the weakness of a king gave reins to the aristocracy:\na superstitious age saw the clergy triumphant: the people, for whom\nchiefly government was instituted, and who chiefly deserve\nconsideration, were the weakest of the whole.\u2019\n\nAnd just before that most auspicious \u00e6ra, the fourteenth century, during\nthe reign of Richard II. whose total incapacity to manage the reins of\npower, and keep in subjection his haughty Barons, rendered him a mere\ncypher; the House of Commons, to whom he was obliged frequently to\napply, not only for subsidies but assistance to quell the insurrections\nthat the contempt in which he was held naturally produced, gradually\nrose into power; for whenever they granted supplies to the King, they\ndemanded in return, though it bore the name of petition, a confirmation,\nor the renewal of former charters, which had been infringed, and even\nutterly disregarded by the King and his seditious Barons, who\nprincipally held their independence of the crown by force of arms, and\nthe encouragement which they gave to robbers and villains, who infested\nthe country, and lived by rapine and violence.\n\nTo what dreadful extremities were the poorer sort reduced, their\nproperty, the fruit of their industry, being entirely at the disposal of\ntheir lords, who were so many petty tyrants!\n\nIn return for the supplies and assistance which the king received from\nthe commons, they demanded privileges, which Edward, in his distress for\nmoney to prosecute the numerous wars in which he was engaged during the\ngreater part of his reign, was constrained to grant them; so that by\ndegrees they rose to power, and became a check on both king and nobles.\nThus was the foundation of our liberty established, chiefly through the\npressing necessities of the king, who was more intent on being supplied\nfor the moment, in order to carry on his wars and ambitious projects,\nthan aware of the blow he gave to kingly power, by thus making a body of\nmen feel their importance, who afterwards might strenuously oppose\ntyranny and oppression, and effectually guard the subject\u2019s property\nfrom seizure and confiscation. Richard\u2019s weakness completed what\nEdward\u2019s ambition began.\n\nAt this period, it is true, Wickliffe opened a vista for reason by\nattacking some of the most pernicious tenets of the church of Rome;\nstill the prospect was sufficiently misty to authorize the\nquestion\u2014Where was the dignity of thinking of the fourteenth century?\n\nA Roman Catholic, it is true, enlightened by the reformation, might,\nwith singular propriety, celebrate the epoch that preceded it, to turn\nour thoughts from former atrocious enormities; but a Protestant must\nacknowledge that this faint dawn of liberty only made the subsiding\ndarkness more visible; and that the boasted virtues of that century all\nbear the stamp of stupid pride and headstrong barbarism. Civility was\nthen called condescension, and ostentatious almsgiving humanity; and men\nwere content to borrow their virtues, or, to speak with more propriety,\ntheir consequence, from posterity, rather than undertake the arduous\ntask of acquiring it for themselves.\n\nThe imperfection of all modern governments must, without waiting to\nrepeat the trite remark, that all human institutions are unavoidably\nimperfect, in a great measure have arisen from this simple circumstance,\nthat the constitution, if such an heterogeneous mass deserve that name,\nwas settled in the dark days of ignorance, when the minds of men were\nshackled by the grossest prejudices and most immoral superstition. And\ndo you, Sir, a sagacious philosopher, recommend night as the fittest\ntime to analyze a ray of light?\n\nAre we to seek for the rights of men in the ages when a few marks were\nthe only penalty imposed for the life of a man, and death for death when\nthe property of the rich was touched? when\u2014I blush to discover the\ndepravity of our nature\u2014when a deer was killed! Are these the laws that\nit is natural to love, and sacrilegious to invade?\u2014Were the rights of\nmen understood when the law authorized or tolerated murder?\u2014or is power\nand right the same in your creed?\n\nBut in fact all your declamation leads so directly to this conclusion,\nthat I beseech you to ask your own heart, when you call yourself a\nfriend of liberty, whether it would not be more consistent to style\nyourself the champion of property, the adorer of the golden image which\npower has set up?\u2014And, when you are examining your heart, if it would\nnot be too much like mathematical drudgery, to which a fine imagination\nvery reluctantly stoops, enquire further, how it is consistent with the\nvulgar notions of honesty, and the foundation of morality\u2014truth; for a\nman to boast of his virtue and independence, when he cannot forget that\nhe is at the moment enjoying the wages of falsehood[2]; and that, in a\nskulking, unmanly way, he has secured himself a pension of fifteen\nhundred pounds per annum on the Irish establishment? Do honest men, Sir,\nfor I am not rising to the refined principle of honour, ever receive the\nreward of their public services, or secret assistance, in the name of\n_another_?\n\nBut to return from a digression which you will more perfectly understand\nthan any of my readers\u2014on what principle you, Sir, can justify the\nreformation, which tore up by the roots an old establishment, I cannot\nguess\u2014but, I beg your pardon, perhaps you do not wish to justify it\u2014and\nhave some mental reservation to excuse you, to yourself, for not openly\navowing your reverence. Or, to go further back;\u2014had you been a Jew\u2014you\nwould have joined in the cry, crucify him!\u2014crucify him! The promulgator\nof a new doctrine, and the violator of old laws and customs, that not\nmelting, like ours, into darkness and ignorance, rested on Divine\nauthority, must have been a dangerous innovator, in your eyes,\nparticularly if you had not been informed that the Carpenter\u2019s Son was\nof the stock and lineage of David. But there is no end to the arguments\nwhich might be deduced to combat such palpable absurdities, by shewing\nthe manifest inconsistencies which are necessarily involved in a direful\ntrain of false opinions.\n\nIt is necessary emphatically to repeat, that there are rights which men\ninherit at their birth, as rational creatures, who were raised above the\nbrute creation by their improvable faculties; and that, in receiving\nthese, not from their forefathers but, from God, prescription can never\nundermine natural rights.\n\nA father may dissipate his property without his child having any right\nto complain;\u2014but should he attempt to sell him for a slave, or fetter\nhim with laws contrary to reason; nature, in enabling him to discern\ngood from evil, teaches him to break the ignoble chain, and not to\nbelieve that bread becomes flesh, and wine blood, because his parents\nswallowed the Eucharist with this blind persuasion.\n\nThere is no end to this implicit submission to authority\u2014some where it\nmust stop, or we return to barbarism; and the capacity of improvement,\nwhich gives us a natural sceptre on earth, is a cheat, an ignis-fatuus,\nthat leads us from inviting meadows into bogs and dunghills. And if it\nbe allowed that many of the precautions, with which any alteration was\nmade, in our government, were prudent, it rather proves its weakness\nthan substantiates an opinion of the soundness of the stamina, or the\nexcellence of the constitution.\n\nBut on what principle Mr. Burke could defend American independence, I\ncannot conceive; for the whole tenor of his plausible arguments settles\nslavery on an everlasting foundation. Allowing his servile reverence for\nantiquity, and prudent attention to self-interest, to have the force\nwhich he insists on, the slave trade ought never to be abolished; and,\nbecause our ignorant forefathers, not understanding the native dignity\nof man, sanctioned a traffic that outrages every suggestion of reason\nand religion, we are to submit to the inhuman custom, and term an\natrocious insult to humanity the love of our country, and a proper\nsubmission to the laws by which our property is secured.\u2014Security of\nproperty! Behold, in a few words, the definition of English liberty. And\nto this selfish principle every nobler one is sacrificed.\u2014The Briton\ntakes place of the man, and the image of God is lost in the citizen! But\nit is not that enthusiastic flame which in Greece and Rome consumed\nevery sordid passion: no, self is the focus; and the disparting rays\nrise not above our foggy atmosphere. But softly\u2014it is only the property\nof the rich that is secure; the man who lives by the sweat of his brow\nhas no asylum from oppression; the strong man may enter\u2014when was the\ncastle of the poor sacred? and the base informer steal him from the\nfamily that depend on his industry for subsistence.\n\nFully sensible as you must be of the baneful consequences that\ninevitably follow this notorious infringement on the dearest rights of\nmen, and that it is an infernal blot on the very face of our immaculate\nconstitution, I cannot avoid expressing my surprise that when you\nrecommended our form of government as a model, you did not caution the\nFrench against the arbitrary custom of pressing men for the sea service.\nYou should have hinted to them, that property in England is much more\nsecure than liberty, and not have concealed that the liberty of an\nhonest mechanic\u2014his all\u2014is often sacrificed to secure the property of\nthe rich. For it is a farce to pretend that a man fights _for his\ncountry, his hearth, or his altars_, when he has neither liberty nor\nproperty.\u2014His property is in his nervous arms\u2014and they are compelled to\npull a strange rope at the surly command of a tyrannic boy, who probably\nobtained his rank on account of his family connections, or the\nprostituted vote of his father, whose interest in a borough, or voice as\na senator, was acceptable to the minister.\n\nOur penal laws punish with death the thief who steals a few pounds; but\nto take by violence, or trepan, a man, is no such heinous offence.\u2014For\nwho shall dare to complain of the venerable vestige of the law that\nrendered the life of a deer more sacred than that of a man? But it was\nthe poor man with only his native dignity who was thus oppressed\u2014and\nonly metaphysical sophists and cold mathematicians can discern this\ninsubstantial form; it is a work of abstraction\u2014and a _gentleman_ of\nlively imagination must borrow some drapery from fancy before he can\nlove or pity a _man_.\u2014Misery, to reach your heart, I perceive, must have\nits cap and bells; your tears are reserved, very _naturally_ considering\nyour character, for the declamation of the theatre, or for the downfall\nof queens, whose rank alters the nature of folly, and throws a graceful\nveil over vices that degrade humanity; whilst the distress of many\nindustrious mothers, whose _helpmates_ have been torn from them, and the\nhungry cry of helpless babes, were vulgar sorrows that could not move\nyour commiseration, though they might extort an alms. \u2018The tears that\nare shed for fictitious sorrow are admirably adapted,\u2019 says Rousseau,\n\u2018to make us proud of all the virtues which we do not possess.\u2019\n\nThe baneful effects of the despotic practice of pressing we shall, in\nall probability, soon feel; for a number of men, who have been taken\nfrom their daily employments, will shortly be let loose on society, now\nthat there is no longer any apprehension of a war.\n\nThe vulgar, and by this epithet I mean not only to describe a class of\npeople, who, working to support the body, have not had time to cultivate\ntheir minds; but likewise those who, born in the lap of affluence, have\nnever had their invention sharpened by necessity are, nine out of ten,\nthe creatures of habit and impulse.\n\nIf I were not afraid to derange your nervous system by the bare mention\nof a metaphysical enquiry, I should observe, Sir, that self-preservation\nis, literally speaking, the first law of nature; and that the care\nnecessary to support and guard the body is the first step to unfold the\nmind, and inspire a manly spirit of independence. The mewing babe in\nswaddling clothes, who is treated like a superior being, may perchance\nbecome a gentleman; but nature must have given him uncommon faculties\nif, when pleasure hangs on every bough, he has sufficient fortitude\neither to exercise his mind or body in order to acquire personal merit.\nThe passions are necessary auxiliaries of reason: a present impulse\npushes us forward, and when we discover that the game did not deserve\nthe chace, we find that we have gone over much ground, and not only\ngained many new ideas, but a habit of thinking. The exercise of our\nfaculties is the great end, though not the goal we had in view when we\nstarted with such eagerness.\n\nIt would be straying still further into metaphysics to add, that this is\none of the strongest arguments for the natural immortality of the\nsoul.\u2014Every thing looks like a means, nothing like an end, or point of\nrest, when we can say, now let us sit down and enjoy the present moment;\nour faculties and wishes are proportioned to the present scene; we may\nreturn without repining to our sister clod. And, if no conscious dignity\nwhisper that we are capable of relishing more refined pleasures, the\nthirst of truth appears to be allayed; and thought, the faint type of an\nimmaterial energy, no longer bounding it knows not where, is confined to\nthe tenement that affords it sufficient variety.\u2014The rich man may then\nthank his God that he is not like other men\u2014but when is retribution to\nbe made to the miserable, who cry day and night for help, and there is\nno one at hand to help them? And not only misery but immorality proceeds\nfrom this stretch of arbitrary authority. The vulgar have not the power\nof emptying their mind of the only ideas they imbibed whilst their hands\nwere employed; they cannot quickly turn from one kind of life to\nanother. Pressing them entirely unhinges their minds; they acquire new\nhabits, and cannot return to their old occupations with their former\nreadiness; consequently they fall into idleness, drunkenness, and the\nwhole train of vices which you stigmatise as gross.\n\nA government that acts in this manner cannot be called a good parent,\nnor inspire natural (habitual is the proper word) affection, in the\nbreasts of children who are thus disregarded.\n\nThe game laws are almost as oppressive to the peasantry as\npress-warrants to the mechanic. In this land of liberty what is to\nsecure the property of the poor farmer when his noble landlord chooses\nto plant a decoy field near his little property? Game devour the fruit\nof his labour; but fines and imprisonment await him if he dare to kill\nany\u2014or lift up his hand to interrupt the pleasure of his lord. How many\nfamilies have been plunged, in the _sporting_ countries, into misery and\nvice for some paltry transgression of these coercive laws, by the\nnatural consequence of that anger which a man feels when he sees the\nreward of his industry laid waste by unfeeling luxury?\u2014when his\nchildren\u2019s bread is given to dogs!\n\nYou have shewn, Sir, by your silence on these subjects, that your\nrespect for rank has swallowed up the common feelings of humanity; you\nseem to consider the poor as only the live stock of an estate, the\nfeather of hereditary nobility. When you had so little respect for the\nsilent majesty of misery, I am not surprised at your manner of treating\nan individual whose brow a mitre will never grace, and whose popularity\nmay have wounded your vanity\u2014for vanity is ever fore. Even in France,\nSir, before the revolution, literary celebrity procured a man the\ntreatment of a gentleman; but you are going back for your credentials of\npoliteness to more distant times.\u2014Gothic affability is the mode you\nthink proper to adopt, the condescension of a Baron, not the civility of\na liberal man. Politeness is, indeed, the only substitute for humanity;\nor what distinguishes the civilised man from the unlettered savage? and\nhe who is not governed by reason should square his behaviour by an\narbitrary standard; but by what rule your attack on Dr. Price was\nregulated we have yet to learn.\n\nI agree with you, Sir, that the pulpit is not the place for political\ndiscussions, though it might be more excusable to enter on such a\nsubject, when the day was set apart merely to commemorate a political\nrevolution, and no stated duty was encroached upon. I will, however,\nwave this point, and allow that Dr. Price\u2019s zeal may have carried him\nfurther than sound reason can justify. I do also most cordially coincide\nwith you, that till we can see the remote consequences of things,\npresent calamities must appear in the ugly form of evil, and excite our\ncommiseration. The good that time slowly educes from them may be hid\nfrom mortal eye, or dimly seen; whilst sympathy compels man to feel for\nman, and almost restrains the hand that would amputate a limb to save\nthe whole body. But, after making this concession, allow me to\nexpostulate with you, and calmly hold up the glass which will shew you\nyour partial feelings.\n\nIn reprobating Dr. Price\u2019s opinions you might have spared the man; and\nif you had had but half as much reverence for the grey hairs of virtue\nas for the accidental distinctions of rank, you would not have treated\nwith such indecent familiarity and supercilious contempt, a member of\nthe community whose talents and modest virtues place him high in the\nscale of moral excellence. I am not accustomed to look up with vulgar\nawe, even when mental superiority exalts a man above his fellows; but\nstill the sight of a man whose habits are fixed by piety and reason, and\nwhose virtues are consolidated into goodness, commands my homage\u2014and I\nshould touch his errors with a tender hand when I made a parade of my\nsensibility. Granting, for a moment, that Dr. Price\u2019s political opinions\nare Utopian reveries, and that the world is not yet sufficiently\ncivilized to adopt such a sublime system of morality; they could,\nhowever, only be the reveries of a benevolent mind. Tottering on the\nverge of the grave, that worthy man in his whole life never dreamt of\nstruggling for power or riches; and, if a glimpse of the glad dawn of\nliberty rekindled the fire of youth in his veins, you, who could not\nstand the fascinating glance of a _great_ Lady\u2019s eyes, when neither\nvirtue nor sense beamed in them, might have pardoned his unseemly\ntransport,\u2014if such it must be deemed.\n\nI could almost fancy that I now see this respectable old man, in his\npulpit, with hands clasped, and eyes devoutly fixed, praying with all\nthe simple energy of unaffected piety; or, when more erect, inculcating\nthe dignity of virtue, and enforcing the doctrines his life adorns;\nbenevolence animated each feature, and persuasion attuned his accents;\nthe preacher grew eloquent, who only laboured to be clear; and the\nrespect that he extorted, seemed only the respect due to personified\nvirtue and matured wisdom.\u2014Is this the man you brand with so many\nopprobrious epithets? he whose private life will stand the test of the\nstrictest enquiry\u2014away with such unmanly sarcasms, and puerile\nconceits.\u2014But, before I close this part of my animadversions, I must\nconvict you of wilful misrepresentation and wanton abuse.\n\nDr. Price, when he reasons on the necessity of men attending some place\nof public worship, concisely obviates an objection that has been made in\nthe form of an apology, by advising those, who do not approve of our\nLiturgy, and cannot find any mode of worship out of the church, in which\nthey can conscientiously join, to establish one for themselves. This\nplain advice you have tortured into a very different meaning, and\nrepresented the preacher as actuated by a dissenting phrensy,\nrecommending dissensions, \u2018not to diffuse truth, but to spread\ncontradictions[3].\u2019 A simple question will silence this impertinent\ndeclamation.\u2014What is truth? A few fundamental truths meet the first\nenquiry of reason, and appear as clear to an unwarped mind, as that air\nand bread are necessary to enable the body to fulfil its vital\nfunctions; but the opinions which men discuss with so much heat must be\nsimplified and brought back to first principles; or who can discriminate\nthe vagaries of the imagination, or scrupulosity of weakness, from the\nverdict of reason? Let all these points be demonstrated, and not\ndetermined by arbitrary authority and dark traditions, lest a dangerous\nsupineness should take place; for probably, in ceasing to enquire, our\nreason would remain dormant, and delivered up, without a curb, to every\nimpulse of passion, we might soon lose sight of the clear light which\nthe exercise of our understanding no longer kept alive. To argue from\nexperience, it should seem as if the human mind, averse to thought,\ncould only be opened by necessity; for, when it can take opinions on\ntrust, it gladly lets the spirit lie quiet in its gross tenement.\nPerhaps the most improving exercise of the mind, confining the argument\nto the enlargement of the understanding, is the restless enquiries that\nhover on the boundary, or stretch over the dark abyss of uncertainty.\nThese lively conjectures are the breezes that preserve the still lake\nfrom stagnating. We should be aware of confining all moral excellence to\none channel, however capacious; or, if we are so narrow-minded, we\nshould not forget how much we owe to chance that our inheritance was not\nMahometism; and that the iron hand of destiny, in the shape of deeply\nrooted authority, has not suspended the sword of destruction over our\nheads. But to return to the misrepresentation.\n\n[4]Blackstone, to whom Mr. Burke pays great deference, seems to agree\nwith Dr. Price, that the succession of the King of Great Britain depends\non the choice of the people, or that they have a power to cut it off;\nbut this power, as you have fully proved, has been cautiously exerted,\nand might with more propriety be termed a _right_ than a power. Be it\nso!\u2014yet when you elaborately cited precedents to shew that our\nforefathers paid great respect to hereditary claims, you might have gone\nback to your favourite epoch, and shewn their respect for a church that\nfulminating laws have since loaded with opprobrium. The preponderance of\ninconsistencies, when weighed with precedents, should lessen the most\nbigoted veneration for antiquity, and force men of the eighteenth\ncentury to acknowledge, that our _canonized forefathers_ were unable, or\nafraid, to revert to reason, without resting on the crutch of authority;\nand should not be brought as a proof that their children are never to be\nallowed to walk alone.\n\nWhen we doubt the infallible wisdom of our ancestors, it is only\nadvancing on the same ground to doubt the sincerity of the law, and the\npropriety of that servile appellation\u2014OUR SOVEREIGN LORD THE KING. Who\nwere the dictators of this adulatory language of the law? Were they not\ncourtly parasites and worldly priests? Besides, whoever at divine\nservice, whose feelings were not deadened by habit, or their\nunderstandings quiescent, ever repeated without horror the same epithets\napplied to a man and his Creator? If this is confused jargon\u2014say what\nare the dictates of sober reason, or the criterion to distinguish\nnonsense?\n\nYou further sarcastically animadvert on the consistency of the\ndemocratists, by wresting the obvious meaning of a common phrase, _the\ndregs of the people_; or your contempt for poverty may have led you into\nan error. Be that as it may, an unprejudiced man would have directly\nperceived the single sense of the word, and an old Member of Parliament\ncould scarcely have missed it. He who had so often felt the pulse of the\nelectors needed not have gone beyond his own experience to discover that\nthe dregs alluded to were the vicious, and not the lower class of the\ncommunity.\n\nAgain, Sir, I must doubt your sincerity or your discernment.\u2014You have\nbeen behind the curtain; and, though it might be difficult to bring back\nyour sophisticated heart to nature and make you feel like a man, yet the\nawestruck confusion in which you were plunged must have gone off when\nthe vulgar emotion of wonder, excited by finding yourself a Senator, had\nsubsided. Then you must have seen the clogged wheels of corruption\ncontinually oiled by the sweat of the laborious poor, squeezed out of\nthem by unceasing taxation. You must have discovered that the majority\nin the House of Commons was often purchased by the crown, and that the\npeople were oppressed by the influence of their own money, extorted by\nthe venal voice of a packed representation.\n\nYou must have known that a man of merit cannot rise in the church, the\narmy, or navy, unless he has some interest in a borough; and that even a\npaltry exciseman\u2019s place can only be secured by electioneering interest.\nI will go further, and assert that few Bishops, though there have been\nlearned and good Bishops, have gained the mitre without submitting to a\nservility of dependence that degrades the man.\u2014All these circumstances\nyou must have known, yet you talk of virtue and liberty, as the vulgar\ntalk of the letter of the law; and the polite of propriety. It is true\nthat these ceremonial observances produce decorum; the sepulchres are\nwhite-washed, and do not offend the squeamish eyes of high rank; but\nvirtue is out of the question when you only worship a shadow, and\nworship it to secure your property.\n\nMan has been termed, with strict propriety, a microcosm, a little world\nin himself.\u2014He is so;\u2014yet must, however, be reckoned an ephemera, or, to\nadopt your figure of rhetoric, a summer\u2019s fly. The perpetuation of\nproperty in our families is one of the privileges you most warmly\ncontend for; yet it would not be very difficult to prove that the mind\nmust have a very limited range that thus confines its benevolence to\nsuch a narrow circle, which, with great propriety, may be included in\nthe sordid calculations of blind self-love.\n\nA brutal attachment to children has appeared most conspicuous in parents\nwho have treated them like slaves, and demanded due homage for all the\nproperty they transferred to them, during their lives. It has led them\nto force their children to break the most sacred ties; to do violence to\na natural impulse, and run into legal prostitution to increase wealth or\nshun poverty; and, still worse, the dread of parental malediction has\nmade many weak characters violate truth in the face of Heaven; and, to\navoid a father\u2019s angry curse, the most sacred promises have been broken.\nIt appears to be a natural suggestion of reason, that a man should be\nfreed from implicit obedience to parents and private punishments, when\nhe is of an age to be subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of his\ncountry; and that the barbarous cruelty of allowing parents to imprison\ntheir children, to prevent their contaminating their noble blood by\nfollowing the dictates of nature when they chose to marry, or for any\nmisdemeanor that does not come under the cognizance of public justice,\nis one of the most arbitrary violations of liberty.\n\nWho can recount all the unnatural crimes which the _laudable_,\n_interesting_ desire of perpetuating a name has produced? The younger\nchildren have been sacrificed to the eldest son; sent into exile, or\nconfined in convents, that they might not encroach on what was called,\nwith shameful falsehood, the _family_ estate. Will Mr. Burke call this\nparental affection reasonable or virtuous?\u2014No; it is the spurious\noffspring of over-weening, mistaken pride\u2014and not that first source of\ncivilization, natural parental affection, that makes no difference\nbetween child and child, but what reason justifies by pointing out\nsuperior merit.\n\nAnother pernicious consequence which unavoidably arises from this\nartificial affection is, the insuperable bar which it puts in the way of\nearly marriages. It would be difficult to determine whether the minds or\nbodies of our youth are most injured by this impediment. Our young men\nbecome selfish coxcombs, and gallantry with modest women, and intrigues\nwith those of another description, weaken both mind and body, before\neither has arrived at maturity. The character of a master of a family, a\nhusband, and a father, forms the citizen imperceptibly, by producing a\nsober manliness of thought, and orderly behaviour; but, from the lax\nmorals and depraved affections of the libertine, what results?\u2014a finical\nman of taste, who is only anxious to secure his own private\ngratifications, and to maintain his rank in society.\n\nThe same system has an equally pernicious effect on female morals.\u2014Girls\nare sacrificed to family convenience, or else marry to settle themselves\nin a superior rank, and coquet, without restraint, with the fine\ngentleman whom I have already described. And to such lengths has this\nvanity, this desire of shining, carried them, that it is not now\nnecessary to guard girls against imprudent love matches; for if some\nwidows did not now and then _fall_ in love, Love and Hymen would seldom\nmeet, unless at a village church.\n\nI do not intend to be sarcastically paradoxical when I say, that women\nof fashion take husbands that they may have it in their power to coquet,\nthe grand business of genteel life, with a number of admirers, and thus\nflutter the spring of life away, without laying up any store for the\nwinter of age, or being of any use to society. Affection in the marriage\nstate can only be founded on respect\u2014and are these weak beings\nrespectable? Children are neglected for lovers, and we express surprise\nthat adulteries are so common! A woman never forgets to adorn herself to\nmake an impression on the senses of the other sex, and to extort the\nhomage which it is gallant to pay, and yet we wonder that they have such\nconfined understandings!\n\nHave ye not heard that we cannot serve two masters? an immoderate desire\nto please contracts the faculties, and immerges, to borrow the idea of a\ngreat philosopher, the soul in matter, till it becomes unable to mount\non the wing of contemplation.\n\nIt would be an arduous task to trace all the vice and misery that arise\nin society from the middle class of people apeing the manners of the\ngreat. All are aiming to procure respect on account of their property;\nand most places are considered as sinecures that enable men to start\ninto notice. The grand concern of three parts out of four is to contrive\nto live above their equals, and to appear to be richer than they are.\nHow much domestic comfort and private satisfaction is sacrificed to this\nirrational ambition! It is a destructive mildew that blights the fairest\nvirtues; benevolence, friendship, generosity, and all those endearing\ncharities which bind human hearts together, and the pursuits which raise\nthe mind to higher contemplations, all that were not cankered in the bud\nby the false notions that \u2018grew with its growth and strengthened with\nits strength,\u2019 are crushed by the iron hand of property!\n\nProperty, I do not scruple to aver it, should be fluctuating, which\nwould be the case, if it were more equally divided amongst all the\nchildren of a family; else it is an everlasting rampart, in consequence\nof a barbarous feudal institution, that enables the elder son to\noverpower talents and depress virtue.\n\nBesides, an unmanly servility, most inimical to true dignity of\ncharacter is, by this means, fostered in society. Men of some abilities\nplay on the follies of the rich, and mounting to fortune as they degrade\nthemselves, they stand in the way of men of superior talents, who cannot\nadvance in such crooked paths, or wade through the filth which\n_parasites_ never boggle at. Pursuing their way straight forward, their\nspirit is either bent or broken by the rich man\u2019s contumelies, or the\ndifficulties they have to encounter.\n\nThe only security of property that nature authorizes and reason\nsanctions is, the right a man has to enjoy the acquisitions which his\ntalents and industry have acquired; and to bequeath them to whom he\nchooses. Happy would it be for the world if there were no other road to\nwealth or honour; if pride, in the shape of parental affection, did not\nabsorb the man, and prevent friendship from having the same weight as\nrelationship. Luxury and effeminacy would not then introduce so much\nidiotism into the noble families which form one of the pillars of our\nstate: the ground would not lie fallow, nor would undirected activity of\nmind spread the contagion of restless idleness, and its concomitant,\nvice, through the whole mass of society.\n\nInstead of gaming they might nourish a virtuous ambition, and love might\ntake place of the gallantry which you, with knightly fealty, venerate.\nWomen would probably then act like mothers, and the fine lady, become a\nrational woman, might think it necessary to superintend her family and\nsuckle her children, in order to fulfil her part of the social compact.\nBut vain is the hope, whilst great masses of property are hedged round\nby hereditary honours; for numberless vices, forced in the hot-bed of\nwealth, assume a sightly form to dazzle the senses and cloud the\nunderstanding. The respect paid to rank and fortune damps every generous\npurpose of the soul, and stifles the natural affections on which human\ncontentment ought to be built. Who will venturously ascend the steeps of\nvirtue, or explore the great deep for knowledge, when _the one thing\nneedful_, attained by less arduous exertions, if not inherited, procures\nthe attention man naturally pants after, and vice \u2018loses half its evil\nby losing all its grossness[5].\u2019\u2014What a sentiment to come from a moral\npen!\n\nA surgeon would tell you that by skinning over a wound you spread\ndisease through the whole frame; and, surely, they indirectly aim at\ndestroying all purity of morals, who poison the very source of virtue,\nby smearing a sentimental varnish over vice, to hide its natural\ndeformity. Stealing, whoring, and drunkenness, are gross vices, I\npresume, though they may not obliterate every moral sentiment, and have\na vulgar brand that makes them appear with all their native deformity;\nbut overreaching, adultery, and coquetry, are venial offences, though\nthey reduce virtue to an empty name, and make wisdom consist in saving\nappearances.\n\n\u2018On this scheme of things[6] a king _is_ but a man; a queen _is_ but a\nwoman; a woman _is_ but an animal, and an animal not of the highest\norder.\u2019\u2014All true, Sir; if she is not more attentive to the duties of\nhumanity than queens and fashionable ladies in general are, I will still\nfurther accede to the opinion you have so justly conceived of the spirit\nwhich begins to animate this age.\u2014\u2018All homage paid to the sex in\ngeneral, as such, and without distinct views, is to be regarded as\n_romance_ and folly.\u2019 Undoubtedly; because such homage vitiates them,\nprevents their endeavouring to obtain solid personal merit; and, in\nshort, makes those beings vain inconsiderate dolls, who ought to be\nprudent mothers and useful members of society. \u2018Regicide and sacrilege\nare but fictions of superstition corrupting jurisprudence, by destroying\nits simplicity. The murder of a king, or a queen, or a bishop, are only\ncommon homicide.\u2019\u2014Again I agree with you; but you perceive, Sir, that by\nleaving out the word _father_, I think the whole extent of the\ncomparison invidious.\n\nYou further proceed grossly to misrepresent Dr. Price\u2019s meaning; and,\nwith an affectation of holy fervour, express your indignation at his\nprofaning a beautiful rapturous ejaculation, when alluding to the King\nof France\u2019s submission to the National Assembly[7]; he rejoiced to hail\na glorious revolution, which promised an universal diffusion of liberty\nand happiness.\n\nObserve, Sir, that I called your piety affectation.\u2014A rant to enable you\nto point your venomous dart, and round your period. I speak with warmth,\nbecause, of all hypocrites, my soul most indignantly spurns a religious\none;\u2014and I very cautiously bring forward such a heavy charge, to strip\nyou of your cloak of sanctity. Your speech at the time the bill for a\nregency was agitated now lies before me.\u2014_Then_ you could in direct\nterms, to promote ambitious or interested views, exclaim without any\npious qualms\u2014\u2018Ought they to make a mockery of him, putting a crown of\nthorns on his head, a reed in his hand, and dressing him in a raiment of\npurple, cry, Hail! King of the British!\u2019 Where was your sensibility when\nyou could utter this cruel mockery, equally insulting to God and man? Go\nhence, thou slave of impulse, look into the private recesses of thy\nheart, and take not a mote from thy brother\u2019s eye, till thou hast\nremoved the beam from thine own.\n\nOf your partial feelings I shall take another view, and shew that\n\u2018following nature, which is,\u2019 you say, \u2018wisdom without reflection, and\n_above it_\u2019\u2014has led you into great inconsistences, to use the softest\nphrase. When, on a late melancholy occasion, a very important question\nwas agitated, with what indecent warmth did _you_ treat a woman, for I\nshall not lay any stress on her title, whose conduct in life has\ndeserved praise, though not, perhaps, the servile elogiums which have\nbeen lavished on the queen. But sympathy, and you tell us that you have\na heart of flesh, was made to give way to party spirit, and the feelings\nof a man, not to allude to your romantic gallantry, to the views of the\nstatesman. When you descanted on the horrors of the 6th of October, and\ngave a glowing, and, in some instances, a most exaggerated description\nof that infernal night, without having troubled yourself to clean your\npalette, you might have returned home and indulged us with a sketch of\nthe misery you personally aggravated.\n\nWith what eloquence might you not have insinuated, that the sight of\nunexpected misery and strange reverse of fortune makes the mind recoil\non itself; and, pondering, traced the uncertainty of all human hope, the\nfrail foundation of sublunary grandeur! What a climax lay before you. A\nfather torn from his children,\u2014a husband from an affectionate wife,\u2014a\nman from himself! And not torn by the resistless stroke of death, for\ntime would then have lent its aid to mitigate remediless sorrow; but\nthat living death, which only kept hope alive in the corroding form of\nsuspense, was a calamity that called for all your pity.\n\nThe sight of august ruins, of a depopulated country\u2014what are they to a\ndisordered soul! when all the faculties are mixed in wild confusion. It\nis then indeed we tremble for humanity\u2014and, if some wild fancy chance to\ncross the brain, we fearfully start, and pressing our hand against our\nbrow, ask if we are yet men?\u2014if our reason is undisturbed?\u2014if judgment\nhold the helm? Marius might sit with dignity on the ruins of Carthage,\nand the wretch in the Bastille, who longed in vain to see the human face\ndivine, might yet view the operations of his own mind, and vary the\nleaden prospect by new combinations of thought: poverty, shame, and even\nslavery, may be endured by the virtuous man\u2014he has still a world to\nrange in\u2014but the loss of reason appears a monstrous flaw in the moral\nworld, that eludes all investigation, and humbles without enlightening.\n\nIn this state was the King, when you, with unfeeling disrespect, and\nindecent haste, wished to strip him of all his hereditary honours.\u2014You\nwere so eager to taste the sweets of power, that you could not wait till\ntime had determined, whether a dreadful delirium would settle into a\nconfirmed madness; but, prying into the secrets of Omnipotence, you\nthundered out that God had _hurled him from his throne_, and that it was\nthe most insulting mockery to recollect that he had been a king, or to\ntreat him with any particular respect on account of his former\ndignity.\u2014And who was the monster whom Heaven had thus awfully deposed,\nand smitten with such an angry blow? Surely as harmless a character as\nLewis XVIth; and the queen of Great Britain, though her heart may not be\nenlarged by generosity, who will presume to compare her character with\nthat of the queen of France?\n\nWhere then was the infallibility of that extolled instinct which rises\nabove reason? was it warped by vanity, or _hurled_ from its throne by\nself-interest? To your own heart answer these questions in the sober\nhours of reflection\u2014and, after reviewing this gust of passion, learn to\nrespect the sovereignty of reason.\n\nI have, Sir, been reading, with a scrutinizing, comparative eye, several\nof your insensible and profane speeches during the King\u2019s illness. I\ndisdain to take advantage of a man\u2019s weak side, or draw consequences\nfrom an unguarded transport\u2014A lion preys not on carcasses! But on this\noccasion you acted systematically. It was not the passion of the moment,\nover which humanity draws a veil: no; what but the odious maxims of\nMachiavelian policy could have led you to have searched in the very\ndregs of misery for forcible arguments to support your party? Had not\nvanity or interest steeled your heart, you would have been shocked at\nthe cold insensibility which could carry a man to those dreadful\nmansions, where human weakness appears in its most awful form to\n_calculate_ the chances against the King\u2019s recovery. Impressed as _you\nare_ with respect for royalty, I am astonished that you did not tremble\nat every step, lest Heaven should avenge on your guilty head the insult\noffered to its vicegerent. But the conscience that is under the\ndirection of transient ebullitions of feeling, is not very tender or\nconsistent, when the current runs another way.\n\nHad you been in a philosophizing mood, had your heart or your reason\nbeen at home, you might have been convinced, by ocular demonstration,\nthat madness is only the absence of reason.\u2014The ruling angel leaving its\nseat, wild anarchy ensues. You would have seen that the uncontrouled\nimagination often pursues the most regular course in its most daring\nflight; and that the eccentricities are boldly relieved when judgment no\nlonger officiously arranges the sentiments, by bringing them to the test\nof principles. You would have seen every thing out of nature in that\nstrange chaos of levity and ferocity, and of all sorts of follies\njumbled together. You would have seen in that monstrous tragi-comic\nscene the most opposite passions necessarily succeed, and sometimes mix\nwith each other in the mind; alternate contempt and indignation;\nalternate laughter and tears; alternate scorn and horror[8].\u2014This is a\ntrue picture of that chaotic state of mind, called madness; when reason\ngone, we know not where, the wild elements of passion clash, and all is\nhorror and confusion. You might have heard the best turned conceits,\nflash following flash, and doubted whether the rhapsody was not\neloquent, if it had not been delivered in an equivocal language, neither\nverse nor prose, if the sparkling periods had not stood alone, wanting\nforce because they wanted concatenation.\n\nIt is a proverbial observation, that a very thin partition divides wit\nand madness. Poetry therefore naturally addresses the fancy, and the\nlanguage of passion is with great felicity borrowed from the heightened\npicture which the imagination draws of sensible objects concentred by\nimpassioned reflection. And, during this \u2018fine phrensy,\u2019 reason has no\nright to rein-in the imagination, unless to prevent the introduction of\nsupernumerary images; if the passion is real, the head will not be\nransacked for stale tropes and cold rodomontade. I now speak of the\ngenuine enthusiasm of genius, which, perhaps, seldom appears, but in the\ninfancy of civilization; for as this light becomes more luminous reason\nclips the wing of fancy\u2014the youth becomes a man.\n\nWhether the glory of Europe is set, I shall not now enquire; but\nprobably the spirit of romance and chivalry is in the wane; and reason\nwill gain by its extinction.\n\nFrom observing several cold romantic characters I have been led to\nconfine the term romantic to one definition\u2014false, or rather artificial,\nfeelings. Works of genius are read with a prepossession in their favour,\nand sentiments imitated, because they were fashionable and pretty, and\nnot because they were forcibly felt.\n\nIn modern poetry the understanding and memory often fabricate the\npretended effusions of the heart, and romance destroys all simplicity;\nwhich, in works of taste, is but a synonymous word for truth. This\nromantic spirit has extended to our prose, and scattered artificial\nflowers over the most barren heath; or a mixture of verse and prose\nproducing the strangest incongruities. The turgid bombast of some of\nyour periods fully proves these assertions; for when the heart speaks we\nare seldom shocked by hyperbole, or dry raptures.\n\nI speak in this decided tone, because from turning over the pages of\nyour late publication, with more attention than I did when I first read\nit cursorily over; and comparing the sentiments it contains with your\nconduct on many important occasions, I am led very often to doubt your\nsincerity, and to suppose that you have said many things merely for the\nsake of saying them well; or to throw some pointed obloquy on characters\nand opinions that jostled with your vanity.\n\nIt is an arduous task to follow the doublings of cunning, or the\nsubterfuges of inconsistency; for in controversy, as in battle, the\nbrave man wishes to face his enemy, and fight on the same ground.\nKnowing, however, the influence of a ruling passion, and how often it\nassumes the form of reason when there is much sensibility in the heart,\nI respect an opponent, though he tenaciously maintains opinions in which\nI cannot coincide; but, if I once discover that many of those opinions\nare empty rhetorical flourishes, my respect is soon changed into that\npity which borders on contempt; and the mock dignity and haughty stalk,\nonly reminds me of the ass in the lion\u2019s skin.\n\nA sentiment of this kind glanced across my mind when I read the\nfollowing exclamation. \u2018Whilst the royal captives, who followed in the\ntrain, were slowly moved along, amidst the horrid yells, and shrilling\nscreams, and frantic dances, and infamous contumelies, and all the\nunutterable abominations of the furies of hell, in the abused shape of\nthe \u2018vilest of women[9].\u2019 Probably you mean women who gained a\nlivelihood by selling vegetables or fish, who never had had any\nadvantages of education; or their vices might have lost part of their\nabominable deformity, by losing part of their grossness. The queen of\nFrance\u2014the great and small vulgar, claim our pity; they have almost\ninsuperable obstacles to surmount in their progress towards true dignity\nof character; still I have such a plain downright understanding that I\ndo not like to make a distinction without a difference. But it is not\nvery extraordinary that _you_ should, for throughout your letter you\nfrequently advert to a sentimental jargon which has long been current in\nconversation, and even in books of morals, though it never received the\n_regal_-stamp of reason. A kind of mysterious instinct is _supposed_ to\nreside in the soul, that instantaneously discerns truth, without the\ntedious labour of ratiocination. This instinct, for I know not what\nother name to give it, has been termed _common sense_, and more\nfrequently _sensibility_; and, by a kind of _indefeasible_ right, it has\nbeen _supposed_, for rights of this kind are not easily proved, to reign\nparamount over the other faculties of the mind, and to be an authority\nfrom which there is no appeal.\n\nThis subtle magnetic fluid, that runs round the whole circle of society,\nis not subject to any known rule, or, to use an obnoxious phrase, in\nspite of the sneers of mock humility, or the timid fears of some\nwell-meaning Christians, who shrink from any freedom of thought, lest\nthey should rouse the old serpent, to the _eternal fitness of things_.\nIt dips, we know not why, granting it to be an infallible instinct, and,\nthough supposed always to point to truth, its pole-star, the point is\nalways shifting, and seldom stands due north.\n\nIt is to this instinct, without doubt, that you allude, when you talk of\nthe \u2018moral constitution of the heart.\u2019 To it, I allow, for I consider it\nas a congregate of sensations and passions, _Poets_ must apply, \u2018who\nhave to deal with an audience not yet graduated in the school of the\nrights of men.\u2019 They must, it is clear, often cloud the understanding,\nwhilst they move the heart by a kind of mechanical spring; but that \u2018in\nthe theatre the first intuitive glance\u2019 of feeling should discriminate\nthe form of truth, and see her fair proportion, I must beg leave to\ndoubt. Sacred be the feelings of the heart! concentred in a glowing\nflame, they become the sun of life; and, without his invigorating\nimpregnation, reason would probably lie in helpless inactivity, and\nnever bring forth her only legitimate offspring\u2014virtue. But to prove\nthat virtue is really an acquisition of the individual, and not the\nblind impulse of unerring instinct, the bastard vice has often been\nbegotten by the same father.\n\nIn what respect are we superior to the brute creation, if intellect is\nnot allowed to be the guide of passion? Brutes hope and fear, love and\nhate; but, without a capacity to improve, a power of turning these\npassions to good or evil, they neither acquire virtue nor wisdom.\u2014Why?\nBecause the Creator has not given them reason[10].\n\nBut the cultivation of reason is an arduous task, and men of lively\nfancy, finding it easier to follow the impulse of passion, endeavour to\npersuade themselves and others that it is most _natural_. And happy is\nit for those, who indolently let that heaven-lighted spark rest like the\nancient lamps in sepulchres, that some virtuous habits, with which the\nreason of others shackled them, supplies its place.\u2014Affection for\nparents, reverence for superiors or antiquity, notions of honour, or\nthat worldly self-interest that shrewdly shews them that honesty is the\nbest policy: all proceed from the reason for which they serve as\nsubstitutes;\u2014but it is reason at second-hand.\n\nChildren are born ignorant, consequently innocent; the passions, are\nneither good nor evil dispositions, till they receive a direction, and\neither bound over the feeble barrier raised by a faint glimmering of\nunexercised reason, called conscience, or strengthen her wavering\ndictates till sound principles are deeply rooted, and able to cope with\nthe headstrong passions that often assume her awful form. What moral\npurpose can be answered by extolling good dispositions, as they are\ncalled, when these good dispositions are described as instincts: for\ninstinct moves in a direct line to its ultimate end, and asks not for\nguide or support. But if virtue is to be acquired by experience, or\ntaught by example, reason, perfected by reflection, must be the director\nof the whole host of passions, which produce a fructifying heat, but no\nlight, that you would exalt into her place.\u2014She must hold the rudder,\nor, let the wind blow which way it list, the vessel will never advance\nsmoothly to its destined port; for the time lost in tacking about would\ndreadfully impede its progress.\n\nIn the name of the people of England, you say, \u2018that we know _we_ have\nmade no discoveries; and we think that no discoveries are to be made in\nmorality; nor many in the great principles of government, nor in the\nideas of liberty, which were understood long before we were born,\naltogether as well as they will be after the grave has heaped its mould\nupon our presumption, and the silent tomb shall have imposed its law on\nour pert loquacity. In England we have not yet been completely emboweled\nof our natural entrails; we still feel within us, and we cherish and\ncultivate those inbred sentiments which are the faithful guardians, the\nactive monitors of our duty, the true supporters of all liberal and\nmanly morals[11].\u2019\u2014What do you mean by inbred sentiments? From whence do\nthey come? How were they bred? Are they the brood of folly, which swarm\nlike the insects on the banks of the Nile, when mud and putrefaction\nhave enriched the languid soil? Were these _inbred_ sentiments faithful\nguardians of our duty when the church was an asylum for murderers, and\nmen worshipped bread as a God? when slavery was authorized by law to\nfasten her fangs on human flesh, and the iron eat into the very soul? If\nthese sentiments are not acquired, if our passive dispositions do not\nexpand into virtuous affections and passions, why are not the Tartars in\nthe first rude horde endued with sentiments white and _elegant_ as the\ndriven snow? Why is passion or heroism the child of reflection, the\nconsequence of dwelling with intent contemplation on one object? The\nappetites are the only perfect inbred powers that I can discern; and\nthey like instincts have a certain aim, they can be satisfied\u2014but\nimprovable reason has not yet discovered the perfection it may arrive\nat\u2014God forbid!\n\nFirst, however, it is necessary to make what we know practical. Who can\ndeny, that has marked the slow progress of civilization, that men may\nbecome more virtuous and happy without any new discovery in morals? Who\nwill venture to assert that virtue would not be promoted by the more\nextensive cultivation of reason? If nothing more is to be done, let us\neat and drink, for to-morrow we die\u2014and die for ever! Who will pretend\nto say, that there is as much happiness diffused on this globe as it is\ncapable of affording? as many social virtues as reason would foster, if\nshe could gain the strength she is able to acquire even in this\nimperfect state; if the voice of nature was allowed to speak audibly\nfrom the bottom of the heart, and the _native_ unalienable rights of men\nwere recognized in their full force; if factitious merit did not take\nplace of genuine acquired virtue, and enable men to build their\nenjoyment on the misery of their fellow-creatures; if men were more\nunder the dominion of reason than opinion, and did not cherish their\nprejudices \u2018because they were prejudices[12]?\u2019 I am not, Sir, aware of\nyour sneers, hailing a millennium, though a state of greater purity of\nmorals may not be a mere poetic fiction; nor did my fancy ever create a\nheaven on earth, since reason threw off her swaddling clothes. I\nperceive, but too forcibly, that happiness, literally speaking, dwells\nnot here;\u2014and that we wander to and fro in a vale of darkness as well as\ntears. I perceive that my passions pursue objects that the imagination\nenlarges, till they become only a sublime idea that shrinks from the\nenquiry of sense, and mocks the experimental philosophers who would\nconfine this spiritual phlogiston in their material crucibles. I know\nthat the human understanding is deluded with vain shadows, and that when\nwe eagerly pursue any study, we only reach the boundary set to human\nenquires.\u2014Thus far shalt thou go, and no further, says some stern\ndifficulty; and the _cause_ we were pursuing melts into utter darkness.\nBut these are only the trials of contemplative minds, the foundation of\nvirtue remains firm.\u2014The power of exercising our understanding raises us\nabove the brutes; and this exercise produces that \u2018primary morality,\u2019\nwhich you term \u2018untaught feelings.\u2019\n\nIf virtue be an instinct, I renounce all hope of immortality; and with\nit all the sublime reveries and dignified sentiments that have smoothed\nthe rugged path of life: it is all a cheat, a lying vision; I have\ndisquieted myself in vain; for in my eye all feelings are false and\nspurious, that do not rest on justice as their foundation, and are not\nconcentred by universal love.\n\nI reverence the rights of men.\u2014Sacred rights! for which I acquire a more\nprofound respect, the more I look into my own mind; and, professing\nthese heterodox opinions, I still preserve my bowels; my heart is human,\nbeats quick with human sympathies\u2014and I FEAR God!\n\nI bend with awful reverence when I enquire on what my fear is built.\u2014I\nfear that sublime power, whose motive for creating me must have been\nwise and good; and I submit to the moral laws which my reason deduces\nfrom this view of my dependence on him.\u2014It is not his power that I\nfear\u2014it is not to an arbitrary will, but to unerring _reason_ I\nsubmit.\u2014Submit\u2014yes; I disregard the charge of arrogance, to the law that\nregulates his just resolves; and the happiness I pant after must be the\nsame in kind, and produced by the same exertions as his\u2014though unfeigned\nhumility overwhelms every idea that would presume to compare the\ngoodness which the most exalted created being could acquire, with the\ngrand source of life and bliss.\n\nThis fear of God makes me reverence myself.\u2014Yes, Sir, the regard I have\nfor honest fame, and the friendship of the virtuous, falls far short of\nthe respect which I have for myself. And this, enlightened self-love, if\nan epithet the meaning of which has been grossly perverted will convey\nmy idea, forces me to see; and, if I may venture to borrow a prostituted\nterm, to _feel_, that happiness is reflected, and that, in communicating\ngood, my soul receives its noble aliment.\u2014I do not trouble myself,\ntherefore, to enquire whether this is the fear the _people_ of England\nfeel:\u2014and, if it be _natural_ to include all the modifications which you\nhave annexed\u2014it is not[13].\n\nBesides, I cannot help suspecting that, if you had the _enlightened_\nrespect for yourself, which you affect to despise, you would not have\nsaid that the constitution of our church and state, formed, like most\nother modern ones, by degrees, as Europe was emerging out of barbarism,\nwas formed \u2018under the auspices, and was confirmed by the sanctions, of\nreligion and piety.\u2019 You have turned over the historic page; have been\nhackneyed in the ways of men, and must know that private cabals and\npublic feuds, private virtues and vices, religion and superstition, have\nall concurred to foment the mass and swell it to its present form; nay\nmore, that it in part owes its sightly appearance to bold rebellion and\ninsidious innovation. Factions, Sir, have been the leaven, and private\ninterest has produced public good.\n\nThese general reflections are not thrown out to insinuate that virtue\nwas a creature of yesterday: No; she had her share in the grand drama. I\nguard against misrepresentation; but the man who cannot modify general\nassertions, has scarcely learned the first rudiments of reasoning. I\nknow that there is a great portion of virtue in the Romish church, yet I\nshould not choose to neglect clothing myself with a garment of my own\nrighteousness, depending on a kind donative of works of supererogation.\nI know that there are many clergymen, of all denominations, wise and\nvirtuous; yet I have not that respect for the whole body, which, you\nsay, characterizes our nation, \u2018emanating from a certain plainness and\ndirectness of understanding.\u2019\u2014Now we are stumbling on _inbred_ feelings\nand secret lights again\u2014or, I beg your pardon, it may be the furbished\nup face which you choose to give to the argument.\n\nIt is a well-known fact, that when _we_, the people of England, have a\nson whom we scarcely know what to do with\u2014_we_ make a clergyman of him.\nWhen a living is in the gift of a family, a son is brought up to the\nchurch; but not always with hopes full of immortality. \u2018Such sublime\nprinciples are _not constantly_ infused into persons of exalted birth;\u2019\nthey sometimes think of \u2018the paltry pelf of the moment[14]\u2019\u2014and the\nvulgar care of preaching the gospel, or practising self-denial, is left\nto the poor curates, who, arguing on your ground, cannot have, from the\nscanty stipend they receive, \u2018very high and worthy notions of their\nfunction and destination.\u2019 This consecration _for ever_; a word, that\nfrom lips of flesh is big with a mighty nothing, has not purged the\n_sacred temple_ from all the impurities of fraud, violence, injustice,\nand tyranny. Human passions still lurk in her _sanctum sanctorum_; and,\nwithout the profane exertions of reason, vain would be her ceremonial\nablutions; morality would still stand aloof from this national religion,\nthis ideal consecration of a state; and men would rather choose to give\nthe goods of their body, when on their death beds, to clear the narrow\nway to heaven, than restrain the mad career of passions during life.\n\nSuch a curious paragraph occurs in this part of your letter, that I am\ntempted to transcribe it[15], and must beg you to elucidate it, if I\nmisconceive your meaning.\n\nThe only way in which the people interfere in government, religious or\ncivil, is in electing representatives. And, Sir, let me ask you, with\nmanly plainness\u2014are these _holy_ nominations? Where is the booth of\nreligion? Does she mix her awful mandates, or lift her persuasive voice,\nin those scenes of drunken riot and beastly gluttony? Does she preside\nover those nocturnal abominations which so evidently tend to deprave the\nmanners of the lower class of people? The pestilence stops not here\u2014the\nrich and poor have one common nature, and many of the great families,\nwhich, on this side adoration, you venerate, date their misery, I speak\nof stubborn matters of fact, from the thoughtless extravagance of an\nelectioneering frolic.\u2014Yet, after the effervescence of spirits, raised\nby opposition, and all the little and tyrannic arts of canvassing are\nover\u2014quiet souls! they only intend to march rank and file to say YES\u2014or\nNO.\n\nExperience, I believe, will shew that sordid interest, or licentious\nthoughtlessness, is the spring of action at most elections.\u2014Again, I beg\nyou not to lose sight of my modification of general rules. So far are\nthe people from being habitually convinced of the sanctity of the charge\nthey are conferring, that the venality of their votes must admonish them\nthat they have no right to expect disinterested conduct. But to return\nto the church, and the habitual conviction of the people of England.\n\nSo far are the people from being \u2018habitually convinced that no evil can\nbe acceptable, either in the act or the permission, to him whose essence\nis good[16];\u2019 that the sermons which they hear are to them almost as\nunintelligible as if they were preached in a foreign tongue. The\nlanguage and sentiments rising above their capacities, very orthodox\nChristians are driven to fanatical meetings for amusement, if not for\nedification. The clergy, I speak of the body, not forgetting the respect\nand affection which I have for individuals, perform the duty of their\nprofession as a kind of fee-simple, to entitle them to the emoluments\naccruing from it; and their ignorant flock think that merely going to\nchurch is meritorious.\n\nSo defective, in fact, are our laws, respecting religious\nestablishments, that I have heard many rational pious clergymen\ncomplain, that they had no method of receiving their stipend that did\nnot clog their endeavours to be useful; whilst the lives of many less\nconscientious rectors are passed in litigious disputes with the people\nthey engaged to instruct; or in distant cities, in all the ease of\nluxurious idleness.\n\nBut you return to your old firm ground.\u2014_Art thou there, True-penny?_\nMust we swear to secure property, and make assurance doubly sure, to\ngive your perturbed spirit rest? Peace, peace to the manes of thy\npatriotic phrensy, which contributed to deprive some of thy\nfellow-citizens of their property in America: another spirit now walks\nabroad to secure the property of the church.\u2014The tithes are safe!\u2014We\nwill not say for ever\u2014because the time may come, when the traveller may\nask where proud London stood? when its _temples_, its laws, and its\ntrade, may be buried in one common ruin, and only serve as a by-word to\npoint a moral, or furnish senators, who wage a wordy war, on the other\nside of the Atlantic, with tropes to swell their thundering bursts of\neloquence.\n\nWho shall dare to accuse you of inconsistency any more, when you have so\nstaunchly supported the despotic principles which agree so perfectly\nwith the unerring interest of a large body of your fellow-citizens; not\nthe largest\u2014for when you venerate parliaments\u2014I presume it is not the\nmajority, as you have had the presumption to dissent, and loudly explain\nyour reasons.\u2014But it was not my intention, when I began this letter, to\ndescend to the minuti\u00e6 of your conduct, or to weigh your infirmities in\na balance; it is only some of your pernicious opinions that I wish to\nhunt out of their lurking holes; and to shew you to yourself, stripped\nof the gorgeous drapery in which you have enwrapped your tyrannic\nprinciples.\n\nThat the people of England respect the national establishment I do not\ndeny; I recollect the melancholy proof which they gave, in this very\ncentury, of their _enlightened_ zeal and reasonable affection. I\nlikewise know that, according to the dictates of a _prudent_ law, in a\ncommercial state, truth is reckoned a libel; yet I acknowledge, having\nnever made my humanity give place to Gothic gallantry, that I should\nhave been better pleased to have heard that Lord George Gordon was\nconfined on account of the calamities which he brought on his country,\nthan for a _libel_ on the queen of France.\n\nBut one argument which you adduce to strengthen your assertion, appears\nto carry the preponderancy towards the other side.\n\nYou observe that \u2018our education is so formed as to confirm and fix this\nimpression, (respect for the religious establishment); and that our\neducation is in a manner wholly in the hands of ecclesiastics, and in\nall stages from infancy to manhood[17].\u2019 Far from agreeing with you,\nSir, that these regulations render the clergy a more useful and\nrespectable body, experience convinces me that the very contrary is the\nfact. In schools and colleges they may, in some degree, support their\ndignity within the monastic walls; but, in paying due respect to the\nparents of the young nobility under their tutorage, they do not forget,\nobsequiously, to respect their noble patrons. The little respect paid,\nin great houses, to tutors and chaplains proves, Sir, the fallacy of\nyour reasoning. It would be almost invidious to remark, that they\nsometimes are only modern substitutes for the jesters of Gothic memory,\nand serve as whetstones for the blunt wit of the noble peer who\npatronizes them; and what respect a boy can imbibe for a _butt_, at\nwhich the shaft of ridicule is daily glanced, I leave those to determine\nwho can distinguish depravity of morals under the specious mask of\nrefined manners.\n\nBesides, the custom of sending clergymen to travel with their noble\npupils, as humble companions, instead of exalting, tends inevitably to\ndegrade the clerical character: it is notorious that they meanly submit\nto the most servile dependence, and gloss over the most capricious\nfollies, to use a soft phrase, of the boys to whom they look up for\npreferment. An airy mitre dances before them, and they wrap their\nsheep\u2019s clothing more closely about them, and make their spirits bend\ntill it is prudent to claim the rights of men and the honest freedom of\nspeech of an Englishman. How, indeed, could they venture to reprove for\nhis vices their patron: the clergy only give the true feudal emphasis to\nthis word. It has been observed, by men who have not superficially\ninvestigated the human heart, that when a man makes his spirit bend to\nany power but reason, his character is soon degraded, and his mind\nshackled by the very prejudices to which he submits with reluctance. The\nobservations of experience have been carried still further; and the\nservility to superiors, and tyranny to inferiors, said to characterize\nour clergy, have rationally been supposed to arise naturally from their\nassociating with the nobility. Among unequals there can be no\nsociety;\u2014giving a manly meaning to the term; from such intimacies\nfriendship can never grow; if the basis of friendship is mutual respect,\nand not a commercial treaty. Taken thus out of their sphere, and\nenjoying their tithes at a distance from their flocks, is it not natural\nfor them to become courtly parasites, and intriguing dependents on great\npatrons, or the treasury? Observing all this\u2014for these things have not\nbeen transacted in the dark\u2014our young men of fashion, by a common,\nthough erroneous, association of ideas, have conceived a contempt for\nreligion, as they sucked in with their milk a contempt for the clergy.\n\nThe people of England, Sir, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries,\nI will not go any further back to insult the ashes of departed popery,\ndid not settle the establishment, and endow it with princely revenues,\nto make it proudly rear its head, as a part of the constitutional body,\nto guard the liberties of the community; but, like some of the laborious\ncommentators on Shakespeare, you have affixed a meaning to laws that\nchance, or, to speak more philosophically, the interested views of men,\nsettled, not dreaming of your ingenious elucidations.\n\nWhat, but the rapacity of the only men who exercised their reason, the\npriests, secured such vast property to the church, when a man gave his\nperishable substance to save himself from the dark torments of\npurgatory; and found it more convenient to indulge his depraved\nappetites, and pay an exorbitant price for absolution, than listen to\nthe suggestions of reason, and work out his own salvation: in a word,\nwas not the separation of religion from morality the work of the\npriests, and partly achieved in those _honourable_ days which you so\npiously deplore?\n\nThat civilization, that the cultivation of the understanding, and\nrefinement of the affections, naturally make a man religious, I am proud\nto acknowledge.\u2014What else can fill the aching void in the heart, that\nhuman pleasures, human friendships can never fill? What else can render\nus resigned to live, though condemned to ignorance?\u2014What but a profound\nreverence for the model of all perfection, and the mysterious tie which\narises from a love of goodness? What can make us reverence ourselves,\nbut a reverence for that Being, of whom we are a faint image? That\nmighty Spirit moves on the waters\u2014confusion hears his voice, and the\ntroubled heart ceases to beat with anguish, for trust in Him bade it be\nstill. Conscious dignity may make us rise superior to calumny, and\nsternly brave the winds of adverse fortune,\u2014raised in our own esteem by\nthe very storms of which we are the sport\u2014but when friends are unkind,\nand the heart has not the prop on which it fondly leaned, where can a\ntender suffering being fly but to the Searcher of hearts? and, when\ndeath has desolated the present scene, and torn from us the friend of\nour youth\u2014when we walk along the accustomed path, and, almost fancying\nnature dead, ask, Where art thou who gave life to these well-known\nscenes? when memory heightens former pleasures to contrast our present\nprospects\u2014there is but one source of comfort within our reach;\u2014and in\nthis sublime solitude the world appears to contain only the Creator and\nthe creature, of whose happiness he is the source.\u2014These are human\nfeelings; but I know not of any common nature or common relation amongst\nmen but what results from reason. The common affections and passions\nequally bind brutes together; and it is only the continuity of those\nrelations that entitles us to the denomination of rational creatures;\nand this continuity arises from reflection\u2014from the operations of that\nreason which you contemn with flippant disrespect.\n\nIf then it appears, arguing from analogy, that reflection must be the\nnatural foundation of _rational_ affections, and of that experience\nwhich enables one man to rise above another, a phenomenon that has never\nbeen seen in the brute creation, it may not be stretching the argument\nfurther than it will go to suppose, that those men who are obliged to\nexercise their reason have the most reason, and are the persons pointed\nout by Nature to direct the society of which they make a part, on any\nextraordinary emergency.\n\nTime only will shew whether the general censure, which you afterwards\nqualify, if not contradict, and the unmerited contempt that you have\nostentatiously displayed of the National Assembly, be founded on reason,\nthe offspring of conviction, or the spawn of envy. Time may shew, that\nthis obscure throng knew more of the human heart and of legislation than\nthe profligates of rank, emasculated by hereditary effeminacy.\n\nIt is not, perhaps, of very great consequence who were the founders of a\nstate; savages, thieves, curates, or practitioners in the law. It is\ntrue, you might sarcastically remark, that the Romans had always a\n_smack_ of the old leaven, and that the private robbers, supposing the\ntradition to be true, only became public depredators. You might have\nadded, that their civilization must have been very partial, and had more\ninfluence on the manners than morals of the people; or the amusements of\nthe amphitheatre would not have remained an everlasting blot not only on\ntheir humanity, but on their refinement, if a vicious elegance of\nbehaviour and luxurious mode of life is not a prostitution of the term.\nHowever, the thundering censures which you have cast with a ponderous\narm, and the more playful bushfiring of ridicule, are not arguments that\nwill ever depreciate the National Assembly, for applying to their\nunderstanding rather than to their imagination, when they met to settle\nthe newly acquired liberty of the state on a solid foundation.\n\nIf you had given the same advice to a young history painter of\nabilities, I should have admired your judgment, and re-echoed your\nsentiments[18]. Study, you might have said, the noble models of\nantiquity, till your imagination is inflamed; and, rising above the\nvulgar practice of the hour, you may imitate without copying those great\noriginals. A glowing picture, of some interesting moment, would probably\nhave been produced by these natural means; particularly if one little\ncircumstance is not overlooked, that the painter had noble models to\nrevert to, calculated to excite admiration and stimulate exertion.\n\nBut, in settling a constitution that involved the happiness of millions,\nthat stretch beyond the computation of science, it was, perhaps,\nnecessary for the Assembly to have a higher model in view than the\n_imagined_ virtues of their forefathers; and wise to deduce their\nrespect for themselves from the only legitimate source, respect for\njustice. Why was it a duty to repair an ancient castle, built in\nbarbarous ages, of Gothic materials? Why were the legislators obliged to\nrake amongst heterogeneous ruins; to rebuild old walls, whose\nfoundations could scarcely be explored, when a simple structure might be\nraised on the foundation of experience, the only valuable inheritance\nour forefathers could bequeath? Yet of this bequest we can make little\nuse till we have gained a stock of our own; and even then, their\ninherited experience would rather serve as lighthouses, to warn us\nagainst dangerous rocks or sand-banks, than as finger-posts that stand\nat every turning to point out the right road.\n\nNor was it absolutely necessary that they should be diffident of\nthemselves when they were dissatisfied with, or could not discern the\n_almost obliterated_ constitution of their ancestors[19]. They should\nfirst have been convinced that our constitution was not only the best\nmodern, but the best possible one; and that our social compact was the\nsurest foundation of all the _possible_ liberty a mass of men could\nenjoy, that the human understanding could form. They should have been\ncertain that our representation answered all the purposes of\nrepresentation; and that an established inequality of rank and property\nsecured the liberty of the whole community, instead of rendering it a\nsounding epithet of subjection, when applied to the nation at large.\nThey should have had the same respect for our House of Commons that you,\nvauntingly, intrude on us, though your conduct throughout life has\nspoken a very different language; before they made a point of not\ndeviating from the model which first engaged their attention.\n\nThat the British House of Commons is filled with every thing illustrious\nin rank, in descent, in hereditary, and acquired opulence, may be\ntrue,\u2014but that it contains every thing respectable in talents, in\nmilitary, civil, naval, and political distinction, is very\nproblematical. Arguing from natural causes, the very contrary would\nappear to the speculatist to be the fact; and let experience say whether\nthese speculations are built on sure ground.\n\nIt is true you lay great stress on the effects produced by the bare idea\nof a liberal descent[20]; but from the conduct of men of rank, men of\ndiscernment would rather be led to conclude, that this idea obliterated\ninstead of inspiring native dignity, and substituted a factitious pride\nthat disemboweled the man. The liberty of the rich has its ensigns\narmorial to puff the individual out with insubstantial honours; but\nwhere are blazoned the struggles of virtuous poverty? Who, indeed, would\ndare to blazon what would blur the pompous monumental inscription you\nboast of, and make us view with horror, as monsters in human shape, the\nsuperb gallery of portraits proudly set in battle array?\n\nBut to examine the subject more closely. Is it among the list of\npossibilities that a man of rank and fortune _can_ have received a good\neducation? How can he discover that he is a man, when all his wants are\ninstantly supplied, and invention is never sharpened by necessity? Will\nhe labour, for every thing valuable must be the fruit of laborious\nexertions, to attain knowledge and virtue, in order to merit the\naffection of his equals, when the flattering attention of sycophants is\na more luscious cordial?\n\nHealth can only be secured by temperance; but is it easy to persuade a\nman to live on plain food even to recover his health, who has been\naccustomed to fare sumptuously every day? Can a man relish the simple\nfood of friendship, who has been habitually pampered by flattery? And\nwhen the blood boils, and the senses meet allurements on every side,\nwill knowledge be pursued on account of its abstract beauty? No; it is\nwell known that talents are only to be unfolded by industry, and that we\nmust have made some advances, led by an inferior motive, before we\ndiscover that they are their own reward.\n\nBut _full blown_ talents _may_, according to your system, be hereditary,\nand as independent of ripening judgment, as the inbred feelings that,\nrising above reason, naturally guard Englishmen from error. Noble\nfranchises! what a grovelling mind must that man have, who can pardon\nhis step-dame Nature for not having made him at least a lord?\n\nAnd who will, after your description of senatorial virtues, dare to say\nthat our House of Commons has often resembled a bear-garden; and\nappeared rather like a committee of _ways and means_ than a dignified\nlegislative body, though the concentrated wisdom and virtue of the whole\nnation blazed in one superb constellation? That it contains a dead\nweight of benumbing opulence I readily allow, and of ignoble ambition;\nnor is there any thing surpassing belief in a supposition that the raw\nrecruits, when properly drilled by the minister, would gladly march to\nthe Upper House to unite hereditary honours to fortune. But talents,\nknowledge, and virtue, must be a part of the man, and cannot be put, as\nrobes of state often are, on a servant or a block, to render a pageant\nmore magnificent.\n\nOur House of Commons, it is true, has been celebrated as a school of\neloquence, a hot-bed for wit, even when party intrigues narrow the\nunderstanding and contract the heart; yet, from the few proficients it\nhas accomplished, this inferior praise is not of great magnitude: nor of\ngreat consequence, Mr. Locke would have added, who was ever of opinion\nthat eloquence was oftener employed to make \u2018the worse appear the better\npart,\u2019 than to support the dictates of cool judgment. However, the\ngreater number who have gained a seat by their fortune and hereditary\nrank, are content with their pre-eminence, and struggle not for more\nhazardous honours. But you are an exception; you have raised yourself by\nthe exertion of abilities, and thrown the automatons of rank into the\nback ground. Your exertions have been a generous contest for secondary\nhonours, or a grateful tribute of respect due to the noble ashes that\nlent a hand to raise you into notice, by introducing you into the house\nof which you have ever been an ornament, if not a support. But,\nunfortunately, you have lately lost a great part of your popularity:\nmembers were tired of listening to declamation, or had not sufficient\ntaste to be amused when you ingeniously wandered from the question, and\nsaid certainly many good things, if they were not to the present\npurpose. You were the Cicero of one side of the house for years; and\nthen to sink into oblivion, to see your blooming honours fade before\nyou, was enough to rouse all that was human in you\u2014and make you produce\nthe impassioned _Reflections_ which have been a glorious revivification\nof your fame.\u2014Richard is himself again! He is still a great man, though\nhe has deserted his post, and buried in elogiums, on church\nestablishments, the enthusiasm that forced him to throw the weight of\nhis talents on the side of liberty and natural rights, when the\n_will_[21] of the nation oppressed the Americans.\n\nThere appears to be such a mixture of real sensibility and fondly\ncherished romance in your composition, that the present crisis carries\nyou out of yourself; and since you could not be one of the grand movers,\nthe next _best_ thing that dazzled your imagination was to be a\nconspicuous opposer. Full of yourself, you make as much noise to\nconvince the world that you despise the revolution, as Rousseau did to\npersuade his contemporaries to let him live in obscurity.\n\nReading your Reflections warily over, it has continually and forcibly\nstruck me, that had you been a Frenchman, you would have been, in spite\nof your respect for rank and antiquity, a violent revolutionist; and\ndeceived, as you now probably are, by the passions that cloud your\nreason, have termed your romantic enthusiasm an enlightened love of your\ncountry, a benevolent respect for the rights of men. Your imagination\nwould have taken fire, and have found arguments, full as ingenious as\nthose you now offer, to prove that the constitution, of which so few\npillars remained, that constitution which time had almost obliterated,\nwas not a model sufficiently noble to deserve close adherence. And, for\nthe English constitution, you might not have had such a profound\nveneration as you have lately acquired; nay, it is not impossible that\nyou might have entertained the same opinion of the English Parliament,\nthat you professed to have during the American war.\n\nAnother observation which, by frequently occurring, has almost grown\ninto a conviction, is simply this, that had the English in general\nreprobated the French revolution, you would have stood forth alone, and\nbeen the avowed Goliah of liberty. But, not liking to see so many\nbrothers near the throne of fame, you have turned the current of your\npassions, and consequently of your reasoning, another way. Had Dr.\nPrice\u2019s sermon not lighted some sparks very like envy in your bosom, I\nshrewdly suspect that he would have been treated with more candour; nor\nis it charitable to suppose that any thing but personal pique and hurt\nvanity could have dictated such bitter sarcasms and reiterated\nexpressions of contempt as occur in your Reflections.\n\nBut without fixed principles even goodness of heart is no security from\ninconsistency, and mild affectionate sensibility only renders a man more\ningeniously cruel, when the pangs of hurt vanity are mistaken for\nvirtuous indignation, and the gall of bitterness for the milk of\nChristian charity.\n\nWhere is the dignity, the infallibility of sensibility, in the fair\nladies, whom, if the voice of rumour is to be credited, the captive\nnegroes curse in all the agony of bodily pain, for the unheard of\ntortures they invent? It is probable that some of them, after the sight\nof a flagellation, compose their ruffled spirits and exercise their\ntender feelings by the perusal of the last imported novel.\u2014How true\nthese tears are to nature, I leave you to determine. But these ladies\nmay have read your Enquiry concerning the origin of our ideas of the\nSublime and Beautiful, and, convinced by your arguments, may have\nlaboured to be pretty, by counterfeiting weakness.\n\nYou may have convinced them that _littleness_ and _weakness_ are the\nvery essence of beauty; and that the Supreme Being, in giving women\nbeauty in the most supereminent degree, seemed to command them, by the\npowerful voice of Nature, not to cultivate the moral virtues that might\nchance to excite respect, and interfere with the pleasing sensations\nthey were created to inspire. Thus confining truth, fortitude, and\nhumanity, within the rigid pale of manly morals, they might justly\nargue, that to be loved, woman\u2019s high end and great distinction! they\nshould \u2018learn to lisp, to totter in their walk, and nick-name God\u2019s\ncreatures.\u2019 Never, they might repeat after you, was any man, much less a\nwoman, rendered amiable by the force of those exalted qualities,\nfortitude, justice, wisdom, and truth; and thus forewarned of the\nsacrifice they must make to those austere, unnatural virtues, they would\nbe authorized to turn all their attention to their persons,\nsystematically neglecting morals to secure beauty.\u2014Some rational old\nwoman indeed might chance to stumble at this doctrine, and hint, that in\navoiding atheism you had not steered clear of the mussulman\u2019s creed; but\nyou could readily exculpate yourself by turning the charge on Nature,\nwho made our idea of beauty independent of reason. Nor would it be\nnecessary for you to recollect, that if virtue has any other foundation\nthan worldly utility, you have clearly proved that one half of the human\nspecies, at least, have not souls; and that Nature, by making women\n_little_, _smooth_, _delicate_, _fair_ creatures, never designed that\nthey should exercise their reason to acquire the virtues that produce\nopposite, if not contradictory, feelings. The affection they excite, to\nbe uniform and perfect, should not be tinctured with the respect which\nmoral virtues inspire, lest pain should be blended with pleasure, and\nadmiration disturb the soft intimacy of love. This laxity of morals in\nthe female world is certainly more captivating to a libertine\nimagination than the cold arguments of reason, that give no sex to\nvirtue. If beautiful weakness be interwoven in a woman\u2019s frame, if the\nchief business of her life be (as you insinuate) to inspire love, and\nNature has made an eternal distinction between the qualities that\ndignify a rational being and this animal perfection, her duty and\nhappiness in this life must clash with any preparation for a more\nexalted state. So that Plato and Milton were grossly mistaken in\nasserting that human love led to heavenly, and was only an exaltation of\nthe same affection; for the love of the Deity, which is mixed with the\nmost profound reverence, must be love of perfection, and not compassion\nfor weakness.\n\nTo say the truth, I not only tremble for the souls of women, but for the\ngood natured man, whom every one loves. The _amiable_ weakness of his\nmind is a strong argument against its immateriality, and seems to prove\nthat beauty relaxes the _solids_ of the soul as well as the body.\n\nIt follows then immediately, from your own reasoning, that respect and\nlove are antagonist principles; and that, if we really wish to render\nmen more virtuous, we must endeavour to banish all enervating\nmodifications of beauty from civil society. We must, to carry your\nargument a little further, return to the Spartan regulations, and settle\nthe virtues of men on the stern foundation of mortification and\nself-denial; for any attempt to civilize the heart, to make it humane by\nimplanting reasonable principles, is a mere philosophic dream. If\nrefinement inevitably lessens respect for virtue, by rendering beauty,\nthe grand tempter, more seductive; if these relaxing feelings are\nincompatible with the nervous exertions of morality, the sun of Europe\nis not set; it begins to dawn, when cold metaphysicians try to make the\nhead give laws to the heart.\n\nBut should experience prove that there is a beauty in virtue, a charm in\norder, which necessarily implies exertion, a depraved sensual taste may\ngive way to a more manly one\u2014and _melting_ feelings to rational\nsatisfactions. Both may be equally natural to man; the test is their\nmoral difference, and that point reason alone can decide.\n\nSuch a glorious change can only be produced by liberty. Inequality of\nrank must ever impede the growth of virtue, by vitiating the mind that\nsubmits or domineers; that is ever employed to procure nourishment for\nthe body, or amusement for the mind. And if this grand example be set by\nan assembly of unlettered clowns, if they can produce a crisis that may\ninvolve the fate of Europe, and \u2018more than Europe[22],\u2019 you must allow\nus to respect unsophisticated reason, and reverence the active exertions\nthat were not relaxed by a fastidious respect for the beauty of rank, or\na dread of the deformity produced by any _void_ in the social structure.\n\nAfter your contemptuous manner of speaking of the National Assembly,\nafter descanting on the coarse vulgarity of their proceedings, which,\naccording to your own definition of virtue, is a proof of its\ngenuineness; was it not a little inconsistent, not to say absurd, to\nassert, that a dozen people of quality were not a sufficient\ncounterpoise to the vulgar mob with whom they condescended to associate?\nHave we half a dozen leaders of eminence in our House of Commons, or\neven in the fashionable world? yet the sheep obsequiously pursue their\nsteps with all the undeviating sagacity of instinct.\n\nIn order that liberty should have a firm foundation, an acquaintance\nwith the world would naturally lead cool men to conclude that it must be\nlaid, knowing the weakness of the human heart, and the \u2018deceitfulness of\nriches,\u2019 either by _poor_ men, or philosophers, if a sufficient number\nof men, disinterested from principle, or truly wise, could be found. Was\nit natural to expect that sensual prejudices should give way to reason,\nor present feelings to enlarged views?\u2014No; I am afraid that human nature\nis still in such a weak state, that the abolition of titles, the\ncorner-stone of despotism, could only have been the work of men who had\nno titles to sacrifice. The National Assembly, it is true, contains some\nhonourable exceptions; but the majority had not such powerful feelings\nto struggle with, when reason led them to respect the naked dignity of\nvirtue.\n\nWeak minds are always timid. And what can equal the weakness of mind\nproduced by servile flattery, and the vapid pleasures that neither hope\nnor fear seasoned? Had the constitution of France been new modelled, or\nmore cautiously repaired, by the lovers of elegance and beauty, it is\nnatural to suppose that the imagination would have erected a fragile\ntemporary building; or the power of one tyrant, divided amongst a\nhundred, might have rendered the struggle for liberty only a choice of\nmasters. And the glorious _chance_ that is now given to human nature of\nattaining more virtue and happiness than has hitherto blessed our globe,\nmight have been sacrificed to a meteor of the imagination, a bubble of\npassion. The ecclesiastics, indeed, would probably have remained in\nquiet possession of their sinecures; and your gall might not have been\nmixed with your ink on account of the daring sacrilege that brought them\nmore on a level. The nobles would have had bowels for their younger\nsons, if not for the misery of their fellow-creatures. An august mass of\nproperty would have been transmitted to posterity to guard the temple of\nsuperstition, and prevent reason from entering with her officious light.\nAnd the pomp of religion would have continued to impress the senses, if\nshe were unable to subjugate the passions.\n\nIs hereditary weakness necessary to render religion lovely? and will her\nform have lost the smooth delicacy that inspires love, when stripped of\nits Gothic drapery? Must every grand model be placed on the pedestal of\nproperty? and is there no beauteous proportion in virtue, when not\nclothed in a sensual garb?\n\nOf these questions there would be no end, though they lead to the same\nconclusion;\u2014that your politics and morals, when simplified, would\nundermine religion and virtue to set up a spurious, sensual beauty, that\nhas long debauched your imagination, under the specious form of natural\nfeelings.\n\nAnd what is this mighty revolution in property? The present incumbents\nonly are injured, or the hierarchy of the clergy, an ideal part of the\nconstitution, which you have personified, to render your affection more\ntender. How has posterity been injured by a distribution of the property\nsnatched, perhaps, from innocent hands, but accumulated by the most\nabominable violation of every sentiment of justice and piety? Was the\nmonument of former ignorance and iniquity to be held sacred, to enable\nthe present possessors of enormous benefices to _dissolve_ in indolent\npleasures? Was not their convenience, for they have not been turned\nadrift on the world, to give place to a just partition of the land\nbelonging to the state? And did not the respect due to the natural\nequality of man require this triumph over Monkish rapacity? Were those\nmonsters to be reverenced on account of their antiquity, and their\nunjust claims perpetuated to their ideal children, the clergy, merely to\npreserve the sacred majesty of Property inviolate, and to enable the\nChurch to retain her pristine splendor? Can posterity be injured by\nindividuals losing the chance of obtaining great wealth, without\nmeriting it, by its being diverted from a narrow channel, and\ndisembogued into the sea that affords clouds to water all the land?\nBesides, the clergy not brought up with the expectation of great\nrevenues will not feel the loss; and if bishops should happen to be\nchosen on account of their personal merit, religion may be benefited by\nthe vulgar nomination.\n\nThe sophistry of asserting that Nature leads us to reverence our civil\ninstitutions from the same principle that we venerate aged individuals,\nis a palpable fallacy \u2018that is so like truth, it will serve the turn as\nwell.\u2019 And when you add, \u2018that we have chosen our nature rather than our\nspeculations, our breasts rather than our inventions[23]\u2019, the pretty\njargon seems equally unintelligible.\n\nBut it was the downfall of the visible power and dignity of the church\nthat roused your ire; you could have excused a little squeezing of the\nindividuals to supply present exigencies; the actual possessors of the\nproperty might have been oppressed with something like impunity, if the\nchurch had not been spoiled of its gaudy trappings. You love the church,\nyour country, and its laws, you repeatedly tell us, because they deserve\nto be loved; but from you this is not a panegyric: weakness and\nindulgence are the only incitements to love and confidence that you can\ndiscern, and it cannot be denied that the tender mother you venerate\ndeserves, on this score, all your affection.\n\nIt would be as vain a task to attempt to obviate all your passionate\nobjections, as to unravel all your plausible arguments, often\nillustrated by known truths, and rendered forcible by pointed\ninvectives. I only attack the foundation. On the natural principles of\njustice I build my plea for disseminating the property artfully said to\nbe appropriated to religious purposes, but, in reality, to support idle\ntyrants, amongst the society whose ancestors were cheated or forced into\nillegal grants. Can there be an opinion more subversive of morality,\nthan that time sanctifies crimes, and silences the blood that calls out\nfor retribution, if not for vengeance? If the revenue annexed to the\nGallic church was greater than the most bigoted protestant would now\nallow to be its reasonable share, would it not have been trampling on\nthe rights of men to perpetuate such an arbitrary appropriation of the\ncommon stock, because time had rendered the fraudulent seizure\nvenerable? Besides, if Reason had suggested, as surely she must, if the\nimagination had not been allowed to dwell on the fascinating pomp of\nceremonial grandeur, that the clergy would be rendered both more\nvirtuous and useful by being put more on a par with each other, and the\nmass of the people it was their duty to instruct;\u2014where was there room\nfor hesitation? The charge of presumption, thrown by you on the most\nreasonable innovations, may, without any violence to truth, be retorted\non every reformation that has meliorated our condition, and even on the\nimprovable faculty that gives us a claim to the pre-eminence of\nintelligent beings.\n\nPlausibility, I know, can only be unmasked by shewing the absurdities it\nglosses over, and the simple truths it involves with specious errors.\nEloquence has often confounded triumphant villainy; but it is probable\nthat it has more frequently rendered the boundary that separates virtue\nand vice doubtful.\u2014Poisons may be only medicines in judicious hands; but\nthey should not be administered by the ignorant, because they have\nsometimes seen great cures performed by their powerful aid.\n\nThe many sensible remarks and pointed observations which you have mixed\nwith opinions that strike at our dearest interests, fortify those\nopinions, and give them a degree of strength that render them formidable\nto the wise, and convincing to the superficial. It is impossible to read\nhalf a dozen pages of your book without admiring your ingenuity, or\nindignantly spurning your sophisms. Words are heaped on words, till the\nunderstanding is confused by endeavouring to disentangle the sense, and\nthe memory by tracing contradictions. After observing a host of these\ncontradictions, it can scarcely be a breach of charity to think that you\nhave often sacrificed your sincerity to enforce your favourite\narguments, and called in your judgment to adjust the arrangement of\nwords that could not convey its dictates.\n\nA fallacy of this kind, I think, could not have escaped you when you\nwere treating the subject that called forth your bitterest\nanimadversions, the confiscation of the ecclesiastical revenue. Who of\nthe vindicators of the rights of men ever ventured to assert, that the\nclergy of the present day should be punished on account of the\nintolerable pride and inhuman cruelty of many of their predecessors[24]?\nNo; such a thought never entered the mind of those who warred with\ninveterate prejudices. A desperate disease required a powerful remedy.\nInjustice had no right to rest on prescription; nor has the character of\nthe present clergy any weight in the argument.\n\nYou find it very difficult to separate policy from justice: in the\npolitical world they have frequently been separated with shameful\ndexterity. To mention a recent instance. According to the limited views\nof timid, or interested politicians, an abolition of the infernal slave\ntrade would not only be unsound policy, but a flagrant infringement of\nthe laws (which are allowed to have been infamous) that induced the\nplanters to purchase their estates. But is it not consonant with\njustice, with the common principles of humanity, not to mention\nChristianity, to abolish this abominable mischief? [25]There is not one\nargument, one invective, levelled by you at the confiscators of the\nchurch revenue, which could not, with the strictest propriety, be\napplied by the planters and negro-drivers to our Parliament, if it\ngloriously dared to shew the world that British senators were men: if\nthe natural feelings of humanity silenced the cold cautions of timidity,\ntill this stigma on our nature was wiped off, and all men were allowed\nto enjoy their birth-right\u2014liberty, till by their crimes they had\nauthorized society to deprive them of the blessing they had abused.\n\nThe same arguments might be used in India, if any attempt were made to\nbring back things to nature, to prove that a man ought never to quit the\ncast that confined him to the profession of his lineal forefathers. The\nBramins would doubtless find many ingenious reasons to justify this\ndebasing, though venerable prejudice; and would not, it is to be\nsupposed, forget to observe that time, by interweaving the oppressive\nlaw with many useful customs, had rendered it for the present very\nconvenient, and consequently legal. Almost every vice that has degraded\nour nature might be justified by shewing that it had been productive of\n_some_ benefit to society: for it would be as difficult to point out\npositive evil as unallayed good, in this imperfect state. What indeed\nwould become of morals, if they had no other test than prescription? The\nmanners of men may change without end; but, wherever reason receives the\nleast cultivation\u2014wherever men rise above brutes, morality must rest on\nthe same base. And the more man discovers of the nature of his mind and\nbody, the more clearly he is convinced, that to act according to the\ndictates of reason is to conform to the law of God.\n\nThe test of honour may be arbitrary and fallacious, and, retiring into\nsubterfuge, elude close enquiry; but true morality shuns not the day,\nnor shrinks from the ordeal of investigation. Most of the happy\nrevolutions that have taken place in the world have happened when weak\nprinces held the reins they could not manage; but are they, on that\naccount, to be canonized as saints or demi-gods, and pushed forward to\nnotice on the throne of ignorance? Pleasure wants a zest, if experience\ncannot compare it with pain; but who courts pain to heighten his\npleasures? A transient view of society will further illustrate arguments\nwhich appear so obvious that I am almost ashamed to produce\nillustrations. How many children have been taught \u0153conomy, and many\nother virtues, by the extravagant thoughtlessness of their parents; yet\na good education is allowed to be an inestimable blessing. The tenderest\nmothers are often the most unhappy wives; but can the good that accrues\nfrom the private distress that produces a sober dignity of mind justify\nthe inflictor? Right or wrong may be estimated according to the point of\nsight, and other adventitious circumstances; but, to discover its real\nnature, the enquiry must go deeper than the surface, and beyond the\nlocal consequences that confound good and evil together. The rich and\nweak, a numerous train, will certainly applaud your system, and loudly\ncelebrate your pious reverence for authority and establishments\u2014they\nfind it pleasanter to enjoy than to think; to justify oppression than\ncorrect abuses.\u2014_The rights of men_ are grating sounds that set their\nteeth on edge; the impertinent enquiry of philosophic meddling\ninnovation. If the poor are in distress, they will make some\n_benevolent_ exertions to assist them; they will confer obligations, but\nnot do justice. Benevolence is a very amiable specious quality; yet the\naversion which men feel to accept a right as a favour, should rather be\nextolled as a vestige of native dignity, than stigmatized as the odious\noffspring of ingratitude. The poor consider the rich as their lawful\nprey; but we ought not too severely to animadvert on their ingratitude.\nWhen they receive an alms they are commonly grateful at the moment; but\nold habits quickly return, and cunning has ever been a substitute for\nforce.\n\nThat both physical and moral evil were not only foreseen, but entered\ninto the scheme of Providence, when this world was contemplated in the\nDivine mind, who can doubt, without robbing Omnipotence of a most\nexalted attribute? But the business of the life of a good man should be,\nto separate light from darkness; to diffuse happiness, whilst he submits\nto unavoidable misery. And a conviction that there is much unavoidable\nwretchedness, appointed by the grand Disposer of all events, should not\nslacken his exertions: the extent of what is possible can only be\ndiscerned by God. The justice of God may be vindicated by a belief in a\nfuture state; but, only by believing that evil is educing good for the\nindividual, and not for an imaginary whole. The happiness of the whole\nmust arise from the happiness of the constituent parts, or the essence\nof justice is sacrificed to a supposed grand arrangement. And that may\nbe good for the whole of a creature\u2019s existence, that disturbs the\ncomfort of a small portion. The evil which an individual suffers for the\ngood of the community is partial, it must be allowed, if the account is\nsettled by death.\u2014But the partial evil which it suffers, during one\nstage of existence, to render another stage more perfect, is strictly\njust. The Father of all only can regulate the education of his children.\nTo suppose that, during the whole or part of its existence, the\nhappiness of any individual is sacrificed to promote the welfare of ten,\nor ten thousand, other beings\u2014is impious. But to suppose that the\nhappiness, or animal enjoyment, of one portion of existence is\nsacrificed to improve and ennoble the being itself, and render it\ncapable of more perfect happiness, is not to reflect on either the\ngoodness or wisdom of God.\n\nIt may be confidently asserted that no man chooses evil, because it is\nevil; he only mistakes it for happiness, the good he seeks. And the\ndesire of rectifying these mistakes, is the noble ambition of an\nenlightened understanding, the impulse of feelings that Philosophy\ninvigorates. To endeavour to make unhappy men resigned to their fate, is\nthe tender endeavour of short-sighted benevolence, of transient\nyearnings of humanity; but to labour to increase human happiness by\nextirpating error, is a masculine godlike affection. This remark may be\ncarried still further. Men who possess uncommon sensibility, whose quick\nemotions shew how closely the eye and heart are connected, soon forget\nthe most forcible sensations. Not tarrying long enough in the brain to\nbe subject to reflection, the next sensations, of course, obliterate\nthem. Memory, however, treasures up these proofs of native goodness; and\nthe being who is not spurred on to any virtuous act, still thinks itself\nof consequence, and boasts of its feelings. Why? Because the sight of\ndistress, or an affecting narrative, made its blood flow with more\nvelocity, and the heart, literally speaking, beat with sympathetic\nemotion. We ought to beware of confounding mechanical instinctive\nsensations with emotions that reason deepens, and justly terms the\nfeelings of _humanity_. This word discriminates the active exertions of\nvirtue from the vague declamation of sensibility.\n\nThe declaration of the National Assembly, when they recognized the\nrights of men, was calculated to touch the humane heart\u2014the downfall of\nthe clergy, to agitate the pupil of impulse. On the watch to find fault,\nfaults met your prying eye; a different prepossession might have\nproduced a different conviction.\n\nWhen we read a book that supports our favourite opinions, how eagerly do\nwe suck in the doctrines, and suffer our minds placidly to reflect the\nimages that illustrate the tenets we have previously embraced. We\nindolently acquiesce in the conclusion, and our spirit animates and\ncorrects the various subjects. But when, on the contrary, we peruse a\nskilful writer, with whom we do not coincide in opinion, how attentive\nis the mind to detect fallacy. And this suspicious coolness often\nprevents our being carried away by a stream of natural eloquence, which\nthe prejudiced mind terms declamation\u2014a pomp of words! We never allow\nourselves to be warmed; and, after contending with the writer, are more\nconfirmed in our opinion; as much, perhaps, from a spirit of\ncontradiction as from reason. A lively imagination is ever in danger of\nbeing betrayed into error by favourite opinions, which it almost\npersonifies, the more effectually to intoxicate the understanding.\nAlways tending to extremes, truth is left behind in the heat of the\nchace, and things are viewed as positively good, or bad, though they\nwear an equivocal face.\n\nSome celebrated writers have supposed that wit and judgment were\nincompatible; opposite qualities, that, in a kind of elementary strife,\ndestroyed each other: and many men of wit have endeavoured to prove that\nthey were mistaken. Much may be adduced by wits and metaphysicians on\nboth sides of the question. But, from experience, I am apt to believe\nthat they do weaken each other, and that great quickness of\ncomprehension, and facile association of ideas, naturally preclude\nprofundity of research. Wit is often a lucky hit; the result of a\nmomentary inspiration. We know not whence it comes, and it blows where\nit lifts. The operations of judgment, on the contrary, are cool and\ncircumspect; and coolness and deliberation are great enemies to\nenthusiasm. If wit is of so fine a spirit, that it almost evaporates\nwhen translated into another language, why may not the temperature have\nan influence over it? This remark may be thought derogatory to the\ninferior qualities of the mind: but it is not a hasty one; and I mention\nit as a prelude to a conclusion I have frequently drawn, that the\ncultivation of reason damps fancy. The blessings of Heaven lie on each\nside; we must choose, if we wish to attain any degree of superiority,\nand not lose our lives in laborious idleness. If we mean to build our\nknowledge or happiness on a rational basis, we must learn to distinguish\nthe _possible_, and not fight against the stream. And if we are careful\nto guard ourselves from imaginary sorrows and vain fears, we must also\nresign many enchanting illusions: for shallow must be the discernment\nwhich fails to discover that raptures and ecstasies arise from\nerror.\u2014Whether it will always be so, is not now to be discussed; suffice\nit to observe, that Truth is seldom arrayed by the Graces; and if she\ncharms, it is only by inspiring a sober satisfaction, which takes its\nrise from a calm contemplation of proportion and simplicity. But, though\nit is allowed that one man has by nature more fancy than another, in\neach individual there is a spring-tide when fancy should govern and\namalgamate materials for the understanding; and a graver period, when\nthose materials should be employed by the judgment. For example, I am\ninclined to have a better opinion of the heart of an _old_ man, who\nspeaks of Sterne as his favourite author, than of his understanding.\nThere are times and seasons for all things: and moralists appear to me\nto err, when they would confound the gaiety of youth with the\nseriousness of age; for the virtues of age look not only more imposing,\nbut more natural, when they appear rather rigid. He who has not\nexercised his judgment to curb his imagination during the meridian of\nlife, becomes, in its decline, too often the prey of childish feelings.\nAge demands respect; youth love: if this order is disturbed, the\nemotions are not pure; and when love for a man in his grand climacteric\ntakes place of respect, it, generally speaking, borders on contempt.\nJudgment is sublime, wit beautiful; and, according to your own theory,\nthey cannot exist together without impairing each other\u2019s power. The\npredominancy of the latter, in your endless Reflections, should lead\nhasty readers to suspect that it may, in a great degree, exclude the\nformer.\n\nBut, among all your plausible arguments, and witty illustrations, your\ncontempt for the poor always appears conspicuous, and rouses my\nindignation. The following paragraph in particular struck me, as\nbreathing the most tyrannic spirit, and displaying the most factitious\nfeelings. \u2018Good order is the foundation of all good things. To be\nenabled to acquire, the people, without being servile, must be tractable\nand obedient. The magistrate must have his reverence, the laws their\nauthority. The body of the people must not find the principles of\nnatural subordination by art rooted out of their minds. They _must_\nrespect that property of which they _cannot_ partake. _They must labour\nto obtain what by labour can be obtained; and when they find, as they\ncommonly do, the success disproportioned to the endeavour, they must be\ntaught their consolation in the final proportions of eternal justice._\nOf this consolation, whoever deprives them, deadens their industry, and\nstrikes at the root of all acquisition as of all conservation. He that\ndoes this, is the cruel oppressor, the merciless enemy, of the poor and\nwretched; at the same time that, by his wicked speculations, he exposes\nthe fruits of successful industry, and the accumulations of fortune,\u2019\n(ah! there\u2019s the rub) \u2018to the plunder of the negligent, the\ndisappointed, and the unprosperous[26].\u2019\n\nThis is contemptible hard-hearted sophistry, in the specious form of\nhumility, and submission to the will of Heaven.\u2014It is, Sir, _possible_\nto render the poor happier in this world, without depriving them of the\nconsolation which you gratuitously grant them in the next. They have a\nright to more comfort than they at present enjoy; and more comfort might\nbe afforded them, without encroaching on the pleasures of the rich: not\nnow waiting to enquire whether the rich have any right to exclusive\npleasures. What do I say?\u2014encroaching! No; if an intercourse were\nestablished between them, it would impart the only true pleasure that\ncan be snatched in this land of shadows, this hard school of moral\ndiscipline.\n\nI know, indeed, that there is often something disgusting in the\ndistresses of poverty, at which the imagination revolts, and starts back\nto exercise itself in the more attractive Arcadia of fiction. The rich\nman builds a house, art and taste give it the highest finish. His\ngardens are planted, and the trees grow to recreate the fancy of the\nplanter, though the temperature of the climate may rather force him to\navoid the dangerous damps they exhale, than seek the umbrageous retreat.\nEvery thing on the estate is cherished but man;\u2014yet, to contribute to\nthe happiness of man, is the most sublime of all enjoyments. But if,\ninstead of sweeping pleasure-grounds, obelisks, temples, and elegant\ncottages, as _objects_ for the eye, the heart was allowed to beat true\nto nature, decent farms would be scattered over the estate, and plenty\nsmile around. Instead of the poor being subject to the griping hand of\nan avaricious steward, they would be watched over with fatherly\nsolicitude, by the man whose duty and pleasure it was to guard their\nhappiness, and shield from rapacity the beings who, by the sweat of\ntheir brow, exalted him above his fellows.\n\nI could almost imagine I see a man thus gathering blessings as he\nmounted the hill of life; or consolation, in those days when the spirits\nlag, and the tired heart finds no pleasure in them. It is not by\nsquandering alms that the poor can be relieved, or improved\u2014it is the\nfostering sun of kindness, the wisdom that finds them employments\ncalculated to give them habits of virtue, that meliorates their\ncondition. Love is only the fruit of love; condescension and authority\nmay produce the obedience you applaud; but he has lost his heart of\nflesh who can see a fellow-creature humbled before him, and trembling at\nthe frown of a being, whose heart is supplied by the same vital current,\nand whose pride ought to be checked by a consciousness of having the\nsame infirmities.\n\nWhat salutary dews might not be shed to refresh this thirsty land, if\nmen were more _enlightened_! Smiles and premiums might encourage\ncleanliness, industry, and emulation.\u2014A garden more inviting than Eden\nwould then meet the eye, and springs of joy murmur on every side. The\nclergyman would superintend his own flock, the shepherd would then love\nthe sheep he daily tended; the school might rear its decent head, and\nthe buzzing tribe, let loose to play, impart a portion of their\nvivacious spirits to the heart that longed to open their minds, and lead\nthem to taste the pleasures of men. Domestic comfort, the civilizing\nrelations of husband, brother, and father, would soften labour, and\nrender life contented.\n\nReturning once from a despotic country to a part of England well\ncultivated, but not very picturesque\u2014with what delight did I not observe\nthe poor man\u2019s garden!\u2014The homely palings and twining woodbine, with all\nthe rustic contrivances of simple, unlettered taste, was a sight which\nrelieved the eye that had wandered indignant from the stately palace to\nthe pestiferous hovel, and turned from the awful contrast into itself to\nmourn the fate of man, and curse the arts of civilization!\n\nWhy cannot large estates be divided into small farms? these dwellings\nwould indeed grace our land. Why are huge forests still allowed to\nstretch out with idle pomp and all the indolence of Eastern grandeur?\nWhy does the brown waste meet the traveller\u2019s view, when men want work?\nBut commons cannot be enclosed without _acts of parliament_ to increase\nthe property of the rich! Why might not the industrious peasant be\nallowed to steal a farm from the heath? This sight I have seen;\u2014the cow\nthat supported the children grazed near the hut, and the cheerful\npoultry were fed by the chubby babes, who breathed a bracing air, far\nfrom the diseases and the vices of cities. Domination blasts all these\nprospects; virtue can only flourish amongst equals, and the man who\nsubmits to a fellow-creature, because it promotes his worldly interest,\nand he who relieves only because it is his duty to lay up a treasure in\nheaven, are much on a par, for both are radically degraded by the habits\nof their life.\n\nIn this great city, that proudly rears its head, and boasts of its\npopulation and commerce, how much misery lurks in pestilential corners,\nwhilst idle mendicants assail, on every side, the man who hates to\nencourage importers, or repress, with angry frown, the plaints of the\npoor! How many mechanics, by a flux of trade or fashion, lose their\nemployment; whom misfortunes, not to be warded off, lead to the idleness\nthat vitiates their character and renders them afterwards averse to\nhonest labour! Where is the eye that marks these evils, more gigantic\nthan any of the infringements of property, which you piously deprecate?\nAre these remediless evils? And is the humane heart satisfied with\nturning the poor over to _another_ world, to receive the blessings this\ncould afford? If society was regulated on a more enlarged plan; if man\nwas contented to be the friend of man, and did not seek to bury the\nsympathies of humanity in the servile appellation of master; if, turning\nhis eyes from ideal regions of taste and elegance, he laboured to give\nthe earth he inhabited all the beauty it is capable of receiving, and\nwas ever on the watch to shed abroad all the happiness which human\nnature can enjoy;\u2014he who, respecting the rights of men, wishes to\nconvince or persuade society that this is true happiness and dignity, is\nnot the cruel _oppressor_ of the poor, nor a short-sighted\nphilosopher\u2014HE fears God and loves his fellow-creatures.\u2014Behold the\nwhole duty of man!\u2014the citizen who acts differently is a sophisticated\nbeing.\n\nSurveying civilized life, and seeing, with undazzled eye, the polished\nvices of the rich, their insincerity, want of natural affections, with\nall the specious train that luxury introduces, I have turned impatiently\nto the poor, to look for man undebauched by riches or power\u2014but, alas!\nwhat did I see? a being scarcely above the brutes, over which he\ntyrannized; a broken spirit, worn-out body, and all those gross vices\nwhich the example of the rich, rudely copied, could produce. Envy built\na wall of separation, that made the poor hate, whilst they bent to their\nsuperiors; who, on their part, stepped aside to avoid the loathsome\nsight of human misery.\n\nWhat were the outrages of a day[27] to these continual miseries? Let\nthose sorrows hide their diminished head before the tremendous mountain\nof woe that thus defaces our globe! Man preys on man; and you mourn for\nthe idle tapestry that decorated a gothic pile, and the dronish bell\nthat summoned the fat priest to prayer. You mourn for the empty pageant\nof a name, when slavery flaps her wing, and the sick heart retires to\ndie in lonely wilds, far from the abodes of men. Did the pangs you felt\nfor insulted nobility, the anguish that rent your heart when the\ngorgeous robes were torn off the idol human weakness had set up, deserve\nto be compared with the long-drawn sigh of melancholy reflection, when\nmisery and vice are thus seen to haunt our steps, and swim on the top of\nevery cheering prospect? Why is our fancy to be appalled by terrific\nperspectives of a hell beyond the grave?\u2014Hell stalks abroad;\u2014the lash\nresounds on the slave\u2019s naked sides; and the sick wretch, who can no\nlonger earn the sour bread of unremitting labour, steals to a ditch to\nbid the world a long good night\u2014or, neglected in some ostentatious\nhospital, breathes his last amidst the laugh of mercenary attendants.\n\nSuch misery demands more than tears\u2014I pause to recollect myself; and\nsmother the contempt I feel rising for your rhetorical flourishes and\ninfantine sensibility.\n\n                         - - - - - - - - - - -\n                         - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nTaking a retrospective view of my hasty answer, and casting a cursory\nglance over your _Reflections_, I perceive that I have not alluded to\nseveral reprehensible passages, in your elaborate work; which I marked\nfor censure when I first perused it with a steady eye. And now I find it\nalmost impossible candidly to refute your sophisms, without quoting your\nown words, and putting the numerous contradictions I observed in\nopposition to each other. This would be an effectual refutation; but,\nafter such a tedious drudgery, I fear I should only be read by the\npatient eye that scarcely wanted my assistance to detect the flagrant\nerrors. It would be a tedious process to shew, that often the most just\nand forcible illustrations are warped to colour over opinions _you_ must\n_sometimes_ have secretly despised; or, at least, have discovered, that\nwhat you asserted without limitation, required the greatest. Some\nsubjects of exaggeration may have been superficially viewed; depth of\njudgment is, perhaps, incompatible with the predominant features of your\nmind. Your reason may have often been the dupe of your imagination; but\nsay, did you not sometimes angrily bid her be still, when she whispered\nthat you were departing from strict truth? Or, when assuming the awful\nform of conscience, and only smiling at the vagaries of vanity, did she\nnot austerely bid you recollect your own errors, before you lifted the\navenging stone? Did she not sometimes wave her hand, when you poured\nforth a torrent of shining sentences, and beseech you to concatenate\nthem\u2014plainly telling you that the impassioned eloquence of the heart was\ncalculated rather to affect than dazzle the reader, whom it hurried\nalong to conviction? Did she not anticipate the remark of the wise, who\ndrink not at a shallow sparkling dream, and tell you that they would\ndiscover when, with the dignity of sincerity, you supported an opinion\nthat only appeared to you with one face; or, when superannuated vanity\nmade you torture your invention?\u2014But I forbear.\n\nI have before animadverted on our method of electing representatives,\nconvinced that it debauches both the morals of the people and the\ncandidates, without rendering the member really responsible, or attached\nto his constituents; but, amongst your other contradictions, you blame\nthe National Assembly for expecting any exertions from the servile\nprinciple of responsibility, and afterwards insult them for not\nrendering themselves responsible. Whether the one the French have\nadopted will answer the purpose better, and be more than a shadow of\nrepresentation, time only can shew. In theory it appears more promising.\n\nYour real or artificial affection for the English constitution seems to\nme to resemble the brutal affection of some weak characters. They think\nit a duty to love their relations with a blind, indolent tenderness,\nthat _will not_ see the faults it might assist to correct, if their\naffection had been built on rational grounds. They love they know not\nwhy, and they will love to the end of the chapter.\n\nIs it absolute blasphemy to doubt of the omnipotence of the law, or to\nsuppose that religion might be more pure if there were fewer baits for\nhypocrites in the church? But our manners, you tell us, are drawn from\nthe French, though you had before celebrated our native plainness[28].\nIf they were, it is time we broke loose from dependence\u2014\u2014Time that\nEnglishmen drew water from their own springs; for, if manners are not a\npainted substitute for morals, we have only to cultivate our reason, and\nwe shall not feel the want of an arbitrary model. Nature will suffice;\nbut I forget myself:\u2014Nature and Reason, according to your system, are\nall to give place to authority; and the gods, as Shakespeare makes a\nfrantic wretch exclaim, seem to kill us for their sport, as men do\nflies.\n\nBefore I conclude my cursory remarks, it is but just to acknowledge that\nI coincide with you in your opinion respecting the _sincerity_ of many\nmodern philosophers. Your consistency in avowing a veneration for rank\nand riches deserves praise; but I must own that I have often indignantly\nobserved that some of the _enlightened_ philosophers, who talk most\nvehemently of the native rights of men, borrow many noble sentiments to\nadorn their conversation, which have no influence on their conduct. They\nbow down to rank, and are careful to secure property; for virtue,\nwithout this adventitious drapery, is seldom very respectable in their\neyes\u2014nor are they very quick-sighted to discern real dignity of\ncharacter when no sounding name exalts the man above his fellows.\u2014But\nneither open enmity nor hollow homage destroys the intrinsic value of\nthose principles which rest on an eternal foundation, and revert for a\nstandard to the immutable attributes of God.\n\n\n                                THE END.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  As religion is included in my idea of morality, I should not have\n  mentioned the term without specifying all the simple ideas which that\n  comprehensive word generalizes; but as the charge of atheism has been\n  very freely banded about in the letter I am considering, I wish to\n  guard against misrepresentation.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  See Mr. Burke\u2019s Bills for \u0153conomical reform.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  Page 15.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  \u2018The doctrine of _hereditary_ right does by no means imply an\n  _indefeasible_ right to the throne. No man will, I think, assert this,\n  that has considered our laws, constitution, and history, without\n  prejudice, and with any degree of attention. It is unquestionably in\n  the breast of the supreme legislative authority of this kingdom, the\n  King and both Houses of Parliament, to defeat this hereditary right;\n  and, by particular entails, limitations, and provisions, to exclude\n  the immediate heir, and vest the inheritance in any one else. This is\n  strictly consonant to our laws and constitution; as may be gathered\n  from the expression so frequently used in our statute books, of \u201cthe\n  King\u2019s Majesty, his heirs, and successors.\u201d In which we may observe\n  that, as the word \u201cheirs\u201d necessarily implies an inheritance, or\n  hereditary right, generally subsisting in \u201cthe royal person;\u201d so the\n  word successors, distinctly taken, must imply that this inheritance\n  may sometimes be broken through; or, that there may be a successor,\n  without being the heir of the king.\u2019\n\n  I shall not, however, rest in something like a subterfuge, and quote,\n  as partially as you have done, from Aristotle. Blackstone has so\n  cautiously fenced round his opinion with provisos, that it is obvious\n  he thought the letter of the law leaned towards your side of the\n  question\u2014but a blind respect for the law is not a part of my creed.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  Page 113.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  As you ironically observe, p. 114.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  In July, when he first submitted to his people; and not the mobbing\n  triumphal catastrophe in October, which you chose, to give full scope\n  to your declamatory powers.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  This quotation is not marked with inverted commas, because it is not\n  exact. P. 11.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  Page 106.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  I do not now mean to discuss the intricate subject of their mortality;\n  reason may, perhaps, be given to them in the next stage of existence,\n  if they are to mount in the scale of life, like men, by the medium of\n  death.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  Page 128.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  Page 129.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  _Vide_ Reflections, p. 128. \u201cWe fear God; we look up with _awe_ to\n  kings; with _affection_ to parliaments; with _duty_ to magistrates;\n  with _reverence_ to priests; and with _respect_ to nobility.\u201d\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  Page 137.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n  \u2018When the people have emptied themselves of all the lust of selfish\n  will, which without religion it is utterly impossible they ever\n  should; when they are conscious that they exercise, and exercise\n  perhaps in an higher link of the order of delegation, the power, which\n  to be legitimate must be according to that eternal immutable law, in\n  which will and reason are the same, they will be more careful how they\n  place power in base and incapable hands. In their nomination to\n  office, they will not appoint to the exercise of authority as to a\n  pitiful job, but as to an holy function; not according to their sordid\n  selfish interest, nor to their wanton caprice, nor to their arbitrary\n  will; but they will confer that power (which any man may well tremble\n  to give or to receive) on those only, in whom they may discern that\n  predominant proportion of active virtue and wisdom, taken together and\n  fitted to the charge, such, as in the great and inevitable mixed mass\n  of human imperfections and infirmities, is to be found.\u2019 P. 140.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  Page 140.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  Page 148.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  Page 51. \u2018If the last generations of your country appeared without\n  much lustre in your eyes, you might have passed them by, and derived\n  your claims from a more early race of ancestors. Under a pious\n  predilection to those ancestors, your imaginations would have realized\n  in them a standard of virtue and wisdom, beyond the vulgar practice of\n  the hour: and you would have risen with the example to whose imitation\n  you aspired. Respecting your forefathers, you would have been taught\n  to respect yourselves.\u2019\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  Page 53. \u2018If diffident of yourselves, and not clearly discerning the\n  almost obliterated constitution of your ancestors, you had looked to\n  your neighbours in this land, who had kept alive the ancient\n  principles and models of the old common law of Europe meliorated and\n  adapted to its present state\u2014by following wise examples you would have\n  given new examples of wisdom to the world.\u2019\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n  Page 49. \u2018Always acting as if in the presence of canonized\n  forefathers, the spirit of freedom, leading in itself to misrule and\n  excess, is tempered with an awful gravity. This idea of a liberal\n  descent inspires us with a sense of habitual native dignity, which\n  prevents that upstart insolence almost inevitably adhering to and\n  disgracing those who are the first acquirers of any distinction!\u2019\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n  Page 6. \u2018Being a citizen of a particular state, and bound up in a\n  considerable degree, by its _public will_,\u2019 &c.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n  Page 11. \u2018It looks to me as if I were in a great crisis, not of the\n  affairs of France alone but of all Europe, perhaps of more than\n  Europe. All circumstances taken together, the French revolution is the\n  most astonishing that has hitherto happened in the world.\u2019\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n  Page 50. \u2018We procure reverence to our civil institutions on the\n  principle upon which nature teaches us to revere individual men; on\n  account of their age; and on account of those from whom they are\n  descended. All your sophisters cannot produce any thing better adapted\n  to preserve a rational and manly freedom than the course that we have\n  pursued; who have chosen our nature rather than our speculations, our\n  breasts rather than our inventions, for the great conservatories and\n  magazines of our rights and privileges.\u2019\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n  _Vide_ Page 210.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n  \u2018When men are encouraged to go into a certain mode of life by the\n  existing laws, and protected in that mode as in a lawful\n  occupation\u2014when they have accommodated _all their ideas, and all their\n  habits to it_,\u2019 &c.\u2014\u2018I am sure it is unjust in legislature, by an\n  arbitrary act, to offer a sudden violence to their minds and their\n  feelings; forcibly to degrade them from their state and condition, and\n  to stigmatize with shame and infamy that character and those customs\n  which before had been made the measure of their happiness.\u2019 Page 230.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n  Page 351.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n  The 6th of October.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n  Page 118. \u2018It is not clear, whether in England we learned those grand\n  and decorous principles, and manners, of which considerable traces yet\n  remain, from you, or whether you took them from us. But to you, I\n  think, we trace them best. You seem to me to be\u2014_gentis incunabula\n  nostr\u00e6_. France has always more or less influenced manners in England;\n  and when your fountain is choaked up and polluted, the stream will not\n  run long, or not run clear with us, or perhaps with any nation. This\n  gives all Europe, in my opinion, but too close and connected a concern\n  in what is done in France.\u2019\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                          TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTES\n\n\n 1. P. 92, changed \u201cvery prejudies\u201d to \u201cvery prejudices\u201d.\n 2. P. 114, changed \u201cquaities\u201d to \u201cqualities\u201d.\n 3. P. 126, changed \u201ctriumphant villany\u201d to \u201ctriumphant villainy\u201d.\n 4. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in spelling.\n 5. Archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings retained as printed.\n 6. Footnotes were re-indexed using numbers and collected together at\n      the end of the last chapter.\n 7. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.","title":"A vindication of the rights of men, in a letter to the Right Honourable Edmund Burke; occasioned by his Reflections on the Revolution in France","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":24659}