Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Paine Rights of Man
Paine Rights of Man
Rights of Man
George Washington
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SIR,
At the time Mr. Burke made his violent speech last winter in the
English Parliament against the French Revolution and the National
Assembly, I was in Paris, and had written to him but a short time
before to inform him how prosperously matters were going on.
Soon after this I saw his advertisement of the Pamphlet he intended
to publish: As the attack was to be made in a language but little
studied, and less understood in France, and as everything suffers by
translation, I promised some of the friends of the Revolution in that
country that whenever Mr. Burke’s Pamphlet came forth, I would
answer it. This appeared to me the more necessary to be done, when
I saw the flagrant misrepresentations which Mr. Burke’s Pamphlet
contains; and that while it is an outrageous abuse on the French
2
Revolution, and the principles of Liberty, it is an imposition on the
rest of the world.
3
substance of our opinions into writing and sent it to him; subjoining
a request, that if I should see among the people of England, any
disposition to cultivate a better understanding between the two
nations than had hitherto prevailed, how far I might be authorised to
say that the same disposition prevailed on the part of France? He
answered me by letter in the most unreserved manner, and that not
for himself only, but for the Minister, with whose knowledge the
letter was declared to be written.
I put this letter into the, hands of Mr. Burke almost three years ago,
and left it with him, where it still remains; hoping, and at the same
time naturally expecting, from the opinion I had conceived of him,
that he would find some opportunity of making good use of it, for
the purpose of removing those errors and prejudices which two
neighbouring nations, from the want of knowing each other, had
entertained, to the injury of both.
4
With respect to a paragraph in this work alluding to Mr. Burke’s
having a pension, the report has been some time in circulation, at
least two months; and as a person is often the last to hear what
concerns him the most to know, I have mentioned it, that Mr. Burke
may have an opportunity of contradicting the rumour, if he thinks
proper.
THOMAS PAINE
The cause of the French people is that of all Europe, or rather of the
whole world; but the governments of all those countries are by no
means favorable to it. It is important that we should never lose sight
of this distinction. We must not confuse the peoples with their
governments; especially not the English people with its
government.
5
King of England, to Mr. Burke for the insults heaped on it in his
book, and in the malevolent comments of the English Minister, Pitt,
in his speeches in Parliament.
6
The English government presents, just now, a curious phenomenon.
Seeing that the French and English nations are getting rid of the
prejudices and false notions formerly entertained against each other,
and which have cost them so much money, that government seems
to be placarding its need of a foe; for unless it finds one somewhere,
no pretext exists for the enormous revenue and taxation now
deemed necessary.
7
(Translated from the French)
Rights of Man
Among the incivilities by which nations or individuals provoke and
irritate each other, Mr. Burke’s pamphlet on the French Revolution
is an extraordinary instance. Neither the People of France, nor the
National Assembly, were troubling themselves about the affairs of
England, or the English Parliament; and that Mr. Burke should
commence an unprovoked attack upon them, both in Parliament and
in public, is a conduct that cannot be pardoned on the score of
manners, nor justified on that of policy.
8
neither spirit to undertake it nor fortitude to support it; and now that
there is one, he seeks an escape by condemning it.
Dr. Price does not say that the right to do these things exists in this
or in that person, or in this or in that description of persons, but that
it exists in the whole; that it is a right resident in the nation. Mr.
Burke, on the contrary, denies that such a right exists in the nation,
either in whole or in part, or that it exists anywhere; and, what is
still more strange and marvellous, he says: "that the people of
England utterly disclaim such a right, and that they will resist the
practical assertion of it with their lives and fortunes." That men
should take up arms and spend their lives and fortunes, not to
maintain their rights, but to maintain they have not rights, is an
9
entirely new species of discovery, and suited to the paradoxical
genius of Mr. Burke.
The method which Mr. Burke takes to prove that the people of
England have no such rights, and that such rights do not now exist
in the nation, either in whole or in part, or anywhere at all, is of the
same marvellous and monstrous kind with what he has already said;
for his arguments are that the persons, or the generation of persons,
in whom they did exist, are dead, and with them the right is dead
also. To prove this, he quotes a declaration made by Parliament
about a hundred years ago, to William and Mary, in these words:
"The Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do, in the name
of the people aforesaid" (meaning the people of England then
living) "most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs
and posterities, for EVER." He quotes a clause of another Act of
Parliament made in the same reign, the terms of which he says,
"bind us" (meaning the people of their day), "our heirs and our
posterity, to them, their heirs and posterity, to the end of time."
10
As Mr. Burke occasionally applies the poison drawn from his horrid
principles, not only to the English nation, but to the French
Revolution and the National Assembly, and charges that august,
illuminated and illuminating body of men with the epithet of
usurpers, I shall, sans ceremonie, place another system of principles
in opposition to his.
There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a
Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in
any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and
controlling posterity to the "end of time," or of commanding for
ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and
therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers
of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power
to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void.
Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases
as the age and generations which preceded it. The vanity and
presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous
and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in man; neither
has any generation a property in the generations which are to
11
follow. The Parliament or the people of 1688, or of any other
period, had no more right to dispose of the people of the present
day, or to bind or to control them in any shape whatever, than the
parliament or the people of the present day have to dispose of, bind
or control those who are to live a hundred or a thousand years
hence. Every generation is, and must be, competent to all the
purposes which its occasions require. It is the living, and not the
dead, that are to be accommodated. When man ceases to be, his
power and his wants cease with him; and having no longer any
participation in the concerns of this world, he has no longer any
authority in directing who shall be its governors, or how its
government shall be organised, or how administered.
I am not contending for nor against any form of government, nor for
nor against any party, here or elsewhere. That which a whole nation
chooses to do it has a right to do. Mr. Burke says, No. Where, then,
does the right exist? I am contending for the rights of the living, and
against their being willed away and controlled and contracted for by
the manuscript assumed authority of the dead, and Mr. Burke is
contending for the authority of the dead over the rights and freedom
of the living. There was a time when kings disposed of their crowns
by will upon their death-beds, and consigned the people, like beasts
of the field, to whatever successor they appointed. This is now so
exploded as scarcely to be remembered, and so monstrous as hardly
to be believed. But the Parliamentary clauses upon which Mr.
Burke builds his political church are of the same nature.
12
personal freedom even of an individual beyond the age of twenty-
one years. On what ground of right, then, could the Parliament of
1688, or any other Parliament, bind all posterity for ever?
Those who have quitted the world, and those who have not yet
arrived at it, are as remote from each other as the utmost stretch of
mortal imagination can conceive. What possible obligation, then,
can exist between them- what rule or principle can be laid down
that of two nonentities, the one out of existence and the other not in,
and who never can meet in this world, the one should control the
other to the end of time?
13
must certainly be more than human which no human power to the
end of time can alter.
But Mr. Burke has done some service- not to his cause, but to his
country- by bringing those clauses into public view. They serve to
demonstrate how necessary it is at all times to watch against the
attempted encroachment of power, and to prevent its running to
excess. It is somewhat extraordinary that the offence for which
James II. was expelled, that of setting up power by assumption,
should be re-acted, under another shape and form, by the Parliament
that expelled him. It shows that the Rights of Man were but
imperfectly understood at the Revolution, for certain it is that the
right which that Parliament set up by assumption (for by the
delegation it had not, and could not have it, because none could
give it) over the persons and freedom of posterity for ever was of
the same tyrannical unfounded kind which James attempted to set
up over the Parliament and the nation, and for which he was
expelled. The only difference is (for in principle they differ not) that
the one was an usurper over living, and the other over the unborn;
and as the one has no better authority to stand upon than the other,
both of them must be equally null and void, and of no effect.
From what, or from whence, does Mr. Burke prove the right of any
human power to bind posterity for ever? He has produced his
clauses, but he must produce also his proofs that such a right
existed, and show how it existed. If it ever existed it must now
exist, for whatever appertains to the nature of man cannot be
annihilated by man. It is the nature of man to die, and he will
continue to die as long as he continues to be born. But Mr. Burke
has set up a sort of political Adam, in whom all posterity are bound
14
for ever. He must, therefore, prove that his Adam possessed such a
power, or such a right.
The weaker any cord is, the less will it bear to be stretched, and the
worse is the policy to stretch it, unless it is intended to break it. Had
anyone proposed the overthrow of Mr. Burke’s positions, he would
have proceeded as Mr. Burke has done. He would have magnified
the authorities, on purpose to have called the right of them into
question; and the instant the question of right was started, the
authorities must have been given up.
But Mr. Burke’s clauses have not even this qualification in their
favour. They become null, by attempting to become immortal. The
nature of them precludes consent. They destroy the right which they
might have, by grounding it on a right which they cannot have.
Immortal power is not a human right, and therefore cannot be a
right of Parliament. The Parliament of 1688 might as well have
passed an act to have authorised themselves to live for ever, as to
make their authority live for ever. All, therefore, that can be said of
those clauses is that they are a formality of words, of as much
import as if those who used them had addressed a congratulation to
themselves, and in the oriental style of antiquity had said: O
Parliament, live for ever!
15
The circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the
opinions of men change also; and as government is for the living,
and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it.
That which may be thought right and found convenient in one age
may be thought wrong and found inconvenient in another. In such
cases, who is to decide, the living or the dead?
16
those who are now no more, as Mr. Burke has done, M. de la
Fayette applies to the living world, and emphatically says: "Call to
mind the sentiments which nature has engraved on the heart of
every citizen, and which take a new force when they are solemnly
recognised by all:- For a nation to love liberty, it is sufficient that
she knows it; and to be free, it is sufficient that she wills it." How
dry, barren, and obscure is the source from which Mr. Burke labors!
and how ineffectual, though gay with flowers, are all his
declamation and his arguments compared with these clear, concise,
and soul-animating sentiments! Few and short as they are, they lead
on to a vast field of generous and manly thinking, and do not finish,
like Mr. Burke’s periods, with music in the ear, and nothing in the
heart.
17
this great monument raised to liberty serve as a lesson to the
oppressor, and an example to the oppressed!" When this address
came to the hands of Dr. Franklin, who was then in France, he
applied to Count Vergennes to have it inserted in the French
Gazette, but never could obtain his consent. The fact was that Count
Vergennes was an aristocratical despot at home, and dreaded the
example of the American Revolution in France, as certain other
persons now dread the example of the French Revolution in
England, and Mr. Burke’s tribute of fear (for in this light his book
must be considered) runs parallel with Count Vergennes’ refusal.
But to return more particularly to his work.
"We have seen," says Mr. Burke, "the French rebel against a mild
and lawful monarch, with more fury, outrage, and insult, than any
people has been known to rise against the most illegal usurper, or
the most sanguinary tyrant." This is one among a thousand other
instances, in which Mr. Burke shows that he is ignorant of the
springs and principles of the French Revolution.
It was not against Louis XVI. but against the despotic principles of
the Government, that the nation revolted. These principles had not
their origin in him, but in the original establishment, many centuries
back: and they were become too deeply rooted to be removed, and
the Augean stables of parasites and plunderers too abominably
filthy to be cleansed by anything short of a complete and universal
Revolution. When it becomes necessary to do anything, the whole
heart and soul should go into the measure, or not attempt it. That
crisis was then arrived, and there remained no choice but to act with
determined vigor, or not to act at all. The king was known to be the
friend of the nation, and this circumstance was favorable to the
18
enterprise. Perhaps no man bred up in the style of an absolute king,
ever possessed a heart so little disposed to the exercise of that
species of power as the present King of France. But the principles
of the Government itself still remained the same. The Monarch and
the Monarchy were distinct and separate things; and it was against
the established despotism of the latter, and not against the person or
principles of the former, that the revolt commenced, and the
Revolution has been carried.
Mr. Burke does not attend to the distinction between men and
principles, and, therefore, he does not see that a revolt may take
place against the despotism of the latter, while there lies no charge
of despotism against the former.
19
views to explore, and proceeds with a mightiness of reason they
cannot keep pace with.
But there are many points of view in which this Revolution may be
considered. When despotism has established itself for ages in a
country, as in France, it is not in the person of the king only that it
resides. It has the appearance of being so in show, and in nominal
authority; but it is not so in practice and in fact. It has its standard
everywhere. Every office and department has its despotism,
founded upon custom and usage. Every place has its Bastille, and
every Bastille its despot. The original hereditary despotism resident
in the person of the king, divides and sub-divides itself into a
thousand shapes and forms, till at last the whole of it is acted by
deputation. This was the case in France; and against this species of
despotism, proceeding on through an endless labyrinth of office till
the source of it is scarcely perceptible, there is no mode of redress.
It strengthens itself by assuming the appearance of duty, and
tyrannies under the pretence of obeying.
When a man reflects on the condition which France was in from the
nature of her government, he will see other causes for revolt than
those which immediately connect themselves with the person or
character of Louis XVI. There were, if I may so express it, a
thousand despotisms to be reformed in France, which had grown up
under the hereditary despotism of the monarchy, and became so
rooted as to be in a great measure independent of it. Between the
Monarchy, the Parliament, and the Church there was a rivalship of
despotism; besides the feudal despotism operating locally, and the
ministerial despotism operating everywhere. But Mr. Burke, by
considering the king as the only possible object of a revolt, speaks
20
as if France was a village, in which everything that passed must be
known to its commanding officer, and no oppression could be acted
but what he could immediately control. Mr. Burke might have been
in the Bastille his whole life, as well under Louis XVI. as Louis
XIV., and neither the one nor the other have known that such a man
as Burke existed. The despotic principles of the government were
the same in both reigns, though the dispositions of the men were as
remote as tyranny and benevolence.
21
the occasions of the French Revolution. I now proceed to other
considerations.
As to the tragic paintings by which Mr. Burke has outraged his own
imagination, and seeks to work upon that of his readers, they are
very well calculated for theatrical representation, where facts are
manufactured for the sake of show, and accommodated to produce,
through the weakness of sympathy, a weeping effect. But Mr. Burke
should recollect that he is writing history, and not plays, and that his
readers will expect truth, and not the spouting rant of high-toned
exclamation.
22
attack them. But if the age of aristocracy, like that of chivalry,
should fall (and they had originally some connection) Mr. Burke,
the trumpeter of the Order, may continue his parody to the end, and
finish with exclaiming: "Othello’s occupation’s gone!"
Through the whole of Mr. Burke’s book I do not observe that the
Bastille is mentioned more than once, and that with a kind of
implication as if he were sorry it was pulled down, and wished it
were built up again. "We have rebuilt Newgate," says he, "and
tenanted the mansion; and we have prisons almost as strong as the
Bastille for those who dare to libel the queens of France."*[2] As to
what a madman like the person called Lord George Gordon might
say, and to whom Newgate is rather a bedlam than a prison, it is
unworthy a rational consideration. It was a madman that libelled,
and that is sufficient apology; and it afforded an opportunity for
confining him, which was the thing that was wished for. But certain
23
it is that Mr. Burke, who does not call himself a madman (whatever
other people may do), has libelled in the most unprovoked manner,
and in the grossest style of the most vulgar abuse, the whole
representative authority of France, and yet Mr. Burke takes his seat
in the British House of Commons! From his violence and his grief,
his silence on some points and his excess on others, it is difficult
not to believe that Mr. Burke is sorry, extremely sorry, that arbitrary
power, the power of the Pope and the Bastille, are pulled down.
As Mr. Burke has passed over the whole transaction of the Bastille
(and his silence is nothing in his favour), and has entertained his
readers with refections on supposed facts distorted into real
falsehoods, I will give, since he has not, some account of the
circumstances which preceded that transaction. They will serve to
show that less mischief could scarcely have accompanied such an
24
event when considered with the treacherous and hostile
aggravations of the enemies of the Revolution.
The mind can hardly picture to itself a more tremendous scene than
what the city of Paris exhibited at the time of taking the Bastille,
and for two days before and after, nor perceive the possibility of its
quieting so soon. At a distance this transaction has appeared only as
an act of heroism standing on itself, and the close political
connection it had with the Revolution is lost in the brilliancy of the
achievement. But we are to consider it as the strength of the parties
brought man to man, and contending for the issue. The Bastille was
to be either the prize or the prison of the assailants. The downfall of
it included the idea of the downfall of despotism, and this
compounded image was become as figuratively united as Bunyan’s
Doubting Castle and Giant Despair.
25
This plan must have been some time in contemplation; because, in
order to carry it into execution, it was necessary to collect a large
military force round Paris, and cut off the communication between
that city and the National Assembly at Versailles. The troops
destined for this service were chiefly the foreign troops in the pay
of France, and who, for this particular purpose, were drawn from
the distant provinces where they were then stationed. When they
were collected to the amount of between twenty-five and thirty
thousand, it was judged time to put the plan into execution. The
ministry who were then in office, and who were friendly to the
Revolution, were instantly dismissed and a new ministry formed of
those who had concerted the project, among whom was Count de
Broglio, and to his share was given the command of those troops.
The character of this man as described to me in a letter which I
communicated to Mr. Burke before he began to write his book, and
from an authority which Mr. Burke well knows was good, was that
of "a high-flying aristocrat, cool, and capable of every mischief."
26
fate and that of their country, and probably of Europe, are taken into
one view, none but a heart callous with prejudice or corrupted by
dependence can avoid interesting itself in their success.
27
Matters being now ripe for execution, the new ministry made their
appearance in office. The reader will carry in his mind that the
Bastille was taken the 14th July; the point of time I am now
speaking of is the 12th. Immediately on the news of the change of
ministry reaching Paris, in the afternoon, all the playhouses and
places of entertainment, shops and houses, were shut up. The
change of ministry was considered as the prelude of hostilities, and
the opinion was rightly founded.
The foreign troops began to advance towards the city. The Prince de
Lambesc, who commanded a body of German cavalry, approached
by the Place of Louis XV., which connects itself with some of the
streets. In his march, he insulted and struck an old man with a
sword. The French are remarkable for their respect to old age; and
the insolence with which it appeared to be done, uniting with the
general fermentation they were in, produced a powerful effect, and
a cry of "To arms! to arms!" spread itself in a moment over the city.
Arms they had none, nor scarcely anyone who knew the use of
them; but desperate resolution, when every hope is at stake,
supplies, for a while, the want of arms. Near where the Prince de
Lambesc was drawn up, were large piles of stones collected for
building the new bridge, and with these the people attacked the
cavalry. A party of French guards upon hearing the firing, rushed
from their quarters and joined the people; and night coming on, the
cavalry retreated.
The streets of Paris, being narrow, are favourable for defence, and
the loftiness of the houses, consisting of many stories, from which
great annoyance might be given, secured them against nocturnal
28
enterprises; and the night was spent in providing themselves with
every sort of weapon they could make or procure: guns, swords,
blacksmiths’ hammers, carpenters’ axes, iron crows, pikes, halberts,
pitchforks, spits, clubs, etc., etc. The incredible numbers in which
they assembled the next morning, and the still more incredible
resolution they exhibited, embarrassed and astonished their
enemies. Little did the new ministry expect such a salute.
Accustomed to slavery themselves, they had no idea that liberty was
capable of such inspiration, or that a body of unarmed citizens
would dare to face the military force of thirty thousand men. Every
moment of this day was employed in collecting arms, concerting
plans, and arranging themselves into the best order which such an
instantaneous movement could afford. Broglio continued lying
round the city, but made no further advances this day, and the
succeeding night passed with as much tranquility as such a scene
could possibly produce.
But defence only was not the object of the citizens. They had a
cause at stake, on which depended their freedom or their slavery.
They every moment expected an attack, or to hear of one made on
the National Assembly; and in such a situation, the most prompt
measures are sometimes the best. The object that now presented
itself was the Bastille; and the eclat of carrying such a fortress in the
face of such an army, could not fail to strike terror into the new
ministry, who had scarcely yet had time to meet. By some
intercepted correspondence this morning, it was discovered that the
Mayor of Paris, M. Defflesselles, who appeared to be in the interest
of the citizens, was betraying them; and from this discovery, there
remained no doubt that Broglio would reinforce the Bastille the
ensuing evening. It was therefore necessary to attack it that day; but
29
before this could be done, it was first necessary to procure a better
supply of arms than they were then possessed of.
30
Mr. Burke has spoken a great deal about plots, but he has never
once spoken of this plot against the National Assembly, and the
liberties of the nation; and that he might not, he has passed over all
the circumstances that might throw it in his way. The exiles who
have fled from France, whose case he so much interests himself in,
and from whom he has had his lesson, fled in consequence of the
miscarriage of this plot. No plot was formed against them; they
were plotting against others; and those who fell, met, not unjustly,
the punishment they were preparing to execute. But will Mr. Burke
say that if this plot, contrived with the subtilty of an ambuscade,
had succeeded, the successful party would have restrained their
wrath so soon? Let the history of all governments answer the
question.
31
More of the citizens fell in this struggle than of their opponents: but
four or five persons were seized by the populace, and instantly put
to death; the Governor of the Bastille, and the Mayor of Paris, who
was detected in the act of betraying them; and afterwards Foulon,
one of the new ministry, and Berthier, his son-in-law, who had
accepted the office of intendant of Paris. Their heads were stuck
upon spikes, and carried about the city; and it is upon this mode of
punishment that Mr. Burke builds a great part of his tragic scene.
Let us therefore examine how men came by the idea of punishing in
this manner.
They learn it from the governments they live under; and retaliate the
punishments they have been accustomed to behold. The heads stuck
upon spikes, which remained for years upon Temple Bar, differed
nothing in the horror of the scene from those carried about upon
spikes at Paris; yet this was done by the English Government. It
may perhaps be said that it signifies nothing to a man what is done
to him after he is dead; but it signifies much to the living; it either
tortures their feelings or hardens their hearts, and in either case it
instructs them how to punish when power falls into their hands.
Lay then the axe to the root, and teach governments humanity. It is
their sanguinary punishments which corrupt mankind. In England
the punishment in certain cases is by hanging, drawing and
quartering; the heart of the sufferer is cut out and held up to the
view of the populace. In France, under the former Government, the
punishments were not less barbarous. Who does not remember the
execution of Damien, torn to pieces by horses? The effect of those
cruel spectacles exhibited to the populace is to destroy tenderness or
excite revenge; and by the base and false idea of governing men by
32
terror, instead of reason, they become precedents. It is over the
lowest class of mankind that government by terror is intended to
operate, and it is on them that it operates to the worst effect. They
have sense enough to feel they are the objects aimed at; and they
inflict in their turn the examples of terror they have been instructed
to practise.
33
vulgar, or the ignorant mob, are so numerous in all old countries?
The instant we ask ourselves this question, reflection feels an
answer. They rise, as an unavoidable consequence, out of the ill
construction of all old governments in Europe, England included
with the rest. It is by distortedly exalting some men, that others are
distortedly debased, till the whole is out of nature. A vast mass of
mankind are degradedly thrown into the back-ground of the human
picture, to bring forward, with greater glare, the puppet-show of
state and aristocracy. In the commencement of a revolution, those
men are rather the followers of the camp than of the standard of
liberty, and have yet to be instructed how to reverence it.
I give to Mr. Burke all his theatrical exaggerations for facts, and I
then ask him if they do not establish the certainty of what I here lay
down? Admitting them to be true, they show the necessity of the
French Revolution, as much as any one thing he could have
asserted. These outrages were not the effect of the principles of the
Revolution, but of the degraded mind that existed before the
Revolution, and which the Revolution is calculated to reform. Place
them then to their proper cause, and take the reproach of them to
your own side.
It is the honour of the National Assembly and the city of Paris that,
during such a tremendous scene of arms and confusion, beyond the
control of all authority, they have been able, by the influence of
example and exhortation, to restrain so much. Never were more
pains taken to instruct and enlighten mankind, and to make them
see that their interest consisted in their virtue, and not in their
revenge, than have been displayed in the Revolution of France. I
34
now proceed to make some remarks on Mr. Burke’s account of the
expedition to Versailles, October the 5th and 6th.
I can consider Mr. Burke’s book in scarcely any other light than a
dramatic performance; and he must, I think, have considered it in
the same light himself, by the poetical liberties he has taken of
omitting some facts, distorting others, and making the whole
machinery bend to produce a stage effect. Of this kind is his
account of the expedition to Versailles. He begins this account by
omitting the only facts which as causes are known to be true;
everything beyond these is conjecture, even in Paris; and he then
works up a tale accommodated to his own passions and prejudices.
After all the investigations that have been made into this intricate
affair (the expedition to Versailles), it still remains enveloped in all
that kind of mystery which ever accompanies events produced more
from a concurrence of awkward circumstances than from fixed
design. While the characters of men are forming, as is always the
case in revolutions, there is a reciprocal suspicion, and a disposition
to misinterpret each other; and even parties directly opposite in
principle will sometimes concur in pushing forward the same
movement with very different views, and with the hopes of its
35
producing very different consequences. A great deal of this may be
discovered in this embarrassed affair, and yet the issue of the whole
was what nobody had in view.
36
under the pledged security of public faith to indulge nature in a few
hours of respite, and troubled melancholy repose." This is neither
the sober style of history, nor the intention of it. It leaves everything
to be guessed at and mistaken. One would at least think there had
been a battle; and a battle there probably would have been had it not
been for the moderating prudence of those whom Mr. Burke
involves in his censures. By his keeping the Garde du Corps out of
sight Mr. Burke has afforded himself the dramatic licence of putting
the King and Queen in their places, as if the object of the expedition
was against them. But to return to my account-
37
On the 5th of October a very numerous body of women, and men in
the disguise of women, collected around the Hotel de Ville or town-
hall at Paris, and set off for Versailles. Their professed object was
the Garde du Corps; but prudent men readily recollect that mischief
is more easily begun than ended; and this impressed itself with the
more force from the suspicions already stated, and the irregularity
of such a cavalcade. As soon, therefore, as a sufficient force could
be collected, M. de la Fayette, by orders from the civil authority of
Paris, set off after them at the head of twenty thousand of the Paris
militia. The Revolution could derive no benefit from confusion, and
its opposers might. By an amiable and spirited manner of address he
had hitherto been fortunate in calming disquietudes, and in this he
was extraordinarily successful; to frustrate, therefore, the hopes of
those who might seek to improve this scene into a sort of justifiable
necessity for the King’s quitting Versailles and withdrawing to
Metz, and to prevent at the same time the consequences that might
ensue between the Garde du Corps and this phalanx of men and
women, he forwarded expresses to the King, that he was on his
march to Versailles, by the orders of the civil authority of Paris, for
the purpose of peace and protection, expressing at the same time the
necessity of restraining the Garde du Corps from firing upon the
people.*[3]
38
signed the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and such other parts of
the constitution as were in readiness.
In this state matters passed till the break of day, when a fresh
disturbance arose from the censurable conduct of some of both
parties, for such characters there will be in all such scenes. One of
the Garde du Corps appeared at one of the windows of the palace,
and the people who had remained during the night in the streets
accosted him with reviling and provocative language. Instead of
retiring, as in such a case prudence would have dictated, he
presented his musket, fired, and killed one of the Paris militia. The
peace being thus broken, the people rushed into the palace in quest
of the offender. They attacked the quarters of the Garde du Corps
within the palace, and pursued them throughout the avenues of it,
and to the apartments of the King. On this tumult, not the Queen
only, as Mr. Burke has represented it, but every person in the
palace, was awakened and alarmed; and M. de la Fayette had a
second time to interpose between the parties, the event of which
was that the Garde du Corps put on the national cockade, and the
matter ended as by oblivion, after the loss of two or three lives.
39
During the latter part of the time in which this confusion was acting,
the King and Queen were in public at the balcony, and neither of
them concealed for safety’s sake, as Mr. Burke insinuates. Matters
being thus appeased, and tranquility restored, a general acclamation
broke forth of Le Roi a Paris- Le Roi a Paris- The King to Paris. It
was the shout of peace, and immediately accepted on the part of the
King. By this measure all future projects of trapanning the King to
Metz, and setting up the standard of opposition to the constitution,
were prevented, and the suspicions extinguished. The King and his
family reached Paris in the evening, and were congratulated on their
arrival by M. Bailly, the Mayor of Paris, in the name of the citizens.
Mr. Burke, who throughout his book confounds things, persons, and
principles, as in his remarks on M. Bailly’s address, confounded
time also. He censures M. Bailly for calling it "un bon jour," a good
day. Mr. Burke should have informed himself that this scene took
up the space of two days, the day on which it began with every
appearance of danger and mischief, and the day on which it
terminated without the mischiefs that threatened; and that it is to
this peaceful termination that M. Bailly alludes, and to the arrival of
the King at Paris. Not less than three hundred thousand persons
arranged themselves in the procession from Versailles to Paris, and
not an act of molestation was committed during the whole march.
40
Bishops had never been introduced before into any scene of Mr.
Burke’s drama: why then are they, all at once, and altogether, tout a
coup, et tous ensemble, introduced now? Mr. Burke brings forward
his Bishops and his lanthorn-like figures in a magic lanthorn, and
raises his scenes by contrast instead of connection. But it serves to
show, with the rest of his book what little credit ought to be given
where even probability is set at defiance, for the purpose of
defaming; and with this reflection, instead of a soliloquy in praise
of chivalry, as Mr. Burke has done, I close the account of the
expedition to Versailles.*[4]
41
The error of those who reason by precedents drawn from antiquity,
respecting the rights of man, is that they do not go far enough into
antiquity. They do not go the whole way. They stop in some of the
intermediate stages of an hundred or a thousand years, and produce
what was then done, as a rule for the present day. This is no
authority at all. If we travel still farther into antiquity, we shall find
a direct contrary opinion and practice prevailing; and if antiquity is
to be authority, a thousand such authorities may be produced,
successively contradicting each other; but if we proceed on, we
shall at last come out right; we shall come to the time when man
came from the hand of his Maker. What was he then? Man. Man
was his high and only title, and a higher cannot be given him. But
of titles I shall speak hereafter.
We are now got at the origin of man, and at the origin of his rights.
As to the manner in which the world has been governed from that
day to this, it is no farther any concern of ours than to make a
proper use of the errors or the improvements which the history of it
presents. Those who lived an hundred or a thousand years ago, were
then moderns, as we are now. They had their ancients, and those
ancients had others, and we also shall be ancients in our turn. If the
mere name of antiquity is to govern in the affairs of life, the people
who are to live an hundred or a thousand years hence, may as well
take us for a precedent, as we make a precedent of those who lived
an hundred or a thousand years ago. The fact is, that portions of
antiquity, by proving everything, establish nothing. It is authority
against authority all the way, till we come to the divine origin of the
rights of man at the creation. Here our enquiries find a resting-
place, and our reason finds a home. If a dispute about the rights of
man had arisen at the distance of an hundred years from the
42
creation, it is to this source of authority they must have referred,
and it is to this same source of authority that we must now refer.
43
deriving its existence from God. The world is as new to him as it
was to the first man that existed, and his natural right in it is of the
same kind.
It is also to be observed that all the religions known in the world are
founded, so far as they relate to man, on the unity of man, as being
all of one degree. Whether in heaven or in hell, or in whatever state
man may be supposed to exist hereafter, the good and the bad are
the only distinctions. Nay, even the laws of governments are
obliged to slide into this principle, by making degrees to consist in
crimes and not in persons.
44
man, is thrown back to a vast distance from his Maker, and the
artificial chasm filled up with a succession of barriers, or sort of
turnpike gates, through which he has to pass. I will quote Mr.
Burke’s catalogue of barriers that he has set up between man and his
Maker. Putting himself in the character of a herald, he says: "We
fear God- we look with awe to kings- with affection to Parliaments
with duty to magistrates- with reverence to priests, and with respect
to nobility." Mr. Burke has forgotten to put in "’chivalry." He has
also forgotten to put in Peter.
Hitherto we have spoken only (and that but in part) of the natural
rights of man. We have now to consider the civil rights of man, and
to show how the one originates from the other. Man did not enter
into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have fewer
rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured.
His natural rights are the foundation of all his civil rights. But in
order to pursue this distinction with more precision, it will be
necessary to mark the different qualities of natural and civil rights.
A few words will explain this. Natural rights are those which
appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the
45
intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of
acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which
are not injurious to the natural rights of others. Civil rights are those
which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society.
Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-
existing in the individual, but to the enjoyment of which his
individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this
kind are all those which relate to security and protection.
The natural rights which he retains are all those in which the Power
to execute is as perfect in the individual as the right itself. Among
this class, as is before mentioned, are all the intellectual rights, or
rights of the mind; consequently religion is one of those rights. The
natural rights which are not retained, are all those in which, though
the right is perfect in the individual, the power to execute them is
defective. They answer not his purpose. A man, by natural right, has
a right to judge in his own cause; and so far as the right of the mind
is concerned, he never surrenders it. But what availeth it him to
judge, if he has not power to redress? He therefore deposits this
right in the common stock of society, and takes the ann of society,
of which he is a part, in preference and in addition to his own.
Society grants him nothing. Every man is a proprietor in society,
and draws on the capital as a matter of right.
46
First, That every civil right grows out of a natural right; or, in other
words, is a natural right exchanged.
First, Superstition.
47
Secondly, Power.
48
honour and happiness of its character, I become irritated at the
attempt to govern mankind by force and fraud, as if they were all
knaves and fools, and can scarcely avoid disgust at those who are
thus imposed upon.
49
England and France. As he thus renders it a subject of controversy
by throwing the gauntlet, I take him upon his own ground. It is in
high challenges that high truths have the right of appearing; and I
accept it with the more readiness because it affords me, at the same
time, an opportunity of pursuing the subject with respect to
governments arising out of society.
50
Can, then, Mr. Burke produce the English Constitution? If he
cannot, we may fairly conclude that though it has been so much
talked about, no such thing as a constitution exists, or ever did exist,
and consequently that the people have yet a constitution to form.
Mr. Burke will not, I presume, deny the position I have already
advanced- namely, that governments arise either out of the people
or over the people. The English Government is one of those which
arose out of a conquest, and not out of society, and consequently it
arose over the people; and though it has been much modified from
the opportunity of circumstances since the time of William the
Conqueror, the country has never yet regenerated itself, and is
therefore without a constitution.
I readily perceive the reason why Mr. Burke declined going into the
comparison between the English and French constitutions, because
he could not but perceive, when he sat down to the task, that no
such a thing as a constitution existed on his side the question. His
book is certainly bulky enough to have contained all he could say
on this subject, and it would have been the best manner in which
people could have judged of their separate merits. Why then has he
declined the only thing that was worth while to write upon? It was
the strongest ground he could take, if the advantages were on his
side, but the weakest if they were not; and his declining to take it is
either a sign that he could not possess it or could not maintain it.
Mr. Burke said, in a speech last winter in Parliament, "that when the
National Assembly first met in three Orders (the Tiers Etat, the
Clergy, and the Noblesse), France had then a good constitution."
This shows, among numerous other instances, that Mr. Burke does
51
not understand what a constitution is. The persons so met were not a
constitution, but a convention, to make a constitution.
52
From these preliminaries I proceed to draw some comparisons. I
have already spoken of the declaration of rights; and as I mean to be
as concise as possible, I shall proceed to other parts of the French
Constitution.
The constitution of France says that every man who pays a tax of
sixty sous per annum (2s. 6d. English) is an elector. What article
will Mr. Burke place against this? Can anything be more limited,
and at the same time more capricious, than the qualification of
electors is in England? Limited- because not one man in an hundred
(I speak much within compass) is admitted to vote. Capricious-
because the lowest character that can be supposed to exist, and who
has not so much as the visible means of an honest livelihood, is an
elector in some places: while in other places, the man who pays
very large taxes, and has a known fair character, and the farmer
who rents to the amount of three or four hundred pounds a year,
with a property on that farm to three or four times that amount, is
not admitted to be an elector. Everything is out of nature, as Mr.
Burke says on another occasion, in this strange chaos, and all sorts
of follies are blended with all sorts of crimes. William the
Conqueror and his descendants parcelled out the country in this
manner, and bribed some parts of it by what they call charters to
hold the other parts of it the better subjected to their will. This is the
reason why so many of those charters abound in Cornwall; the
people were averse to the Government established at the Conquest,
and the towns were garrisoned and bribed to enslave the country.
All the old charters are the badges of this conquest, and it is from
this source that the capriciousness of election arises.
53
The French Constitution says that the number of representatives for
any place shall be in a ratio to the number of taxable inhabitants or
electors. What article will Mr. Burke place against this? The county
of York, which contains nearly a million of souls, sends two county
members; and so does the county of Rutland, which contains not an
hundredth part of that number. The old town of Sarum, which
contains not three houses, sends two members; and the town of
Manchester, which contains upward of sixty thousand souls, is not
admitted to send any. Is there any principle in these things? It is
admitted that all this is altered, but there is much to be done yet,
before we have a fair representation of the people. Is there anything
by which you can trace the marks of freedom, or discover those of
wisdom? No wonder then Mr. Burke has declined the comparison,
and endeavored to lead his readers from the point by a wild,
unsystematical display of paradoxical rhapsodies.
The French Constitution says there shall be no game laws, that the
farmer on whose lands wild game shall be found (for it is by the
produce of his lands they are fed) shall have a right to what he can
take; that there shall be no monopolies of any kind- that all trades
shall be free and every man free to follow any occupation by which
he can procure an honest livelihood, and in any place, town, or city
throughout the nation. What will Mr. Burke say to this? In England,
game is made the property of those at whose expense it is not fed;
54
and with respect to monopolies, the country is cut up into
monopolies. Every chartered town is an aristocratical monopoly in
itself, and the qualification of electors proceeds out of those
chartered monopolies. Is this freedom? Is this what Mr. Burke
means by a constitution?
55
constitution. It is a genius at random, and not a genius constituted.
But he must say something. He has therefore mounted in the air like
a balloon, to draw the eyes of the multitude from the ground they
stand upon.
56
receive the supplies when voted, and are to account for the
expenditure of those supplies to those who voted them, it is
themselves accountable to themselves, and the Comedy of Errors
concludes with the pantomime of Hush. Neither the Ministerial
party nor the Opposition will touch upon this case. The national
purse is the common hack which each mounts upon. It is like what
the country people call "Ride and tie- you ride a little way, and then
I."*[5] They order these things better in France.
The French Constitution says that the right of war and peace is in
the nation. Where else should it reside but in those who are to pay
the expense?
It may with reason be said that in the manner the English nation is
represented it signifies not where the right resides, whether in the
Crown or in the Parliament. War is the common harvest of all those
who participate in the division and expenditure of public money, in
all countries. It is the art of conquering at home; the object of it is
an increase of revenue; and as revenue cannot be increased without
taxes, a pretence must be made for expenditure. In reviewing the
history of the English Government, its wars and its taxes, a
bystander, not blinded by prejudice nor warped by interest, would
57
declare that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars
were raised to carry on taxes.
When the question of the right of war and peace was agitating in the
National Assembly, the people of England appeared to be much
interested in the event, and highly to applaud the decision. As a
principle it applies as much to one country as another. William the
Conqueror, as a conqueror, held this power of war and peace in
58
himself, and his descendants have ever since claimed it under him
as a right.
Although Mr. Burke has asserted the right of the Parliament at the
Revolution to bind and control the nation and posterity for ever, he
denies at the same time that the Parliament or the nation had any
right to alter what he calls the succession of the crown in anything
but in part, or by a sort of modification. By his taking this ground
he throws the case back to the Norman Conquest, and by thus
running a line of succession springing from William the Conqueror
to the present day, he makes it necessary to enquire who and what
William the Conqueror was, and where he came from, and into the
origin, history and nature of what are called prerogatives.
Everything must have had a beginning, and the fog of time and
antiquity should be penetrated to discover it. Let, then, Mr. Burke
bring forward his William of Normandy, for it is to this origin that
his argument goes. It also unfortunately happens, in running this
line of succession, that another line parallel thereto presents itself,
which is that if the succession runs in the line of the conquest, the
nation runs in the line of being conquered, and it ought to rescue
itself from this reproach.
But it will perhaps be said that though the power of declaring war
descends in the heritage of the conquest, it is held in check by the
right of Parliament to withhold the supplies. It will always happen
when a thing is originally wrong that amendments do not make it
right, and it often happens that they do as much mischief one way
as good the other, and such is the case here, for if the one rashly
declares war as a matter of right, and the other peremptorily
withholds the supplies as a matter of right, the remedy becomes as
59
bad, or worse, than the disease. The one forces the nation to a
combat, and the other ties its hands; but the more probable issue is
that the contest will end in a collusion between the parties, and be
made a screen to both.
60
coming out of Normandy, and on these grounds he rested his offer,
enjoining that the Doctor would forward it to America. But as the
Doctor neither did this, nor yet sent him an answer, the projector
wrote a second letter, in which he did not, it is true, threaten to go
over and conquer America, but only with great dignity proposed
that if his offer was not accepted, an acknowledgment of about
L30,000 might be made to him for his generosity! Now, as all
arguments respecting succession must necessarily connect that
succession with some beginning, Mr. Burke’s arguments on this
subject go to show that there is no English origin of kings, and that
they are descendants of the Norman line in right of the Conquest. It
may, therefore, be of service to his doctrine to make this story
known, and to inform him, that in case of that natural extinction to
which all mortality is subject, Kings may again be had from
Normandy, on more reasonable terms than William the Conqueror;
and consequently, that the good people of England, at the revolution
of 1688, might have done much better, had such a generous Norman
as this known their wants, and they had known his. The chivalric
character which Mr. Burke so much admires, is certainly much
easier to make a bargain with than a hard dealing Dutchman. But to
return to the matters of the constitution-
Titles are but nicknames, and every nickname is a title. The thing is
perfectly harmless in itself, but it marks a sort of foppery in the
human character, which degrades it. It reduces man into the
61
diminutive of man in things which are great, and the counterfeit of
women in things which are little. It talks about its fine blue ribbon
like a girl, and shows its new garter like a child. A certain writer, of
some antiquity, says: "When I was a child, I thought as a child; but
when I became a man, I put away childish things."
It is, properly, from the elevated mind of France that the folly of
titles has fallen. It has outgrown the baby clothes of Count and
Duke, and breeched itself in manhood. France has not levelled, it
has exalted. It has put down the dwarf, to set up the man. The
punyism of a senseless word like Duke, Count or Earl has ceased to
please. Even those who possessed them have disowned the
gibberish, and as they outgrew the rickets, have despised the rattle.
The genuine mind of man, thirsting for its native home, society,
contemns the gewgaws that separate him from it. Titles are like
circles drawn by the magician’s wand, to contract the sphere of
man’s felicity. He lives immured within the Bastille of a word, and
surveys at a distance the envied life of man.
Is it, then, any wonder that titles should fall in France? Is it not a
greater wonder that they should be kept up anywhere? What are
they? What is their worth, and "what is their amount?" When we
think or speak of a Judge or a General, we associate with it the ideas
of office and character; we think of gravity in one and bravery in
the other; but when we use the word merely as a title, no ideas
associate with it. Through all the vocabulary of Adam there is not
such an animal as a Duke or a Count; neither can we connect any
certain ideas with the words. Whether they mean strength or
weakness, wisdom or folly, a child or a man, or the rider or the
horse, is all equivocal. What respect then can be paid to that which
62
describes nothing, and which means nothing? Imagination has given
figure and character to centaurs, satyrs, and down to all the fairy
tribe; but titles baffle even the powers of fancy, and are a chimerical
nondescript.
If no mischief had annexed itself to the folly of titles they would not
have been worth a serious and formal destruction, such as the
National Assembly have decreed them; and this makes it necessary
to enquire farther into the nature and character of aristocracy.
63
That, then, which is called aristocracy in some countries and
nobility in others arose out of the governments founded upon
conquest. It was originally a military order for the purpose of
supporting military government (for such were all governments
founded in conquest); and to keep up a succession of this order for
the purpose for which it was established, all the younger branches
of those families were disinherited and the law of primogenitureship
set up.
64
parents to their children, and children to their parents- relations to
each other, and man to society- and to exterminate the monster
aristocracy, root and branch- the French Constitution has destroyed
the law of Primogenitureship. Here then lies the monster; and Mr.
Burke, if he pleases, may write its epitaph.
65
Thirdly. Because the idea of hereditary legislators is as inconsistent
as that of hereditary judges, or hereditary juries; and as absurd as an
hereditary mathematician, or an hereditary wise man; and as
ridiculous as an hereditary poet laureate.
66
from the higher. None are now less than twelve hundred livres (fifty
pounds sterling), nor any higher than two or three thousand pounds.
What will Mr. Burke place against this? Hear what he says.
As to the first part, whether the archbishop precedes the duke, or the
duke the bishop, it is, I believe, to the people in general, somewhat
like Sternhold and Hopkins, or Hopkins and Sternhold; you may put
which you please first; and as I confess that I do not understand the
merits of this case, I will not contest it with Mr. Burke.
But with respect to the latter, I have something to say. Mr. Burke
has not put the case right. The comparison is out of order, by being
put between the bishop and the earl or the squire. It ought to be put
between the bishop and the curate, and then it will stand thus:- "The
people of England can see without pain or grudging, a Bishop of
Durham, or a Bishop of Winchester, in possession of ten thousand
pounds a-year, and a curate on thirty or forty pounds a-year, or
less." No, sir, they certainly do not see those things without great
pain or grudging. It is a case that applies itself to every man’s sense
of justice, and is one among many that calls aloud for a constitution.
In France the cry of "the church! the church!" was repeated as often
as in Mr. Burke’s book, and as loudly as when the Dissenters’ Bill
67
was before the English Parliament; but the generality of the French
clergy were not to be deceived by this cry any longer. They knew
that whatever the pretence might be, it was they who were one of
the principal objects of it. It was the cry of the high beneficed
clergy, to prevent any regulation of income taking place between
those of ten thousand pounds a-year and the parish priest. They
therefore joined their case to those of every other oppressed class of
men, and by this union obtained redress.
68
one is the Pope armed with fire and faggot, and the other is the Pope
selling or granting indulgences. The former is church and state, and
the latter is church and traffic.
69
not as thou believest, it is a proof that thou believest not as he
believes, and there is no earthly power can determine between you.
70
All religions are in their nature kind and benign, and united with
principles of morality. They could not have made proselytes at first
by professing anything that was vicious, cruel, persecuting, or
immoral. Like everything else, they had their beginning; and they
proceeded by persuasion, exhortation, and example. How then is it
that they lose their native mildness, and become morose and
intolerant?
71
If also we view this matter in a temporal sense, we shall see the ill
effects it has had on the prosperity of nations. The union of church
and state has impoverished Spain. The revoking the edict of Nantes
drove the silk manufacture from that country into England; and
church and state are now driving the cotton manufacture from
England to America and France. Let then Mr. Burke continue to
preach his antipolitical doctrine of Church and State. It will do
some good. The National Assembly will not follow his advice, but
will benefit by his folly. It was by observing the ill effects of it in
England, that America has been warned against it; and it is by
experiencing them in France, that the National Assembly have
abolished it, and, like America, have established Universal Right
of Conscience, and Universal Right of Citizenship.*[7]
I will here cease the comparison with respect to the principles of the
French Constitution, and conclude this part of the subject with a
few observations on the organisation of the formal parts of the
French and English governments.
72
hands of the Conqueror, and who added the title of King to that of
Conqueror, those same matters which in France are now held as
rights in the people, or in the nation, are held in England as grants
from what is called the crown. The Parliament in England, in both
its branches, was erected by patents from the descendants of the
Conqueror. The House of Commons did not originate as a matter of
right in the people to delegate or elect, but as a grant or boon.
73
patent or boon- and not from the inherent rights of the people, as the
National Assembly does in France, and whose name designates its
origin.
The President of the National Assembly does not ask the King to
grant to the Assembly liberty of speech, as is the case with the
English House of Commons. The constitutional dignity of the
National Assembly cannot debase itself. Speech is, in the first place,
one of the natural rights of man always retained; and with respect to
the National Assembly the use of it is their duty, and the nation is
their authority. They were elected by the greatest body of men
exercising the right of election the European world ever saw. They
sprung not from the filth of rotten boroughs, nor are they the vassal
representatives of aristocratical ones. Feeling the proper dignity of
their character they support it. Their Parliamentary language,
whether for or against a question, is free, bold and manly, and
extends to all the parts and circumstances of the case. If any matter
or subject respecting the executive department or the person who
presides in it (the king) comes before them it is debated on with the
spirit of men, and in the language of gentlemen; and their answer or
their address is returned in the same style. They stand not aloof with
the gaping vacuity of vulgar ignorance, nor bend with the cringe of
sycophantic insignificance. The graceful pride of truth knows no
extremes, and preserves, in every latitude of life, the right-angled
character of man.
Let us now look to the other side of the question. In the addresses of
the English Parliaments to their kings we see neither the intrepid
spirit of the old Parliaments of France, nor the serene dignity of the
present National Assembly; neither do we see in them anything of
74
the style of English manners, which border somewhat on bluntness.
Since then they are neither of foreign extraction, nor naturally of
English production, their origin must be sought for elsewhere, and
that origin is the Norman Conquest. They are evidently of the
vassalage class of manners, and emphatically mark the prostrate
distance that exists in no other condition of men than between the
conqueror and the conquered. That this vassalage idea and style of
speaking was not got rid of even at the Revolution of 1688, is
evident from the declaration of Parliament to William and Mary in
these words: "We do most humbly and faithfully submit ourselves,
our heirs and posterities, for ever." Submission is wholly a
vassalage term, repugnant to the dignity of freedom, and an echo of
the language used at the Conquest.
But there is a truth that ought to be made known; I have had the
opportunity of seeing it; which is, that notwithstanding appearances,
there is not any description of men that despise monarchy so much
as courtiers. But they well know, that if it were seen by others, as it
75
is seen by them, the juggle could not be kept up; they are in the
condition of men who get their living by a show, and to whom the
folly of that show is so familiar that they ridicule it; but were the
audience to be made as wise in this respect as themselves, there
would be an end to the show and the profits with it. The difference
between a republican and a courtier with respect to monarchy, is
that the one opposes monarchy, believing it to be something; and
the other laughs at it, knowing it to be nothing.
76
that they are nothing more than forms; but this is a mistake. Forms
grow out of principles, and operate to continue the principles they
grow from. It is impossible to practise a bad form on anything but a
bad principle. It cannot be ingrafted on a good one; and wherever
the forms in any government are bad, it is a certain indication that
the principles are bad also.
77
French Revolution. It has apparently burst forth like a creation from
a chaos, but it is no more than the consequence of a mental
revolution priorily existing in France. The mind of the nation had
changed beforehand, and the new order of things has naturally
followed the new order of thoughts. I will here, as concisely as I
can, trace out the growth of the French Revolution, and mark the
circumstances that have contributed to produce it.
The despotism of Louis XIV., united with the gaiety of his Court,
and the gaudy ostentation of his character, had so humbled, and at
the same time so fascinated the mind of France, that the people
appeared to have lost all sense of their own dignity, in
contemplating that of their Grand Monarch; and the whole reign of
Louis XV., remarkable only for weakness and effeminacy, made no
other alteration than that of spreading a sort of lethargy over the
nation, from which it showed no disposition to rise.
The only signs which appeared to the spirit of Liberty during those
periods, are to be found in the writings of the French philosophers.
Montesquieu, President of the Parliament of Bordeaux, went as far
as a writer under a despotic government could well proceed; and
being obliged to divide himself between principle and prudence, his
mind often appears under a veil, and we ought to give him credit for
more than he has expressed.
Voltaire, who was both the flatterer and the satirist of despotism,
took another line. His forte lay in exposing and ridiculing the
superstitions which priest-craft, united with state-craft, had
interwoven with governments. It was not from the purity of his
principles, or his love of mankind (for satire and philanthropy are
78
not naturally concordant), but from his strong capacity of seeing
folly in its true shape, and his irresistible propensity to expose it,
that he made those attacks. They were, however, as formidable as if
the motive had been virtuous; and he merits the thanks rather than
the esteem of mankind.
But all those writings and many others had their weight; and by the
different manner in which they treated the subject of government,
Montesquieu by his judgment and knowledge of laws, Voltaire by
his wit, Rousseau and Raynal by their animation, and Quesnay and
Turgot by their moral maxims and systems of economy, readers of
every class met with something to their taste, and a spirit of political
inquiry began to diffuse itself through the nation at the time the
dispute between England and the then colonies of America broke
out.
79
In the war which France afterwards engaged in, it is very well
known that the nation appeared to be before-hand with the French
ministry. Each of them had its view; but those views were directed
to different objects; the one sought liberty, and the other retaliation
on England. The French officers and soldiers who after this went to
America, were eventually placed in the school of Freedom, and
learned the practice as well as the principles of it by heart.
The then Minister of France, Count Vergennes, was not the friend
of America; and it is both justice and gratitude to say, that it was the
Queen of France who gave the cause of America a fashion at the
French Court. Count Vergennes was the personal and social friend
of Dr. Franklin; and the Doctor had obtained, by his sensible
gracefulness, a sort of influence over him; but with respect to
principles Count Vergennes was a despot.
80
repelled. But this was not the case with Dr. Franklin. He was not the
diplomatic of a Court, but of MAN. His character as a philosopher
had been long established, and his circle of society in France was
universal.
81
M. Neckar was displaced in May, 1781; and by the ill-management
of the finances afterwards, and particularly during the extravagant
administration of M. Calonne, the revenue of France, which was
nearly twenty-four millions sterling per year, was become unequal
to the expenditure, not because the revenue had decreased, but
because the expenses had increased; and this was a circumstance
which the nation laid hold of to bring forward a Revolution. The
English Minister, Mr. Pitt, has frequently alluded to the state of the
French finances in his budgets, without understanding the subject.
Had the French Parliaments been as ready to register edicts for new
taxes as an English Parliament is to grant them, there had been no
derangement in the finances, nor yet any Revolution; but this will
better explain itself as I proceed.
82
But to return to the order of my narrative. M. Calonne wanted
money: and as he knew the sturdy disposition of the Parliaments
with respect to new taxes, he ingeniously sought either to approach
them by a more gentle means than that of direct authority, or to get
over their heads by a manoeuvre; and for this purpose he revived
the project of assembling a body of men from the several provinces,
under the style of an "Assembly of the Notables," or men of note,
who met in 1787, and who were either to recommend taxes to the
Parliaments, or to act as a Parliament themselves. An Assembly
under this name had been called in 1617.
83
The then Marquis de la Fayette was placed in the second
committee, of which the Count D’Artois was president, and as
money matters were the object, it naturally brought into view every
circumstance connected with it. M. de la Fayette made a verbal
charge against Calonne for selling crown lands to the amount of two
millions of livres, in a manner that appeared to be unknown to the
king. The Count D’Artois (as if to intimidate, for the Bastille was
then in being) asked the Marquis if he would render the charge in
writing? He replied that he would. The Count D’Artois did not
demand it, but brought a message from the king to that purport. M.
de la Fayette then delivered in his charge in writing, to be given to
the king, undertaking to support it. No farther proceedings were had
upon this affair, but M. Calonne was soon after dismissed by the
king and set off to England.
84
not then much attended to, and with respect to Lettres de Cachet, a
majority of the Nobles appeared to be in favour of them.
As one of the plans had thus failed, that of getting the Assembly to
act as a Parliament, the other came into view, that of
recommending. On this subject the Assembly agreed to recommend
two new taxes to be unregistered by the Parliament: the one a
stamp-tax and the other a territorial tax, or sort of land-tax. The two
have been estimated at about five millions sterling per annum. We
have now to turn our attention to the Parliaments, on whom the
business was again devolving.
85
Minister was appointed they did business only with him. The
Archbishop arrived to more state authority than any minister since
the Duke de Choiseul, and the nation was strongly disposed in his
favour; but by a line of conduct scarcely to be accounted for he
perverted every opportunity, turned out a despot, and sunk into
disgrace, and a Cardinal.
The Assembly of the Notables having broken up, the minister sent
the edicts for the two new taxes recommended by the Assembly to
the Parliaments to be unregistered. They of course came first before
the Parliament of Paris, who returned for answer: "that with such a
revenue as the nation then supported the name of taxes ought not to
be mentioned but for the purpose of reducing them"; and threw both
the edicts out.*[8] On this refusal the Parliament was ordered to
Versailles, where, in the usual form, the King held what under the
old government was called a Bed of justice; and the two edicts were
unregistered in presence of the Parliament by an order of State, in
the manner mentioned, earlier. On this the Parliament immediately
returned to Paris, renewed their session in form, and ordered the
enregistering to be struck out, declaring that everything done at
Versailles was illegal. All the members of the Parliament were then
served with Lettres de Cachet, and exiled to Troyes; but as they
continued as inflexible in exile as before, and as vengeance did not
supply the place of taxes, they were after a short time recalled to
Paris.
The edicts were again tendered to them, and the Count D’Artois
undertook to act as representative of the King. For this purpose he
came from Versailles to Paris, in a train of procession; and the
Parliament were assembled to receive him. But show and parade
86
had lost their influence in France; and whatever ideas of importance
he might set off with, he had to return with those of mortification
and disappointment. On alighting from his carriage to ascend the
steps of the Parliament House, the crowd (which was numerously
collected) threw out trite expressions, saying: "This is Monsieur
D’Artois, who wants more of our money to spend." The marked
disapprobation which he saw impressed him with apprehensions,
and the word Aux armes! (To arms!) was given out by the officer of
the guard who attended him. It was so loudly vociferated, that it
echoed through the avenues of the house, and produced a temporary
confusion. I was then standing in one of the apartments through
which he had to pass, and could not avoid reflecting how wretched
was the condition of a disrespected man.
After this a new subject took place: In the various debates and
contests which arose between the Court and the Parliaments on the
subject of taxes, the Parliament of Paris at last declared that
although it had been customary for Parliaments to enregister edicts
for taxes as a matter of convenience, the right belonged only to the
States-General; and that, therefore, the Parliament could no longer
with propriety continue to debate on what it had not authority to act.
The King after this came to Paris and held a meeting with the
Parliament, in which he continued from ten in the morning till about
six in the evening, and, in a manner that appeared to proceed from
87
him as if unconsulted upon with the Cabinet or Ministry, gave his
word to the Parliament that the States-General should be convened.
But after this another scene arose, on a ground different from all the
former. The Minister and the Cabinet were averse to calling the
States-General. They well knew that if the States-General were
assembled, themselves must fall; and as the King had not mentioned
any time, they hit on a project calculated to elude, without
appearing to oppose.
For this purpose, the Court set about making a sort of constitution
itself. It was principally the work of M. Lamoignon, the Keeper of
the Seals, who afterwards shot himself. This new arrangement
consisted in establishing a body under the name of a Cour Pleniere,
or Full Court, in which were invested all the powers that the
Government might have occasion to make use of. The persons
composing this Court were to be nominated by the King; the
contended right of taxation was given up on the part of the King,
and a new criminal code of laws and law proceedings was
substituted in the room of the former. The thing, in many points,
contained better principles than those upon which the Government
had hitherto been administered; but with respect to the Cour
Pleniere, it was no other than a medium through which despotism
was to pass, without appearing to act directly from itself.
The Cabinet had high expectations from their new contrivance. The
people who were to compose the Cour Pleniere were already
nominated; and as it was necessary to carry a fair appearance, many
of the best characters in the nation were appointed among the
number. It was to commence on May 8, 1788; but an opposition
88
arose to it on two grounds- the one as to principle, the other as to
form.
89
keeping up a sort of quiet resistance, which effectually overthrew
all the plans at that time formed against it. The project of the Cour
Pleniere was at last obliged to be given up, and the Prime Minister
not long afterwards followed its fate, and M. Neckar was recalled
into office.
The attempt to establish the Cour Pleniere had an effect upon the
nation which itself did not perceive. It was a sort of new form of
government that insensibly served to put the old one out of sight
and to unhinge it from the superstitious authority of antiquity. It
was Government dethroning Government; and the old one, by
attempting to make a new one, made a chasm.
It could not well escape the sagacity of M. Neckar, that the mode of
1614 would answer neither the purpose of the then government nor
of the nation. As matters were at that time circumstanced it would
have been too contentious to agree upon anything. The debates
would have been endless upon privileges and exemptions, in which
neither the wants of the Government nor the wishes of the nation
for a Constitution would have been attended to. But as he did not
90
choose to take the decision upon himself, he summoned again the
Assembly of the Notables and referred it to them. This body was in
general interested in the decision, being chiefly of aristocracy and
high-paid clergy, and they decided in favor of the mode of 1614.
This decision was against the sense of the Nation, and also against
the wishes of the Court; for the aristocracy opposed itself to both
and contended for privileges independent of either. The subject was
then taken up by the Parliament, who recommended that the number
of the Commons should be equal to the other two: and they should
all sit in one house and vote in one body. The number finally
determined on was 1,200; 600 to be chosen by the Commons (and
this was less than their proportion ought to have been when their
worth and consequence is considered on a national scale), 300 by
the Clergy, and 300 by the Aristocracy; but with respect to the
mode of assembling themselves, whether together or apart, or the
manner in which they should vote, those matters were referred.*[9]
91
their consent or their negative in that manner; and many of the
bishops and the high-beneficed clergy claimed the same privilege
on the part of their Order.
The Tiers Etat (as they were then called) disowned any knowledge
of artificial orders and artificial privileges; and they were not only
resolute on this point, but somewhat disdainful. They began to
consider the Aristocracy as a kind of fungus growing out of the
corruption of society, that could not be admitted even as a branch of
it; and from the disposition the Aristocracy had shown by upholding
Lettres de Cachet, and in sundry other instances, it was manifest
that no constitution could be formed by admitting men in any other
character than as National Men.
This motion was not made in a precipitate manner. It was the result
of cool deliberation, and concerned between the national
representatives and the patriotic members of the two chambers, who
saw into the folly, mischief, and injustice of artificial privileged
distinctions. It was become evident, that no constitution, worthy of
being called by that name, could be established on anything less
92
than a national ground. The Aristocracy had hitherto opposed the
despotism of the Court, and affected the language of patriotism; but
it opposed it as its rival (as the English Barons opposed King John)
and it now opposed the nation from the same motives.
The King, who, very different from the general class called by that
name, is a man of a good heart, showed himself disposed to
recommend a union of the three chambers, on the ground the
National Assembly had taken; but the malcontents exerted
themselves to prevent it, and began now to have another project in
view. Their numbers consisted of a majority of the aristocratical
chamber, and the minority of the clerical chamber, chiefly of
bishops and high-beneficed clergy; and these men were determined
to put everything to issue, as well by strength as by stratagem. They
93
had no objection to a constitution; but it must be such a one as
themselves should dictate, and suited to their own views and
particular situations. On the other hand, the Nation disowned
knowing anything of them but as citizens, and was determined to
shut out all such up-start pretensions. The more aristocracy
appeared, the more it was despised; there was a visible imbecility
and want of intellects in the majority, a sort of je ne sais quoi, that
while it affected to be more than citizen, was less than man. It lost
ground from contempt more than from hatred; and was rather jeered
at as an ass, than dreaded as a lion. This is the general character of
aristocracy, or what are called Nobles or Nobility, or rather No-
ability, in all countries.
94
to perceive that he was growing out of fashion at Court, and that
another minister was in contemplation.
95
We are now to have in view the forming of the new ministry, which
was to accomplish the overthrow of the National Assembly. But as
force would be necessary, orders were issued to assemble thirty
thousand troops, the command of which was given to Broglio, one
of the intended new ministry, who was recalled from the country for
this purpose. But as some management was necessary to keep this
plan concealed till the moment it should be ready for execution, it is
to this policy that a declaration made by Count D’Artois must be
attributed, and which is here proper to be introduced.
96
declaration was made by the National Assembly to the King,
remonstrating on the impropriety of the measure, and demanding
the reason. The King, who was not in the secret of this business, as
himself afterwards declared, gave substantially for answer, that he
had no other object in view than to preserve the public tranquility,
which appeared to be much disturbed.
But in a few days from this time the plot unravelled itself M.
Neckar and the ministry were displaced, and a new one formed of
the enemies of the Revolution; and Broglio, with between twenty-
five and thirty thousand foreign troops, was arrived to support them.
The mask was now thrown off, and matters were come to a crisis.
The event was that in a space of three days the new ministry and
their abettors found it prudent to fly the nation; the Bastille was
taken, and Broglio and his foreign troops dispersed, as is already
related in the former part of this work.
97
the state of affairs; but the ministry, who knew not so much as that
it was attacked, precluded all communication, and were solacing
themselves how dextrously they had succeeded; but in a few hours
the accounts arrived so thick and fast that they had to start from
their desks and run. Some set off in one disguise, and some in
another, and none in their own character. Their anxiety now was to
outride the news, lest they should be stopt, which, though it flew
fast, flew not so fast as themselves.
The conspiracy being thus dispersed, one of the first works of the
National Assembly, instead of vindictive proclamations, as has been
the case with other governments, was to publish a declaration of the
Rights of Man, as the basis on which the new constitution was to be
built, and which is here subjoined:
98
The representatives of the people of France, formed into a National
Assembly, considering that ignorance, neglect, or contempt of
human rights, are the sole causes of public misfortunes and
corruptions of Government, have resolved to set forth in a solemn
declaration, these natural, imprescriptible, and inalienable rights:
that this declaration being constantly present to the minds of the
members of the body social, they may be forever kept attentive to
their rights and their duties; that the acts of the legislative and
executive powers of Government, being capable of being every
moment compared with the end of political institutions, may be
more respected; and also, that the future claims of the citizens,
being directed by simple and incontestable principles, may always
tend to the maintenance of the Constitution, and the general
happiness.
99
THREE: THE NATION IS ESSENTIALLY THE SOURCE OF ALL
SOVEREIGNTY; NOR CAN ANY INDIVIDUAL, OR ANY BODY
OF MEN, BE ENTITLED TO ANY AUTHORITY WHICH IS NOT
EXPRESSLY DERIVED FROM IT.
100
SEVEN: NO MAN SHOULD BE ACCUSED, ARRESTED, OR
HELD IN CONFINEMENT, EXCEPT IN CASES DETERMINED
BY THE LAW, AND ACCORDING TO THE FORMS WHICH IT
HAS PRESCRIBED. ALL WHO PROMOTE, SOLICIT, EXECUTE,
OR CAUSE TO BE EXECUTED, ARBITRARY ORDERS, OUGHT
TO BE PUNISHED, AND EVERY CITIZEN CALLED UPON, OR
APPREHENDED BY VIRTUE OF THE LAW, OUGHT
IMMEDIATELY TO OBEY, AND RENDERS HIMSELF
CULPABLE BY RESISTANCE.
101
WRITE, AND PUBLISH FREELY, PROVIDED HE IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ABUSE OF THIS LIBERTY, IN CASES
DETERMINED BY THE LAW.
102
SEVENTEEN: THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY BEING INVIOLABLE
AND SACRED, NO ONE OUGHT TO BE DEPRIVED OF IT,
EXCEPT IN CASES OF EVIDENT PUBLIC NECESSITY,
LEGALLY ASCERTAINED, AND ON CONDITION OF A
PREVIOUS JUST INDEMNITY.
The 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th articles are declaratory of
principles upon which laws shall be constructed, conformable to
rights already declared. But it is questioned by some very good
people in France, as well as in other countries, whether the 10th
article sufficiently guarantees the right it is intended to accord with;
besides which it takes off from the divine dignity of religion, and
weakens its operative force upon the mind, to make it a subject of
human laws. It then presents itself to man like light intercepted by a
cloudy medium, in which the source of it is obscured from his sight,
and he sees nothing to reverence in the dusky ray.*[10]
103
was wrong, as well as to set up what was right, it was proper to be
more particular than what in another condition of things would be
necessary.
The three first articles are the base of Liberty, as well individual as
national; nor can any country be called free whose government does
not take its beginning from the principles they contain, and continue
to preserve them pure; and the whole of the Declaration of Rights is
of more value to the world, and will do more good, than all the laws
and statutes that have yet been promulgated.
104
people? No wonder, then, that the French Revolution is traduced.
Had it confined itself merely to the destruction of flagrant
despotism perhaps Mr. Burke and some others had been silent.
Their cry now is, "It has gone too far"- that is, it has gone too far for
them. It stares corruption in the face, and the venal tribe are all
alarmed. Their fear discovers itself in their outrage, and they are but
publishing the groans of a wounded vice. But from such opposition
the French Revolution, instead of suffering, receives an homage.
The more it is struck the more sparks it will emit; and the fear is it
will not be struck enough. It has nothing to dread from attacks; truth
has given it an establishment, and time will record it with a name as
lasting as his own.
Miscellaneous Chapter
105
he has stormed it with a mob of ideas tumbling over and destroying
one another.
106
made! To use a sailor’s phrase, he has swabbed the deck, and
scarcely left a name legible in the list of Kings; and he has mowed
down and thinned the House of Peers, with a scythe as formidable
as Death and Time.
But Mr. Burke appears to have been aware of this retort; and he has
taken care to guard against it, by making government to be not only
a contrivance of human wisdom, but a monopoly of wisdom. He
puts the nation as fools on one side, and places his government of
wisdom, all wise men of Gotham, on the other side; and he then
proclaims, and says that "Men have a RIGHT that their WANTS
should be provided for by this wisdom." Having thus made
proclamation, he next proceeds to explain to them what their wants
are, and also what their rights are. In this he has succeeded
dextrously, for he makes their wants to be a want of wisdom; but as
this is cold comfort, he then informs them, that they have a right
(not to any of the wisdom) but to be governed by it; and in order to
impress them with a solemn reverence for this monopoly-
government of wisdom, and of its vast capacity for all purposes,
possible or impossible, right or wrong, he proceeds with
astrological mysterious importance, to tell to them its powers in
these words: "The rights of men in government are their
advantages; and these are often in balance between differences of
good; and in compromises sometimes between good and evil, and
sometimes between evil and evil. Political reason is a computing
principle; adding- subtracting- multiplying- and dividing, morally
and not metaphysically or mathematically, true moral
denominations."
107
As the wondering audience, whom Mr. Burke supposes himself
talking to, may not understand all this learned jargon, I will
undertake to be its interpreter. The meaning, then, good people, of
all this, is: That government is governed by no principle whatever;
that it can make evil good, or good evil, just as it pleases. In short,
that government is arbitrary power.
But there are some things which Mr. Burke has forgotten. First, he
has not shown where the wisdom originally came from: and
secondly, he has not shown by what authority it first began to act. In
the manner he introduces the matter, it is either government stealing
wisdom, or wisdom stealing government. It is without an origin,
and its powers without authority. In short, it is usurpation.
108
there is the fountain of honour! the son of a prostitute, and the
plunderer of the English nation.
109
"The King of England," says he, "holds his crown (for it does not
belong to the Nation, according to Mr. Burke) in contempt of the
choice of the Revolution Society, who have not a single vote for a
king among them either individually or collectively; and his
Majesty’s heirs each in their time and order, will come to the Crown
with the same contempt of their choice, with which his Majesty has
succeeded to that which he now wears."
110
Foreign House of Kings; hating Foreigners yet governed by them.-
It is now the House of Brunswick, one of the petty tribes of
Germany.
111
When Mr. Burke says that "His Majesty’s heirs and successors, each
in their time and order, will come to the crown with the same
content of their choice with which His Majesty had succeeded to
that he wears," it is saying too much even to the humblest
individual in the country; part of whose daily labour goes towards
making up the million sterling a-year, which the country gives the
person it styles a king. Government with insolence is despotism; but
when contempt is added it becomes worse; and to pay for contempt
is the excess of slavery. This species of government comes from
Germany; and reminds me of what one of the Brunswick soldiers
told me, who was taken prisoner by, the Americans in the late war:
"Ah!" said he, "America is a fine free country, it is worth the
people’s fighting for; I know the difference by knowing my own: in
my country, if the prince says eat straw, we eat straw." God help
that country, thought I, be it England or elsewhere, whose liberties
are to be protected by German principles of government, and
Princes of Brunswick!
112
hereditary crown, can our liberties be regularly perpetuated and
preserved sacred as our hereditary right." I ask Mr. Burke, who is to
take them away? M. de la Fayette, in speaking to France, says: "For
a Nation to be free, it is sufficient that she wills it." But Mr. Burke
represents England as wanting capacity to take care of itself, and
that its liberties must be taken care of by a King holding it in
"contempt." If England is sunk to this, it is preparing itself to eat
straw, as in Hanover, or in Brunswick. But besides the folly of the
declaration, it happens that the facts are all against Mr. Burke. It
was by the government being hereditary, that the liberties of the
people were endangered. Charles I. and James II. are instances of
this truth; yet neither of them went so far as to hold the Nation in
contempt.
113
imagination, the propriety of which is more than doubted, and the
legality of which in a few years will be denied.
114
say it. It is no relief, but an aggravation to a person in slavery, to
reflect that he was sold by his parent; and as that which heightens
the criminality of an act cannot be produced to prove the legality of
it, hereditary succession cannot be established as a legal thing.
The generation which first selects a person, and puts him at the head
of its Government, either with the title of King, or any other
distinction, acts on its own choice, be it wise or foolish, as a free
agent for itself The person so set up is not hereditary, but selected
and appointed; and the generation who sets him up, does not live
under a hereditary government, but under a government of its own
choice and establishment. Were the generation who sets him up,
and the person so set up, to live for ever, it never could become
hereditary succession; and of consequence hereditary succession
can only follow on the death of the first parties.
115
its Will, which is to have operation after the demise of the makers,
to bequeath the Government; and it not only attempts to bequeath,
but to establish on the succeeding generation, a new and different
form of Government under which itself lived. Itself, as already
observed, lived not under a hereditary Government but under a
Government of its own choice and establishment; and it now
attempts, by virtue of a will and testament (and which it has not
authority to make), to take from the commencing generation, and all
future ones, the rights and free agency by which itself acted.
116
and give it to C; yet this is the manner in which (what is called)
hereditary succession by law operates. A certain former generation
made a will, to take away the rights of the commencing generation,
and all future ones, and convey those rights to a third person, who
afterwards comes forward, and tells them, in Mr. Burke’s language,
that they have no rights, that their rights are already bequeathed to
him and that he will govern in contempt of them. From such
principles, and such ignorance, good Lord deliver the world!
But, after all, what is this metaphor called a crown, or rather what is
monarchy? Is it a thing, or is it a name, or is it a fraud? Is it a
"contrivance of human wisdom," or of human craft to obtain money
from a nation under specious pretences? Is it a thing necessary to a
nation? If it is, in what does that necessity consist, what service
does it perform, what is its business, and what are its merits? Does
the virtue consist in the metaphor, or in the man? Doth the
goldsmith that makes the crown, make the virtue also? Doth it
operate like Fortunatus’s wishing-cap, or Harlequin’s wooden
sword? Doth it make a man a conjurer? In fine, what is it? It
appears to be something going much out of fashion, falling into
ridicule, and rejected in some countries, both as unnecessary and
expensive. In America it is considered as an absurdity; and in
France it has so far declined, that the goodness of the man, and the
respect for his personal character, are the only things that preserve
the appearance of its existence.
117
was not the case; and even if it was it mistook the cargo. The
wisdom of every country, when properly exerted, is sufficient for
all its purposes; and there could exist no more real occasion in
England to have sent for a Dutch Stadtholder, or a German Elector,
than there was in America to have done a similar thing. If a country
does not understand its own affairs, how is a foreigner to
understand them, who knows neither its laws, its manners, nor its
language? If there existed a man so transcendently wise above all
others, that his wisdom was necessary to instruct a nation, some
reason might be offered for monarchy; but when we cast our eyes
about a country, and observe how every part understands its own
affairs; and when we look around the world, and see that of all men
in it, the race of kings are the most insignificant in capacity, our
reason cannot fail to ask us- What are those men kept for?
118
government is republican government. All that part of the
government of England which begins with the office of constable,
and proceeds through the department of magistrate, quarter-
sessions, and general assize, including trial by jury, is republican
government. Nothing of monarchy appears in any part of it, except
in the name which William the Conqueror imposed upon the
English, that of obliging them to call him "Their Sovereign Lord the
King."
119
When the people of England sent for George the First (and it would
puzzle a wiser man than Mr. Burke to discover for what he could be
wanted, or what service he could render), they ought at least to have
conditioned for the abandonment of Hanover. Besides the endless
German intrigues that must follow from a German Elector being
King of England, there is a natural impossibility of uniting in the
same person the principles of Freedom and the principles of
Despotism, or as it is usually called in England Arbitrary Power. A
German Elector is in his electorate a despot; how then could it be
expected that he should be attached to principles of liberty in one
country, while his interest in another was to be supported by
despotism? The union cannot exist; and it might easily have been
foreseen that German Electors would make German Kings, or in
Mr. Burke’s words, would assume government with "contempt."
The English have been in the habit of considering a King of
England only in the character in which he appears to them; whereas
the same person, while the connection lasts, has a home-seat in
another country, the interest of which is different to their own, and
the principles of the governments in opposition to each other. To
such a person England will appear as a town-residence, and the
Electorate as the estate. The English may wish, as I believe they do,
success to the principles of liberty in France, or in Germany; but a
German Elector trembles for the fate of despotism in his electorate;
and the Duchy of Mecklenburgh, where the present Queen’s family
governs, is under the same wretched state of arbitrary power, and
the people in slavish vassalage.
120
politics of the Nation. The Revolution of France has entirely
changed the ground with respect to England and France, as nations;
but the German despots, with Prussia at their head, are combining
against liberty; and the fondness of Mr. Pitt for office, and the
interest which all his family connections have obtained, do not give
sufficient security against this intrigue.
121
To account for this sudden transition, it is proper to observe that
there are two distinct species of popularity; the one excited by
merit, and the other by resentment. As the Nation had formed itself
into two parties, and each was extolling the merits of its
parliamentary champions for and against prerogative, nothing could
operate to give a more general shock than an immediate coalition of
the champions themselves. The partisans of each being thus
suddenly left in the lurch, and mutually heated with disgust at the
measure, felt no other relief than uniting in a common execration
against both. A higher stimulus or resentment being thus excited
than what the contest on prerogatives occasioned, the nation quitted
all former objects of rights and wrongs, and sought only that of
gratification. The indignation at the Coalition so effectually
superseded the indignation against the Court as to extinguish it; and
without any change of principles on the part of the Court, the same
people who had reprobated its despotism united with it to revenge
themselves on the Coalition Parliament. The case was not, which
they liked best, but which they hated most; and the least hated
passed for love. The dissolution of the Coalition Parliament, as it
afforded the means of gratifying the resentment of the Nation, could
not fail to be popular; and from hence arose the popularity of the
Court.
122
On the return of a new Parliament, the new Minister, Mr. Pitt, found
himself in a secure majority; and the Nation gave him credit, not out
of regard to himself, but because it had resolved to do it out of
resentment to another. He introduced himself to public notice by a
proposed Reform of Parliament, which in its operation would have
amounted to a public justification of corruption. The Nation was to
be at the expense of buying up the rotten boroughs, whereas it ought
to punish the persons who deal in the traffic.
Passing over the two bubbles of the Dutch business and the million
a-year to sink the national debt, the matter which most presents
itself, is the affair of the Regency. Never, in the course of my
observation, was delusion more successfully acted, nor a nation
more completely deceived. But, to make this appear, it will be
necessary to go over the circumstances.
Mr. Fox had stated in the House of Commons, that the Prince of
Wales, as heir in succession, had a right in himself to assume the
Government. This was opposed by Mr. Pitt; and, so far as the
opposition was confined to the doctrine, it was just. But the
principles which Mr. Pitt maintained on the contrary side were as
bad, or worse in their extent, than those of Mr. Fox; because they
went to establish an aristocracy over the nation, and over the small
representation it has in the House of Commons.
123
It is supposed to consist of three parts:- while therefore the Nation
is disposed to continue this form, the parts have a national standing,
independent of each other, and are not the creatures of each other.
Had Mr. Fox passed through Parliament, and said that the person
alluded to claimed on the, ground of the Nation, Mr. Pitt must then
have contended what he called the right of the Parliament against
the right of the Nation.
By the appearance which the contest made, Mr. Fox took the
hereditary ground, and Mr. Pitt the Parliamentary ground; but the
fact is, they both took hereditary ground, and Mr. Pitt took the worst
of the two.
The general impulse of the Nation was right; but it acted without
reflection. It approved the opposition made to the right set up by
Mr. Fox, without perceiving that Mr. Pitt was supporting another
indefeasible right more remote from the Nation, in opposition to it.
124
which it ought to be, it would still be only the organ of the Nation,
and cannot possess inherent rights.- When the National Assembly
of France resolves a matter, the resolve is made in right of the
Nation; but Mr. Pitt, on all national questions, so far as they refer to
the House of Commons, absorbs the rights of the Nation into the
organ, and makes the organ into a Nation, and the Nation itself into
a cypher.
125
word of Parliament, tuning itself to the ear of the Nation. Formerly
it was the universal supremacy of Parliament- the omnipotence of
Parliament: But since the progress of Liberty in France, those
phrases have a despotic harshness in their note; and the English
Parliament have catched the fashion from the National Assembly,
but without the substance, of speaking of Constitution.
As the present generation of the people in England did not make the
Government, they are not accountable for any of its defects; but,
that sooner or later, it must come into their hands to undergo a
constitutional reformation, is as certain as that the same thing has
happened in France. If France, with a revenue of nearly twenty-four
millions sterling, with an extent of rich and fertile country above
four times larger than England, with a population of twenty-four
millions of inhabitants to support taxation, with upwards of ninety
millions sterling of gold and silver circulating in the nation, and
with a debt less than the present debt of England- still found it
necessary, from whatever cause, to come to a settlement of its
affairs, it solves the problem of funding for both countries.
It is out of the question to say how long what is called the English
constitution has lasted, and to argue from thence how long it is to
last; the question is, how long can the funding system last? It is a
thing but of modern invention, and has not yet continued beyond
the life of a man; yet in that short space it has so far accumulated,
that, together with the current expenses, it requires an amount of
taxes at least equal to the whole landed rental of the nation in acres
to defray the annual expenditure. That a government could not have
always gone on by the same system which has been followed for
126
the last seventy years, must be evident to every man; and for the
same reason it cannot always go on.
127
England, including Scotland and Ireland, to be twenty millions
sterling.*[12]
That the quantity of money in France cannot be under this sum, may
at once be seen from the state of the French Revenue, without
referring to the records of the French Mint for proofs. The revenue
of France, prior to the Revolution, was nearly twenty-four millions
sterling; and as paper had then no existence in France the whole
revenue was collected upon gold and silver; and it would have been
impossible to have collected such a quantity of revenue upon a less
national quantity than M. Neckar has stated. Before the
establishment of paper in England, the revenue was about a fourth
part of the national amount of gold and silver, as may be known by
referring to the revenue prior to King William, and the quantity of
money stated to be in the nation at that time, which was nearly as
much as it is now.
128
than four times what the quantity is in England, but is considerably
greater on a proportion of numbers. To account for this deficiency
on the part of England, some reference should be had to the English
system of funding. It operates to multiply paper, and to substitute it
in the room of money, in various shapes; and the more paper is
multiplied, the more opportunities are offered to export the specie;
and it admits of a possibility (by extending it to small notes) of
increasing paper till there is no money left.
Lisbon and Cadiz are the two ports into which (money) gold and
silver from South America are imported, and which afterwards
divide and spread themselves over Europe by means of commerce,
and increase the quantity of money in all parts of Europe. If,
therefore, the amount of the annual importation into Europe can be
known, and the relative proportion of the foreign commerce of the
several nations by which it can be distributed can be ascertained,
they give a rule sufficiently true, to ascertain the quantity of money
which ought to be found in any nation, at any given time.
129
M. Neckar shows from the registers of Lisbon and Cadiz, that the
importation of gold and silver into Europe, is five millions sterling
annually. He has not taken it on a single year, but on an average of
fifteen succeeding years, from 1763 to 1777, both inclusive; in
which time, the amount was one thousand eight hundred million
livres, which is seventy-five millions sterling.*[14]
As the quantity of gold and silver imported into Lisbon and Cadiz is
more exactly ascertained than that of any commodity imported into
130
England, and as the quantity of money coined at the Tower of
London is still more positively known, the leading facts do not
admit of controversy. Either, therefore, the commerce of England is
unproductive of profit, or the gold and silver which it brings in leak
continually away by unseen means at the average rate of about
three-quarters of a million a year, which, in the course of seventy-
two years, accounts for the deficiency; and its absence is supplied
by paper.*[15]
It was the error of Mr. Pitt, Mr. Burke, and all those who were
unacquainted with the affairs of France to confound the French
nation with the French Government. The French nation, in effect,
131
endeavoured to render the late Government insolvent for the
purpose of taking government into its own hands: and it reserved its
means for the support of the new Government. In a country of such
vast extent and population as France the natural means cannot be
wanting, and the political means appear the instant the nation is
disposed to permit them. When Mr. Burke, in a speech last winter in
the British Parliament, "cast his eyes over the map of Europe, and
saw a chasm that once was France," he talked like a dreamer of
dreams. The same natural France existed as before, and all the
natural means existed with it. The only chasm was that the
extinction of despotism had left, and which was to be filled up with
the Constitution more formidable in resources than the power which
had expired.
132
creditors of the Nation, and not of the Government- of the master,
and not of the steward.
Upon a whole review of the subject, how vast is the contrast! While
Mr. Burke has been talking of a general bankruptcy in France, the
National Assembly has been paying off the capital of its debt; and
while taxes have increased near a million a year in England, they
have lowered several millions a year in France. Not a word has
either Mr. Burke or Mr. Pitt said about the French affairs, or the
state of the French finances, in the present Session of Parliament.
The subject begins to be too well understood, and imposition serves
no longer.
133
There is a general enigma running through the whole of Mr. Burke’s
book. He writes in a rage against the National Assembly; but what
is he enraged about? If his assertions were as true as they are
groundless, and that France by her Revolution, had annihilated her
power, and become what he calls a chasm, it might excite the grief
of a Frenchman (considering himself as a national man), and
provoke his rage against the National Assembly; but why should it
excite the rage of Mr. Burke? Alas! it is not the nation of France
that Mr. Burke means, but the Court; and every Court in Europe,
dreading the same fate, is in mourning. He writes neither in the
character of a Frenchman nor an Englishman, but in the fawning
character of that creature known in all countries, and a friend to
none- a courtier. Whether it be the Court of Versailles, or the Court
of St. James, or Carlton-House, or the Court in expectation,
signifies not; for the caterpillar principle of all Courts and Courtiers
are alike. They form a common policy throughout Europe, detached
and separate from the interest of Nations: and while they appear to
quarrel, they agree to plunder. Nothing can be more terrible to a
Court or Courtier than the Revolution of France. That which is a
blessing to Nations is bitterness to them: and as their existence
depends on the duplicity of a country, they tremble at the approach
of principles, and dread the precedent that threatens their overthrow.
Conclusion
134
The two modes of the Government which prevail in the world, are-
Those two distinct and opposite forms erect themselves on the two
distinct and opposite bases of Reason and Ignorance.- As the
exercise of Government requires talents and abilities, and as talents
and abilities cannot have hereditary descent, it is evident that
hereditary succession requires a belief from man to which his
reason cannot subscribe, and which can only be established upon
his ignorance; and the more ignorant any country is, the better it is
fitted for this species of Government.
As, therefore, each of those forms acts on a different base, the one
moving freely by the aid of reason, the other by ignorance; we have
next to consider, what it is that gives motion to that species of
Government which is called mixed Government, or, as it is
135
sometimes ludicrously styled, a Government of this, that and t’
other.
136
When there is a Part in a Government which can do no wrong, it
implies that it does nothing; and is only the machine of another
power, by whose advice and direction it acts. What is supposed to
be the King in the mixed Governments, is the Cabinet; and as the
Cabinet is always a part of the Parliament, and the members
justifying in one character what they advise and act in another, a
mixed Government becomes a continual enigma; entailing upon a
country by the quantity of corruption necessary to solder the parts,
the expense of supporting all the forms of government at once, and
finally resolving itself into a Government by Committee; in which
the advisers, the actors, the approvers, the justifiers, the persons
responsible, and the persons not responsible, are the same persons.
137
the understanding of the Nation, and, resting on their own merits,
disown any flattering applications to vanity. The continual whine of
lamenting the burden of taxes, however successfully it may be
practised in mixed Governments, is inconsistent with the sense and
spirit of a republic. If taxes are necessary, they are of course
advantageous; but if they require an apology, the apology itself
implies an impeachment. Why, then, is man thus imposed upon, or
why does he impose upon himself?
138
once more improbable, and are a greater subject of wonder, than a
general revolution in Europe would be now.
139
France, operates to embrace the whole of a Nation; and the
knowledge necessary to the interest of all the parts, is to be found in
the center, which the parts by representation form: But the old
Governments are on a construction that excludes knowledge as well
as happiness; government by Monks, who knew nothing of the
world beyond the walls of a Convent, is as consistent as
government by Kings.
"I. Men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of
their rights. Civil distinctions, therefore, can be founded only on
public utility.
"III. The nation is essentially the source of all sovereignty; nor can
any Individual, or any body of men, be entitled to any authority
which is not expressly derived from it."
140
In these principles, there is nothing to throw a Nation into confusion
by inflaming ambition. They are calculated to call forth wisdom and
abilities, and to exercise them for the public good, and not for the
emolument or aggrandisement of particular descriptions of men or
families. Monarchical sovereignty, the enemy of mankind, and the
source of misery, is abolished; and the sovereignty itself is restored
to its natural and original place, the Nation. Were this the case
throughout Europe, the cause of wars would be taken away.
Had such a plan been adopted at the time it was proposed, the taxes
of England and France, as two of the parties, would have been at
least ten millions sterling annually to each Nation less than they
were at the commencement of the French Revolution.
To conceive a cause why such a plan has not been adopted (and that
instead of a Congress for the purpose of preventing war, it has been
called only to terminate a war, after a fruitless expense of several
years) it will be necessary to consider the interest of Governments
as a distinct interest to that of Nations.
141
of taxes, and consequently with an addition of revenue; and in any
event of war, in the manner they are now commenced and
concluded, the power and interest of Governments are increased.
War, therefore, from its productiveness, as it easily furnishes the
pretence of necessity for taxes and appointments to places and
offices, becomes a principal part of the system of old Governments;
and to establish any mode to abolish war, however advantageous it
might be to Nations, would be to take from such Government the
most lucrative of its branches. The frivolous matters upon which
war is made, show the disposition and avidity of Governments to
uphold the system of war, and betray the motives upon which they
act.
Why are not Republics plunged into war, but because the nature of
their Government does not admit of an interest distinct from that of
the Nation? Even Holland, though an ill-constructed Republic, and
with a commerce extending over the world, existed nearly a century
without war: and the instant the form of Government was changed
in France, the republican principles of peace and domestic
prosperity and economy arose with the new Government; and the
same consequences would follow the cause in other Nations.
142
of Kings, the exclamation should be directed against the principle of
such Governments; and instead of seeking to reform the individual,
the wisdom of a Nation should apply itself to reform the system.
143
free Government, and promote the civilisation of Nations with each
other, is an event nearer in probability, than once were the
revolutions and alliance of France and America.
The only point upon which I could ever discover that we differed
was not as to principles of government, but as to time. For my own
part I think it equally as injurious to good principles to permit them
to linger, as to push them on too fast. That which you suppose
accomplishable in fourteen or fifteen years, I may believe
practicable in a much shorter period. Mankind, as it appears to me,
are always ripe enough to understand their true interest, provided it
be presented clearly to their understanding, and that in a manner not
to create suspicion by anything like self-design, nor offend by
144
assuming too much. Where we would wish to reform we must not
reproach.
I am now once more in the public world; and as I have not a right to
contemplate on so many years of remaining life as you have, I have
resolved to labour as fast as I can; and as I am anxious for your aid
and your company, I wish you to hasten your principles and
overtake me.
Your sincere,
Affectionate Friend,
THOMAS PAINE
145
Preface
Another reason for deferring the remainder of the work was, that
Mr. Burke promised in his first publication to renew the subject at
another opportunity, and to make a comparison of what he called
the English and French Constitutions. I therefore held myself in
reserve for him. He has published two works since, without doing
146
this: which he certainly would not have omitted, had the
comparison been in his favour.
In his last work, his "Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs," he
has quoted about ten pages from the Rights Of Man, and having
given himself the trouble of doing this, says he "shall not attempt in
the smallest degree to refute them," meaning the principles therein
contained. I am enough acquainted with Mr. Burke to know that he
would if he could. But instead of contesting them, he immediately
after consoles himself with saying that "he has done his part."- He
has not done his part. He has not performed his promise of a
comparison of constitutions. He started the controversy, he gave the
challenge, and has fled from it; and he is now a case in point with
his own opinion that "the age of chivalry is gone!"
The title, as well as the substance of his last work, his "Appeal," is
his condemnation. Principles must stand on their own merits, and if
they are good they certainly will. To put them under the shelter of
other men’s authority, as Mr. Burke has done, serves to bring them
into suspicion. Mr. Burke is not very fond of dividing his honours,
but in this case he is artfully dividing the disgrace.
But who are those to whom Mr. Burke has made his appeal? A set
of childish thinkers, and half-way politicians born in the last
century, men who went no farther with any principle than as it
suited their purposes as a party; the nation was always left out of the
question; and this has been the character of every party from that
day to this. The nation sees nothing of such works, or such politics,
worthy its attention. A little matter will move a party, but it must be
something great that moves a nation.
147
Though I see nothing in Mr. Burke’s "Appeal" worth taking much
notice of, there is, however, one expression upon which I shall offer
a few remarks. After quoting largely from the Rights Of Man, and
declining to contest the principles contained in that work, he says:
"This will most probably be done (if such writings shall be thought
to deserve any other refutation than that of criminal justice) by
others, who may think with Mr. Burke and with the same zeal."
In the first place, it has not yet been done by anybody. Not less, I
believe, than eight or ten pamphlets intended as answers to the
former part of the Rights Of Man have been published by different
persons, and not one of them to my knowledge, has extended to a
second edition, nor are even the titles of them so much as generally
remembered. As I am averse to unnecessary multiplying
publications, I have answered none of them. And as I believe that a
man may write himself out of reputation when nobody else can do
it, I am careful to avoid that rock.
148
I now come to remark on the remaining part of the quotation I have
made from Mr. Burke.
"If," says he, "such writings shall be thought to deserve any other
refutation than that of criminal justice."
I will first put a case with respect to any law, and then compare it
with a government, or with what in England is, or has been, called a
constitution.
149
If a law be bad it is one thing to oppose the practice of it, but it is
quite a different thing to expose its errors, to reason on its defects,
and to show cause why it should be repealed, or why another ought
to be substituted in its place. I have always held it an opinion
(making it also my practice) that it is better to obey a bad law,
making use at the same time of every argument to show its errors
and procure its repeal, than forcibly to violate it; because the
precedent of breaking a bad law might weaken the force, and lead to
a discretionary violation, of those which are good.
150
subjects for prosecution. On this ground I will meet Mr. Burke
whenever he please. It is better that the whole argument should
come out than to seek to stifle it. It was himself that opened the
controversy, and he ought not to desert it.
151
determining whether that nation have a right to, or shall reform its
government or not. I mention those cases that Mr. Burke may see I
have not written on Government without reflecting on what is Law,
as well as on what are Rights.- The only effectual jury in such cases
would be a convention of the whole nation fairly elected; for in all
such cases the whole nation is the vicinage. If Mr. Burke will
propose such a jury, I will waive all privileges of being the citizen
of another country, and, defending its principles, abide the issue,
provided he will do the same; for my opinion is, that his work and
his principles would be condemned instead of mine.
I do not believe that the people of England have ever been fairly
and candidly dealt by. They have been imposed upon by parties,
and by men assuming the character of leaders. It is time that the
nation should rise above those trifles. It is time to dismiss that
inattention which has so long been the encouraging cause of
stretching taxation to excess. It is time to dismiss all those songs
152
and toasts which are calculated to enslave, and operate to suffocate
reflection. On all such subjects men have but to think, and they will
neither act wrong nor be misled. To say that any people are not fit
for freedom, is to make poverty their choice, and to say they had
rather be loaded with taxes than not. If such a case could be proved,
it would equally prove that those who govern are not fit to govern
them, for they are a part of the same national mass.
THOMAS PAINE
Introduction
153
of habit established itself over the mind, that no beginning could be
made in Asia, Africa, or Europe, to reform the political condition of
man. Freedom had been hunted round the globe; reason was
considered as rebellion; and the slavery of fear had made men afraid
to think.
But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks,- and all it
wants,- is the liberty of appearing. The sun needs no inscription to
distinguish him from darkness; and no sooner did the American
governments display themselves to the world, than despotism felt a
shock and man began to contemplate redress.
As America was the only spot in the political world where the
principle of universal reformation could begin, so also was it the
best in the natural world. An assemblage of circumstances
conspired, not only to give birth, but to add gigantic maturity to its
principles. The scene which that country presents to the eye of a
spectator, has something in it which generates and encourages great
ideas. Nature appears to him in magnitude. The mighty objects he
beholds, act upon his mind by enlarging it, and he partakes of the
greatness he contemplates.- Its first settlers were emigrants from
154
different European nations, and of diversified professions of
religion, retiring from the governmental persecutions of the old
world, and meeting in the new, not as enemies, but as brothers. The
wants which necessarily accompany the cultivation of a wilderness
produced among them a state of society, which countries long
harassed by the quarrels and intrigues of governments, had
neglected to cherish. In such a situation man becomes what he
ought. He sees his species, not with the inhuman idea of a natural
enemy, but as kindred; and the example shows to the artificial
world, that man must go back to Nature for information.
If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those
which are in an advanced stage of improvement we still find the
greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and
155
crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude.
Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretences for
revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey, and permits
none to escape without a tribute.
156
repose? Wearied with war, and tired with human butchery, they sat
down to rest, and called it peace. This certainly is not the condition
that heaven intended for man; and if this be monarchy, well might
monarchy be reckoned among the sins of the Jews.
The revolutions which formerly took place in the world had nothing
in them that interested the bulk of mankind. They extended only to
a change of persons and measures, but not of principles, and rose or
fell among the common transactions of the moment. What we now
behold may not improperly be called a "counter-revolution."
Conquest and tyranny, at some earlier period, dispossessed man of
his rights, and he is now recovering them. And as the tide of all
human affairs has its ebb and flow in directions contrary to each
other, so also is it in this. Government founded on a moral theory,
on a system of universal peace, on the indefeasible hereditary
Rights of Man, is now revolving from west to east by a stronger
impulse than the government of the sword revolved from east to
west. It interests not particular individuals, but nations in its
progress, and promises a new era to the human race.
157
the general character of man, the merits that appertain to him as a
social being.
CHAPTER I
Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the
effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society
and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government,
and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The
mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon
man, and all the parts of civilised community upon each other,
create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The
landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the
tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each
receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest
regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which
common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of
158
government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything
which is ascribed to government.
But she has gone further. She has not only forced man into society
by a diversity of wants which the reciprocal aid of each other can
supply, but she has implanted in him a system of social affections,
which, though not necessary to his existence, are essential to his
happiness. There is no period in life when this love for society
ceases to act. It begins and ends with our being.
159
government can usefully add thereto, has been performed by the
common consent of society, without government.
So far is it from being true, as has been pretended, that the abolition
of any formal government is the dissolution of society, that it acts
by a contrary impulse, and brings the latter the closer together. All
that part of its organisation which it had committed to its
government, devolves again upon itself, and acts through its
medium. When men, as well from natural instinct as from
reciprocal benefits, have habituated themselves to social and
civilised life, there is always enough of its principles in practice to
carry them through any changes they may find necessary or
convenient to make in their government. In short, man is so
naturally a creature of society that it is almost impossible to put him
out of it.
160
Formal government makes but a small part of civilised life; and
when even the best that human wisdom can devise is established, it
is a thing more in name and idea than in fact. It is to the great and
fundamental principles of society and civilisation- to the common
usage universally consented to, and mutually and reciprocally
maintained- to the unceasing circulation of interest, which, passing
through its million channels, invigorates the whole mass of civilised
man- it is to these things, infinitely more than to anything which
even the best instituted government can perform, that the safety and
prosperity of the individual and of the whole depends.
The more perfect civilisation is, the less occasion has it for
government, because the more does it regulate its own affairs, and
govern itself; but so contrary is the practice of old governments to
the reason of the case, that the expenses of them increase in the
proportion they ought to diminish. It is but few general laws that
civilised life requires, and those of such common usefulness, that
whether they are enforced by the forms of government or not, the
effect will be nearly the same. If we consider what the principles are
that first condense men into society, and what are the motives that
regulate their mutual intercourse afterwards, we shall find, by the
time we arrive at what is called government, that nearly the whole
of the business is performed by the natural operation of the parts
upon each other.
161
They are followed and obeyed, because it is the interest of the
parties so to do, and not on account of any formal laws their
governments may impose or interpose.
If we look back to the riots and tumults which at various times have
happened in England, we shall find that they did not proceed from
the want of a government, but that government was itself the
generating cause; instead of consolidating society it divided it; it
deprived it of its natural cohesion, and engendered discontents and
disorders which otherwise would not have existed. In those
associations which men promiscuously form for the purpose of
trade, or of any concern in which government is totally out of the
question, and in which they act merely on the principles of society,
we see how naturally the various parties unite; and this shows, by
comparison, that governments, so far from being always the cause
or means of order, are often the destruction of it. The riots of 1780
had no other source than the remains of those prejudices which the
government itself had encouraged. But with respect to England
there are also other causes.
162
unfortunately are, of the means of information, are easily heated to
outrage. Whatever the apparent cause of any riots may be, the real
one is always want of happiness. It shows that something is wrong
in the system of government that injures the felicity by which
society is to be preserved.
163
One of the great advantages of the American Revolution has been,
that it led to a discovery of the principles, and laid open the
imposition, of governments. All the revolutions till then had been
worked within the atmosphere of a court, and never on the grand
floor of a nation. The parties were always of the class of courtiers;
and whatever was their rage for reformation, they carefully
preserved the fraud of the profession.
Having thus endeavoured to show that the social and civilised state
of man is capable of performing within itself almost everything
necessary to its protection and government, it will be proper, on the
other hand, to take a review of the present old governments, and
examine whether their principles and practice are correspondent
thereto.
CHAPTER II
164
which the origin of all the present old governments is buried,
implies the iniquity and disgrace with which they began. The origin
of the present government of America and France will ever be
remembered, because it is honourable to record it; but with respect
to the rest, even Flattery has consigned them to the tomb of time,
without an inscription.
It could have been no difficult thing in the early and solitary ages of
the world, while the chief employment of men was that of attending
flocks and herds, for a banditti of ruffians to overrun a country, and
lay it under contributions. Their power being thus established, the
chief of the band contrived to lose the name of Robber in that of
Monarch; and hence the origin of Monarchy and Kings.
Those bands of robbers having parcelled out the world, and divided
it into dominions, began, as is naturally the case, to quarrel with
each other. What at first was obtained by violence was considered
by others as lawful to be taken, and a second plunderer succeeded
the first. They alternately invaded the dominions which each had
assigned to himself, and the brutality with which they treated each
other explains the original character of monarchy. It was ruffian
torturing ruffian. The conqueror considered the conquered, not as
his prisoner, but his property. He led him in triumph rattling in
165
chains, and doomed him, at pleasure, to slavery or death. As time
obliterated the history of their beginning, their successors assumed
new appearances, to cut off the entail of their disgrace, but their
principles and objects remained the same. What at first was plunder,
assumed the softer name of revenue; and the power originally
usurped, they affected to inherit.
166
a nation? Does it add an acre to any man’s estate, or raise its value?
Are not conquest and defeat each of the same price, and taxes the
never-failing consequence?- Though this reasoning may be good to
a nation, it is not so to a government. War is the Pharo-table of
governments, and nations the dupes of the game.
CHAPTER III
167
universal commerce. The one measures its prosperity, by the
quantity of revenue it extorts; the other proves its excellence, by the
small quantity of taxes it requires.
Mr. Burke has talked of old and new whigs. If he can amuse himself
with childish names and distinctions, I shall not interrupt his
pleasure. It is not to him, but to the Abbe Sieyes, that I address this
chapter. I am already engaged to the latter gentleman to discuss the
subject of monarchical government; and as it naturally occurs in
comparing the old and new systems, I make this the opportunity of
presenting to him my observations. I shall occasionally take Mr.
Burke in my way.
The first general distinction between those two systems, is, that the
one now called the old is hereditary, either in whole or in part; and
the new is entirely representative. It rejects all hereditary
government:
168
With respect to the first of these heads- It cannot be proved by what
right hereditary government could begin; neither does there exist
within the compass of mortal power a right to establish it. Man has
no authority over posterity in matters of personal right; and,
therefore, no man, or body of men, had, or can have, a right to set
up hereditary government. Were even ourselves to come again into
existence, instead of being succeeded by posterity, we have not now
the right of taking from ourselves the rights which would then be
ours. On what ground, then, do we pretend to take them from
others?
We have heard the Rights of Man called a levelling system; but the
only system to which the word levelling is truly applicable, is the
169
hereditary monarchical system. It is a system of mental levelling. It
indiscriminately admits every species of character to the same
authority. Vice and virtue, ignorance and wisdom, in short, every
quality good or bad, is put on the same level. Kings succeed each
other, not as rationals, but as animals. It signifies not what their
mental or moral characters are. Can we then be surprised at the
abject state of the human mind in monarchical countries, when the
government itself is formed on such an abject levelling system?- It
has no fixed character. To-day it is one thing; to-morrow it is
something else. It changes with the temper of every succeeding
individual, and is subject to all the varieties of each. It is
government through the medium of passions and accidents. It
appears under all the various characters of childhood, decrepitude,
dotage, a thing at nurse, in leading-strings, or in crutches. It reverses
the wholesome order of nature. It occasionally puts children over
men, and the conceits of nonage over wisdom and experience. In
short, we cannot conceive a more ridiculous figure of government,
than hereditary succession, in all its cases, presents.
170
It is not to the Abbe Sieyes that I need apply this reasoning; he has
already saved me that trouble by giving his own opinion upon the
case. "If it be asked," says he, "what is my opinion with respect to
hereditary right, I answer without hesitation, That in good theory,
an hereditary transmission of any power of office, can never accord
with the laws of a true representation. Hereditaryship is, in this
sense, as much an attaint upon principle, as an outrage upon society.
But let us," continues he, "refer to the history of all elective
monarchies and principalities: is there one in which the elective
mode is not worse than the hereditary succession?"
Passing over, for the present, all the evils and mischiefs which
monarchy has occasioned in the world, nothing can more
effectually prove its uselessness in a state of civil government, than
making it hereditary. Would we make any office hereditary that
required wisdom and abilities to fill it? And where wisdom and
abilities are not necessary, such an office, whatever it may be, is
superfluous or insignificant.
171
child or idiot may fill. It requires some talents to be a common
mechanic; but to be a king requires only the animal figure of man- a
sort of breathing automaton. This sort of superstition may last a few
years more, but it cannot long resist the awakened reason and
interest of man.
172
monarchy at nurse. With respect to England, its history is full of the
same misfortunes. The contests for succession between the houses
of York and Lancaster lasted a whole century; and others of a
similar nature have renewed themselves since that period. Those of
1715 and 1745 were of the same kind. The succession war for the
crown of Spain embroiled almost half Europe. The disturbances of
Holland are generated from the hereditaryship of the Stadtholder. A
government calling itself free, with an hereditary office, is like a
thorn in the flesh, that produces a fermentation which endeavours to
discharge it.
The representative system takes society and civilisation for its basis;
nature, reason, and experience, for its guide.
173
apparently to us, scatters them among mankind, that rule remains a
secret to man. It would be as ridiculous to attempt to fix the
hereditaryship of human beauty, as of wisdom. Whatever wisdom
constituently is, it is like a seedless plant; it may be reared when it
appears, but it cannot be voluntarily produced. There is always a
sufficiency somewhere in the general mass of society for all
purposes; but with respect to the parts of society, it is continually
changing its place. It rises in one to-day, in another to-morrow, and
has most probably visited in rotation every family of the earth, and
again withdrawn.
174
Do we need a stronger evidence of the absurdity of hereditary
government than is seen in the descendants of those men, in any
line of life, who once were famous? Is there scarcely an instance in
which there is not a total reverse of the character? It appears as if
the tide of mental faculties flowed as far as it could in certain
channels, and then forsook its course, and arose in others. How
irrational then is the hereditary system, which establishes channels
of power, in company with which wisdom refuses to flow! By
continuing this absurdity, man is perpetually in contradiction with
himself; he accepts, for a king, or a chief magistrate, or a legislator,
a person whom he would not elect for a constable.
175
mental manhood. It is fit to be great only in little things. It acts a
treachery upon itself, and suffocates the sensations that urge the
detection.
176
As it is necessary to clear away the rubbish of errors, into which the
subject of government has been thrown, I will proceed to remark on
some others.
177
with the representative form, as being best calculated to secure the
end for which a nation is at the expense of supporting it.
178
It is possible that an individual may lay down a system of
principles, on which government shall be constitutionally
established to any extent of territory. This is no more than an
operation of the mind, acting by its own powers. But the practice
upon those principles, as applying to the various and numerous
circumstances of a nation, its agriculture, manufacture, trade,
commerce, etc., etc., a knowledge of a different kind, and which can
be had only from the various parts of society. It is an assemblage of
practical knowledge, which no individual can possess; and therefore
the monarchical form is as much limited, in useful practice, from
the incompetency of knowledge, as was the democratical form,
from the multiplicity of population. The one degenerates, by
extension, into confusion; the other, into ignorance and incapacity,
of which all the great monarchies are an evidence. The monarchical
form, therefore, could not be a substitute for the democratical,
because it has equal inconveniences.
Much less could it when made hereditary. This is the most effectual
of all forms to preclude knowledge. Neither could the high
democratical mind have voluntarily yielded itself to be governed by
children and idiots, and all the motley insignificance of character,
which attends such a mere animal system, the disgrace and the
reproach of reason and of man.
As to the aristocratical form, it has the same vices and defects with
the monarchical, except that the chance of abilities is better from
the proportion of numbers, but there is still no security for the right
use and application of them.*[17]
179
Referring them to the original simple democracy, it affords the true
data from which government on a large scale can begin. It is
incapable of extension, not from its principle, but from the
inconvenience of its form; and monarchy and aristocracy, from their
incapacity. Retaining, then, democracy as the ground, and rejecting
the corrupt systems of monarchy and aristocracy, the representative
system naturally presents itself; remedying at once the defects of
the simple democracy as to form, and the incapacity of the other
two with respect to knowledge.
180
as is immediately produced by the operation of representation.
France, great and populous as it is, is but a spot in the capaciousness
of the system. It is preferable to simple democracy even in small
territories. Athens, by representation, would have outrivalled her
own democracy.
181
monarchy for its basis, and republicanism for its corrective, than
republicanism for its basis, and monarchy for its corrective."- If he
means that it is better to correct folly with wisdom, than wisdom
with folly, I will no otherwise contend with him, than that it would
be much better to reject the folly entirely.
But what is this thing which Mr. Burke calls monarchy? Will he
explain it? All men can understand what representation is; and that
it must necessarily include a variety of knowledge and talents. But
what security is there for the same qualities on the part of
monarchy? or, when the monarchy is a child, where then is the
wisdom? What does it know about government? Who then is the
monarch, or where is the monarchy? If it is to be performed by
regency, it proves to be a farce. A regency is a mock species of
republic, and the whole of monarchy deserves no better description.
It is a thing as various as imagination can paint. It has none of the
stable character that government ought to possess. Every succession
is a revolution, and every regency a counter-revolution. The whole
of it is a scene of perpetual court cabal and intrigue, of which Mr.
Burke is himself an instance. To render monarchy consistent with
government, the next in succession should not be born a child, but a
man at once, and that man a Solomon. It is ridiculous that nations
are to wait and government be interrupted till boys grow to be men.
182
solemnity; but when, by any accident, the curtain happens to be
open- and the company see what it is, they burst into laughter.
We must shut our eyes against reason, we must basely degrade our
understanding, not to see the folly of what is called monarchy.
Nature is orderly in all her works; but this is a mode of government
that counteracts nature. It turns the progress of the human faculties
upside down. It subjects age to be governed by children, and
wisdom by folly.
183
lottery of human faculties), the next in succession, whatever he may
be, is put at the head of a nation, and of a government, at the age of
eighteen years. Does this appear like an action of wisdom? Is it
consistent with the proper dignity and the manly character of a
nation? Where is the propriety of calling such a lad the father of the
people?- In all other cases, a person is a minor until the age of
twenty-one years. Before this period, he is not trusted with the
management of an acre of land, or with the heritable property of a
flock of sheep, or an herd of swine; but, wonderful to tell! he may,
at the age of eighteen years, be trusted with a nation.
184
But the case is, that the representative system diffuses such a body
of knowledge throughout a nation, on the subject of government, as
to explode ignorance and preclude imposition. The craft of courts
cannot be acted on that ground. There is no place for mystery;
nowhere for it to begin. Those who are not in the representation,
know as much of the nature of business as those who are. An
affectation of mysterious importance would there be scouted.
Nations can have no secrets; and the secrets of courts, like those of
individuals, are always their defects.
185
CHAPTER IV
Of Constitutions
That men mean distinct and separate things when they speak of
constitutions and of governments, is evident; or why are those terms
distinctly and separately used? A constitution is not the act of a
government, but of a people constituting a government; and
government without a constitution, is power without a right.
186
It may not appear improper to remind the reader that the United
States of America consist of thirteen separate states, each of which
established a government for itself, after the declaration of
independence, done the 4th of July, 1776. Each state acted
independently of the rest, in forming its governments; but the same
general principle pervades the whole. When the several state
governments were formed, they proceeded to form the federal
government, that acts over the whole in all matters which concern
the interest of the whole, or which relate to the intercourse of the
several states with each other, or with foreign nations. I will begin
with giving an instance from one of the state governments (that of
Pennsylvania) and then proceed to the federal government.
Though these committees had been duly elected by the people, they
were not elected expressly for the purpose, nor invested with the
authority of forming a constitution; and as they could not,
consistently with the American idea of rights, assume such a power,
they could only confer upon the matter, and put it into a train of
operation. The conferees, therefore, did no more than state the case,
187
and recommend to the several counties to elect six representatives
for each county, to meet in convention at Philadelphia, with powers
to form a constitution, and propose it for public consideration.
188
government a law. But as it would have been unwise to preclude the
benefit of experience, and in order also to prevent the accumulation
of errors, if any should be found, and to preserve an unison of
government with the circumstances of the state at all times, the
constitution provided that, at the expiration of every seven years, a
convention should be elected, for the express purpose of revising
the constitution, and making alterations, additions, or abolitions
therein, if any such should be found necessary.
Having thus given an instance from one of the states, I will show
the proceedings by which the federal constitution of the United
States arose and was formed.
189
recommendations to the several provincial assemblies, who at
discretion adopted them or not. Nothing on the part of congress was
compulsive; yet, in this situation, it was more faithfully and
affectionately obeyed than was any government in Europe. This
instance, like that of the national assembly in France, sufficiently
shows, that the strength of government does not consist in any thing
itself, but in the attachment of a nation, and the interest which a
people feel in supporting it. When this is lost, government is but a
child in power; and though, like the old government in France, it
may harass individuals for a while, it but facilitates its own fall.
For this purpose, the act, called the act of confederation (which was
a sort of imperfect federal constitution), was proposed, and, after
long deliberation, was concluded in the year 1781. It was not the act
of congress, because it is repugnant to the principles of
representative government that a body should give power to itself.
Congress first informed the several states, of the powers which it
conceived were necessary to be invested in the union, to enable it to
perform the duties and services required from it; and the states
severally agreed with each other, and concentrated in congress
those powers.
190
It may not be improper to observe that in both those instances (the
one of Pennsylvania, and the other of the United States), there is no
such thing as the idea of a compact between the people on one side,
and the government on the other. The compact was that of the
people with each other, to produce and constitute a government. To
suppose that any government can be a party in a compact with the
whole people, is to suppose it to have existence before it can have a
right to exist. The only instance in which a compact can take place
between the people and those who exercise the government, is, that
the people shall pay them, while they choose to employ them.
Government is not a trade which any man, or any body of men, has
a right to set up and exercise for his own emolument, but is
altogether a trust, in right of those by whom that trust is delegated,
and by whom it is always resumeable. It has of itself no rights; they
are altogether duties.
191
on through the channel of the press, and in conversations, the state
of Virginia, experiencing some inconvenience with respect to
commerce, proposed holding a continental conference; in
consequence of which, a deputation from five or six state
assemblies met at Annapolis, in Maryland, in 1786. This meeting,
not conceiving itself sufficiently authorised to go into the business
of a reform, did no more than state their general opinions of the
propriety of the measure, and recommend that a convention of all
the states should be held the year following.
The convention went deeply into all the subjects; and having, after a
variety of debate and investigation, agreed among themselves upon
the several parts of a federal constitution, the next question was, the
manner of giving it authority and practice.
For this purpose they did not, like a cabal of courtiers, send for a
Dutch Stadtholder, or a German Elector; but they referred the whole
matter to the sense and interest of the country.
192
proceed to the election of their proportion of members to the new
federal government; and that the operation of it should then begin,
and the former federal government cease.
As soon as nine states had concurred (and the rest followed in the
order their conventions were elected), the old fabric of the federal
government was taken down, and the new one erected, of which
General Washington is president.- In this place I cannot help
remarking, that the character and services of this gentleman are
sufficient to put all those men called kings to shame. While they are
receiving from the sweat and labours of mankind, a prodigality of
pay, to which neither their abilities nor their services can entitle
them, he is rendering every service in his power, and refusing every
pecuniary reward. He accepted no pay as commander-in-chief; he
accepts none as president of the United States.
193
After the new federal constitution was established, the state of
Pennsylvania, conceiving that some parts of its own constitution
required to be altered, elected a convention for that purpose. The
proposed alterations were published, and the people concurring
therein, they were established.
194
In England it is not difficult to perceive that everything has a
constitution, except the nation. Every society and association that is
established, first agreed upon a number of original articles, digested
into form, which are its constitution. It then appointed its officers,
whose powers and authorities are described in that constitution, and
the government of that society then commenced. Those officers, by
whatever name they are called, have no authority to add to, alter, or
abridge the original articles. It is only to the constituting power that
this right belongs.
Dr. Johnson could not have advanced such a position in any country
where there was a constitution; and he is himself an evidence that
no such thing as a constitution exists in England. But it may be put
as a question, not improper to be investigated, that if a constitution
does not exist, how came the idea of its existence so generally
established?
195
In order to decide this question, it is necessary to consider a
constitution in both its cases:- First, as creating a government and
giving it powers. Secondly, as regulating and restraining the powers
so given.
After this, another William, descended from the same stock, and
claiming from the same origin, gained possession; and of the two
evils, James and William, the nation preferred what it thought the
196
least; since, from circumstances, it must take one. The act, called
the Bill of Rights, comes here into view. What is it, but a bargain,
which the parts of the government made with each other to divide
powers, profits, and privileges? You shall have so much, and I will
have the rest; and with respect to the nation, it said, for your share,
YOU shall have the right of petitioning. This being the case, the bill
of rights is more properly a bill of wrongs, and of insult. As to what
is called the convention parliament, it was a thing that made itself,
and then made the authority by which it acted. A few persons got
together, and called themselves by that name. Several of them had
never been elected, and none of them for the purpose.
I cannot believe that any nation, reasoning on its own rights, would
have thought of calling these things a constitution, if the cry of
constitution had not been set up by the government. It has got into
197
circulation like the words bore and quoz [quiz], by being chalked up
in the speeches of parliament, as those words were on window
shutters and doorposts; but whatever the constitution may be in
other respects, it has undoubtedly been the most productive
machine of taxation that was ever invented. The taxes in France,
under the new constitution, are not quite thirteen shillings per
head,*[18] and the taxes in England, under what is called its present
constitution, are forty-eight shillings and sixpence per head- men,
women, and children- amounting to nearly seventeen millions
sterling, besides the expense of collecting, which is upwards of a
million more.
198
"America," says he (in his speech on the Canada Constitution bill),
"never dreamed of such absurd doctrine as the Rights of Man."
Mr. Burke is such a bold presumer, and advances his assertions and
his premises with such a deficiency of judgment, that, without
troubling ourselves about principles of philosophy or politics, the
mere logical conclusions they produce, are ridiculous. For instance,
199
Having thus paid Mr. Burke the compliment of remembering him, I
return to the subject.
200
afraid to awaken a single reflection in man. They are softly leading
him to the sepulchre of precedents, to deaden his faculties and call
attention from the scene of revolutions. They feel that he is arriving
at knowledge faster than they wish, and their policy of precedents is
the barometer of their fears. This political popery, like the
ecclesiastical popery of old, has had its day, and is hastening to its
exit. The ragged relic and the antiquated precedent, the monk and
the monarch, will moulder together.
201
precedent, like a dictionary, determines every case. Either,
therefore, government has arrived at its dotage, and requires to be
renovated, or all the occasions for exercising its wisdom have
occurred.
Opinions differ more on this subject than with respect to the whole.
That a nation ought to have a constitution, as a rule for the conduct
of its government, is a simple question in which all men, not
directly courtiers, will agree. It is only on the component parts that
questions and opinions multiply.
But this difficulty, like every other, will diminish when put into a
train of being rightly understood.
The first thing is, that a nation has a right to establish a constitution.
202
possesses; and by continuing to do so, all errors will at last be
exploded.
203
legislating or enacting laws, and that of executing or administering
them. Everything, therefore, appertaining to civil government,
classes itself under one or other of these two divisions.
So far as regards the execution of the laws, that which is called the
judicial power, is strictly and properly the executive power of every
country. It is that power to which every individual has appeal, and
which causes the laws to be executed; neither have we any other
clear idea with respect to the official execution of the laws. In
England, and also in America and France, this power begins with
the magistrate, and proceeds up through all the courts of judicature.
The case is, that mankind (from the long tyranny of assumed
power) have had so few opportunities of making the necessary trials
on modes and principles of government, in order to discover the
204
best, that government is but now beginning to be known, and
experience is yet wanting to determine many particulars.
205
Were a Bill to be brought into any of the American legislatures
similar to that which was passed into an act by the English
parliament, at the commencement of George the First, to extend the
duration of the assemblies to a longer period than they now sit, the
check is in the constitution, which in effect says, Thus far shalt thou
go and no further.
206
But in whatever manner the separate parts of a constitution may be
arranged, there is one general principle that distinguishes freedom
from slavery, which is, that all hereditary government over a people
is to them a species of slavery, and representative government is
freedom.
207
All the constitutions of America are on a plan that excludes the
childish embarrassments which occur in monarchical countries. No
suspension of government can there take place for a moment, from
any circumstances whatever. The system of representation provides
for everything, and is the only system in which nations and
governments can always appear in their proper character.
208
wretchedness of the wretched.- But on this part of the subject I shall
speak hereafter, and confine myself at present to political
observations.
209
As the principle on which constitutions are now formed rejects all
hereditary pretensions to government, it also rejects all that
catalogue of assumptions known by the name of prerogatives.
But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the
government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage
connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same
end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia,
but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the
same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that
she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall
under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as
210
effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing
the government had been the means.
211
A nation can have no right to the time and services of any person at
his own expense, whom it may choose to employ or entrust in any
department whatever; neither can any reason be given for making
provision for the support of any one part of a government and not
for the other.
But admitting that the honour of being entrusted with any part of a
government is to be considered a sufficient reward, it ought to be so
to every person alike. If the members of the legislature of any
country are to serve at their own expense that which is called the
executive, whether monarchical or by any other name, ought to
serve in like manner. It is inconsistent to pay the one, and accept the
service of the other gratis.
212
person. The oath, called the civic oath, in France, viz., "the nation,
the law, and the king," is improper. If taken at all, it ought to be as
in America, to the nation only. The law may or may not be good;
but, in this place, it can have no other meaning, than as being
conducive to the happiness of a nation, and therefore is included in
it. The remainder of the oath is improper, on the ground, that all
personal oaths ought to be abolished. They are the remains of
tyranny on one part and slavery on the other; and the name of the
Creator ought not to be introduced to witness the degradation of
his creation; or if taken, as is already mentioned, as figurative of the
nation, it is in this place redundant. But whatever apology may be
made for oaths at the first establishment of a government, they
ought not to be permitted afterwards. If a government requires the
support of oaths, it is a sign that it is not worth supporting, and
ought not to be supported. Make government what it ought to be,
and it will support itself.
The principle upon which Mr. Burke formed his political creed, that
of "binding and controlling posterity to the end of time, and of
renouncing and abdicating the rights of all posterity, for ever," is
now become too detestable to be made a subject of debate; and
therefore, I pass it over with no other notice than exposing it.
213
Government is but now beginning to be known. Hitherto it has been
the mere exercise of power, which forbade all effectual enquiry into
rights, and grounded itself wholly on possession. While the enemy
of liberty was its judge, the progress of its principles must have
been small indeed.
214
different names; and as constitutions have always some relation to
external as well as to domestic circumstances, the means of
benefitting by every change, foreign or domestic, should be a part
of every constitution. We already see an alteration in the national
disposition of England and France towards each other, which, when
we look back to only a few years, is itself a Revolution. Who could
have foreseen, or who could have believed, that a French National
Assembly would ever have been a popular toast in England, or that
a friendly alliance of the two nations should become the wish of
either? It shows that man, were he not corrupted by governments, is
naturally the friend of man, and that human nature is not of itself
vicious. That spirit of jealousy and ferocity, which the governments
of the two countries inspired, and which they rendered subservient
to the purpose of taxation, is now yielding to the dictates of reason,
interest, and humanity. The trade of courts is beginning to be
understood, and the affectation of mystery, with all the artificial
sorcery by which they imposed upon mankind, is on the decline. It
has received its death-wound; and though it may linger, it will
expire. Government ought to be as much open to improvement as
anything which appertains to man, instead of which it has been
monopolised from age to age, by the most ignorant and vicious of
the human race. Need we any other proof of their wretched
management, than the excess of debts and taxes with which every
nation groans, and the quarrels into which they have precipitated the
world? Just emerging from such a barbarous condition, it is too
soon to determine to what extent of improvement government may
yet be carried. For what we can foresee, all Europe may form but
one great Republic, and man be free of the whole.
215
CHAPTER V
216
parts of society, it is on a wrong system, and reformation is
necessary. Customary language has classed the condition of man
under the two descriptions of civilised and uncivilised life. To the
one it has ascribed felicity and affluence; to the other hardship and
want. But, however our imagination may be impressed by painting
and comparison, it is nevertheless true, that a great portion of
mankind, in what are called civilised countries, are in a state of
poverty and wretchedness, far below the condition of an Indian. I
speak not of one country, but of all. It is so in England, it is so all
over Europe. Let us enquire into the cause.
217
comfort. Apart from all reflections of morality and philosophy, it is
a melancholy fact that more than one-fourth of the labour of
mankind is annually consumed by this barbarous system. What has
served to continue this evil, is the pecuniary advantage which all the
governments of Europe have found in keeping up this state of
uncivilisation. It affords to them pretences for power, and revenue,
for which there would be neither occasion nor apology, if the circle
of civilisation were rendered complete. Civil government alone, or
the government of laws, is not productive of pretences for many
taxes; it operates at home, directly under the eye of the country, and
precludes the possibility of much imposition. But when the scene is
laid in the uncivilised contention of governments, the field of
pretences is enlarged, and the country, being no longer a judge, is
open to every imposition, which governments please to act. Not a
thirtieth, scarcely a fortieth, part of the taxes which are raised in
England are either occasioned by, or applied to, the purpose of civil
government. It is not difficult to see, that the whole which the actual
government does in this respect, is to enact laws, and that the
country administers and executes them, at its own expense, by
means of magistrates, juries, sessions, and assize, over and above
the taxes which it pays. In this view of the case, we have two
distinct characters of government; the one the civil government, or
the government of laws, which operates at home, the other the court
or cabinet government, which operates abroad, on the rude plan of
uncivilised life; the one attended with little charge, the other with
boundless extravagance; and so distinct are the two, that if the latter
were to sink, as it were, by a sudden opening of the earth, and
totally disappear, the former would not be deranged. It would still
proceed, because it is the common interest of the nation that it
should, and all the means are in practice. Revolutions, then, have
218
for their object a change in the moral condition of governments, and
with this change the burthen of public taxes will lessen, and
civilisation will be left to the enjoyment of that abundance, of
which it is now deprived. In contemplating the whole of this
subject, I extend my views into the department of commerce. In all
my publications, where the matter would admit, I have been an
advocate for commerce, because I am a friend to its effects. It is a
pacific system, operating to cordialise mankind, by rendering
nations, as well as individuals, useful to each other. As to the mere
theoretical reformation, I have never preached it up. The most
effectual process is that of improving the condition of man by
means of his interest; and it is on this ground that I take my stand. If
commerce were permitted to act to the universal extent it is capable,
it would extirpate the system of war, and produce a revolution in the
uncivilised state of governments. The invention of commerce has
arisen since those governments began, and is the greatest approach
towards universal civilisation that has yet been made by any means
not immediately flowing from moral principles. Whatever has a
tendency to promote the civil intercourse of nations by an exchange
of benefits, is a subject as worthy of philosophy as of politics.
Commerce is no other than the traffic of two individuals, multiplied
on a scale of numbers; and by the same rule that nature intended for
the intercourse of two, she intended that of all. For this purpose she
has distributed the materials of manufactures and commerce, in
various and distant parts of a nation and of the world; and as they
cannot be procured by war so cheaply or so commodiously as by
commerce, she has rendered the latter the means of extirpating the
former. As the two are nearly the opposite of each other,
consequently, the uncivilised state of the European governments is
injurious to commerce. Every kind of destruction or embarrassment
219
serves to lessen the quantity, and it matters but little in what part of
the commercial world the reduction begins. Like blood, it cannot be
taken from any of the parts, without being taken from the whole
mass in circulation, and all partake of the loss. When the ability in
any nation to buy is destroyed, it equally involves the seller. Could
the government of England destroy the commerce of all other
nations, she would most effectually ruin her own. It is possible that
a nation may be the carrier for the world, but she cannot be the
merchant. She cannot be the seller and buyer of her own
merchandise. The ability to buy must reside out of herself; and,
therefore, the prosperity of any commercial nation is regulated by
the prosperity of the rest. If they are poor she cannot be rich, and
her condition, be what it may, is an index of the height of the
commercial tide in other nations. That the principles of commerce,
and its universal operation may be understood, without
understanding the practice, is a position that reason will not deny;
and it is on this ground only that I argue the subject. It is one thing
in the counting-house, in the world it is another. With respect to its
operation it must necessarily be contemplated as a reciprocal thing;
that only one-half its powers resides within the nation, and that the
whole is as effectually destroyed by the destroying the half that
resides without, as if the destruction had been committed on that
which is within; for neither can act without the other. When in the
last, as well as in former wars, the commerce of England sunk, it
was because the quantity was lessened everywhere; and it now
rises, because commerce is in a rising state in every nation. If
England, at this day, imports and exports more than at any former
period, the nations with which she trades must necessarily do the
same; her imports are their exports, and vice versa. There can be no
such thing as a nation flourishing alone in commerce: she can only
220
participate; and the destruction of it in any part must necessarily
affect all. When, therefore, governments are at war, the attack is
made upon a common stock of commerce, and the consequence is
the same as if each had attacked his own. The present increase of
commerce is not to be attributed to ministers, or to any political
contrivances, but to its own natural operation in consequence of
peace. The regular markets had been destroyed, the channels of
trade broken up, the high road of the seas infested with robbers of
every nation, and the attention of the world called to other objects.
Those interruptions have ceased, and peace has restored the
deranged condition of things to their proper order.*[25] It is worth
remarking that every nation reckons the balance of trade in its own
favour; and therefore something must be irregular in the common
ideas upon this subject. The fact, however, is true, according to
what is called a balance; and it is from this cause that commerce is
universally supported. Every nation feels the advantage, or it would
abandon the practice: but the deception lies in the mode of making
up the accounts, and in attributing what are called profits to a wrong
cause. Mr. Pitt has sometimes amused himself, by showing what he
called a balance of trade from the custom-house books. This mode
of calculating not only affords no rule that is true, but one that is
false. In the first place, Every cargo that departs from the custom-
house appears on the books as an export; and, according to the
custom-house balance, the losses at sea, and by foreign failures, are
all reckoned on the side of profit because they appear as exports.
221
No balance, therefore, as applying to superior advantages, can be
drawn from these documents; and if we examine the natural
operation of commerce, the idea is fallacious; and if true, would
soon be injurious. The great support of commerce consists in the
balance being a level of benefits among all nations.
222
the merchandize of Newcastle, have an additional value at London,
and London merchandize has the same at Newcastle.
223
The idea of having navies for the protection of commerce is
delusive. It is putting means of destruction for the means of
protection. Commerce needs no other protection than the reciprocal
interest which every nation feels in supporting it- it is common
stock- it exists by a balance of advantages to all; and the only
interruption it meets, is from the present uncivilised state of
governments, and which it is its common interest to reform.*[26]
France and England are the only two countries in Europe where a
reformation in government could have successfully begun. The one
secure by the ocean, and the other by the immensity of its internal
strength, could defy the malignancy of foreign despotism. But it is
with revolutions as with commerce, the advantages increase by their
becoming general, and double to either what each would receive
alone.
224
no interest in the contest; but in a cause that unites the soldier with
the citizen, and nation with nation, the despotism of courts, though
it feels the danger and meditates revenge, is afraid to strike.
When, in countries that are called civilised, we see age going to the
workhouse and youth to the gallows, something must be wrong in
the system of government. It would seem, by the exterior
appearance of such countries, that all was happiness; but there lies
hidden from the eye of common observation, a mass of
wretchedness, that has scarcely any other chance, than to expire in
poverty or infamy. Its entrance into life is marked with the presage
of its fate; and until this is remedied, it is in vain to punish.
225
Why is it that scarcely any are executed but the poor? The fact is a
proof, among other things, of a wretchedness in their condition.
Bred up without morals, and cast upon the world without a
prospect, they are the exposed sacrifice of vice and legal barbarity.
The millions that are superfluously wasted upon governments are
more than sufficient to reform those evils, and to benefit the
condition of every man in a nation, not included within the purlieus
of a court. This I hope to make appear in the progress of this work.
At an early period- little more than sixteen years of age, raw and
adventurous, and heated with the false heroism of a master*[27]
who had served in a man-of-war- I began the carver of my own
fortune, and entered on board the Terrible Privateer, Captain Death.
From this adventure I was happily prevented by the affectionate and
moral remonstrance of a good father, who, from his own habits of
life, being of the Quaker profession, must begin to look upon me as
lost. But the impression, much as it effected at the time, began to
wear away, and I entered afterwards in the King of Prussia
Privateer, Captain Mendez, and went with her to sea. Yet, from
such a beginning, and with all the inconvenience of early life
against me, I am proud to say, that with a perseverance undismayed
226
by difficulties, a disinterestedness that compelled respect, I have not
only contributed to raise a new empire in the world, founded on a
new system of government, but I have arrived at an eminence in
political literature, the most difficult of all lines to succeed and
excel in, which aristocracy with all its aids has not been able to
reach or to rival.*[28]
227
But charters and corporations have a more extensive evil effect than
what relates merely to elections. They are sources of endless
contentions in the places where they exist, and they lessen the
common rights of national society. A native of England, under the
operation of these charters and corporations, cannot be said to be an
Englishman in the full sense of the word. He is not free of the
nation, in the same manner that a Frenchman is free of France, and
an American of America. His rights are circumscribed to the town,
and, in some cases, to the parish of his birth; and all other parts,
though in his native land, are to him as a foreign country. To
acquire a residence in these, he must undergo a local naturalisation
by purchase, or he is forbidden or expelled the place. This species
of feudality is kept up to aggrandise the corporations at the ruin of
towns; and the effect is visible.
228
established. The instances of Manchester, Birmingham, and
Sheffield show, by contrast, the injuries which those Gothic
institutions are to property and commerce. A few examples may be
found, such as that of London, whose natural and commercial
advantage, owing to its situation on the Thames, is capable of
bearing up against the political evils of a corporation; but in almost
all other cases the fatality is too visible to be doubted or denied.
229
the purposes for which a representation of the people can be desired
or devised." "I defy," continues he, "the enemies of our constitution
to show the contrary."- This declaration from a man who has been
in constant opposition to all the measures of parliament the whole
of his political life, a year or two excepted, is most extraordinary;
and, comparing him with himself, admits of no other alternative,
than that he acted against his judgment as a member, or has
declared contrary to it as an author.
But it is not in the representation only that the defects lie, and
therefore I proceed in the next place to the aristocracy.
What pillar of security does the landed interest require more than
any other interest in the state, or what right has it to a distinct and
separate representation from the general interest of a nation? The
only use to be made of this power (and which it always has made),
is to ward off taxes from itself, and throw the burthen upon those
articles of consumption by which itself would be least affected.
230
That this has been the consequence (and will always be the
consequence) of constructing governments on combinations, is
evident with respect to England, from the history of its taxes.
231
purchase it in small quantities. But what will mankind think of the
justice of taxation, when they know that this tax alone, from which
the aristocracy are from circumstances exempt, is nearly equal to
the whole of the land-tax, being in the year 1788, and it is not less
now, L1,666,152, and with its proportion of the taxes on malt and
hops, it exceeds it.- That a single article, thus partially consumed,
and that chiefly by the working part, should be subject to a tax,
equal to that on the whole rental of a nation, is, perhaps, a fact not
to be paralleled in the histories of revenues.
232
It is difficult to discover what is meant by the landed interest, if it
does not mean a combination of aristocratical landholders, opposing
their own pecuniary interest to that of the farmer, and every branch
of trade, commerce, and manufacture. In all other respects it is the
only interest that needs no partial protection. It enjoys the general
protection of the world. Every individual, high or low, is interested
in the fruits of the earth; men, women, and children, of all ages and
degrees, will turn out to assist the farmer, rather than a harvest
should not be got in; and they will not act thus by any other
property. It is the only one for which the common prayer of
mankind is put up, and the only one that can never fail from the
want of means. It is the interest, not of the policy, but of the
existence of man, and when it ceases, he must cease to be.
Why then, does Mr. Burke talk of his house of peers as the pillar of
the landed interest? Were that pillar to sink into the earth, the same
landed property would continue, and the same ploughing, sowing,
and reaping would go on. The aristocracy are not the farmers who
work the land, and raise the produce, but are the mere consumers of
the rent; and when compared with the active world are the drones, a
seraglio of males, who neither collect the honey nor form the hive,
but exist only for lazy enjoyment.
233
Mr. Burke, in his first essay, called aristocracy "the Corinthian
capital of polished society." Towards completing the figure, he has
now added the pillar; but still the base is wanting; and whenever a
nation choose to act a Samson, not blind, but bold, down will go the
temple of Dagon, the Lords and the Philistines.
234
These are but a part of the mischiefs flowing from the wretched
scheme of an house of peers.
To all these are to be added the numerous dependants, the long list
of younger branches and distant relations, who are to be provided
for at the public expense: in short, were an estimation to be made of
the charge of aristocracy to a nation, it will be found nearly equal to
that of supporting the poor. The Duke of Richmond alone (and there
are cases similar to his) takes away as much for himself as would
maintain two thousand poor and aged persons. Is it, then, any
wonder, that under such a system of government, taxes and rates
have multiplied to their present extent?
235
Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are,
without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my
religion is to do good.
Mr. Burke may call this law what he pleases, but humanity and
impartial reflection will denounce it as a law of brutal injustice.
Were we not accustomed to the daily practice, and did we only hear
of it as the law of some distant part of the world, we should
conclude that the legislators of such countries had not arrived at a
state of civilisation.
236
It signifies a nominal office of a million sterling a year, the business
of which consists in receiving the money. Whether the person be
wise or foolish, sane or insane, a native or a foreigner, matters not.
Every ministry acts upon the same idea that Mr. Burke writes,
namely, that the people must be hood-winked, and held in
superstitious ignorance by some bugbear or other; and what is
called the crown answers this purpose, and therefore it answers all
the purposes to be expected from it. This is more than can be said of
the other two branches.
It has been customary to call the crown the executive power, and
the custom is continued, though the reason has ceased.
237
Before I proceed to the means of rendering governments more
conducive to the general happiness of mankind, than they are at
present, it will not be improper to take a review of the progress of
taxation in England.
It is a general idea, that when taxes are once laid on, they are never
taken off. However true this may have been of late, it was not
always so. Either, therefore, the people of former times were more
watchful over government than those of the present, or government
was administered with less extravagance.
It is now seven hundred years since the Norman conquest, and the
establishment of what is called the crown. Taking this portion of
time in seven separate periods of one hundred years each, the
amount of the annual taxes, at each period, will be as follows:
238
of the present day, have a traditionary and historical idea of the
bravery of their ancestors; but whatever their virtues or their vices
might have been, they certainly were a people who would not be
imposed upon, and who kept governments in awe as to taxation, if
not as to principle. Though they were not able to expel the
monarchical usurpation, they restricted it to a republican economy
of taxes.
239
and the rage for foreign wars and foreign dominion; systems of such
secure mystery that the expenses admit of no accounts; a single line
stands for millions. To what excess taxation might have extended
had not the French revolution contributed to break up the system,
and put an end to pretences, is impossible to say. Viewed, as that
revolution ought to be, as the fortunate means of lessening the load
of taxes of both countries, it is of as much importance to England as
to France; and, if properly improved to all the advantages of which
it is capable, and to which it leads, deserves as much celebration in
one country as the other.
In pursuing this subject, I shall begin with the matter that first
presents itself, that of lessening the burthen of taxes; and shall then
add such matter and propositions, respecting the three countries of
England, France, and America, as the present prospect of things
appears to justify: I mean, an alliance of the three, for the purposes
that will be mentioned in their proper place.
The amount of taxes for the year ending at Michaelmas 1788, was
as follows:
Land-tax L 1,950,000
Customs 3,789,274
Excise (including old and new malt) 6,751,727
240
Stamps 1,278,214
Miscellaneous taxes and incidents 1,803,755
-----------
L15,572,755
Since the year 1788, upwards of one million new taxes have been
laid on, besides the produce of the lotteries; and as the taxes have in
general been more productive since than before, the amount may be
taken, in round numbers, at L17,000,000. (The expense of
collection and the drawbacks, which together amount to nearly two
millions, are paid out of the gross amount; and the above is the net
sum paid into the exchequer). This sum of seventeen millions is
applied to two different purposes; the one to pay the interest of the
National Debt, the other to the current expenses of each year. About
nine millions are appropriated to the former; and the remainder,
being nearly eight millions, to the latter. As to the million, said to
be applied to the reduction of the debt, it is so much like paying
with one hand and taking out with the other, as not to merit much
notice. It happened, fortunately for France, that she possessed
national domains for paying off her debt, and thereby lessening her
taxes; but as this is not the case with England, her reduction of taxes
can only take place by reducing the current expenses, which may
now be done to the amount of four or five millions annually, as will
hereafter appear. When this is accomplished it will more than
counter-balance the enormous charge of the American war; and the
saving will be from the same source from whence the evil arose. As
to the national debt, however heavy the interest may be in taxes,
yet, as it serves to keep alive a capital useful to commerce, it
balances by its effects a considerable part of its own weight; and as
the quantity of gold and silver is, by some means or other, short of
its proper proportion, being not more than twenty millions, whereas
it should be sixty (foreign intrigue, foreign wars, foreign dominions,
241
will in a great measure account for the deficiency), it would, besides
the injustice, be bad policy to extinguish a capital that serves to
supply that defect. But with respect to the current expense,
whatever is saved therefrom is gain. The excess may serve to keep
corruption alive, but it has no re-action on credit and commerce,
like the interest of the debt.
242
France and England were not enemies. This, consequently, must be
prior to the Hanover succession, and also to the Revolution of
1688.*[32] The first instance that presents itself, antecedent to those
dates, is in the very wasteful and profligate times of Charles the
Second; at which time England and France acted as allies. If I have
chosen a period of great extravagance, it will serve to show modern
extravagance in a still worse light; especially as the pay of the navy,
the army, and the revenue officers has not increased since that time.
The peace establishment was then as follows (see Sir John Sinclair’s
History of the Revenue):
Navy L 300,000
Army 212,000
Ordnance 40,000
Civil List 462,115
-------
L1,014,115
The parliament, however, settled the whole annual peace
establishment at $1,200,000.*[33] If we go back to the time of
Elizabeth the amount of all the taxes was but half a million, yet the
nation sees nothing during that period that reproaches it with want
of consequence.
Navy L 500,000
Army 500,000
243
Expenses of Government 500,000
----------
L1,500,000
Even this sum is six times greater than the expenses of government
are in America, yet the civil internal government in England (I
mean that administered by means of quarter sessions, juries and
assize, and which, in fact, is nearly the whole, and performed by the
nation), is less expense upon the revenue, than the same species and
portion of government is in America.
244
more than ten thousand pounds a year; and as no man should be
paid beyond his services, so every man of a proper heart will not
accept more. Public money ought to be touched with the most
scrupulous consciousness of honour. It is not the produce of riches
only, but of the hard earnings of labour and poverty. It is drawn
even from the bitterness of want and misery. Not a beggar passes,
or perishes in the streets, whose mite is not in that mass.
To show that the sum of five hundred thousand pounds is more than
sufficient to defray all the expenses of the government, exclusive of
navies and armies, the following estimate is added, for any country,
of the same extent as England.
245
three houses, or meet in one, as in France, or in any manner a
constitution shall direct.
--------
246
L497,500
If a nation choose, it can deduct four per cent. from all offices, and
make one of twenty thousand per annum.
All revenue officers are paid out of the monies they collect, and
therefore, are not in this estimation.
Whoever has observed the manner in which trade and taxes twist
themselves together, must be sensible of the impossibility of
separating them suddenly.
247
First. Because the articles now on hand are already charged with the
duty, and the reduction cannot take place on the present stock.
In the first place, then, the poor-rates are a direct tax which every
house-keeper feels, and who knows also, to a farthing, the sum
which he pays. The national amount of the whole of the poor-rates
is not positively known, but can be procured. Sir John Sinclair, in
his History of the Revenue has stated it at L2,100,587. A
considerable part of which is expended in litigations, in which the
poor, instead of being relieved, are tormented. The expense,
however, is the same to the parish from whatever cause it arises.
248
thousand pounds poor-rates, the national amount of poor-rates,
taking the population of England as seven millions, would be but
one million four hundred thousand pounds. It is, therefore, most
probable, that the population of Birmingham is over-rated. Fourteen
thousand pounds is the proportion upon fifty thousand souls, taking
two millions of poor-rates, as the national amount.
249
It is easily seen, that the poor are generally composed of large
families of children, and old people past their labour. If these two
classes are provided for, the remedy will so far reach to the full
extent of the case, that what remains will be incidental, and, in a
great measure, fall within the compass of benefit clubs, which,
though of humble invention, merit to be ranked among the best of
modern institutions.
There will then remain one million two hundred and sixty thousand
which, at five souls to each family, amount to two hundred and
fifty-two thousand families, rendered poor from the expense of
children and the weight of taxes.
250
It is certain, that if the children are provided for, the parents are
relieved of consequence, because it is from the expense of bringing
up children that their poverty arises.
For six hundred and thirty thousand children at four pounds per
annum each L2,520,000
By adopting this method, not only the poverty of the parents will be
relieved, but ignorance will be banished from the rising generation,
and the number of poor will hereafter become less, because their
abilities, by the aid of education, will be greater. Many a youth,
with good natural genius, who is apprenticed to a mechanical trade,
such as a carpenter, joiner, millwright, shipwright, blacksmith, etc.,
is prevented getting forward the whole of his life from the want of a
little common education when a boy.
251
I divide age into two classes. First, the approach of age, beginning
at fifty. Secondly, old age commencing at sixty.
At fifty, though the mental faculties of man are in full vigour, and
his judgment better than at any preceding date, the bodily powers
for laborious life are on the decline. He cannot bear the same
quantity of fatigue as at an earlier period. He begins to earn less,
and is less capable of enduring wind and weather; and in those more
retired employments where much sight is required, he fails apace,
and sees himself, like an old horse, beginning to be turned adrift.
252
There will be also a considerable number of middling tradesmen,
who having lived decently in the former part of life, begin, as age
approaches, to lose their business, and at last fall to decay.
To provide for all those accidents, and whatever else may befall, I
take the number of persons who, at one time or other of their lives,
after fifty years of age, may feel it necessary or comfortable to be
better supported, than they can support themselves, and that not as a
matter of grace and favour, but of right, at one-third of the whole
number, which is one hundred and forty thousand, as stated in a
previous page, and for whom a distinct provision was proposed to
be made. If there be more, society, notwithstanding the show and
pomposity of government, is in a deplorable condition in England.
Of this one hundred and forty thousand, I take one half, seventy
thousand, to be of the age of fifty and under sixty, and the other half
to be sixty years and upwards. Having thus ascertained the probable
proportion of the number of aged persons, I proceed to the mode of
rendering their condition comfortable, which is:
To pay to every such person of the age of fifty years, and until he
shall arrive at the age of sixty, the sum of six pounds per annum out
of the surplus taxes, and ten pounds per annum during life after the
age of sixty. The expense of which will be,
253
Seventy thousand persons, at L6 per annum L
420,000
Seventy thousand persons, at L10 per annum
700,000
-------
L1,120,000
This support, as already remarked, is not of the nature of a charity
but of a right. Every person in England, male and female, pays on
an average in taxes two pounds eight shillings and sixpence per
annum from the day of his (or her) birth; and, if the expense of
collection be added, he pays two pounds eleven shillings and
sixpence; consequently, at the end of fifty years he has paid one
hundred and twenty-eight pounds fifteen shillings; and at sixty one
hundred and fifty-four pounds ten shillings. Converting, therefore,
his (or her) individual tax in a tontine, the money he shall receive
after fifty years is but little more than the legal interest of the net
money he has paid; the rest is made up from those whose
circumstances do not require them to draw such support, and the
capital in both cases defrays the expenses of government. It is on
this ground that I have extended the probable claims to one-third of
the number of aged persons in the nation.- Is it, then, better that the
lives of one hundred and forty thousand aged persons be rendered
comfortable, or that a million a year of public money be expended
on any one individual, and him often of the most worthless or
insignificant character? Let reason and justice, let honour and
humanity, let even hypocrisy, sycophancy and Mr. Burke, let
George, let Louis, Leopold, Frederic, Catherine, Cornwallis, or
Tippoo Saib, answer the question.*[35]
254
To two hundred and fifty-two thousand poor families,
containing six hundred and thirty thousand
children L2,520,000
To one hundred and forty thousand aged persons
1,120,000
----------
L3,640,000
There will then remain three hundred and sixty thousand pounds out
of the four millions, part of which may be applied as follows:-
After all the above cases are provided for there will still be a
number of families who, though not properly of the class of poor,
yet find it difficult to give education to their children; and such
children, under such a case, would be in a worse condition than if
their parents were actually poor. A nation under a well-regulated
government should permit none to remain uninstructed. It is
monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires
ignorance for its support.
To allow for each of those children ten shillings a year for the
expense of schooling for six years each, which will give them six
months schooling each year, and half a crown a year for paper and
spelling books.
255
There will then remain one hundred and ten thousand pounds.
There are about two hundred thousand births yearly in England; and
if claimed by one fourth, the amount would be L50,000
I shall finish this part of the subject with a plan adapted to the
particular condition of a metropolis, such as London.
256
distress never rises to that extreme height it sometimes does in a
metropolis. There is no such thing in the country as persons, in the
literal sense of the word, starved to death, or dying with cold from
the want of a lodging. Yet such cases, and others equally as
miserable, happen in London.
These circumstances which are the general cause of the little thefts
and pilferings that lead to greater, may be prevented. There yet
remain twenty thousand pounds out of the four millions of surplus
taxes, which with another fund hereafter to be mentioned,
amounting to about twenty thousand pounds more, cannot be better
applied than to this purpose. The plan will then be:
257
Secondly, To receive all who shall come, without enquiring who or
what they are. The only condition to be, that for so much, or so
many hours’ work, each person shall receive so many meals of
wholesome food, and a warm lodging, at least as good as a barrack.
That a certain portion of what each person’s work shall be worth
shall be reserved, and given to him or her, on their going away; and
that each person shall stay as long or as short a time, or come as
often as he choose, on these conditions.
Allowing that their labour paid but one half the expense of
supporting them, after reserving a portion of their earnings for
themselves, the sum of forty thousand pounds additional would
defray all other charges for even a greater number than six
thousand.
258
I shall now conclude this plan with enumerating the several
particulars, and then proceed to other matters.
259
By the operation of this plan, the poor laws, those instruments of
civil torture, will be superseded, and the wasteful expense of
litigation prevented. The hearts of the humane will not be shocked
by ragged and hungry children, and persons of seventy and eighty
years of age, begging for bread. The dying poor will not be dragged
from place to place to breathe their last, as a reprisal of parish upon
parish. Widows will have a maintenance for their children, and not
be carted away, on the death of their husbands, like culprits and
criminals; and children will no longer be considered as increasing
the distresses of their parents. The haunts of the wretched will be
known, because it will be to their advantage; and the number of
petty crimes, the offspring of distress and poverty, will be lessened.
The poor, as well as the rich, will then be interested in the support
of government, and the cause and apprehension of riots and tumults
will cease.- Ye who sit in ease, and solace yourselves in plenty, and
such there are in Turkey and Russia, as well as in England, and who
say to yourselves, "Are we not well off?" have ye thought of these
things? When ye do, ye will cease to speak and feel for yourselves
alone.
260
Taking the present current expenses at seven millions and an half,
which is the least amount they are now at, there will remain (after
the sum of one million and an half be taken for the new current
expenses and four millions for the before-mentioned service) the
sum of two millions; part of which to be applied as follows:
A part of the army will remain, at least for some years, and also of
the navy, for which a provision is already made in the former part
of this plan of one million, which is almost half a million more than
the peace establishment of the army and navy in the prodigal times
of Charles the Second.
261
Additional pay to the remaining soldiers
19,500
Suppose that the pay to the officers of the
disbanded corps be the same amount as sum
allowed
to the men
117,000
--------
L253,500
To prevent bulky estimations, admit the same sum
to the disbanded navy as to the army,
and the same increase of pay
253,500
--------
Total
L507,000
Every year some part of this sum of half a million (I omit the odd
seven thousand pounds for the purpose of keeping the account
unembarrassed) will fall in, and the whole of it in time, as it is on
the ground of life annuities, except the increased pay of twenty-nine
thousand pounds. As it falls in, part of the taxes may be taken off;
and as, for instance, when thirty thousand pounds fall in, the duty
on hops may be wholly taken off; and as other parts fall in, the
duties on candles and soap may be lessened, till at last they will
totally cease. There now remains at least one million and a half of
surplus taxes.
The tax on houses and windows is one of those direct taxes, which,
like the poor-rates, is not confounded with trade; and, when taken
off, the relief will be instantly felt. This tax falls heavy on the
262
middle class of people. The amount of this tax, by the returns of
1788, was:
Among the taxes most heavily felt is the commutation tax. I shall
therefore offer a plan for its abolition, by substituting another in its
place, which will effect three objects at once: 1, that of removing
the burthen to where it can best be borne; 2, restoring justice among
families by a distribution of property; 3, extirpating the overgrown
influence arising from the unnatural law of primogeniture, which is
one of the principal sources of corruption at elections. The amount
of commutation tax by the returns of 1788, was L771,657.
263
consist in the article, but in the means of procuring it, and this is
always kept out of sight.
I know not why any plant or herb of the field should be a greater
luxury in one country than another; but an overgrown estate in
either is a luxury at all times, and, as such, is the proper object of
taxation. It is, therefore, right to take those kind tax-making
gentlemen up on their own word, and argue on the principle
themselves have laid down, that of taxing luxuries. If they or their
champion, Mr. Burke, who, I fear, is growing out of date, like the
man in armour, can prove that an estate of twenty, thirty, or forty
thousand pounds a year is not a luxury, I will give up the argument.
Admitting that any annual sum, say, for instance, one thousand
pounds, is necessary or sufficient for the support of a family,
consequently the second thousand is of the nature of a luxury, the
third still more so, and by proceeding on, we shall at last arrive at a
sum that may not improperly be called a prohibitable luxury. It
would be impolitic to set bounds to property acquired by industry,
and therefore it is right to place the prohibition beyond the probable
acquisition to which industry can extend; but there ought to be a
limit to property or the accumulation of it by bequest. It should pass
in some other line. The richest in every nation have poor relations,
and those often very near in consanguinity.
264
TABLE I
A tax on all estates of the clear yearly value of
L50,
after deducting the land tax, and up
To L500 0s 3d per
pound
265
On the eleventh " 8 0
TABLE II
266
An estate of:
L 50 per annum at 3d per pound pays L0
12 6
100 " " " " 1
5 0
200 " " " " 2
10 0
300 " " " " 3
15 0
400 " " " " 5
0 0
500 " " " " 7
5 0
After L500, the tax of 6d. per pound takes place on the second
L500; consequently an estate of L1,000 per annum pays L2l, 15s.,
and so on.
For the 1st L500 at 0s 3d per pound L7 5s
2nd " 0 6 14 10
L21 15s
2nd 1000 at 0 9 37 11
59 5
3rd " 1 0 50 0
109 5
4th 1000 at 1s 6d per pound L75 0s
L184 5s
5th " 2 0 100 0
284 5
6th " 3 0 150 0
434 5
7th " 4 0 200 0
634 5
8th " 5 0 250 0
880 5
9th " 6 0 300 0
1100 5
267
10th " 7 0 350 0
1530 5
11th " 8 0 400 0
1930 5
12th " 9 0 450 0
2380 5
13th " 10 0 500 0
2880 5
14th " 11 0 550 0
3430 5
15th " 12 0 600 0
4030 5
16th " 13 0 650 0
4680 5
17th " 14 0 700 0
5380 5
18th " 15 0 750 0
6130 5
19th " 16 0 800 0
6930 5
20th " 17 0 850 0
7780 5
21st " 18 0 900 0
8680 5
22nd 1000 at 19s 0d per pound L950 0s
L9630 5s
23rd " 20 0 1000 0
10630 5
At the twenty-third thousand the tax becomes 20s. in the pound, and
consequently every thousand beyond that sum can produce no profit
but by dividing the estate. Yet formidable as this tax appears, it will
not, I believe, produce so much as the commutation tax; should it
produce more, it ought to be lowered to that amount upon estates
under two or three thousand a year.
268
On small and middling estates it is lighter (as it is intended to be)
than the commutation tax. It is not till after seven or eight thousand
a year that it begins to be heavy. The object is not so much the
produce of the tax as the justice of the measure. The aristocracy has
screened itself too much, and this serves to restore a part of the lost
equilibrium.
But the chief object of this progressive tax (besides the justice of
rendering taxes more equal than they are) is, as already stated, to
extirpate the overgrown influence arising from the unnatural law of
primogeniture, and which is one of the principal sources of
corruption at elections.
269
were not in a state to admit of such acquisitions. Let it be sufficient
to remedy the evil by putting them in a condition of descending
again to the community by the quiet means of apportioning them
among all the heirs and heiresses of those families. This will be the
more necessary, because hitherto the aristocracy have quartered
their younger children and connections upon the public in useless
posts, places and offices, which when abolished will leave them
destitute, unless the law of primogeniture be also abolished or
superseded.
TABLE III
270
L1000 L21
L979
2000 59
1941
3000 109
2891
4000 184
3816
5000 284
4716
6000 434
5566
7000 634
6366
8000 880
7120
9000 1100
7900
10,000 1530
8470
11,000 1930
9070
12,000 2380
9620
271
13,000 2880
10,120
14,000 3430
10,570
15,000 4030
10,970
16,000 4680
11,320
17,000 5380
11,620
18,000 6130
11,870
19,000 6930
12,170
20,000 7780
12,220
21,000 8680
12,320
22,000 9630
12,370
23,000 10,630
12,370
272
According to this table, an estate cannot produce more than
L12,370 clear of the land tax and the progressive tax, and therefore
the dividing such estates will follow as a matter of family interest.
An estate of L23,000 a year, divided into five estates of four
thousand each and one of three, will be charged only L1,129 which
is but five per cent., but if held by one possessor, will be charged
L10,630.
273
What pleasure can they derive from contemplating the exposed
condition, and almost certain beggary of their younger offspring?
Every aristocratical family has an appendage of family beggars
hanging round it, which in a few ages, or a few generations, are
shook off, and console themselves with telling their tale in
almshouses, workhouses, and prisons. This is the natural
consequence of aristocracy. The peer and the beggar are often of the
same family. One extreme produces the other: to make one rich
many must be made poor; neither can the system be supported by
other means.
There are two classes of people to whom the laws of England are
particularly hostile, and those the most helpless; younger children,
and the poor. Of the former I have just spoken; of the latter I shall
mention one instance out of the many that might be produced, and
with which I shall close this subject.
274
But if these gentlemen law-makers and tax-makers thought it right
to limit the poor pittance which personal labour can produce, and on
which a whole family is to be supported, they certainly must feel
themselves happily indulged in a limitation on their own part, of not
less than twelve thousand a-year, and that of property they never
acquired (nor probably any of their ancestors), and of which they
have made never acquire so ill a use.
275
7. Allowance of twenty thousand pounds for the funeral
expenses of persons travelling for work, and dying at a
distance from their friends.
8. Employment at all times for the casual poor in the cities of
London and Westminster.
Second Enumeration
276
and nominal and unnecessary places and officers, and not allow
even a decent livelihood to those on whom the labour falls. The
salary of the inferior officers of the revenue has stood at the petty
pittance of less than fifty pounds a year for upwards of one hundred
years. It ought to be seventy. About one hundred and twenty
thousand pounds applied to this purpose, will put all those salaries
in a decent condition.
This was proposed to be done almost twenty years ago, but the
treasury-board then in being, startled at it, as it might lead to similar
expectations from the army and navy; and the event was, that the
King, or somebody for him, applied to parliament to have his own
salary raised an hundred thousand pounds a year, which being done,
every thing else was laid aside.
Ye simple men on both sides the question, do you not see through
this courtly craft? If ye can be kept disputing and wrangling about
church and meeting, ye just answer the purpose of every courtier,
who lives the while on the spoils of the taxes, and laughs at your
277
credulity. Every religion is good that teaches man to be good; and I
know of none that instructs him to be bad.
The present scheme of paying off the national debt appears to me,
speaking as an indifferent person, to be an ill-concerted, if not a
fallacious job. The burthen of the national debt consists not in its
being so many millions, or so many hundred millions, but in the
quantity of taxes collected every year to pay the interest. If this
quantity continues the same, the burthen of the national debt is the
same to all intents and purposes, be the capital more or less. The
278
only knowledge which the public can have of the reduction of the
debt, must be through the reduction of taxes for paying the interest.
The debt, therefore, is not reduced one farthing to the public by all
the millions that have been paid; and it would require more money
now to purchase up the capital, than when the scheme began.
I was then in America. The war was over; and though resentment
had ceased, memory was still alive.
Mr. Pitt was, at that time, what may be called a maiden character in
politics. So far from being hackneyed, he appeared not to be
initiated into the first mysteries of court intrigue. Everything was in
his favour. Resentment against the coalition served as friendship to
him, and his ignorance of vice was credited for virtue. With the
return of peace, commerce and prosperity would rise of itself; yet
even this increase was thrown to his account.
When he came to the helm, the storm was over, and he had nothing
to interrupt his course. It required even ingenuity to be wrong, and
he succeeded. A little time showed him the same sort of man as his
predecessors had been. Instead of profiting by those errors which
had accumulated a burthen of taxes unparalleled in the world, he
279
sought, I might almost say, he advertised for enemies, and provoked
means to increase taxation. Aiming at something, he knew not what,
he ransacked Europe and India for adventures, and abandoning the
fair pretensions he began with, he became the knight-errant of
modern times.
280
or pocketed, is not their crime. It is, however, easy to see, that as the
nation proceeds in contemplating the nature and principles of
government, and to understand taxes, and make comparisons
between those of America, France, and England, it will be next to
impossible to keep it in the same torpid state it has hitherto been.
Some reform must, from the necessity of the case, soon begin. It is
not whether these principles press with little or much force in the
present moment. They are out. They are abroad in the world, and no
force can stop them. Like a secret told, they are beyond recall; and
he must be blind indeed that does not see that a change is already
beginning.
Nine millions of dead taxes is a serious thing; and this not only for
bad, but in a great measure for foreign government. By putting the
power of making war into the hands of the foreigners who came for
what they could get, little else was to be expected than what has
happened.
281
as property, subject like all other property, to bear some portion of
the taxes. It would give to it both popularity and security, and as a
great part of its present inconvenience is balanced by the capital
which it keeps alive, a measure of this kind would so far add to that
balance as to silence objections.
Instead of taxing the capital, the best method would be to tax the
interest by some progressive ratio, and to lessen the public taxes in
the same proportion as the interest diminished.
Suppose the interest was taxed one halfpenny in the pound the first
year, a penny more the second, and to proceed by a certain ratio to
be determined upon, always less than any other tax upon property.
Such a tax would be subtracted from the interest at the time of
payment, without any expense of collection.
282
poor-rates, and the tax on houses and windows, and the
commutation tax, would be considerably greater than what this tax,
slow, but certain in its operation, amounts to.
The time is not very distant when England will laugh at itself for
sending to Holland, Hanover, Zell, or Brunswick for men, at the
expense of a million a year, who understood neither her laws, her
language, nor her interest, and whose capacities would scarcely
have fitted them for the office of a parish constable. If government
could be trusted to such hands, it must be some easy and simple
thing indeed, and materials fit for all the purposes may be found in
every town and village in England.
283
my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are
not in want, the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my
friend, because I am the friend of its happiness: when these things
can be said, then may that country boast its constitution and its
government.
Within the space of a few years we have seen two revolutions, those
of America and France. In the former, the contest was long, and the
conflict severe; in the latter, the nation acted with such a
consolidated impulse, that having no foreign enemy to contend
with, the revolution was complete in power the moment it appeared.
From both those instances it is evident, that the greatest forces that
can be brought into the field of revolutions, are reason and common
interest. Where these can have the opportunity of acting, opposition
dies with fear, or crumbles away by conviction. It is a great
standing which they have now universally obtained; and we may
hereafter hope to see revolutions, or changes in governments,
produced with the same quiet operation by which any measure,
determinable by reason and discussion, is accomplished.
284
General. But in England there are no such occasional bodies; and as
to those who are now called Representatives, a great part of them
are mere machines of the court, placemen, and dependants.
I presume, that though all the people of England pay taxes, not an
hundredth part of them are electors, and the members of one of the
houses of parliament represent nobody but themselves. There is,
therefore, no power but the voluntary will of the people that has a
right to act in any matter respecting a general reform; and by the
same right that two persons can confer on such a subject, a thousand
may. The object, in all such preliminary proceedings, is to find out
what the general sense of a nation is, and to be governed by it. If it
prefer a bad or defective government to a reform or choose to pay
ten times more taxes than there is any occasion for, it has a right so
to do; and so long as the majority do not impose conditions on the
minority, different from what they impose upon themselves, though
there may be much error, there is no injustice. Neither will the error
continue long. Reason and discussion will soon bring things right,
however wrong they may begin. By such a process no tumult is to
be apprehended. The poor, in all countries, are naturally both
peaceable and grateful in all reforms in which their interest and
happiness is included. It is only by neglecting and rejecting them
that they become tumultuous.
The objects that now press on the public attention are, the French
revolution, and the prospect of a general revolution in governments.
Of all nations in Europe there is none so much interested in the
French revolution as England. Enemies for ages, and that at a vast
expense, and without any national object, the opportunity now
presents itself of amicably closing the scene, and joining their
285
efforts to reform the rest of Europe. By doing this they will not only
prevent the further effusion of blood, and increase of taxes, but be
in a condition of getting rid of a considerable part of their present
burthens, as has been already stated. Long experience however has
shown, that reforms of this kind are not those which old
governments wish to promote, and therefore it is to nations, and not
to such governments, that these matters present themselves.
286
First, That no new ship of war shall be built by any power in
Europe, themselves included.
Second, That all the navies now in existence shall be put back,
suppose to one-tenth of their present force. This will save to France
and England, at least two millions sterling annually to each, and
their relative force be in the same proportion as it is now. If men
will permit themselves to think, as rational beings ought to think,
nothing can appear more ridiculous and absurd, exclusive of all
moral reflections, than to be at the expense of building navies,
filling them with men, and then hauling them into the ocean, to try
which can sink each other fastest. Peace, which costs nothing, is
attended with infinitely more advantage, than any victory with all
its expense. But this, though it best answers the purpose of nations,
does not that of court governments, whose habited policy is
pretence for taxation, places, and offices.
With how much more glory, and advantage to itself, does a nation
act, when it exerts its powers to rescue the world from bondage, and
to create itself friends, than when it employs those powers to
increase ruin, desolation, and misery. The horrid scene that is now
acting by the English government in the East-Indies, is fit only to be
told of Goths and Vandals, who, destitute of principle, robbed and
tortured the world they were incapable of enjoying.
287
The opening of South America would produce an immense field of
commerce, and a ready money market for manufactures, which the
eastern world does not. The East is already a country full of
manufactures, the importation of which is not only an injury to the
manufactures of England, but a drain upon its specie. The balance
against England by this trade is regularly upwards of half a million
annually sent out in the East-India ships in silver; and this is the
reason, together with German intrigue, and German subsidies, that
there is so little silver in England.
288
courts, will cease. The oppressed soldier will become a freeman;
and the tortured sailor, no longer dragged through the streets like a
felon, will pursue his mercantile voyage in safety. It would be better
that nations should wi continue the pay of their soldiers during their
lives, and give them their discharge and restore them to freedom
and their friends, and cease recruiting, than retain such multitudes at
the same expense, in a condition useless to society and to
themselves. As soldiers have hitherto been treated in most
countries, they might be said to be without a friend. Shunned by the
citizen on an apprehension of their being enemies to liberty, and too
often insulted by those who commanded them, their condition was a
double oppression. But where genuine principles of liberty pervade
a people, every thing is restored to order; and the soldier civilly
treated, returns the civility.
289
accomplished. What they approve as the end, they will promote in
the means.
290
accomplish the same object by reason, accommodation, and general
consent.*[40]
291
would make a different offering, and most probably in a different
manner. Some would pay their congratulations in themes of verse
and prose, by some little devices, as their genius dictated, or
according to what they thought would please; and, perhaps, the least
of all, not able to do any of those things, would ramble into the
garden, or the field, and gather what it thought the prettiest flower it
could find, though, perhaps, it might be but a simple weed. The
parent would be more gratified by such a variety, than if the whole
of them had acted on a concerted plan, and each had made exactly
the same offering. This would have the cold appearance of
contrivance, or the harsh one of control. But of all unwelcome
things, nothing could more afflict the parent than to know, that the
whole of them had afterwards gotten together by the ears, boys and
girls, fighting, scratching, reviling, and abusing each other about
which was the best or the worst present.
Why may we not suppose, that the great Father of all is pleased
with variety of devotion; and that the greatest offence we can act, is
that by which we seek to torment and render each other miserable?
For my own part, I am fully satisfied that what I am now doing,
with an endeavour to conciliate mankind, to render their condition
happy, to unite nations that have hitherto been enemies, and to
extirpate the horrid practice of war, and break the chains of slavery
and oppression is acceptable in his sight, and being the best service
I can perform, I act it cheerfully.
I do not believe that any two men, on what are called doctrinal
points, think alike who think at all. It is only those who have not
thought that appear to agree. It is in this case as with what is called
the British constitution. It has been taken for granted to be good,
292
and encomiums have supplied the place of proof. But when the
nation comes to examine into its principles and the abuses it admits,
it will be found to have more defects than I have pointed out in this
work and the former.
I have now gone through the whole of the subject, at least, as far as
it appears to me at present. It has been my intention for the five
years I have been in Europe, to offer an address to the people of
England on the subject of government, if the opportunity presented
itself before I returned to America. Mr. Burke has thrown it in my
way, and I thank him. On a certain occasion, three years ago, I
pressed him to propose a national convention, to be fairly elected,
for the purpose of taking the state of the nation into consideration;
but I found, that however strongly the parliamentary current was
then setting against the party he acted with, their policy was to keep
every thing within that field of corruption, and trust to accidents.
Long experience had shown that parliaments would follow any
change of ministers, and on this they rested their hopes and their
expectations.
293
Formerly, when divisions arose respecting governments, recourse
was had to the sword, and a civil war ensued. That savage custom is
exploded by the new system, and reference is had to national
conventions. Discussion and the general will arbitrates the question,
and to this, private opinion yields with a good grace, and order is
preserved uninterrupted.
Some gentlemen have affected to call the principles upon which this
work and the former part of Rights of Man are founded, "a new-
fangled doctrine." The question is not whether those principles are
new or old, but whether they are right or wrong. Suppose the
former, I will show their effect by a figure easily understood.
294
Rights Of Man: Appendix
As the publication of this work has been delayed beyond the time
intended, I think it not improper, all circumstances considered, to
state the causes that have occasioned delay.
The reader will probably observe, that some parts in the plan
contained in this work for reducing the taxes, and certain parts in
Mr. Pitt’s speech at the opening of the present session, Tuesday,
January 31, are so much alike as to induce a belief, that either the
author had taken the hint from Mr. Pitt, or Mr. Pitt from the author.-
I will first point out the parts that are similar, and then state such
circumstances as I am acquainted with, leaving the reader to make
his own conclusion.
Every one of those specific taxes are a part of the plan contained in
this work, and proposed also to be taken off. Mr. Pitt’s plan, it is
true, goes no further than to a reduction of three hundred and twenty
thousand pounds; and the reduction proposed in this work, to nearly
295
six millions. I have made my calculations on only sixteen millions
and an half of revenue, still asserting that it was "very nearly, if not
quite, seventeen millions." Mr. Pitt states it at 16,690,000. I know
enough of the matter to say, that he has not overstated it. Having
thus given the particulars, which correspond in this work and his
speech, I will state a chain of circumstances that may lead to some
explanation.
The first hint for lessening the taxes, and that as a consequence
flowing from the French revolution, is to be found in the
ADDRESS and DECLARATION of the Gentlemen who met at the
Thatched-House Tavern, August 20, 1791. Among many other
particulars stated in that Address, is the following, put as an
interrogation to the government opposers of the French Revolution.
"Are they sorry that the pretence for new oppressive taxes, and the
occasion for continuing many old taxes will be at an end?"
It is well known that the persons who chiefly frequent the Thatched-
House Tavern, are men of court connections, and so much did they
take this Address and Declaration respecting the French Revolution,
and the reduction of taxes in disgust, that the Landlord was under
the necessity of informing the Gentlemen, who composed the
meeting of the 20th of August, and who proposed holding another
meeting, that he could not receive them.*[41]
296
The case is: This work was intended to be published just before the
meeting of Parliament, and for that purpose a considerable part of
the copy was put into the printer’s hands in September, and all the
remaining copy, which contains the part to which Mr. Pitt’s speech
is similar, was given to him full six weeks before the meeting of
Parliament, and he was informed of the time at which it was to
appear. He had composed nearly the whole about a fortnight before
the time of Parliament meeting, and had given me a proof of the
next sheet. It was then in sufficient forwardness to be out at the time
proposed, as two other sheets were ready for striking off. I had
before told him, that if he thought he should be straitened for time, I
could get part of the work done at another press, which he desired
me not to do. In this manner the work stood on the Tuesday
fortnight preceding the meeting of Parliament, when all at once,
without any previous intimation, though I had been with him the
evening before, he sent me, by one of his workmen, all the
remaining copy, declining to go on with the work on any
consideration.
297
power of any printer or publisher to suppress or alter a work of
mine, by making him master of the copy, or give to him the right of
selling it to any minister, or to any other person, or to treat as a
mere matter of traffic, that which I intended should operate as a
principle.
Whether that gentleman, or any other, had seen the work, or any
part of it, is more than I have authority to say. But the manner in
which the work was returned, and the particular time at which this
was done, and that after the offers he had made, are suspicious
circumstances. I know what the opinion of booksellers and
publishers is upon such a case, but as to my own opinion, I choose
to make no declaration. There are many ways by which proof sheets
may be procured by other persons before a work publicly appears;
to which I shall add a certain circumstance, which is,
298
printer returned my copy, he came to make him an offer of his work
again, which was accepted. This would consequently give him
admission into the printing-office where the sheets of this work
were then lying; and as booksellers and printers are free with each
other, he would have the opportunity of seeing what was going on.-
Be the case, however, as it may, Mr. Pitt’s plan, little and diminutive
as it is, would have made a very awkward appearance, had this
work appeared at the time the printer had engaged to finish it.
I have now stated the particulars which occasioned the delay, from
the proposal to purchase, to the refusal to print. If all the Gentlemen
are innocent, it is very unfortunate for them that such a variety of
suspicious circumstances should, without any design, arrange
themselves together.
Having now finished this part, I will conclude with stating another
circumstance.
299
and had not the printing been interrupted so as to occasion a delay
beyond the time fixed for publication, nothing contained in this
appendix would have appeared.
THOMAS PAINE
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/rights_of_man/appendix.
html
1. The main and uniform maxim of the judges is, the greater the
truth the greater the libel.
300
2. Since writing the above, two other places occur in Mr. Burke’s
pamphlet in which the name of the Bastille is mentioned, but in the
same manner. In the one he introduces it in a sort of obscure
question, and asks: "Will any ministers who now serve such a king,
with but a decent appearance of respect, cordially obey the orders of
those whom but the other day, in his name, they had committed to
the Bastille?" In the other the taking it is mentioned as implying
criminality in the French guards, who assisted in demolishing it.
"They have not," says he, "forgot the taking the king’s castles at
Paris." This is Mr. Burke, who pretends to write on constitutional
freedom.
301
7. When in any country we see extraordinary circumstances taking
place, they naturally lead any man who has a talent for observation
and investigation, to enquire into the causes. The manufacturers of
Manchester, Birmingham, and Sheffield, are the principal
manufacturers in England. From whence did this arise? A little
observation will explain the case. The principal, and the generality
of the inhabitants of those places, are not of what is called in
England, the church established by law: and they, or their fathers,
(for it is within but a few years) withdrew from the persecution of
the chartered towns, where test-laws more particularly operate, and
established a sort of asylum for themselves in those places. It was
the only asylum that then offered, for the rest of Europe was worse.-
But the case is now changing. France and America bid all comers
welcome, and initiate them into all the rights of citizenship. Policy
and interest, therefore, will, but perhaps too late, dictate in England,
what reason and justice could not. Those manufacturers are
withdrawing, and arising in other places. There is now erecting in
Passey, three miles from Paris, a large cotton manufactory, and
several are already erected in America. Soon after the rejecting the
Bill for repealing the test-law, one of the richest manufacturers in
England said in my hearing, "England, Sir, is not a country for a
dissenter to live in,- we must go to France." These are truths, and it
is doing justice to both parties to tell them. It is chiefly the
dissenters that have carried English manufactures to the height they
are now at, and the same men have it in their power to carry them
away; and though those manufactures would afterwards continue in
those places, the foreign market will be lost. There frequently
appear in the London Gazette, extracts from certain acts to prevent
machines and persons, as far as they can extend to persons, from
going out of the country. It appears from these that the ill effects of
302
the test-laws and church-establishment begin to be much suspected;
but the remedy of force can never supply the remedy of reason. In
the progress of less than a century, all the unrepresented part of
England, of all denominations, which is at least an hundred times
the most numerous, may begin to feel the necessity of a
constitution, and then all those matters will come regularly before
them.
9. Mr. Burke, (and I must take the liberty of telling him that he is
very unacquainted with French affairs), speaking upon this subject,
says, "The first thing that struck me in calling the States-General,
was a great departure from the ancient course";- and he soon after
says, "From the moment I read the list, I saw distinctly, and very
nearly as it has happened, all that was to follow."- Mr. Burke
certainly did not see an that was to follow. I endeavoured to impress
him, as well before as after the States-General met, that there would
be a revolution; but was not able to make him see it, neither would
he believe it. How then he could distinctly see all the parts, when
the whole was out of sight, is beyond my comprehension. And with
respect to the "departure from the ancient course," besides the
natural weakness of the remark, it shows that he is unacquainted
with circumstances. The departure was necessary, from the
experience had upon it, that the ancient course was a bad one. The
States-General of 1614 were called at the commencement of the
civil war in the minority of Louis XIII.; but by the class of
arranging them by orders, they increased the confusion they were
303
called to compose. The author of L’Intrigue du Cabinet, (Intrigue of
the Cabinet), who wrote before any revolution was thought of in
France, speaking of the States-General of 1614, says, "They held
the public in suspense five months; and by the questions agitated
therein, and the heat with which they were put, it appears that the
great (les grands) thought more to satisfy their particular passions,
than to procure the goods of the nation; and the whole time passed
away in altercations, ceremonies and parade."- L’Intrigue du
Cabinet, vol. i. p. 329.
10. There is a single idea, which, if it strikes rightly upon the mind,
either in a legal or a religious sense, will prevent any man or any
body of men, or any government, from going wrong on the subject
of religion; which is, that before any human institutions of
government were known in the world, there existed, if I may so
express it, a compact between God and man, from the beginning of
time: and that as the relation and condition which man in his
individual person stands in towards his Maker cannot be changed
by any human laws or human authority, that religious devotion,
which is a part of this compact, cannot so much as be made a
subject of human laws; and that all laws must conform themselves
to this prior existing compact, and not assume to make the compact
conform to the laws, which, besides being human, are subsequent
thereto. The first act of man, when he looked around and saw
himself a creature which he did not make, and a world furnished for
his reception, must have been devotion; and devotion must ever
continue sacred to every individual man, as it appears, right to him;
and governments do mischief by interfering.
304
11. See this work, Part I starting at line number 254.- N.B. Since the
taking of the Bastille, the occurrences have been published: but the
matters recorded in this narrative, are prior to that period; and some
of them, as may be easily seen, can be but very little known.
305
in those countries. Taking the value half in gold and half in silver, it
is about four hundred tons annually; and from the number of ships
and galloons employed in the trade of bringing those metals from
South-America to Portugal and Spain, the quantity sufficiently
proves itself, without referring to the registers.
306
lost in money since the commencement of the Hanover succession.
She is seventy millions behind France, and she must be in some
considerable proportion behind every country in Europe, because
the returns of the English mint do not show an increase of money,
while the registers of Lisbon and Cadiz show an European increase
of between three and four hundred millions sterling.
18. The whole amount of the assessed taxes of France, for the
present year, is three hundred millions of francs, which is twelve
millions and a half sterling; and the incidental taxes are estimated at
three millions, making in the whole fifteen millions and a half;
which among twenty-four millions of people, is not quite thirteen
307
shillings per head. France has lessened her taxes since the
revolution, nearly nine millions sterling annually. Before the
revolution, the city of Paris paid a duty of upwards of thirty per
cent. on all articles brought into the city. This tax was collected at
the city gates. It was taken off on the first of last May, and the gates
taken down.
19. What was called the livre rouge, or the red book, in France, was
not exactly similar to the Court Calendar in England; but it
sufficiently showed how a great part of the taxes was lavished.
21. With respect to the two houses, of which the English parliament
is composed, they appear to be effectually influenced into one, and,
as a legislature, to have no temper of its own. The minister,
whoever he at any time may be, touches it as with an opium wand,
and it sleeps obedience.
308
But if we look at the distinct abilities of the two houses, the
difference will appear so great, as to show the inconsistency of
placing power where there can be no certainty of the judgment to
use it. Wretched as the state of representation is in England, it is
manhood compared with what is called the house of Lords; and so
little is this nick-named house regarded, that the people scarcely
enquire at any time what it is doing. It appears also to be most under
influence, and the furthest removed from the general interest of the
nation. In the debate on engaging in the Russian and Turkish war,
the majority in the house of peers in favor of it was upwards of
ninety, when in the other house, which was more than double its
numbers, the majority was sixty-three.
309
23. It is related that in the canton of Berne, in Switzerland, it has
been customary, from time immemorial, to keep a bear at the public
expense, and the people had been taught to believe that if they had
not a bear they should all be undone. It happened some years ago
that the bear, then in being, was taken sick, and died too suddenly to
have his place immediately supplied with another. During this
interregnum the people discovered that the corn grew, and the
vintage flourished, and the sun and moon continued to rise and set,
and everything went on the same as before, and taking courage
from these circumstances, they resolved not to keep any more bears;
for, said they, "a bear is a very voracious expensive animal, and we
were obliged to pull out his claws, lest he should hurt the citizens."
The story of the bear of Berne was related in some of the French
newspapers, at the time of the flight of Louis XVI., and the
application of it to monarchy could not be mistaken in France; but it
seems that the aristocracy of Berne applied it to themselves, and
have since prohibited the reading of French newspapers.
Humanity dictates a provision for the poor; but by what right, moral
or political, does any government assume to say, that the person
310
called the Duke of Richmond, shall be maintained by the public?
Yet, if common report is true, not a beggar in London can purchase
his wretched pittance of coal, without paying towards the civil list
of the Duke of Richmond. Were the whole produce of this
imposition but a shilling a year, the iniquitous principle would be
still the same; but when it amounts, as it is said to do, to no less
than twenty thousand pounds per annum, the enormity is too serious
to be permitted to remain. This is one of the effects of monarchy
and aristocracy.
26. When I saw Mr. Pitt’s mode of estimating the balance of trade,
in one of his parliamentary speeches, he appeared to me to know
nothing of the nature and interest of commerce; and no man has
more wantonly tortured it than himself. During a period of peace it
311
has been havocked with the calamities of war. Three times has it
been thrown into stagnation, and the vessels unmanned by
impressing, within less than four years of peace.
312
After the declaration of independence Congress unanimously, and
unknown to me, appointed me Secretary in the Foreign Department.
This was agreeable to me, because it gave me the opportunity of
seeing into the abilities of foreign courts, and their manner of doing
business. But a misunderstanding arising between Congress and me,
respecting one of their commissioners then in Europe, Mr. Silas
Deane, I resigned the office, and declined at the same time the
pecuniary offers made by the Ministers of France and Spain, M.
Gerald and Don Juan Mirralles.
313
"Rocky-Hill, Sept. 10, 1783.
"I have learned since I have been at this place that you are at
Borden-Town. Whether for the sake of retirement or economy I
know not. Be it for either, for both, or whatever it may, if you will
come to this place, and partake with me, I shall be exceedingly
happy to see you at it.
G. WASHINGTON."
During the war, in the latter end of the year 1780, I formed to
myself a design of coming over to England, and communicated it to
General Greene, who was then in Philadelphia on his route to the
southward, General Washington being then at too great a distance to
communicate with immediately. I was strongly impressed with the
idea that if I could get over to England without being known, and
only remain in safety till I could get out a publication, that I could
open the eyes of the country with respect to the madness and
stupidity of its Government. I saw that the parties in Parliament had
pitted themselves as far as they could go, and could make no new
impressions on each other. General Greene entered fully into my
views, but the affair of Arnold and Andre happening just after, he
changed his mind, under strong apprehensions for my safety, wrote
very pressingly to me from Annapolis, in Maryland, to give up the
314
design, which, with some reluctance, I did. Soon after this I
accompanied Colonel Lawrens, son of Mr. Lawrens, who was then
in the Tower, to France on business from Congress. We landed at
L’Orient, and while I remained there, he being gone forward, a
circumstance occurred that renewed my former design. An English
packet from Falmouth to New York, with the Government
dispatches on board, was brought into L’Orient. That a packet
should be taken is no extraordinary thing, but that the dispatches
should be taken with it will scarcely be credited, as they are always
slung at the cabin window in a bag loaded with cannon-ball, and
ready to be sunk at a moment. The fact, however, is as I have stated
it, for the dispatches came into my hands, and I read them. The
capture, as I was informed, succeeded by the following stratagem:-
The captain of the "Madame" privateer, who spoke English, on
coming up with the packet, passed himself for the captain of an
English frigate, and invited the captain of the packet on board,
which, when done, he sent some of his own hands back, and he
secured the mail. But be the circumstance of the capture what it
may, I speak with certainty as to the Government dispatches. They
were sent up to Paris to Count Vergennes, and when Colonel
Lawrens and myself returned to America we took the originals to
Congress.
315
certain that if I could have executed it that it would not have been
altogether unsuccessful.
30. See Sir John Sinclair’s History of the Revenue. The land-tax in
1646 was L2,473,499.
316
law it was to the rich rather than to the poor, as no person could be
charged more than twenty shillings for himself, family and servants,
though ever so numerous; while all other families, under the
number of twenty were charged per head. Poll taxes had always
been odious, but this being also oppressive and unjust, it excited as
it naturally must, universal detestation among the poor and middle
classes. The person known by the name of Wat Tyler, whose proper
name was Walter, and a tiler by trade, lived at Deptford. The
gatherer of the poll tax, on coming to his house, demanded tax for
one of his daughters, whom Tyler declared was under the age of
fifteen. The tax-gatherer insisted on satisfying himself, and began
an indecent examination of the girl, which, enraging the father, he
struck him with a hammer that brought him to the ground, and was
the cause of his death. This circumstance served to bring the
discontent to an issue. The inhabitants of the neighbourhood
espoused the cause of Tyler, who in a few days was joined,
according to some histories, by upwards of fifty thousand men, and
chosen their chief. With this force he marched to London, to
demand an abolition of the tax and a redress of other grievances.
The Court, finding itself in a forlorn condition, and, unable to make
resistance, agreed, with Richard at its head, to hold a conference
with Tyler in Smithfield, making many fair professions, courtier-
like, of its dispositions to redress the oppressions. While Richard
and Tyler were in conversation on these matters, each being on
horseback, Walworth, then Mayor of London, and one of the
creatures of the Court, watched an opportunity, and like a cowardly
assassin, stabbed Tyler with a dagger, and two or three others
falling upon him, he was instantly sacrificed. Tyler appears to have
been an intrepid disinterested man with respect to himself. All his
proposals made to Richard were on a more just and public ground
317
than those which had been made to John by the Barons, and
notwithstanding the sycophancy of historians and men like Mr.
Burke, who seek to gloss over a base action of the Court by
traducing Tyler, his fame will outlive their falsehood. If the Barons
merited a monument to be erected at Runnymede, Tyler merited one
in Smithfield.
33. Charles, like his predecessors and successors, finding that war
was the harvest of governments, engaged in a war with the Dutch,
the expense of which increased the annual expenditure to
L1,800,000 as stated under the date of 1666; but the peace
establishment was but L1,200,000.
318
34. Poor-rates began about the time of Henry VIII., when the taxes
began to increase, and they have increased as the taxes increased
ever since.
England America
L s. d. L s. d.
319
For a family of seven persons 20 16 6 1 15 0
36. Public schools do not answer the general purpose of the poor.
They are chiefly in corporation towns from which the country
towns and villages are excluded, or, if admitted, the distance
occasions a great loss of time. Education, to be useful to the poor,
should be on the spot, and the best method, I believe, to accomplish
this is to enable the parents to pay the expenses themselves. There
are always persons of both sexes to be found in every village,
especially when growing into years, capable of such an undertaking.
Twenty children at ten shillings each (and that not more than six
months each year) would be as much as some livings amount to in
the remotest parts of England, and there are often distressed
clergymen’s widows to whom such an income would be acceptable.
Whatever is given on this account to children answers two
purposes. To them it is education- to those who educate them it is a
livelihood.
37. The tax on beer brewed for sale, from which the aristocracy are
exempt, is almost one million more than the present commutation
tax, being by the returns of 1788, L1,666,152- and, consequently,
they ought to take on themselves the amount of the commutation
tax, as they are already exempted from one which is almost a
million greater.
39. When enquiries are made into the condition of the poor, various
degrees of distress will most probably be found, to render a
different arrangement preferable to that which is already proposed.
320
Widows with families will be in greater want than where there are
husbands living. There is also a difference in the expense of living
in different counties: and more so in fuel.
----------
L2,770,000
----------
L3,890,000
321
This arrangement amounts to the same sum as stated in this work,
Part II, line number 1068, including the L250,000 for education; but
it provides (including the aged people) for four hundred and four
thousand families, which is almost one third of an the families in
England.
322
in commendation of it, has been jocularly accused of praising his
own work. To free him from this embarrassment, and to save him
the repeated trouble of mentioning the author, as he has not failed to
do, I make no hesitation in saying, that as the opportunity of
benefiting by the French Revolution easily occurred to me, I drew
up the publication in question, and showed it to him and some other
gentlemen, who, fully approving it, held a meeting for the purpose
of making it public, and subscribed to the amount of fifty guineas to
defray the expense of advertising. I believe there are at this time, in
England, a greater number of men acting on disinterested principles,
and determined to look into the nature and practices of government
themselves, and not blindly trust, as has hitherto been the case,
either to government generally, or to parliaments, or to
parliamentary opposition, than at any former period. Had this been
done a century ago, corruption and taxation had not arrived to the
height they are now at.
THE END
part I:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/rights_of_man/part1.html
20.3.2002
Part II:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/rights_of_man/notes.html
20.3.2002
Appendix
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/rights_of_man/part2.html
20.3.2002
323
324