All these (in their
way) are good things, too; and without them, liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not'likely
to continue long.
way) are good things, too; and without them, liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not'likely
to continue long.
Edmund Burke
The Church
and the State were the same after the Revolution
that they were before, but better secured in every
part.
Was little done because a revolution was not made
in the Constitution? No! Everything was done; because we commenced with reparation, not with ruin.
Accordingly, the state flourished. Instead of lying
as dead, in a sort of trance, or exposed, as some
others, in an epileptic fit, to the pity or derision of
the world, for her wild, ridiculous, convulsive movements, impotent to every purpose but that of dashing
out her brains against the pavement, Great Britain
rose above the standard even of her former self.
An era of a more improved domestic prosperity then
commenced, and still continues, not only unimpaired,
but growing, under the wasting hand of time. All
the energies of the country were awakened. England never preserved a firmer countenance or a
more vigorous arm to all her enemies and to all
her rivals. Europe under her respired and revived.
Everywhere she appeared as the protector, assertor,
or avenger of liberty. A war was made and supported against fortune itself. The treaty of Ryswick,
which first limited the power of France, was soon after made; the grand alliance very shortly followed,
which shook to the foundations the dreadful power
which menaced the independence of mankind. The
states of Europe lay happy under the shade of a great
and free monarchy, which knew how to be great without endangering its own peace at home or the internal or external peace of any of its neighbors.
? ? ? ? 228 SPEECH ON THE ARMY ESTIMATES.
Mr. Burke said he should have felt very unpleas
antly, if he had not delivered these sentiments. He
was near the end of his natural, probably still nearer
the end of his political career. That he was weak and
weary, and wished for rest. That he was little disposed to controversies, or what is called a detailed
opposition. That at his time of life, if he could not
do something by some sort of weight of opinion, natural or acquired, it was useless and indecorous to attempt anything by mere struggle. Turpe senex miles. That he had for that reason little attended the army
business, or that of the revenue, or almost any other
matter of detail, for some years past. That he had,
however, his task. He was far from condemning
such opposition; on the contrary, he most highly
applauded it, where a just occasion existed for it,
and gentlemen had vigor and capacity to pursue it.
Where a great occasion occurred, he was, and, while
he continued in Parliament, would be, amongst the
most active and the most earnest, - as he hoped he
had shown on a late event. With respect to the Constitution itself, he wished few alterations in it, - happy if he left it not the worse for any share he had
taken in its service.
Mr. Fox then rose, and declared, in substance,
that, so far as regarded the French army, he went
no farther than the general principle, by which that
army showed itself indisposed to be an instrument
in the servitude of their fellow-citizens, but did not
enter into the particulars of their conduct. He declared that he did not affect a democracy: that he
always thought any of the simple, unbalanced governments bad: simple monarchy, simple aristocracy,
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON THE ARMY ESTIMATES. 229
slmlple democracy, - he held them all imperfect or
vicious; all were bad by themselves; the composition alone was good. That these had been always his principles, in which he had agreed with his friend Mr.
Burke, - of whom he had said many kind and flattering things, which Mr. Burke, I take it for granted,
will know himself too well to think he merits from
anything but Mr. Fox's acknowledged good-nature.
Mr. Fox thought, however, that, in many cases, Mr.
Burke was rather carried too far by his hatred to innovation.
Mr. Burke said, he well knew that these had been
Mr. Fox's invariable opinions; that they were a sure
ground for the confidence of his country. But he
had been fearful that cabals of very different intentions would be ready to make use of his great name, against his character and sentiments, in order to derive a credit to their destructive machinations.
Mr. Sheridan then rose, and made a lively and eloquent speech against Mr. Burke; in which, among other things, he said that Mr. Burke had libelled the
National Assembly of France, and had cast out reflections on such characters as those of the Marquis de La Fayette and Mr. Bailly.
Mr. Burke said, that he did not libel the National
Assembly of France, whom he considered very little
in the discussion of these matters. That he thought
all the substantial power resided in the republic of
Paris, whose authority guided, or whose example was
followed by, all the republics of France. The republic
of Paris had an army under their orders, and not
under those of the National Assembly.
N. B. As to the particular gentlemen, I do not
remember that Mr. Burke mentioned either of them,
? ? ? ? 230 SPEECH ON THE ARMY ESTIMATES.
-- certainly not Mr. Bailly. He alluded, undoubtedly, to the case of the Marquis de La Fayette; but whether what he asserted of him be a libel on him
must be left to those who are acquainted with the
business.
Mr. Pitt concluded the debate with becoming gravity and dignity, and a reserve on both sides of the question, as related to France, fit for a person in a
ministerial situation. He said, that what he had
spoken only regarded France when she should unite,
which he rather thought she soon might, with the
liberty she had acquired, the blessings of law and order. He, too, said several civil things concerning the sentiments of Mr. Burke, as applied to this country.
? ? ? ? REFLECTIONS
ON THE
REVOLUTION IN FRANCE,
AND ON
THE PROCEEDINGS IN CERTAIN SOCIETIES IN LONDON RELATIVE TO THAT EVENT:
IN A LETTER
INTENDED TO HAVE BEEN SENT TO A GENTLEMAN IN PARIS.
I 790.
? ? ? ? IT may not be unnecessary to inform the reader
that the following Reflections had their origin
in a correspondence between the author and a very
young gentleman at Paris, who did him the honor of
desiring his opinion upon the important transactions
which then, and ever since have, so much occupied
the attention of all men. An answer was written
some time in the month of October, 1789; but it was
kept back upon prudential considerations. That letter is alluded to in the beginning of the following
sheets. It has been since forwarded to the person to
whom it was addressed. The reasons for the delay
in sending it were assigned in a short letter to the
same gentleman. This produced on his part a new
and pressing application for the author's sentiments.
The author began a second and more full discus.
sion on the subject. This he had some thoughts of
publishing early in the last spring; but the matter
gaining upon him, he found that what he had undertaken not only far exceeded the measure of a letter,
but that its importance required rather a more detailed consideration than at that time he had any leisure to bestow upon it. However, having thrown down his first thoughts in the form of a letter, and,
indeed, when he sat down to write, having intended
it for a private letter, he found it difficult to change
the form of address, when his sentiments had grown
into a greater extent and had received another direction. A different plan, he is sensible, mlight be
more favorable to a commodious division and distribution of his matter.
? ? ? ? REFLECTIONS
ON
THE REVOLUTION IN FRANCE.
DEAR SIR, -- You are pleased to call again, and
with some earnestness, for my thoughts on the
late proceedings in France. I will not give you reason to imagine that I think my sentiments of such
value as to wish myself to be solicited about them.
They are of too little consequence to be very anxiously either communicated or withheld. It was
from attention to you, and to you only, that I hesitated at the time when you first desired to receive them. In the first letter I had the honor to write to
you, and which at length I send, I wrote neither for
nor from any description of men; nor shall I in this.
My errors, if any, are my own. My reputation alone
is to answer for them.
You see, Sir, by the long letter I have transmitted
to you, that, though I do most heartily wish that
France may be animated by a spirit of rational liberty, and that I think you bound, in all honest policy,
to provide a permanent body in which that spirit may
reside, and an effectual organ by which it may act,
it is my misfortune to entertain great doubts concerning several material points in your late transactions. You imagined, when you wrote last, that I might
possibly be reckoned among the approvers of certain
? ? ? ? 236 REFLECTIONS ON THE
proceedings in France, from the solemn public seal
of sanction they have received from two clubs of gentlemen in London, called the Constitutional Society, and the Revolution Society.
I certainly have the honor to belong to more clubs
than one in which the Constitution of this kingdom
and the principles of the glorious Revolution are
held in high reverence; and I reckon myself among
the nMost forward in my zeal for maintaining that
Constitution and those principles in their utmost purity and vigor. It is because I do so that I think
it necessary for me that there should be no mistake.
Those who cultivate the memory of our Revolution,
and those who are attached to the Constitution of this
kingdom, will take good care how they are involved
with persons who, under the pretext of zeal towards
the Revolution and Constitution, too frequently wander from their true principles, and are ready on every occasion to depart from the firm, but cautious
and deliberate, spirit which produced the one and
which presides in the other. Before I proceed to answer the more material particulars in your letter, I shall beg leave to give you such information as I
have been able to obtain of the two clubs which have
thought proper, as bodies, to interfere in the concerns of France, --first assuring you that I am not,
and that I have never been, a member of either of
those societies.
The first, calling itself the Constitutional Society,
or Society for Constitutional Information, or by some
such title, is, I believe, of seven or eight years' standing. The institution of this society appears to be of a charitable, and so far of a laudable nature: it was
intended for the circulation, at the expense of the
? ? ? ? REVOLUTION IN FRANCE. 237
members, of many books which few others would be
at the expense of buying, and which might lie on
the hands of the booksellers, to the great loss of an
useful body of men. Whether the books so charitably circulated were ever as charitably read is more
than I know. Possibly several of them have been
exported to France, and, like goods not in request
here, may with you have found a market. I have
heard much talk of the lights to be drawn from books
that are sent from hence. What improvements they
have had in their passage (as it is said some liquors
are meliorated by crossing the sea) I cannot tell;
but I never heard a man of common judgment or the:
least degree of information speak a word in praise.
of the greater part of the publications circulated bythat society; nor have their proceedings been accounted, except by some of themselves, as of any serious consequence.
Your National Assembly seems to entertain much,
the same opinion that I do of this poor charitable
club. As a nation, you reserved the whole stock of
your eloquent acknowledgments for the Revolution
Society, when their fellows in the Constitutional
were in equity entitled to some share. Since you;
have selected the Revolution Society as the great
object of your national thanks and praises, you will;
think me excusable in making its late conduct the
subject of my observations. The National Assembly
of France has given importance to these gentlemen
by adopting them; and they return the favor by acting as a committee in England for extending the
principles of the National Assembly. Henceforward
we must consider them as a kind of privileged persons, as no inconsiderable members in the diplomatic
? ? ? ? 238 REFLECTIONS ON THE
body. This is one among the revolutions which
have given splendor to obscurity and distinction to
undiscerned merit. Until very lately I do not recollect to have heard of this club. I am quite sure
that it never occupied a moment of my thoughts, --
nor, I believe, those of any person out of their own
set. I find, upon inquiry, that, on the anniversary
of the Revolution in 1688, a club of Dissenters, but
of what denomination I know not, have long had the
custom of hearing a sermon in one of their churches,
and that afterwards they spent the day cheerfully, as
other clubs do, at the tavern. But I never heard
that any public measure or political system, much
less that the merits of the constitution of any foreign
nation, had been the subject of a formal proceeding
at their festivals, until, to my inexpressible surprise,
I found them in a sort of public capacity, by a congratulatory address, giving an authoritative sanction to the proceedings of the National Assembly in France.
In the ancient principles and conduct of the club,
so far at least as they were declared, I see nothing to
which I could take exception. I think it very probable, that, for some purpose, new members may have
entered among them, - and that some truly Christian
politicians, who love to dispense benefits, but are
careful to conceal the hand which distributes the
dole, may have made them the instruments of their
pious designs. Whatever I may have reason to suspect concerning private management, I shall speak
of nothing as of a certainty but what is public.
For one, I should be sorry to be thought directly
or indirectly concerned in their proceedings. I certainly take my full share, along with the rest of the
? ? ? ? REVOLUTION IN FRANCE. 239
world, in my individual and private capacity, in speculating on what has been done, or is doing, on the public stage, in any place, ancient or modern, - in the
republic of Rome, or the republic of Paris; but having no general apostolical mission, being a citizen of
a particular state, and being bound up, in a considerable degree, by its public will, I should think it at least improper and irregular for me to open a formal
public correspondence with the actual government of
a foreign nation, without the express authority of the
government under which I live.
I should be still more unwilling to enter into
that correspondence under anything like an equivocal
description, which to many, unacquainted with our
usages, might make the address in which I joined appear as the act of persons in some sort of corporate capacity, acknowledged by the laws of this kingdom,
and authorized to speak the sense of some part of it.
On account of the ambiguity and uncertainty of
unauthorized general descriptions, and of the deceit
which may be practised under them, and not from
mere formality, the House of Commons would reject
the most sneaking petition for the most trifling object, under that mode of signature to which you have thrown open the folding-doors of your presence-chamber, and have ushered into your National Assembly with as much ceremony and parade, and with as
great a bustle of applause, as if you had been visited
by the whole representative majesty of the whole
English nation. If what this society has thought
proper to send forth had been a piece of argument,
it would have signified little whose argument it was.
It would be neither the more nor the less convincing
on account of the party it came from. But this is
? ? ? ? 240 REFLECTIONS ON THE
only a vote and resolution. It stands solely on au.
thority; and in this case it is the mere authority of
individuals, few of whom appear. Their signatures
ought, in my opinion, to have been annexed to their
instrument. The world would then have the means
of knowing how many they are, who they are, and
of what value their opinions may be, from their personal abilities, from their knowledge, their experience, or their lead and authority in this state. To me, who am but a plain man, the proceeding looks a
little too refined and too ingenious; it has too much
the air of a political stratagem, adopted for the sake
of giving, under a high-sounding name, an importance to the public declarations of this club, which,
when the matter came to be closely inspected, they
did not altogether so well deserve. It is a policy
that has very much the complexion of a fraud.
I flatter myself that I love a manly, moral, regulated liberty as well as any gentleman of that society,
be he who he will; and perhaps I have given as good
proofs of my attachment to that cause, in the whole
course of my public conduct. I think I envy liberty
as little as they do to any other nation. ( But I cannot stand forward, and give praise or blame to anything which relates to human actions and human concerns on a simple view of the object, as it stands
stripped of every relation, in all the nakedness and
solitude of metaphysical abstraction. ) Circumstances
(which with some gentlemen pass for nothing) give
in reality to every political principle its distinguishing color and discriminating effect. The circumstances are what render. every civil and political scheme beneficial or noxious to mankind. Abstract.
edly speaking, government, as well as liberty, is
? ? ? ? REVOLUTION IN FRANCE. 241
good; yet could I, in common sense, ten years ago,
have felicitated France on her enjoyment of a government, (for she then had a government,) without
inquiry what the nature of that government was, or
how it was administered? Can I now congratulate
the same nation upon its freedom? Is it because
liberty in the abstract may be classed amongst the
blessings of mankind, that I am seriously to felicitate
a madman who has escaped from the protecting restraint and wholesome darkness of his cell on his
restoration to the enjoyment of light and liberty?
Am I to congratulate a highwayman and murderer
who has brok. 0 _rison upon the recovery of his natural rights? This would be to act over again thescene of the criminals condemned to the galleys, and: their heroic deliverer, the metaphysic Knight of the.
Sorrowful Countenance.
When I see the spirit of liberty in action, I see a,
strong principle at work; and this, for a while, is all
I can possibly know of it. The wild gas, the fixed
air, is plainly broker loose: but we ought to suspend
our judgment until the first effervescence is a little
subsided, till the liquor is cleared, and until we see
something deeper than the agitation of a troubled:
and frothy surface. I must be tolerably sure, before.
I venture publicly to congratulate men upon a bless --
ing, that they have really received one. Flattery
corrupts both the receiver and the giver; and adulation is not of more service to the people than to
kings. - I should therefore suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France, until I was informed how it had been combined with government, with public force, with the discipline and obedience'
of armies, with the collection of an effective and'
VOL. III. lb
? ? ? ? 242 REFLECTIONS ON THE
well-distributed revenue, with morality and religion,
with solidity and property, with peace and order,
with civil and social manners.
All these (in their
way) are good things, too; and without them, liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not'likely
to continue long. The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they please: we ought
to see what it will please them to do, before we risk
congratulations, which may be soon turned into conmplaints. Prudence would dictate this in the case of separate, insulated, private men. But liberty, when
men act in bodies, is power. Considerate people,
before they declare themselves, will observe the use
which is made of power, --and particularly of so trying a thing as new power in new persons, of whose principles, tempers, and dispositions they have little
or no experience, and in situations where those who
appear the most stirring in the scene may possibly
not be the real movers.
All these considerations, however, were below the
transcendental dignity of the Revolution Society.
Whilst I continued in the country, from whence I
had the honor of writing to you, I had but an imperfect idea of their transactions. On my coming
to town, I sent for an account of their proceedings,
which had been published by their authority, containing a sermon of Dr. Price, with the Duke de Rochefoucault's and the Archbishop of Aix's letter
and several other documents annexed. The whole
of that publication, with the manifest design of connecting the affairs of France with those of England, by drawing us into an imitation of the conduct
of the National Assembly, gave me a considerable
degree of uneasiness. The effect of that conduct
? ? ? ? REVOLUTION IN FRANCE. 243
upon the power, credit, prosperity, and tranquillity of
France became every day more evident. The form
of constitution to be settled, for its future polity, became more clear. We are now in a condition to discern with tolerable exactness the, true nature of
the object held up to our imitation. If the prudence
of reserve and decorum dictates silence in some circumstances, in others prudence of a higher order may justify us in speaking our thoughts. The beginnings of confusion with us in England are at present feeble enough; but with you we have seen
an infancy still more feeble growing by moments
into a strength to heap mountains upon mountains,
and to wage war with Heaven itself. Whenever our
neighbor's house is on fire, it cannot be amiss for
the engines to play a little on our own. Better to
be despised for too anxious apprehensions than ruined by too confident a security.
Solicitous chiefly for the peace of my own country, but by no means unconcerned for yours, I wish
to communicate more largely what was at first intended only for your private satisfaction. I shall
still keep your affairs in my eye, and continue to
address myself to you. Indulging myself in the freedom of epistolary intercourse, I beg leave to throw out my thoughts and express my feelings just as
they arise in my mind, with very little attention to
formal method. I set out with the proceedings of
the Revolution Society; but I shall not confine myself to them. Is it possible I should? It looks to
me as if I were in a great crisis, not of the affairs
of France alone, but of all Europe, perhaps of more
than Europe. All circumstances taken together, the
French Revolution is the most astonishing that has
? ? ? ? 244 REFLECTIONS ON THE
hitherto happened in the world. The most wonderful things are brought about in many instances by means the most absurd and ridiculous, in the most
ridiculous modes, and apparently by the most contemptible instruments. Everything seems out of nature in this strange chaos of levity and ferocity,
and of all sorts of crimes jumbled together with all
sorts of follies. In viewing this monstrous tragicomic scene, the most opposite passions necessarily succeed and sometimes mix with each other in the
mind: alternate contempt and indignation, alternate
laughter and tears, alternate scorn and horror.
It cannot, however, be denied that to some this
strange scene appeared in quite another point of
view. Into them it inspired no other sentiments than
those of exultation and rapture. They saw nothing
in what has been done in France but a firm and
temperate exertion of freedom, -so consistent, on
the whole, with morals and with piety as to make it
deserving not only of the secular applause of dashing
Machiavelian politicians, but to render it a fit theme
for all the devout effusions of sacred eloquence.
On the forenoon of the fourth of November last,
Doctor Richard Price, a Non-Conforming minister of
eminence, preached at the Dissenting meeting-house
of the Old Jewry, to his club or society, a very extraordinary miscellaneous sermon, in which there are some good moral and religious sentiments, and not
ill expressed, mixed up with a sort of porridge of
various political opinions and reflections: but the
Revolution in France is the grand ingredient in the
caldron. I consider the address transmitted by the
Revolution Society to the National Assembly, through
? ? ? ? REVOLUTION IN FRANCE. 245
Earl Stanhope, as originating in the principles of the
sermon, and as a corollary from them. It was moved
by the preacher of that discourse. It was passed by
those who came reeking from the effect of the sermon, without any censure or qualification, expressed
or implied. If, however, any of the gentlemen concerned shall wish to separate the sermon from the
resolution, they know how to acknowledge the one
and to disavow the other. They may do it: I cannot.
For my part, I looked on that sermon as the public declaration of a man much connected with literary caballers and intriguing philosophers, with political theologians and theological politicians, both at home and abroad. I know they set him up as
a sort of oracle; because, with the best intentions in
the world, he naturally philippizes, and chants his
prophetic song in exact unison with their designs.
That sermon is in a strain which I believe has not
been heard in this kingdom, in any of the pulpits
which are tolerated or encouraged in it, since the
year 1648, --when a predecessor of Dr. Price, the
Reverend Hugh Peters, made the vault of the king's
own chapel at St. James's ring with the honor and
privilege of the saints, who, with the " high praises
of God in their mouths, and a two-edgedi sword in
their hands, were to execute judgment on the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their
kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of
iron. " * Few harangues from the pulpit, except in
the days of your League in France, or in the days of
our Solemn League and Covenant in England, have
ever breathed less of the spirit of moderation thaa
*Ps. cxlix.
? ? ? ? 246 REFLECTIONS ON THE
this lecture in the Old Jewry. Supposing, however,
that something like moderation were visible in this
political sermon, yet politics and the pulpit are terms
that have little agreement. No sound ought to be
heard in the church but the healing voice of Christian charity. The cause of civil liberty and civil government gains as little as that of religion by this confusion of duties. Those who quit their proper
character to assume what does not belong to them
are, for the greater part, ignorant both of the character they leave and of the character they assume.
Wholly unacquainted with the world, in which they
are so fond of meddling, and inexperienced in all its
affairs, on which they pronounce with so much confidence, they have nothing of politics but the passions
they excite. Surely the church is a place where one
day's truce ought to be allowed to the dissensions and
animosities of mankind.
This pulpit style, revived after so long a discontinuance, had to me the air of novelty, and of a novelty
not wholly without danger. I do not charge this
danger equally to every part of the discourse. The
hint given to a noble and reverend lay-divine, who is
supposed high in office in one of our universities,*
and other lay-divines " of rank and literature," may be
proper and seasonable, though somewhat new. If the
noble Seekers should find nothing to satisfy their pious
fancies in the old staple of the national Church, or
in all the rich variety to be found in the well-assorted
warehouses of the Dissenting congregations, Dr. Price
advises them to improve upon Non-Conformity, and
to set up, each of them, a separate meeting-house
* Discourse on the Love of our Country, Nov. 4, 1789, by Dr.
Richard Price, 3d edition, p. 17 and 18.
? ? ? ? REVOLUTION IN FRANCE. 247
upon his own particular principles. * It is somewhat
remarkable that this reverend divine should be so
earnest for setting up new churches, and so perfectly indifferent concerning the doctrine which may be
taught in them. His zeal is of a curious character.
It is not for the propagation of his own opinions, but
of any opinions. It is not for the diffusion of truth,
but for the spreading of contradiction. Let the noble
teachers but dissent, it is no matter from whom or
from what. This great point once secured, it is
taken for granted their religion will be rational and
manly. I doubt whether religion would reap all
the benefits which the calculating divine computes
from this "great company of great preachers. " It
would certainly be a valuable addition of nondescripts
to the ample collection of known classes, genera, and
species, which at present beautify the hortus siccus of
Dissent. A sermon from a noble duke, or a noble
marquis, or a noble earl, or baron bold, would certainly increase and diversify the amusements of this
town, which begins to grow satiated with the uniform
round of its' vapid dissipations. I should only stipulate that these new Mess-Johns in robes and coronets
should keep some sort of bounds in the democratic
and levelling principles which are expected from
their titled pulpits. The new evangelists will, I dare
say, disappoint the hopes that are conceived of them.
They will not become, literally as well as figuratively,
* Those who dislike that mode of worship which is prescribed by
public authority ought, if they can find no worship out of the Church
which they approve, to set up a separate worship for themselves; and by
doing this, and giving an example of a rational and manly worship,
men of weight from their rank and literature may do the greatest service to society and the world. " -P. 18, Dr. Price's Sermon.
? ? ? ? 248 REFLECTIONS ON THE
polemic divines, --nor be disposed so to drill their congregations, that they may, as in former blessed times,
preach their doctrines to regiments of dragoons and
corps of infantry and artillery. Such arrangements,
however favorable to the cause of compulsory freedom, civil and religious, may not be equally conducive to the national tranquillity. These few restrictions I hope are no great stretches of intolerance, no very violent exertions of despotism.
But I may say of our preacher,'" Utinam nugis tota
illa dedisset tempora scevitice. " All things in this his
fulminating bull are not of so innoxious a tendency.
His doctrines affect our Constitution in its vital parts.
He tells the Revolution Society, in this political sermon, that his Majesty " is almost the only lawful king
in the world, because the only one who owes his crown
to the choice of his people. " As to the kings of the
world, all of whom (except one) this arch-pontiff of
the rights of men, with all the plenitude and with
more than the boldness of the Papal deposing power
in its meridian fervor of the twelfth century, puts
into one sweeping clause of ban and anathema, and
proclaims usurpers by circles of longitude and latitude over the whole globe, it behooves them to consider how they admit into their territories these
apostolic missionaries, who are to tell their subjects
they are not lawful kings. That is their concern.
It is ours, as a domestic interest of some moment,
seriously to consider the solidity of the only principle
upon which these gentlemen acknowledge a king of
Great Britain to be entitled to their allegiance.
This doctrine, as applied to the prince now on the
British throne, either is nonsense, and therefore neither true nor false, or it affirms a most unfounded,
? ? ? ? REVOLUTION IN FRANCE. 249
dangerous, illegal, and unconstitutional position. According to this spiritual doctor of politics, if his Majesty does not owe his crown to the choice of his people, he is no lawful king. Now nothing can be
more untrue than that the crown of this kingdom is
so held by his Majesty. Therefore, if you follow their
rule, the king of Great Britain, who most certainly
does not owe his high office to any form of popular
election, is in no respect better than the rest of the
gang of usurpers, who reign, or rather rob, all over
the face of this our miserable world, without any sort
of right or title to the allegiance of their people. The
policy of this general doctrine, so qualified, is evident
enough. The propagators of this political gospel are
in hopes their abstract principle (their principle that
a popular choice is necessary to the legal existence
of the sovereign magistracy) would be overlooked,
whilst the king of Great Britain was not affected
by it. In the mean time the ears of their congregations would be gradually habituated to it, as if
it were a first principle admitted without dispute.
For the present it would only operate as a theory,
pickled in the preserving juices of pulpit eloquence,
and laid by for future use. Condo et compono quce mox
depromere possim. By this policy, whilst our government is soothed with a reservation in its favor, to
which it has no claim, the security which it has in
common with all governments, so far as opinion is
security, is taken away.
Thus these politicians proceed, whilst little notice
is taken of their doctrines; but when they come to
be examined upon the plain meaning of their words
and the direct tendency of their doctrines, then equivocations and slippery constructions come into play.
? ? ? ? 250 REFLECTIONS ON THE
When they say the king owes his crown to the choice
of his people, and is therefore the only lawful sovereign in the world, they will perhaps tell us they mean to say no more than that some of the king's
predecessors have been called to the throne by some
sort of choice, and therefore he owes his crown to
the choice of his people. Thus, by a miserable subterfuge, they hope to render their proposition safe by rendering it nugatory. They are welcome to the
asylum they seek for their offence, since they take
refuge in their folly. For, if you admit this interpretation, how does their idea of election differ from our idea of inheritance? And how does the settlement of the crown in the Brunswick line, derived from James the First, come to legalize our monarchy
rather than that of any of the neighboring countries?
At some time or other, to be sure, all the beginners
of dynasties were chosen by those who called them
to govern. There is ground enough for the opinion
that all the kingdoms of Europe were at a remote
period elective, with more or fewer limitations in the
objects of choice. But whatever kings might have
been here or elsewhere a thousand years ago, or in
whatever manner the ruling dynasties of England or
France may have begun, the king of Great Britain is
at this day king by a fixed rule of succession, according to the laws of his country; and whilst the legal conditions of the compact of sovereignty are
performed by him, (as they are performed,) he holds
his crown in contempt of the choice of the Revollltion Society, who have not a single vote for a king amongst them, either individually or collectively:
though I make no doubt they would soon erect them
selves into an electoral college, if things were ripe to
? ? ? ? REVOLUTION IN FRANCE. I5t
give effect to their claim. His Majesty's heirs tnd'
successors, each in his time and order, will come to
the crown with the same contempt of their choice
with which his Majesty has succeeded to that he
wears.
Whatever may be the success of evasion in explaining away the gross error of fact, which supposes that
his Majesty (though he holds it in concurrence with
the wishes) owes his crown to the choice of his people, yet nothing can evade their full, explicit declaration concerning the principle of a right in the people to choose, --which right is directly maintained, and
tenaciously adhered to. All the oblique insinuations
concerning election bottom in this proposition, and
are referable to it. Lest the foundation of the king's
exclusive legal title should pass for a mere rant of
adulatory freedom(iihe political divine proceeds dogmatically to assert,* that, by the principles of the
Revolution, the people of England have acquired
three fundamental rights, all of which, with him,
compose one system, and lie together in one short
sentence: namely, that we have acquired a right
1. "To choose our own governors. "
2. "To cashier them for misconduct. "
3. "To frame a government for ourselves. "
This new, and hitherto unheard-of bill of rights,
though made in the name of the whole people, belongs to those gentlemen and their faction only.
The body of the people of England have no share
in it. They utterly disclaim it. They will resist the
practical assertion of it with their lives and fortunes.
They are bound to do so by the laws of their country, made at the time of that very Revolution which
* P. 34, Discourse on the Love of our Country, by Dr. Price.
? ? ? ? 252 REFLECTIONS ON THE
-is appealed to in favor of the fictitious rights claimed
by the society which abuses its name.
These gentlemen of the Old Jewry, in all their reasonings on the Revolution of 1688, have a revolution which happened in England about forty years before,
and the late French Revolution, so much before their
eyes and in their hearts, that they are constantly
confounding all the three together. It is necessary
that we should separate what they confound. We
must recall their erring fancies to the acts of the
Revolution which we revere, for the discovery of its
true principles. If'the principles of the Revolution
of 1688 are anywhere to be found, it is in the statute called the Declaration of Right. In that most wise, sober, and considerate declaration, drawn up
by great lawyers and great statesmen, and not by
warm and inexperienced enthusiasts, not one word
is said, nor one suggestion made, of a general right
"to choose our own governors, to cashier them for
misconduct, and to form a government for ourselves. "
This Declaration of Right (the act of the 1st of
William and Mary, sess. 2, ch. 2) is the corner-stone
of our Constitution, as reinforced, explained, improved,
and in its fundamental principles forever settled. It
is called " An act for declaring the rights and liberties of the subject, and for settling the succession of the crown. " You will observe that these rights and
this succession are declared in one body, and bound
indissolubly together.
A few years after this period, a second opportunity
offered for asserting a right of election to the crown.
On the prospect of a total failure of issue from King
William, and from the princess, afterwards Queen
? ? ? ? REVOLUTION IN FRANCE. %E53
Anne, the consideration of the settlement of the
crown, and of a further security for the liberties of
the people, again came before the legislature. Did
they this second time make any provision for legalizing the crown on the spurious Revolution principles
of the Old Jewry? No. They followed the principles which prevailed in the Declaration of Right; indicating with more precision the persons who were
to inherit in the Protestant line. This act also incorporated, by the same policy, our liberties and an
hereditary succession in the se'ne act. Instead of
a right to choose our own governors, they declared
that the succession in that line (the Protestant line
drawn from James the First) was absolutely necessary
" for the peace, quiet, and security of the realm," and
that it was equally urgent on them " to maintain a
certainty in the succession thereof, to which the subjects
may safely have recourse for their protection. " Both
these acts, in which are heard the unerring, unambiguous oracles of Revolution policy, instead of countenancing the delusive gypsy predictions of a "right to choose our governors," prove to a demonstration
how totally adverse the wisdom of the nation was from
turning a case of necessity into a rule of law.
Unquestionably there was at the Revolution, in the
person of King William, a small and a temporary deviation from the strict order of a regular hereditary
succession; but it is against all genuine principles of
jurisprudence to draw a principle from a law made
in a special case and regarding an individual person.
Privilegiurn non transit in exemplum. If ever there
was a time favorable for establishing the principle
that a king of popular choice was the only legal king,
without all doubt it was at the Revolution. Its not
? ? ? ? 254 REFLECTIONS ON THE
being done at that time is a proof that the nation
was of opinion it ought not to be done at any time.
There is no person so completely ignorant of our history as not to know that the majority in Parliament,
of both parties, were so little disposed to anything resembling that principle, that at first they were determined to place the vacant crown, not on the head of the Prince of Orange, but on that of his wife, Mary,
daughter of King James, the eldest born of the issue
of that king, which they acknowledged as undoubtedly his. It would4 be to repeat a very trite story, to
recall to your memory all those circumstances which
demonstrated that their accepting King William was
not properly a choice; but to all those who did not
wish in effect to recall King James, or to deluge
their country in blood, and again to bring their religion, laws, and liberties into the peril they had just
escaped, it was an act of necessity, in the strictest
moral sense in which necessity can be taken.
In the very act in which, for a time, and in a single case, Parliament departed from the strict order
of inheritance, in favor of a prince who, though not
next, was, however, very near in the line of succession,
it is curious to observe how Lord Somers, who drew
the bill called the Declaration of Right, has comported himself on that delicate occasion. It is curious to observe with what address this temporary
solution of continuity is kept from the eye; whilst all
that could be found in this act of necessity to countenance the idea of an hereditary succession is brought
forward, and fostered, and made the most of, by this
great man, and by the legislature who followed him.
Quitting the dry, imperative style of an act of Parliament, he makes the Lords and Commons fall to a
?
and the State were the same after the Revolution
that they were before, but better secured in every
part.
Was little done because a revolution was not made
in the Constitution? No! Everything was done; because we commenced with reparation, not with ruin.
Accordingly, the state flourished. Instead of lying
as dead, in a sort of trance, or exposed, as some
others, in an epileptic fit, to the pity or derision of
the world, for her wild, ridiculous, convulsive movements, impotent to every purpose but that of dashing
out her brains against the pavement, Great Britain
rose above the standard even of her former self.
An era of a more improved domestic prosperity then
commenced, and still continues, not only unimpaired,
but growing, under the wasting hand of time. All
the energies of the country were awakened. England never preserved a firmer countenance or a
more vigorous arm to all her enemies and to all
her rivals. Europe under her respired and revived.
Everywhere she appeared as the protector, assertor,
or avenger of liberty. A war was made and supported against fortune itself. The treaty of Ryswick,
which first limited the power of France, was soon after made; the grand alliance very shortly followed,
which shook to the foundations the dreadful power
which menaced the independence of mankind. The
states of Europe lay happy under the shade of a great
and free monarchy, which knew how to be great without endangering its own peace at home or the internal or external peace of any of its neighbors.
? ? ? ? 228 SPEECH ON THE ARMY ESTIMATES.
Mr. Burke said he should have felt very unpleas
antly, if he had not delivered these sentiments. He
was near the end of his natural, probably still nearer
the end of his political career. That he was weak and
weary, and wished for rest. That he was little disposed to controversies, or what is called a detailed
opposition. That at his time of life, if he could not
do something by some sort of weight of opinion, natural or acquired, it was useless and indecorous to attempt anything by mere struggle. Turpe senex miles. That he had for that reason little attended the army
business, or that of the revenue, or almost any other
matter of detail, for some years past. That he had,
however, his task. He was far from condemning
such opposition; on the contrary, he most highly
applauded it, where a just occasion existed for it,
and gentlemen had vigor and capacity to pursue it.
Where a great occasion occurred, he was, and, while
he continued in Parliament, would be, amongst the
most active and the most earnest, - as he hoped he
had shown on a late event. With respect to the Constitution itself, he wished few alterations in it, - happy if he left it not the worse for any share he had
taken in its service.
Mr. Fox then rose, and declared, in substance,
that, so far as regarded the French army, he went
no farther than the general principle, by which that
army showed itself indisposed to be an instrument
in the servitude of their fellow-citizens, but did not
enter into the particulars of their conduct. He declared that he did not affect a democracy: that he
always thought any of the simple, unbalanced governments bad: simple monarchy, simple aristocracy,
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON THE ARMY ESTIMATES. 229
slmlple democracy, - he held them all imperfect or
vicious; all were bad by themselves; the composition alone was good. That these had been always his principles, in which he had agreed with his friend Mr.
Burke, - of whom he had said many kind and flattering things, which Mr. Burke, I take it for granted,
will know himself too well to think he merits from
anything but Mr. Fox's acknowledged good-nature.
Mr. Fox thought, however, that, in many cases, Mr.
Burke was rather carried too far by his hatred to innovation.
Mr. Burke said, he well knew that these had been
Mr. Fox's invariable opinions; that they were a sure
ground for the confidence of his country. But he
had been fearful that cabals of very different intentions would be ready to make use of his great name, against his character and sentiments, in order to derive a credit to their destructive machinations.
Mr. Sheridan then rose, and made a lively and eloquent speech against Mr. Burke; in which, among other things, he said that Mr. Burke had libelled the
National Assembly of France, and had cast out reflections on such characters as those of the Marquis de La Fayette and Mr. Bailly.
Mr. Burke said, that he did not libel the National
Assembly of France, whom he considered very little
in the discussion of these matters. That he thought
all the substantial power resided in the republic of
Paris, whose authority guided, or whose example was
followed by, all the republics of France. The republic
of Paris had an army under their orders, and not
under those of the National Assembly.
N. B. As to the particular gentlemen, I do not
remember that Mr. Burke mentioned either of them,
? ? ? ? 230 SPEECH ON THE ARMY ESTIMATES.
-- certainly not Mr. Bailly. He alluded, undoubtedly, to the case of the Marquis de La Fayette; but whether what he asserted of him be a libel on him
must be left to those who are acquainted with the
business.
Mr. Pitt concluded the debate with becoming gravity and dignity, and a reserve on both sides of the question, as related to France, fit for a person in a
ministerial situation. He said, that what he had
spoken only regarded France when she should unite,
which he rather thought she soon might, with the
liberty she had acquired, the blessings of law and order. He, too, said several civil things concerning the sentiments of Mr. Burke, as applied to this country.
? ? ? ? REFLECTIONS
ON THE
REVOLUTION IN FRANCE,
AND ON
THE PROCEEDINGS IN CERTAIN SOCIETIES IN LONDON RELATIVE TO THAT EVENT:
IN A LETTER
INTENDED TO HAVE BEEN SENT TO A GENTLEMAN IN PARIS.
I 790.
? ? ? ? IT may not be unnecessary to inform the reader
that the following Reflections had their origin
in a correspondence between the author and a very
young gentleman at Paris, who did him the honor of
desiring his opinion upon the important transactions
which then, and ever since have, so much occupied
the attention of all men. An answer was written
some time in the month of October, 1789; but it was
kept back upon prudential considerations. That letter is alluded to in the beginning of the following
sheets. It has been since forwarded to the person to
whom it was addressed. The reasons for the delay
in sending it were assigned in a short letter to the
same gentleman. This produced on his part a new
and pressing application for the author's sentiments.
The author began a second and more full discus.
sion on the subject. This he had some thoughts of
publishing early in the last spring; but the matter
gaining upon him, he found that what he had undertaken not only far exceeded the measure of a letter,
but that its importance required rather a more detailed consideration than at that time he had any leisure to bestow upon it. However, having thrown down his first thoughts in the form of a letter, and,
indeed, when he sat down to write, having intended
it for a private letter, he found it difficult to change
the form of address, when his sentiments had grown
into a greater extent and had received another direction. A different plan, he is sensible, mlight be
more favorable to a commodious division and distribution of his matter.
? ? ? ? REFLECTIONS
ON
THE REVOLUTION IN FRANCE.
DEAR SIR, -- You are pleased to call again, and
with some earnestness, for my thoughts on the
late proceedings in France. I will not give you reason to imagine that I think my sentiments of such
value as to wish myself to be solicited about them.
They are of too little consequence to be very anxiously either communicated or withheld. It was
from attention to you, and to you only, that I hesitated at the time when you first desired to receive them. In the first letter I had the honor to write to
you, and which at length I send, I wrote neither for
nor from any description of men; nor shall I in this.
My errors, if any, are my own. My reputation alone
is to answer for them.
You see, Sir, by the long letter I have transmitted
to you, that, though I do most heartily wish that
France may be animated by a spirit of rational liberty, and that I think you bound, in all honest policy,
to provide a permanent body in which that spirit may
reside, and an effectual organ by which it may act,
it is my misfortune to entertain great doubts concerning several material points in your late transactions. You imagined, when you wrote last, that I might
possibly be reckoned among the approvers of certain
? ? ? ? 236 REFLECTIONS ON THE
proceedings in France, from the solemn public seal
of sanction they have received from two clubs of gentlemen in London, called the Constitutional Society, and the Revolution Society.
I certainly have the honor to belong to more clubs
than one in which the Constitution of this kingdom
and the principles of the glorious Revolution are
held in high reverence; and I reckon myself among
the nMost forward in my zeal for maintaining that
Constitution and those principles in their utmost purity and vigor. It is because I do so that I think
it necessary for me that there should be no mistake.
Those who cultivate the memory of our Revolution,
and those who are attached to the Constitution of this
kingdom, will take good care how they are involved
with persons who, under the pretext of zeal towards
the Revolution and Constitution, too frequently wander from their true principles, and are ready on every occasion to depart from the firm, but cautious
and deliberate, spirit which produced the one and
which presides in the other. Before I proceed to answer the more material particulars in your letter, I shall beg leave to give you such information as I
have been able to obtain of the two clubs which have
thought proper, as bodies, to interfere in the concerns of France, --first assuring you that I am not,
and that I have never been, a member of either of
those societies.
The first, calling itself the Constitutional Society,
or Society for Constitutional Information, or by some
such title, is, I believe, of seven or eight years' standing. The institution of this society appears to be of a charitable, and so far of a laudable nature: it was
intended for the circulation, at the expense of the
? ? ? ? REVOLUTION IN FRANCE. 237
members, of many books which few others would be
at the expense of buying, and which might lie on
the hands of the booksellers, to the great loss of an
useful body of men. Whether the books so charitably circulated were ever as charitably read is more
than I know. Possibly several of them have been
exported to France, and, like goods not in request
here, may with you have found a market. I have
heard much talk of the lights to be drawn from books
that are sent from hence. What improvements they
have had in their passage (as it is said some liquors
are meliorated by crossing the sea) I cannot tell;
but I never heard a man of common judgment or the:
least degree of information speak a word in praise.
of the greater part of the publications circulated bythat society; nor have their proceedings been accounted, except by some of themselves, as of any serious consequence.
Your National Assembly seems to entertain much,
the same opinion that I do of this poor charitable
club. As a nation, you reserved the whole stock of
your eloquent acknowledgments for the Revolution
Society, when their fellows in the Constitutional
were in equity entitled to some share. Since you;
have selected the Revolution Society as the great
object of your national thanks and praises, you will;
think me excusable in making its late conduct the
subject of my observations. The National Assembly
of France has given importance to these gentlemen
by adopting them; and they return the favor by acting as a committee in England for extending the
principles of the National Assembly. Henceforward
we must consider them as a kind of privileged persons, as no inconsiderable members in the diplomatic
? ? ? ? 238 REFLECTIONS ON THE
body. This is one among the revolutions which
have given splendor to obscurity and distinction to
undiscerned merit. Until very lately I do not recollect to have heard of this club. I am quite sure
that it never occupied a moment of my thoughts, --
nor, I believe, those of any person out of their own
set. I find, upon inquiry, that, on the anniversary
of the Revolution in 1688, a club of Dissenters, but
of what denomination I know not, have long had the
custom of hearing a sermon in one of their churches,
and that afterwards they spent the day cheerfully, as
other clubs do, at the tavern. But I never heard
that any public measure or political system, much
less that the merits of the constitution of any foreign
nation, had been the subject of a formal proceeding
at their festivals, until, to my inexpressible surprise,
I found them in a sort of public capacity, by a congratulatory address, giving an authoritative sanction to the proceedings of the National Assembly in France.
In the ancient principles and conduct of the club,
so far at least as they were declared, I see nothing to
which I could take exception. I think it very probable, that, for some purpose, new members may have
entered among them, - and that some truly Christian
politicians, who love to dispense benefits, but are
careful to conceal the hand which distributes the
dole, may have made them the instruments of their
pious designs. Whatever I may have reason to suspect concerning private management, I shall speak
of nothing as of a certainty but what is public.
For one, I should be sorry to be thought directly
or indirectly concerned in their proceedings. I certainly take my full share, along with the rest of the
? ? ? ? REVOLUTION IN FRANCE. 239
world, in my individual and private capacity, in speculating on what has been done, or is doing, on the public stage, in any place, ancient or modern, - in the
republic of Rome, or the republic of Paris; but having no general apostolical mission, being a citizen of
a particular state, and being bound up, in a considerable degree, by its public will, I should think it at least improper and irregular for me to open a formal
public correspondence with the actual government of
a foreign nation, without the express authority of the
government under which I live.
I should be still more unwilling to enter into
that correspondence under anything like an equivocal
description, which to many, unacquainted with our
usages, might make the address in which I joined appear as the act of persons in some sort of corporate capacity, acknowledged by the laws of this kingdom,
and authorized to speak the sense of some part of it.
On account of the ambiguity and uncertainty of
unauthorized general descriptions, and of the deceit
which may be practised under them, and not from
mere formality, the House of Commons would reject
the most sneaking petition for the most trifling object, under that mode of signature to which you have thrown open the folding-doors of your presence-chamber, and have ushered into your National Assembly with as much ceremony and parade, and with as
great a bustle of applause, as if you had been visited
by the whole representative majesty of the whole
English nation. If what this society has thought
proper to send forth had been a piece of argument,
it would have signified little whose argument it was.
It would be neither the more nor the less convincing
on account of the party it came from. But this is
? ? ? ? 240 REFLECTIONS ON THE
only a vote and resolution. It stands solely on au.
thority; and in this case it is the mere authority of
individuals, few of whom appear. Their signatures
ought, in my opinion, to have been annexed to their
instrument. The world would then have the means
of knowing how many they are, who they are, and
of what value their opinions may be, from their personal abilities, from their knowledge, their experience, or their lead and authority in this state. To me, who am but a plain man, the proceeding looks a
little too refined and too ingenious; it has too much
the air of a political stratagem, adopted for the sake
of giving, under a high-sounding name, an importance to the public declarations of this club, which,
when the matter came to be closely inspected, they
did not altogether so well deserve. It is a policy
that has very much the complexion of a fraud.
I flatter myself that I love a manly, moral, regulated liberty as well as any gentleman of that society,
be he who he will; and perhaps I have given as good
proofs of my attachment to that cause, in the whole
course of my public conduct. I think I envy liberty
as little as they do to any other nation. ( But I cannot stand forward, and give praise or blame to anything which relates to human actions and human concerns on a simple view of the object, as it stands
stripped of every relation, in all the nakedness and
solitude of metaphysical abstraction. ) Circumstances
(which with some gentlemen pass for nothing) give
in reality to every political principle its distinguishing color and discriminating effect. The circumstances are what render. every civil and political scheme beneficial or noxious to mankind. Abstract.
edly speaking, government, as well as liberty, is
? ? ? ? REVOLUTION IN FRANCE. 241
good; yet could I, in common sense, ten years ago,
have felicitated France on her enjoyment of a government, (for she then had a government,) without
inquiry what the nature of that government was, or
how it was administered? Can I now congratulate
the same nation upon its freedom? Is it because
liberty in the abstract may be classed amongst the
blessings of mankind, that I am seriously to felicitate
a madman who has escaped from the protecting restraint and wholesome darkness of his cell on his
restoration to the enjoyment of light and liberty?
Am I to congratulate a highwayman and murderer
who has brok. 0 _rison upon the recovery of his natural rights? This would be to act over again thescene of the criminals condemned to the galleys, and: their heroic deliverer, the metaphysic Knight of the.
Sorrowful Countenance.
When I see the spirit of liberty in action, I see a,
strong principle at work; and this, for a while, is all
I can possibly know of it. The wild gas, the fixed
air, is plainly broker loose: but we ought to suspend
our judgment until the first effervescence is a little
subsided, till the liquor is cleared, and until we see
something deeper than the agitation of a troubled:
and frothy surface. I must be tolerably sure, before.
I venture publicly to congratulate men upon a bless --
ing, that they have really received one. Flattery
corrupts both the receiver and the giver; and adulation is not of more service to the people than to
kings. - I should therefore suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France, until I was informed how it had been combined with government, with public force, with the discipline and obedience'
of armies, with the collection of an effective and'
VOL. III. lb
? ? ? ? 242 REFLECTIONS ON THE
well-distributed revenue, with morality and religion,
with solidity and property, with peace and order,
with civil and social manners.
All these (in their
way) are good things, too; and without them, liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not'likely
to continue long. The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they please: we ought
to see what it will please them to do, before we risk
congratulations, which may be soon turned into conmplaints. Prudence would dictate this in the case of separate, insulated, private men. But liberty, when
men act in bodies, is power. Considerate people,
before they declare themselves, will observe the use
which is made of power, --and particularly of so trying a thing as new power in new persons, of whose principles, tempers, and dispositions they have little
or no experience, and in situations where those who
appear the most stirring in the scene may possibly
not be the real movers.
All these considerations, however, were below the
transcendental dignity of the Revolution Society.
Whilst I continued in the country, from whence I
had the honor of writing to you, I had but an imperfect idea of their transactions. On my coming
to town, I sent for an account of their proceedings,
which had been published by their authority, containing a sermon of Dr. Price, with the Duke de Rochefoucault's and the Archbishop of Aix's letter
and several other documents annexed. The whole
of that publication, with the manifest design of connecting the affairs of France with those of England, by drawing us into an imitation of the conduct
of the National Assembly, gave me a considerable
degree of uneasiness. The effect of that conduct
? ? ? ? REVOLUTION IN FRANCE. 243
upon the power, credit, prosperity, and tranquillity of
France became every day more evident. The form
of constitution to be settled, for its future polity, became more clear. We are now in a condition to discern with tolerable exactness the, true nature of
the object held up to our imitation. If the prudence
of reserve and decorum dictates silence in some circumstances, in others prudence of a higher order may justify us in speaking our thoughts. The beginnings of confusion with us in England are at present feeble enough; but with you we have seen
an infancy still more feeble growing by moments
into a strength to heap mountains upon mountains,
and to wage war with Heaven itself. Whenever our
neighbor's house is on fire, it cannot be amiss for
the engines to play a little on our own. Better to
be despised for too anxious apprehensions than ruined by too confident a security.
Solicitous chiefly for the peace of my own country, but by no means unconcerned for yours, I wish
to communicate more largely what was at first intended only for your private satisfaction. I shall
still keep your affairs in my eye, and continue to
address myself to you. Indulging myself in the freedom of epistolary intercourse, I beg leave to throw out my thoughts and express my feelings just as
they arise in my mind, with very little attention to
formal method. I set out with the proceedings of
the Revolution Society; but I shall not confine myself to them. Is it possible I should? It looks to
me as if I were in a great crisis, not of the affairs
of France alone, but of all Europe, perhaps of more
than Europe. All circumstances taken together, the
French Revolution is the most astonishing that has
? ? ? ? 244 REFLECTIONS ON THE
hitherto happened in the world. The most wonderful things are brought about in many instances by means the most absurd and ridiculous, in the most
ridiculous modes, and apparently by the most contemptible instruments. Everything seems out of nature in this strange chaos of levity and ferocity,
and of all sorts of crimes jumbled together with all
sorts of follies. In viewing this monstrous tragicomic scene, the most opposite passions necessarily succeed and sometimes mix with each other in the
mind: alternate contempt and indignation, alternate
laughter and tears, alternate scorn and horror.
It cannot, however, be denied that to some this
strange scene appeared in quite another point of
view. Into them it inspired no other sentiments than
those of exultation and rapture. They saw nothing
in what has been done in France but a firm and
temperate exertion of freedom, -so consistent, on
the whole, with morals and with piety as to make it
deserving not only of the secular applause of dashing
Machiavelian politicians, but to render it a fit theme
for all the devout effusions of sacred eloquence.
On the forenoon of the fourth of November last,
Doctor Richard Price, a Non-Conforming minister of
eminence, preached at the Dissenting meeting-house
of the Old Jewry, to his club or society, a very extraordinary miscellaneous sermon, in which there are some good moral and religious sentiments, and not
ill expressed, mixed up with a sort of porridge of
various political opinions and reflections: but the
Revolution in France is the grand ingredient in the
caldron. I consider the address transmitted by the
Revolution Society to the National Assembly, through
? ? ? ? REVOLUTION IN FRANCE. 245
Earl Stanhope, as originating in the principles of the
sermon, and as a corollary from them. It was moved
by the preacher of that discourse. It was passed by
those who came reeking from the effect of the sermon, without any censure or qualification, expressed
or implied. If, however, any of the gentlemen concerned shall wish to separate the sermon from the
resolution, they know how to acknowledge the one
and to disavow the other. They may do it: I cannot.
For my part, I looked on that sermon as the public declaration of a man much connected with literary caballers and intriguing philosophers, with political theologians and theological politicians, both at home and abroad. I know they set him up as
a sort of oracle; because, with the best intentions in
the world, he naturally philippizes, and chants his
prophetic song in exact unison with their designs.
That sermon is in a strain which I believe has not
been heard in this kingdom, in any of the pulpits
which are tolerated or encouraged in it, since the
year 1648, --when a predecessor of Dr. Price, the
Reverend Hugh Peters, made the vault of the king's
own chapel at St. James's ring with the honor and
privilege of the saints, who, with the " high praises
of God in their mouths, and a two-edgedi sword in
their hands, were to execute judgment on the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their
kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of
iron. " * Few harangues from the pulpit, except in
the days of your League in France, or in the days of
our Solemn League and Covenant in England, have
ever breathed less of the spirit of moderation thaa
*Ps. cxlix.
? ? ? ? 246 REFLECTIONS ON THE
this lecture in the Old Jewry. Supposing, however,
that something like moderation were visible in this
political sermon, yet politics and the pulpit are terms
that have little agreement. No sound ought to be
heard in the church but the healing voice of Christian charity. The cause of civil liberty and civil government gains as little as that of religion by this confusion of duties. Those who quit their proper
character to assume what does not belong to them
are, for the greater part, ignorant both of the character they leave and of the character they assume.
Wholly unacquainted with the world, in which they
are so fond of meddling, and inexperienced in all its
affairs, on which they pronounce with so much confidence, they have nothing of politics but the passions
they excite. Surely the church is a place where one
day's truce ought to be allowed to the dissensions and
animosities of mankind.
This pulpit style, revived after so long a discontinuance, had to me the air of novelty, and of a novelty
not wholly without danger. I do not charge this
danger equally to every part of the discourse. The
hint given to a noble and reverend lay-divine, who is
supposed high in office in one of our universities,*
and other lay-divines " of rank and literature," may be
proper and seasonable, though somewhat new. If the
noble Seekers should find nothing to satisfy their pious
fancies in the old staple of the national Church, or
in all the rich variety to be found in the well-assorted
warehouses of the Dissenting congregations, Dr. Price
advises them to improve upon Non-Conformity, and
to set up, each of them, a separate meeting-house
* Discourse on the Love of our Country, Nov. 4, 1789, by Dr.
Richard Price, 3d edition, p. 17 and 18.
? ? ? ? REVOLUTION IN FRANCE. 247
upon his own particular principles. * It is somewhat
remarkable that this reverend divine should be so
earnest for setting up new churches, and so perfectly indifferent concerning the doctrine which may be
taught in them. His zeal is of a curious character.
It is not for the propagation of his own opinions, but
of any opinions. It is not for the diffusion of truth,
but for the spreading of contradiction. Let the noble
teachers but dissent, it is no matter from whom or
from what. This great point once secured, it is
taken for granted their religion will be rational and
manly. I doubt whether religion would reap all
the benefits which the calculating divine computes
from this "great company of great preachers. " It
would certainly be a valuable addition of nondescripts
to the ample collection of known classes, genera, and
species, which at present beautify the hortus siccus of
Dissent. A sermon from a noble duke, or a noble
marquis, or a noble earl, or baron bold, would certainly increase and diversify the amusements of this
town, which begins to grow satiated with the uniform
round of its' vapid dissipations. I should only stipulate that these new Mess-Johns in robes and coronets
should keep some sort of bounds in the democratic
and levelling principles which are expected from
their titled pulpits. The new evangelists will, I dare
say, disappoint the hopes that are conceived of them.
They will not become, literally as well as figuratively,
* Those who dislike that mode of worship which is prescribed by
public authority ought, if they can find no worship out of the Church
which they approve, to set up a separate worship for themselves; and by
doing this, and giving an example of a rational and manly worship,
men of weight from their rank and literature may do the greatest service to society and the world. " -P. 18, Dr. Price's Sermon.
? ? ? ? 248 REFLECTIONS ON THE
polemic divines, --nor be disposed so to drill their congregations, that they may, as in former blessed times,
preach their doctrines to regiments of dragoons and
corps of infantry and artillery. Such arrangements,
however favorable to the cause of compulsory freedom, civil and religious, may not be equally conducive to the national tranquillity. These few restrictions I hope are no great stretches of intolerance, no very violent exertions of despotism.
But I may say of our preacher,'" Utinam nugis tota
illa dedisset tempora scevitice. " All things in this his
fulminating bull are not of so innoxious a tendency.
His doctrines affect our Constitution in its vital parts.
He tells the Revolution Society, in this political sermon, that his Majesty " is almost the only lawful king
in the world, because the only one who owes his crown
to the choice of his people. " As to the kings of the
world, all of whom (except one) this arch-pontiff of
the rights of men, with all the plenitude and with
more than the boldness of the Papal deposing power
in its meridian fervor of the twelfth century, puts
into one sweeping clause of ban and anathema, and
proclaims usurpers by circles of longitude and latitude over the whole globe, it behooves them to consider how they admit into their territories these
apostolic missionaries, who are to tell their subjects
they are not lawful kings. That is their concern.
It is ours, as a domestic interest of some moment,
seriously to consider the solidity of the only principle
upon which these gentlemen acknowledge a king of
Great Britain to be entitled to their allegiance.
This doctrine, as applied to the prince now on the
British throne, either is nonsense, and therefore neither true nor false, or it affirms a most unfounded,
? ? ? ? REVOLUTION IN FRANCE. 249
dangerous, illegal, and unconstitutional position. According to this spiritual doctor of politics, if his Majesty does not owe his crown to the choice of his people, he is no lawful king. Now nothing can be
more untrue than that the crown of this kingdom is
so held by his Majesty. Therefore, if you follow their
rule, the king of Great Britain, who most certainly
does not owe his high office to any form of popular
election, is in no respect better than the rest of the
gang of usurpers, who reign, or rather rob, all over
the face of this our miserable world, without any sort
of right or title to the allegiance of their people. The
policy of this general doctrine, so qualified, is evident
enough. The propagators of this political gospel are
in hopes their abstract principle (their principle that
a popular choice is necessary to the legal existence
of the sovereign magistracy) would be overlooked,
whilst the king of Great Britain was not affected
by it. In the mean time the ears of their congregations would be gradually habituated to it, as if
it were a first principle admitted without dispute.
For the present it would only operate as a theory,
pickled in the preserving juices of pulpit eloquence,
and laid by for future use. Condo et compono quce mox
depromere possim. By this policy, whilst our government is soothed with a reservation in its favor, to
which it has no claim, the security which it has in
common with all governments, so far as opinion is
security, is taken away.
Thus these politicians proceed, whilst little notice
is taken of their doctrines; but when they come to
be examined upon the plain meaning of their words
and the direct tendency of their doctrines, then equivocations and slippery constructions come into play.
? ? ? ? 250 REFLECTIONS ON THE
When they say the king owes his crown to the choice
of his people, and is therefore the only lawful sovereign in the world, they will perhaps tell us they mean to say no more than that some of the king's
predecessors have been called to the throne by some
sort of choice, and therefore he owes his crown to
the choice of his people. Thus, by a miserable subterfuge, they hope to render their proposition safe by rendering it nugatory. They are welcome to the
asylum they seek for their offence, since they take
refuge in their folly. For, if you admit this interpretation, how does their idea of election differ from our idea of inheritance? And how does the settlement of the crown in the Brunswick line, derived from James the First, come to legalize our monarchy
rather than that of any of the neighboring countries?
At some time or other, to be sure, all the beginners
of dynasties were chosen by those who called them
to govern. There is ground enough for the opinion
that all the kingdoms of Europe were at a remote
period elective, with more or fewer limitations in the
objects of choice. But whatever kings might have
been here or elsewhere a thousand years ago, or in
whatever manner the ruling dynasties of England or
France may have begun, the king of Great Britain is
at this day king by a fixed rule of succession, according to the laws of his country; and whilst the legal conditions of the compact of sovereignty are
performed by him, (as they are performed,) he holds
his crown in contempt of the choice of the Revollltion Society, who have not a single vote for a king amongst them, either individually or collectively:
though I make no doubt they would soon erect them
selves into an electoral college, if things were ripe to
? ? ? ? REVOLUTION IN FRANCE. I5t
give effect to their claim. His Majesty's heirs tnd'
successors, each in his time and order, will come to
the crown with the same contempt of their choice
with which his Majesty has succeeded to that he
wears.
Whatever may be the success of evasion in explaining away the gross error of fact, which supposes that
his Majesty (though he holds it in concurrence with
the wishes) owes his crown to the choice of his people, yet nothing can evade their full, explicit declaration concerning the principle of a right in the people to choose, --which right is directly maintained, and
tenaciously adhered to. All the oblique insinuations
concerning election bottom in this proposition, and
are referable to it. Lest the foundation of the king's
exclusive legal title should pass for a mere rant of
adulatory freedom(iihe political divine proceeds dogmatically to assert,* that, by the principles of the
Revolution, the people of England have acquired
three fundamental rights, all of which, with him,
compose one system, and lie together in one short
sentence: namely, that we have acquired a right
1. "To choose our own governors. "
2. "To cashier them for misconduct. "
3. "To frame a government for ourselves. "
This new, and hitherto unheard-of bill of rights,
though made in the name of the whole people, belongs to those gentlemen and their faction only.
The body of the people of England have no share
in it. They utterly disclaim it. They will resist the
practical assertion of it with their lives and fortunes.
They are bound to do so by the laws of their country, made at the time of that very Revolution which
* P. 34, Discourse on the Love of our Country, by Dr. Price.
? ? ? ? 252 REFLECTIONS ON THE
-is appealed to in favor of the fictitious rights claimed
by the society which abuses its name.
These gentlemen of the Old Jewry, in all their reasonings on the Revolution of 1688, have a revolution which happened in England about forty years before,
and the late French Revolution, so much before their
eyes and in their hearts, that they are constantly
confounding all the three together. It is necessary
that we should separate what they confound. We
must recall their erring fancies to the acts of the
Revolution which we revere, for the discovery of its
true principles. If'the principles of the Revolution
of 1688 are anywhere to be found, it is in the statute called the Declaration of Right. In that most wise, sober, and considerate declaration, drawn up
by great lawyers and great statesmen, and not by
warm and inexperienced enthusiasts, not one word
is said, nor one suggestion made, of a general right
"to choose our own governors, to cashier them for
misconduct, and to form a government for ourselves. "
This Declaration of Right (the act of the 1st of
William and Mary, sess. 2, ch. 2) is the corner-stone
of our Constitution, as reinforced, explained, improved,
and in its fundamental principles forever settled. It
is called " An act for declaring the rights and liberties of the subject, and for settling the succession of the crown. " You will observe that these rights and
this succession are declared in one body, and bound
indissolubly together.
A few years after this period, a second opportunity
offered for asserting a right of election to the crown.
On the prospect of a total failure of issue from King
William, and from the princess, afterwards Queen
? ? ? ? REVOLUTION IN FRANCE. %E53
Anne, the consideration of the settlement of the
crown, and of a further security for the liberties of
the people, again came before the legislature. Did
they this second time make any provision for legalizing the crown on the spurious Revolution principles
of the Old Jewry? No. They followed the principles which prevailed in the Declaration of Right; indicating with more precision the persons who were
to inherit in the Protestant line. This act also incorporated, by the same policy, our liberties and an
hereditary succession in the se'ne act. Instead of
a right to choose our own governors, they declared
that the succession in that line (the Protestant line
drawn from James the First) was absolutely necessary
" for the peace, quiet, and security of the realm," and
that it was equally urgent on them " to maintain a
certainty in the succession thereof, to which the subjects
may safely have recourse for their protection. " Both
these acts, in which are heard the unerring, unambiguous oracles of Revolution policy, instead of countenancing the delusive gypsy predictions of a "right to choose our governors," prove to a demonstration
how totally adverse the wisdom of the nation was from
turning a case of necessity into a rule of law.
Unquestionably there was at the Revolution, in the
person of King William, a small and a temporary deviation from the strict order of a regular hereditary
succession; but it is against all genuine principles of
jurisprudence to draw a principle from a law made
in a special case and regarding an individual person.
Privilegiurn non transit in exemplum. If ever there
was a time favorable for establishing the principle
that a king of popular choice was the only legal king,
without all doubt it was at the Revolution. Its not
? ? ? ? 254 REFLECTIONS ON THE
being done at that time is a proof that the nation
was of opinion it ought not to be done at any time.
There is no person so completely ignorant of our history as not to know that the majority in Parliament,
of both parties, were so little disposed to anything resembling that principle, that at first they were determined to place the vacant crown, not on the head of the Prince of Orange, but on that of his wife, Mary,
daughter of King James, the eldest born of the issue
of that king, which they acknowledged as undoubtedly his. It would4 be to repeat a very trite story, to
recall to your memory all those circumstances which
demonstrated that their accepting King William was
not properly a choice; but to all those who did not
wish in effect to recall King James, or to deluge
their country in blood, and again to bring their religion, laws, and liberties into the peril they had just
escaped, it was an act of necessity, in the strictest
moral sense in which necessity can be taken.
In the very act in which, for a time, and in a single case, Parliament departed from the strict order
of inheritance, in favor of a prince who, though not
next, was, however, very near in the line of succession,
it is curious to observe how Lord Somers, who drew
the bill called the Declaration of Right, has comported himself on that delicate occasion. It is curious to observe with what address this temporary
solution of continuity is kept from the eye; whilst all
that could be found in this act of necessity to countenance the idea of an hereditary succession is brought
forward, and fostered, and made the most of, by this
great man, and by the legislature who followed him.
Quitting the dry, imperative style of an act of Parliament, he makes the Lords and Commons fall to a
?
