Indeed, the French Constitution always must be
(if a change is not made in all their principles ancl
fundamental arrangements) a government wholly by
popular representation.
(if a change is not made in all their principles ancl
fundamental arrangements) a government wholly by
popular representation.
Edmund Burke
70 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
a wicked faction should become possessed in this
country of the same power which their allies in the
very next to us have so perfidiously usurped and so
outrageously abused? Is it inhuman to prevent, if
possible, the spilling their blood, or imprudent to
guard against the effusion of our own? Is it contrary
to any of the honest principles of party, or repugnant
to any of the known duties of friendship, for any senator respectfully and amicably to caution his brother members against countenancing, by inconsiderate expressions, a sort of proceeding which it is impossible they should deliberately approve?
He had undertaken to demonstrate, by arguments
which he thought could not be refuted, and by documents which he was sure could not be denied, that
no comparison was to be made between the British
government and the French usurpation. - That they
who endeavored madly to compare them were by no
means making the comparison of one good system
with another good system, which varied only in local and circumstantial differences; much less that
they were holding out to us a superior pattern of legal liberty, which we might substitute in the place of our old, and, as they describe it, superannuated Constitution. He meant to demonstrate that the French scheme was not a comparative good, but a positive
evil. -That the question did not at all turn, as it
had been stated, on a parallel between a monarchy
and a republic. He denied that the present scheme
of' things in France did at all deserve the respectable
name of a republic: he had therefore no comparison
between monarchies and republics to make. - That
what was done in France was a wild attempt to
methodize anarchy, to perpetuate and fix disorder.
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 71
That it was a foul, impious, monstrous thing, wholly
out of the course of moral Nature. He undertook
to prove that it was generated in treachery, fraud,
falsehood, hypocrisy, and unprovoked murder. - He
offered to make out that those who have led in that
business had conducted themselves with the utmost
perfidy to their colleagues in function, and with the
most flagrant perjury both towards their king and
their constituents: to the one of whom the Assembly
had sworn fealty; and to the other, when under no
sort of violence or constraint, they had sworn a full
obedience to instructions. -- That, by the terror of
assassination, they had driven away a very great
number of the members, so as to produce a false ap
pearance of a majority. - That this fictitious majority
had fabricated a Constitution, which, as now it stands,
is a tyranny far beyond any example that can be
found in the civilized European world of our age;
that therefore the lovers of it must be lovers, not
ofiliberty, but, if they really understand its nature,
of the lowest and basest of all servitude.
He proposed to prove that the present state of
things in France is not a transient evil, productive,
as some have too favorably represented it, of a lasting good; but that the present evil is only the means of producing future and (if that were possible) worse
evils. -That it is not an undigested, imperfect, and
crude scheme of liberty, which may gradually be
mellowed and ripened into an orderly and social freedom; but that it is so fundamentally wrong as to be utterly incapable of correcting itself by any length of
time, or of being formed into any mode of polity of
which a member of the House of Commons could
publicly declare his approbation.
? ? ? ? 72 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
If it had been permitted to Mr. Burke, he would
have shown distinctly, and in detail, that what the
Assembly calling itself National had held out as a
large and liberal toleration is in reality a cruel and
insidious religious persecution, infinitely more bitter than any which had been heard of within this
century. - That it had a feature in it worse than the
old persecutions. -- That the old persecutors acted,
or pretended to act, from zeal towards some system
of piety and virtue: they gave strong preferences to
their own; and if they drove people from one religion, they provided for them another, in which men
might take refuge and expect consolation. - That
their new persecution is not against a variety in conscience, but against all conscience. That it professes
contempt towards its object; and whilst it treats all
religion with scorn, is not so much as neutral about
the modes: it unites the opposite evils of intolerance
and of indifference.
He could have proved that it is so far from rejecting tests, (as unaccountably had been assserted,) that
the Assembly had imposed tests of a peculiar hardship, arising from a cruel and premeditated pecuniary fraud: tests against old principles, sanctioned by the laws, and binding upon the conscience. -- That
these tests were not imposed as titles to some new
honor or some new benefit, but to enable men to hold
a poor compensation for their legal estates, of which
they had been unjustly deprived; and as they had
before been reduced from affluence to indigence, so,
on refusal to swear against their conscience, they are
now driven from indigence to famine, and treated
with every possible degree of outrage, insult, and
inhumanity. -That these tests, which their impos
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 73
ers well knew would not be taken, were intended for
the very purpose of cheating their miserable victims
out of the compensation which the tyrannic impostors of the Assembly had previously and purposely
rendered the public unable to pay. That thus their
ultimate violence arose from their original fraud. 'He would have shown that the universal peace and
concord amongst nations, which these common enemies to mankind had held out with the same fraudulent ends and pretences with which they had uniformly conducted every part of their proceeding, was a coarse and clumsy deception, unworthy to be proposed as an example, by an informed and sagacious
British senator, to any other country. --That, far
from peace and good-will to men, they meditated
war against all other governments, and proposed
systematically to excite in them all the very worst
kind of seditions, in order to lead to their common
destruction. -- That they had discovered, in the few
instances in which they have hitherto had the power
of discovering it, (as at Avignon and in the Comtat,
at Cavaillon and at Carpentras,) in what a savage
manner they mean to conduct the seditions and wars
they have planned against their neighbors, for the
sake of putting themselves at the head of a confederation of republics as wild and as mischievous as their
own. He would have shown in what manner that
wicked scheme was carried on in those places, without being directly either owned or disclaimed, in
hopes that the undone people should at length be
obliged to fly to their tyrannic protection, as some
sort of ref e from their barbarous and treacherous
hostility. \ie would have shown from those examples that neither this nor any other society could be
? ? ? ? 74 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
in safety as long as such a public enemy was in a
condition to continue directly or indirectly such practices against its peace. --That Great Britain was a
principal object of their machinations; and that they
had begun by establishing correspondences, communications, and a sort of federal union with the factious here. - That no practical enjoyment of a thing so imperfect and precarious as human happiness must
be, even under the very best of governments, could
be a security for the existence of these governments,
during the prevalence of the principles of France,
propagated from that grand school of every disorder
and every vice.
He was prered to show the madness of their declaration of the pretended rights of man, -the childish
futility of some of their maxims, the gross and stupid absurdity and the palpable falsity of others, and'
the mischievous tendency of all such declarations to
the well-being of men and of citizens and to the safety and prosperity of every just commonwealth. He
was prepared to show, that, in their conduct, the
Assembly had directly violated not only every sound
principle of government, but every one, without exception, of their own false or futile maxims, and
indeed every rule they had pretended to lay down
for their own direction.
In a word, he was ready to show that those who
could, after such a full and fair exposure, continue
to countenance the French insanity were not mistaken politicians, but bad men; but he thought that in
this case, as in many others, ignorance had been the
cause of admiration.
These are strong assertions. They required strong
proofs. The member who laid down these positions
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 75
was and is ready to give, in his place, to each position decisive evidence, correspondent to the nature
and quality of the several allegations.
In order to judge on the propriety of the interruption given to Mr. Burke, in his speech in the committee of the Quebec Bill, it is necessary to inquire,
First, whether, on general principles, he ought to
have been suffered to prove his allegations? Secondly, whether the time he had chosen was so very unseasonable as to make his exercise of a parliamentary right productive of ill effects on his friends or his
country? Thirdly, whether the opinions delivered in
his book, and which he had begun to expatiate upon
that day, were in contradiction to his former principles, and inconsistent with the general tenor of his
public conduct?
They who have made eloquent panegyrics on the
French Revolution, and who think a free discussion
so very advantageous in every case and under every
circumstance, ought not, in my opinion, to have prevented their eulogies from being tried on the test
of facts. If their panegyric had been answered with
an invective, (bating the difference in point of eloquence,) the one would have been as good as the
other: that is, they would both of them have been
good for nothing. The panegyric and the satire
ought to be suffered to go to trial; and that which
shrinks from it must be contented to stand, at best,
as a mere declamation.
I do not think Mr. Burke was wrong in the course
he took. That which seemed to be recommended to
him by Mr. Pitt was rather to extol the English
Constitution than to attack the French. I do not determine what would be best for Mr. Pitt to do in his
? ? ? ? 76 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
situation. I do not deny that he may have good reasons for his reserve. Perhaps they might have been
as good for a similar reserve on the part of Mr. Fox,
if his zeal had suffered him to listen to them. But
there were no motives of ministerial prudence, or of
that prudence which ought to guide a man perhaps
on the eve of being minister, to restrain the author
of the Reflections. He is in no office under the
crown; he is not the organ of any party.
The excellencies of the British Constitution had already exercised and exhausted the talents of the best
thinkers and the most eloquent writers and speakers
that the world ever saw. But in the present case a
system declared to be far better, and which certainly
is much newer, (to restless and unstable minds no
small recommendation,) was held out to the admiration of the good people of England. In that case
it was surely proper for those who had far other
thoughts of the French Constitution to scrutinize
that plan which has been recommended to our imitation by active and zealous factions at home and
abroad. Our complexion is such, that we are palled
with enjoyment, and stimulated with hope, - that we
become less sensible to a long-possessed benefit from
the very circumstance that it is become habitual.
Specious, untried, ambiguous prospects of new advantage recommend themselves to the spirit of adventure which more or less prevails in every mind. From this temper, men and factions, and nations too,
have sacrificed the good of which they had been in
assured possession, in favor of wild and irrational
expectations. What should hinder Mr. Burke, if he
thought this temper likely at one time or other to
prevail in our country, from exposing to a multitude
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 77
eager to game the false calculations of this lottery of
fraud?
I allow, as I ought to do, for the effusions which
come from a general zeal for liberty. This is to be
indulged, and even to be encouraged, as long as the
question is general. An orator, above all men, ought
to be allowed a full and free use of the praise of liberty. A commonplace in favor of slavery and tyranny, delivered to a popular assembly, would indeed be a bold defiance to all the principles of rhetoric.
But in a question whether any particular Constitution is or is not a plan of rational liberty, this kind of
rhetorical flourish in favor of freedom in general is
surely a little out of its place. It is virtually a beg
ging of the question. It is a song of triumph before
the battle.
"But Mr. Fox does not make the panegyric of
the new Constitution; it is the destruction only of
the absolute monarchy he commends. " When that
nameless thing which has been. lately set up in
France was described as " the most stupendous and
glorious edifice of liberty which had been erected
on the foundation of human integrity in any time or
country," it might at first have led the hearer into
an opinion that the construction of the new fabric
was an object of admiration, as well as the demolition of the old. Mr. Fox, however, has explained
himself; and it would be too like that captious and
cavilling spirit which I so perfectly detest, if I were
to pin down the language of an eloquent and' ardent mind to the punctilious exactness of a pleader.
Then Mr. Fox did not mean to applaud that monstrous thing which, by the courtesy of France, they
call a Constitution. I easily believe it. Far from
? ? ? ? 78 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
meriting the praises of a great genius like Mr. Fox, it
cannot be approved by any man of common sense or
common information. He cannot admire the change
of one piece of barbarism for another, and a worse.
He cannot rejoice at the destruction of a monarchy,
mitigated by manners, respectful to laws and usages,
and attentive, perhaps but too attentive, to public
opinion, in favor of the tyranny of a licentious, ferocious, and savage multitude, without laws, manners,
or morals, and which, so far from respecting the general sense of mankind, insolently endeavors to alter
all the principles and opinions which have hitherto
guided and contained the world, and to force them
into a conformity to their views and actions. His
mind is made to better things.
That a man should rejoice and triumph in the destruction of an absolute monarchy, - that in such an
event he should overlook the captivity, disgrace, and
degradation of an unfortunate prince, and the continual danger to a life which exists only to be endangered, -that he should overlook the utter ruin of whole orders and classes of men, extending itself directly,
or in its nearest consequences, to at least a million
of our kind, and to at least the temporary wretchedness of a whole community, -I do not deny to be in
some sort natural; because, when people see a political object which they ardently desire but in one
point of view, they are apt extremely to palliate or
underrate the evils which may arise in obtaining it.
This is no reflection on the humanity of those persons. Their good-nature I am the last man in the
world to dispute. It only shows that they are
not sufficiently informed or sufficiently considerate.
When they come to reflect seriously on the trans
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 79
action, they will think themselves bound to examine
what the object is that has been acquired by all this
havoc. They will hardly assert that the destruction
of an absolute monarchy is a thing good in itself,
without any sort of reference to the antecedent state
of things, or to consequences which result from the
change, -- without any consideration whether under its
ancient rule a country was to a considerable degree
flourishing and populous, highly cultivated and highly commercial, and whether, under thlat domination,
though personal liberty had been precarious and insecure, property at least was ever violated. They cannot take the moral sympathies of the human mind
along with them, in abstractions separated from the
good or evil condition of the state, from the quality
of actions, and the character of the actors. None of
us love absolute and uncontrolled monarchy; but
we could not rejoice at the sufferings of a Marcus
Aurelius or a Trajan, who were absolute monarchs,
as we do when Nero is condemned by the Senate to
be punished more majorum; nor, when that monster
was obliged to fly with his wife Sporus, and to drink
puddle, were men affected in the same manner as
when the venerable Galba, with all his faults and
errors, was murdered by a revolted mercenary soldiery. With such things before our eyes, our feelings contradict our theories; and when this is the
case, the feelings are true, and the theory is false.
What I contend for is, that, in commending the destruction of an absolute monarchy, all the circumstances ought not to be wholly overlooked, as "'considerations fit only for shallow and superficial minds. " (The words of Mr. Fox, or to that effect. )
The subversion of a government, to deserve any
? ? ? ? 80 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
praise, must be considered but as a step preparatory
to the formation of something better, either in the
scheme of the government itself, or in the persons
who administer it, or in both. These events cannot
in reason be separated. For instance, when we praise
our Revolution of 1688, though the nation in that act
was on the defensive, and was justified in incurring
all the evils of a defensive war, we do not rest there.
We always combine with the subversion of the old
government the happy settlement which followed.
When we estimate that Revolution, we mean to comprehend in our calculation both the value of the thing parted with and the value of the thing received
in exchange.
The burden of proof lies heavily on those who tear
to pieces the whole frame and contexture of their
country, that they could find no other way of settling
a government fit to obtain its rational ends, except
that which they have pursued by means unfavorable
to all the present happiness of millions of people, and
to the utter ruin of several hundreds of thousands.
In their political arrangements, men have no right to
put the well-being of the present generation wholly
out of the question. Perhaps the only moral trust
with any certainty in our hands is the care of our
own time. With regard to futurity, we are to treat
it like a ward. We are not so to attempt an improvement of his fortune as to put the capital of his estate to any hazard.
It is not worth our while to discuss, like sophisters, whether in no case some etil for the sake of
some benefit is to be tolerated. Nothing universal
can be rationally affirmed on any moral or any political subject. Pure metaphysical abstraction does not
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 81
belong to these matters. The lines of morality are not
like the ideal lines of mathematics. They are broad
and deep as well as long. They admit of exceptions;
they demand modifications. These exceptions and
modifications are not made by the process of logic,
but by the rules of prudence. Prudence is not only
the first in rank of the virtues political and moral,
but she is the director, the regulator, the standard
of them all. Metaphysics cannot live without definition; but Prudence is cautious how she defines.
Our courts cannot be more fearful in suffering fictitious cases to be brought before them for elicit --
ing their determination on a point of law than pru --
dent moralists are in putting extreme and hazardous cases of conscience upon emergencies not exists ing. Without attempting, therefore, to define, what
never can be defined, the case of a revolution in government, this, I think, may be safely affirmed, - that a sore and pressing evil is to be removed, and that a
good, great in its amount and unequivocal in its
nature, must be probable almost to certainty, before
the inestimable price of our own morals and the wellbeing of a number of our fellow-citizens is paid for a revolution. If ever we ought to be economists even
to parsimony, it is in the voluntary production of evil.
Every revolution contains in it something of evil.
It must always be, to those who are the greatest
amateurs, or even professors, of revolutions, a matter
very hard to prove, that the late French government
was so bad that nothing worse in the infinite devices
of men could come in its place. They who have
brought France to its present condition ought to
prove also, by something better than prattling about
the Bastile, that their subverted government was as
VOL. IV. 6
? ? ? ? 82 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
incapable as tile present certainly is of all improvement and correction. How dare they to say so who have never made that experiment? They are experimpnters by their trade. They have made an hundred others, infinitely more hazardous.
The English admirers of the forty-eight thousand
republics which form the French federation praise
them not for what they are, but for what they are to
become. They do not talk as politicians, but as
prophets. But in whatever character they choose
to found panegyric on prediction, it will be thought
a little singular to praise any work, not for its own
merits, but for the merits of something else which
may succeed to it. When any political institution
is praised, in spite of great and prominent faults of
every kind, and in all its parts, it must be supposed
to have something excellent in its fundamental principles. It must be shown that it is right, though imperfect, -that it is not only by possibility susceptible of improvement, but that it contains in it a principle tending to its melioration.
Before they attempt to show this progression of
their favorite work from absolute pravity to finished
perfection, they will find themselves engaged in a
civil war with those whose cause they maintain.
What! alter our sublime Constitution, the glory of
France, the envy of the world, the pattern for man~ kind, the masterpiece of legislation, the collected and concentrated glory of this enlightened age? Have
we not produced it ready-made and ready-armed,
mature in its birth, a perfect goddess of wisdom and
of war, hammered by our blacksmith midwives out
of the brain of Jupiter himself? Have we not sworn
-our devout, profane, believing, infidel people to an
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 83
allegiance to this goddess, even before she had burst
the dura mater, and as yet existed only in embryo?
Have we not solemnly declared this Constitution unalterable by any future legislature? Have we not bound it on posterity forever, though our abettors
have declared that no one generation is competent
to bind another? Have we not obliged the members
of every future Assembly to qualifiy themselves for
their seats by swearing to its conservation?
Indeed, the French Constitution always must be
(if a change is not made in all their principles ancl
fundamental arrangements) a government wholly by
popular representation. It must be this or nothing.
The French faction considers as an usurpation, as
an atrocious violation of the indefeasible rights of
man, every other description of government. Take
it, or leave it: there is no medium. Let the irrefragabl6 doctors fight out their own controversy in their own way and with their own weapons; and when
they are tired, let them commence a treaty of peace.
Let the plenipotentiary sophisters of England settle
with the diplomatic sophisters of France in what
manner right is to be corrected by an infusion of
wrong, and how truth may be rendered more true
by a due intermixture of falsehood.
Having sufficiently proved that nothing could make
it generally improper for Mr. Burke to prove what
he had alleged concerning the object of this dispute,
I pass to the second question, that is, Whether he was
justified in choosing the committee on the Quebec
Bill as the field for this discussion? If it were necessary, it might be shown that he was not the first to bring these discussions into Parliament, nor the first
? ? ? ? 84 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
to renew them in this session. The fact is notorious.
As to the Quebec Bill, they were introduced into the
debate upon that subject for two plain reasons: First,
that, as he thought it then not advisable to make the
proceedings of the factious societies the subject of a
direct motion, he had no other way open to him.
Nobody has attempted to show that it was at all
admissible into any other business before the House.
Here everything was favorable. Here was a bill to
form a new Constitution for a French province under English dominion. The question naturally arose,
whether we should settle that constitution upon English ideas, or upon French. This furnished an opportunity for examining into the value of the French Constitution, either considered as applicable to colonial government, or in its own nature. The bill, too,
was in a committee. By the privilege of speaking
as often as he pleased, he hoped in some measure to
supply the want of support, which he had but too
much reason to apprehend. In a committee it was
always in his power to bring the questions from generalities to facts, from declamation to discussion.
Some benefit he actually received from this privilege.
These are plain, obvious, natural reasons for his conduct. I believe they are the true, and the only true
ones.
They who justify the frequent interruptions, which
at length wholly disabled him from proceeding, attribute their conduct to a very different interpretation of
his motives. They say, that, through corruption, or
malice, or folly, he was acting his part in a plot to
make his friend Mr. Fox pass for a republican, and
thereby to prevent the gracious intentions of his sovereign from taking effect, which at that time had
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 85
begun to disclose themselves in his favor. * This is
a pretty serious charge. This, on Mr. Burke's part,,
would be something more than mistake, something
worse than formal irregularity. Any contumely, any,
outrage, is readily passed over, by the indulgence:
which we all owe to sudden passion. These thillgs
are soon forgot upon occasions in which all men are
so apt to forget themselves. Deliberate injuries, to a
degree, must be remembered, because they require
deliberate precautions to be secured against their return.
I am authorized to say for Mr. Burke, that he
* To explain this, it will be necessary to advert to a paragraph
which appeared in a paper in the minority interest some time before:
this debate. " A very dark intrigue has lately been discovered, the,
authors of which are well known to us; but until the glorious day:
shall come when it will not be a LIBEL to tell the TRUTH, We must
not be so regardless of our own safety as to publish their names. .
We will, however, state the fact, leaving it to the ingenuity of our
readers to discover what we dare not publish.
"Since the business of the armament against Russia has been
under discussion, a great personage has been heard to say,' that he,
was not so wedded to Mr. PITT as not to be very willing to give his
confidence to Mr. Fox, if the latter should be able, in a crisis like the,
present, to conduct the government of the country with greater advan-,
tage to the public. '
"This patriotic declaration immediately alarmed the swarm of'
courtly insects that live only in the sunshine of ministerial favor. It
was thought to be the forerunner of the dismission of Mr. Pitt, and
every engine was set at work for the purpose of preventing such an
event. The principal engine employed on this occasion was CALUISNY. It was whispered in the ear'of a great personage, that Mr. Fox was the last man in England to be trusted by a KING, because he was
by PRINCIPLE a REPUBLICAN, and consequently an enemy to MONARCHY.
"In the discussion of the Quebec Bill which stood for yesterday, it
was the intention of some persons to connect with this subject the
? ? ? ? 86 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
considers that cause assigned for the outrage offered
to him as telln times worse than the outrage itself.
There is such a strange confusion of ideas on this
subject, that it is far more difficult to understand
the nature of the charge than to refute it when understood. Mr. Fox's friends were, it seems, seized
with a sudden panic terror lest he should pass for a
republican. I do not think they had any ground
for this apprehension. But let us admit they had.
What was there in the Quebec Bill, rather than in
ally other, which could subject him or them to that
imputationl? Nothing in a discussion of the French
Constitution, which might arise on the Quebec Bill,
French Revolution, in hopes that Mr. Fox would be warmed by a collision with Mr. Burke, and induced to defend that Revolution, in which so much power was taken from, and so little left in the crown.
Had Mr. Fox fallen into the snare, his speech on the occasion
would have been laid before a great personage, as a proof that a man
who could defend such a revolution might be a very good republican,
but could not possibly be a friend to monarchy.
" But those who laid the snare were disappointed; for Mr. Fox, in
the short conversation which took place yesterday in the House of
Commons, said, that he confessedly had thought favorably of the
French Revolution, but that most certainly he never had, either in
Parliament or out of Parliament, professed or defended republican
principles. " -Argus, April 22d, 1791.
Mr. Burke cannot answer for the truth nor prove the falsehood of
the story given by the friends of the party in this paper. He only
knows that an opinion of its being well or ill authenticated had no
influence on his conduct. He meant only, to the best of his power,
to guard the public against the ill designs of factions out of doors.
What Mr. Burke did in Parliament could hardly have been intended
to draw Mr. Fox into any declarations unfavorable to his principles,
since (by the account of those who are his friends) he had long before effectually prevented the success of any such scandalous designs. Mr. Fox's friends have themselves done away that imputation on Mr.
Burke.
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 87
could tend to make Mr. Fox pass for a republican,
except he should take occasion to extol that state of
things in France which affects to be a republic or a
confederacy of republics. If such an encomium could
make any unfavorable impression on the king's minld,
surely his voluntary panegyrics on that event, not so
much introduced as intruded into other debates, with
which they had little relation, must have produced
that effect with much more certainty and much greater force. The Quebec Bill, at worst, was only one of' those opportunities carefully sought and industriously improved by himself. Mr. Sheridan had already brought forth a panegyric on the French system in a
still higher strain, with full as little demand from
the nature of the business before the House, in a
speech too good to be speedily forgotten. Mr. Fox
followed him without ally direct call from the subjectmatter, and upon the same ground. To canvass
the merits of the French Constitution on the Quebec
Bill could not draw forth any opinions which were
not brought forward before, with no small ostentation, and with very little of necessity, or perhaps of propriety. What mode or what time of discussing
the conduct of the French faction in England would
not equally tend to kindle this enthusiasm, and afford
those occasions for panegyric, which, far from shunning, Mr. Fox has always industriously sought? He himself said, very truly, in the debate, that no artifices were necessary to draw from him his opinions upon that subject. But to fall upon Mr. Burke for
making an use, at worst not more irregular, of the
same liberty, is tantamount to a plain declaration
that the topic of France is tabooed or forbidden
ground to Mr. Burke, and to Mr. Burke alone. But
? ? ? ? 88 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
surely Mr. Fox is not a republican; and what should
hinder him, when such a discussion came on, from
clearing himself unequivocally (as his friends say he
had done near a fortnight before) of all such imputations? Instead of being a disadvantage to him, lie would have defeated all his enemies, and Mr. Burke,
since he has thought proper to reckon him amongst
them.
But it seems some newspaper or other had imputed to him republican principles, on occasion of his conduct upon the Quebec Bill. Supposing Mr. Burke
to have seen these newspapers, (which is to suppose
more than I believe to be true,) I would ask, When
did the newspapers forbear to charge Mr Fox, or Mr.
Burke himself, with republican principles, or ally
other principles which they thought could render
both of them odious, sometimes to one description
of people, sometimes to another? Mr. Burke, since
the publication of his pamphlet, has been a thousand
times charged in the newspapers with holding despotic principles. He could not enjoy one moment of domestic quiet, he could not perform the least particle of public duty, if he did not altogether disregard the language of those libels. But, however his sellsibility might be affected by such abuse, it would in him have been thought a mnost ridiculous reason for
shutting up the mouths of Mr. Fox or Mr. Sheridan,
so as to prevent their delivering their sentiments of
the French Revolution, that, forsooth, "the newspapers had lately charged Mr. Burke with being all enemy to liberty. "
I allow that those gentlemen have privileges to
which Mr. Burke has no claim. But their friends
ought to plead those privileges, and not to assigni
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 89
bad reasons, on the principle of what is fair between
man and man, and thereby to put themselves on a
level with those who can so easily refute them. Let
them say at once that his reputation is of no value,
and that he has no call to assert it, -but that theirs
is of infinite concern to the party and the public,
and to that consideration 1he ought to sacrifice all his
opinions and all his feelings.
In that language I should hear a style correspondent to the proceeding, --lofty, indeed, but plain and
consistent. Admit, however, for a moment, and
merely for argument, that this gentleman had as
good a right to continue as they had to begin these
discussions; in candor and equity they must allow
that their voluntary descant in praise of the French
Constitution was as much an, oblique attack on Mr.
Burke as Mr. Burke's inquiry into the foundation
of this encomium could possibly be construed into
an imputation upon them. They well knew that he
felt like other men; and of course he would think
it mean and unworthy to decline asserting in his
place, and in the front of able adversaries, the principles of what he had penned in his closet and without an opponent before him. They could not but be convinced that declamations of this kind would rouse
him, - that he must think, coming from men of their
calibre, they were highly mischievous, - that they
gave countenance to bad men and bad designs; and
though he was a'ware that the handling such matters
in Parliament was delicate, yet he was a man very
likely, whenever, much against his will, they were
brought there, to resolve that there they should be
thoroughly sifted. Mr. Fox, early in the preceding
session, had public notice from Mr. Burke of the light
? ? ? ? 90 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
in which he considered every attempt to introduce the
example of France into the politics of this country,
and of his resolution to break with his best friends
and to join with his worst enemies to prevent it. He
hoped that no such necessity would ever exist; but
in case it should, his determination was made. Tile
party knew perfectly that he would at least defend
himself. He never intended to attack Mr. Fox, nor
did he attack him directly or indirectly. His speech
kept to its matter. No personality was employed,
even in the remotest allusion. He never did impute
to that gehtleman any republican principles, or ally
other bad principles or bad conduct whatsoever. It
was far from his words; it was far from his heart.
It must be remembered, that, notwithstanding the
attempt of Mr. Fox to fix on Mr. Burke an unjustifiable change of opinion, and the foul crime of teaching a set of maxims to a boy, and afterwards, when these maxims became adult in his mature age, of
abandoning both the disciple and the doctrine, Mr.
Burke never attempted, in any one particular, either
to criminate or to recriminate. It may be said that
he had nothing of the kind in his power. This lihe
does not controvert. He certainly had it not in his
inclination. That gentleman had as little ground
for the charges which he was so easily provoked to
make upon him.
The gentlemen of the party (I include Mr. Fox)
have been kind enough to consider the dispute
brought on by this business, and the consequent
separation of Mr. Burke from their corps, as a matter of regret and uneasiness. I cannot be of opinion
that by his exclusion they have had any loss at all.
A man whose opinions are so very adverse to theirs,
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 91
adverse, as it was expressed, " as pole to pole," so
mischievously as well as so directly adverse that they.
found themselves under the necessity of solemnly disclaiming them in full Parliament, -such a man must
ever be to them a most unseemly and unprofitable
incumbrance. A cooperation with, him could only
serve to embarrass them in all their councils. They
have besides publicly represented him as a man capable of abusing the docility and confidence of ingenu. ous youth, - and, for a bad reason or for no reason, of disgracing his whole public life by a scandalous contradiction of every one of his own acts, writings, and
declarations. If these charges be true, their exclusion of such a person from their body is a circumstance which does equal honor to their justice and
their prudence. If they express a degree of sensibility in being obliged to execute this wise and just
sentence, from a consideration of some amiable or
some pleasant qualities which in his private life their
former friend may happen to possess, they add to
the praise of their wisdom and firmness the merit
of great tenderness of heart and humanity of disposition.
On their ideas, the new Whig party have, in my
opinion, acted as became them. The author of the
Reflections, however, on his part, cannot, without
great shame to himself, and without entailing everlasting disgrace on his posterity, admit the truth or
justice of the charges which have been made upon
him, or allow that he has in those Reflections discovered any principles to which honest men are
bound to declare, not a shade or two of dissent,
but a total, fundamental opposition. He must believe, if he does not mean wilfully to abandon his
? ? ? ? 92 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
cause and his reputation, that principles fundamentally at variance with those of his book are fundamentally false. What those principles, the antipodes
to his, really are, lie can only discover from their
contrariety. He is very unwilling to suppose that
the doctrines of some books lately circulated are the
principles of the party; though, from the vehement
declarations against his opinions, he is at some loss
how to judge otherwise.
For the present, my plan does not render it necessary to say, anything further concerning the merits
either of the one set of opinions or the other. The
author would have discussed the merits of both in his
place, but he was not permitted to do so.
I pass to the next head of charge,- Mr. Burke's
inconsistency. It is certainly a great aggravation of
his fault in embracing false opinions, that in doing
so he is not supposed to fill up a void, but that he is
guilty of a dereliction of opinions that are true and
laudable. This is the great gist of the charge against
him. It is not so much that he is wrong in his book
(that, however, is alleged also) as that lie has therein
belied his whole life. I believe, if he could venture
to value himself upon anything, it is on the virtue
of consistency that he would value himself the most.
Strip him of this, and you leave him naked indeed.
In the case of any man who had written something,
and spoken a great deal, upon very multifarious matter, during upwards of twenty-five years' public service, and in as great a variety of important events as perhaps have ever happened in the same number of
years, it would appear a little hard, in order to charge
such a mall with inconsistency, to see collected by his
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 93
friend a sort of digest of his sayings, even to such as
were merely sportive and jocular.
a wicked faction should become possessed in this
country of the same power which their allies in the
very next to us have so perfidiously usurped and so
outrageously abused? Is it inhuman to prevent, if
possible, the spilling their blood, or imprudent to
guard against the effusion of our own? Is it contrary
to any of the honest principles of party, or repugnant
to any of the known duties of friendship, for any senator respectfully and amicably to caution his brother members against countenancing, by inconsiderate expressions, a sort of proceeding which it is impossible they should deliberately approve?
He had undertaken to demonstrate, by arguments
which he thought could not be refuted, and by documents which he was sure could not be denied, that
no comparison was to be made between the British
government and the French usurpation. - That they
who endeavored madly to compare them were by no
means making the comparison of one good system
with another good system, which varied only in local and circumstantial differences; much less that
they were holding out to us a superior pattern of legal liberty, which we might substitute in the place of our old, and, as they describe it, superannuated Constitution. He meant to demonstrate that the French scheme was not a comparative good, but a positive
evil. -That the question did not at all turn, as it
had been stated, on a parallel between a monarchy
and a republic. He denied that the present scheme
of' things in France did at all deserve the respectable
name of a republic: he had therefore no comparison
between monarchies and republics to make. - That
what was done in France was a wild attempt to
methodize anarchy, to perpetuate and fix disorder.
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 71
That it was a foul, impious, monstrous thing, wholly
out of the course of moral Nature. He undertook
to prove that it was generated in treachery, fraud,
falsehood, hypocrisy, and unprovoked murder. - He
offered to make out that those who have led in that
business had conducted themselves with the utmost
perfidy to their colleagues in function, and with the
most flagrant perjury both towards their king and
their constituents: to the one of whom the Assembly
had sworn fealty; and to the other, when under no
sort of violence or constraint, they had sworn a full
obedience to instructions. -- That, by the terror of
assassination, they had driven away a very great
number of the members, so as to produce a false ap
pearance of a majority. - That this fictitious majority
had fabricated a Constitution, which, as now it stands,
is a tyranny far beyond any example that can be
found in the civilized European world of our age;
that therefore the lovers of it must be lovers, not
ofiliberty, but, if they really understand its nature,
of the lowest and basest of all servitude.
He proposed to prove that the present state of
things in France is not a transient evil, productive,
as some have too favorably represented it, of a lasting good; but that the present evil is only the means of producing future and (if that were possible) worse
evils. -That it is not an undigested, imperfect, and
crude scheme of liberty, which may gradually be
mellowed and ripened into an orderly and social freedom; but that it is so fundamentally wrong as to be utterly incapable of correcting itself by any length of
time, or of being formed into any mode of polity of
which a member of the House of Commons could
publicly declare his approbation.
? ? ? ? 72 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
If it had been permitted to Mr. Burke, he would
have shown distinctly, and in detail, that what the
Assembly calling itself National had held out as a
large and liberal toleration is in reality a cruel and
insidious religious persecution, infinitely more bitter than any which had been heard of within this
century. - That it had a feature in it worse than the
old persecutions. -- That the old persecutors acted,
or pretended to act, from zeal towards some system
of piety and virtue: they gave strong preferences to
their own; and if they drove people from one religion, they provided for them another, in which men
might take refuge and expect consolation. - That
their new persecution is not against a variety in conscience, but against all conscience. That it professes
contempt towards its object; and whilst it treats all
religion with scorn, is not so much as neutral about
the modes: it unites the opposite evils of intolerance
and of indifference.
He could have proved that it is so far from rejecting tests, (as unaccountably had been assserted,) that
the Assembly had imposed tests of a peculiar hardship, arising from a cruel and premeditated pecuniary fraud: tests against old principles, sanctioned by the laws, and binding upon the conscience. -- That
these tests were not imposed as titles to some new
honor or some new benefit, but to enable men to hold
a poor compensation for their legal estates, of which
they had been unjustly deprived; and as they had
before been reduced from affluence to indigence, so,
on refusal to swear against their conscience, they are
now driven from indigence to famine, and treated
with every possible degree of outrage, insult, and
inhumanity. -That these tests, which their impos
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 73
ers well knew would not be taken, were intended for
the very purpose of cheating their miserable victims
out of the compensation which the tyrannic impostors of the Assembly had previously and purposely
rendered the public unable to pay. That thus their
ultimate violence arose from their original fraud. 'He would have shown that the universal peace and
concord amongst nations, which these common enemies to mankind had held out with the same fraudulent ends and pretences with which they had uniformly conducted every part of their proceeding, was a coarse and clumsy deception, unworthy to be proposed as an example, by an informed and sagacious
British senator, to any other country. --That, far
from peace and good-will to men, they meditated
war against all other governments, and proposed
systematically to excite in them all the very worst
kind of seditions, in order to lead to their common
destruction. -- That they had discovered, in the few
instances in which they have hitherto had the power
of discovering it, (as at Avignon and in the Comtat,
at Cavaillon and at Carpentras,) in what a savage
manner they mean to conduct the seditions and wars
they have planned against their neighbors, for the
sake of putting themselves at the head of a confederation of republics as wild and as mischievous as their
own. He would have shown in what manner that
wicked scheme was carried on in those places, without being directly either owned or disclaimed, in
hopes that the undone people should at length be
obliged to fly to their tyrannic protection, as some
sort of ref e from their barbarous and treacherous
hostility. \ie would have shown from those examples that neither this nor any other society could be
? ? ? ? 74 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
in safety as long as such a public enemy was in a
condition to continue directly or indirectly such practices against its peace. --That Great Britain was a
principal object of their machinations; and that they
had begun by establishing correspondences, communications, and a sort of federal union with the factious here. - That no practical enjoyment of a thing so imperfect and precarious as human happiness must
be, even under the very best of governments, could
be a security for the existence of these governments,
during the prevalence of the principles of France,
propagated from that grand school of every disorder
and every vice.
He was prered to show the madness of their declaration of the pretended rights of man, -the childish
futility of some of their maxims, the gross and stupid absurdity and the palpable falsity of others, and'
the mischievous tendency of all such declarations to
the well-being of men and of citizens and to the safety and prosperity of every just commonwealth. He
was prepared to show, that, in their conduct, the
Assembly had directly violated not only every sound
principle of government, but every one, without exception, of their own false or futile maxims, and
indeed every rule they had pretended to lay down
for their own direction.
In a word, he was ready to show that those who
could, after such a full and fair exposure, continue
to countenance the French insanity were not mistaken politicians, but bad men; but he thought that in
this case, as in many others, ignorance had been the
cause of admiration.
These are strong assertions. They required strong
proofs. The member who laid down these positions
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 75
was and is ready to give, in his place, to each position decisive evidence, correspondent to the nature
and quality of the several allegations.
In order to judge on the propriety of the interruption given to Mr. Burke, in his speech in the committee of the Quebec Bill, it is necessary to inquire,
First, whether, on general principles, he ought to
have been suffered to prove his allegations? Secondly, whether the time he had chosen was so very unseasonable as to make his exercise of a parliamentary right productive of ill effects on his friends or his
country? Thirdly, whether the opinions delivered in
his book, and which he had begun to expatiate upon
that day, were in contradiction to his former principles, and inconsistent with the general tenor of his
public conduct?
They who have made eloquent panegyrics on the
French Revolution, and who think a free discussion
so very advantageous in every case and under every
circumstance, ought not, in my opinion, to have prevented their eulogies from being tried on the test
of facts. If their panegyric had been answered with
an invective, (bating the difference in point of eloquence,) the one would have been as good as the
other: that is, they would both of them have been
good for nothing. The panegyric and the satire
ought to be suffered to go to trial; and that which
shrinks from it must be contented to stand, at best,
as a mere declamation.
I do not think Mr. Burke was wrong in the course
he took. That which seemed to be recommended to
him by Mr. Pitt was rather to extol the English
Constitution than to attack the French. I do not determine what would be best for Mr. Pitt to do in his
? ? ? ? 76 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
situation. I do not deny that he may have good reasons for his reserve. Perhaps they might have been
as good for a similar reserve on the part of Mr. Fox,
if his zeal had suffered him to listen to them. But
there were no motives of ministerial prudence, or of
that prudence which ought to guide a man perhaps
on the eve of being minister, to restrain the author
of the Reflections. He is in no office under the
crown; he is not the organ of any party.
The excellencies of the British Constitution had already exercised and exhausted the talents of the best
thinkers and the most eloquent writers and speakers
that the world ever saw. But in the present case a
system declared to be far better, and which certainly
is much newer, (to restless and unstable minds no
small recommendation,) was held out to the admiration of the good people of England. In that case
it was surely proper for those who had far other
thoughts of the French Constitution to scrutinize
that plan which has been recommended to our imitation by active and zealous factions at home and
abroad. Our complexion is such, that we are palled
with enjoyment, and stimulated with hope, - that we
become less sensible to a long-possessed benefit from
the very circumstance that it is become habitual.
Specious, untried, ambiguous prospects of new advantage recommend themselves to the spirit of adventure which more or less prevails in every mind. From this temper, men and factions, and nations too,
have sacrificed the good of which they had been in
assured possession, in favor of wild and irrational
expectations. What should hinder Mr. Burke, if he
thought this temper likely at one time or other to
prevail in our country, from exposing to a multitude
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 77
eager to game the false calculations of this lottery of
fraud?
I allow, as I ought to do, for the effusions which
come from a general zeal for liberty. This is to be
indulged, and even to be encouraged, as long as the
question is general. An orator, above all men, ought
to be allowed a full and free use of the praise of liberty. A commonplace in favor of slavery and tyranny, delivered to a popular assembly, would indeed be a bold defiance to all the principles of rhetoric.
But in a question whether any particular Constitution is or is not a plan of rational liberty, this kind of
rhetorical flourish in favor of freedom in general is
surely a little out of its place. It is virtually a beg
ging of the question. It is a song of triumph before
the battle.
"But Mr. Fox does not make the panegyric of
the new Constitution; it is the destruction only of
the absolute monarchy he commends. " When that
nameless thing which has been. lately set up in
France was described as " the most stupendous and
glorious edifice of liberty which had been erected
on the foundation of human integrity in any time or
country," it might at first have led the hearer into
an opinion that the construction of the new fabric
was an object of admiration, as well as the demolition of the old. Mr. Fox, however, has explained
himself; and it would be too like that captious and
cavilling spirit which I so perfectly detest, if I were
to pin down the language of an eloquent and' ardent mind to the punctilious exactness of a pleader.
Then Mr. Fox did not mean to applaud that monstrous thing which, by the courtesy of France, they
call a Constitution. I easily believe it. Far from
? ? ? ? 78 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
meriting the praises of a great genius like Mr. Fox, it
cannot be approved by any man of common sense or
common information. He cannot admire the change
of one piece of barbarism for another, and a worse.
He cannot rejoice at the destruction of a monarchy,
mitigated by manners, respectful to laws and usages,
and attentive, perhaps but too attentive, to public
opinion, in favor of the tyranny of a licentious, ferocious, and savage multitude, without laws, manners,
or morals, and which, so far from respecting the general sense of mankind, insolently endeavors to alter
all the principles and opinions which have hitherto
guided and contained the world, and to force them
into a conformity to their views and actions. His
mind is made to better things.
That a man should rejoice and triumph in the destruction of an absolute monarchy, - that in such an
event he should overlook the captivity, disgrace, and
degradation of an unfortunate prince, and the continual danger to a life which exists only to be endangered, -that he should overlook the utter ruin of whole orders and classes of men, extending itself directly,
or in its nearest consequences, to at least a million
of our kind, and to at least the temporary wretchedness of a whole community, -I do not deny to be in
some sort natural; because, when people see a political object which they ardently desire but in one
point of view, they are apt extremely to palliate or
underrate the evils which may arise in obtaining it.
This is no reflection on the humanity of those persons. Their good-nature I am the last man in the
world to dispute. It only shows that they are
not sufficiently informed or sufficiently considerate.
When they come to reflect seriously on the trans
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 79
action, they will think themselves bound to examine
what the object is that has been acquired by all this
havoc. They will hardly assert that the destruction
of an absolute monarchy is a thing good in itself,
without any sort of reference to the antecedent state
of things, or to consequences which result from the
change, -- without any consideration whether under its
ancient rule a country was to a considerable degree
flourishing and populous, highly cultivated and highly commercial, and whether, under thlat domination,
though personal liberty had been precarious and insecure, property at least was ever violated. They cannot take the moral sympathies of the human mind
along with them, in abstractions separated from the
good or evil condition of the state, from the quality
of actions, and the character of the actors. None of
us love absolute and uncontrolled monarchy; but
we could not rejoice at the sufferings of a Marcus
Aurelius or a Trajan, who were absolute monarchs,
as we do when Nero is condemned by the Senate to
be punished more majorum; nor, when that monster
was obliged to fly with his wife Sporus, and to drink
puddle, were men affected in the same manner as
when the venerable Galba, with all his faults and
errors, was murdered by a revolted mercenary soldiery. With such things before our eyes, our feelings contradict our theories; and when this is the
case, the feelings are true, and the theory is false.
What I contend for is, that, in commending the destruction of an absolute monarchy, all the circumstances ought not to be wholly overlooked, as "'considerations fit only for shallow and superficial minds. " (The words of Mr. Fox, or to that effect. )
The subversion of a government, to deserve any
? ? ? ? 80 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
praise, must be considered but as a step preparatory
to the formation of something better, either in the
scheme of the government itself, or in the persons
who administer it, or in both. These events cannot
in reason be separated. For instance, when we praise
our Revolution of 1688, though the nation in that act
was on the defensive, and was justified in incurring
all the evils of a defensive war, we do not rest there.
We always combine with the subversion of the old
government the happy settlement which followed.
When we estimate that Revolution, we mean to comprehend in our calculation both the value of the thing parted with and the value of the thing received
in exchange.
The burden of proof lies heavily on those who tear
to pieces the whole frame and contexture of their
country, that they could find no other way of settling
a government fit to obtain its rational ends, except
that which they have pursued by means unfavorable
to all the present happiness of millions of people, and
to the utter ruin of several hundreds of thousands.
In their political arrangements, men have no right to
put the well-being of the present generation wholly
out of the question. Perhaps the only moral trust
with any certainty in our hands is the care of our
own time. With regard to futurity, we are to treat
it like a ward. We are not so to attempt an improvement of his fortune as to put the capital of his estate to any hazard.
It is not worth our while to discuss, like sophisters, whether in no case some etil for the sake of
some benefit is to be tolerated. Nothing universal
can be rationally affirmed on any moral or any political subject. Pure metaphysical abstraction does not
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 81
belong to these matters. The lines of morality are not
like the ideal lines of mathematics. They are broad
and deep as well as long. They admit of exceptions;
they demand modifications. These exceptions and
modifications are not made by the process of logic,
but by the rules of prudence. Prudence is not only
the first in rank of the virtues political and moral,
but she is the director, the regulator, the standard
of them all. Metaphysics cannot live without definition; but Prudence is cautious how she defines.
Our courts cannot be more fearful in suffering fictitious cases to be brought before them for elicit --
ing their determination on a point of law than pru --
dent moralists are in putting extreme and hazardous cases of conscience upon emergencies not exists ing. Without attempting, therefore, to define, what
never can be defined, the case of a revolution in government, this, I think, may be safely affirmed, - that a sore and pressing evil is to be removed, and that a
good, great in its amount and unequivocal in its
nature, must be probable almost to certainty, before
the inestimable price of our own morals and the wellbeing of a number of our fellow-citizens is paid for a revolution. If ever we ought to be economists even
to parsimony, it is in the voluntary production of evil.
Every revolution contains in it something of evil.
It must always be, to those who are the greatest
amateurs, or even professors, of revolutions, a matter
very hard to prove, that the late French government
was so bad that nothing worse in the infinite devices
of men could come in its place. They who have
brought France to its present condition ought to
prove also, by something better than prattling about
the Bastile, that their subverted government was as
VOL. IV. 6
? ? ? ? 82 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
incapable as tile present certainly is of all improvement and correction. How dare they to say so who have never made that experiment? They are experimpnters by their trade. They have made an hundred others, infinitely more hazardous.
The English admirers of the forty-eight thousand
republics which form the French federation praise
them not for what they are, but for what they are to
become. They do not talk as politicians, but as
prophets. But in whatever character they choose
to found panegyric on prediction, it will be thought
a little singular to praise any work, not for its own
merits, but for the merits of something else which
may succeed to it. When any political institution
is praised, in spite of great and prominent faults of
every kind, and in all its parts, it must be supposed
to have something excellent in its fundamental principles. It must be shown that it is right, though imperfect, -that it is not only by possibility susceptible of improvement, but that it contains in it a principle tending to its melioration.
Before they attempt to show this progression of
their favorite work from absolute pravity to finished
perfection, they will find themselves engaged in a
civil war with those whose cause they maintain.
What! alter our sublime Constitution, the glory of
France, the envy of the world, the pattern for man~ kind, the masterpiece of legislation, the collected and concentrated glory of this enlightened age? Have
we not produced it ready-made and ready-armed,
mature in its birth, a perfect goddess of wisdom and
of war, hammered by our blacksmith midwives out
of the brain of Jupiter himself? Have we not sworn
-our devout, profane, believing, infidel people to an
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 83
allegiance to this goddess, even before she had burst
the dura mater, and as yet existed only in embryo?
Have we not solemnly declared this Constitution unalterable by any future legislature? Have we not bound it on posterity forever, though our abettors
have declared that no one generation is competent
to bind another? Have we not obliged the members
of every future Assembly to qualifiy themselves for
their seats by swearing to its conservation?
Indeed, the French Constitution always must be
(if a change is not made in all their principles ancl
fundamental arrangements) a government wholly by
popular representation. It must be this or nothing.
The French faction considers as an usurpation, as
an atrocious violation of the indefeasible rights of
man, every other description of government. Take
it, or leave it: there is no medium. Let the irrefragabl6 doctors fight out their own controversy in their own way and with their own weapons; and when
they are tired, let them commence a treaty of peace.
Let the plenipotentiary sophisters of England settle
with the diplomatic sophisters of France in what
manner right is to be corrected by an infusion of
wrong, and how truth may be rendered more true
by a due intermixture of falsehood.
Having sufficiently proved that nothing could make
it generally improper for Mr. Burke to prove what
he had alleged concerning the object of this dispute,
I pass to the second question, that is, Whether he was
justified in choosing the committee on the Quebec
Bill as the field for this discussion? If it were necessary, it might be shown that he was not the first to bring these discussions into Parliament, nor the first
? ? ? ? 84 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
to renew them in this session. The fact is notorious.
As to the Quebec Bill, they were introduced into the
debate upon that subject for two plain reasons: First,
that, as he thought it then not advisable to make the
proceedings of the factious societies the subject of a
direct motion, he had no other way open to him.
Nobody has attempted to show that it was at all
admissible into any other business before the House.
Here everything was favorable. Here was a bill to
form a new Constitution for a French province under English dominion. The question naturally arose,
whether we should settle that constitution upon English ideas, or upon French. This furnished an opportunity for examining into the value of the French Constitution, either considered as applicable to colonial government, or in its own nature. The bill, too,
was in a committee. By the privilege of speaking
as often as he pleased, he hoped in some measure to
supply the want of support, which he had but too
much reason to apprehend. In a committee it was
always in his power to bring the questions from generalities to facts, from declamation to discussion.
Some benefit he actually received from this privilege.
These are plain, obvious, natural reasons for his conduct. I believe they are the true, and the only true
ones.
They who justify the frequent interruptions, which
at length wholly disabled him from proceeding, attribute their conduct to a very different interpretation of
his motives. They say, that, through corruption, or
malice, or folly, he was acting his part in a plot to
make his friend Mr. Fox pass for a republican, and
thereby to prevent the gracious intentions of his sovereign from taking effect, which at that time had
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 85
begun to disclose themselves in his favor. * This is
a pretty serious charge. This, on Mr. Burke's part,,
would be something more than mistake, something
worse than formal irregularity. Any contumely, any,
outrage, is readily passed over, by the indulgence:
which we all owe to sudden passion. These thillgs
are soon forgot upon occasions in which all men are
so apt to forget themselves. Deliberate injuries, to a
degree, must be remembered, because they require
deliberate precautions to be secured against their return.
I am authorized to say for Mr. Burke, that he
* To explain this, it will be necessary to advert to a paragraph
which appeared in a paper in the minority interest some time before:
this debate. " A very dark intrigue has lately been discovered, the,
authors of which are well known to us; but until the glorious day:
shall come when it will not be a LIBEL to tell the TRUTH, We must
not be so regardless of our own safety as to publish their names. .
We will, however, state the fact, leaving it to the ingenuity of our
readers to discover what we dare not publish.
"Since the business of the armament against Russia has been
under discussion, a great personage has been heard to say,' that he,
was not so wedded to Mr. PITT as not to be very willing to give his
confidence to Mr. Fox, if the latter should be able, in a crisis like the,
present, to conduct the government of the country with greater advan-,
tage to the public. '
"This patriotic declaration immediately alarmed the swarm of'
courtly insects that live only in the sunshine of ministerial favor. It
was thought to be the forerunner of the dismission of Mr. Pitt, and
every engine was set at work for the purpose of preventing such an
event. The principal engine employed on this occasion was CALUISNY. It was whispered in the ear'of a great personage, that Mr. Fox was the last man in England to be trusted by a KING, because he was
by PRINCIPLE a REPUBLICAN, and consequently an enemy to MONARCHY.
"In the discussion of the Quebec Bill which stood for yesterday, it
was the intention of some persons to connect with this subject the
? ? ? ? 86 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
considers that cause assigned for the outrage offered
to him as telln times worse than the outrage itself.
There is such a strange confusion of ideas on this
subject, that it is far more difficult to understand
the nature of the charge than to refute it when understood. Mr. Fox's friends were, it seems, seized
with a sudden panic terror lest he should pass for a
republican. I do not think they had any ground
for this apprehension. But let us admit they had.
What was there in the Quebec Bill, rather than in
ally other, which could subject him or them to that
imputationl? Nothing in a discussion of the French
Constitution, which might arise on the Quebec Bill,
French Revolution, in hopes that Mr. Fox would be warmed by a collision with Mr. Burke, and induced to defend that Revolution, in which so much power was taken from, and so little left in the crown.
Had Mr. Fox fallen into the snare, his speech on the occasion
would have been laid before a great personage, as a proof that a man
who could defend such a revolution might be a very good republican,
but could not possibly be a friend to monarchy.
" But those who laid the snare were disappointed; for Mr. Fox, in
the short conversation which took place yesterday in the House of
Commons, said, that he confessedly had thought favorably of the
French Revolution, but that most certainly he never had, either in
Parliament or out of Parliament, professed or defended republican
principles. " -Argus, April 22d, 1791.
Mr. Burke cannot answer for the truth nor prove the falsehood of
the story given by the friends of the party in this paper. He only
knows that an opinion of its being well or ill authenticated had no
influence on his conduct. He meant only, to the best of his power,
to guard the public against the ill designs of factions out of doors.
What Mr. Burke did in Parliament could hardly have been intended
to draw Mr. Fox into any declarations unfavorable to his principles,
since (by the account of those who are his friends) he had long before effectually prevented the success of any such scandalous designs. Mr. Fox's friends have themselves done away that imputation on Mr.
Burke.
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 87
could tend to make Mr. Fox pass for a republican,
except he should take occasion to extol that state of
things in France which affects to be a republic or a
confederacy of republics. If such an encomium could
make any unfavorable impression on the king's minld,
surely his voluntary panegyrics on that event, not so
much introduced as intruded into other debates, with
which they had little relation, must have produced
that effect with much more certainty and much greater force. The Quebec Bill, at worst, was only one of' those opportunities carefully sought and industriously improved by himself. Mr. Sheridan had already brought forth a panegyric on the French system in a
still higher strain, with full as little demand from
the nature of the business before the House, in a
speech too good to be speedily forgotten. Mr. Fox
followed him without ally direct call from the subjectmatter, and upon the same ground. To canvass
the merits of the French Constitution on the Quebec
Bill could not draw forth any opinions which were
not brought forward before, with no small ostentation, and with very little of necessity, or perhaps of propriety. What mode or what time of discussing
the conduct of the French faction in England would
not equally tend to kindle this enthusiasm, and afford
those occasions for panegyric, which, far from shunning, Mr. Fox has always industriously sought? He himself said, very truly, in the debate, that no artifices were necessary to draw from him his opinions upon that subject. But to fall upon Mr. Burke for
making an use, at worst not more irregular, of the
same liberty, is tantamount to a plain declaration
that the topic of France is tabooed or forbidden
ground to Mr. Burke, and to Mr. Burke alone. But
? ? ? ? 88 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
surely Mr. Fox is not a republican; and what should
hinder him, when such a discussion came on, from
clearing himself unequivocally (as his friends say he
had done near a fortnight before) of all such imputations? Instead of being a disadvantage to him, lie would have defeated all his enemies, and Mr. Burke,
since he has thought proper to reckon him amongst
them.
But it seems some newspaper or other had imputed to him republican principles, on occasion of his conduct upon the Quebec Bill. Supposing Mr. Burke
to have seen these newspapers, (which is to suppose
more than I believe to be true,) I would ask, When
did the newspapers forbear to charge Mr Fox, or Mr.
Burke himself, with republican principles, or ally
other principles which they thought could render
both of them odious, sometimes to one description
of people, sometimes to another? Mr. Burke, since
the publication of his pamphlet, has been a thousand
times charged in the newspapers with holding despotic principles. He could not enjoy one moment of domestic quiet, he could not perform the least particle of public duty, if he did not altogether disregard the language of those libels. But, however his sellsibility might be affected by such abuse, it would in him have been thought a mnost ridiculous reason for
shutting up the mouths of Mr. Fox or Mr. Sheridan,
so as to prevent their delivering their sentiments of
the French Revolution, that, forsooth, "the newspapers had lately charged Mr. Burke with being all enemy to liberty. "
I allow that those gentlemen have privileges to
which Mr. Burke has no claim. But their friends
ought to plead those privileges, and not to assigni
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 89
bad reasons, on the principle of what is fair between
man and man, and thereby to put themselves on a
level with those who can so easily refute them. Let
them say at once that his reputation is of no value,
and that he has no call to assert it, -but that theirs
is of infinite concern to the party and the public,
and to that consideration 1he ought to sacrifice all his
opinions and all his feelings.
In that language I should hear a style correspondent to the proceeding, --lofty, indeed, but plain and
consistent. Admit, however, for a moment, and
merely for argument, that this gentleman had as
good a right to continue as they had to begin these
discussions; in candor and equity they must allow
that their voluntary descant in praise of the French
Constitution was as much an, oblique attack on Mr.
Burke as Mr. Burke's inquiry into the foundation
of this encomium could possibly be construed into
an imputation upon them. They well knew that he
felt like other men; and of course he would think
it mean and unworthy to decline asserting in his
place, and in the front of able adversaries, the principles of what he had penned in his closet and without an opponent before him. They could not but be convinced that declamations of this kind would rouse
him, - that he must think, coming from men of their
calibre, they were highly mischievous, - that they
gave countenance to bad men and bad designs; and
though he was a'ware that the handling such matters
in Parliament was delicate, yet he was a man very
likely, whenever, much against his will, they were
brought there, to resolve that there they should be
thoroughly sifted. Mr. Fox, early in the preceding
session, had public notice from Mr. Burke of the light
? ? ? ? 90 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
in which he considered every attempt to introduce the
example of France into the politics of this country,
and of his resolution to break with his best friends
and to join with his worst enemies to prevent it. He
hoped that no such necessity would ever exist; but
in case it should, his determination was made. Tile
party knew perfectly that he would at least defend
himself. He never intended to attack Mr. Fox, nor
did he attack him directly or indirectly. His speech
kept to its matter. No personality was employed,
even in the remotest allusion. He never did impute
to that gehtleman any republican principles, or ally
other bad principles or bad conduct whatsoever. It
was far from his words; it was far from his heart.
It must be remembered, that, notwithstanding the
attempt of Mr. Fox to fix on Mr. Burke an unjustifiable change of opinion, and the foul crime of teaching a set of maxims to a boy, and afterwards, when these maxims became adult in his mature age, of
abandoning both the disciple and the doctrine, Mr.
Burke never attempted, in any one particular, either
to criminate or to recriminate. It may be said that
he had nothing of the kind in his power. This lihe
does not controvert. He certainly had it not in his
inclination. That gentleman had as little ground
for the charges which he was so easily provoked to
make upon him.
The gentlemen of the party (I include Mr. Fox)
have been kind enough to consider the dispute
brought on by this business, and the consequent
separation of Mr. Burke from their corps, as a matter of regret and uneasiness. I cannot be of opinion
that by his exclusion they have had any loss at all.
A man whose opinions are so very adverse to theirs,
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 91
adverse, as it was expressed, " as pole to pole," so
mischievously as well as so directly adverse that they.
found themselves under the necessity of solemnly disclaiming them in full Parliament, -such a man must
ever be to them a most unseemly and unprofitable
incumbrance. A cooperation with, him could only
serve to embarrass them in all their councils. They
have besides publicly represented him as a man capable of abusing the docility and confidence of ingenu. ous youth, - and, for a bad reason or for no reason, of disgracing his whole public life by a scandalous contradiction of every one of his own acts, writings, and
declarations. If these charges be true, their exclusion of such a person from their body is a circumstance which does equal honor to their justice and
their prudence. If they express a degree of sensibility in being obliged to execute this wise and just
sentence, from a consideration of some amiable or
some pleasant qualities which in his private life their
former friend may happen to possess, they add to
the praise of their wisdom and firmness the merit
of great tenderness of heart and humanity of disposition.
On their ideas, the new Whig party have, in my
opinion, acted as became them. The author of the
Reflections, however, on his part, cannot, without
great shame to himself, and without entailing everlasting disgrace on his posterity, admit the truth or
justice of the charges which have been made upon
him, or allow that he has in those Reflections discovered any principles to which honest men are
bound to declare, not a shade or two of dissent,
but a total, fundamental opposition. He must believe, if he does not mean wilfully to abandon his
? ? ? ? 92 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
cause and his reputation, that principles fundamentally at variance with those of his book are fundamentally false. What those principles, the antipodes
to his, really are, lie can only discover from their
contrariety. He is very unwilling to suppose that
the doctrines of some books lately circulated are the
principles of the party; though, from the vehement
declarations against his opinions, he is at some loss
how to judge otherwise.
For the present, my plan does not render it necessary to say, anything further concerning the merits
either of the one set of opinions or the other. The
author would have discussed the merits of both in his
place, but he was not permitted to do so.
I pass to the next head of charge,- Mr. Burke's
inconsistency. It is certainly a great aggravation of
his fault in embracing false opinions, that in doing
so he is not supposed to fill up a void, but that he is
guilty of a dereliction of opinions that are true and
laudable. This is the great gist of the charge against
him. It is not so much that he is wrong in his book
(that, however, is alleged also) as that lie has therein
belied his whole life. I believe, if he could venture
to value himself upon anything, it is on the virtue
of consistency that he would value himself the most.
Strip him of this, and you leave him naked indeed.
In the case of any man who had written something,
and spoken a great deal, upon very multifarious matter, during upwards of twenty-five years' public service, and in as great a variety of important events as perhaps have ever happened in the same number of
years, it would appear a little hard, in order to charge
such a mall with inconsistency, to see collected by his
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 93
friend a sort of digest of his sayings, even to such as
were merely sportive and jocular.
