EX MUSEO
ARBUTEANO

W. S. LEWIS

COMPARISON

OF THE

OPINIONS

OF

MR. BURKE AND MONS. ROUSSEAU,

ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM,

AND

STRICTURES ON THE ANSWERS

To Mr. BURKE.

I will hear Brutus fpeak—

I will hear Caffius, and compare their reafons.

SHAKESPEARE.

LONDON:

PRINTED FOR C. LOWNDES, NO. 66, DRURY-LANE.
M DCC XCI.

[Price Two Shillings.]

THE
PREFACE.

THE honours lately paid to the
departed spirit of ROUSSEAU, by the
National Assembly of France, is one
leading reason for the publication of
the following Pamphlet: It was ori-
ginally intended for private amuse-
ment.

The answers to Mr. BURKE were
read by the author, and certainly
moved his aftonishment, and his de-
fire to reply.

But

YALE
Lewis Walpole

( iv )

But the vote of the National Assembly determined the publication. ROUSSEAU and BURKE are too much of the fame opinion on Government Reform, to be so differently esteemed by the French Assembly.

ROUSSEAU, while living, was not deified in France; but when no more, Monuments, Inscriptions and Orations, recall him to Mankind!

So it will be with Mr. BURKE, when the silent tomb shall enfhrine what once was Genius, we shall be voting him the distinctions his abilities so unequivocally claim---but the time is not yet come.---

"Man never is—but always to be bleft!"

COM-

COMPARISON, &c.

THE several publications, under the name of Anfwers, which have appeared to Mr. BURKE, have goaded me to state my opinion on the nature of those vague attempts; but first to bring into comparifon with the general opinions of a celebrated author, the principles of reform afferted by Mr. BURKE, in his elegant and constitutional work, which will be transmitted to pofterity, as the labour of a Political Hercules, who in a conflict of argument, has overthrown the Hydra of Anarchy moving to apparent conquest over all eftablished government.

B

I may

( 6 )

I may certainly claim exemption from prejudice, for I was one of those who, misconceiving the Rights of Men, and totally misled with respect to the French Revolution, cherisht in the warm credulity of youthful imagination the phantom of creative, constitutional power in the one, and of great, and philosophic views, and fpirit, in the other :—but I am happy to recant my errors, and to move in our long-tried road of political belief, moft ardently thanking Mr. BURKE for the light he has thrown on the subject, and for dispelling the dark, and gradually extending mift, which infenfibly cover'd my ideas, and which at length might have blinded me ſo far, as to make me fyftematically rejoice in the deftructive event of the French Revolution, and like the National Assembly, a wanderer in obſcurity, with a political darklanthorn, caſting its partial and misleading glare on ſubjects the moſt abſtrufe, without at all enlightning the confident, but infatuated adventurer, I ſhould ſoon find myſelf deprived of my temporary light, and feeling the exceſs of my prefumption and weakneſs, exclaim with our poet, “ Chaos is come again.”

I always

( 7 )

I always did, and ſtill do think, that much was to be changed and amended in the government of France, but am now fully convinced, not by rooting it from its ancient foundation,— It ought to have been examined, and not extirpated—repaired, and not rebuilt; for that attempt (if we may compare the work of few years, with the labour of centuries) is as queſtionable as the poffibility of compleating a more adapted, or beautiful ſtructure, than that exhibited in the celebrated Chapel of Cambridge, whose architecture, though ancient, has baffled the pert pretentions of modern competition. Satisfied, therefore, we cannot improve, we faithfully copy; we adopt the defigns of our wiser ancestors, and perpetuate the combined beauties of that airy pile.—The Parliaments of France, were called upon to do the fame, by a ſtructure, as much more venerable, as it was the ſtupenduous monument of their national greatneſs, its foundations laid on the tombs of valour—its ſuperſtructure cemented by the blood of millions!—Age after age flowly raifed the Monarchy—The phrenzy of a moment levelled all its honours !

B 2

The

( 8 )

The memorable period will be proudly named
in future times, when a defpotic monarch, cal-
led the Representatives of the nation together,
and bad them confider the reform of the State.
Charles the fifth reigning his crown, not mi-
tigating his defpotifm, to his Son, not to his
People—or CHRISTINA, learned but untamed,
retiring from the Thrône of Sweden, have been
recorded by Statefmen and Hiftorians as in-
stances of magnanimity.—And the moderate
Louis, in the sublimeft act of generous glory,
is hurled from his Thrône with accumulated in-
dignities!—Hiftorians will here be puzzled for
motives.—What?—A Monarch hurled from
Empire becaufe he abolifhes defpotifm!—It
cannot be!—The national Affembly can only
anfwer the queftion.—

Had the people of France, loudly called for
the meeting of the Parliaments and the King,
in defpotic pride, oppofed them;—had theſe
firſt sparks of contention, fanned by the whifpers
of ambitious poverty, and unprincipled envy.
been gradually blown into Civil War, by the
parching breath of Difcord, we ſhould, little
by

( 9 )

by little, have ſubmitted to the "grave and
over-ruling neceſſity"—of a hard driven peo-
ple;—but ſuch was not the State of Politics
in France.—It was the King, and not the Peo-
ple, who called for reform.—It was not, as
with us in 1688, the King who abandoned
his people; but the people who abandoned
the King, and then, folly being the com-
mon attendant of Crime,—began the phren-
zy of a long Chain of infane rights.—The
Rights of Men, deſtroy the Rights of the
Crown—the Rights of the Peafant deſtroy the
Rights of the Nobility—the Rights of Free-
thinkers deſtroy the Rights of Religion—the
Rights of Power deſtroy the Rights of Juitice—
and at laſt, the Rights of a mutinous Army
deſtroy the Rights of a National Affembly !
—
—*Feminis lugere honeſtum eſt—Viris memi-
niffe!*

A work of Monfieur ROUSSEAU'S " Sur le
Gouvernement de la Pologne," had very much
occupied me, before Mr. BURKE's book was
publifhed; but ſince that publication I have
read ROUSSEAU again, and I cannot allow ſome
of

( 10 )

of his observations to paſs unnoticed.—The
Edition I quote is the London Duodecimo Edi-
tion of 1782 (though I fancy printed abroad)
and I think this colateral authority will be
pleasing to thoſe who from a principle of Juſtice,
and, without being ſubpœned, would adduce
appofite evidence in ſupport of the unimpeach-
able opinions of a Man, pronounced guilty,
without trial, of being a Tory, becauſe he is not
a Democrat—of being a Catholic, becauſe he
is not a Deift!—doubtles upon the new prin-
ciples of “ Civic Law,” as firſt introduced into
Courts, to convert by force, into Gallic Patriots,
the fallen Monarch, the degraded Nobility,
and the infulted Clergy!—

Monfieur ROUSSEAU addreſſes the Poles, in
theſe words — *“ Brave Polonois, prenez
garde!—prenez garde que pour vouloir trop
bien être vous n’empiriez votre ſituation : En fon-
geant a ce que vous voulez acquerir, n’oubliez
pas ce que vous pouvez perdre!—Corrigez, s’il
ſe peut, les abus de votre Conſtitution, mais ne

* Page 4.

mepizez

( II )

meprizez pas celle qui vous a faits ce que vous
êtes !—and—* Ah Je ne pourois trop le redire:
—penſez y bien avant de toucher a vos Loix,
et ſurtout à celles qui vous firent ce que vous
etes.”

There is not in Mr. BURKE's book, a paſſage
more in point than this quotation, and I ſhall
adduce many ſuch from ROUSSEAU, which
form an appendix in evidence of Mr. BURKE's
production.—May every Man, but eſpecially
every Englishman, read that production; not
as the pamphlet of the day, but in the happy
quiet of improvement, in the chearful calm of
Reafon;—let him confider it diveſted of party
ſpirit, and private diſinclination;—let him
meaſure Mr. BURKE's extent of reform.—
Amendment but caution—proſpects for the
future, but reference to the paſt—deductions
from ſact, and not from theory—revifion of
old eſtablishments, but reſpect to cuſtoms.—
The Legiflature to enaſt, and the King to
execute Law—the Clergy to meet with ho-

* Page 40.

nour,

( 12 )

nour, and the Nobility to receive attentions;
—the independant to be free, and the pauper
to be protected!—This is the sketch of
Mr. BURKE's plan of reform—the Child of
Moderation and of reason, which he has ele-
gantly ornamented with the flowers of ability,
and crowned with the Chaplet of thorny Satire;
—and can any person, not approve the one,
and not admire the other.—I declare myself
a Convert, and I am proud of my new faith—
I will not adopt the “ Ephemerous Tale which
does its business, and dies in the day;”—or
swallow a dose of bitters to my appetite for
contradiction, and exaggeration.—I will not
believe Mr. BURKE to mean No, when he says
Yes—to be a Catholic; when he exprefly says—
* “We are Protestants, not from indifference,
but from zeal.”—

But let us fuppofe Mr. BURKE was a Catho-
lic, (I mean a moderate Catholic, attached
to fubftance, and not to forms)—his being
fo, and being as he is, a Man of private in-

* Page 135.

tegrity,

( 13 )

tegrity, would additionally prove how reli-
giously he bends to the dignity and solemn
necessity of an established Church, in giving
up a part of his private conception, to what as
a public Man, the Wisdom of our ancestors,
had enacted to be the teft of attachment to the
British Constitution;—Even this I know will
by many be construed into impiety—but I am
far from supporting irreligion, though I un-
doubtedly prefer public peace, under any Re-
ligion, to confusion and Civil War, to eftablifh
what bigots conceive a more rational faith.—
In the fpirit of true toleration, * “Violently
condemning neither the Greek, nor the Arme-
nian, nor since heats are subfided, the Roman
System of Religion, we prefer the Protestant,
not because we think it has lefs of the Christian
Religion in it, but because, in our Judgment,
it has more.”—If direct language, and direct
preference, can mark the opinions of a Man, I
am not at a lofs to explain what Mr. BURKE is.
—But Mr. BURKE is above panegeric, and
after ages will confider him, as one of the

* Page 134.

C

rarely

( 14 )

rarely appearing wonders of the Creation; who
in the glory of Comets, while prefent en-
lightens and aftonifhes, and when paffed be-
yond us, leaves unfathomed depths of ſpecula-
tion, for the lead of Human Minds.

But I return to ROUSSEAU, and I find * " Je
ne dis pas, qu'il faille laiffer les chofes dans l'etat
ou elles font—mais Je dis, qu'il n'y faut rien
toucher, qu'avec une circonfpection extrême :
En ce Moment on eſt plus frappé des abus,
que des avantages—le temps viendra, Je le
crains, qu'on ſentira mieux les avantages, et
malheurement ſe fera quand on les aura per-
dus.."—Mr. BURKE ſays, † " It is with
infinite caution that any man, ought to venture
upon pulling down an edifice which has an-
fwered, in any tolerable degree for ages,
the common purpofes of ſociety, or of build-
ing it up again, without having models and
patterns of approved utility before his eyes."
—And—‡ " The defects and errors of old
Eſtabliſhments are viſible and palpable."—

* Page 5,

† Page 90,

‡ Page 248.

And

( 15 )

And ſpeaking of Stateſmen, he ſays, " His
movements towards his ultimate object, ought
to be deliberate"—" our patience will atchieve
more than our force."—" By a flow, but
well ſuſtained progreſs, the effect of each ſtep
is watched."—" We compenſate, we reconcile,
we balance"—but quotations are needleſs to
thofe who have read Mr. BURKE,—his reaſons
engrave as they touch.

ROUSSEAU, continues—† " Mettre la Loi,
au deſſus de l'homme, eſt un probleme en Poli-
tique, que Je compare a celui de la quadrature
du Cercle en Geometrie—reſolvez bien ce pro-
bleme, et le gouvernement, fondé ſur cette
ſolution, ſera bon et ſans abus."—What has
the National Aſſembly done ? Firſt to ſanction
its degrees, and cloak its prefumption, it de-
clared Men ſuperior to Laws,—and then to
reſtore to itſelf consideration and authority,
it declared its Laws ſuperior to Men—neither
in the abſtraſt is true—for in ſociety the Man
is the Judge of the Law, and the Law the

* Page 250.

† Page 6.

C 2

Judge

( 16 )

Judge of the Man.— Men and Laws, must therefore be in exact equipoise, for though “ too little, and too much, are treason against property,”—too little, and too much, are the royalties of Justice.—And it is the difficulty of computing this balance which makes experience to Legislators, of as much absolute necessity, as practice to the most ingenious mechanic; and therefore, the examples to be gathered from Governments ancient or actual, defpotic or limited, are of infinitely more service in reforming a State, than the most miraculous system, of the most prophetic democrate;—and Mr. BURKE truly observes, that * “ in politics the most fallacious of all things is Geometrical demonstration.”—And it appears to me equally as absurd to metamorphose France into a huge Chefs Board, at the moment they destroyed Kings and Queens, Bishops and Knights—and they will find their plain of Squares, and of equality as it now exists, as ridiculous and impotent as the Royal game of Chefs, reduced to a party of Pawns.—

* Page 257,

Mr.

( 17 )

Mr. BURKE speaking of the composition of the National Assembly, says, that among the number, * “ there were people of shining abilities, but of any practical experience in the State, not one man was to be found.”—And † “ your politicians do not understand their trade, and therefore they fell their tools ”—and ROUSSEAU—“Je regarde les Nations modernes —J'y vois force faifeurs de loix et pas un legislateur.”

Mr. BURKE, in the most elegant, and sublime language, cherishes the sacred institutes of the Church, (Pages 133, 4, 5, and 6.) and considers the Church and State, among nations in the relation of Soul and Body in Man, so connected as to be inseparable, without producing the death of animated Government, and ROUSSEAU, having touched on the Institutions of Mofes, and Lycurgus, and speaking of those of Numa, attributes the successes of his Legislation; † “ a des institutions douces, qui les attachoient les uns aux autres, et tous a leur Sol, (and not

* Page 59.

‡ Page 235.

† Page 11.

to

( 18 )

to chequer, No. 71) en rendant enfin leur Ville
Sacrée, par ces rites frivoles et superstitieux en
apparence, dont si peu de Gens sentent la force
et l'effect, et dont cependant Romulus, ce
farouche Romulus lui même, avoit jetté les
premiers fondemens."—And Mr. BURKE re-
ferring the laws of the State to those of Divine
Wisdom, says, *" the oblation of the State,
a worthy offering on the High Altar of Uni-
versal Praife, should be performed as all
public, solmen acts, are performed, in build-
ings, in music, in decoration, in speech, in
the integrity of persons, according to the
cuftoms of mankind, taught by their nature;
that is, with modeft splendor, with unaffum-
ing State, with mild majesty, and sober pomp."
—He continues, †" the confecration of the
State, by a State religious eſtablishment, is
neceſsary alſo to operate with an wholeſome
awe upon free citizens."—And ROUSSEAU, is
of opinion, that ‡" le même eſprit guida tous
les anciens legislateurs, dans leurs inſtitutions.
—Tous chercherent des liens qui attachaſſent

les citoyens a la patrie, et les uns aux autres,
et ils le trouvèrent dans des usages particulieres,
dans des ceremonies Religieues."—

Monfieur ROUSSEAU on many ſubjects is ſpecu-
lative and wild, but in this cafe he attaches him-
felf to the ſystems of ancient Lawgivers, and I
believe with Mr. BURKE, *that were ROUSSEAU
alive and in one of his lucid intervals, he would
be ſhocked at the practical phrenzy of his
ſcholars.—

There cannot be a comparifon more appofite,
than that which meets the reader in the account,
and deſcription of the Countries under confider-
ation of the French and Englifh authors—
Poland, an elective, regal Republic—poor,
weak, and under the goad of alien influence:—
France, an hereditary deſpotic Monarchy—rich,
powerful, and ſpurning foreign dependance—
Each feeling the defects of its Government
—In each a Conſtitutional Malady, to be re-
moved by time and by regimen—In Poland

( 19 )

I


* Page 146.

‡ Page 137

§ * Page 12.

les

* Page 253.

that

( 20 )

that of the despotism of Nobles leading a nation of Slaves, and arrayed in arms, the necessary consequence of the infirmity and weaknes of the executive power— In France, that of an unlimited Monarchy, weilding its stubborn fway over a Loyal and oppreffed people, till a liberal and compassionate, though a profuse and easy Monarch, feeling the reciprocal wants of the Crown and people, gratuitoufly committed his Iron Sceptre, to be tempered by the chafte fires of free and loyal subjects, and polifhed by the mild courte of an ancient and enlightened Nobility.—Such was the ftate of France—How easily could fuch a Monarch, and fuch a people, before the one was difgraced and the other depraved, have given and acquired fuch regulated and computed powers, which like the application of the Wheel to the Axle, would have created a proportioned but commanding force; unknown in Governments, as in mechanics, but in the union of powers.—

Monfieur ROUSSEAU in taking a review of the
ftate of Poland, makes an obfervation equally
applicable

( 21 )

applicable to France—he fays, * “La Pologne
etoit dans les fers des Ruffes—mais les Polonois
font reftez libres”—we may fay, la France etoit
dans les fers du defpotifm, mais les Francois etoit
reftez libres—but it is now compleatly reversed
—la France s’abandonne a l’anarchie, mais les
Francois ne font pas libres—I fay, equally appli-
cable, becaufe the poſition was only ſo, in each
of the countries to the ſuperior clafſes of So-
ciety.—

Monfieur ROUSSEAU is decidedly for "building on the old foundation"—He tells the Poles, he would amend their Government †"fans prefque toucher au fond de vos loix"—and strongly recommends what in France they laugh at, for ‡"they began ill, becaufe they began by deſpifing every thing that belonged to them"—§ "reſpecting their forefathers, they would have been taught to reſpect themſelves"—but on the contrary, || "they deſpifed themſelves until the moment they became truly deſpicable."—How

* Page 16.

‡ Page 19.

Page 51.

§ Page 52.

|| Page 54.

D

different

( 22 )

different the conduct ROUSSEAU advices the
Poles to follow — * “ Commencez toujours,
par donner au Polonois une grande opinion
d'eux mêmes, et de leur patrie"—car “ il faut
monter les ames au ton des ames antiques”—
“ et renverfer un execrable proverbe, et faire
dire au fond du cœur. Ubi patria, ibe bene !—

Mr. BURKE, has been very pointed; and
of necessity so, on the difference between ab-
fraact, and moral liberty. The first being
the inheritance of nature, common to man
and beaft, the latter that of society.—He says,
† “I love a manly, moral, and regulated liber-
ty;”—but ‡ “am I to congratulate a high-
wayman, who has broken prifon, on the re-
covery of his natural rights.”—§ “The effect
of liberty to individuals is, that they may do
what they pleafe”—and therefore, before we
rejoice, “we ought to see what it pleafes them
to do”—for it is moft truly obferved, not
only by Mr. BURKE, but by Mr. Locke that
“liberty when men act in bodies is power.”

* Page 19.

§ Page 9.

† Page 7.

‡ Page 8.

—Let

( 23 )

—Let us now read Mr. ROUSSEAU—* “ La liberté eſt un aliment de bon ſuc, mais de forte digestion : il faut des eſtomacs bien ſain pour le ſupporter—Je ris de ces peuples, qui ofent parler de la liberté ſans en avoir l'idée, et qui s'immaginent que pour être libre; il ſuffit d'être mutins.—Fiere et ſainte liberté !—fi ces pauvres gens, pouvoient te connoitre, s'ils ſavoient a quel prix on t'acquiert et te conferve; s'ils ſentoient combien tes loix ſont plus auſteres que n'eſt dur le joug des tyrans, leurs foibles ames, te craindrois plus cent fois qne la fer-vitude—ils te fuiroient avec effroi, comme un fardeau prêt a les efraſer.”—

> They call for freedom, in their fenfeleſs moods,
> And ſtill revolt, when Truth would ſet them free!—
> Licence they mean, when they cry, Liberty!—

MILTON.

And here I muſt beg leave to obſerve, how
parallel ROUSSEAU's idea of moral liberty is
with that in eſteem among our countrymen,
and how correctly it is delineated—“ Combien
tes loix ſont plus auſteres, que n'eſt dur le joug

* Page 47.

D 2

des

( 24 )

des tyrans.”—It is not the absence of restraint, or the defTRACTION of authority which constitutes English Liberty.—Liberty is immediately, *“ combined with government, with public force, with the discipline and obedience of armies, with the collection of an effective, and well distributed revenue; with morality and religion, with the solidity of property, with peace and order, with civil and social manners:— without them, liberty is not a benefit whilst it lafts, and is not likely to continue long.”— And with a view to these objects, in France ——————† “ true liberty is loft, which always with right reafon dwells.”—

Monfieur ROUSSEAU adopts this very juft
principle, that the Executive and Legislativ'e
Powers, muſt be in ſeparate hands; and that
from the natural tendency of their varied duties,
the Executive, a Power in the hands of one,
active and armed with Civil and Military au-
thority, has a continued tendency, if not pre-
cisely defined and limited, to manage and

‡ Page 9.

† Milton.

oppreſs

( 25 )

oppreſs the Legislativ'e Power, which ought to
be uninfluenced by any authority but that of
reafon, by any force but that of argument;
for * “ Laws are commanded to hold their
tongues amongſt arms.” —

The active and ambitious nature of Execu-
tive Power, is certainly dangerous to the deli-
berate and jealous timidity of Legislativ'e Virtue.
—Theſe Powers partake of the nature of human
defects, and are ſubject to the laws of human
controul; the one is the ardent ſeducer of def-
potifm, the other, the coy Virgin of Liberty.
This attempting illegitimate authority, that con-
ferring legalized poſſeffion;—and thus, in the
code of regulated States, as in the code of
poliſhed Society, the moſt unbridled inclina-
tions of man, bitted and managed by the pa-
tient but perſevering curbs of law, are tempered
to diſpence, with tearful ſenſibility, to nations
and to men, the terrors of puniſhment, or the
joys of mercy.—

* Page 48.

This

( 26 )

This benificent and elegant disposition, has reflected high honour on the Emperor LEOPOLD, who, by the mild confristancy of his conduct, has reduced commotions to tranquillity, and rebellion to loyalty:—who, inftructed by the follies of his brother, has seen the error of ex-travagant reform, (as dangerous to kings as to subjects,) and following the mild examples of the late excellent Princes MARIA THERESA, has only to lament the lofs of LAUDOHN, and the age of KAUNITZ. It is to be regretted, that the reforming JOSEPH, was not King of the reforming French. What a glorious partner-ship in deftruction would have been produced by this union of sympathising natures;—they might have faid to the world, while rejoicing on the ruins they had effected—

—the noblenefs of life,
Is to do this, when fuch a mutual pair,
And fuch a twain can do it !—

SHAKESPEARE.

But to return—Monfieur ROUSSEAU enters into the discuffion of dividing the Executive Power, but concludes upon the neceffity of en-trusting

( 27 )

trufting it, under proper restricitions, into the hands of one:—*“ Pour que l'administration soit forte, bonne, et marche bien a son but, toute la puifance executive doit être dans les mêmes mains.” It is needlefs to give Mr. BURKE's, or any Englishman's idea of the nature of this truft, and to whom, and in what manner it was at the Revolution, and fshould at any time be delegated. Mr. BURKE, (pages 292, 3, 4, and 5,) will, however, explain that to any perfon entertaining doubts on the subject.

Monfieur ROUSSEAU attacks the people of England, on the fubject of their repreſentatives, and abufes the nation for not ſpecifying to the Members of Parliament, each vote they are to give in the Houſe:—“ La deſſus Je ne puis qu'admirer la negligence, l'encurie, et j'ofe dire, la ſtupidité, de la nation Angloife, qui apres avoir armés des deputes, de la ſuprême puifance, n'y ajoute aucun frein, pour regler l'uſage qu'ils en pouront faire pendant ſept ans entiers, que dure leur commission.”

* Page 55.

And

( 28 )

And here I must beg leave to say, that I
think a certain reform would be judicious.—I
do not mean in the mode of election, or in the
qualification required, either to vote or repre-
fent, but in freeing all boroughs from private
tenure, and letting them return into the mafs
of representation :—but this must be done by
the Legislature, and not by the House of Com-
mons, were every member an ARISTIDES.
This is one of the reforms which might, and
may be made at a future day :—but I certainly
do not mean to destroy, with a view of im-
proving the modes of election, occasion will
alter, and opportunity amend them.—But how
came Monsieur ROUSSEAU to fuppose the
Members of the House of Commons armed
with “fupreme puissance :”—he forgot that
House was but the third of that Supreme
Power; and, though in the compound of go-
vernment the strongest, separately the weakest
third, feeing the King, and the Peerage are
hereditary, the Commons at longeſt septennial,
and always ſubject to be diſolved at the King’s
pleasure.—But paſſing this error, his principle

is

( 29 )

is erroneous; for a Member of the House of
Commons fitting in Parliament, does not solely
and exclusively represent the place he fits for;—
he is one of the English House of Commons,
which House represents the people of Great
Britain—a proof of which is that at the Union,
it was computed that Forty-five Members from
Scotland, would nearly average the proportions
of representation for the two kingdoms: those
Forty-five persons are at the choice of the elec-
tors, but once chosen to Parliament, they repre-
fent not merely the part of Great Britain called
Scotland, but have also their voice in the affairs
of England; and vice versa, English Members,
in the affairs of Scotland:—the House of Com-
mons is independent of all control from its
Electors, though always open to advice or in-
formation. It is the fame with the Sixteen
Peers; they represent the body by which they
are chosen, and of which they themselves are
Members, and not the friends who choose them:
they represent opponents as well as supporters.
But Monsieur ROUSSEAU is obliged to give la-
titude,

E

titude,

( 30 )

titude, even to his indentured representatives;
" D'ailleurs pourvu qu'un Nonce ne faffe rien
de contraire a l'expresse volonté, de ses con-
ftituans; ils ne lui ferons pas un crime, d'avoir
opiné en bon citoyen, fur une matiere, qu'ils
nauroient pas prevue, et fur laquelle ils n'au-
roient rien determiné :"—this is eye enough to
let a Camel out; and here arifes a very ftrong
argument againſt the law, which would pre-
vent a man fitting in two ſucceffive Parlia-
ments, as decreed by the National Aſſembly,
and defended by Monſieur ROUSSEAU*, for
the hopes of being re-elected is one of the
ſtrong and proper ties a county or borough
has on its member.

Monfieur ROUSSEAU * confiders the fre-
quent meetings of Parliament:—it is generally
allowed they cannot meet too often, particu-
larly as our members are not paid for their par-
liamentary attendance. I do not enter into
Monfieur ROUSSEAU's arguments on the length

* Page 60.

† Page 57 and 58.

‡ Page 61.

of

( 31 )

of his common and extraordinary meetings of
Parliament, becaufe it has nothing to do with
principles, to which alone I am attentive, ex-
cept in as much as it eſtabliſhes the propriety
of their frequent meeting.

There is not any man who entertains a
doubt of the folly and impropriety of admit-
ting troops into the High Court of Parliament;
into Courts of Jüſtice, or at elections.—
We think with Monſieur ROUSSEAU, and feel,
* " la barbarie et l'horrible indecence de voir
l'appareil, des armes profaner le ſanctuaire des
loix."—

Our late act for regiftering freeholds, is the
application of Le livre d'or de Venife, to all
freeholders; but its extent in this country
made the exercife of it impracticable.—Never
take that for fact or proof, which is only tried
on models : you may ſufpend, that of a ſhip on
its keel, without affecting the model—do ſo by
a ſhip, and the inevitably falls to pieces.

* Page 64.

E 2

The

( 3² )

The Veto is certainly a power, as poſſed by
individuals, of monſtrous activity—the delibera-
tions of a ſtate, are not to be liable to the ſullen
or unprincipled Veto of any one man; it is
giving to every member the power of a king,
at the very time the king is denied that power;
it is giving as many commanders in chief, as
there are perſons; it is converting a popular af-
ſembly into a diſbanded army; it is deftroying
the healthy habit of majorities, to which only
ſuch a power ſhould belong, and in that ſhape
it ſhould attach ſeparately to every branch of
the legiſlature. Monsieur ROUSSEAU explains
the Veto, and its abufes very clearly, in pages
91, 2, 3, and 4, and only allows the uſe of
it in Poland, as we allow a certain liberty to
madmen, by intervals rational, that is, with
monſtrous reſtrictions, in a fort of political
ſtraight-waſtcoat, ſo bound up it cannot do
harm, ſo confined it cannot do good.

On the ſubject of the king, Monsieur ROUSSEAU
ſays, “ *qu’il doit etre, pas ſa place, le ſupreme

* Page 78.

admi-

( 33 )

adminiſtrateur des loix”—but he objects to his
naming the ſenate*, a baſtard houſe of peers,
and I think for very good reaſons, while its ille-
gitimacy bars its right to hereditary ſucceſſion—
for were the ſenate hereditary Monsieur Rous-
SEAU thinks, that like the houſe of peers in
this country, it would alſo be independant of
the crown—whereas the Poliſh ſenate upon de-
mife is compleated by royal appointment, which
neceſſarily throws great influence into the king’s
hands, without leaving an immoveable peerage
to preſerve the equipoife.

Monsieur ROUSSEAU then ſketches the powers
of the crown, and he very properly diſlocates
them, that they may accord with the disjointed
members of the Poliſh constitution, and after
finding ligaments for the unconnected powers of
king, ſenate, diet, and dietines, he concludes
by a complete, though cloaked panegyric on
the constitution of England, for he ſays of
Poland, the crown muſt not be hereditary as
in England, becauſe the ſenate is not heredi-

* Page 80.

tary ;

( 34 )

tary; and the Senate must not be hereditary, as the Lords are in England, because the diet has not, with the Commons of England, the exclusive management and grant of monies. It is therefore evident that if the Diet had the power of our Commons, and the Senate the continuity of our peerage, the Crown might without alarm to Liberty, and with great addition of authority, be settled in hereditary succession, and enjoy with the other departments of the Legislature, the power of its Veto.—I transcribe Monsieur ROUSSEAU's passage, *"mais pour maintenir l'egalité principe de la Constitution, rien n'y doit être heréditaire que la Noblesse."—Si la couronne etoit heréditaire, il faudroit pour conferver l'équilibre que la Pairie, ou l'ordre Senatorial, le fut auffi, comme en Angleterre—alors l'ordre Equestre, abaité, perdroit fon pouvoir; la Chambre des Nonces n'ayant pas comme celle des Communes, celui d'ouvrir et fermer tous les ans le trésor public."

Monsieur ROUSSEAU is warmly attached to the "Confederations," in Poland, because he

* Page 89,

thinks

( 35 )

thinks Government cannot act with sufficient celerity in case of public danger.—That is, because the Crown of that country has not its necessary powers; if it had, it could repress all commotions within, and in the event of sudden invasion, the crown can much more easily assemble a "confederation;" that is an armed force, than all the "Marechaux" in the country. And here I cannot but remark, how thankful we English ought to be to protecting Providence, for our watery "confederation;" for that small arm of the sea, which protects us from sudden and unexpected attack, which, while it makes our commerce accessible to every part of our country, makes our country inaccessible to the destructive horrors of invasion and battle. When I examine a map of France, or Germany, within the sweep of the smallest circle, I enclose the cruel mark of destruction: a date created with two words, and with pleasure I know it is not the heraldry of British Geographers; our tranquillity is at its highest, when our country is most severely precluded: it is never "eminus et comminus" in England; our harvest is safe, when our army is routed; and in the

( 36 )

the most dreadful of defeats which can befal,
but has never yet dishonoured, this country, the
capture or destruction of a fleet, we have yet
time and opportunity to join our militia to our
remaining regular forces, and headed by the
King, leading his Peers, his Commons, and
his People, to oppose the invasion levelled
against "our state, our hearths, our sepulchres,
and our altars."—

Monfieur ROUSSEAU continues his work under the head of " Administration," but this part of his performance, he observes, in the beginning of this chapter is merely a sketch, and not immediately recommended to the Poles, as he confesses himself wanting in the knowledge and circumstance, necessary to the application of a system of administration or finance: here therefore, conclude the principles of reform recommended by Monfieur ROUSSEAU, which to sum up, are these.— The Government of Poland is acknowledged to possess great defects, the end of all good government being the happiness and freedom of its subjects; but where there are great defects, there

( 37 )

there must of consequence be great palliatives,
for without the qualification of the laft, the
first ingredient would not be bearable: What
government could found its existence on ex-
clusive crime and depravity?—Virtue gene-
rously veils the faults of Vice; the most barba-
rous nations have their cuftoms of equity—their
humanity when exercised is grotesque and ro-
mantic, their cruelty proportionably refined and
extravagant; but still they preserve their dif-
tinctions between right and wrong, and indeed,
the distinction is more marked than with us;
for like a drawing, whose outlines are not gra-
dually softened into mildness and beauty, the
character appears in all its original strength,
exhibiting the rude powers of untaught genius,
and the strong features of unpolished nature:
but as this partially existing, though deplora-
ble state of human nature, is only to be found
in the suburbs of civilized Europe, and cannot
be applied to Poland; we are authorized to
think its government to contain a proportion
of excellence, which by habit and practice,
being adapted to the manners and cuftoms of
the Poles, it is wife and considerate, to reform

F

with

( 38 )

with feeling, and to correct with judgment. It is within the competence of elegant talents to correct, perhaps to improve the Paradise loft of MILTON, by altering particular parts; but it would be a labour indeed, for the sublimed genius to compofe its ſuperior; ſo it is with Government; we may as they arise meliorate defects, but we cannot range beyond the limits of human ability; we may amend the errors of our conſtitution, but we cannot eſtablish any that will be unknown to errors.—

Whether Monsieur ROUSSEAU's reform would have anſwered, is ſtill ſubject of ſpeculation.— If it had, its ſucces would have been owing to the prefervation of the experienced good of the Polifh conſtitution; and if it had failed, it would be in conſequence of ſpeculative im-provements. I therefore draw this conclusion, that in Poland or in France, in Germany or in England, the venerable trunk of Empire is more likely to renew its vigour, by well-timed and occafional lopping than by tearing it up from its eſtablished bed; and then, ſystematically arranging the roots, and hypothetically di-recting

( 39 )

recting the branches to replant, as if renovated, this elementary tree; nature cannot endure the rude proceſs, man cannot bear ſuch ſudden change, his roots of prejudice have taken, they are not to be torn from his mind; his branches of knowledge are fixed, they cannot be twiſted from nature, but they may all be gradually bent, all be reaſonably ſpread.—

It may be objected to me, that Monsieur ROUSSEAU in many parts of his Work differs from Mr. BURKE, I admit it, but on the principle common to both, that we are not to deſpife the whole, becauſe we diſlike a part, I ſelect what is good in ROUSSEAU, and I leave what I cannot approve, to the admiration of thoſe who in opinion, differ with me.—It is however to be remarked, that where Monsieur ROUSSEAU is cautious and circumſpect, and moves upon faſt, he generally agrees with Mr. BURKE, and differs only where he enters into theory; when he makes Poland rich without money, ſtrong without armies, inacceſſible without barriers.—Imagines Patriots at the plough, and levies revenue in “Denrees;” pays the public ſervants with rations,

( 40 )

rations, and at pleasure converts the quiet citizen into the experienced soldier, logically convincing him into military exercise, and sends him home to his Lucretia, and to his Horatius, with a volcano of patriotism in his bosom, which is only to burst when Reaſon commands. Such are among his dreams, ſporting with fancies never to be realized, and spinning cobwebs to trepan inſect imaginations, and almost confirming his reaſon to be merely a “lucid interval.”—

I conclude, with expreſſing my hope, that Mr. BURKE will give us the production he has induced us to look for; his consideration of the Constitution of England; and I am confident in afferting, it is as much defied by those who condemn his production on France, as by his moſt ſanguine admirers,—fuch is the deference honourably paid to Genius.—

I now come to consider the anſwers to Mr. BURKE.—

A VINDI.

A
VINDICATION

OF THE

RIGHTS of MEN, &c.

Printed by I. JOHNSON, 1790.

I EXPECTED in this Vindication of the Rights of Men, to have found argument deduced from historical fact, to confute Mr. BURKE's positions.—I find neither, but much digression, much misrepresentation, much misapprehension, and but one fact brought in evidence of the writer's assertions; which I shall quote, and make one short observation upon. Page 37, I read “BLACKSTONE, to whom Mr. BURKE pays great deference; (and who is there does not?)” seems to agree with Dr. PRICE, that the succession of the King of Great Britain depends on the choice of the people, or that they have a power to cut it off,”—and to prove this

( 42 )

this he quotes the following paſſage from
BLACKSTONE—" The doctrine of hereditary
right, does by no means imply an indefeſible
right to the thrône; no man will, I think, af-
fert this, that has confidered our laws, conſti-
tution, and hiftory without prejudice, and with
any degree of attention : It is unqueſtionably
in the breaſt of the ſupreme legiſlative authority
of the Kingdom, the King, and both Houſes
of Parliament”—not the people!—“ to defeat
this hereditary right, and by particular entails,
limitations and provisions, to exclude the im-
mediate heir, and veſt the inheritance in any
one else; this is ſtrictly confonant to our laws
and conſtitution, as may be gathered from the
expression ſo frequently uſed in our ſtatute
books, of the Kings majesty, his heirs and ſuc-
ceſſors—in which we may obſerve that as the
word heirs, neceſſarily implies an inheritance
or hereditary right generally ſubſifting in the
Royal perſon, ſo the word ſucceſſors, diſtinetly
taken, muſt imply that this inheritance may
ſometimes be broken through, or that there
may be a ſucceſſor without being the heir of
the King.”—Indeſeſible right is no longer a
point

( 43 )

point in queſtion—The right of the Legiſtature,
that is the King, Lords, and Commons, is as
little to be disſputed; if it was, what becomes of
Mr. BLACKSTONE's term, Supreme ?

It needs no great talent to diſcover that what
is only law by the conſent of the three Eſtates,
cannot be ſo at the will of one of them; of a
deſpotic National Aſſembly—Were we, in imi-
tation of France to elect a National Aſſembly,
what would it be but another Houſe of Com-
mons, though no more like the Englifh,
“ than Hyperion to a Satyr”—Who would
chufe this aſſembly ?—the very people who
chufe the Houſe of Commons; to which reſpect-
able electors, would be added a multitude of
untried beings, whose ignorance, and new
blown pride would only increaſe the ferment of
all public election, and make the reaſonable
part of the people, thoſe who have a ſhare in
the public wealth, ſay to theſe new voters on
the rights of Men—

Away ye Scum,—

That ſtill rife upmoſt when the Nation boils :

DRYDEN.

But

( 44 )

But let me ask any man of the most common
fense and " muddy understanding," whether
from any thing in this quotation Mr. BLACK-
STONE can be supposed to coincide in opinion
with Dr. PRICE, on any of his *" three funda-
mental rights."—No—

There is an error common to all these an-
swerers, they eternally, and either ignorantly
or wilfully, confound the rights of men with the
rights of the people, that is the power of the Le-
giflature, in which the representatives of the
people are but one third of the composition—
The right of men is the common law of nature,
expressive of the rights, or rather the powers
equally enjoyed by hords of favages; but the
rights of the People of England, is the social
and protecting exercife of covenanted laws and
cuftoms.

The debates on the regency bill, in both
Houses of Parliament is a proof of the inade-
quacy of thofe Houses to do any thing without

* Burke, Page 20.

the

( 45 )

the Crown, even when the Crown is totally
unable to act—for though party ran high, too
high, the weakneſs of the Houſes of Lords
and Commons, was admitted by both, and they
endeavoured to raiſe a *caput mortuum* to nod af-
fent, that the forms of law might at leaſt be in-
violate; which, though in my opinion a falacy,
as to the point then in queſtion, is a proof of the
incompetancy to a legal act of the Lords and
Commons, or any Houſe of aſſembly only.

There is not one poſition of Mr. BURKE,
fave this which is attempted to be anſwered,
and I do not enter into abufe unfupported by
faſt.—I, therefore, take my leave of this pro-
duction.

G

THOUGHTS

THOUGHTS
ON
GOVERNMENT, &c.

Printed for J. DEBRETT. 1790.

THE Author of this Pamphlet agrees with Mr. BURKE, upon his general principles of government, but like the Ghost in Hamlet, is at variance with the early light of our forefathers. He heard the Cock of the Diffenters crow, and retired from the broad day of ancient knowledge to reap instruction in the dark meeting of the Old Jewry—As a proof of his agreeing with Mr. BURKE, let any person read the following paflage—* “ Had France enjoyed such a well regulated democracy, balanced by a separate order of Nobles, who, if

* Page 8.

they

they had not strength ultimately to refift, may yet impofe their negative, and compel the Commons again and again to deliberate—had the permanency of their Conftitution been yet further fecured by an hereditary monarchy, poffeffing exclusively the whole executive power of the State, and enabled to appeal to the people even againſt their repreſentatives, on any projected innovation in their government; raſh indeed would have been the nation who under these circumftances had committed their deareſt intereſts to the hazard of a change.”

What is this but to ſay, that the Government of France, even if it had not “ excellencies” ought to have * “ its faults corrected, and its capacities improved into a Britiſh conſtitution.”

This paſſage is enough, as every other part is from the purpofe.

* Burke, Page 195.

G 2

REMARKS

REMARKS
ON THE
LETTER
OF THE
Right Honorable EDMUND BURKE, &c

By CAPEL LOFFT.

MR. LOFFT, if he had not been a friend of Dr. PRICE, would have been a partizan of Mr. BURKE's performance—they now agree on very material points in the present whirlwind government of France—Mr. LOFFT says—*“So as to give the outline of a free and firm constitution, retaining so much of ancient usage as should obviate prejudice and conciliate union, and adopting so much of new”— or rather borrowed—“provisions as should secure the preponderance of public and general

* Page 8.

right,”

right,”—for these “new provisions” have been all applied in different governments, particularly in the government of England.

Mr. LOFFT, with others, confounds the rights of Men, and the rights of the Legislature, viz. King, Lords, and Commons.

Let us suppose the people did, on the principles of the rights of Men, that is by force, alter their representation, graciously leaving the King and the Lords as they exist—Let us suppose they changed the Mode of Election, still the People must choose representatives, and at the diffusion of Parliament, have they not actually the power of choosing whom they will, and is not their right frequently exercised against all private interests, for in this pamphlet, the bone of contention is the mode of election, and not the existence of Parliament. The people certainly have at this day that right, and the fault so heavily complained of, is not in the usage of Parliament, but in the will of the people.

Mr. LOFFT

( 50 )

Mr. LOFFT says of Man—* “He remains with his full right of self defence”—and in the next page afferts, “that it is just, having submitted to make society the arbiter of differences (without which submission, Society could not exist) to acquiesce in the decisions which Society shall make.”—Where then is his right of self defence?

Mr. LOFFT also agrees with Mr. BURKE in many other points—and recommends tendernefs † “even to apparent extreme, in the treatment of Customs which have blended themselves with the opinions, the habits, the earlieft and lateft views of the People—Light is to be offered, but in vain will it be forced upon them.”

The Author objects to the deftruction of the religious institutions, and agrees with Mr. BURKE in his ideas of supporting ancient pre-judices, but with Mr. BURKE, not in extremes. He adopts Mr. BURKE's wishes of encou-

* Page 37

† Page 45

raging

( 51 )

raging the sentiments, though not the actual romance of chivalry.

Mr. LOFFT feels the * “attractive dignity of female excellence,” and comprehends, “the homage paid to the Sex in general, as such, without distinct views.”†—perhaps also with distinct views; in my opinion men cannot but feel both.

Mr. LOFFT approves of the idea of a Senate, ‡ “to check precipitate decisions, temporary influences of faction, and the mischief of more fixed cabals.”

He totally disapproves the mode of circumspect Elections.§

He was never || “eafy” with the confiscations of the possessions of the Church.

He is not ¶ “pleafed” with the abolition of titles and armorial bearings.

* Page 50, † Burke, Page 114, ‡ Lofft, Page 61.

§ Page 62. || Page 63. ¶ Page 64.

He

( 52 )

He holds cheap the qualification of three days labour, and * "fears Mr. BURKE has expressed himself not more forcibly than justly, when he speaks of them (the qualifications) as impotent to secure independence."—Why does he "fear" this?—because

—" Conscience does make cowards of us all"—

and Mr. LOFFT disapproves of periodical Judges,—and doubts the superiority of representation to be produced by the three Bases.

I confess, I see but little that Mr. LOFFT admires among the French; and there again we perfectly agree.

* Page 65. Line 66.

OBSER.

OBSERVATIONS
ON THE
REFLECTIONS
OF THE
Right Hon. EDMUND BURKE, &c.

IN A LETTER TO THE
Right Hon. the Earl of STANHOPE.

THIS Pamphlet is a cordial for Lord STANHOPE and Dr. PRICE, and a healing plaister for the two Clubs.

In treating of King JAMES's abdication, and the deviation of the succession from the Catholic to the nearest Protestant line, the author says, * "It might warrant any plain thinking man, in the opinion, that the present reigning family owe their succession to the choice or affect of the people."—Is it intended to be conveyed,

* Page 10.

H

that

( 54 )

that “ choice,” and “ affent,” are the fame ?
When on trial you lose your cause, and “ af-
fent” to the verdict, in due submiffion to the
rights of the people, not of men, can it be said by
the moft plain thinking man, that verdict was
your “ choice?” —Choice and affent are not
more nearly related than Power and Rights.—
The line of choice lengthens into that of power,
the line of affent, into that of rights; but they
are parallels, and can never meet. In the elec-
tion of their representatives, the people are in
poſſeffion of their choice and power—in doing
homage to the laws, they eſtablish their affent
and their rights.—

The author fays, * “ Without the Prince of
Orange, and the affiſtance of his Dutch army,
there could have been no Revolution;—under
this ſtatement, it was either effected by the Prince
of Orange, and his Dutch army; or, by the af-
fent of the People of England, to the care and
wisdom of the Convention. If, by the Prince
and his Dutch army, what becomes of the power

* Page 11.

of

( 55 )

of chufing our Governors, as eſtabliſhed in the
opinion of Dr. PRICE at the Revolution. The
People of England at that time did feel the op-
pression of King JAMES's weakneſs and wicked-
neſs; and as all circles have a center, all Revo-
lutions have their leader. The Prince of
Orange was no more when he landed, than the
center of motion, round which the ſtagnate
powers of a fettered country began to move, and
to whose circumference the flight of the STUARTS
formed a Royal Tangent:—they have ſince that
rounded their flight into an Ellipſis, and in the
pride of Comets, furious, but not feared, have
endeavoured to return to the country, from
whence they trace their orbit. But the laws of
England, on the principles of thofe of Nature,
have a due proportion of attraſting and repel-
ling powers; and while we remain true to thofe
laws, we need not apprehend any nearer ap-
proach.—

The Dutch army was ſmall, and once obliged
to return to its own country. Had JAMES
therefore depended upon the “ Constitutional
Phlegm” of the English, or on their attach-
ment,

( 56 )

ment, he might easily have made head againft
the Prince of Orange; but James knew him-
felf estranged from the people; defpised by the
Independent Interest, and watched by the
Houfes of Lords and Commons. In ſhort, the
Revolution was the effect of neceffity—of the
affent of the People of England, to the care
and wisdom of the Convention.

I have but one more Observation to make
on a part of this anſwer; on the ſubject of
Finance, it declares a " total ignorance," and
yet defends the National Aſſembly on that very
point; becauſe truly, that Aſſembly * " ap-
pears" to have a ſolid fund to ſupport its af-
ſignats.—But,

" By outward ſhow let's not be cheated,
A Rogue ſhould like a Rogue be treated."

GAY.

* Page 69.

F I N I S.