The Rights of Man

Acerca de este libro
Esta es una copia digital de un libro que, durante generaciones, se ha conservado en las estanterías de una biblioteca, hasta que Google ha decidido
escanearlo como parte de un proyecto que pretende que sea posible descubrir en línea libros de todo el mundo.
Ha sobrevivido tantos años como para que los derechos de autor hayan expirado y el libro pase a ser de dominio público. El que un libro sea de
dominio público significa que nunca ha estado protegido por derechos de autor, o bien que el período legal de estos derechos ya ha expirado. Es
posible que una misma obra sea de dominio público en unos países y, sin embargo, no lo sea en otros. Los libros de dominio público son nuestras
puertas hacia el pasado, suponen un patrimonio histórico, cultural y de conocimientos que, a menudo, resulta difícil de descubrir.
Todas las anotaciones, marcas y otras señales en los márgenes que estén presentes en el volumen original aparecerán también en este archivo como
testimonio del largo viaje que el libro ha recorrido desde el editor hasta la biblioteca y, finalmente, hasta usted.
Normas de uso
Google se enorgullece de poder colaborar con distintas bibliotecas para digitalizar los materiales de dominio público a fin de hacerlos accesibles
a todo el mundo. Los libros de dominio público son patrimonio de todos, nosotros somos sus humildes guardianes. No obstante, se trata de un
trabajo caro. Por este motivo, y para poder ofrecer este recurso, hemos tomado medidas para evitar que se produzca un abuso por parte de terceros
con fines comerciales, y hemos incluido restricciones técnicas sobre las solicitudes automatizadas.
Asimismo, le pedimos que:
+ Haga un uso exclusivamente no comercial de estos archivos Hemos diseñado la Búsqueda de libros de Google para el uso de particulares;
como tal, le pedimos que utilice estos archivos con fines personales, y no comerciales.
+ No envíe solicitudes automatizadas Por favor, no envíe solicitudes automatizadas de ningún tipo al sistema de Google. Si está llevando a
cabo una investigación sobre traducción automática, reconocimiento óptico de caracteres u otros campos para los que resulte útil disfrutar
de acceso a una gran cantidad de texto, por favor, envíenos un mensaje. Fomentamos el uso de materiales de dominio público con estos
propósitos y seguro que podremos ayudarle.
+ Conserve la atribución La filigrana de Google que verá en todos los archivos es fundamental para informar a los usuarios sobre este proyecto
y ayudarles a encontrar materiales adicionales en la Búsqueda de libros de Google. Por favor, no la elimine.
+ Manténgase siempre dentro de la legalidad Sea cual sea el uso que haga de estos materiales, recuerde que es responsable de asegurarse de
que todo lo que hace es legal. No dé por sentado que, por el hecho de que una obra se considere de dominio público para los usuarios de
los Estados Unidos, lo será también para los usuarios de otros países. La legislación sobre derechos de autor varía de un país a otro, y no
podemos facilitar información sobre si está permitido un uso específico de algún libro. Por favor, no suponga que la aparición de un libro en
nuestro programa significa que se puede utilizar de igual manera en todo el mundo. La responsabilidad ante la infracción de los derechos de
autor puede ser muy grave.
Acerca de la Búsqueda de libros de Google
El objetivo de Google consiste en organizar información procedente de todo el mundo y hacerla accesible y útil de forma universal. El programa de
Búsqueda de libros de Google ayuda a los lectores a descubrir los libros de todo el mundo a la vez que ayuda a autores y editores a llegar a nuevas
audiencias. Podrá realizar búsquedas en el texto completo de este libro en la web, en la página http://books.google.com
This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized
by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the
information in books and make it universally accessible.
https://books.google.com
* 35. 7. 121.
<3
MENTEM ALIT ET EXCOLIT
1478
onop poo
K.K. HOFBIBLIOTHEK
OSTERR . NATIONALBIBLIOTHEK
* 35.V. 124
* 35.V: 121. THE
RIGHTS OF MAN.
FOR THE
USE AND BENEFIT .

OF ALL
1.
MANKIND .
BY THOMAS PAINE,
MEMBER OF THE FRENCH CONVENTION ;
LATE A PRISONER IN THE 'LUXEMBOURG AT PAKIS ;.
SECRETARY TO CONGRESS DURING THE AMERICAN WAR :
AND AUTHOR OF COMMON sense , &c. &c.
LONDON :
Printed and Sold by Citizen DANIEL ISAAC EATON, Printer

and Bookſeller to the Supreme Majeſty of the People, at the
COCK AND SWINE, No. 74, Newgate - ftreet.
1795
PRICE THREE SHILLINGS .

[ Entered at Stationer's Hall,]
>
1
OENIGLI
CHE
HO WIEN
FB
IB EK
IOTHS 1
(
PREFACE,
IIT has, for ſome time paſt, been a favourite ob.

ject in my mind, to arrange the whole of my
Political Opinions under one head, and this I
have now executed in a manner which, while it
may tend, I truſt, to clear away the national pre
judices, and heavy conceits of the deluded fuf
ferers, under deſpotic governments, ſhall not be
particularly directed againſt any one of them.
The Chancellor at Berlin , or the Judges at Vi.
enna ſhall not puniſh unfortunate individuals for
publiſhing or reading what tyranny may be pleaſed
to call my libels upon their different States , nor
1
ſhall the Engliſh Mr. Attorney General be again
forced to ſhed tears over the afperfed virtues, of
an immaculate and magnanimous Prince of
Wales .
I WRITE NOW FOR THE WORLD AT

LARGE.
MAN will herein find all his natural, civil,

and divine rights , more perfectly and rationally de
fined, than he was aware of, and will feel his rea
A a fon
iv PREFACE.
fon rouſed into action, and himſelfanimated in the

univerſal cauſe of human nature, with that fervour
which ſprings alone from reflection , and a ſenſe
of conſcious right. He will look back at the iron
hand of aſſumption, and deſpotiſm , with horror,
and revolt at the recollection of the impofitions he
has ſuffered himſelf to be deceived into by the ar
tifices of the deſigning and venal few .
He will now felicitate himſelf, that the æra has
arrived, when the light of reaſon is burſting forth
with effulgence, that diſtinguiſhes genuine princi
ples from ſophiſtical do &trines, and be convinced
of the utility of the former over the latter. By
reaſoning and thinking for himſelf, he will not re
linquiſh thoſe rights which are inalienable in his
nature, nor beſtow thoſe privileges beyond his
reach which he ſhould be conſtantly eligible to
himſelf and ever have the command of.
Truth and Reafon are the attributes of man, and
he may ever dare to manifeſt himſelf under them
as his judgment ſhall direc—and thoſe who at
tempt to oppoſe or reſtrain him , are guilty of the
greateſt preſumption.
It is the free and unbiaſed voice of ſociety that
is to decide as to their rights and comforts, and
when they feel them perverted or diminiſhed, it is
their province to renovate them . Society will
always come out right in any reform , if left to the
general ſentiment on which they act. To think
otherwiſe
PREFACE.
otherwiſe is chimerical ; for, to ſuppoſe that men

will combine together to injure themſelvesz is, to
fuppoſe that they have neither intereſi, diſcretion,
nor judgment. ‫܃ ܃‬
Who then art thoug preſumptuous mortal, that
fitteſt thyſelfup to judge for ſociety, and controul, as
thy vanity, arrogance, intereſt, or ignorance, ſhall
dire &t thee ? Who gave thee this right, or who,conta
ſtituted it in thee ? If thou inheriteſt it not from
thy maker, nor deriveſt it from man , it is falſe, and,
aſſumed, and muſt revert to its primitive fource,
namely, that of the people. ;
6 Where Truth deigns to come, her ſiſter Li
berty will not be far.” Truth is the fountain of
happineſs, the harbinger of freedom , the baſis of
juſtice, and the ſource of judgment. It is the
birthright of nature, and the germ of human feli
city. By exploring this ſacred and invaluable
principle, evil is exterminated and good produced ,
It is the province of all ranks of ſociety, from the
prince to the beggar, to ſeek it, and it is only to
be found by diſpaſſion and fair reflection. By
giving free ſcope to the imagination, and full dif
cuſſion and promulgation of every ſentiment, from
whomſoever it may ſpring, this facred guide to
human action will be aſcertained .
It is the peculiar fortune of the preſent æra that
degraded nature is reviving. The vivifying influ
ence of reaſon has inſpired the mind, and filled
mankind
vi PREFACE .
mankind with thought of his rights that he never

had before. Whether this diſpoſition ſhall con
tinue, and grow into maturity, depends upon man
alone; for if he will not think and act for himſelf,
he has no right to expect the bleſſings of tempo
rality.
I cannot here prevent a ſmile at the idea, that
there ſhould be a nation, whoſe proudeft boaſt is
feeding upon Ox -fleſh, as if virtue conſiſted in
a ſtrong appetite, and glory in a good digeſtion.
In truth , Engliſhmen, in their prefent degradation,
ſeem to have acquired the inſtinct of the beaſt
which they devour, for they moſt readily ſubmit
their necks to the yoke, ſuffer the moſt cruel chaſ
tiſement without reſiſtance, and diſplay patience
as a cover to ſtupidity. Let me not however be
ſuppoſed adverſe to the character of Mr.Bull; were
he but to rouſe himſelf, and begin to think , the
original dignity of his nature would appear ; his
energies would be terrible to oppreſſors, and his
generoſity reputable to himſelf.
But I will only add, to conclude this ſhort pres
face, that it is now very evident, that the Deſpots
of the world are beginning to totter, and the foun
dations of their thrones to ſhake. There is alſo a
tremendous ſtorm approaching , the thunders roll
nearer and more near, the whirlwinds ſweep the
ſurface of the deep, and the veſſels of Monarchy
and Ariſtocracy already blaze amidſt the fury of
the
1
PREFACE. vii
the lightnings-- a moment more, and the tempeſt

ſhall overwhelm them, they ſhall founder for ever
and ever .
0, Pitt ! how vain was your confidence, that
1
you could ſave yourſelf and your colleagues by

the deſtruction of mankind.
THOMAS PAINE.
Luxemburg, Paris,
May 19th, 1794
THE
RIGHTS OF MAN.
CHAP. I.
OF NATURAL RIGHTS:
There
HERE never did, there never will, and there
never can, exiſt, a legiſlature, or any deſcription
of men, inany country, poſſeſſed of the right, or
the power, of binding, and controuling pofterity
to the END OF TÍME : or, of commanding, FOR
EVER , how the world ſhall be governed , or who
ſhall govern it : and THEREFORE,all fuch clauſes,
acts, or declarations , by which the makers of them
attempt to do what they have neither the right,
nor the power to do, nor the power to execute,
are in themſelves NULL AND VOID .
Every age, and generation, muſt be as free to
a &t for itſelf, in all caſes, as the ages and genera
tions that preceded it. The vanity and preſump
tion of governing beyond the grave , is the moſt
prepoſterous and infolent of all tyrannies. Man
B has
2
THE RIGHTS OF MAN.
has no property in Man - neither has any genera

tion aà property in the generations that are to follow .
A legiſlature , or the people of any antecedent period,
had no more right to diſpoſe of the people of the
preſent day, or to bind, or controul them , in any
ſhape whatſoever, than the legiſlature, or the peo
ple of the preſent day, have to diſpoſe of, bind,
or controul, thoſe who ſhall live a hundred, or a
thouſand years hence.
Every generation is, and muſt be competent
to all the purpoſes which its occaſions require. It
is the living, and not the dead, that are to be ac
commodated. When man ceaſes to be, his power
and his wants ceaſe with him ; and, having no lon
ger any participations in the concerns of this world,
he no longer has any authority, in directing who
thall be its governors, or how its government ſhall
be organized, or how adminiſtered. I contend for
the right of the living, and againſt their being willed
away, and controuled, and contracted for, by the
manuſcript authority of the dead . There was a
xime when Kings diſpoſed of their crowns by will,
upon their death -beds, and conſigned the people,
- ike beaſts of the field, to whatever ſucceſſor they
appointed. This is now ſo exploded, as ſcarcely
to be remembered, and ſo monſtrous, as hardly to
be believed ..
: It is a general principle in governments, that
no parent, or maſter, nor all the authority of the
legiſlature,
THE RIGHTS OF MAN . 3
legiſlature, can bind or controul the perſonal free

i dom, even of an individual, beyond the age of
twenty -one years ;-- on what ground of right, then ,
can any legiſlature bind all pofterity for ever ?
Thoſe who have quitted the world, and thoſe who
are not yet arrived at it, are as remote from each
other, as the utmoſt ſtretch of mortal imagination
can conceive ; wbat poſſible obligations, then can
exiſt between them - what rule or principle can be
laid down, that two non- entities, the one out of
exiſtence, and the other not in, and who never can
meet in this world that the one ſhould controul
the other to the end of time .
From what, or from whence, is the right of
any human power derived to bind poſterity for
ever ? If ſuch a principle ever exifted, it muſt now
exiſt ;-- for whatever appertains to the nature of
man , cannot be annihilated by man. It is the na
ture of man to die, and he will continue to die as
long as he ſhall continue to be born. Therefore,
to ſet up a political Adam, in whom all pofterity are
bound for ever, it muſt be proved that this Adam
poſſeſſed ſuch a power or ſuch a right.
Although laws which are made in one genera
tion, often continue in force through ſucceeding
generations, they continue to derive their force
from the conſent of the living, and are not repealed,
not becauſe they cannot be repealed, but becauſe
they are not, and the non -repealing, paſſes for
B 2 conſent.
4 THE RIGHTS OF MAN.
conſent. A former legiflature might as well have

paffed an act to have authorized themſelves to live
for ever, as to make their authority live for ever.
The circumſtances of the world are continually
changing, and the opinions of men change alſo ;
and , as government is for the living, and not for
the dead, it is the living only that have any right
in it. Thatwhich may be thought right, and be
found convenient in one age, may be thought
wrong, and found inconvenient, in an another.
In fuch caſes who is to decide -- the living or the
dead ? It fignifies nothing to a man what is done
to him after he is dead; but it figniſies much to
the living to have a will in what ſhall concern
them .
Who is there in the world but man ; and if we
admit that man has rights, the confideration then
will be what are thoſe rights ; and, how came man
by them originally ? The error of thoſe who reaſon
by precedents, drawn from antiquity, reſpecting
the rights of man, is, that they do not go far
enough into antiquity : They do not go the whole
way : They ſtop in ſome of the intermediate ſtages
of a hundred , or a thouſand years, and produce
what was then done as a rule for the preſent day.
This is no authority at all ! If we travel ftill far
ther into antiquity , we ſhall find a direct contrary
opinion and practice prevailing ; and, if antiquity
is to be authority , a thouſand ſuch authorities may
be
1
TIIE RIGHTS OF MAN : 3
be produced ſucceſſively contradicting each other;

but if we proceed on, we ſhall come out right at
lalt, we ſhall come to the time when man came
from the hand of his maker. What was he then ?
Man. Man was his only title, and a higher cannot
be given him .
We have now got at the origin of man, and
at the origin of his rights. As to the manner in
which the world has been governed, from that day
to this, it is no further any concern of ours, than
to make a proper uſe of the errors, or the improve
ments, which the hiſtory of it preſents. Thoſe who
lived a hundred, or a thouſand years ago, were
then moderns, as we are now. If the mere name
of antiquity is to govern in the affairs of life, the
people who are to live a hundred , or a thouſand
years hence , may as well take us for a precedent,
as that we make a precedent of thoſe who lived a
hundred , or a thouſand years ago. The fact is,
that portions ofantiquity, by proving every thing,
eſtabliſh nothing. It is authority againſt authority,
all the way till we come to the divine origin of
the rights of man, at the creation. Here our en
quiries find a reſting place, and our reaſon finds a
home.
If a diſpute about the rights of man had aroſe,
at the diſtance of a hundred years from the cre
ation, it is to this ſource of authority they muſt
haye referred ; and it is to the ſame ſource of au
B 3 thority ,
THE RIGHTS OF MAN .
thority, that we muſt now refer. The genealogy

of Chriſt is traced to Adam ;-Why then not trace
the rights of man to the creation of man ? Be
cauſe there have been upſtart-governments, thruſt
ing themſelves between, and preſumptuouſly work
ing to unmake man .
If any generation of men ever poſſeſſed the
right of dictating the mode by which the world
ſhould be governed for ever, it was the firſt ge
neration that ever exiſted - and, if that generation
did not do it, no ſucceeding generation can ſhew
any authority, for doing it, nor ſet up any. The
illuminating and divine principle of the equal
Tights of man -- for it has its origin from the maker
of man - relates, not only to the living individuals,
but to generations of men fucceeding each other.
Every generation is equal in rights to the genera
tions that preceded it, by the ſame rule that every
individual is born equal in rights with his contem
porary,
Every hiſtory of the creation , and every tradi
tionary account— whether from thc lettered, or un
lettered world, however they may vary in their
opinion or belief of certain particulars, all agree
in eſtabliſhing one point the unity of man - by
which I mean, that man, conſidered as man, is
all of one degree, and conſequently, that all men
are born equal, and with equal natural rights, in
the ſame manner as ifpofterity had been continued
by
THE RIGHTS OF MAN:
by creation inſtead ofgeneration --the latter being

the only mode by which the former is carried for
ward, and, conſequently, every child born into
the world, muſt be conſidered as deriving its ex
iſtence from Gob . The world is as new to him,
as it was to the firſt man that exifted , and his na
tural right in it is of the ſame kind.
The Moſaic account of the creation , whether
taken as divine authority, or merely hiſtorical, is
fully up to this point--the unity or equality of man.
The expreſſions admit of no controverſy : “ And
66 God ſaid, let us make man in our own image :
“ in the image of God created he him--male and
“ female created he them .” The diſtinction of
ſexes is pointed out, but no other diſtinction is
even implied. If this be not divine authority, it
is hiſtorical authority, and ſhews that the equality
of man , fo far from being a modern doctrine, is
the oldeſt upon record.
It is alſo to be obſerved, that all the religions
known in the world are founded, ſo far as they re
late to man, on the unity of man, as being all of
one degree. Whether in heaven, or in hell, or in
whatever ſtate man may be ſuppoſed to exiſt here
after, the good and the bad are the only diſtinc
tions. Nay, even the laws of governments are
obliged to ſlide into this principle, by making
degrees to conſiſt in crimes, and not in perfons.
It is one of the greateſt of all truths, and of the
В 4 higheſt
higheſt advantage to cultivate. By conſidering

man in this light, and by inſtru & ing him to con .
ſider himſelf in this light, it places him in a cloſe
connection with all his duties, whether to his Cre
ator, or to the creation, of which he is a part ; and
' it is only when he forgets his origin, or, to uſe a
more faſhionable phraſe, his birth andfamily, that
he becomes diffolute.
It is not among the leaſt of the evils, of the pre
ſent exiſting governments in all parts of Europe,
that man, conſidered as man, is thrown back to a
vaft diſtance from his maker, and the artificial
chaſm filled up by a ſucceſſion of barriers, or a fort
of turnpike-gates, through which he has to paſs.
The duty of man is not a wilderneſs of turnpike
gates through which he is to paſs by tickets from
one to the other. It is plain and ſimple ; and con
fifts but of two points -- his duty to God, which
every man muſt feel — and, with reſpect to his
neighbour --to do as he would be done by.
If thoſe to whom power is delegated do well,
they will be reſpected ; if not, they will be deſpiſed ,
And, with reſpect to whom no power is delegated,
but who aſſume it, the rational world can know
nothing of them .
СНАР.
CHAP . II.
OF CIVIL RIGHTS.
HITHER TO we have ſpoken only, and that

IERTO
but in part, of the natural rights of man. Wc
have now to conſider the civil rights of man , and
to ſhew how the one originates out of the other.
Man did not enter into ſociety to become worſe
than he was before ; nor to have lefs rights than
he had before, but to have thoſe rights aſcertained ,
and better ſecured. His natural rights are, the
foundation of all his civil rights . But in order to
purſue this diſtinclion with more preciſion , it will
be neceſſary to mark the different qualities of na
tural and civil rights ; a few words will explain
this.
Natural rights are thoſe which appertain to man
in right of his exftience. Of this kind are all the
intellektual rights, or rights of the mind ; and alſo ,
all thoſe rights of acting, as an individual, for his
own comfort and happineſs, which are not injuria
qus to the natural rights of others,
Çivil rights are thoſe which appertain to man, in
right of his being a member of ſociety. Every
civil right has, for its foundation, fome natural
right pre-exiſting in the individual, but to which
his individual power is not, in all caſes, ſufficiently
competent.
THE RIGHTS OF MAN .
competent. Of this kind are all thoſe which re

late to ſecurity and protection .
From this ſhort view, it will be eaſy to diſtin
guiſh between that claſs of natural rights which
inan retains after entering into ſociety, and thoſe
which he throws into common ſtock as a member
of ſociety. The natural rights which he retains
are, all thoſe in which the power to execute is as
perfect, in the individual, as the right itſelf.
Among this claſs, as is before mentioned, are, all
the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind . Con
ſequently, religion is one of thoſe rights.
The natural rights which are not retained, are,
all thoſe in which , though the right is perfect in
the individual, the power to execute them is defec
tive. They anſwer not his purpoſe. A man, by
natural right, has a right to judge in his own cauſe ;
and ſo far as the right of the mind is concerned,
he never ſurrenders it — but what availeth it him to
judge, if he has not power to redreſs ? He there
fore depoſits this right in the common ſtock of ſo
ciety, and takes the arm of ſociety, of which he is
a part, in preference, and in addition, to his own.
Society grants him nothing. Every man is a pro
prietor in ſociety, and draws on the capital as a
matter of right.
From theſe premiſes, two or three certain con
cluſions will follow :
Firſt, That every civil right grows out of a na
tural
THE RIGHTS OF MAN . It
tural right, or, in other words, is a natnral right

exchanged.
Secondly , That civil power, properly conſidered
as ſuch, is made up of the aggregate of that claſs
of the natural rights of man, which becomes defec
tive in the individual, in point of power, and an ,
ſwers not his purpoſe ; but when collected to a fo .
cus, becomes competent to the purpoſes of every
one.
And, Thirdly, That the power produced from

1
the aggregate of natural rights-- imperfe & in power
in the individual-cannot be applied to invade the
natural rights which are retained in the individual,
and in which the power to execute is as perfect as
the Right itſelf.
We have now, in a few words, traced man from
a natural individual to a member of ſociety, and
ſhewn the quality of the natural rights retained ,
and of thoſe which are exchanged for civil rights.
Let us now apply thoſe principles to govern
ments .
In caſting our eyes over the world, it is ex

tremely eaſy to diſtinguiſh the governments which
have ariſen out of ſociety, or out of the focial com
patt, from thoſe which have not ; and, to place
this in a clearer light than what a ſingle glance may
afford, it will be proper to take a review of the
ſeveral ſources from which governments have
ariſen ,
1
12 THE RIGHTS OF MAN .
ariſen, and on which they have been founded :

They may be comprehended under three heads.
Firſt, Superſtition.
Secondly, Power .
And, Thirdly, the common intereſt of fociety,
and the common rights of man.
The firſt, was a government of Prieſt-craft - the
fecond, of Conquerors-- and the third, of Reaſon.
When a ſet of artful men pretended, through the
medium of oracles, to hold intercourſe with the
Deity, the world was completely under the govern
ment of ſuperſtition : the oracles were conſulted,
and whatever they were made to ſay, became the
law : and this ſort of government laſted as long as
fuperftition laſted.
After theſe, a race of conquerors aroſe, whoſe
governments were founded in power, and the
fword aſſumed the name of a fceptre. Governments,
thus eſtabliſhed, laſt as long as the power to ſup
port them laſts; and, that they might avail them
ſelves of every engine in their favour, they united
fraud to force, and ſet up an idol, which they
called divine right, and which, in imitation of the
Pope, who affects to be ſpiritual and temporal,
and, in contradiction to the founder of the chriſtian
religion, twiſted itſelf into an idol of another
ſhape, called Church and State. The key of Saint
Peter, and the key of the Treaſury, became quar
tered
tered on one another ; and the wondering cheated

multitude worſhipped the invention.
We have now to review the governments which
ariſe out of ſociety, in contra-diſtinction to those
which aroſe out of ſuperſtition or conqueft.
It has been thought a conſiderable advance to
wards eſtabliſhing the principles of freedom , to ſay,
that government is a compact between thoſe who
govern, and thoſe who are governed ; but this
cannot be true, becauſe it is putting the effea be
fore the cauſe ; for, as man muſt have exiſted
before governments exiſted, there neceſſarily was a
time when governments did not exiſt, and, conſe
quently, there could not exiſt, originally, any go
vernors to form ſuch a compact with . The fact,
therefore, muſt be, that the individuals themſelves,
each in their own perſonal and ſovereign right,
entered into a compact with each other, to produce
a government:—and this is the only mode in which
governments have a right to ariſe, and the only
principle on which they have a right to exift.
To poſſeſs ourſelves of a clear idea of what
government is, or ought to be, we muſt trace it to
its origin . In doing this, we ſhall caſily diſcover,
that governments have ariſen out of the people, or
over the people.
But it will be firſt neceſſary to define what is
meant by a conſtitution : it is not fufficient that we
adopt
1
adopt the word ; we muſt alſo affix a ſtandard hg

nification to it.
A conſtitution is not a thing in name only, but
in fact. It has not an ideal, but a real exiſtence ;
and, wherever it cannot be produced in a viſible
form , there is none .
A conſtitution is a thing antecedent to a govern
ment, and a government is only the creature of
a conſtitution . The conſtitution of a country is
not the acts of its government, but of the people
conftituting a government . It is the body of ele
ments to which you can refer, and quote article
by article ; and which contains the principles on
which the government ſhall be eſtabliſhed , the
manner in which it ſhall be organized, the powers
it ſhall have, the mode of elections, the duration of
legiſlatures, the powers which the executive part of
government ſhall have, and, in fine, every thing
that relates to the complete organization of a civil
government , and the principles on which it ſhall
act, and by which it ſhall be bound.
A conftitution is, therefore, to a government,
what the laws made afterwards by that government
are to a court of judicature. The court of judi
cature does not make the laws, neither can it alter
them ‫ ;ز‬it only acts in conformity to the laws made,
and the government is, in like manner, governed
by the conſtitution . It may be fairly deduced
then, that no country, or nation , can be ſaid to
have
THE RIGHTS OF MAN. 15
have a conftitution, unleſs it ariſes, as I have ſaid

before, out of the people, by common conſent or
choice, and not over the people, by colluſion, fraud ,
compulfion or conqueſt. It is therefore for every
! *country or nation to judge whether they have a
: conftitution or not.
:: . A government, on the principles upon which
conſtitutional governments , ariſing out of ſociety,
are eſtabliſhed, cannot have the right of altering
itſelf ; if it had, it would be arbitrary ; it might
make itfelf what it pleaſed ; and, wherever ſuch a
right is ſet up, there is no conſtitution. The act
by which a legiſlature might empower itſelf to fit
for a term of years, ſhews that there is no conſti
tution. It might, by the fame ſelf -authority, eſta :
bliſh itfelf for life.
I ſhall next proceed to make a few obſervations
upon the ſubject of Titles, and the principlesupon
which they are conſtituted.
Titles are but nick-names, and every nick-name
is a title. The thing is perfectly harmleſs in itſelf,
but it marks a ſort of foppery in the human cha
racter, which degrades it . It reduces man into
the diminution of man, in things which are great ;
and the counterfeit of woman in things which are
little. It talks about its ribbon like a girl, and
ſhews its new garter like a child .
66 The ſtar which glitters upon the coat, is but
a falſe mirror of the character it is intended to
“ repreſent ,
6 and, confeqnently, exhibits no certain merit but

66 its own ."
A certain writer of ſome antiquity ſays,
" When I was a child, I thought as a child ; but
66 when I became a man, I put away childiſh
6 things."
The genuine mind of man, thirſting for its na
tive home, fociety, contemns the gewgaws that ſe
parate him from it. Titles are like circles drawn
by the magician's wand, to contract the ſphere of
man's felicity. He lives immured within the bal
cile of a wood, and ſurveys at a diſtance, the en
vied life of man .
What are titles - what is their worth - and what
is their amount ? When we think or ſpeak of a
judge, or of a general, we aſſociate the ideas of
office, and of character ; we think of gravity in the
one , and of bravery in the other : but, when we
uſe a word, merely as a title, no ideas aſſociate
with it .
« Titles are, not only ridiculous, but ſometimes
are reproaches, and bear the appearance of
“ irony. What can be more cutting to a diminu
66 tive deformed wretch , than to be faluted with
" the title of Majeſty ? A fcoundrel, who deſerves
" the gallows, who has ruined thouſands, by cheat
6 ing at gaming, is, certainly, right honourable :
* and a wretch, who proftrates himſelf in the duſt
66 before
THE RIGHTS OF MAN
*6 before a puppet, bearing the name of a King,

“ is, ſurely, worthy of being called a Lord ” .”
Through all the vocabulary of Adam, there is
not ſuch a term as a Count, or a Duke, or an Earl ;
neither can we connect any certain idea to the
words. Whether they meanſtrength or weakneſs,
wiſdom or folly, a child or a man, or the rider
or the horſe, is all equivocal . Imagination has
given figure and chara & er to centaurs, ſatyrs, and
down to all the fairy tribe ; but titles baffle even
the powers of fancy, and are a chimerical non
deſcript.
But this is not all! If a whole country is diſpoſed
to hold them in contempt, all their value is gone,
and none will own them. It is common “ opinion "
only that makes them any thing, or nothing, or
worſe than nothing.
There is no occaſion to take titles away, for they
will take themſelves away when fociety fhall con
cur to ridicule them. This ſpecies of imaginary
conſequence has viſibly declined, and it haſtens to
its exit, as the world of reaſon continues to riſe.
There was a time when the loweſt claſs of what are
called nobility, was more thought of than the higheſt
is now . The world has ſeen this folly fall, and it
has fallen by being laughed at, and the farce of
Titles will follow its fate. Rank and dignity in
ſociety muſt take a new ground that of character,
inſtead of the chimerical one of titles.
с If
THE RIGHTS OF MAN .
if no mifchief had annexed itſelf to the folly of

titles, they would not have deſerved a greater at
tention than the common reaſon of ſociety to ridi.
cule them ; and this makes it neceffary to enquire
further into the nature and character of ariſtocracy.
That then which is called ariſtocracy, in ſome
countries, and mobility in others, aroſe out of the
governments founded upon conqueft. It was origi.
Hally, a military order, for the purpoſe of ſupporting
military governments-- for fuch were all govern
ments founded in conqueſt; and, to keep up a ſuc
ceſſion of this order, for the purpoſe of which it 1
was eſtabliſhed -- all the younger branches of thoſe
families were diſinherited, and the law of primo
genitureſhip fet up. The nature and character of
ariſtocracy ſhews itſelf to us in this law. It is a
Jaw againft every law of nature, and nature herſelf
calls aloud for its deſtruction . Etabliſh family
juftice, and ariſtocracy falls.
By the ariſtocratical law of primogeniturefhip,
In a family of fix children, five are expoſed. Arif
tocracy has but one child ; the reſt are begotten
to be devoured . They are thrown to the cannibal
for prey, and the natural parent prepares the unnaa
tural repaft.
As every thing which is out of nature in man
affects more or leſs, the intereſt of ſociety, fo does
this. All the children which ariſtocracy difowns
which are all exceptthe eldeſt -- are, in general, caft,
like
like orphans, on a pariſh , to be provided for by
the public , but at a greater charge. Unneceſſary
offices, and places in governments and courts are
created, at the expence of the public , to maintaini
them . With what kind of parental refle &tions can
the father, or mother, contemplate their offspring!
By nature they are children, and , by marriage they
are heirs, but, by ariſtocracy, they are baſtards and
orphans. They are the fleſh and blood of their
parents in one line, and nothing a-kin to them in
the other .
* It is frequently urged by the advocates of arir
tocracy , that nobility is a reward for remarkable
* ſervices, rendered by the NOBLE to his country .
“ Suppoſing this to be true, yet, when titles be
6 came hereditary, they no longer became the re
66
compence of merit - and can, conſequently , be
s no incitement to a man of really virtuous princi
66 ples. Men who aſpire to excelling, are not
tempted by rewards which they behold enjoyed
56 by the vileſt of wretches , merely becauſe they
$ are the doubtful deſcendants of an eminent per
$ fon who exiſted a century or more ago.
66 The idea of a hereditary nobility is incompa
“ tible with every law of nature ; wiſdom and vir
65 twe are not things to be bequeathed upon a death
66 bed ; nor to be inherited , at the deceaſe of a
parent. Why then ſhould nobility, which is
C 66 faid
THE RIGHTS OF MAN:
$ ſaid to be the reward of merit, be inherited

when merit is not ?
« Nobility is to be conſidered only as an
“ imaginary diſtinction, unleſs accompanied with
6. the practice of thoſe generous virtues by which
“ it ought to be obtained. Titles of honour con,
“ ferred upon ſuch as have no perſonal merit, are ,
at beſt, but the royal ſtamp ſet upon baſe metal,
1
“ Though an honourable title may be conveyed
to pofterity, yet the ennobling qualities, which
“ are the ſoul of greatneſs, are a ſort of incom .
“ .municable perfections, and cannot be transfer
" red. If a man could bequeath his virtues, by
56 will, and ſettle bis ſenſe and learning upon his
“ heirs, as certainly as he can his lands, a noble
$ deſcent would then , indeed, be a valuable pri
“ vilege .
66 Had the creator of mankind intended that no.
66 bility, ſhould have been neceſſary in the admini
“ ſtration of government, he would, doubtleſsly,
6 have created a diſtinct ſpecies of men, remark
66 able for ability and virtue, and he would have
46 made his hereditary nobles, hereditary wiſe and
“ good men. "
To reſtore, therefore, parents to their children ,
and children to their parents, relations to each
other, and man to fociety, and to exterminate that
MONSTER , Ariſtocracy, will be -- to deſtroy the
law of PRIMOGENITURESHIP .
the
THE RIGHTS OF MAN .
The reaſons for doing this are various, becauſe,

in the firſt place, as is already mentioned, ariſto
cracy is kept up by family tyranny and injuſtice.
1 :* . Secondly, becauſe there is an unnatural unfitneſs
in an ariſtocracy to be legiſlators for a nation.
Their ideas of diſtributive juſtice are corrupted'at
the very ſource. They begin life by trampling
upon all their younger brothers and ſiſters, and re
lations of every kind ; and are taught and edu
cated fo to do. With what ideas of juſtice, or
honour, can that man enter a houſe of legiſlature,
who abſorbs, in his own perſon, the inheritance of
a whole family of children, and doles out to them
fome pitiful portion with the infolence of a gift.
Thirdly, becauſe the idea of hereditary legiſla
1
tors is as inconſiſtent as that of hereditary judges,
or of hereditary juries ; and as abſurd as a here
ditary mathematician, or a hereditary wiſe man :
and as ridiculous as a hereditary poet-laureat.
Fourthly, becauſe a body ofmen,holding them
felves accountable to nobody, ought not to be
truſted by any body.
1. Fifthly, becauſe it is continuing the uncivilized
principle of governments, founded in conqueſt,
and the baſe idea of man having property in man,
and governing him by perfonal right.
And, Sixthly, becauſe ariſtocracy has a tendency
to degenerate the human ſpecies. i
: By the univerſal economy of nature, it is
C3 known
22 THE RIGHTS OF MAN ,
known, and by the inſtance of the Jews, it is

proyed, that the human ſpecies has a tendency to
degenerate, in any ſmall number of perſons, when
ſeparated from the general ſtock of ſociety , and
intermarrying conſtantly with each other.
« The ſubject of divine right is now to engagę
FC our attention.
6. UNIVERSAL RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE is a
& facred, exclufye, and diftin & right given to men
6 by the CREATOR ; and, therefore, no mortal
66power or perſon has any authority, right, or
b controul, over the conſcience of another. Any
6 reſtraint, reſtriction, or direction, whatſoever,
$6 either religious or legiſlative, is abominable and
«c immoral: it is prefumption to God, and op
$6 preffion to man . "
Even any act or law to tolerate, or intolerate re
ligion, is improper, and unfounded, as both are
deſpotiſms.
Toleration is not the oppoſte of intoleration, but
is the counterfeit of it. The one affumes to itſelf
the right of withholding liberty of conſcience, and
the other of granting it. The one is Pope, armed
with fire and faggot ; and theother is Pope, ſelling
or granting indulgences.
Buț toleration may be viewed in a much ſtronger
light. Man worfhips not himſelf, but his MAKER ;
and the liberty of conſcience, which he claims, is
not for the ſervice ofhimfelf, but of hisGod. In
this
THE RIGHTS OF MAN : 23
this caſe, therefore, we muſt neceſſarily have the

aſſociated idea of two beings—— the mortal who ren,
ders the worſhip and the IMMORTAL BEING who
is worſhipped .
Toleration, therefore, places itfelf, not between
man and man, nor between church and church ;
nor between one denomination of religion and ano ,
ther, but between God and man ; between the
being who worſhips, and the BEING who is wor.
fhipped ; and, by the ſame act of aſſumed autho+
rity, by which it tolerates man to pay his worſhip,
it preſumptuouſly and blaſphemouſly ſets itſelf up
to tolerate the ALMIGHTY to receive it.
Were a bill to be brought into any legiſlature,
entitled, “ An act to tolerate or grant liberty to the
66 Almighty to receive the worſhip of a few , or of
66 a Turk ; or to prohibit the Almighty from re
“ ceiving" -all men would ſtartle, and call it
blaſphemy !—There would be an uproar !
The preſumption of toleration, in religious mat
ters, would then preſent itſelf unmaſked ;- butthe
preſumption is not the leſs, becauſe the name of
Man ” only appears to thoſe laws ; for the affoci.
ated ideas of the worſhipper and the worſhipped
cannot be ſeparated.
Who then art thou, vain duſt and aſhes ! by
whatſoever name thou art called whether a King,
á Bifhop, or a Church, or a State, a legiſlature, ot
any thing elſe, that obtrudeſt thine inſignificance
C4 between
between the foul of man and its Maker ? Mind

thine own concerns. If he believes not as thou
believeſt, it is a proof that thou believeſt not as
he believeth , and there is no earthly power can
determine between you.
With reſpe &t to what are called denominations
of religion, if every one is left to judge of its own
religion, there is no ſuch thing as a religion that is
wrong ; but, if they are to judge of each other's
religion, there is no ſuch thing as a religion that is
right ; and, therefore, all the world are right, or
all the world are wrong . But, with reſpect to
religion itſelf, without regard to names, and,
as diređing itſelf from the univerſal family of
mankind, to the divine object of all adoration,
it is man bringing to his Maker the fruits of his
heart ; and though theſe fruits may differ from each
other, like the fruits of the earth , the grateful tri
bute of every one is accepted.
A biſhop would not refuſe a tythe-ſheaf of wheat,
becauſe it was not a cock of hay , nor a cock of
hay, becauſe it was not a ſheaf of wheat : nor a
pig, becauſe it was neither the one nor the other :
but this divine, under the figure of an eſtabliſhed
church, will not permit his Maker to receive the
varied tythe's af man's devotion ,
One of the principles of monarchy is, “ Church
" and State;" and the term is uſed as a general
figure,
figure, to hold forth the political doctrine of al.

ways uniting the Church with the State.
Let us beſtow a few thoughts on this ſubject.
: All religions are, in their nature, mild and be.
nign, and united with principles of morality. They
could not have made profelytes at firſt, by profef
fing any thing that was vicious, cruel, profecuting,
or immoral. Like every thing elſe, they had their
beginning; and they proceeded by perfuafion, ex
hortation , and example. How' then is it that they
loſe their native mildneſs, and become moroſe and
intolerent ? It proceeds from the unnatural con
nection. By engendering the church with the
fate, a ſort of mule -animal, capable of deſtroying
and not breeding up, is produced, called the
church eſtabliſhed by law . It is a ſtranger, even
from its birth, to any parent-mother on which it is
begotten, and whom in time it kicks out and de
ftroys.
All law -religions or religions eſtabliſhed by law ,
are oppreſſive. Take away the law -eſtabliſhment,
and every religion re-aſſumes its original benignity.
A Catholic prieſt becomes a good citizen, a good
character, and a good neighbour ; an Epiſcopalian
miniſter is of the ſame deſcription - and this pro
ceeds, independently of the men, from there being
no law -eſtabliſhment.
If alſo we view this matter in a temporal ſenſe,
we ſhall ſee the ill effects of it on national proſpe
rity ,
rity, by driving men of the moſt uſeful avocations

to ſeek remote affylums from the hands of reſtraint,
oppreſſion and perſecution.
There is a ſingle idea, which, if it ſtrikes rightly
upon the mind, either in a legal, or a religious ſenſe ,
will prevent any man, or any body of men, or any
government, from going wrong on the ſubject of
religion, which is that before any human inſtitu
tions of government were known in the world ,
there exiſted , if I may fo expreſs it, a compact be
tween God and man , from the beginning of time;
and that, as the relation and condition which man ,
in his individual perfon, ſtands in towards his
Maker, cannot be changed, or in any ways altered ,
by any human laws, or human authority ; that re
ligious devotion, which is a part of this compact ,
cannot ſo much as be made a ſubject of human
laws ; and, that all laws muſt conform themſelves
to this prior exiſting compact, and not aſſume to
make the compact conform to the laws, which, be
fides being human, are fubfequent thereto.
The firſt act of man , when he looked around ,
and ſaw himſelf a creature which he did not make,
and a world furniſhed for bis reception , muſt have
been devotion ; and devotion muft ever continue
ſacred to every individual man, as itfhall appear
right to himſelf -- and governments do miſchief by
interfering or enforcing.
As to what are called National Religions, we
may,
may, with as much propriety, talk of National

Gods. . It is either political craft, or the remains
of the Pagan ſyſtem , when every nation had its
ſeparate and particular deity.
66 It is an erroneous principle, that the opera
5 tions of the mind, as well as the acts of the body,
56
are ſubject to the coercion of the laws. Our
$6 rulers have authority over fuch natural rights
56 only as we have ſubmitted to them . The rights
6 of conſcience we never ſubmitted -- we could not
* fubmit. We are anſwerable for them to our
1
66 God .
+56 The legitimate powers of government extend
6 to ſuch acts only as are injurious to others. But
it does me no injury for my neighbour to fay,
66 there are twenty gods, or no god :-- It neither
6 picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg. If it be faid
" that his teftimony, in a court of juſtice, cannot
66 be relied on - reject it then, and be the ſtigma.
6 on him. .Conſtraint may make him worfe, by
5 making him a hypocrite, but it will never make
66 him a truer man. It may fix him obſtinately in
" his errors, but will never cure them. Reafon,
“ and free enquiry are the only and effecual
" agents againſt error. Give a looſe to them ,
$ they will ſupport the true religion, by bringing
every falſe one to their tribunal, to the teſt of
6 their inveſtigation : they are the natural enemies
#6 of error, and of error only. Had not the Ro
man
1
* man government permitted free enquiry, chriftis
66 anity could never have been introduced. · Had
5 not free enquiry been indulged at the æra of the
6 reformation, the corruptions of chriſtianity could
6 not have been purged away. If it be reſtrained
now, the preſent corruptions will be protected,
6 and new ones encouraged.
Was the government to preſcribe to us our
6 medicine and diet, our bodies would be in ſuch
" keeping as our ſouls are now. Thus, in France,
the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine,
6 and the potatoe as an article of food. Govern
6 ment isis juſt as infallible too, when it fixes fyf
$6 tems in phyſics. Galileo was ſent to the inqui
56 lition for affirming that the earth was a ſpheremo
“o the government had declared it to be as flat as
56 a trencher ; and Galileo was obliged to abjure
6 his error. This error, however, at length pre .
fi vailed --the earth became a globe - and Def:
cartes declared, that it was whirled round its
*6 axis by a vortex . The government in which
he lived was wiſe enough to ſee that this was no
$ queſtion of civil juriſdiction, or we ſhould all
$6 have been involved, by authority, in vortices.
In fact, the vortices have been exploded, and
" the Newtonian principle of gravitation is now
" more firmly eſtabliſhed on the baſis of reaſon ,
it than it would be were the government to ſtep
" in, and make it an article of neceſſary faith .
4 Reafon
86 Reaſon and experiment have been indulged,

6 and error has fled before them. It is error alone
6 which needs the ſupport of government. Truth
can ſtand by itſelf. Subject opinion to coer
6 cion — whom will you make your inquiſitors ?
66
-fallible men — men governed by bad paſfons,
by private as well as públic reaſons. And why
“ ſubject it to coercion ?--- to produce uniformity.
5. But is uniformity of opinion deſirable ?-no
more than of face and ſtature. Introduce the
bed of Procruſtes then -- and, as there is danger
1
6 that the large men may beat the ſmall, make us
s all of a ſize by lopping the former, and ſtretch .
" ing the latter.
6 Difference of opinion is advantageous in re.
" ligion . The ſeveral ſects perform the office of
6 a cenfor morum over each other. Is uniformity
6 attainable ? Millions of innocent men, women ,
66 and children, ſince the introduction of chriſti:
6 anity , have been burnt, tortured, fined, impriſon
" ed ; yet we have not advanced one inch towards
“ uniformity. What has been the effect of coer
6 cion ?-- to make one half the world fools, and the
6 other half hypocrites. To ſupport roguery and
6 error all over the earth . Let us reflect that
$ it is inhabited by a thouſand millions of peo
ple : that theſe profeſs, probably , a thouſand
66 different ſyſtems of religion : that ours is but
one of that thouſand. That if there be but one
66
right,
“ right, and ours that one, we ſhould wiſh to ſee

$ 6 the nine hundred and ninety -nine wandering
“ fees gathered into the fold of truth . But againſt
« fuch a majority we cannot effect this by force.
6 Reaſon and perfuafon are the only practicable
6 inſtruments.
6 Well aware that Almighty God hath created
¢ the mind free, that all attempts to influence it by
56 temporal puniſhments or burthens, or by civil
incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hy
6 pocriſy and meanneſs, and are a departure from
66 the plan of the holy author of our religion, who,
66 being lord both of body and mind, yet choſe
not to propagate it by coercions on either, as
was in his almighty power to do.
" That the impious preſumption of legiſlators

“ and rulers, civil as well as ecclefiaftical, who be
sa ing themſelves but fallible and uninſpired men ,
So have aſſumed dominion over the faith of others,
so ſetting up their own opinions and modes of
" thinking as the only true and infallible, and as
5 fuch endeavouring to impoſe them on others,
56 hath eſtabliſhed and maintained falſe religions
over the greateſt part of the world, and through
$ 6 all time.
That, to compel a man to furniſh contributions
“ of money for the propagation of opinions which
6 he diſbelieves, is finful and tyrannical.
* That even the forcing him to ſupport this or
66 that
THE RIGHTS OF MAN :
66 : that teacher of his own religious perſuaſion, is

“ depriving him of the comfortable liberty of
6 giving his contributions to the particular paftor
whoſe morals he would make his pattern , and
6 whoſe powers he feels moſt perſuaſive to righte
64 ouſneſs, and is withdrawing from the ministry
66 thoſe temporal rewards which, proceeding from
66
an approbation of their perſonal conducts are an
6 additional incitement to earneſt and unremitting
6 labours for the inſtruction of mankind.
66 That our civil rights have no dependence on
our religious opinions, more than on our opi
nions in phyſics or geometry.
“ That therefore, the profcribing any citizen as
“ unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon
* him an incapacity of being called to offices of truſt
66 and emolument, unleſs he profeſſes or renounce
66 this or that religious opinion , is depriving him
“ injuriouſly of thoſe privileges and advantages to
“ which, in common with his fellow citizens, he
6 has a natural right.
6 That it tends alſo to corrupt the principles of
66 that very religion it is meant to encourage , by
bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours
and emoluments, thoſe who will, externally,
66 profefs and conform to it.
66 That though , indeed, theſe are criminal who
6 do not withſtand fuch temptation, yet neither
6 are thoſe innocent who lay the bait in their way.
4. That
‫گر‬
“ That to ſuffer the civil magiſtrate to intrude

¢ his powers into the field of opinion, and to re
“ Atrain the profeſſion or propagation of princi
ples, on ſuppoſition of their ill tendency, is a
es dangerous fallacy, which at once deſtroys all
“ religious liberty, becauſe he being of courſe
judge of that tendency, will make his opinions
“ the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn
66 the ſentiments of others only as they ſhall
6 ſquare with or differ from his own.
66 That it is time enough for the rightful pur
poſes of civil government for its officers to in
66 terfere when principles break out into overt
" acts againſt peace and good order.
And, finally, that truth is great, and will prevail
« if left to herſelf; that ſhe is the proper and ſuf
56 ficient antagoniſt to error, and has nothing to
“ fear from the conflict, unleſs by human inter
« pofition, diſarmed of her natural weapons, free
argumentand debate errors ceaſing to be dan
gerous when it is permitted freely to contradiet
46 them .
THEREFORE no man ſhould be compelled to

frequent or ſupport any religious worſhip, place,
or miniſtry whatſoever, nor ſhould be enforced,
reſtrained, moleſted, or burthened, in his body or
goods ; nor ſhould otherwiſe ſuffer on account
“ of his religious opinions or belief; but that ali
men ſhould be free to profefs, and by argument
56 to maintain their opinions in matters of religion ,

66 and that the ſame ought in nowiſe to diminiſh ,
66 enlarge, or affe&t their civil capacities.
‫܀‬
CHAP. III .
OF HEREDITARY RIGHT .
I NOW proceed to Hereditary Rights, and Here

ditary Succeffon.
1
A monarchial writer of diſtinâion ſays, “ Go..
66 vernment is a contrivance of human wiſdom . "
Admitting that government is a contrivance of hu
man wiſdom , it muſt neceffarily follow , that here
ditary ſucceſſion and hereditary rights, as they are
called, can make no part of it, becauſe it is impof
fible to make wiſdom hereditary. And, on the
other hand, that cannot be a wiſe contrivance
which, in its operation, may commit the govern
ment of a nation to the wiſdom of an ideot.
so In conſtructing governments, it is wiſdom that
« ſhould conſtitute the pinnacle — wherefore go
66 vernment fhould be ſo modelled, as that wil
“ dom ſhould be ever eligible to that ſummit, come
6 from wherefoever, or whomſoever, it may in
5 the community. I mean by this, that every in
si dividual ſhould be equally eligible to the higheſt
office in the ſtate, otherwiſe a novice might
D govern
govern a Solomon. Whether ſociety would or

" would not prefer even this Solomon to repreſent
« them , is another matter - but though it might
“ be a queſtion, it ſhould not prevent him from
66
being eligible, nor preclude ſociety from the
power of appointing him.
66 There is one circumſtance, among many thou
6 ſands, that ſtrikes my mind very forcibly againſt
“ the principle of hereditary fucceffion ; and I be
6 lieve it will be admitted by all ranks and de
grees of men, who will ſuffer their reaſon , and
s not their paſſions, or venality, to influence them ,
" namely, that WISDOM IS THE PRINCIPAL OB
66
JECT OF ALL POLITICAL PURSUIT-It is the .
very thing that the community ſeeks for in all
© appointments, whether of a miniſter, a judge, a
“ general, or a legiſlator ; nay, we find the maxim
“ obſerved in the private views of individuals, by
6 their preferring thoſe who are beſt qualified for
" the purpoſes in queſtion . What injuries do
66 mankind do then, by entailing upon themſelves
any one perſon or family whatſoever, ſeeing
66 that the faculties are mutable and periſhable, and
" that wifdom is not fucceffive ? In what in
6 numerable inſtances do we obſerve ſuperior in
66 tellects in men of the moſt inferior and obſcure
“ fituations, who are thereby called forth, and
6 become effential and uſeful in the various
“ objects for which their geniuſſes fit them ?-Phi
“ lofophy,
lofophy, mechanics, phyſic, and all the other

“ ſciences, are free to attain the higheſt perfection
46 that reaſon and practice can extend to ; and
66 when mankind are ſatisfied of the ſuperior uti
« lity of any individual or projector, they encou
66
rage and adopt him accordingly .- Why then
" ſhould any man be reſtrained with reſpect to
66
government ? For inſtance - If a peaſant ſhould
66 become a Solomon, or a Cincinnatus , he could
not be admitted to the preſidency of the com
6 munity , becauſe they had not only precluded
1 © him , but themſelves, from the right of prefer
66 ment - and by this time had all perhaps become.
66 the ſubjects of a hereditary tyrant, knave, or
* fool! What a ſituation for any fociety, who
" values freedom , to ſubject themſelves to !!!
66 The very idea of ſporting with that invaluable
66
ELEMENT , which the Almighty hath given us
6 for our direction and comfort, is ſufficient to
66 cauſe a univerſal bluſh for the preſumption and
6 folly ofmankind ! Let every artiſan, and every
man ofprofeſſion, think for himſelf, individually,
66 and confider, if he would not feel it a very great
hardſhip to be debarred from getting at the head
as of his profeſſion, if he could do ſo by integrity,
6 ability, and fair endeavour ? And let fociety
s conſider whether, independently of the injuſtice
6 of proſcribing or precluding any individual , it
66 is not injuring themſelves to annihilate their
D 2 right,
TS
36 THE RIGH OF MAN .
- right, even for a moment, of ejecting the uſe

66 leſs, or vicious characters, from the government,
“ and preferring whomſoever ſhall be deemed by
6 their majority, to be moſt competent and vir
“ tuous, eſpecially for the moſt important office in
6 the ſtate ? Every man is , by nature, eligible
" to every ſituation to which he contributes as a
6 member of ſociety ; but it does not follow, that
" he ſhall acquire any official capacity, without
6 his abilities, experience, and qualities, fit him 1
6 for the ſtation , and without the concurrence and
56 choice of ſociety — and ſociety ſport away the
6 greateſt bleſſing of their political policy, when
6 they make themſelves the outcaſts that they do,
os by eſtabliſhing diſtinct privileges, and hereditary
“ fucceffron !"
The ground which the foregoing monarchial
writer takes, is fatal to every part of his cauſe .
The argument changes from hereditary rights to
hereditary wiſdom ; and the queſtion is, who is the
wifeft man ? Hemuſt now ſhew , that every one
in the line of hereditary ſucceſſion, was a “ Solo
mon ," or his title is not good to be a king. What
a cataſtrophe has he occafioned ! He has made a
sout en ſemble, and ſcarcely left a name legible in
the liſt of kings; and he has mowed down and
thinned the line of peers with a ſcythe as formidable
as Death and Time ! But he appears to have been
aware of this reſort, and he has taken care to guard
againſt
againſt it, by making government to be-not only

a contrivance of human wiſdom - but a monopoly
of wiſdom . He puts the nation as fools on one
ſide, and places his government of wiſdom , all
wiſe men of Gotham , on the other ſide - and he
then proclaims, and ſays , that “ . Men have a right
that their wants ſhould be provided for by this
wiſdom ."
Having thus made proclamation, he next pro
ceeds to explain to them, what their wants are ,
and alſo what their rights are. In this he has ſuc
ceeded dexterouſly, for he makes their wants to be
a want of wiſdom — and their rights to be governed
by it. But there are ſome things which he has
forgotten. Firſt, he has not ſhewn where the
wiſdom originally came from andſecondly, he has
not ſhewn by what authority it firſt began to act.
In the manner he introduces the matter, it is either
government ſtealing wiſdom , or wiſdom ſtealing
government . It is without an origin, and its
powers without authority. In fact, it is uſurpation !
The opinions of men , with reſpect to govern
ment, are changing faſt in all countries. The
enormous, and, in many caſes, wantor, expences
with which they are loaded, provoke the people to
think by making them feel -- and, when once the
veil begins to rend, it admits not of repair.
Ignorance is of a peculiar nature - ance dif
pelled, and it is impoſſible to re-eſtabliſh it. It is
D 3 not
not originally a thing of itſelf, but is only the

abſence of knowledge ; and, though man may be
kept ignorant, he cannot be made ignorant. The
mind, in diſcovering truth, acts in the ſame manner
as it acts through the eye in diſcovering obje & s—
when once any object has been ſeen , it is impof
fible to put the mind back to the ſame condition
it was in, before it ſaw it. It has never yet been
diſcovered how to make man unknow his know
ledge, or unthink his thoughts.
With reſpect to who is placed in the line of he
reditary ſucceſſion, whether a Cherokee chief, or
a Heffran huſſar, is not a matter that I trouble my
ſelf about : it is the principle that I condemn. It
is no relief, but an aggravation, to a perſon in
flavery, to reflect that he was ſold by his parents ;
and, as that which heightens the criminality of an
act, cannot be produced to prove the legality of
it, hereditary ſucceſſion cannot be eſtabliſhed as
a legal thing
In order to arrive at a more perfect deciſion on
this head, it will be proper to conſider the genera
tion that undertakes to eſtabliſh a family with he
reditarypowers, apart and ſeparate, from the ge
nerations which are to follow ; and alſo to conſider
the character in which the firſt generation acts with
reſpect to ſucceeding generations.
The generation which firſt ſelects a perſon, and
puts him at the head of it's government, either
with
THE RIGHTS OF MAN ." 39
with the title of king, or any other appellation of

diſtinction , acts its own choice, be it wiſe or fooliſh ,
as a free agent for itſelf. The perſon ſo ſet up is
not hereditary, but feletted and appointed ; and the
generation who fets him up, does not live under
a hereditary government, but under a government
of its own choice and eſtabliſhment. Were the ge
neration who fets him up,and the perfon ſo ſet up, to
live for ever, it never could become hereditary fuc
ceffion ; and, of conſequence,hereditary ſucceſſion
can only follow on the death of thefirſt parties.
As, therefore, hereditary fucceffion is out of the
queſtion, with reſpect to the firſt generation, we
have now to conſider the character in which that
generation acts, with reſpect to the commencing
generation, and to all ſucceeding ones. It affumes
a character to which it has neither right nör title .
It changes itſelf from a legiſlator to a teftator, and
affects to make its will, which is to have operation
after the demiſe of the makers, to bequeath the
government; and it notonly attempts to bequeath,
but to eſtabliſh on the ſucceeding generations, a
new and different form of government to that un
der which itſelf lived. Itſelf, as is already ob
ſerved , lived not under a hereditary government,
but under a government of its own choice and
eſtabliſhment ; and it now attempts, by virtue of a
will and teſtament — which it has no authority to
make - to take from the commencing generation,
D4 and
and all future ones, the rights and free agency by

which itſelf acted.
But excluſively of the right which any genera
tion has to act collectively az a teſtator, the ob
jects to which it applies itſelf, in this caſe, are not
within the compaſs of any law, or of any will or
teftament. The rights of men, in ſociety, are nei
ther deviſeable nor transferrable, nor annihilable,
but are defcendable only ; and it is not in the power
of any generation to interrupt finally and cut off
the deſcent. If the preſent generation, or any other
are diſpoſed to be ſlaves, it does not leſſen the
right of the ſucceeding generation to be free.--
Wrongs cannot have a legal deſcent.
In whatever light hereditary ſucceſſion , as grow
ing out of the will and teſtament of ſome former
generation, preſents itſelf — it is an abſurdity. A
cannot make a will to take from B the property of
B, and give it to C. Yet this is the manner in
which, what is called, hereditary ſucceſſion, by
law , operates.
A certain former generation made a will, to take
away the rights of the commencing generation, and
all future ones, and convey their rights to a third
perſon, who afterwards comes forward and tells
them that they have rights -- that their rights are
already bequeathed to him, and that he will govern
in contempt of them . - From ſuch principles, and
ſuch ignorance, good Lord deliver the world !
But
But after all, what is this metaphor, called a crown

-or rather - what is monarchy ? Is it a thing, or
is it a name, or is it a fraud ? Is it a contrivance
of human wiſdom , or of human craft, to obtain
money from a nation under ſpecious pretences ? Is
it a thing neceſſary to a nation ? If it is, in what
does that neceſſity conſiſt ? What ſervices does it
perform ? What is its buſineſs, and what are its
merits ? Doth the virtue conſiſt in the metaphor ,
or in the man ? Doth the goldſmith that makes
the crown make the virtue alſo ? Doth it operate
like Fortunatus's wiſhing-cap, or Harlequin's
wooden ſword ? Doth it make either a man or a
conjurer ? In fine, what is it ? It is an ideal fome
thing that is going out of faſhion - is falling into
1
ridiculemand, is rejected in ſome countries both
as unneceſſary and expenfive.
If there exiſted a man fo tranſcendently wiſe
above all others, that his wiſdom was neceſſary to
inſtruct a nation, ſome reaſon might be offered for
monarchy ; but when we caſt our eyes about a
country, and obſerve how every part underſtands
its own affairs ; and when we look around the
world and ſee , that of all men in it the race of kings
is the moſt inſignificant in capacity, our reaſon
cannot fail to aſk us, what are thoſe men kept for?
If monarchy is a uſeleſs thing, why is it kept up
any where ? and , if a neceſſary thing, how can it
be diſpenſed with ? It is eaſy to conceive that a
band
THE RIGHTS OF MAN .
band of intereſted men, ſuch as place-men - lords

of the bed -chamber - lords of the kitchen and
lords of the neceſſary-houſe -- and the Lord knows
what beſides-- can find as many reafons for monar
chy as their ſalaries -- paid at the expence of the
country - amount to ; but if I aſk the farmer, the
manufacturer, the merchant, the tradeſman , and
down through all the occupations of life to the
common labourer, what ſervice monarchy is of
to him ? -he can give me no anſwer. If I aſk him
what monarchy is ? -- he believes it is ſomething like
a finecure.
CHAP IV.
OF GOVERNMENT .
REASON and Ignorance, the oppoſites of each

other, influence the great bulk of mankind . If
either of theſe can be rendered fufficiently exten
five in a country, the machinery of government
goes eaſily on. Reaſon obeys itſelf, and ignorance
fubmits to whatever is dictated to it.
The two modes of government that prevail in
the world are
Firſt - Government by Ele & tion and Reprefen
tation .
Seconly - Government by Hereditary Succeffion.
The former is generally known by the name of
Republie
Republic-- the latter, by that of Monarchy and

Ariſtocracy. Thoſe two diſtinct and oppoſite
terms erect themſelves on the two diſtinct and op
poſite baſes of reaſon and ignorance.
As the exerciſe of government requires' talents
and abilities - and, as talents and abilities cannot
have hereditary deſcent, it is evident that heredi
tary ſucceſſion requires a belief from man to which
his reaſon cannot ſubſcribe, and which can only
be eſtabliſhed upon his ignorancew -and, the more
ignorant any country is, the better it is fitted for
this ſpecies of government. On the contrary,
government in a well eſtabliſhed republic, requires
no belief from man beyond what his reaſon can
give . He ſees the rationale of the whole ſyſtem ,
its origin, and its operation -- and, as it is beſt
ſupported when beſt underſtood, the human faculties
act with boldneſs, and acquire , under this form
of government, a gigantic manlinefs.
As, therefore, each of thoſe forms act on a dif
ferent baſe, the one moving freely by the aid of rea:
fon , the other by ignorance, we have next to confi.
der what it is that gives motion to that ſpecies of
government, which is called mixed government; or,
as it is ſometimes ludicrouſly ſtiled , a governukent
of this, that, and tother .
The moving power in this ſpecies of govern,
ment is, of neceſſity, corruption. However imper
fect ele &tion and repreſentation may be in mixed
governments,
44 THE RIGHTS OF MAN
governments, they ſtill give exerciſe to a greater

portion of reaſon than is convenient to the here
ditary part, and, therefore, it becomes neceſſary to
buy the reaſon up. A mixed government is an
imperfect every -thing, cementing and foldering the
difcordant parts together by corruption , to act as
a whole. In mixed governments there is no re
Sponfibility ; the parts cover each other till reſpon.
fibility is loft, and the corruption which moves the
machine, contrives , at the ſame time, its own
eſcape.
When it is laid down as a maxim, that “ a king 1
can do no wrong ," it places him in a ſimilar fe

curity with that of idiots, and perſons inſane, and
reſponſibility is out of the queſtion with reſpect to
himſelf. It then deſcends upon the miniſter, who
Thelters himſelf under a majority in the legiſlature,
which, by places, penſions, and corruption, he can
always command ; and that majority juſtifies itſelf
by the ſame authority by which it protects the
miniſter. In this rotatory motion, reſponſibility is
thrown off from the parts, and from the whole.
When there is a part in a government which can
do no wrong, it implies, that it does nothing, and
is only the machine of another power by whoſe di
re &tion it acts .
What is ſuppoſed to be the king in mixed go
vernments is, the cabinet ; and, as the cabinet is
always a part of the legiſlature, and the members
juſtifying,
juftifying, in one character, what they act and ad

viſe in another, à mixed government becomes a
continual engine, entailing upon a coantry, by the
quantity of corruption neceſſary to folder the
parts, the expence of ſupporting all the forms of
government at once, and, finally, reſolving itſelf
into a government by committtee ; in which, the
adviſers, the actors, the approvers, the juſtifiers, the
perſons reſponſible, and the perſons not reſponſible,
are the fame perſons.
By this pantomimical contrivance, and change
of ſcene and character, the parts help each other
out, in matters which neither of them, fimply,
could aſſume to act. When money is to be ob
tained, the maſs of variety apparently diſſolves, and
a profuſion of legiſlative praiſes paſſes between the
parts. Each admires, with aſtoniſhment, the wif
dom , the liberality, the diſintereſtedneſs of the other,
and all ofthem breathe a pitying ſigh at the burthens
of the nation !
But in a well regulated republic, nothing of this
ſoldering, praiſing, and pitying can take place
the repreſentation being equal throughout the
country, and complete in itſelf, however it may
be arrayed into legiſlative and executive, they have
all, one and the ſame natural ſource. The parts
are not foreigners to each other like democracy,
ariſtocray, and monarchy. As there are no dif
cordant diſtinctions, there is nothing to corrupt
by
by compromiſe, nor to confound by contrivance.

Public meaſures appeal of themſelves to the under
tanding of the nation, and, reſting on their own
merits, diſown any flattering application to vanity.
The continual whine of lamenting the burthen of
the taxes, however ſucceſsfully it may be practiced
in mixed governments, is inconſiſtent with the
fenfe and ſpirit of a republic. If taxes are neceſ
fary, they are , of courſe, advantageous; but if
they require an apology, the apology itſelf implies
an impeachment. Why then is man thus impoſed
upon - or why does he impoſe on himſelf ?
When men are ſpoken of as kings, and ſubjects,
or, when government is mentioned underthe dif
tinct or combined heads of monarchy, ariſtocracy,
and democracy, what is it that reafoning man is to
underſtand by the terms? If there really exiſted in
in the world, two or more diſtinct and ſeperate
elements of human power, we ſhould then ſee the
ſeveral origins to which thoſe terms would, de
ſcriptively, apply ; but as there is but one ſpecies
of man, there can be but one element of human
power -mand that element is man himſelf. Monar
chy, ariſtocracy, and democracy, are but creatures
of imagination ; and a thouſand ſuch may be conta
trived as well as three.
From the revolutions taken place oflate, and the
ſymptoms that have appeared in other countries, it
is evident, that the opinions of the world is changed
with
with reſpect to the ſyſtems of government, and,

thạt revolutions are not within the compaſs of
political calculations. The progreſs of time and
of circumſtances, which man aſign to the accom
pliſhment of great changes, is too mechanical
to meaſure the force of the mind, and the rapidity
of reflection, by which revolutions are generated.
All the old governments have received a ſhock
from thoſe that already appear, and which were
once, more improbable, and are a greater ſubje &
of wonder, than a general revolution in Europe,
would be now.
When we ſurvey the wretched condition ofman,
under the monarchical and hereditary ſyſtems of
government, dragged from his home by one
power, or driven by another, and impoveriſhed
by taxes more than by enemies, it becomes evident
that thoſe ſyſtems are bad, and that a general re
volution in the principle and conſtruction of govern
ment is neceſſary.
: What is government more than the management
of the affairs of a nation ? It is not, and from its
nature cannot be, the property of any particular
mon or family, but of the whole community, at
whoſe expence it is ſupported ; and though by
force, or contrivance, it has been uſurped into an
inheritance, the ufurpation cannot alter the right
of things. Sovereignty, as a matter of rigbt,
appertains to the nation only, and not to any in
dividual ;
dividual; and a nation has, at all times, an inhen

rent, indefeaſible, right to aboliſh any form of go
vernment that it finds inconvenient, and to eſtabliſh
ſuch as accords with its intereſt, difpofition and
happineſs.
The romantic and barbarous diſtinction of men
into kings and ſubjects - though it may ſuit the dif
poſition of courtiers, cannot that of citizens- and
is exploded by the principles upon which govern
ments are now founded. Every citizen is a mem
ber of the ſovereignty, and, as ſuch , can acknow
ledge no perfonal ſubjection, and his obedience can
be only to the laws..
When men think of what government is, they
muſt neceſſarily ſuppoſe it to poſſeſs a knowledge of
all the objects and matters upon which its authority
is to be exerciſed . In this view of government, the
republican fyſtem , as eſtabliſhed under two recent
revolutions, operates to embrace the whole of a
nation ; and, the knowledge neceſſary to all the parts
is to be found in the centre, which the parts, by re
preſentation, form ; but the old governments are on
a conſtruction that excludes knowledge as well as
happineſs. Government by monks, who know
nothing of the world beyond the walls of a con
vent, is as conſiſtent as the government by kings.
What were formerly called revolutions, were
little more than a change of perfons-- or an altera
tion of local circumſtances. They roſe and fell
like
í
THE RIGHTS OF MAN : 49
like things of courſe, and had nothing in their ex

1
iſtence or their fate, that could influence beyond
the ſpot that produced them. But what we now
ſee in the world, from the particular revolutions
which have taken place, are — a renovation of the
natural order of things — a ſyſtem of principles as
univerſal as truth and the exiſtence of man , and
combining moral with political happineſs, and na.
tional proſperity.
ift. Men are born and always continue to be free,
and equal in reſpect of their rights. Civil diſtinc
tions, therefore, can be founded only on public uti
lity.
2d. The end of all political aſſociations is, the pre
fervation of the natural and impreſcriptible rights
of man -- and theſe rights are— LIBERTY-PRQ
PERTY - SECURITY -and RESISTANCE OF ОР .
PRESSION .
3d. The nation is, eſſentially, the ſource of all

fovereignty - nor can any individual, or any body of
men, be entitled to any authority which is not ex
preſsly derivedfrom it.
In theſe principles there is nothing to throw a
nation into confuſion by inflaming ambition. They
are calculated to call forth wiſdom and abilities,
and to exerciſe them for the public good, and not
for the aggrándizement of particular deſcriptions
of men or families.
Monarchical ſovereignty - the enemy of man
E kind
THE RIGHTS OF MAN.
kind, and the ſource of mifery, is aboliſhed and

ſovereignty itſelf is reſtored to its natural and origi
nal place - the nation. Were this the caſe through
out Europe, the cauſe of wars would be taken away .
It is attributed to Henry the IVth of France, a
man of an enlarged and benevolent heart, that he
propoſed, about the year 1610 , a plan for aboliſh .
ing war in Europe. The plan conſiſted in con
ftituting an European congreſs, or paciſc republic,
by the appointment of delegates from the ſeveral
nations, who were to act as a court of arbitration ,
in any diſputes that might ariſe between nation
and nation. To conceive a cauſe why ſuch a plan
has not been adopted ; and that, inſtead of a con
greſs for the purpoſe of preventing a war, it has
been called only to terminate a war, after a fruit.
leſs expence of ſeveral years, it will be neceſſary
to conſider the intereſt of governments as a diſtin &t
intereſt to that of nations.
Whatever is the cauſe of taxes to a nation, be
comes alſo the means of revenue to a government.
Every war terminates with an addition of taxes,
and, conſequently, with an addition of revenue ;
and, in any event of war, in the manner they are
now commenced and concluded , the power and
intereſt of governments are increaſed . War, there
fore, from its productiveneſs, as it eaſily furniſhes
the pretence of neceflity for taxes and appoint
ments to places and offices, becomes a principal
part
THE RIGHTS OF MAN . 51 --
part of the ſyſtem of the old governments ; and to

eſtabliſh any new mode to aboliſh war, however
advantageous it might be to nations, would be, to
take, from ſuch governments , the moſt lucrative of
its branches .
The frivolous matters upon which war is made,
ſhew the diſpoſition and avidity of governments to
uphold the ſyſtem of war, and betray the motives
upon which they act. Why are not republics
plunged into war, but becauſe the nature of their
government does not admit of an intereft diftinct
from that of the nation.
As war is the ſyſtem of government on the old
conſtruction, the animoſity which nations recipro
cally entertain is, nothing more than what the po
licy of their governments excites, to keep up the
{ pirit of the ſyſtem . Each government accuſes
the other of perfidy, intrigue, and ambition, as
a means of heating the imagination of their reſpec
tive nations, and incenſing them to hoftilities.-
Man is not the enemy of man, but through the
fyftem of government. Inſtead, therefore, of ex
claiming againſt the ambition of kings, the excla
mation ſhould be directed againſt the principle of
fuch governments ; and, inſtead of ſeeking to re
form the individual, the wiſdom of the nation
fhould apply itſelf to reform the Syſtem .
Whether the forms and maxims of governments
which are ſtill in practice, were adapted to the
E 2 condition
condition of the world, at the period they were

eſtabliſhed , is not, in this caſe, the queſtion. The
older they are, the leſs correſpondence can they
have with the preſent ſtate of things. Time, and
change of circumſtances and opinions, have the .
ſame progreſſive effect, in rendering modes of go
vernment obſolete, as they have upon cuſtoms and
manners. Agriculture, commerce, manufaftures,
and the tranquil arts, by which the proſperity of
nations is beſt promoted, requires a different fyſ
tem of government, and a different fpecies of
knowledge, to direct its operations, than what
might have been required in the former condition
of the world .
It is not difficult to perceive, from the en
lightened ſtate of mankind, that hereditary govern
ments are verging to their decline, and that revo .
lutions on the broad baſis of national ſovereignty,
and government by repreſentation, are making
their way in Europe, it would be an act of wif
dom to anticipate their approach , and produce re
volutions by reaſon and accommodation, rather
than commit them to the iſſue of convulſions.
From what we now ſee, nothing of reform , in
the political world, ought to be held improbable .
It is an age of revolutions, in which every thing
may be looked for. The intrigues of courts, by
which the ſyſtem of war is kept up, may provoke a
confederation of nations to aboliſh it ; and an Eu.
ropean
THE RIGHTS OF MAN , 53
ropean congreſs, to patronize the progreſs of free

government, and promote the civilization of na
tions, with each other, is an event nearer in pro
bability , than once were the revolutions and alli
ance of France and America.
As to time with reſpect to Governments, I think
it equally as injurious to good principles to per
mit them to linger, as to puſh them on too faſt.
That which ſome may ſuppoſe accompliſhable in
fourteen or fifteen years, I may believe practica
ble in a much ſhorter period . Mankind , as it ap
pears to me, are always ripe enough to underſtand
their true intereft, provided it be prelented clearly
to their underſtanding, and that in a manner not
to create ſuſpicion by any thing like ſelf -deſign,
nor offend by aſſuming too much. Where we
would wiſh to reform , we muſt not reproach.
Principles muſt ſtand on their own merits, and,
if they are good, they certainly will.
I have differed with ſome profeſſional gentle
men on the ſubject of proſecutions, and I ſince
find they are falling into my opinion, which I will
here ſtate as fully, but as conciſely as I can. I
will firſt put a caſe with reſpect to any law, and

then compare it with government.
It would be an act of deſpotiſm , or 'arbitrary
power, to make a law to prohibit inveſtigating the
principles, good or bad, on which ſuch a law , or
any other, is founded . If a law be bad, it is one
E 3 thing
THE RIGHTS OF MAN .
thing to oppoſe the practice of it, but it is quite a

different thing to expoſe its errors, to reaſon on
its defects, and to ſhew cauſe why it ſhould be re
pealed, or why another ought to be ſubſtituted in
its, place. I have always held it an opinion (mak
ing it alſo my practice ), that it is better to obey a
bad law , making uſe at the ſame time of every
argument to ſhew its errors, and procure its repeal,
than forcibly to violate it becauſe the precedent
of breaking a bad law might weaken the force ,
and lead to a diſcretionary violation of thoſe
which are good ,
This caſe is the ſame with reſpect to principles
and forms of government , or to what are called
conſtitutions, and the parts of which they are com
pofed.
It is for the good of nations, and not for the
emolument or aggrandizement of particular indi
viduals, that government ought to be eſtabliſhed,
and that mankind are at the expence of ſupporting
it. The defects of every government and conſti
tution, both as to principle and form , muſt, on a
parity of reaſoning, be as open to diſcuſſion as the
defects of a law , and it is a duty which every man
owes to ſociety, to point them out. When thoſe
defects, and the means of remedying them , are ge
nerally ſeen by a nation, that nation will reform
its government or its conſtitution in the one caſe ,
as the government repealed or reformed the law
in
THE RIGHTS OF MAN. -55
in the other. The operation of government is re

ftricted to the making, and the adminiſtering of
laws but it is to a nation that the right of form
2
ing or reforming, generating, or regenerating, con
ftitutions and governments, belong ; and, conſe
quently, thoſe ſubjects as ſubjects of inveſtiga
tion-are, always, before a country, as a matter of
right, and cannot, without invading the general
rights of that country, be made ſubjects for proſe
cution . Mankind are not now to be told that
they ſhall not think, or that they ſhall not ready
and, publications that go no farther than to in
veſtigate principles of government, to invite men
to reaſon, and to reflect, and to ſhew the errors
and excellences of different ſyſtems, have a right
to appear. If they do not excite attention, they
are not worth the trouble of a proſecution ; and
if they do, the proſecution will amount to nothing,
ſince it cannot amount to a prohibition of reading.
This would be a ſentence on the public, inſtead of
the author, and would alſo be the moſt effectual
method of making or haſtening revolutions.
In all caſes that apply, univerſally , to a nation ,
with reſpect to ſyſtems of government, a jury of
twelve men is not competent to decide. Where
there are no witneſſes to be examined, no facts to
be proved, and where the whole matter is before
the whole public, and the merits or demeritsof
it refting on their opinion ; and where there is no.
E4 thing
thing to be known in a court, but what every bo

dy knows out of it - every twelve men is equally
as good a jury as the other, and would , moſt pro
bably, reverſe each other's verdi&t ; or, from the
variety of their opinions, not be able to form one,
It is one caſe, whether a nation approve a work,
or a plan ; but it is quite another caſe, whether it
will commit to any ſuch jury the power of deter
mining whether that nation have a right to, or ſhall
reform its government, or not. The only effec
tual jury in ſuch caſes would be, a convention of
the whole nation, fairly elected ; for, in all ſuch
caſes, the whole nation is the vicinage.
As to the prejudices which men have from edu
cation, and habit, in favour of any particular form
or ſyſtem of government, thoſe prejudices have
yet to ſtand the teſt of reaſon and reflection .In
fact ſuch prejudices are nothing. No man is pre
judiced in favour of any thing, knowing it to be
wrong . He is attached to it on the belief of its
being right ; and, when he ſees it is not ſo, the
prejudice will be gone . We have but a defective
idea of what prejudice is. It might be faid, that
until men think for themſelves, the whole is prejur
dice , and not opinion ; for that only is opinion
which is the reſult of reaſon and reflection .
Mankind have not been fairly and candidly
dealt by. They have been impoſed upon by par
ties, and by men aſſuming the character of lead
ers .
THE RIGHTS OFMAN . 57
ers . It it time that they ſhould riſe ſuperior to

thoſe trilles. It is time to diſmiſs that inattention
which has ſo long been the encouraging cauſe of
ſtretching taxes to exceſs. i It is time to diſmiſs
all thoſe ſongs and toaſts which are calculated to
enſlave, and operate to ſuffocate refle & ion. On
all ſuch ſubjects men have but to think , and they
will neither act wrong, nor be miſled. To ſay
that any people are not fit for freedom , is to make
poverty their choice, and to ſay, 'that they had
rather be loaded with taxes than not. If ſuch a
cale could be proved, it would' equally prove that
thoſe who govern are not fit to govern , for they
are a part of the fame national maſs.
: But admitting governments to be changed all
over Europe, it certainly may be done without
convulſion or revenge. It is not worth making
changes or revolutions, unleſs it be for ſome great
national benefit; and, when this ſhall appear to a
nation , the danger will be to thoſe who appofe.
?
i
ni
:: CHAP . V.
OF SOCIETY AND CIVILIZATION ,

il. , 17.,
GREAT
AT part of that order which reigns among
mankind, is not the effect of government. It has
its origin in the principles of ſociety, and the na
tural
1
THE RIGHTS OF MAN .
tural conſtitution of man. It exifted prior to go

vernment, and would exiſt if the formality of ga.
vernment was aboliſhed . The mutual dependance
and reciprocal intereſt which man has upon man ,
and all the parts of a civilized community upon
each other, create that great chain of connection
which holds it together. The landholder, the far
mer , the manufa & urer, the merchant, the tradef
man , and every other occupation, proſpers by the
aid which each receives from the other, and from
the whole. Common intereſt regulates their con
cerns, and forms their law ; and the law which
common uſage ordains, have a greater influence
than the laws of government. In fine, fociety
performs for itſelf almoſt every thing which is
aſcribed to government.
To underſtand the nature and quantity of go
vernment proper for man , it is neceſſary to attend
to his character . As nature created him for ſocial
life, the fitted him for the ſtation ſhe intended. In
all caſes ſhe made his natural wants, greater than
his individual powers . No man is capable, with
out the aid of ſociety , of ſupplying his own wants ;
and thoſe wants, acting upon every individual, im
pel the whole of ţhem into ſociety , as naturally as
gravitation acts to a centre.
But the has gone further . She has not only
forced man into fociety , by a diverfity of wants,
which the reciprocal aid of each other can ſupply,
but
but ſhe has implanted in him a ſyſtem of ſocial af

fections, which, though not neceſſary to his exiſt
ence, are eſſential to his happineſs. There is no
period in life when this love for ſociety ceaſes to
act. It begins and ends with our being.
If we examine, with attention, into the compo
fition and conſtitution of man , the diverſity of his
wants, and the diverſity of talents in different men
for reciprocally accommodating the wants of each
other, his propenſity to ſociety, and conſequently
to preſerve the advantages reſulting from it, we
ſhall eaſily diſcover, that a great part of what is
called government, is mere impoſition.
Government is no further neceſſary than to ſup
ply the few caſes to which ſociety and civilization
are not conveniently competent - and inſtances
are not wanting to thew , that every thing which
government can uſually add thereto, has been per
formed by the common conſent of ſociety, without
government *.
There is a natural aptneſs in man , and more ſo
in ſociety, becauſe it embraces a greater variety of
* For upwards of two years from the commencement of the
American war, and to a longer period in ſeveral of the Ame.
rican ftates, there were no eſtabliſhed forms of government.
The old governments had been aboliſhed, and the country was
too much occupied in defence, to employ its attention in efta .
bliſhing new governments ----yet, during this interval, order
and harmony were preſerved as inviolate as in any country in
Europe.
abilities
bo THE RIGHTS OF MAN.
abilities and reſources to accommodate itſelf to

whatever Situation it is in . The inſtant formal go
vernment is aboliſhed, fociety begins to act. A
general aſſociation takes place, and common in
tereſt produces common ſecurity.
So far is it from being true, as has been repre
ſented, that the abolition of any formal govern .
ment is the diſſolution of ſociety, that it acts by a
contrary impulſe, and brings the latter the cloſer
together. All that part of its organization which
it had committed to its government, devolves
again upon itſelf, and acts through its medium
When men, as well from natural inſtinct, as from
reciprocal benefits, have habituated themſelves to
focial and civilized life, there is always enough of
its principles in practice to carry them through any
changes they may find neceſſary or convenient to
make in their government. In ſhort, man is ſo
naturally a creature of ſociety, that it is impoſſible
to put him out of it.
Formal government makes but a ſmall part of
civilized life and when even the beſt that human
wiſdom can deviſe , is eſtabliſhed, it is a thing
inore in name and idea, than in fact. It is to the
great and fundamental principles of ſociety and ci
vilization - to the common uſage univerſally con
fented to, and mutually and reciprocally maintain
ed - to the unceaſing circulation of intereſt, which,
paffing through its million channels, invigorates
the
THE RIGHTS OF MAN : 6c
the whole maſs, of civilized man - it is to theſe

things, infinitely more than to any thing which even
the beſt inſtituted governments can perform , that
the ſafety and proſperity of the individual and of
the whole depends.
The more perfect civilization is, the leſs occa
fion has it for government, becauſe the more does
it regulate its own affairs, and govern itſelf; but fo
contrary is the practice of old governments to the
reaſon of the caſe, that the expences of them in
creaſe in the proportion they ought to diminiſh .
It is but few general laws that civil life requires,
and thoſe of ſuch common uſefulneſs, that whether
they are enforced by the forms of government or
not, the effect will be nearly the fame. If we con
ſider what the principles are that firſt condenſe
men into ſociety, and what the motives that regu
late their mutual intercourſe afterwards, we ſhall
find , by the time we arrive at what is called go
vernment, that nearly the whole of the buſineſs is
performed by the natural operation of the parts
upon each other .
Man, with reſpect to all theſe matters, is more.
a creature of conſiſtency than he is aware of, or
that governments would with him to believe. All
1
the great laws of ſociety are laws of nature . Thoſe
of trade and commerce, whether with reſpect to
the intercourſe of individuals, or of nations, are
laws of mutual and reciprocal intereſt. They are
followed
1
followed and obeyed, becauſe it is the intereſt of

the parties fo to do, and not on account of any fore
mal laws their governments may impoſe or inter
poſe.
But how often is the natural propenſity to fo.
ciety diſturbed or deſtroyed by the operations of
government ! When the latter, inſtead of being
ingrafted on the principles of the former, affumes
to exiſt for itſelf, and acts by partialities of favour,
or oppreſſion, it becomes the cauſe of the miſchiefs
it ought to prevent.
If we take a retroſpect of the riots and tumults
which, at various times, have taken place in the
world, we ſhall find, that they did not proceed
from the want of a government, but that govern
ment was, itſelf, the generating cauſe - inſtead of
conſolidating ſociety , it divided it — it deprived it
of its natural coheſion, and engendered diſcontents
and diſorders which, otherwiſe, would not have
exiſted. In thoſe affociations which men pro
miſcuouſly form for the purpoſe of trade, or of
any concern, in which government is totally out
of the queſtion, and in which they act merely on
the principles of ſociety, we ſee how naturally the
various parties unite-- and this ſhews by compari
fon , that governments, ſo far from being always
the cauſe or means of order, are often the deſtruc
tion of it.
Exceſs and inequality of taxation, however dif
guiſed
guiſed in the means, never fail to appear in their

effects. As a great maſs of the community are
thrown thereby into poverty and diſcontent, they
are conſtantly on the brink of commotion --and ,
deprived, as they unfortunately are, of the means
of information , are eaſily heated to outrage .
Whatever the apparent cauſe of any riots may be,
the real one is , always, want of happineſs. It
fhews that fomething is wrong in the fyftem of go
vernment, that injures the felicity by which fociety
is to be preſerved.
Having thus endeavoured to ſhew that the ſocial
and civilized ſtate of man is capable of performing
within itſelf almoſt every thing neceſſary to its
protection and government, it will be proper on
the other hand, to take a review of the preſent old
governments, and examine whether their principles
and practice are correſpondent thereto .
CHAP VI.
OF THE ORIGIN OF THE PRESENT OLD GOVERN

MENTS .
It is impoſſible that ſuch governments as have

hitherto exiſted in the world could have com
menced by any other means than a total violation
of every principle facred and moral. The obfcu
rity
rity in which the origin of all the preſent old go

vernments is buried implies the iniquity and diſ.
grace with which they began .
It could have been no difficult thing in the early
and ſolitary ages of the world, while the chief em
ployment of men was that of attending flocks and
herds, for a banditti of ruffians to overrun a
country, and lay it under contributions. Their
power being thus eſtabliſhed, the chief ofthe band
contrived to loſe the name of robber in that of
monarch -- and hence the origin of monarchy and
kings.
Governments founded on unjuſt principles do
not afford a ſtamina whereon to ingraft reforma
tion - and the ſhorteſt and moſt effectual remedy
is, to begin anew.
Can we poſſibly ſuppoſe, that if governments
had originated in a right principle, and had not
an intereſt in purſuing a wrong one, that the world
could have been in the wretched and quarrelſome
condition we have ſeen it ? What inducement
has the farmer, while following the plough, to lay
aſide his peaceful purſuits, and go to war with the
farmer of another country ? Or what inducement
has the manufacturer ? What is dominion to them,
or to any claſs of men in a nation ? Does it add
an acre to any man's eſtate, or raiſe its value ?
Are not conqueſt and defeat each of the fame price,
and taxes the never failing conſequence ? Though
this
this reaſoning may be good to a nation, it is not to

a government. War is the pharo-table of govern
ments, and nations the dupes of the game.
If there is any thing to wonder at in this mi
ſerable ſcene of governments more than might be
expected, it is the progreſs which the peaceful arts
of agriculture, manufacture, and commerce have
made beneath ſuch a long accumulating load of
diſcouragement and oppreſſion. It ſerves to ſhew ,
that inſtinct in animals does not act with ſtronger
impulſe than the principles of ſociety and civiliza
tion operate in man. Under all diſcouragements
he purſues his object, and yields to nothing but
impoſſibilities.
CHAP . VII.
OF THE OLD AND NEW SYSTEMS OF GOVERN .

MENT .
NOTHING can appear more contradictory than

the principles on which the old governments be
gan, and the condition to which fociety , civiliza
tion, and commerce, are capable of carrying man
kind.' Government, on the old fyftem , is an aſ
ſumption of power , for the aggrandizement of it
felf - on the new, a delegation of power for the 1
common benefit of ſociety. The former ſupports

itſelf by keeping up a ſyſtem of war--the latter
F promotes
66 THE RİGHTS OF MAN.
promotes a ſyſtem of peace, as the true means of

enriching a nation. The one encourages national
prejudices-- the other promotes univerſal fociety,
The one
as the means of univerſal commerce.
meaſures its proſperity by the quantity of revenue
it extorts ; the other proves its excellence by the
)
ſmall quantity of taxes it requires.
Though it might be proved that the fyſtem of
government now called the new, is the moſt an
cient in principle of all that have exiſted, being
founded on the original inherent Rights of Man :
yet as tyranny and the ſword have fuſpended the
exerciſe of thoſe rights for many centuries paft, it
ſerved better the purpoſe of diſtinction to call
it the new, than to claim the right of calling it the
old.
The firſt general diſtinction between thoſe two
ſyſtems, is, that the one, now called the old , is
hereditary, either in whole or in part ; and the
new is entirely repreſentative. It rejects all here..
ditary government.
Firſt, As being an impoſition on mankind. i
Secondly, As inadequate to the purpoſes for
which government is neceſſary.
With reſpect to the firſt of theſe heads- it can
not be proved by what right hereditary govern
ment could begin ; neither does there exiſt within
the compaſs of mortal power a right to eſtabliſh
it. Man has nó authority over pofterity in mats
ters
ters of perfonal right ; and, therefore, no man , or

body of men, had, or can have, a right to ſet up
hereditary government. Were even ourſelves to
come again into exiſtence, inſtead of being fuc:
ceeded by poſterity, we have not now the right
of taking from ourſelves the rights which would
then be ours. On what ground then do we pre
tend to take them from others ?
All hereditary government is in its nature un
juft, and an impoſition on fociety. An heritable
crown , or an heritable throne, or by what other
fanciful names ſuch things may be called, have no
other fignificant explanation than thatmankind are
heritable property . To inherit a government
is, to inherit the people, as if they were flocks and
herds.
With reſpect to the ſecond head, that of being
inadequate to the purpoſes for which governiment
is neceffary, we have only to conſider what go
vernment eſſentially is, and compare it with the
circumſtances, to which hereditary ſucceſſion is
ſubject.
Government ought to be a thing always in full
maturity . It ought to be fo conſtructed, as to be
ſuperior to all the accidents to which individual
man is ſubject; and, therefore, hereditary fuccef
fion, by being ſubječt to them all, is the moſt irre
gular and imperfect of all the ſyſtems of govern
ment.
F2 We
We have heard the Rights of Man called a le

velling ſyſtem ; but the only ſyſtem to which the
word levelling is truly applicable, is the hereditary
monarchical ſyſtem . It is a ſyſtem of mental le
velling. It indiſcriminately admits every ſpecies
of character to the fame authority. Vice and vir
tue, ignorance and wiſdom ; in ſhort, every qua
lity, good or bad, is put on the ſame level . Kings
ſucceed each other, not as rationals, but as ani
mals. It ſignifies not what their mental or moral
characters are . Can we then be ſurpriſed at the
abject ſtate of the human mind in monarchical
countries, when the government itſelf is formed
on ſuch an abject levelling ſyſtem ? It has no
fixed character. To-day it is one thing - to-mor
row it is ſomething elſe. It changes with the tem
per of every ſucceeding individual, and is ſubject
to all the varieties of each. It is government
through the medium of paſfons and accidents. It
appears under all the various characters of child-.
hood, decripitude, dotage, a thing at ' nurſe, in
leading-ſtrings, or in crutches. It reverſes the
wholeſome order of nature. It occaſionally puts
children over men , and the conceits of non-age
over wiſdom and experience. In ſhort, we can
not conceive a more ridiculous figure of govern
ment than hereditary ſucceſſion, in all its caſes,
preſents.
Could it be made a decree in nature, or an
edict
ediet regiſtered in heaven, and man could know

it, that virtue and wiſdom ſhould invariably ap
pertain to hereditary ſucceſſion, the objections to it
would be removed ; but when we ſee that nature
acts as if ſhe diſowned and ſported with the here. :
ditary fyſtem that the mental characters of ſuc
ceſſors, in all countries, are below the average of
human underſtandingthat one is a tyrant, another
an ideot, a third inſane, and ſome all three toge
ther, it is impoſſible to attach confidence to it,
when reaſon in man has power to act.
“ If it be aſked,” ſays a writer of diſtinction,
66 what is my opinion with reſpect to hereditary
“ right, I anſwer, without heſitation, That, in good
" theory , an hereditary tranſmiſſion of any power
or office can never accord with the laws of a
56 true repreſentation. Hereditaryſhip is, in this
“ ſenſe, as much an attaint upon principle, as an
“ outrage upon ſociety. But let us," continues
he, “ refer to the hiſtory ofall ele&ive monarchies
“ and principalities : Is there one in which the
“ elective mode is not worſe than the hereditary
6 ſucceſſion ?"
As to debating on which is the worſt of the two,
is admitting both to be bad -- and herein we are
agreed. The preference which he has given is a
condemnation of the thing that he prefers. Such
a mode of reaſoning, on ſuch a ſubject, is inad .
miffible , becauſe it finally amounts to an accuſa .
F3 tion
jo THE RIGHTS OF MAN .
tion upon providence, as if ſhe had left to man no

other choice, with reſpect to government, than be
tween two evils, the beſt of which he admits to be
6 an attaint upon principle, and an outrage upon
fociety."
Palling over for the preſent all the evils and 1
miſchiefs which monarchy has occafioned in the 1
world , nothing can more effectually prove its uſe

leſſneſs, in a ſtate of civil government, than mak.
ing it hereditary. Would we make any office he.
reditary that required wiſdom and abilities to fill
it ? And where wiſdom and abilities are not ne
ceſſary, ſuch an office, whatever it may be, is ſu
perfluous or inſignificant.
Hereditary ſucceſſion is a burleſque upon mo.
narchy. It puts it in the moſt ridiculous light,
by preſenting it as an office which any child or
ideot may fill. It requires ſome talents to be a
common mechanic ; but to be a king, requires
only the animal figure of mana ſort of breath
ing automaton . This ſort of fuperftition may laft
a few years more, but it cannot long reſiſt the
awakened reaſon and intereſt of man.
Having thus glanced at a few of the defects of
the old, or hereditary ſyſtems of government, let
us compare it with the new , or repreſentative
fyſtem .
The reprefentative fyftem takes ſociety and ci
vilization
vilization for its baſis - nature; réafon , and expe

rience, for its guide.
Experience in all ages, and in all countries, has
demoſtrated, that it is impoffible to controul náture
in her diſtribution of mental powers . She gives
them as ſhe pleaſes. Whatever is the rule, by
which ſhe, apparently to us, ſcatters them among
mankind, that rule remains a ſecret to man. It
would be as ridiculous to attempt to fix the here
ditary ſhip of human beauty, as of wiſdom . What
éver wiſdom conftitüently is, it is like a ſeedleſs
plant-it may be reared when it appears, but it
cannot be voluntarily produced. There is always
a ſufficiency fomewhere in the general maſs of ſơ
ciety for all purpoſes ; but with refpect to the parts
of ſociety, it is continually changing itsplace. It
riſes in one to -day, in another tó-morrow ; and
has, moſt probably, viſited, in rotation, every få.
mily of the earth, and again withdrawn.
As this is the order of nature, the order of go .
vernment muſt neceſſarily follow it, or governa
ment will, as we ſee it does, degenerate into ig.
norance. The hereditary ſyſtem , therefore, is as
repugnant to human wiſdom , as to human rights
and is as abſurd as it is unjuſt.
As the republic of letters brings forward the beſt
literary productions, by giving to genius afair and
univerſal chance, ſo the repreſentative fyftem of
government is calculated to produce the wifeft
F4 laws,
92 THE RIGHTS OF MAN:
laws, by collecting wiſdom from whence it can be

found. I ſmile to myſelf, when I contemplate the
ridiculous inſignificance into which literature, and
all the ſciences would fink ,were they made heredi
tary - and I carry the ſame idea into governments.
An hereditary governor is inconſiſtent as an here
ditary,author. I know not whether Homer or
Euclid had ſons-- but I will venture an opinion
that if they had, and left their works unfiniſhed,
thoſe ſoņs could not have completed them. 1
Do we need a ſtronger evidence of the abſur

dity of hereditary governments than is ſeen in the
deſcendants of thoſe men, in any time of life, who
once were famous ? Is there ſcarcely an inſtance
in which there is not a total reverſe of the charac
ter ? It appears as if the tide of mental faculties
flowed as far as it could in certain channels, and
then forſook its courſe, and aroſe in others. How
irrational then is the hereditary ſyſtem which eſta
bliſhes channels of pawer in company with which
wiſdom refuſes to flow ? By continuing this abſur
dity, man is perpetually in contradiction with him
ſelf - he accepts for a King, a chief, or magiſtrate,
or a legiſlator, a perſon whom he would not elect
for a conſtable .
It appears, to general obſervation, that revolu
tions create genius and talents ; but thoſe events
do no more than bring them forward . - There is
exiſting in man, a maſs of ſenſe lying in a dor
mant
mant ſtate, and which , unleſs ſomething excites it

to action, will deſcend with him in that condition
to the grave. As it is to the advantage of fo .
ciety that the whole of its faculties ſhould be em.
ployed , the conſtruction of governments ought to
be ſuch as to bring forward , by a quiet and regular
operation , all that extent of capacity which never
fails to appear in revolutions .
This cannot take place in the inſipid ſtate of he.
ditary government , not only becauſe it prevents,
but-becauſe it operates to benumb . When the
mind of a nation is bowed down by any political
ſuperſtition in its government , ſuch as hereditary
ſucceſſion is , it loſes a conſiderable portion of its
powers on all other ſubjects and objects. Heredi
tary ſucceſſion requires the ſame obedience to igno
rance as to wiſdom ; and, when once the mind can
bring itſelf to pay this indiſcriminate reverence , it
deſcends below the ſtature of mental manhood . It
is fit to be great only in little things. It acts a
treachery upon itſelf, and ſuffocates the ſenſations
that urge to detection,
Though the ancient governments preſent to us a
miſerable picture of the condition of man, there is
one, which above all others, exempts itſelf from
the general deſcription.I mean the democracy of
the Athenians. We ſee more to admire, and leſs
to condemn, in that great extraordinary people,
than in any thing which hiſtory affords,
So
So little are the conſtituent principles of govern

ment conſidered, that democracy and repreſenta
tion are often confounded together. Repreſenta
tion was a thing unknown in the ancient democra
cies. In thoſe the maſs of the peeple met and en
acted laws ( gramatically ſpeaking) in the firſt per
fon. Simple democracy was no other than the
common -hall of the ancients. It fignifies the form
as well as the public principles of the government.
As theſe denocracies increaſed in population and
the territory extended, : the fimple democratical
forın became unwieldy and impracticable ; and,as
the ſyſtem of repreſentation was not known, the
conſequence was, they either degenerated convul
kively into monarchies, or became abſorbed into
ſuch as then exiſted . Had the fyſtem of repre.
ſentation been then underſtood, as it now is, there
is no reaſon to believe that thoſe forms of govern
ment, now called monarchical , or ariſtocratical ,
would ever have taken place. It was the want of
fome method to conſolidate the parts of ſociety,
after it became too populous, and too extenſive
for the ſimple democratical form , and alſo the lax
and folitary condition of ſhepherds and herdſmen
in other parts of the world, that afford opportuni
ties to thoſe unnatural modes of government to
begin.
As it is neceſſary to clear away the rubbiſh of
errors into which the fubject of government has
been
been thrown, I ſhall proceed to remark on ſome

others.
It hasalways been the political craft of courtiers,
and court-governments, to abuſe ſomething which
they call republicaniſin ;—but what republicaniſin
was, or is, they never attempted to explain . Let
us examine a little into this caſe.
The only forms of government are, the demo
cratical, the ariſtocratical, the monarchical, and
what is now called the repreſentative.
What is called a republic, is not any particular
form of government. It is wholly characteriſtical
of the purport, matter, or object, for which go
vernment ought to be inſtituted, and on which it
is to be employed, RES-PUBLICA , the public
affairs, or the public good - or, literally tranſlated,
the public thing. It is a word of a good original,
referring to what ought to be the character and
buſineſs of government; and, in this ſenſe, it is 1
naturally oppoſed to the word monarchy, which

has a baſe, original, fignification. It means arbi
trary power in an individual perſon in the exer
ciſe of which, himſelf, and not the ref-publica, is
the object.
Every government that does not act on the prin
ciples of a Republic, or, in other words, that does
not make the reſ-publica its whole and fole object,
is not a good government. Republican government
is no other than government eſtabliſhed and con
ducted
+
S
76 THE RIGHT OF MAN .
duced for the intereſt of the public, as well indi

vidually as collectively. It is not neceſſarily con
nected with any particular form , but it moſt natur
ally aſſociates with the repreſentative form , as be
ing beft calculated to ſecure the end for which a
nation is at the expence of ſupporting it.
Various forms of government have affected to
call themſelves a republic ; but there can be no
real republic that does not reject every thing here
ditary, and eſtabliſh government on the ſyſtem of
repreſentation only. Hereditary and repreſenta
tive principles are too unnatural to each other, to
continue to exiſt together.
Thoſe who have ſaid that a ſepublic is not a
form of government calculated for countries of
great extent, miſtook, in the firſt place, the buſi
refs of a government , for a form of govern
ment ; for the ref-publica equally appertains to
every extent of territory and population. And ,
in the ſecond place, if they meant any thing with
reſpect to form , it was the ſimple democratical
form , ſuch as was the mode of government in the
ancient democracies, in which there was no repre
fentation . The caſe, therefore, is not, that a re
public cannot be extenſive, but that it cannot be
extenſive on the ſimple democratical form ; and
the queſtion naturally preſents itſelf, -- What is the
beft form of government for conducting the Res
FUDLICA, or the PUBLIC BUSINESS of a nation,
after
after it becomes too ' extenſive and populous for the

fimple democratical form ?
It cannot be monarchy, becauſe monarchy is
ſubject to an objection of the ſame amount to
which the ſimple democratical form was ſubject.
It is poſſible that an individual may lay down a
fyltem of principles, on which governments hall
be conſtitutionally eſtabliſhed to any extent of ter
ritory. This is no more than an operation of the
mind, acting by its own powers . But the prac .
tice upon thoſe principles, as applying to the va
rious circumſtances of a nation, its agriculture,
manufacture, trade, commerce, & c. &c. requires
a knowledge of a different kind, and which can be
had only from the various parts of ſociety. It is
an aſſemblage of practical knowledge, which no
one individual can poſſeſs; and, therefore, the mo
narchical form is as much limited, in uſeful prac .'
tice, from the incompetency of knowledge, as was
the democratical form , from the multiplicity of
population. The one degenerates by extenſion,
into confufion ; the other into ignorance, and in
capacity - of which all the great monarchies are
an evidence. The monarchical form , therefore,
could not be a ſubſtitute for the democratical, be
cauſe it has equal inconveniences .
Much leſs could it when made hereditary.
This is the moſt effectual of all forms to preclude
knowledge. Neither could the high democratical
mind
TS
78 THE RIGH OF MAN .
mind have voluntarily yielded itſelf to be go.

verned by children and ideots, and all the motly
inſignificance of character, which attends ſuch a
mere animal-fyſtem, the diſgrace, and the reproach
of reaſon and of man.
As to the ariſtocratical form , it has the fame
vices and defects with the monarchical, except
that the chance of abilities is better from the pro
portion of numbers, but there is ſtill no ſecurity
for the right uſe and application of them * .
Referring then to the original ſimple democra

cy, it affords the true data from which govern
ment, on a large ſcale , can begin. It is incapable
of extenſion, not from its principle, but from the
inconvenience of its form - and monarchy and
ariſtocracy, from their incapacity. Retaining then
democracy as the ground, and rejecting the cor
rupt ſyſtems of monarchy and ariſtocracy, the re
preſentative fyftem naturally preſents itſelf, reme.
dying at once the defects of the fimple democracy
as to form , and the incapacity of the other two
with reſpect to knowledge.
Simple democracy was ſociety governing itſelf
without the aid of fecondary means. By ingraft
ing repreſentation upon democracy, we arrive at
a ſyſtem of government capable of embracing and
confederating all the various intereſts, and ever
* For a character of ariſtocracy, the reader is referred to
RIGHTS OF MAN, Part I.
extent
THE RIGHTS OF MAN 79
extent of territory and population ; and that alſo ,

witli advantages as much fuperior to hereditary
government, as the republic of letters is to here
ditary literature. It is the eaſieſt of all the forms
of government to be underſtood, and the moſt
eligible in practice, and excludes at once the ig
norance and infecurity of the hereditary mode, and
the inconvenience of the ſimple democracy .
It is impoſſible to conceive a ſyſtem of govern .
ment capable of acting over ſuch an extent of ter
ritory, and ſuch a circle of intereſts, as is immedi
ately produced by the operation of repreſentation .
It adapts itſelf to all poſſible caſes. It is prefer
able to ſimple democracy even in finall territories.
Athens, by repreſentation, would have outrivalled
her own democracy :
That which is called government, or rather that
which we ought to conceive government to be, is
no more than ſome common centre , in which all
the parts of ſociety unite. This cannot be accom
pliſhed by any method fo conducive to the vari
ous intereſts of the community, as by the repre
tative ſyſtem . It concentrates the knowledge ne
ceſſary to the intereſt of the parts and of the
whole . It places government in a ſtate of con
ftant maturity. It is, as has been already ob
ſerved, never young, never old. It is ſubje &
neither to nonage, nor dotage. It is never in the
cradle, nor on crutches . It admits not of a ſepa
ration
1
1
ration between knowledge and power ; and is ſupe

rior, and as government always ought to be, to all
the accidents of individual man, and is therefore
ſuperior to what is called monarchy.
A nation is not a body, the figure of which is
to be repreſented by the human body ; but is like
a body contained within a circle, having a com
mon centre, in which every radius meets ; and
that centre is formed by repreſentation. To con
nect repreſentation with what is called monarchy,
is excentric government. Repreſentation is, of
itſelf, the delegated monarchy of a nation, and
cannot debaſe itſelf by dividing it with another.
A certain writer, ſpeaking of government, ſays
6 It is better to have monarchy for its baſis, and
“ republicaniſm for its corrective, than repub
“ licaniſın for its baſis, and monarchy for its cor
66 rective.” If he means, that it is better to cor
rect folly with wiſdom , than wiſdom with folly, I
will no otherwiſe contend with him than that it
would be much better to reject the folly entirely.
But what is this thing which he calls monarchy ?
Will he explain it ? All men can underſtand what
repreſentation is — and that it muſt neceſſarily in
clude a variety of knowledge and talents. But
what ſecurity is there for the ſame qualities on the
part of monarchy ? Or, when this monarchy is a
child , where, then, is the wiſdom ? What does it
know about government ? Who, then, is the mo.
narch,
narch, or where is the monarchy ? If it is to be

performed by Regency, it proves it to be a farce.
A regency is a mock ſpecies of republic, and the
whole of monarchy deſerves no better deſcription.
It is a thing as various as imagination can paint.
It has none of the ſtable character that government
ought to poſſeſs. Every ſucceſſion is a revolution,
and every regency a counter -revolution . The
whole of it is a ſcene of perpetual court cabal and
intrigue. To render monarchy' conſiſtent with go
vernment, the next in ſucceffion ſhould not be born
a child, but a man at once, and that man a Solo.
mon . It is ridiculous that nations are to wait, and
government be interrupted, till boys grow to be
men .
Whether I have too little Senſe to ſee, or too

much to be impoſed upon -- whether I have too
much or too little pride, or of any thing elſe, I
leave out of the queſtion — but certain it is, that
what is called monarchy , always appears to me a
filly contemptible thing. I compare it to ſome.
thing kept behind a curtain , about which there is a
great deal of buſtle and fuſs, and a wonderful air
of ſeeming ſolemnity — but when, by any accident
the curtain happens to be open, and the company
fee what it is, they burſt into laughter .
In the repreſentative ſyſtem of government none
of this can happen. Like the nation itſelf, it pof
feſſes a perpetual ſtamina, as well of body, as of
G mind,
mind, and preſents itſelf, on the open theatre of the

world, in a fair and manly manner. whatever are
its excellencies, or its defects, they are viſible to
all. It exiſts, not by fraud and myſtery - it deals
not in cant and fophiftry --but inſpires a language,
that, pafling from heart to heart, is felt and un
derſtood .
We muſt fhut our eyes againſt reaſon - we muſt
bafely degrade our underſtanding — not to ſee the
folly of what is called, monarchy. Nature is or
derly in all her works—but this is a mode of go
vernment that counteracts nature . It turns the pro
greſs of the human faculties upſide down . It ſub .
jeets age to be governed by children, and wiſdom
by folly.
On the contrary, the repreſentative ſyſtem is al
ways parallel with the order and immutable laws of
nature, and meets the reaſon of man in every
part.
Under a repreſentative government, no man will
be elected to office, whoſe judgment has not been
matured by age, and who has lived long enough to
have acquired a knowledge of men and things, and
the Country ofhim. But on the monarchical plan,
( excluſive ofthe numerous chances there are againſt
every man born into the world of drawing a prize
in the lottery of human -faculties), the next in fuc
ceflion, whatever he may be, is put at the head of
a nation, and of a government, at the age of eigh
teen
teen years. Does this appear like an act of wif
dom ? Is it conſiſtent with the proper dignity, and
the manly character of a nation where is the pro
priety of calling ſuch a lad, the Father of the Peo
ple ? In all other caſes a perſon is a minor until
the age of twenty one years . Before this period
he is not truſted with the management of an acre of
land, or with the hereditable property of a flock of
ſheep, or an herd of ſwine --but, wonderful to tell !
he may, at the age of eighteen years, be truſted with
a Nation .
That monarchy is all a bubble, a mere court
}
artifice to procure money , is evident (at leaſt to
me), in every character in which it can be viewed ,
It would be impoſſible, in the rational ſyſtem of
repreſentative government, to make out a bill of
expences to ſuch an enormous amount as this de
ception admits . Government is not of itſelf a very
chargeable inſtitution. For example, the whole ex
pence of the Federal Government of America,
which is founded on the ſyſtem of repreſentation ,
and extending over a country nearly ten times as
large as England, containing four millions of in
habitants, is but fix hundred thoufand dollars, or
one hundred and thirty five thouſand pounds fter
ling. In France, and alſo in England, the expence
of the civil liſt only for the ſupport of one man, is
eight times greater than the whole expeńce of the
federal government in America. To afſign a rea
G2 ſon
ſon for this, appears almoſt impoſſible. The ge

nerality of the people in America, eſpecially the
poor, are more able to pay taxes, than the gene
rality of people, either in France or England, and!
perhaps under any monarchical government in the
world .
The caſe is, that the repreſentative ſyſtem , dif

fuſes ſuch a body of knowledge throughout a nation
on the ſubject of government, as to explode igno
rance, and preclude impoſition. The craft ofcourts
cannot be acted on that ground. There is no place
for myſtery - no where for it to begin. Thoſe who
are not in the repreſentation , know as much of 7
the nature of buſineſs, as thoſe who are. An af.
fectation of myſterious importance would there
be ſcouted Nations can have no ſecrets -- and the
ſecrets of Courts, like thoſe of individuals, are al
ways their defects.
In the repreſentative ſyſtem , the reaſon for every
thing muſt publicly appear. Every man is a pro
prietor in government, and conſiders it a neceſſary
part of his buſineſs to underſtand. It concerns
his intereſt, becauſe it affe &ts his property. He ex
amines the coſt, and compares it with the advan
tages ; and, above all, he does not adoptthe ſlaviſh
cuſtom of following what, in other governments,
are called LEADERS .
It can only be blinding the underſtanding of
man, and making hiin believe that government is
ſomne
ſome wonderful myſterious thing, that exceſſive

revenues are obtained. Monarchy is well calcu
lated to enſure this end. It is the popery of go
vernment-a thing kept up to amuſe the ignorant,
and quiet them into taxes.
The government of a free country, properly
ſpeaking, is not in the perſons, but in the laws .
The enacting of thoſe requires no great expence ;
and, when they are adminiſtered, the whole of ci
vil government is performed the reſt is all court
contrivance.
CHAP . VIII .
OF CONSTITUTIONS .
That men mean diſtinêt and ſeparate things,

when they ſpeak of Conſtitutions and of Govern
ments, is evident ; or why are thoſe terms diſtinely
and ſeparately uſed ? A Conſtitution is not the
act of a government, but of a people conſtituting
a government ; and government without a Conſti
tution, is power without a right.
All power exerciſed over a nation, muſt have
ſome beginning. It muſt be either delegated or
aſſumed : there are no other ſources. All dele
gated power is truſt ; and all affumed power is
uſurpation. Time does not alter the nature and
quality of either,
G 3 In
In viewing this ſubject, the caſe and circumi
ſtances of America preſent themſelves, as in the
beginning of a world ; and our enquiry into the
origin of government is ſhortened, by referring
to the facts that have ariſen in our own day. We
have no occaſion to roam for information into the
obſcure field of antiquity, nor hazard ourſelves
upon conjecture. We are brought at once to the
point of ſeeing government begin, as if we had
lived in the beginning of time. The real volume,
not of hiſtory, but of facts, is dire@ly before us,
unmutilated by contrivance, or the errors of tra
dition .
I will here , conciſely, ſtate the commencement
of the American Conſtitutions, by which the dif
ference between conſtitutions and governments
will ſufficiently appear.
It may not be improper to remind the reader
that the United States of America conſiſt of thir
teen ſeparate States ; each of which eſtabliſhed a
government for itſelf, after the declaration of in
dependence. Each State acted independently of
the reſt, in forming its government; but the ſame
general principle pervades the whole. When the
ſeveral ſtate governments were formed, they pro,
ceeded to form the federal government, that acts
over the whole in all matters which concern the
intereſt of the whole, or which relate to the inter
courſe of the ſeveral States with each other, or
with
>
with foreign nations . I will begin with giving an

inſtance from one of the ſtate governments - that
of Pennfylvania - and then proceed to the federal
government .
The State of Pennſylvania, though nearly of the
fame extent of territory as England was, then, di
vided into only twelve counties. Each of thoſe
counties had elected a committee at the commence
ment of the diſpute with the Engliſh Government ;
and, as the city of Philadelphia, which alſo had
its committee, was the moſt central for intelli
gence, it became the centre of communication to
the ſeveral county committees . When it became
neceſſary to proceed to the formation of a govern
ment, the committee of Philadelphia propoſed a
conference of all the county committees, to be
held in that city, and which meeting did take
place.
Though theſe committees had been elected by
the people, they were not elected expreſsly for
the purpoſe, nor inveſted with the authority of
forming a Conftitution; and, as they could not,
conſiſtently with the American idea of rights, aſ
fume ſuch a power, they could only confer upon
the matter, and put it into a train of operation,
The Conferees, therefore, did no more than ſtate
the caſe, and recommend to the ſeveral counties
to ele&t fix repreſentatives for each county, to meet
in convention at Philadelphia, with powers to form
G4 a Confti .
88 THE RIGHTS OF MAN :
a Conſtitution, and propoſe it for public conſider.

ation .
This convention having met and deliberated,
and agreed upon a Conſtitution, they next ordered
it to be publiſhed, not as a thing eſtabliſhed, but
for the conſideration of the whole people, their
approbation or rejection, and then adjourned to a
ſtated time. When the time of adjournment was
expired, the convention re-aſſembled ; and, as the
general opinion of the people in approbation of it
was then known, the Conſtitution was figned, ſealed,
and proclaimed on the authority ofthe people, and
the original inſtrument depoſited as a public re
cord. The convention then appointed a day for
the general election of the repreſentatives who were
to compoſe the Government, and the time it
ſhould commence ; and, having done this, they
diffolved, and returned to their ſeveral homes and
occupations,
In this Conſtitution were laid down, firſt, a De
claration of Rights. Then followed the form which
the Government ſhould have, and the powers it
ſhould poſſeſs; the authority of the courts of judi
cature, and of juries; the manner in which elections
ſhould be conducted, and the proportion of repre
ſentatives to the number of electors; the time which
each ſucceeding aſſembly ſhould continue, which
was one year , the mode of levying and of ac
counting
counting for the expenditure of public money ; of

appointing public offices, &c. &c . &c.
No article of this Conſtitution could be altered,
or infringed, at the diſcretion of the government
that was to enſue. It was to that government a
law. But as it would have been unwiſe to pre
clude the benefit of experience, and in order alſo
to prevent the accumulation oferrors, if any ſhould
be found, and to preſerve an uniſon of govern
ment with the circumſtances of the State at all
times, the Conſtitution provided, that, at the ex
piration of every ſeven years, a convention ſhould
be elected, for the expreſs purpoſe of reviſing the
conſtitution, and making alterations, additions, or
abolitions therein, if any ſhould be found necel
fary.
Here we fee a regular proceſs — a Government
iſſuing out of a Conſtitution, formed by the peo
ple in their original character -- and that Conſtitu
tion ſerving, not only as an authority, but as a
law of controul to the Government. It was the
political bible ofthe State. Every member of the
government had a copy ; and nothing was more
common, when any debate aroſe on the principle
of a bill, or on the extent of any ſpecies of au
thority, than for the members to take a printed
Conſtitution out of their pocket, and read the
chapter with which ſuch matter in debate was
connected,
Congreſs
Congreſs, at its two firſt meetings, was nothing

more than a deputation from the legiſlatures of the
feveral provinces, afterwards ſtates, and had no
other authority than what aroſe from common
conſent, and the neceſſity of its acting as a public
body. In every thing which related to the inter
nal affairs of America, Congreſs went no farther
than to iſſue recommendations to the ſeveral pro.
vincial aſſemblies, who, at diſcretion, adopted them
or not . Nothing on the part of Congreſs was
compulſive ; yet, in this ſituation, it was more
faithfully and affectionately obeyed, than was any
government in Europe. This inſtance, like that
of the National Aſſembly of France, fufficiently
fhews, that the ſtrength of government does not
confiſt in any thing within itſelf, but in the attach.
ment of a nation, and the intereſt which the people
feel in ſupporting it. When this is loſt, govern
ment is but a child in power ; and though, like the
old government of France, it may harraſs indivi
duals for a while, it but facilitates its own fall.
After the declaration of independence, it be.
éame conſiſtent with the principle on which repre
ſentative government is founded , that the autho
rity of Congreſs fhould be defined and eſtabliſhed.
Whether that authority ſhould be more or leſs than
Congreſs then diſcretionarily exerciſed , was not
the queſtion. It was merely the rectitude of the
meaſure.
For
For this purpoſe the act, called the “ AEt of

Confederation ,"-- which was a fort of imperfect fe
deral conſtitution was propoſed, and, after long
deliberation, was concluded. It was not the act
of Congreſs, becauſe it is repugnant to the princi
ples of repreſentative government, that a body
fhould give power to itſelf. Congreſs firſt in
formed the ſeveral ſtates of the powers which it
conceived were neceſſary to be inveſted in the
union, to enable it to perform the duties and ſer
vices required from it ; and the ſtates, ſeverally,
1
agreed with each other, and concenterated in Con
greſs thoſe powers.
It may not be improper to obſerve, that in both
theſe inſtances -- the one of Pennſylvania, and the
other of the United States -- there is no ſuch thing
as the idea of a compact between the people on
one fide, and the government on the other. The
compact was, that of the people with each other,
to produce and conſtitute a government. To fup
poſe that any government can be a party in a
compact with the whole people, is to ſuppoſe it to
have exiſtence before it can have a right to exiſt,
The only inſtance in which a compact can take
place between the people and thoſe who exerciſe
the government, is, that the people ſhall pay them ,
while they chuſe to employ them .
Government is not a trade which any man , or
body of men, has a right to ſet up and exerciſe
for
for his own emolument, but is, altogether, a truſt,

in right of thoſe by whom that truſt is delegated,
and by whom it is always reſumeable. It has, of
itſelf, no rights -- they are, altogether, duties.
Having thus given two inſtances of the original
formation of a Conftitution, I will ſhew the man
ner in which both have been changed fince their
firſt eſtabliſhment.
The powers vefted in the governments of the
feveral ſtates, by the ftate conſtitutions, were
found, upon experience, to be too great ; and thoſe
veſted in the federal government, by the act of
confederation, too little . The defect was not in
the principle, but in the diſtribution of power.
Numerous publications, in pamphlets, and in the
newſpapers, appeared, on the propriety and ne
cefſity of new-modelling the federal government.
After ſome time of public diſcuſſion carried on,
through the channel of the preſs, and in converſa .
tions, the State of Virginia experiencing ſome in
convenience, with reſpect to commerce, propoſed
holding a continental conference ; in conſequence
of which a deputation from five or fix of the ſtate
aſſemblies met at Anapolis, in Maryland . This
meeting, not conceiving itſelf fufficiently autho
riſed to go into the buſineſs of a reform , did no
more than ſtate their general opinions of the pro
priety of the meaſure, and recommend, that a con
vention
vention of all the ſtates ſhould be held the year

following:
This convention met at Philadelphia, and went
deeply into all the fubjects; and having, after a
variety of debate and inveſtigation, agreed among
themſelves upon the ſeveral parts of a federal
conſtitution , the next queſtion was, the manner of
giving it authority and practice. For this purpoſe
they referred the whole matter to the ſenſe and
intereſt of the country .
They firſt directed , that the propoſed Conſtitu
tion fhould be publiſhed. Secondly, that each
ftate ſhould elect a convention, expreſsly for the
purpoſe of taking into conſideration, and of rati
fying or rejecting it ; and that, as ſoon as the ap
probation and ratification of any nine ſtates ſhould
be given, that thoſe ſtates ſhould proceed to the
election of their proportion of members to the
new federal government ; and that the operation
of it ſhould then begin, and the former federal
government ceaſe.
The ſeveral ſtates proceeded accordingly to elect
their conventions. Some of thoſe conventions ra
tified the Conſtitution by very large majorities,
and two or three unanimouſly. In others there
were much debate and diviſion of opinion. In
the Maſſachuſett's convention , the majority was
not above nineteen or twenty, in about three hun
dred members : but ſuch is the nature of repreſen
tative
tative governments that it quietly decides all mat:

ters by majority. After the debate in the Marſa:
chuſett's convention was cloſed, and the voté
taken, the objecting members roſe, and declared
66 That though they had argued and voted againſt it,
becauſe certain parts appeared to them in a dif
ferent light to what they appeared to other mem
“ bers ; yet, as the vote had decided in favour of
“ the Conſtitution, as propoſed, they ſhould give it
“ the ſame practical ſupport as if they had voted
for it .”
As ſoon as the nine ſtates had concurred, and
the reſt followed in the order their conventions
were elected, the old fabric of the federal govern
ment was taken down, and the new one erected .
After the new federal conſtitution was eſta
bliſhed, the State of Pennſylvania, conceiving that
fome parts of its own conftitution required to be
altered, elected a convention for that purpoſe.
The propoſed alterations were publiſhed, and the
people concurring therein, they were eſtabliſhed.
In forming thofe conſtitutions, or in altering
them , little or no inconvenience took place. The
ordinary courſe of things was not interrupted , and
the advantages have been much. It is always the
intereſt of a far greater number of people in a na
tion to have things right, than to let them remain
wrong : and when public matters are open to de
bate
bate, and the public judgment free, it will not de

cide wrong, unleſs it ſhall decide too haſtily.
In the two inſtances of changing the conſtitu
tions, the governments, then in being, were not
actors either way. Government has no right to
make itfelf a party in any debate reſpecting the
principles or modes of forming, or of changing
conſtitutions . It is not for the benefit of thoſe
who exerciſe the powers of government, that con
ſtitutions, and the governments iſſuing from them,
are eſtabliſhed. In all thoſe matters, the right of
judging and acting are in thoſe who pay, and not
in thoſe who receive .
A conſtitution is the property of a nation, and
not of thoſe who exerciſe the government. All
the conftitutions of America are declared to be eſta
bliſhed on the authority of the people. In France,
the word Nation, is uſed inſtead of the People; but
in both caſes, a conſtitution is a thing antecedent
to the government, and always diftin &t therefrom .
For the want of underſtanding the difference be
tween a conſtitution and a government, monarchi
cal writers have always bewildered themſelves.
They could not but perceive that there muſt necel-.
farily be a controuling power exiſting ſome where,
and they placed this power in the diſcretion of the
perſons exercifing the government, inſtead of plac
ing it in a conftitution formed by the nation,
When it is in a conftitution, it has the nation for its
ſupport,
1
fupport, and the natural, and the political controul.

ing powers are together. The laws which are en
acted by governments, controul men only as indi
viduals, but the nation, through its conſtitution,
controuls the whole government, and has a natural
ability fo to do. The final controuling power there
fore , and the original conſtituting power, are one
and the ſame power .
Having thus ſpoken of conſtitutions generally,
as things diſtinct from actual governments, let us
proceed to conſider the parts of which a conſtitu-.
tion is compoſed .
Opinions differ more on this ſubject, than with
reſpect to the whole. That a nation ought to have
a conſtitution , as a rule for the conduct of its go
vernment, is a ſimple queſtion, in which all men,
not directly courtiers, will agree . It is only on
the component parts that queſtions and opinions
multiply.
But this difficulty, like every other, will dimi
niſh when put into a train of being rightly under
ftood .
The firſt thing is, that a nation has a right to ef
tabliſh a Conſtitution .
Whether it ſhall exerciſe this right in the moſt
judicious manner at firſt, is quite another caſe. It
exerciſes it agreeably to the judgment it poſſeſſes
and by continuing to do ſo all errors will at laſt be
exploded.
When
When this right is eſtabliſhed in a nation, there

is no fear that it will be employed to its own injury.
A nation can have no intereſt in being wrong.
Though all the Conſtitutions of America are
one general principle, yet no two of them are ex
actly alike in their component parts, or in the diſ
tribution of the powers which they give to the ac
tual governments . Some are more, and the others
leſs complex .
In forming a Conſtitution , it is, firſt, neceſſary
to conſider, What are the ends for which govern
ment is neceſſary ? Secondly, What are the beſt
means, and the leaſt expenſive, for accompliſhing
thoſe ends ?
Government is nothing more than a national
aſſociation ; and the object of this aſſociation is,
the good of all, as well individually, as collec
tively. Every man wiſhes to purſue his occupa
tion , and to enjoy the fruits of his labours, and
the produce of his property, in peace and ſafety,
and with the leaſt poſſible expence . When theſe
things are accompliſhed , all the objects for which
government ought to be eſtabliſhed, are anſwered.
It has been cuſtomary to conſider government ,
under three diſtinct general heads -- the legiſlative,
the executive, and the judicial.
But if we permit our judgment to act unincum
bered by the habit of multiplied terms, we can per
ceive no more than two diviſions of power of
H which
which government is compoſed , namely, that of

legiſlating or enacting laws, and that of executing
or adminiſtering them . Every thing therefore,
appertaining to civil government, claffes itſelf
under one or other of theſe two divifions.
So far as regards the execution of laws, that
which is called the judicial power is, ftri&tly and
properly, the executive power of every country.
It is that power to which every individual has ap
peal , and which cauſes the laws to be executed ;
neither have we any other clear idea with reſpect
to the official execution of the laws . In England ,
and alſo in America , and France , this power be
gins with the magiſtrate, and proceeds up through
all the courts of judicature .
I leave to courtiers to explain what is meant by
calling monarchy the executive power. It is,
merely, a name in which acts of government are
done ; and, any other, or none at all , would an
ſwer the fame purpoſe . Laws have neither more
nor leſs authority on this account. It muſt be
from the juſtneſs of their principles, and the inte
reſt which a nation feels therein , that they derive
fupport; if they require any other than this, it is
a ſign that ſomething in the ſyſtem of government
is imperfect. Laws difficult to be executed, can
not be generally good.
With reſpect to the organization of the legiſla
{ ive power, different inodes have been adopted in
different
í
different countries . In America, it is generally
compoſed of two houſes. In France, it confift
but of one ; but in both countries it is wholly by
repreſentation.
The caſe is, that mankind, from the long ty.
ranny of aſſumed power, have had ſo few oppor•
tunities of making the neceſſary trials in modes and
principles of government, in order to diſcover the
beft, that government is but now beginning to be
known ; and experience is yet wanting to deter
mine many particulars .
1
The objections againſt two houſes are, firſt,
that there is an inconſiſtency in any part of a whole
!
legiſlature, coming to a final determination, by
vote, or any matter, whilſt that matter, with reſpect
to that whole, is yet only in a train of deliberation,
and conſequently, open to new illuſtrations.
Secondly, that, by taking the vote on each , as
a ſeparate body, it always adınits ofthe poflibility
and is often the caſe in practice -- that the mino
rity governs the majority, and that, in ſome in
ſtances, to a degree of inconſiſtency.
Thirdly, that iwo houſes arbitrarily checking or
controuling each other is inconſiſtent ; becauſe, it
cannot be proved on the principles of juſt repre.
ſentation, that either ſhould be wiſer or better than
the other. They may check in the wrong as well
as in the right ; and , therefore , to give the power
where we cannot give the wiſdom to uſe it, nor
Il 2 be
be aſſured of its being rightly uſed; renders the ha

zard at leaſt equal to the precaution. Particularly
if we look at the diſtinct abilities of a houſe of re
preſentatives and of peers, the difference will ap
pear ſo great as to ſhew the inconſiſtency of plac
ing power where there cannot be any certainty of
the judgment to uſe it.
The objection againſt a ſingle houſe is, that it is
always in a condition of committing itſelf too ſoon.
But it ſhould, at the ſame time, be remembered,
that, when there is a Conſtitution which defines
the power, and eſtabliſhes the principles within
which a legiſlature ſhall act, there is always a more
effectual check provided, and more powerfully
operating, than any other check can be. For ex
ample :
Were a bill to be brought into any of the Ame
rican legiſlatures, to extend the duration of the
aſſemblies to a longer period than they now fit, the
1
check is in the Conſtitution , which in effect ſays.com

thus far fhalt thou go and no further.
But in order to remove the objection againſt a
ſingle houſe that of acting with too quick an im
pulſe -- and, at the ſame time, to avoid the incon
ſiſtencies, in ſome caſes abſurdities, ariſing from
two houſes, the following method has been pro
poſed as an improvement upon both :—firſt, To
have but one repreſentation .-- Secondly, To di
vide that repreſentation by lot, into two or three
parts.com
+
THE RIGHTS OF MAN . IOI
parts. - Thirdly, That every propoſed bill, ſhall

be firſt debated in thoſe parts by ſucceſſion , that
they may become the hearers of each other , but
After which the whole
without taking any vote.
repreſentation to aſſemble, for a general debate
and determination by vote .
To this propoſed improvement has been added
another for the purpoſe of keeping the repreſenta
tion in a ſtate of conſtant renovation ; which is,
that one third of the repreſentation of each county
ſhall go out at the expiration of one year, and the
number be replaced by new elections ; another
third at the expiration of the ſecond year replaced
in like manner ; and every third year to be a ge
neral election .
But in whatever manner the ſeparate parts of a
Conſtitution may be arranged, there is one general
principle that diſtinguiſhes Freedom from Slavery,
which is, that all hereditary government over a
people is, to them , a ſpecies of ſlavery, and repre
ſentative government is freedom .
Conſidering government in the only light in
which it ſhould be conſidered --that of a NA
TIONAL ASSOCIATION -it ought to be fo con
ftructed as not to be diſordered by any accident
happening among the parts ; and, therefore, no ex
traordinary power, capable of producing ſuch an
effect, ſhould be lodged in the hands of any in
dividual. The death , ſickneſs, abſence, or de
H 3 defection
1
fection of any one individual in a government,

ought to be a matter of no conſequence, with re
ſpect to the nation, than if the ſame circumſtance
had taken place in a member of the legiſlature.
Scarcely any thing preſents a more degrading
character of national greatneſs, than its being
thrown into confuſion by any thing happening to,
or acted by an individual ; and the ridiculouſneſs
of the ſcene is often increaſed by the natural in
ſignificance of the perſon by whom it is occaſioned.
Were a government ſo conſtructed, that it could
not go on unleſs a gooſe or a gander were preſent
in the fenate, the difficulties would be juſt as great
and as real on the flight or fickneſs of the gooſe
or the gander, as if it were called a king. We
laugh at individuals for the filly difficulties they
make to themſelves, without perceiving that the
greateſt of all ridiculous things are acted in go
vernment *.
All
* It is related , that in the Cantons of Berne, in Switzer.
land, it had been cuſtomary, from time immemorial, to keep
a Bear at the public expence, and the people had been taught
to believe, that if they had not a Bear, they ſhould be undone.
It bappened that the Bear, then in being, was taken fick, and
died too ſuddenly to have his place immediately fupplied with
another. During this interregnum, the people diſcovered,
the corn grew , and the vintage flouriſhed , and the fun
and moon continued to riſe and ſet, and every thing went on
the ſame as before , and taking courage from theſe circum
ftances, they reſolved not to keep any more Bears-- for, ſaid
they,
All the Conſtitutions of America are on a plan

that excludes the childiſh embarrafiments which
occur in monarchical countries . No ſuſpenſion
of government can there take place for a moment,
from any circumſtance whatever. The ſyſtem of
repreſentation provides for every thing, and is the
only ſyſtem in which nations and governments can
always appear in their proper character.
As extraordinary power ought not to be lodged
in the hands of any individual, ſo ought there not
to be any appropriations of public money to any
perſon, beyond what his ſervices, in a ſtate, may
be worth . It fignifies not whether a man be called
a Preſident, a King, an Emperor, a Senator, or by
any other name, which propriety or folly may de.
viſe, or arrogance aſſume; it is only a certain
ſervice he can perform in the ſtate ; and the fer
vice of any ſuch individual in the rotine of office,
whether ſuch office be called monarchical, preſi
1
dential, ſenatorial, or by any other name or title,
can never exceed the value of ten thouſand pounds
a year. All the great ſervices that are done in the
world are performed by volunteer characters, who
do not accept any thing for them ; but the rotine
of office is always regulated to ſuch a general
ſtandard of abilities, as are to be within the com
they, “ a Bear is a very voracious, expenſive animal and we
were obliged to pull out his claws, leſt he ſhould hurt the
citizens" .
H4 paſs
paſs of numbers in every country to perform , and

therefore cannot merit very extraord nary recom
pence. Government, ſays Swift , is a plain thing,
and fitted to the capacity of many heads .
It is inhuman to talk of a million ſterling a year,
paid out of the public taxes of any country , for
the ſupport of any individual, whift thouſands
who are forced to contribute thereto, are pining
in want, and ſtruggling with miſery. Government
does not confiit in a contraſt between priſons and
It is not
palaces - between poverty and pomp.
inſtituted to rob the needy of his mite, and in
creaſe the wretchedneſs of the wretched .
When extraordinary power, and extraordinary
pay, are allotted to any individual in a govern
ment, he becomes the centre round which every 1
kind of corruption generates and forms. Give to

any man a million a year, and add thereto the
. power of creating and diſpoſing of places, at the
expence of a country, the liberties of that country
are no longer ſacred . What is called the ſplen .
dour of a throne, is no other than the corruption
of the ſtate . It is made up of a band of paraſites,
living in luxurious indolence, out of the public
taxes, paid by the labours of the poor.
When once ſuch a vicious ſyſtem is eſtabliſhed,
it becomes the guard and protection of all inferior
abuſes. The man who is in the receipt of a mil
ļion a year, is the laſt perſon to promote a ſpirit
of
2
of reform , left, in the event, it ſhould reach to

himſelf. It is always his intereſt to defend in
ferior abuſes, as ſo many out-works to protect the
citadal; and, in this ſpecies of political fortifica
tion, all the parts have ſuch a common depen
dence, that it is never to be expected they will
attack each other .
Monarchy would not have continued ſo many
ages in the world, had it not been for the abuſes it
protects. It is the maſter- fraud which ſhelters all
others. By admitting a participation of the ſpoil,
it makes itſelf friends ; and, when it ceaſes to do
this, it will ceaſe to be the idol of courtiers .
As the principle on which Conſtitutions are
now formed, rejects all hereditary pretenſions to
government, it alſo rejects all that catalogue of
aſſumptions known by the name of prerogatives.
If there is any government where prerogatives
miglit, w th apparent ſafety, be intruſted to any in
dividual, it is the federal government of America.
The Preſident of the United States of America is
elected only for four years. He is not only reſpon
ſible in the general ſenſe of the word , but a par
ticular mode is laid down in the Conſtitution for
trying him . He cannot be elected under thirty
five years of age--and he muſt be a native of the
country.
The preſidency in America (or as it is ſometimes
called, the excutive), is the only office from which
a foreigner
106 THE RIGHTS OF MAN,
a foreigner is excluded ; and in England, it is the

only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner can.
not be a member of parliament, but he may be
what is called a king. If there is any reaſon for
excluding foreigners, it ought to be from thoſe of
fices where miſchief can moſt be acted, and where
by uniting every bias of intereſt and attachment,
the truſt is beſt ſecured.
But as nations proceed in the great buſineſs of
forming Conſtitutions, they will examine with more
preciſion, into the nature and buſineſs of that de
partment which is called the executive. What the
legiſlative and judicial departments are, every one
can ſee ; but, with reſpect to what, in Europe, is
called the executive, as diſtinct from thoſe two, it
is cither a political fuperfluity, or a chaos of un
known things.
Some kind of official department, to which re.
ports ſhall be made from the different parts of a
nation, or from abroad, to be laid before the na
tional repreſentatives, is all that is neceſſary ; but
there is no conſiſtency in calling this the executive ;
neither can it be conſidered in any other light
than as inferior to the legiſlative. The fovereign
authority, in any country , is the power of making
laws, and every thing elſe is an official depart
ment.
Next to the arrangment of the principles and

the organization of the ſeveral parts of a Conſti
tution
1
tution is, the proviſion to be made for the ſupport

of the perſons to whom the nation ſhall confide the
adminiſtration of the conſtitutional powers.
A nation can have no right to the time and ſer
vices of any perſon at his own expence, whom it
may chuſe to employ or entruſt in any department
whatever ; neither can any reaſon be given for
making proviſion for the ſupport of any one part
of a government, and not for the other .
But adınitting, that the honour of being entruſted
with any part of a government is to be conſidered
a ſuficient reward, it ought to be fo to every per
ſon alike. If the members of the legiſlature of
any country are to ſerve at their own cxpence, that
which is called the executive, whether monarchical,
or by any other name, ought to ſerve in like man
ner. It is inconſiſtent to pay the one , and accept
the ſervice of the other gratis .
In America, every department in the govern
ment is decently provided for — but no one is ex
travagantly paid. Every member of Congreſs and
of the Aſſemblies, is allowed a ſufficiency for his
expences. Whereas, in England, a moſt prodi
gal proviſion is made for the ſupport of one part
of the government, and none for the other --the
conſequence of which is, that the one is furniſhed -
with the means of corruption , and the other is put
into the condition of being corrupted .
Another reform in the American Conſtitutions
is,
1
is, the exploding all oaths of perſonality. The

Oath of allegiance in America is to the nation only .
The putting any individual as a figure for a nation
is improper. The happineſs of a nation is the ſu
perior object, and therefore the intention of an
oath of allegiance ought not to be obſerved by
being figuratively taken to , or in the name of any
perſon. The oath, called the civic oath, in France,
viz . the “ Nation, the Law , and the King,” is in
proper. If taken at all , it ought to be, as in Ame
rica, to the nation only. The law may or may
not be good ; but in this place, it can have no
other meaning than as conducive to the happineſs
of the nation , and therefore is included in it. The
remainder of the oath is improper, on the ground,
that all perſonal oaths oughtto be aboliſhed . They
are the remains of tyranny on one part, and ſlavery
on the other; and the name of the CREATOR
ought not to be introduced to witneſs the degra
dation of his creation ; or if taken, as is already
mentioned , as figurative of the nation , it is in this
place redundant. But whatever apology may be
made for oaths at the first eſtablillinent of govern
ment, they ought not to be permitted afterwards.
If a government requires the ſupport of oaths, it
is a ſign that it is not worth ſupporting, and ought
not to be ſupported. Make government what it
ought to be, and it will ſupport itſelf.
To conclude this part of the ſubject : -- one of
the
109
the greateſt improvements that has been made for

the perpetual ſecurity and progreſs of conſtitu
tional liberty is, the proviſion which the new Con
ftitutions make for, occaſionally, reviſing, altering,
and amending them .
The principle of " binding and controuling pof
terity to the end of time, and of renouncing and
abdicating the rights of all poſterity for ever”, is
now become too deteſtable to be made a ſubject
of debate ; and therefore I paſs it over with no
other notice than expoſing it .
Government is but now beginning to be known.
Hitherto it has been the mere exerciſe of power,
which forbad all effe & ual enquiry into rights, and
grounded itſelf wholly on pofleflion. While the
enemy of liberty was it's judge, the progreſs of
its principles muſt have been finall indeed .
The Conſtitutions of America, and alſo that of
France, have either affixed a period for their re
viſion , or laid down the mode by which improve
ments ſhall be made. It is, perhaps, impoſſible to
eſtabliſh any thing that combines principles with
opinions and practice, which the progreſs of cir
cumſtances, through a length of years, will not, in
ſome meaſure, derange, or render inconſiſtent ;
and therefore, to prevent inconveniences accumu
lating till they diſcourage reformations, or provoke
revolutions, it is beſt to provide the means of re
gulating them as they occur. The Rights of
Man
Man are the rights of all generations of men , and

cannot be monopolized by any. That which is
worth following, will be followed for the ſake of
its worth ; and it is in this that its ſecurity lies ,
and not in any conditions with which it may be
incumbered . When a man leaves his property to
his heirs, he does not connect with it an obliga
tion that they ſhall accept it . Why then ſhould
we do otherwiſe with reſpect to Conſtitutions ?
The beſt Conſtitution that could now be de
viſed , conſiſtent with the condition of the preſent
moment, may be far ſhort of that excellence which
a few years may afford . There is a morning of
reaſon riſing upon man on the ſubject of Govern
ment, that has not appeared before. As the bar
bariſm of the preſent old governments expires,
the moral condition of nations, with reſpect to
each other, will be changed. Man will not be
brought up with the favage idea of conſidering his
ſpecies as his enemy, becauſe the accident of birth
gave the individuals exiſtence in countries diſtin .
guiſhed by different names ; and, as Conſtitu
tions have always ſome relation to external as well
as domeſtic circumſtances, the means of benefiting
by every change, foreign or domeſtic, ſhould be
a part of every Conſtitution.
We already ſee an alteration in the national dif
poſition of England and France towards cach
other ; which , when we look back to only a few
years,
THE RIGHTS OF MAN . III
years , is itſelf a Revolution . Who could have

foreſeen, or who could have believed, that a
French National Aſſembly would ever have been
a popular toaſt in England ; or that a friendly al
liance of the two nations ſhould become the wiſh
of either ? It ſhews, that, man , were he not cor .
rupted by governments, is naturally the friend of
man, and that human nature is not of itſelf vicious.
That ſpirit of jealouſy and ferocity , which the
governments of the two countries inſpired, and
which they rendered ſubſervient to the purpoſe
of taxation, is now yielding to the dictates of
1
reaſon, intereſt, and humanity. The trade of
courts is beginning to be underſtood, and the af
fectation of myſtery, with all the artificial forcery
by which they impoſed upon mankind, is on the
decline. It has received its death - woundmand ,
though it may linger, it will expire.
Government ought to be as much open to im
provement as any thing which appertains to man ;
inſtead of which it has been monopolized from age
to age, by the moſt ignorant and vicious of the
human race. Need we any other proof of their
wretched management than the exceſs of debts and
taxes, with which every nation groans, and the
quarrels into which they have precipitated the
world ?
Juſt emerging from ſuch a barbarous condition,
it is too ſoon to determine to what extent of im
provement
provement government may yet be carried. For

what we can foreſce, all Europe may form but one
great Republic, and man be free of the whole .
MISCELLANIES.
IN contemplating a ſubject that embraces, with

equatorial magnitude, the whole region of huma
nity, it is impoffible to confine the purſuit in one
ſingle direction . It takes ground on every cha
racter and condition that appertains to man, and
blends the individual.
From a ſmall ſpark, kindled in America, a
flame has ariſen not to be extinguiſhed . Without
conſuming like the ultima ratio regum, it winds
its progreſs from nation to nation, and conquers
by ſilent operation. Man finds himſelf changed
he ſcarcely perceives how . He acquires a know
ledge of his rights by attending juſtly to his intereſt
and diſcovers in the event, that the ſtrength and
powers of deſpotiſm confift wholly in the fear of
relifting it, and that in order “ to be free, it is fuf
ficient that he wills it.”
Having, in all the preceeding parts of this work,
.
endeavoured to eſtabliſh a ſyſtem of principles as

a baſis on which governments ought to be erected,
I ſhall proceed in this to the ways and means of
rendering
1
1
1
rendering them into practice. But in order to in

troduce this part of the ſubject with more pro
priety , and ſtronger effect, ſome preliminary ob
ſervations deducible from , or connected with thoſe
principles, are neceſſary.
Whatever the form or conſtitution of govern
ment may be, it ought not to have any otherobject
than the general happineſs. When, inſtead of this,
it operates to create and increaſe wretchedneſs in
any of the parts of ſociety, it is on a wrong ſyſtem ,
and reformation is neceſſary .
Cuſtomary language has claſſed the condition of
man under the two deſcriptions of civilized and
uncivilized life . To the one it has aſcribed feli
city and affluence -- to the other, hardſhip and
want. But, however our imagination may be im
preſſed by painting and compariſon, it is neverthe
Jefs true, that a great portion ofmankind, in what
are called civilized countries, are in a ſtate of po
verty and wretchedneſs, far below the condition of
an Indian .-- Let us enquire into the cauſe.
It lies not in any natural defect in the principles
of civilization , butin preventing thoſe principles
having an univerſal operation ; the conſequence of
which is, a perpetual ſyſtem of war and expence,
that drains, the country, and defeats the general
felicity of which civilization is capable.
. : All the European governments (France now ex ,
cepted) are conſtructed , not on the principle of
I unverſal
univerſal civilization, but on the reverſe of it.

So far as theſe governments relate to each other,
they are in the ſame condition as we conceive of
ſavage uncivilized life : they putthemſelvesbeyond
the law as well of God as of man, and are, with re
{pe &t to principle and reciprocal conduct, like fo
many individuals in a ſtate of nature .
The inhabitants of every country, under the ci,
vilization of laws, eaſily civilize together, but go.
vernments being yet in an uncivilized ſtate , and
almoſt continually at war, they pervert the abun
dance which civilized life produces to carry on the
uncivilized part to a greater extent. By thus en
grafting the barbariſm of government upon the in
ternal part of the civilization of a country , it draws
from the latter, and more eſpecially from the poor,
a great portion of thoſe earnings which ſhould be
applied to their own ſubſiſtence and comfort.
Apart from all reflections of morality and philofo
phy, it is a melancholy fact, that more than one
fourth of the labour of mankind is annually con
ſumed by this barbarous ſyſtem .
What has ſerved to continue this evil is, the
pecuniary advantage which all the governments of
Europe have found in keeping up this ſtate of un
civilization. It affords to them pretences for
power and revenue, for which there would not be
either occaſion or apology, if the circle of civili
zation was rendered complete . Civil government
alone,
THE RIGHTS OF MAN , 115
alone, or the government of laws, is not produce

tive of pretences for many taxes ; it operates at
home directly under the eye of the country, and
precludes the poſſibility of much impoſition. But
when the ſcene is laid in the uncivilized contention
of governments, the field of pretences is enlarged,
and the country being no longer a judge, is open
to every impofition, which governments pleaſe to
act.
Not a thirtieth, ſcarcely a fortieth part of the
taxes which are raiſed in monarchical governments
are either occaſioned by, or applied to the pur
poſes of civil government. It is not difficult to fee,
that the whole which the actual government does
in this reſpect is , to enact laws, and that the coun .
try adminſters and executes them , at its own ex
pence, by means ofmagiſtrates, juries, ſeſſions, and
aſſize, over and above the taxes which it pays.
In this view of the caſe, we have two diftinet
> characters of government-the one the civil go
vernment, or government of laws, which operates
at home ; the other, the court or cabinet govern
ment, which operates abroad, on the rude plan of
uncivilized life ; the one attended with ,but little
charge, the other with boundleſs extravagance ;
and, ſo diſtinct are the two, that if the latter were
to ſink , as it were, by a ſudden opening of the
earth , and totally diſappear, the former would not
be deranged. It would ſtill proceed, becauſe it is
I 2 the
the common intereſt of the nation that it ſhould,

and all the means are in practice .
Revolutions then have for their object a change
in the moral condition of governments, and, with
this change, the burthen of public taxes will lefſen,
and civilization will be left to the enjoyment of
that abundance, of which it is now deprived.
In contemplating the whole of this ſubject, I
extend my views into the department of commerce.
In all my publications, where the matter would ad
mit, I have been an advocate for commerce, be
cauſe I am a friend to its effects. It is a pacific
ſyſtem , operating to cordialize mankind, by ren
dering nations, as well as individuals, uſeful to
each other . As to mere theoretical reformation ,
I have never preached it up. The moſt effectual
proceſs is, that of improving the condition of man
by means of his intereſt; and it is on this ground
that I take my ftand.
If commerce were permitted to act to the uni
verſal extent it is capable of, it would extirpate
the fyſtem of war, and produce a revolution in
the uncivilized ſtate of governments. The inven
tion of commerce has ariſen fince thoſe govern
ments began, and is the greateſt approach towards
univerſal civilization, that has yet been made by
any means not immediately flowing from moral
principles.
Whatever has a tendency to promote the civil
intercourſe
intercourſe of nations, by an exchange of benefits,

is a ſubject as worthy of philoſophy as of policies.
Commerce is no other than the traffic of two indi .
viduals, multiplied on a ſcale of numbers ; and by
the ſame rule that nature intended the intercourſe
of two , ſhe intended that of all. ' For this purpoſe
ſhe has diſtributed the materials of manufactures
and commerce, in various and diſtant parts of a
nation and of the world ; and as they cannot be
procured by war ſo cheaply or ſo commodiouſly as
by commerce, ſhe has rendered the latter the
means of extirpating the former.
As the two are nearly the oppoſites of each
other, conſequently the uncivilized ſtate of Eu
ropean governments is injurious to commerce.
Every kind of deſtruction or embarraſſment ſerves
to leſſen the quantity, and it matters but little in
what part of the commercial world the reduction
begins. Like blood, it cannot be taken from any
of the parts, without being taken from the whole
maſs in circulation , and all partake of the loſs.
When the ability in any nation to buy is deſtroyed,
it equally involves the ſeller. Could the govern
ment of England, for inſtance, deſtroy the com
merce of all other nations , ſhe would, moſt effec
tually, ruin her own.
It is poſſible that a nation may be the carrier for
the world, but ſhe cannot be the merchant.. She
cannot be the ſeller and the buyer of her own mer
I 3 chandize.
chandize. The ability to buy muft reſide out

of herſelf ; and, therefore, the proſperity of any
commercial nation is regulated by the proſperity
of the reſt. If they be poor, ſhe cannot be rich ;
and her condition, be it what it may, is an index
of the height of the commerctal tide in other na
tions.
That the principles of commerce, and its uni
verſal operation, may be underſtood, without un
derftanding the practice, is a poſition that reafon
will not deny ; and it is on this ground only that I
argue the ſubject. It is one thing in the counting
houſe; in the world it is another. With reſpect to
its operation , it muſt neceſſarily be contemplated
as a reciprocal thing ; that only one half its powers
reſides within the nation , and that the whole is as
effe&tually deſtroyed by deſtroying the half that re
ſides without, as if the deſtruction bad been com
mitted on that which is within ; for neither can ac
without the other.
When in the laſt, as well as in former wars, the
commerce of England funk, it was becauſe the ge
neral quantity was lefſened every where ; and it
now riſes, becauſe commerce is in a riſing ſtate in
every nation. If England, at this day, imports +
and exports more than at any former period, the

nations with which ſhe trades muſt neceſſarily do
the ſame ; her imports are their exports, and vice
verfa
There
There cannot be any ſuch thing as a nation lou.

riſhing alone in commerce ; ſhe can only partici
pate ; and the deſtruction of it, in any part muſt
neceſſarily affect all. When therefore Governt
ments are at war, the attack is made on the com
mon ſtock of commerce, and the conſequence is
the ſame as if each had attacked his own.
The preſent increaſe of commerce is not to be
attributed to miniſters, or to any political contriv
ances, but to its own natural operations in conſe
quence of peace. The regular markets had been
> deſtroyed, the channels of trade broken up, the
high rode of the feas infeſted with robbers of every
nation, and the attention of the world called to
other objects. Thoſe interruptions have ceaſed ,
and peace has reſtored the deranged condition of
things to their proper order.
It is worth remarking, that every nation reckons
the balance of trade in its own favour ; and there
fore ſomething muſt be irregular in the common
ideas upon this ſubject.
The fact, however, is true, according to what
is called a balance ; and it is from this cauſe that
commerce is univerſally ſupported. Every nation
feels the advantage, or it would abandon the
praćtice: but the deception lies in the mode of
making up the accounts, and in attributing what
are called profits to a wrong cauſe .
14 The
The Britiſh miniſter has, ſometimes, amuſed

himſelf by ſhewing, what he called a balance of
trade from the Cuſtom -houſe books. This mode
of calculation not only affords no rule that is true ,
but one that is falſe .
In the firſt place, every cargo that departs from .
the Cuſtom -houſe appears on the books as an ex
port ; and , according to the Cuſtom -houſe balance,
the loſſes, at ſea, and by foreign failures, are all
reckoned on the ſide of proſit, becauſe they ap :
pear as exports.
Secondly, becauſe the importation, by the ſmug.
gling trade, does not appear on the Cuſtom -houſe
books to arrange againſt the exports,
No balance, therefore, as applying to ſuperior
advantages can be drawn from thoſe documents ; 1
and if we examine the natural operation of com

merce, the idea is fallacious; and if true, would
ſoon be injurious. The great ſupport of com :
merce conſiſts in the balance being a level of be.
nefits among all nations.
Two merchants of different nations trading to
gether, will both grow rich, and each makes the
balance in his own favour ; conſequently, they do
not get rich, out of each other; and it is the ſame
with reſpect to the nations in which they reſide .
The caſe muſt be, that each nation muſt get rich
out of its own means, and increaſes thoſe riches
by
by ſomething which it procures from another in

exchange.
If a merchant in England, for inſtance, ſends
an article of Engliſh manufacture abroad, which
coft him a ſhilling at home, and imports ſome
thing which ſells for two, he makes a balance of
one ſhilling in his own favour: but this is not
gained out of the foreign nation , or the foreign
merchant, for he alſo does the ſame by the article
he receives, and neither has a balance of advan
tage upon the other. The original value of the
two articles, in their proper countries, were but
two ſhillings ; but by changing their places, they
acquire a new idea of value , equal to double what
they had , at firſt, and that increaſed value is equally
divided .
There is no otherwiſe a balance on foreign than
on domeſtic commerce . The merchants of Lon
don and Newcaſtle trade on the ſame principles as
if they reſided in different nations, and make
their balances in the ſame manner : yet London
does not get rich out of Newcaſtle, any more than
Newcaſtle out ofLondon : but coals, the merchan
dize of Newcaſtle, have an additional value in
London, and London merchandize has the ſame
at Newcaſtle.
Though the principle of commerce is the ſame,
the domeſtic in a national view is the part the
moſt
moft beneficial; becauſe the whole of the advan.

tages on both ſides, relts within the nation ; whereas,
in foreign commerce, it is only a participation of
one half.
The moſt unprofitable of all commerce is that
connected with foreign dominion. To a few indi.
viduals it may be beneficial, merely becauſe it is
commerce ; but to the nation it is a loſs. The ex
pence of maintaining dominion more than abſorbs
the profits of any trade. It does not increaſe the
general quantity in the world, but operates to leſſen
it ; and as a greater maſs would be afloat by relin
quiſhing dominion, the participation without the
expence would be more valuable than a greater
quantity with it.
1
But it is impoſſible to engroſs commerce by do

minion ; and therefore, it is ſtill more fallacious.
It cannot exiſt in confined channels, and necef
ſarily breaks out by regular or irregular means that
defeat the attempt ; and to ſucceed, would be ſtill
worſe. France, ſince the Revolution, has been
morethan indifferent as to foreign poffeffions; and
other nations will become the ſame, when they
inveſtigate the ſubject with reſpect to commerce .
To the expence of dominion is to be added, that
of navies ; and when the amount of the two are
fubftracted from the profits of commerce, it will
appear, that what is called the balance of trade,
even
even admitting it to exiſt, is not enjoyed by the

nation, but abſorbed by the Government.
The idea of having navies for the prote &tion of
commerce is deluſive. It is putting the means of
deftru &tion for the means of protection . Com
merce needs no other protection than the recipro .
cal intereſt which every nation feels in ſupporting
it - it is common ſtock - it exiſts by a balance of
advantages to all ; and the only interruption it meets
is, from the prefent uncivilized ſtate of govern
ments, and which it is its common intereſt to reform .
Quitting this ſubject, I now proceed to other
matters.--As a new ſyſtem of government is
now opening to the view of the world, the Eu.
ropean courts are plotting to counteract it. Alli
ances, contrary to all former fyſtems, are agitating,
and a common intereſt of courts is forming againſt
the common intereſt of man. This combination
draws a line that runs throughout Europe, and pre
fents a cauſe ſo entirely new , as to exclude all
calculations from former circumſtances. While
defpotifm warred with deſpotiſm , man had no in
tereſt in the conteſt ; but in a cauſe that unites the
foldier with the citizen , and nation with nation ,
the deſpotiſm of courts, though it feels the danger
and meditates revenge, is afraid to ſtrike.
No queſtion has ariſen within the records of hiſ
tory , that preſſed with the importance of the pre
fent. It is not whether this or that party ſhall be
in
1
in or out, or Whig or Tory, or high or low, ſhall
prevail ; but whether man fhall inherit his rights,
and univerſal civilization take place ?, whether the
fruits of his labours ſhall be enjoyed by himſelf,
or conſumed by the profligacy of governments ?
whether robbery ſhall be baniſhed from courts,
and wretchedneſs from coun , ies ?
When, in countries that are called civilized, we
ſee age going to the workhouſe, and youth to the
gallows, ſomething muſt be wrong in the ſyſtem of
government. It would ſeem by the exterior ap
pearance of fuch countries, that all was happineſs ;
but there lies hidden , from the eye of common ob..
ſervation, a maſs of wretchedneſs that has ſcarcely
any other chance, than to expire in poverty or in
famy. Its entrance into life is marked with the
preſage of its fate; and, until this is remedied, it
is in vain to puniſh .
Civil government does notconſiſt in executions;
but in making that proviſion for the inſtruction of 4
youth, and the ſupport of age, as to exclude, as

much as poſſiblc, profligacy from the one, and
deſpair from the other. Inſtead of this, the
reſources of a country are laviſhed upon kings,
upon courts, upon hirelings, impoſtors, and
proſtitutes ; and even the poor themſelves, with
all their wants upon them , are compelled to fup
port the fraud that oppreſſes them .
Why is it that ſcarcely any are executed but the
poor ?
poor ? The fact is a proof, among other things, of

a wretchedneſs in their condition. Bred up with
out morals, and cale upon the world without a
proſpect, they are the expoſed ſacrifice of vice
and legal barbarity. The millions that are ſuper
fluouſly waſted upon governments are more than
fufficient to reform thoſe evils, and to benefit the
condition of every man -in a nation, not included
within the purlieus of a court.
It is the nature of compaſſion to aſſociate with
misfortune . In taking up this ſubject, I ſeek no
recompence- fear no conſequence. Fortified
with that proud integrity, that diſdains to triumph
or to yield, I will advocate the Rights of Man.
It is to my advantage, that I have ſerved an ap
prenticeſhip to life. I know the value of moral
inſtruction, and I have ſeen the danger of the con
trary . Knowing my own heart, and feeling my
ſelf as I now do, fuperior to all the ſkirmiſh of
party, the inveteracy of intereſted or miſtaken
opponents, I anſwer not to falfhood or abuſe,
but proceed to the defects of the Engliſh govern
ment.
I now begin with

CHARTERS and CORPORATIONS ,
It is a perverſion of terms to ſay that a Charter

gives rights . It operates by a contrary effect, that
of taking rights away. Rights are, inherently, in
송
all the inhabitants ; but Charters, by annulling thoſe

rights in the majority, leave the right, by exclu
fion , in the hands of a few . If Charters were con
ſtructed ſo as to expreſs, in direct terms, 66 that
66 every inhabitant, who is not a member of a cor .
“ poration , ſhall not exerciſe the right of voting,
ſuch Charters would , in the face, be Charters, not
of right, but of excluſion . The effect is the ſame
under the form they now ftand ; and the only per
fons on whom they operate, are the perſons whom
they exclude. Thoſe whoſe rights are guaranteed,
by not being taken away, exerciſe no other rights
than as members of the community they are en
titled to , without a Charter ; and, therefore, all
Charters have no other than an indirect negative
operation. They do not give rights to A, but
they make a difference in favour of A, by taking
away the right of B ; and, conſequently, are in
ftruments of injuſtice.
But Charters and Corporations have a more ex
tenſive evil effect, than what relates merely to
elections. They are fources of endleſs contentions
in the places where they exiſt ; and they leffen the
common rights of national ſociety. A pative of
England, for example, under the operation of
theſe Charters and Corporations, cannot be ſaid to
be an Englifhman in the full ſenſe of the word.
He is not free of the nation in the ſame manner
that a Frenchman is free of France, and an Ame
rican
rican is of America. His rights are circumſcribed

to the town , and, in ſome caſes, to the pariſh of his
his birth ; and all other parts, though in his native
land, are to him as a foreign country. To acquire
a reſidence in theſe, he muſt undergo a local na
turalization by purchaſe, or he is forbidden , or
expelled, the place. This ſpecies of feudality is
kept up to aggrandize the Corporations at the ruin
of towns ; and the effect is vifible .
The generality of corporation towns are in a
ftate of ſolitary decay, and prevented from further
ruin only by ſome circumſtance in their ſituation,
ſuch as navigable rivers , or a plentiful ſurrounding
country. As population is one of the chief fources
of wealth (for without it land itſelf has no value),
every thing, which operates to prevent it, muſt
leffen the value of property ; and, as Corporations
have not only this tendency, but dire &tly this ef
feet, they cannot but be injurious. If any policy
were to be followed, inſtead of that of general
freedom to every perſon to ſettle where he choſe
(as in France or America) , it would be more con
fiftent to give encouragement to new comers, than
to preclude their admiſſion, by exacting premiums
from them.
The perſons moſt immediately intereſted in the
abolition of Corporations are , the inhabitants of
the towns where Corporations are eſtabliſhed. The
inſtances of the towns of Mancheſter, Birmingham ,
and
and Sheffield , in England, ſhew , by contraſt, the

injury which thoſe gothic inftitutions are to pro
perty and commerce. A few examples may be
found, ſuch as that of London, whoſe natural and
commercial advantage, owing to its ſituation on
the Thames, is capable of bearing up againſt the
political evils of a Corporation ; but in almoſt all
other caſes the fatality is too viſible to be doubted
or denied.
Though the whole nation is not ſo directly af
fealed by the depreſſion of property in corporation
towns as the inhabitants themſelves, it partakes of
the conſequence. By leſſening the value of pro
perty , the quantity of national commerce is cur
tailed. Every man is a cuſtomer in proportion to
his ability ; and, as all parts of a nation trade with
each other, whatever affects any of the parts muſt
neceſſarily communicate to the whole.
As a legiſlature, or any part thereof, made up of
elections from theſe Corporations is partial and
unequal, and as it is unnatural that a pure ſtream
ſhould flow from a foul fountain , its vices are but
a continuation of the vices of its origin. A man
of moral honours, and good political principles,
cannot ſubmit to the mean drudgery, and diſgrace
· ful arts, by which ſuch elections are carried. To
be a ſucceſsful candidate, he muſt be deſtitute of
the qualities that conſtitute a juít legiſlature : and
þeing thus diſciplined to corruption by the mode:
of
of entering into the legiſlature, it is not to be ex

pected that the repreſentative ſhould be better than
the man.
But it is not in the repreſentation only that the
defects.lie, and therefore I proceed, in the next
place, to the
ARISTOCRACY .
1
Ti
What is called a Houſe of Peers, is conſtituted

on a ground very ſimilar to that againſt which there
is a law in other caſes. It amounts to a combi
nation of perſons in one common intereſt. No
reaſon can be given, why a Houſe of Legiſlation
ſhould be compoſed entirely of men whoſe occu
pation conſiſts in letting landed property , than why
it ſhould be compoſed of thoſewhohire, ' or of
brewers, orbakers, or anyother ſeparate claſs of
men. eritiliv, hvis
Mr.Burke callsthis Houſe, “ the great ground
6 and pillar of ſecurityto the landed intereſt." Let
us examine this idea. 15 kilur silo odbioni
im What pillar of ſecurity does thelanded intereſt
require more than any other intereft''inf the ſtate',
or what righthas it to a diftin &t and ſeparaterepre ;
ſentation from the general intereſt of a nation ?
S : The only uſe to be made of this power fand
which it has always made) is, to ward of taxes from
itſelf, and throw the burden apon ſuch articles of
.60 ) K
conſump
conſumption by which itſelf would be leaſt af

fected .
That this has been the conſequence (and will
always be the conſequence ofconftru &ting govern
ments on combinations) is evident, as in England,
from the hiſtory of its taxes.
Notwithſtanding taxes have increaſed and mul
tiplied upon every article of common conſumption ,
the land-tax, which more particularly affects this
“ pillar," has diminiſhed. In 1788, the amount of
the land-tax was 1,950,000l. which is half a million
leſs than it produced almoſt a hundred years ago *,
notwithſtanding the rentals are, in many inſtances,
doubled ſince that period .
Before the Hanover ſucceſſion , the taxes in Eng
land, for inſtance, were divided in nearly equal
proportions between the land and articles of con
ſumption, the land bearing rather the largeſt ſhare:
but ſince that era nearly thirteen millions, annually ,
of new taxes have been thrown upon conſumption.
The conſequence of which has been a conſtant
increaſe in the number and wretchedneſs of the
poor, and in the amount of the poor-ratęs." ; Yet
here again the burden does not fall in equal pro
portions on the Ariſtocracy, with the reſt of the
community . Their reſidences, whether in town or
country , are not mixed with the habitations of the
* See Sir John SINCLAIR's Hiſtory of the Revenue. The -
land - tax, in 1646, was 2,473,499 .
poor.
poor. They live' apart from diſtreſs, and the ex

pence of relieving it. It is in manufacturing towns
and labouring villages, that thoſe burthenspreſs
the heavieſt ; in many of which it is one claſs of
poor ſupporting another.
Several ofthe moſt heavy and productive taxes
are ſo 'contrived , as to give an exemption to this
Pillar, thus ſtanding in its own defence. The tax
upon beer, brewed for ſale, does not affeat the
Ariſtocracy, who brew their own beer free of this
duty. It falls only on thoſe who have not conve
niency, or ability to brew , and who muſt purchaſe
it in ſmall quantities. But what will mankind think
of the juſtice of taxation , when they know that
this tax alone, from which the Ariſtocracy are from
circumſtances exempt, is nearly equal to the whole
of the land- tax, being, in the year 1788, (and it is
not leſs now ) 1,666,1521. and with its proportion
of the taxes on malt and hops, it exceeds it.
That a ſingle article, thus partially conſumed , and
that chiefly by the working part, ſhould be ſubject
to a tax, equal to that on the whole rental of a
nation is, perhaps, a fact not to be paralleled in the
hiſtories of revenues .
This is one of the conſequences reſulting from
a Houſe of Legiſlation , compoſed on the ground
of a combination of common intereſt ; for what
ever their ſeparate politics as to parties may be,
in this they are united. Whether a combination
K 2 acts
acts to raiſe the price of any article for ſale, or the

rate of wages ; or, whether it acts to throw taxes
from itſelf upon another claſs of the community ,
the principle and the effect are the ſame; and if the
one be illegal, it will be difficult to thew that the
other ought to exiſt.
It is difficult to diſcover what is meant by the
landed intereſt, if it does not mean a combination
of Ariſtocratical land-holders, oppoſing their own
pecuniary intereſt to that of the farmer, and every
branch of trade, commerce, and manufacture. In
all other reſpects it is the only intereſt that needs
no partial protection. It enjoys the general pro
teation of the world . Every individual, high or
low, is intereſted in the fruits of the earth ; men ,
women , and children , of all ages and degrees, will
turn out to aſſiſt the farmer, rather than a harveſt
fhould not be got in ; and they will not a& thus by
any other property. It is the only one for which
the common prayer of mankind is put up, and the
only one that can never fail from the want ofmeans.
It is the intereſt, not of the policy, but of the ex
iſtence of man, and when it ceaſes, he muſt ceaſe
to be .
No other intereſt in a nation itands on the ſame
united ſupport. Commerce, manufactures, arts,
ſciences, and every thing elſe, compared with this
are ſupported but in parts. Their proſperity, or
their decay , has not the fame univerſal influence.
When
the
cies When the vallies laugh and ſing, it is not the farmer
tyg
only, but all creation that rejoices. It is a prof
he perity that excludes all envy ; and this cannot be
he ſaid of any thing elſe.
Were this “ Pillar" to ſink into the earth, the
he fame landed property would continue, and the ſame
on
plowing, ſowing, and reaping, would go on. The
en
Ariſtocracy are not the farmers who work the land
and raiſe the produce, but are the mere conſumers
V
n
of the rent ; and when compared with the a & ive
$
world, are the drones, a ſeraglio of males, who
neither collect the honey nor form the hive, but
exiſt only for lazy enjoyment.
Mr. Burke , in his firſt eſſay, called Ariſtocracy,
" the Corinthian capitol of poliſhed ſociety.” To
wards compleating the figure, he has now added the
Pillar; but ſtill the baſe is wanting ; and when
ever a nation chufes to act a Samſon , not blind,
but bold, down goes the Temple of Dagon, the
Lords, and the Philiſtines.
If a Houſe of Legiſlation is to be compoſed of
men of one claſs for the purpoſe of protecting a
diftin &t intereſt, all the other intereſts ſhould have
the ſame. The inequality, as well as the burthen
of taxation ariſes from admitting it in one caſe and
not in all. Had there been a houſe of farmers,
there had been no game-laws ; or a houſe of mer
chants and manufacturers, the taxes had never been
ſo unequal, nor ſo exceſſive. It is from the power
K3 of
of taxation being in the hands of thoſe who can

throw fo great a part of it from their own ſhoulders,
that it has raged without a check .
Men of ſmall or moderate eſtates are more in
jured by the taxes being thrown on articles of con
ſumption, than they are eaſed by warding it from
landed property, for the following reaſons :
Firſt, they conſume more of the productive
taxable articles, in proportion to their property ,
than thoſe of large eſtates.
Secondly, their reſidence is chiefly in towns,
and their property in houſes; and the increaſe of
the poor-rates, occaſioned by taxes on conſump
tion, is in much greater proportion than the land
tax has been favoured .
Theſe are but a part of the miſchiefs flowing
from the wretched ſcheme of a Houſe of Peers.
As a combination, it can always throw a confi
derable portion of taxe's from itſelf ; and, as a
hereditary houſe, not accountable to any body, it
reſembles a rotten borough, whoſe conſent is to be
courted by intereſt. There are but few of its
members who are not, in ſome mode or other, par
ticipaters, or diſpoſers of the public money. One
turns a candle-holder, or a Lord in Waiting ; ano.
ther, a Lord of the Bedchamber - a Groom of the
Stole - or any inſignificant nominal office, to which
a falary is annexed, paid out of the public taxes,
and which avoids the direct appearance of corrup
tion,
1
THE RIGHTS OF MAN, 135
tion. Such ſituations are derogatory to the cha

racter of man ; and, where they can be ſubmitted
to, honour cannot refide.
To all theſe are to be added the numerous de
pendents, the long liſt of younger branches and
diſtant relations, who are to be provided for at the
public expence : in ſhort, were an eſtimation to
be made of the charge of Ariſtocracy to a na
tion, it will be found nearly equal to that of fup
porting the poor. Is it then any wonder that, un
der ſuch a ſyſtem of government, taxes and rates
have multiplied to their preſent extent ?
Mr. BURKE , in ſpeaking of the ariſtocratical
law of Primogeniture, ſays “ It is the ſtanding
law of ourlanded inheritance ; and which, with
" out queſtion, and I think,” continues he, “ a
“ happy tendency, to preſerve a chara&er of
5 weight and conſequence .”
He may call this law what he pleaſes, but huma
nity, and impartial reflection, will denounce it a
law of brutal injuſtice. Were we not accuſtomed
to the daily practice, and did we only hear of it,
as the law of ſome diſtant part of the world, we
ſhould conclude that the legiſlatures of ſuch coun
tries had not yet arrived at a ſtate of civilization.
As to its preſerving a character of weight and
conſequence, the caſe appears, to me, dire @ ly the
reverſe. It is an attaint upon character ; a ſort of
privateering on family property. It may have
K4
weight
136 THE RIGHTS OF MAN . /
weight among dependent tenants, but it gives none

on a ſcale of national, and much leſs, of univer
ſal character.
Primogeniture ought to be aboliſhed, not only
becauſe it is unnatural and unjuſt, but becauſe the
country ſuffers by its operation. By cutting off
(as before obſerved) the younger children from
their proper portion of inheritance, the public is
loaded with the expence of maintaining them , and
the freedom of elections violated by the overbear
ing influence which this unjuſt monopoly of family
property produces. Nor is this all. It occaſions
a waſte of national property . A conſiderable part .
of the land of the country is rendered unproduc

tive by the great extent of parks and chaces which
this law ſerves to keep up, and this, at a time 1
when the annual production of grain is not equal

to the national conſumption. In ſhort, the evils
of the ariſtocratical ſyſtem are ſo great and nu
merous, ſo inconfiftent with every thing that is
juft, wiſe, natural, and beneficent, that, when they
are conſidered, there ought not to be a doubt, that
even many who are now claffed under that deſcrip
tion, will wiſh to ſee ſuch a ſyſtem aboliſhed.
What pleaſure can they derive from contemplat
ing the expoſed condition, and alınoſt certain beg
gary of their younger offspring ? Every ariſto-.
cratical family has an appendage offamily beggars
hanging round it, which, in a few ages, or a few
generations,
generations, are fhook off, and conſole themſelves

with telling their tale in alms-houſes, work -houſes,
and priſons. This is the natural conſequence of
Ariſtocracy. The peer and the beggar are often
of the fame family. One extreme produces the
other ; to make one rich, many muſt be made
poor ; neither can the ſyſtem be ſupported by other
means .
I now proceed to what is called the

CROWN ,
Upon which I ſhall be very conciſe.
For example, it fignifies a nominal office of a
66 million " ſterlinga year, the buſineſs of which con
fifts in receiving the money. Whether the perſon
be wiſe or fooliſh , ſane or inſane, a native or a
foreigner, matters not. Every miniſtry acts upon
the fame idea, namely, that the people muſt be
hood-winked, and held in ſuperſtitious ignorance
by ſome bugbear or other; and what is called the
Crown anfwers this purpoſe, and therefore it
anſwers all the purpoſes to be expected from it .
This is more than can be ſaid of the other two
branches.
The hazard to which this office is expoſed in all
countries, is not from any thing that can happen to
the man , but from what may happen to the nation
-the danger of its coming to its ſenſes.
It has been cuſtomary to call the Crown the exe
cutive
cutive power, and the cuſtom is continued, though

the reaſon has ceaſed .
It was called the executive, becauſe the perſon
whom it ſignified uſed formerly, to fit in the cha .
racter of a judge in adminiſtering or executing the
laws. The tribunals were then a part of the court.
The power therefore, which is now called the ju
dicial , is what was called the executive ; and, con
fequently, one or other of the terms is redundant,
and one of the offices uſeleſs. When we ſpeak of
the Crown now, it means nothing ; it ſignifies nei.
ther a judge nor a general: beſides which, it is the
laws that govern, and not the man. The old terms
are kept up to give an appearance of conſequence
to empty forms, and the only effe &t they have is,
that of increaſing expences.
It is time that nations ſhould be rational, and
not be governed like animals, for the pleaſure of
their riders. Man ought to have pride or ſhame
enough to bluſh at being impoſed upon, and when
he ſhall feel his proper character, he will . Upon
all ſubjects of this nature there is often paſſing in
the mind a train of ideas he has not yet accuſtomed
himſelf to encourage and communicate . Re
ſtrained by ſomething that puts on the character of
prudence, he acts the hypocrite upon himſelf, as
well as others. It is however, curious to obſerve
how ſoon this ſpell can be diſſolved . A ſingle ex
preſſion, boldly conceived and uttered, will fome.
times
times put а whole company

into their proper feel
ings ; and whole nations are acted upon in the ſame
manner .
As to the offices of which any civil government
Inay be compoſed, it matters but little by what
names they are deſcribed . In the rotine of buſi.
neſs, as before obſerved, whether a man be ſtiled
a Preſident, a King, an Emperor, a Senator, or
any thing elſe, it is impoſſible that any ſervice he
can perform can merit from a nation more than ten
thouſand pounds a year ; and, as no man ſhould be
paid beyond his ſervices, ſo every man of a pro
per heart, will not accept more. Public money
ought to be touched with the moſt ſcrupulous con
ſciouſneſs of honour. It is not the produce of
riches only, but of the hard earnings of labour and
poverty. It is drawn even from the bitterneſs of
want and miſery. Not a beggar paſſes, or periſhes
in the ſtreets, whoſe mite is not in that maſs.
To ſhew that the ſum of five hundred thouſand
pounds is more than ſufficient to defray all the ex
pences of government, excluſive of navies and
armies, the following eſtimate is added for any
country, of the fame extent as England.
In the firſt place, three hundred repreſentatives,
fairly elected, are ſufficient for all the purpoſes to
which legiſlation can apply, and preferable to a
larger number. They may be divided into two or
three
three houſes, or meet in one, or in any manner a

conſtitution may direct.
As repreſentation is always conſidered , in free
countries, as the moſt honourable of all ſtations,
the allowance made to it is merely to defray the
expence which the repreſentatives incur by that
ſervice, and not to it as an office.
If an allowance, at the rate of five

hundred pounds per annum , be made
to every repreſentative, deducting for
non -attendance , the expence, if the £
75,00 €
whole number attended for ſix months
each year , would be ..
The official departments cannos,

reaſonably, exceed the following num
ber, with the ſalaries annexed :
Three Offices at 10,000 £. each -- £ 30,000
Ten ditto, at 5000 50,000
Twenty at 2000 40,000
Forty at 1000 40,000
Two hundred at 500 100,000
Three hundred at 200 60,000
Five hundred at 100 50,000
Seven hundred at 75 52,500
1
£ 497,500
If
<
If a nation chufes, it can deduct four per cent.

from all offices, and make one of 20,000l. per
аппит . ti
All revenue officers are paid out of the monies

they collect, and therefore are not in this eſtima
tion. - !
The foregoing is not offered as an exact detail

of offices, but to ſhew the number and rate of fait
laries which five hundred thouſand pounds will iſup
port ; and it will, on experience, be found imprac
ticable to find buſineſs ſufficient to juſtify even this
expence . !
The fraud, hypocriſy , and impoſition of govern
ments, are now beginning to be too well under
ſtood, to promiſe them any long career. The
farce of monarchy and ariſtocracy, in all countries,
is following that of chivalry. Let it then paſs,
quietly, to the tomb of all other follies, and the
mourners' be comforted . Visi
. When it ſhall be faid, in any country in the
world, my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor
diſtreſs is to be found among them ; my gaols are
empty of priſoners, my ſtreets of beggars , the
aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppreſſive;
the rational world is my friend, becauſe I am the
friend of its happineſs : when theſe things can be
faid, then may that country boaſt its conſtitution,
and its government.
Within the ſpace of a few years we have ſeen
two
142 THE RIGHTS OF MAN :
two revolutions — thoſe of America and France.

In the former, the conteſt was long, and the con
fli&t ſevere ; in the latter, the nation acted with
ſuch a conſolidated impulſe, that having no foreign
enemy to contend with, the revolution was com
pleat in power, the moment it appeared. From
both thoſe inſtances, it is evident, that the greateſt
forces that can be brought into the field of revo
lutions are reaſon, and common intereſt. Where
theſe can have the opportunity of acting, oppoſi
tion dies with fear, or crumbles away by convic
tion. It is a great ſtanding which they have now
univerſally obtained ; and we may hereafter hope
to ſee revolutions, or changes in governments,
produced with the ſame quiet operation by which
any meaſure,determinable by reaſon and diſcuſſion,
is accompliſhed . tuvos
When a nation changes its opinion and habits
of thinking, it is no longer to be governedas be
fore ; but it would not'only be wrong, but 'bad
policy , to attempt, by force, what ought to be ac
compliſhed by reaſon . Rebellion conſiſts in,
forcibly oppoſing the general will of a nation,
whether by a party , or by a government. There
ought, therefore, to be, in every nation, a method
of occaſionally aſcertaining the ſtate of public opi,
nion with reſpect to government.
There is no power but the voluntary will of the
people that has a right to act in any matter reſpect
ing
ing à general reform ; and, by the ſame right that

two perſons can confer on ſuch a ſubject, a thou
fand may . The object, in all ſuch preliminary
proceedings, is, to find out what the general fenſe
of the nation - is, and to be governed by it. If it
prefer a bad , ordefective governinent, to a reform ,
or chuſe to pay ten times more taxes than there is
occaſion for, it has a right to do ſo ; land, ſo long
as the majority does not impoſe conditions on the
minority, different to what they impoſe on them
ſelves, though there may be much error, there is
no injuſtice. Neither will the error continue long.
Reaſon and diſcuſſion will ſoon bring things right;
however wrong they may begin .
By ſuch a proceſs, no tumult is to be appre
bended. The poor in all countries are, naturally
both peaceable and grateful in ali reforms in which
their intereft and happineſs are included. It is
only byneglecting, and rejecting them , that they
become tumultuous.
Formerly, when i diviſions aroſe reſpecting go
yernments, recourſe was had to the ſword , and a
civil war enſued. That ſavage cuſtom is exploded
by thenew ſyſtem andreference ishad to national
conventions. - Difcuffion and the general will, ar :
bitrates the queſtion, and to this private opinion
yields with a good grace, and order is preſerved
uninterrupted ." :"750 iti
In contemplating revolutions , it is eaſy to perc,
ceive,
ceive, that they may ariſe from two diſtinct cauſes:

the one to avoid, or get rid of ſome great cala
mity ; the other to obtain ſome great and poſitive
good ; and the two may be diſtinguiſhed by the
names of active and paſſive revolutions. In thoſe
which proceed from the former cauſe, the temper
becomes incenſed and fowered ; and the redreſs
obtained by danger, is too often ſullied by revenge.
But in thoſe which proceed from the latter, the
heart rather animated than agitated, enters fe
renely upon the ſubject. Reaſon and diſcuſſion ,
perſuaſion and convi&ion, become the weapons
in the conteſt, and it is only when thoſe are at
tempted to be ſuppreſſed, that recourſe is had to
violence. When men unite in agreeing that a thing
is good, could it be obtained , ſuch as relief from a
burden of taxes, and the extinction of corruption,
the obje &t is more than halfaccompliſhed . 1. What
they approve as the end, they will promote in the
means.
It is with revolutions as with commerce - the
advantages increaſe by their becoming general and
double to either, what each would receive alone.
Only partial advantages can flow from partial re
forms. It is only by each nation reforming its own,
that the whole can be improved, and the full be
hefit of reformátion enjoyed. In
Were all governments eſtabliſhed on the repre
fentative fyftem , nations would become acquainted,
and
THE RIGHTS OF MAN . * 145
and the animofities and prejudices, fomented by

the intrigue and artifice of courts, would ceaſe.
6 Expenſive governments, and conſequently heavy
6 taxes, would be at an end, and ſociety, in ge
“ neral, be made more comfortable . Man would
66 be rendered to man, in all the natural, civil, and
6. divine rights, and would concur in the general
66 privilege of uſing thoſe rights as reaſon and mu
66 tual intereſt ſhould direct. Avarice and ambition
66 would not be directed to licentiouſneſs, arro.
66
gance, corruption and power, as the cauſe which
promotes them would be done away by the
66 changes, and fhort duration of legiſlative ap
66 pointments. By reſtricting the periods of pub
66 lic office, ſo as to render the inordinate views
of men of no object, the mind falls off from
corruption, and gratifies itſelf in acts of merit.
No longer would there be occaſion to ſeduce
56 men from fociety, and render them a diftin &t
“ fpecies for the vain purpoſes of ambition, ve
$6 nality, and arrogance. The deluded foldier
6 would no longer find himſelf the dupe of artifice,
66 of oftentation , the machine of oppreſſion and ra
“ pacity, and the ſcourge of humanity, but the
6 companion and friend of fociety . Inſtead of
6 being trained and kept apart, as the Puppet of
6 the Great, to be harraſſed about as their plea
66 ſures or intereſts ſhall direct them, and often for
1
" the purpoſe of oppoſing the rights and privi

L 66
leges
“ leges of the community, he would find himſelf

6 engaged as the advocate of nature, and the
“ equal rights of mankind. His reaſon would
66
not be reſtrained, nor his local education form
“ him more for a machine, than for a Man."
The oppreffed ſoldier would become a free
man ; and the tortured ſailor no longer be torn
from his connections and avocation, and be drag
ged along the ſtreets, like a felon, would purſue
his merchantile voyage in ſafety. It would be
better that nations ſhould continue the pay of their
ſoldiers during their lives, and give them their
diſcharge, and reſtore them to freedom and their
friends, and ceaſe recruiting, than retain ſuch mul
titudes at the ſame expence, in a condition uſeleſs
to ſociety and themſelves. As ſoldiers have hi
therto been treated in moſt countries, they might
be ſaid to be without a friend. Shunned by the
citizen, on an apprehenſion of their being enemies
to their liberty , and too often inſulted by thoſe
who commanded them, their condition became à
double oppreſſion. But where genuine principles
of liberty pervade a people, every thing is re
ſtored to order ; and the ſoldier, civilly treated,
returns the civility.
In contemplating the advantages of mankind, I
have conſidered , that an alliance between England,
France, and America, might be founded on prin
ciples of the moſt extenfive utility. Though I
have
on the part of Ame

have not any direct authority on
rica, I have good reaſon to conclude, that ſhe is
diſpoſed to enter into a conſideration of ſuch a
meaſure, provided that the governments , with
which ſhe might ally, acted as national govern
ments, and not as courts inveloped in intrigue and
myſtery. That France, as a nation, and a national
government, would prefer an alliance with Eng
land, is a matter of certainty. Nations, like indi
viduals, who have long been enemies, without
knowing each other, or knowing why, become the
better friends when they diſcover the errors and
impofitions under which they had acted.
Admitting, therefore, the probability of ſuch a
connection , I will ſtate ſome matters by which
ſuch an alliance, together with that of Holland,
might render ſervice, not only to the parties im.
mediately concerned, but to all Europe.
It is, I think, certain, that if the fleets of Eng
land, France, and Holland, were confederated,
they could propoſe, with effect, a limitation to ,
and a general diſmantling of all the navies in Eu
rope, to a certain proportion to be agreed upon.
Firſt, that no new ſhip of war ſhall be built by
any power in Europe, themſelves included.
Secondly, that all the navies, now in exiſtence,
ſhall be put back, ſuppoſe, to one tenth of their
preſent force. This will ſave to France and Eng
land at leaſt two millions ſterling annually to each
L2 and
1
and their relative force be in the ſame proportion

as it is now. If men will permit themſelves to
think, as rational beings ought to think, nothing
can appear more ridiculous and abſurd , excluſive
of all moral reflections, than to be at the expence
of building navies, filling them with men, and
then hauling them into the ocean , to try which can
ſink each other faſteſt. Peace, which coſts nothing,
is attended with infinitely more advantage, than
any victory with all its expence. But this, though
it beſt anſwers the purpoſe of nations, does not
that of court governments , whoie habited policy
is pretence for taxation, places, and othces.
It is, I think, alſo certain , that the above con.
federated powers, together with that of the United
States of America, can propoſe, with effect to
Spain, the independence of South America, and
the opening thoſe countries, of immenſe extent
and wealth, to the general commerce ofthe world,
as North America is.
The opening of South America would produce
an immenſe field of commerce, and a ready mo
ney market for manufactures, which the eaſtern
world does not. The Eaſt is already a country full
of manufa&tures, the exportation of which is, not
only an injury to the manufa &tures of England,
but a drain upon its ſpecie. The balance againſt
England, by this trade is, regularly, upwards of
half a million annually fent out in the Eaſt- India
ſhips
書A
ſhips in ſilver ; and this is the reaſon , together
with German intrigue, and German ſubſidies, that
there is ſo little ſilver in England.
Never did ſo great an opportunity offer itſelf to
all Europe, as is produced by the two Revolu
tions of America and France. By the former,
Freedom has a national champion in the Weſtern
World ; and by the latter in Europe . When ano.
ther nation ſhall join France, deſpotiſm , and bad
government will ſcarcely dare to appear. To uſe
a trite expreſſion, the iron is becoming hot all
over Europe. The inſulted German, and the en
flaved Spaniard, the Ruſs and the Pole, are be
ginning to think. 66 Thoſe who have been un
* naturally made the terror of ſociety, have dared
86 to throw down their arms before the cauſe of
Liberty, and have joined their reaſon and action
" with their fellow creatures, in eſtabliſhing the
glorious fabric in which all, are equally con
?
66 cerned . Such conduct muſt ever be applauded ,
“ whilft reafon, juſtice, and diſcretion, ſhall exiſt in
“ man . " The preſent age will hereafter merit to
be called the Age of Reaſon , and the preſent ge
neration will appear to the future, as the Adam of
the new world.
As Religion is very improperly, made a poli
tical machine, and the reality therefore is thereby
deſtroyed, I will conclude this work, with ſtating
in what light Religion appears to me.
If
Ifweſuppoſe a large family of children, who, on

any particular day, or particular circumſtance,
made it a cuſtom to preſent to their parents fome
token of their affection and gratitude, each of
them would make a different offering, and, moſt
probably, in a different manner. Some would
pay their congratulations in themes of verſe or
proſe, by ſome little devices, as their genius
dictated, or according to what they thought would
pleaſe; and perhaps, the leaſt of all , not able to
do any of thoſe things, would ramble into the gar
den , or the field, and gather what it thought the
prettieſt flower it could find, though perhaps, it
might be but a ſimple weed. The parent would
be more gratified by ſuch variety than if the whole
of them had acted on a concerted plan, and each
had made exactly the ſame offering. This would
have had the cold appearance of contrivance, or
the harſh one of controul. But of all unwelcome
}
things, nothing could more afflict the Parent than
to know, thať the whole of thein had , afterwards,
gotten together by the cars, boys and girls fighting,
fcratching, reviling, and abuſing each other, about
which was the beſt or worſt preſent.
Why may we not ſuppoſe, that the Great Father
of us all , is pleaſed with variety of devotion ; and
that the greateſt offence we can act is, that by
which we ſeek to torment and render each otber
miſerable ? For my own part, I am fully ſatisfied ,
that
that, what I am now doing, with an endeavour to

conciliate mankind, to render their condition
happy, to unite nations that have hitherto been
enemies, to extirpate the horrid practice of war,
and break the chains of ſlavery and oppreſſion , is
acceptable in his fight ; and being the beſt ſervice
I can perform, I act it chearfully.
FINI S.
pibliothek

The Rights of Man

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

The Rights of Man

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

The Rights of Man

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Acerca de este libro

Acerca de la Búsqueda de libros de Google

MENTEM ALIT ET EXCOLIT

USE AND BENEFIT .

AND AUTHOR OF COMMON sense , &c. &c.

Printed and Sold by Citizen DANIEL ISAAC EATON, Printer

PRICE THREE SHILLINGS .

IIT has, for ſome time paſt, been a favourite ob.

I WRITE NOW FOR THE WORLD AT

MAN will herein find all his natural, civil,

fon rouſed into action, and himſelfanimated in the

otherwiſe is chimerical ; for, to ſuppoſe that men

mankind with thought of his rights that he never

the lightnings-- a moment more, and the tempeſt

you could ſave yourſelf and your colleagues by

has no property in Man - neither has any genera

legiſlature, can bind or controul the perſonal free

conſent. A former legiflature might as well have

be produced ſucceſſively contradicting each other;

thority, that we muſt now refer. The genealogy

by creation inſtead ofgeneration --the latter being

higheſt advantage to cultivate. By conſidering

HITHER TO we have ſpoken only, and that

competent. Of this kind are all thoſe which re

tural right, or, in other words, is a natnral right

And, Thirdly, That the power produced from

In caſting our eyes over the world, it is ex

ariſen, and on which they have been founded :

tered on one another ; and the wondering cheated

adopt the word ; we muſt alſo affix a ſtandard hg

have a conftitution, unleſs it ariſes, as I have ſaid

6 and, confeqnently, exhibits no certain merit but

*6 before a puppet, bearing the name of a King,

if no mifchief had annexed itſelf to the folly of

$ ſaid to be the reward of merit, be inherited

The reaſons for doing this are various, becauſe,

known, and by the inſtance of the Jews, it is

this caſe, therefore, we muſt neceſſarily have the

between the foul of man and its Maker ? Mind

figure, to hold forth the political doctrine of al.

rity, by driving men of the moſt uſeful avocations

may, with as much propriety, talk of National

86 Reaſon and experiment have been indulged,

“ right, and ours that one, we ſhould wiſh to ſee

" That the impious preſumption of legiſlators

66 : that teacher of his own religious perſuaſion, is

“ That to ſuffer the civil magiſtrate to intrude

THEREFORE no man ſhould be compelled to

56 to maintain their opinions in matters of religion ,

I NOW proceed to Hereditary Rights, and Here

govern a Solomon. Whether ſociety would or

lofophy, mechanics, phyſic, and all the other

- right, even for a moment, of ejecting the uſe

againſt it, by making government to be-not only

not originally a thing of itſelf, but is only the

with the title of king, or any other appellation of

and all future ones, the rights and free agency by

But after all, what is this metaphor, called a crown

band of intereſted men, ſuch as place-men - lords

REASON and Ignorance, the oppoſites of each