Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

tremity to which the feaman is fome times exposed, of being forced to fcud before the ftorm, the statesman is or ought to be exempt. The elements which he has to manage, the paflions, habits, and prejudices of the people, are in fome degree under his controul or guidance; and if ever a political tempeft arifes, it must be afcribed to fome grofs violation, immediate or remote, of the principles of legiflation *.*

vours either mental or corporeal ; a difference, however, and a great one, exifts between individuals of all ranks, and it is produced not by nature but by education, occupation, and exertion. The two former, he obferves, feparates by an immenfe fpace the favage from the civilized man, and the clown from the gentleman; the latter produces a diftinction not much lefs between one gentleman and another. He contends that it is only in an age of general corruption and apathy refpecting the duties of citizens, that one man fo far excels his contemporaries; and that, as the depreflion of one wave is neceffary to raite another to the appearance of a mountainous height, he is indebted for his fuper-eminence as much to their in

Mr. Michell blames thofe who, at the prefent moment, fee in our political conftitution nothing but perfection, while its affailants are pointing out numberless defects in it. General panegyric oppofed to general cenfure does not, in his mind, convey any idea of ability in the defenders of our own frame of government; and nothing honour-dolence as to his own exertions. able to it can be derived from the arguments of those who defend it only by pointing out greater defects in the French conftitution :

He then proceeds to examine the principles that the French have laid down as fundamental maxims of legislation, which he reduces to

two:

Man is born equal;

Integrity diftinguishes one able man from another, as much as ability diftinguishes an enlightened from an ignorant man. Men, therefore, he concludes, ought not. to be placed on a footing of equality in the fervice of the public; the man of sense ought to be preferred to the blockhead; and the man of fenfe and honefly united, to

And he continues equal in his him who poffeffes the former with

rights;

So far is he from admitting them to be true, that he contends moft firenuously that, as far as they are applicable to legiflation, they ftrongly enforce the neceffity of framing a conftitution on principles directly oppofite. Nature, he allows, fhews no partiality to any rank in the diftribution of her fa

- out the latter. The chief care of a legislator should be to infure the integrity of those who must be trusted; and if that be inflexible, we may be fatisfied that their abilities will prove equal to their duties.'

In his IId chapter, he purfues the confideration of the equality of rights; and he maintains that, in

*Bacon fpeaks with great contempt of this fyftem of expediency. Essays on Empire.'

the

the acceptation of the term by the French, it is either inapplicable to or fubverfive of their fyftem of legiflation. Equal protection from the power of government, and from the injuftice of individuals, he admits to be the right of every man in fociety; and on this point he makes this judicious remark:

:

Civil rights may be as facred in an abfolute monarchy, as in a pure democracy in neither, is there much fecurity that they will continue fo. But the degree of authority which the fovereignty affumes over its fubjects is by no means a criterion of liberty, for perfonal independence is often moft reftrained in constitutions that are efteemed most free.'

The inequality of rights exemplified in the exemptions from certain burthens of the ftate enjoyed by privileged orders, he traces up to times of conqueft, when the conquerors affumed to themfelves privileges which they did not allow to the conquered.

Latterly indeed, (fays he,) all peasants, whether defcended from the conquerors or their fubjects, became vaffals; but it was because, in thofe times of confufion and violence, the poor Frank, unable to defend himself, voluntarily furrendered his liberty, in order to obtain protection under the wing of a powerful chieftain. And although all the ftates of Europe may fhew privileged orders, exempt from the burthens which bear on the community, this is the remnant of what conquerors formerly arrogated to themfelves, and what no one pretends to juftify.'

It is not neceffary, he obferves, to annhilate a conftitution and diforganize a nation, in order to force privileges bodies to make a facri

fice of fuch exemptions; in France, at least, it certainly was not neceffary, because, whether from vir tue or neceffity, the French nobles were ready to furrender them without a ftruggle. The exemptions and the rank which the nobility enjoyed he confiders in a very dif ferent point of view; the former, he fays, ought to be abolished as originating from the arrogance of conquerors oppreffing or guarding against a vanquished nation; the latter ought to be retained as derived from found principles of legiflation, tending to the general benefit of the community. The views of the French, when contending for the equality of rights, he infifts, are political powers, the public offices of governments; and the filling of them, he maintains, ought not to be called a right, but a duty. In this fenfe he fhews that, inftead of faying every man has a right to afpire to fuch offices, we ought to fay that the ftate has a right to call on every man, according to his capacity, to take his fhare in the fervice of his country. This leads him to confiderations refpecting the army and navy. When citizens with to ferve only in lucrative or easy stations, either the public fervice muft ftand ftill, or government must have recourse to measures the most harsh and apparently incompatible with liberty, in order to keep up a public force by both land and fea for the general defence.

From the whole he deduces the following inferences :

The various offices of ftate are duties created by fociety, not rights brought by men into fociety, and poffeffed antecedent to it. The object therefore of the focial union could not be as the French legiflaL14

tors

tors declare," The maintaining our natural, civil, and political rights*;" for this laft right (if they will ufe the term) has exiftence only fubfequent to, and in confequence of, the formation of fociety. The natural rights of men, in which it is allowed all continue equal, are not infringed, although the offices of fate are reftricted to particular claffes. And their civil rights may be equally refpected or yioJated in any form of government whatever; if the latter fhould happen, no more is proved, than that the governois neglect or betray their duty.'

In chapter II. book I. Mr. M. examines another favourite pofition of the French revolutionists, viz."the will of the majority is binding on the whole;" and he controverts it, if not with complete fuccefs, at least with great ingenuity. His full objection is founded on the difficulty, if not impoffibility, of afcert uning what is the unbiaffed will of the majority of a nation as to any particular question:

In cities, (fays he,) a very fmall portion of the inhabitants may, with the advantages of union and preconcerted operations, dictate with uncontrollable authority to the whole. The leis fanguinary Romans (among whom this principle prevailed) were content to furround the forum, and preoccupy all the avenues to the huftings with an armed mob, by means of which the moft alert faction paffed what laws it pleafed.† The ferocious Parifians, by a liberal exercife of the lanthorn and pike, awe

.

It

their opponents into filence, and compel them to adopt the fame opinions. As to the will of a great nation, we need only refer to the arguments fo often used by our oppofition, to prove the futility of addreffes, as evincive of the gcneral opinion. The fame arguments may be applied with equal force to petitions or refolutions of any kind," on any particular queftion, from corporate bodies or diftricts. is more difficult indeed for a faction to establish a tyrannic fway over an extensive country, than over a fingle city; but that fway, if once eftablifhed, is, from the obftacles which the difcontented meet in their endeavours to form a union, far more secure. The inferior but united force of Paris itself, awed into acquiefcence by a faction, has eafily quelled the fucceffive infurrectious in La Vendee, Lyons, Marfeilles, Toulon, and various other places and provinces of France; though there can be no doubt but that the difcontented would. if united, as eafily have overwhelmed the city of Paris.'

Suppofing this difficulty about afcertaining the will of the majority to be removed, there would remain a ftrong objection to the principle itfelf He allows, for argumentation, the right of the majority of a nation to change the conftitution from monarchy to a republic, or its religion from chriftianity to paganifm: but it does not follow that the majority has any right to legiflate for the minority. Such a change as is above stated, he contends, would amount to a diffolution of the compact on which

New Conftitution of France by Condorcet, &c. Ferguf. Rom. Repub. book iii. chap. 5. and paffim. '

the

the fociety of fuch a nation was originally founded. His fentiments on this head are thus expreffed:

[ocr errors]

Admitting that the majority have a right to legiflate for thenfelves, they have no right to legiflate for others. An appeal to reafon or equity is futile; for what appears to one man very reafonable, may to another feem perfect nonfenfe, or pernicious fophiftry. But in these cafes, reafon is always neglected, and force or fraud must determine the difpute. The former fociety being diffolved, all rights of pre-occupancy are fuperfeded; for one party has as good a claim as the other; and they are virtually in the fituation of two independent tribes or nations, landing at the fame moment on an unfettled country. If they cannot agree to divide it, one must expel the other. It is a legitimate caufe of war, in which neither party can affume a right to treat the other as rebels or traitors. If the victors in such a conteft deny the vanquished the liberty of withdrawing themfelves, their families, and property, from the difputed territory, and fettling themfelves elsewhere, they violate every principle of juftice and humanity.

[ocr errors]

That a part of a nation, whether they form a majority or not, may be juftified in endeavouring to obtain an alteration in the eftablished conftitution, and even in committing, if neceffary, the juftice of their caufe to the decifion of the God of battles, I do not deny. But be it remembered, no flight motives can juftify them; for they in fact diffolve the focial bond, and renounce the parent that gave them birth. Whereas they who fupport the established conftitution, can in hardly any cafe deferve

At

blame. The fincerity of that man, who, when advanced in years, changes his religion, has always been held fufpicious; for fimilar reasons, if a man fhould at once renounce the established conftitution of his country, and adopt one of an oppofite nature, we may realonably fufpect him to be actuated by paflion, or felfish intereft. leaft, if, inftead of appealing to the fword, fuch men choose to try their caufe at the bar of reafon. the onus probandi lies folely on them: their opponents have only to urge that they ftill prefer the conftitution and religion in which they were bred. It fuch a caufe were to be tried by Minos himself, furely the majority must be infinitely great on the fide of the innovators, or he would decrce, that it is for them to feek fome foreign fettlement, and there try what fuccefs will attend their new adopted fituations.'

In chapter IV. the writer adverts to the abufes that have followed clofely on the heels of the French principles, and which (he obferves) fome politicians have endeavoured to excufe, by alluding to the grofs ignorance of the people; to which, and not to the doctrines, they afcribe the exceffes that have difgraced France. M. lays the blame on those who promulgated doctrines which it was not poflible that the people fhould truly understand, because they could not comprehend the niceties of metaphysical definitions.

[ocr errors]

Mr.

He next examines the opinion that the most unlimited freedom of the prefs is effential to the acquirement and preservation of freedom;' and he fays that, if by this be meant that freedom cannot exist, unlefs all kinds of doctrines are

without

without reftraint promulgated among all ranks of fociety, experience has proved the maxim to be falfe. Calling history to his aid, he thus argues :

The republics of ancient Greece were undoubtedly free, many carried freedom to excefs; yet the art of printing being then unknown, the communication of knowledge was neceffarily confined to a few. Books were fcarce and exceffively dear, therefore beyond the reach of the multitude: and in matters of religion, the moft jealous and cruel inquifition was exercised over writers and teachers. The Swifs Cantons acquired their freedom at a period, when probably not one in a thousand could read or write; they have continued to preferve it for centuries, (many of the Cantons in the form of a pure democracy,) without the aid of newspapers and political pamphlets, which their poverty banishes much more effectually than any law could do. In our own country, almoft in our own times, freedom triumphed over monarchical prerogative, both in the era of Charles I. and James II. Yet from the former to the latter period, the communication of political knowledge was much confined, by the difinclination or inability of the people to read. It is faid, that now corruption and mifmanagement are in the extreme, and we are directed to reftore the conftitution to its former purity; a good one, therefore, could fubfift without this general diffufion of political knowledge, which, if it has not produced, at leaft has not prevented the progrefs of corruption.'

He then goes on to animadvert on the advice given by thofe who

defire that the public may not be alarmed at the want of reftraint on the prefs, for that truth and virtue will always preponderate. The following obfervations on this head. are just and forcible :

Let parents and tutors anfwer for the youth under their care; let us, if poffible, rife above our own vices, and answer for ourfelves. Have we not experienced, that the exhortation of the divine, the lecture of the moralift, though aided by the dictates of our own confcience, form but an insufficient barrier against the suggestions of paflion, and the corruption which artful fophiftry, flattering inclinations which we are fecretly afhamed of, pours into the heart? In the declining age of Greece and Rome, did the doctrines of Zeno or Epicurus make the greater number of profelytes? In both nations there was no want of men, who, by their writings, even by the examples of their lives and actions, endeavoured to uphold the cause of 'virtue; yet they fcarcely retarded, they did not prevent, the rapid progrefs of vice, which purfued its triumphant course, until it expired in the ruins of a corrupted people.'

Having combated the opinions of others refpecting the licentioufnefs of the prefs, he thus delivers his own:

The licentiousness of the prefs, fuch as is now permitted, is incompatible with national profperity; it requires to be regulated; but to afcertain the line which feparates excefs of liberty from improper reftraint, and to determine where the power of enforcing the law fhould be placed, is a talk

which

« ZurückWeiter »