representatives of the Privileged Orders of the Continental States.
The self-conceited constitutionalists of France saw something
in the British Parliament which did not fall in with their own
_hasty_ notions, and prided themselves in not copying from us.
This would have indicated great poverty of invention in a nation
accustomed to consider itself as the teacher of mankind. The most
sensible of them, however, wished to have a constitution which they
called an _improvement_ of ours: and this was the simple plan of
a _representation_ of the two or three Orders of the State. Their
Upper House should contain the representatives of 100,000 noblesse.
The Princes of the Blood and Great Barons should sit in it of their
own right, and the rest by deputies. The Lower House, or _Tiers
Etat_, should consist of deputies from those ignobly born; such
as merchants, persons in the lower offices of the law, artisans,
peasants, and a small number of freeholders. Surely it needs no deep
reflection to teach us what sort of deliberations would occupy such
a house. It would be a most useful occupation however, to peruse
the history of France, and of other nations, and see what _really
did occupy_ the Tiers Etat thus constructed, and what were their
proceedings, their decisions, and the steps which they took to make
them effectual. I have no doubt but that this study would cure most
of our advocates for general eligibility, and for general suffrage.
I have lately read Velley and Villaret's History of France, (by the
bye, the Abbé Barruel has shewn that the Club d'Holbach managed the
publication of this History after the first eight or ten volumes,
and slipped into it many things suited to their impious project,)
and the accounts of the troublesome reigns of John, and Charles his
successor, by authors who wrote long before the Revolution; and they
filled me with horror. The only instance that I met with of any
thing like moderation in the claims and disputes of the different
Orders of their States General, and of patriotism, or regard for
the general interests of the State, is in their meetings during the
minority of Charles VIII.
With respect to the limitations of the eligibility into the
House of Commons, I think that there can be no doubt that those
should be excluded whose habits of needy and laborious life have
precluded them from all opportunities of acquiring some general
views of political relations. Such persons are totally unfit for
deliberations, where general or comprehensive views only are to be
the subjects of discussion; they can have no conceptions of the
subject, and therefore no steady notions or opinions, but must
change them after every speaker, and must become the dupes of every
demagogue.
But there are other circumstances which make me think that, of all
the classes of citizens, the land proprietors are the fittest for
holding this important office. I do not infer this from their having
a more real connection with the nation, and a stronger interest
in its fate--I prefer them on account of their general habits of
thought. Almost all their ordinary transactions are such as make
them acquainted with the interests of others, cause them to consider
those in general points of view; and, in short, most of their
occupations are, in some degree, national. They are accustomed
to settle differences between those of lower stations--they are
frequently in the King's commission as Justices of the Peace.
All these circumstances make them much apter scholars in that
political knowledge, which is absolutely necessary for a member
of the House of Commons. But, besides this, I have no hesitation
in saying that their turn of mind, their principles of conduct,
are more generally such as become a Senator, than those of _any
other class_ of men. This class includes almost all men of family.
I cannot help thinking that even what is called family pride is a
sentiment in their favour. I am convinced that all our propensities
are useful in society, and that their bad effects arise wholly
from want of moderation in the indulgence of them, or sometimes
from the impropriety of the occasion on which they are exerted.
What propensity is more general than the desire of acquiring
permanent consideration for ourselves and our families? Where is
the man to be found so mean-spirited as not to value himself for
being born of creditable parents, and for creditable domestic
connections? Is this wrong because it has been abused? So then
is every pre-eminence of office; and the directors of republican
France are as criminal as her former Nobles. This propensity of the
human heart should no more be rejected than the desire of power. It
should be regulated--but it should certainly be made use of as one
of the means of carrying on the national business. I think that we
know some of its good effects--It incites to a certain propriety of
conduct that is generally agreeable--its honesty is embellished by a
manner that makes it more pleasing. There is something that we call
the _behaviour of a Gentleman_ that is immediately and uniformly
understood. The plainest peasant or labourer will say of a man
whom he esteems in a certain way, "He is a Gentleman, every bit of
him,"--and he is perfectly understood by all who hear him to mean,
not a rank in life, but a turn of mind, a tenor of conduct that is
amiable and worthy, and the ground of confidence.--I remark, with
some feeling of patriotic pride, that these are phrases almost
peculiar to our language--in Russia the words would have no meaning.
But there, the Sovereign is a despot, and all but the Gentry are
slaves; and the Gentry are at no pains to recommend their class by
such a distinction, nor to give currency to such a phrase.--I would
infer from this peculiarity, that Britain is the happy land, where
the wisest use has been made of this propensity of the human heart.
If therefore there be a foundation for this peculiarity, the Gentry
are proper objects of our choice for filling the House of Commons.
If theoretical considerations are of any value in questions of
political discussion, I would say, that we have good reasons
for giving this class of citizens a great share in the public
deliberations. Besides what I have already noticed of their
habits of considering things in general points of view, and their
_feeling_ a closer connection with the nation than any other class,
I would say that the power and influence which naturally attach
to their being called to offices of public trust, will probably
be better lodged in their hands. If they are generally selected
for these offices, they come to consider them as parts of their
civil condition, as situations natural to them. They will therefore
exercise this power and influence with the moderation and calmness
of habit,--they are no novelties to them--they are not afraid of
losing them;--therefore, when in office, they do not catch at the
opportunities of exercising them. This is the ordinary conduct of
men, and therefore is a ground of probable reasoning.--In short, I
should expect from our Gentry somewhat of generosity and candour,
which would temper the commercial principle, which seems to regulate
the national transactions of modern Europe, and whose effects seem
less friendly to the best interests of humanity, than even the Roman
principle of glory.
The Reader will now believe that I would not recommend the filling
the House of Commons with merchants, although they seem to be the
natural Representatives of the monied interest of the nation.
But I do not wish to consider that House as the Representative
of any Orders whatever, or to disturb its deliberations with any
debates on their jarring interests. The man of purely commercial
notions disclaims all generosity--recommends honesty because it
is the best policy--in short, "places the value of a thing in as
much money as 'twill bring." I should watch the conduct of such
men more narrowly than that of the Nobles. Indeed, the history of
Parliament will show that the Gentry have not been the most venal
part of the House. The Illumination which now dazzles the world aims
directly at multiplying the number of venal members, by filling
the senates of Europe with men who may be bought at a low price.
Ministerial corruption is the fruit of Liberty, and freedom dawned
in this nation in Queen Elizabeth's time, when her minister bribed
Wentworth.--A wise and free Legislation will endeavour to make
this as expensive and troublesome as possible, and therefore will
neither admit universal suffrage nor a very extensive eligibility.
These two circumstances, besides opening a wider door to corruption,
tend to destroy the very intention of all civil constitutions. The
great object in them is, to make a great number of people happy.
Some men place their chief enjoyment in measuring their strength
with others, and love to be continually employed in canvassing,
intriguing, and carrying on some little pieces of a sort of public
business; to such men universal suffrage and eligibility would be
paradise--but it is to be hoped that the number of such is not very
great: for this occupation must be accompanied by much disquiet
among their neighbours, much dissension, and mutual offence and
ill-will--and the peaceable, the indolent, the studious, and the
half of the nation, the women, will be great sufferers by all this.
In a nation possessing many of the comforts and pleasures of life,
the happiest government is that which will leave the greatest number
possible totally unoccupied with national affairs, and at full
liberty to enjoy all their domestic and social pleasures, and to do
this with security and permanency. Great limitations in the right of
electing seems therefore a circumstance necessary for this purpose;
and limitations are equally necessary on the eligibility. When the
offices of power and emolument are open to all, the scramble becomes
universal, and the nation is never at peace. The _road_ to a seat in
Parliament should be accessible to all; but it should be long, so
that many things, which all may in time obtain, shall be requisite
for qualifying the candidate. The road should also be such that
all should be induced to walk in it, in the prosecution of their
ordinary business; and their admission into public offices should
depend on the progress which they have made in the advancement
of their own fortunes. Such regulations would, I think, give the
greatest chance of filling the offices with persons fittest for
them, by their talents, their experience, and their habits of
thinking. These habits, and the views of life which a man forms in
consequence of his situation, are of the utmost importance.
After all these observations, I must still recur to a position which
I have repeated more than once, namely, that our constitution,
which nearly embraces all these circumstances, has attained its
present excellence chiefly in consequence of the innate worth of the
British character. About the time of the Conquest, our constitution
hardly differed from that of France. But the clashing of interests
between the different Orders of the subjects was not so rancorous
and obstinate--these Orders melted more easily together--the
purity of the principle of Representation in the States was less
attended to; and while the French Peers gradually left off minding
any business but their own, and left the High Court of Judicature
to the lawyers, and the King to his Cabinet Council, the Peers of
Great Britain, overlooking their own less important distinctions,
attended more to the State, became a permanent Council to the
Sovereign in the administration and legislation; and, with a
patriotism and a patience that are unknown to the other Grandees of
Europe, continued to hear and to judge in all questions of justice
and property between the inferior citizens of the State. British
Liberty is the highly-prized fruit of all this worthy conduct, and
most people ascribe it to the superior spirit and independence of
the national character. It strikes me, however, as more surely
indicating superior virtue, and more judicious patriotism; and our
happy constitution is not more justly entitled to the admiration and
respect that is paid to it by all Europe, than to the affectionate
and grateful attachment of every true-hearted Briton.
Since the publication of this volume I have seen a very remarkable
work indeed, on the same subject, _Memoires pour servir a l'Histoire
du Jacobinisme, par M. l'Abbé Barruel_. This author confirms all
that I have said of the _Enlighteners_, whom he very aptly calls
_Philosophists_; and of the abuses of Free Masonry in France. He
shows, unquestionably, that a formal and systematic conspiracy
against Religion was formed and zealously prosecuted by Voltaire,
d'Alembert, and Diderot, assisted by Frederic II. King of Prussia;
and I see that their principles and their manner of procedure have
been the same with those of the German atheists and anarchists.
Like them they hired an Army of Writers; they industriously pushed
their writings into every house and every cottage. Those writings
were equally calculated for inflaming the sensual appetites of men,
and for perverting their judgments. They endeavoured to get the
command of the Schools, particularly those for the lower classes;
and they erected and managed a prodigious number of Circulating
Libraries and Reading Societies. M. Barruel says, that this gang of
public corruptors have held their meetings for many years in the
_Hotel de Holbach_ at Paris, and that Voltaire was their honorary
President. The most eminent members were _d'Alembert_, _Diderot_,
_Condorcet_, _La Harpe_, _Turgot_, _Lamoignon_. They took the name
of OECONOMISTS, and affected to be continually occupied with plans
for improving Commerce, Manufactures, Agriculture, Finance, &c.
and published from time to time respectable performances on those
subjects.--But their darling project was to destroy Christianity
and all Religion, and to bring about a total change of Government.
They employed writers to compose corrupting and impious books--these
were revised by the Society, and corrected till they suited their
purpose. A number were printed in a handsome manner, to defray the
expence; and then a much greater number were printed in the cheapest
form possible, and given for nothing, or at very low prices, to
hawkers and pedlars, with injunctions to distribute them secretly
through the cities and villages. They even hired persons to read
them to conventicles of those who had not learned to read.[29] (See
vol. i. 343-355.)
[29] The author makes an observation which is as just as it is
agreeable. This atrocious gang solicited, with the most anxious
assiduity, the participation and patronage of the great ones of
the world, and boast of several very exalted names; Frederic II.
of Prussia, whom they call the Solomon of the North, Catharine II.
Gustavus King of Sweden, the King of Denmark, &c. &c. But in the
whole series of their correspondence there is not the least trace of
any encouragement or any hopes from our excellent Sovereign George
III. Despising the incense of such wretches, and detesting their
science, he has truly merited the title of _Philosopher_, by having
done more for the real Illumination of the World, by the promotion
of true Science, than Louis XIV. with his pensioned Academicians, or
than all the present Sovereigns of Europe united; and has uniformly
distinguished himself by his regard for true Religion, and every
thing that is venerable and sacred. This omission is above all
praise!
I am particularly struck by a position of Abbé Barruel, "_That
Irreligion and unqualified Liberty and Equality are the genuine and
original Secrets of Free Masonry, and the ultimatum of a regular
progress through all its degrees_." He supports this remarkable
position with great ingenuity, and many very pertinent facts. I
confess that now, when I have got this impression, I shall find it
very difficult to efface it. But I must also say, that this thought
never struck me, during all the time that I have been occupied with
it; nor have I ever heard it expressed by any Brother, except such
as had been illuminated; and such Brethren always considered this
as an innovation or improvement on genuine British Free Masonry.
I recollect, indeed, that Nicholai, in his account of the German
Rosycrucians, says, that the object of Free Masonry in England,
since the time of James II. is _Toleration_ in _Religious Opinions_,
as _Royalism_ had been the object before that time.
The account which the Abbé gives of the _Chevalerie du Soleil_ is
very conformable to one of the three rituals in my possession.
His account of the _Chevalerie de Rose Croix_, and some others,
differs considerably from those in my box. I have reason to think
that my materials are transcripts from the rituals, &c. which
Rosa introduced into the German Lodges, because the writer of the
greatest part of them is an inhabitant of that city.
I think that the Abbé Barruel's account of this matter suggests a
pleasing reflection. All the Brethren on the Continent agree in
saying, that Free Masonry was imported from Great Britain about
the beginning of this century, and this in the form of a Mystical
Society. It has been assiduously cultivated in Britain ever since
that time, and I believe that the Fraternity is more numerous here,
in proportion to the population of the country, than in any other
kingdom; yet in Britain the Brethren have never suspected that its
principles were seditious or atheistical. While the Free Masonry
of the Continent was tricked up with all the frippery of stars
and ribands, or was perverted to the most profligate and impious
purposes, and the Lodges became seminaries of Foppery, of Sedition,
and Impiety, it has retained in Britain its original form, simple
and unadorned, and the Lodges have remained the scenes of innocent
merriment, or meetings of Charity and Beneficence. As the good
sense and sound judgments of Britons have preserved them from the
absurd follies of Transmutation, of Ghost-raising, and of Magic, so
their honest hearts and their innate good dispositions have made
them detest and reject the mad projects and impious doctrines of
Cosmopolites, Epicurists, and Atheists.
_O fortunatos nimium, sua si bona norint
Anglicolas!_
I have more confidence than ever in the sentiment which I expressed
as an encouragement for our moral instructors; and with greater
earnestness do I call on them to rescue from corruption and
impending ruin a nation so highly deserving of their care.
Mr. Barruel, in the eighteenth chapter of his work, has suggested
some reflections, which highly merit attention, and greatly tend
to efface the impression which is naturally made on the minds
of the unthinking and precipitant, when they observe such a
list of authors, whom they have been accustomed to admire, all
leagued against Religion. I think, however, that nothing can more
effectually remove it, than what I have already shown of the vile
and disgraceful tricks which these sophists have been guilty of
to support their cause. The cause of this numerous association
is distinctly seen in their very procedure. The very first step
in their progress is _depravation of manners_. In this they have
laboured with as much earnestness as either Spartacus, or Minos, or
Bahrdt. It was a treat to me to learn that La Close's abominable
book _Les Liaisons Dangereuses_, was not merely pandering for
his patron Orleans, but also working for his masters at the Hotel
d'Holbach. Nothing gives such certain bread to those authors, in the
beginning of their career, as immoral and impure writings;--and with
such did even their chief set out, and fill his pockets; witness
his _Pucelle d'Orleans_; and even after they became the _sages of
France_, they continued, either from coarse taste or from serious
principle, for the diabolical purpose of inflaming the passions of
others, to interlard their gravest performances with impure thoughts
and sentiments. Nay, the secret of the Hotel d'Holbach shews us
that, for any thing we know to the contrary, the vilest productions
of their press may have been the compositions of the octogenary
Voltaire, of the sly d'Alembert, or of the author of the _Pere de
Famille_. What a pity it is that the _Decline of the Roman Empire_
was not all written in England, and that its learned and elegant
author, by going into their society, has allowed himself to be drawn
into this muddy and degrading vortex!
I should scarcely ask for more to disgust me with the philosophy
of these sages, and to make me distrust all their pretensions to
knowledge. The meanness of the conduct suited the original poverty
of the whole of them; but its continuance strips them of all
claims to the name of philosophers. Their pretended wisdom is only
cunning,--and we must acknowledge that their conduct was clever: for
this mean of corruption, concealed or embellished by their talents
for sentimental slang, (I can give it no better name,) made their
conversation and their writings most acceptable to their noble
patrons.--Now it is that Religion, of necessity, comes on the field;
for Religion tells us, that these are mean pleasures for creatures
born to our prospects; and Christianity tells us, that they are
gross transgressions of _the only just morality_. The progress of
the pupil will now be rapid; for he will listen with willing ears to
lessons which flatter his passions. Yet Voltaire thinks it necessary
to enliven the lessons by a little of the _salaison_, _quelques bons
mots à-propos auprès des femmes_, which he recommends to d'Alembert,
who, it seems, was deficient in this kind of small talk.
Surely all this is very unlike to wisdom; and when we see that it is
part of a plan, and this an obvious one, it should greatly lessen
our wonder at the number of these admired infidels. If we would now
proceed to examine their pretensions to science, on which they found
their claim to the name of philosophers, we must be careful to take
the word in a sense that is unequivocal. Its true meaning is by no
means what is commonly assigned to it, a lover of knowledge. It is a
lover of wisdom; and philosophy professes to teach us what are the
constituents of human felicity, and what are the means of attaining
it; what are our duties, and the general rules for our conduct. The
stoics were philosophers. The Christians are also philosophers.
The Epicureans and the Sophists of France would also be called
philosophers. I have put in my objection to this claim already, and
need not repeat my reasons for saying that their doctrines are not
dictates of wisdom. I shall only add, that their own conduct shows
plainly that their principles had no effect on themselves, because
we see, from the series of correspondence which Mr. Barruel has
laid before us, that they do not scruple to practise villanous and
hypocritical tricks, which never fail to disgrace a man, and are
totally irreconcilable with our notions of human dignity. Voltaire
patiently took a caning from an officer at Frankfort, for having
wittily told lies of his scholar Frederic, and his wisdom told him
that his honour was cleared by offering to meet the Major, each of
them provided with an injection syringe. This was thought sublime
wit at Ferney. I do not suppose that the slave Epictetus, or the
soldier Digby, would have ended the affair in this manner. Many of
the deeds of wisdom of the club d'Holbach were more degrading than
even this; and I am confident that the whole of this phalanx of
sages were conscious that they were treated by their patrons and
pupils as Voltaire was treated by the Solomon of the North, and that
their notions of the _vraie sagesse_ were also the same with his.
He gives this account of it in his letter to his niece: "Le Roi lui
avoit repondu; 'j'aurai besoin de Voltaire un an tout au plus--On
presse l'orange, et on jette l'écorce.' Je me suis fait repeter ces
douces paroles"--(How poor Voltaire would grin!)--"Je vois bien
qu'on a pressé l'orange--il faut penser à sauver l'ecorce."
But, as things stand at present, philosopher means a man of science,
and in this sense of the word our sages claim great respect. No
claim can be worse founded. It is amusing to observe the earnestness
with which they recommend the study of natural history. One does
not readily see the connection of this with their ostensible
object, the happiness of man. A perusal of Voltaire's letters
betrays the secret. Many years ago he heard that some observations
on the formation of strata, and the fossils found in them, were
incompatible with the age which the Mosaic history seems to assign
to this globe. He mentions this with great exultation in some of his
early letters; and, from that time forward, never ceases to enjoin
his colleagues to press the study of natural history and cosmogony,
and carefully to bring forward every fact which was hostile to
the Mosaic accounts. It became a serious part of the exercises of
their wealthy pupils, and their perplexing discoveries were most
ostentatiously displayed. M. de Luc, a very eminent naturalist, has
shewn, in a letter to the Chevalier Dr. Zimmermann, (published, I
think, about the year 1790,) how very scanty the knowledge of these
observers has been, and how precipitate have been their conclusions.
For my own part, I think the affair is of little consequence. Moses
writes the history, not of this globe, but of the race of Adam.
The science of these philosophers is not remarkable in other
branches, if we except M. d'Alembert's mathematics[30]. Yet the
imposing confidence of Voltaire was such, that he passes for a
person fully informed, and he pronounces on every subject with so
much authority, with such a force of expression, and generally
with so much wit or pleasantry, that his hearers and readers are
fascinated, and soon convinced of what they wish to be true.