The cheap edition of the first part was begun about the first of last
April, and from that moment, and not before, I expected a prosecution,
and the event has proved that I was not mistaken. I had then occasion to
write to Mr. Thomas Walker of Manchester, and after informing him of my
intention of giving up the work for the purpose of general information,
I informed him of what I apprehended would be the consequence; that
while the work was at a price that precluded an extensive circulation,
the government party, not able to controvert the plans, arguments,
and principles it contained, had chosen to remain silent; but that I
expected they would make an attempt to deprive the mass of the nation,
and especially the poor, of the right of reading, by the pretence of
prosecuting either the Author or the Publisher, or both. They chose to
begin with the Publisher.
Nearly a month, however, passed, before I had any information given me
of their intentions. I was then at Bromley, in Kent, upon which I came
immediately to town, (May 14) and went to Mr. Jordan, the publisher of
the original edition. He had that evening been served with a summons to
appear at the Court of King's Bench, on the Monday following, but for
what purpose was not stated. Supposing it to be on account of the
work, I appointed a meeting with him on the next morning, which was
accordingly had, when I provided an attorney, and took the ex-pence of
the defence on myself. But finding afterwards that he absented himself
from the attorney employed, and had engaged another, and that he had
been closeted with the Solicitors of the Treasury, I left him to follow
his own choice, and he chose to plead Guilty. This he might do if he
pleased; and I make no objection against him for it. I believe that his
idea by the word _Guilty_, was no other than declaring himself to be the
publisher, without any regard to the merits or demerits of the work; for
were it to be construed otherwise, it would amount to the absurdity of
converting a publisher into a Jury, and his confession into a verdict
upon the work itself. This would be the highest possible refinement upon
packing of Juries.
On the 21st of May, they commenced their prosecution against me, as the
author, by leaving a summons at my lodgings in town, to appear at the
Court of King's Bench on the 8th of June following; and on the same day,
(May 21,) _they issued also their Proclamation_. Thus the Court of St.
James and the Court of King's Bench, were playing into each other's
hands at the same instant of time, and the farce of Addresses brought up
the rear; and this mode of proceeding is called by the prostituted name
of Law. Such a thundering rapidity, after a ministerial dormancy of
almost eighteen months, can be attributed to no other cause than their
having gained information of the forwardness of the cheap Edition, and
the dread they felt at the progressive increase of political knowledge.
I was strongly advised by several gentlemen, as well those in the
practice of the law, as others, to prefer a bill of indictment
against the publisher of the Proclamation, as a publication tending to
influence, or rather to dictate the verdict of a Jury on the issue of a
matter then pending; but it appeared to me much better to avail myself
of the opportunity which such a precedent justified me in using, by
meeting the Proclamation and the Addressers on their own ground, and
publicly defending the Work which had been thus unwarrantably attacked
and traduced.--And conscious as I now am, that the Work entitled
Rights OF Man so far from being, as has been maliciously or erroneously
represented, a false, wicked, and seditious libel, is a work abounding
with unanswerable truths, with principles of the purest morality and
benevolence, and with arguments not to be controverted--Conscious, I
say, of these things, and having no object in view but the happiness
of mankind, I have now put the matter to the best proof in my power, by
giving to the public a cheap edition of the First and Second Parts of
that Work. Let every man read and judge for himself, not only of the
merits and demerits of the Work, but of the matters therein contained,
which relate to his own interest and happiness.
If, to expose the fraud and imposition of monarchy, and every species
of hereditary government--to lessen the oppression of taxes--to propose
plans for the education of helpless infancy, and the comfortable support
of the aged and distressed--to endeavour to conciliate nations to each
other--to extirpate the horrid practice of war--to promote universal
peace, civilization, and commerce--and to break the chains of political
superstition, and raise degraded man to his proper rank;--if these
things be libellous, let me live the life of a Libeller, and let the
name of Libeller be engraved on my tomb.
Of all the weak and ill-judged measures which fear, ignorance,
or arrogance could suggest, the Proclamation, and the project for
Addresses, are two of the worst. They served to advertise the work which
the promoters of those measures wished to keep unknown; and in doing
this they offered violence to the judgment of the people, by calling on
them to condemn what they forbad them to know, and put the strength
of their party to that hazardous issue that prudence would have
avoided.--The County Meeting for Middlesex was attended by only
one hundred and eighteen Addressers. They, no doubt, expected, that
thousands would flock to their standard, and clamor against the _Rights
of Man_. But the case most probably is, that men in all countries, are
not so blind to their Rights and their Interest as Governments believe.
Having thus shewn the extraordinary manner in which the Government party
commenced their attack, I proceed to offer a few observations on the
prosecution, and on the mode of trial by Special Jury.
In the first place, I have written a book; and if it cannot be refuted,
it cannot be condemned. But I do not consider the prosecution as
particularly levelled against me, but against the general right, or
the right of every man, of investigating systems and principles of
government, and shewing their several excellencies or defects. If the
press be free only to flatter Government, as Mr. Burke has done, and to
cry up and extol what certain Court sycophants are pleased to call a
"glorious Constitution," and not free to examine into its errors or
abuses, or whether a Constitution really exist or not, such freedom is
no other than that of Spain, Turkey, or Russia; and a Jury in this case,
would not be a Jury to try, but an Inquisition to condemn.
I have asserted, and by fair and open argument maintained, the right
of every nation at all times to establish such a system and form of
government for itself as best accords with its disposition, interest,
and happiness; and to change and alter it as it sees occasion. Will any
Jury deny to the Nation this right? If they do, they are traitors, and
their verdict would be null and void. And if they admit the right, the
means must be admitted also; for it would be the highest absurdity to
say, that the right existed, but the means did not. The question then
is, What are the means by which the possession and exercise of
this National Right are to be secured? The answer will be, that
of maintaining, inviolably, the right of free investigation; for
investigation always serves to detect error, and to bring forth truth.
I have, as an individual, given my opinion upon what I believe to be
not only the best, but the true system of Government, which is the
representative system, and I have given reasons for that opinion.
First, Because in the representative system, no office of very
extraordinary power, or extravagant pay, is attached to any individual;
and consequently there is nothing to excite those national contentions
and civil wars with which countries under monarchical governments are
frequently convulsed, and of which the History of England exhibits such
numerous instances.
Secondly, Because the representative is a system of Government always
in maturity; whereas monarchical government fluctuates through all the
stages, from non-age to dotage.
Thirdly, Because the representative system admits of none but men
properly qualified into the Government, or removes them if they prove
to be otherwise. Whereas, in the hereditary system, a nation may be
encumbered with a knave or an ideot for a whole life-time, and not be
benefited by a successor.
Fourthly, Because there does not exist a right to establish hereditary
government, or, in other words, hereditary successors, because
hereditary government always means a government yet to come, and the
case always is, that those who are to live afterwards have the same
right to establish government for themselves, as the people had who
lived before them; and, therefore, all laws attempting to establish
hereditary government, are founded on assumption and political fiction.
If these positions be truths, and I challenge any man to prove the
contrary; if they tend to instruct and enlighten mankind, and to free
them from error, oppression, and political superstition, which are the
objects I have in view in publishing them, that Jury would commit an act
of injustice to their country, and to me, if not an act of perjury, that
should call them _false, wicked, and malicious_.
Dragonetti, in his treatise "On Virtues and Rewards," has a paragraph
worthy of being recorded in every country in the world--"The science
(says he,) of the politician, consists, in, fixing the true point of
happiness and freedom. Those men deserve the gratitude of ages who
should discover a mode of government that contained the greatest sum of
_individual happiness_ with the least _national expence_." But if Juries
are to be made use of to prohibit enquiry, to suppress truth, and
to stop the progress of knowledge, this boasted palladium of liberty
becomes the most successful instrument of tyranny.
Among the arts practised at the Bar, and from the Bench, to impose
upon the understanding of a Jury, and to obtain a Verdict where
the consciences of men could not otherwise consent, one of the most
successful has been that of calling _truth a libel_, and of insinuating
that the words "_falsely, wickedly, and maliciously_," though they
are made the formidable and high sounding part of the charge, are not
matters of consideration with a Jury. For what purpose, then, are they
retained, unless it be for that of imposition and wilful defamation?
I cannot conceive a greater violation of order, nor a more abominable
insult upon morality, and upon human understanding, than to see a man
sitting in the judgment seat, affecting by an antiquated foppery of
dress to impress the audience with awe; then causing witnesses and Jury
to be sworn to truth and justice, himself having officially sworn the
same; then causing to be read a prosecution against a man charging him
with having _wickedly and maliciously written and published a certain
false, wicked, and seditious book_; and having gone through all this
with a shew of solemnity, as if he saw the eye of the Almighty darting
through the roof of the building like a ray of light, turn, in an
instant, the whole into a farce, and, in order to obtain a verdict
that could not otherwise be obtained, tell the Jury that the charge of
_falsely, wickedly, and seditiously_, meant nothing; that _truth_ was
out of the question; and that whether the person accused spoke truth or
falsehood, or intended _virtuously or wickedly_, was the same thing;
and finally conclude the wretched inquisitorial scene, by stating
some antiquated precedent, equally as abominable as that which is then
acting, or giving some opinion of his own, and _falsely calling the one
and the other--Law_. It was, most probably, to such a Judge as this,
that the most solemn of all reproofs was given--"_The Lord will smite
thee, thou whitened wall_."
I now proceed to offer some remarks on what is called a Special Jury. As
to what is called a Special Verdict, I shall make no other remark upon
it, than that it is in reality _not_ a verdict. It is an attempt on the
part of the Jury to delegate, or of the Bench to obtain, the exercise of
that right, which is committed to the Jury only.
With respect to the Special Juries, I shall state such matters as I have
been able to collect, for I do not find any uniform opinion concerning
the mode of appointing them.
In the first place, this mode of trial is but of modern invention, and
the origin of it, as I am told, is as follows:
Formerly, when disputes arose between Merchants, and were brought before
a Court, the case was that the nature of their commerce, and the method
of keeping Merchants' accounts not being sufficiently understood by
persons out of their own line, it became necessary to depart from the
common mode of appointing Juries, and to select such persons for a Jury
whose _practical knowledge_ would enable them to decide upon the case.
From this introduction, Special Juries became more general; but some
doubts having arisen as to their legality, an act was passed in the 3d
of George II. to establish them as legal, and also to extend them to all
cases, not only between individuals, but in cases where _the Government
itself should be the prosecutor_. This most probably gave rise to the
suspicion so generally entertained of packing a Jury; because, by this
act, when the Crown, as it is called, is the Prosecutor, the Master of
the Crown-office, who holds his office under the Crown, is the person
who either wholly nominates, or has great power in nominating the Jury,
and therefore it has greatly the appearance of the prosecuting party
selecting a Jury.
The process is as follows:
On motion being made in Court, by either the Plaintiff or Defendant, for
a Special Jury, the Court grants it or not, at its own discretion.
If it be granted, the Solicitor of the party that applied for the
Special Jury, gives notice to the Solicitor of the adverse party, and a
day and hour are appointed for them to meet at the office of the Master
of the Crown-office. The Master of the Crown-office sends to the Sheriff
or his deputy, who attends with the Sheriff's book of Freeholders. From
this book, forty-eight names are taken, and a copy thereof given to each
of the parties; and, on a future day, notice is again given, and the
Solicitors meet a second time, and each strikes out twelve names. The
list being thus reduced from forty-eight to twenty-four, the first
twelve that appear in Court, and answer to their names, is the Special
Jury for that cause. The first operation, that of taking the forty-eight
names, is called nominating the Jury; and the reducing them to
twenty-four is called striking the Jury.
Having thus stated the general process, I come to particulars, and the
first question will be, how are the forty-eight names, out of which the
Jury is to be struck, obtained from the Sheriff's book? For herein lies
the principal ground of suspicion, with respect to what is understood by
packing of Juries.
Either they must be taken by some rule agreed upon between the parties,
or by some common rule known and established beforehand, or at the
discretion of some person, who in such a case, ought to be perfectly
disinterested in the issue, as well officially as otherwise.
In the case of Merchants, and in all cases between individuals,
the Master of the office, called the Crown-office, is officially an
indifferent person, and as such may be a proper person to act between
the parties, and present them with a list of forty-eight names, out of
which each party is to strike twelve. But the case assumes an entire
difference of character, when the Government itself is the Prosecutor.
The Master of the Crown-office is then an officer holding his office
under the Prosecutor; and it is therefore no wonder that the suspicion
of packing Juries should, in such cases, have been so prevalent.
This will apply with additional force, when the prosecution is commenced
against the Author or Publisher of such Works as treat of reforms, and
of the abolition of superfluous places and offices, &c, because in such
cases every person holding an office, subject to that suspicion, becomes
interested as a party; and the office, called the Crown-office, may,
upon examination, be found to be of this description.
I have heard it asserted, that the Master of the Crown-office is to open
the sheriff's book as it were per hazard, and take thereout forty-eight
_following_ names, to which the word Merchant or Esquire is affixed.
The former of these are certainly proper, when the case is between
Merchants, and it has reference to the origin of the custom, and to
nothing else. As to the word Esquire, every man is an Esquire who
pleases to call himself Esquire; and the sensible part of mankind are
leaving it off. But the matter for enquiry is, whether there be any
existing law to direct the mode by which the forty-eight names shall be
taken, or whether the mode be merely that of custom which the office has
created; or whether the selection of the forty-eight names be wholly
at the discretion and choice of the Master of the Crown-office? One or
other of the two latter appears to be the case, because the act already
mentioned, of the 3d of George II. lays down no rule or mode, nor refers
to any preceding law--but says only, that Special Juries shall hereafter
be struck, "_in such manner as Special Juries have been and are usually
struck_."
This act appears to have been what is generally understood by a "_deep
take in_." It was fitted to the spur of the moment in which it was
passed, 3d of George II. when parties ran high, and it served to throw
into the hands of Walpole, who was then Minister, the management of
Juries in Crown prosecutions, by making the nomination of the
forty-eight persons, from whom the Jury was to be struck, follow the
precedent established by custom between individuals, and by this means
slipt into practice with less suspicion. Now, the manner of obtaining
Special Juries through the medium of an officer of the Government, such,
for instance, as a Master of the Crown-office, may be impartial in the
case of Merchants or other individuals, but it becomes highly improper
and suspicious in cases where the Government itself is one of the
parties. And it must, upon the whole, appear a strange inconsistency,
that a Government should keep one officer to commence prosecutions, and
another officer to nominate the forty-eight persons from whom the Jury
is to be struck, both of whom are _officers of the Civil List_, and yet
continue to call this by the pompous name of _the glorious "Right of
trial by Jury!_"
In the case of the King against Jordan, for publishing the Rights of
Man, the Attorney-General moved for the appointment of a Special Jury,
and the Master of the Crown-office nominated the forty-eight persons
himself, and took them from such part of the Sheriff's book as he
pleased.
The trial did not come on, occasioned by Jordan withdrawing his plea;
but if it had, it might have afforded an opportunity of discussing the
subject of Special Juries; for though such discussion might have had
no effect in the Court of King's Bench, it would, in the present
disposition for enquiry, have had a considerable effect upon the
Country; and, in all national reforms, this is the proper point to begin
at. But a Country right, and it will soon put Government right. Among
the improper things acted by the Government in the case of Special
Juries, on their own motion, one has been that of treating the Jury with
a dinner, and afterwards giving each Juryman two guineas, if a verdict
be found for the prosecution, and only one if otherwise; and it has been
long observed, that, in London and Westminster, there are persons who
appear to make a trade of serving, by being so frequently seen upon
Special Juries.
Thus much for Special Juries. As to what is called a _Common Jury_, upon
any Government prosecution against the Author or Publisher of RIGHTS OF
Man, during the time of the _present Sheriffry_, I have one question
to offer, which is, _whether the present Sheriffs of London, having
publicly prejudged the case, by the part they have taken in procuring
an Address from the county of Middlesex, (however diminutive and
insignificant the number of Addressers were, being only one hundred and
eighteen,) are eligible or proper persons to be intrusted with the power
of returning a Jury to try the issue of any such prosecution_.
But the whole matter appears, at least to me, to be worthy of a more
extensive consideration than what relates to any Jury, whether Special
or Common; for the case is, whether any part of a whole nation, locally
selected as a Jury of twelve men always is, be competent to judge and
determine for the whole nation, on any matter that relates to systems
and principles of Government, and whether it be not applying the
institution of Juries to purposes for which such institutions were not
intended? For example,
I have asserted, in the Work Rights of Man, that as every man in the
nation pays taxes, so has every man a right to a share in government,
and consequently that the people of Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield,
Leeds, Halifax, &c have the same right as those of London. Shall, then,
twelve men, picked out between Temple-bar and Whitechapel, because the
book happened to be first published there, decide upon the rights of
the inhabitants of those towns, or of any other town or village in the
nation?
Having thus spoken of Juries, I come next to offer a few observations on
the matter contained in the information or prosecution.
The work, Rights of Man, consists of Part the First, and Fart the
Second. The First Part the prosecutor has thought it most proper to let
alone; and from the Second Fart he has selected a few short paragraphs,
making in the whole not quite two pages of the same printing as in the
cheap edition. Those paragraphs relate chiefly to certain facts, such
as the revolution of 1688, and the coming of George the First, commonly
called of the House of Hanover, or the House of Brunswick, or some such
House. The arguments, plans and principles contained in the work, the
prosecutor has not ventured to attack. They are beyond his reach.
The Act which the prosecutor appears to rest most upon for the support
of the prosecution, is the Act intituled, "An Act, declaring the rights
and liberties of the subject, and settling the succession of the crown,"
passed in the first year of William and Mary, and more commonly known by
the name of the "Bill of Rights."
I have called this bill "_A Bill of wrongs and of insult_." My reasons,
and also my proofs, are as follow:
The method and principle which this Bill takes for declaring rights and
liberties, are in direct contradiction to rights and liberties; it is an
assumed attempt to take them wholly from posterity--for the declaration
in the said Bill is as follows:
"The Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do, in _the name of all
the people_, most humbly and faithfully _submit themselves, their heirs,
and posterity for ever_;" that is, to William and Mary his wife, their
heirs and successors. This is a strange way of declaring rights and
liberties. But the Parliament who made this declaration in the name, and
on the part, of the people, had no authority from them for so doing;
and with respect to _posterity for ever_, they had no right or authority
whatever in the case. It was assumption and usurpation. I have reasoned
very extensively against the principle of this Bill, in the first part
of Rights of Man; the prosecutor has silently admitted that reasoning,
and he now commences a prosecution on the authority of the Bill, after
admitting the reasoning against it.
It is also to be observed, that the declaration in this Bill, abject and
irrational as it is, had no other intentional operation than against the
family of the Stuarts, and their abettors. The idea did not then exist,
that in the space of an hundred years, posterity might discover a
different and much better system of government, and that every species
of hereditary government might fall, as Popes and Monks had fallen
before. This, I say, was not then thought of, and therefore the
application of the Bill, in the present case, is a new, erroneous, and
illegal application, and is the same as creating a new Bill _ex post
facto_.
It has ever been the craft of Courtiers, for the purpose of keeping
up an expensive and enormous Civil List, and a mummery of useless and
antiquated places and offices at the public expence, to be continually
hanging England upon some individual or other, called _King_, though
the man might not have capacity to be a parish constable. The folly and
absurdity of this, is appearing more and more every day; and still those
men continue to act as if no alteration in the public opinion had taken
place. They hear each other's nonsense, and suppose the whole nation
talks the same Gibberish.
Let such men cry up the House of Orange, or the House of Brunswick,
if they please. They would cry up any other house if it suited their
purpose, and give as good reasons for it. But what is this house, or
that house, or any other house to a nation? "_For a nation to be free,
it is sufficient that she wills it_." Her freedom depends wholly upon
herself, and not on any house, nor on any individual. I ask not in what
light this cargo of foreign houses appears to others, but I will say in
what light it appears to me--It was like the trees of the forest, saying
unto the bramble, come thou and reign over us.
Thus much for both their houses. I now come to speak of two other
houses, which are also put into the information, and those are the
House of Lords, and the House of Commons. Here, I suppose, the
Attorney-General intends to prove me guilty of speaking either truth
or falsehood; for, according to the modern interpretation of Libels, it
does not signify which, and the only improvement necessary to shew the
compleat absurdity of such doctrine, would be, to prosecute a man for
uttering a most _false and wicked truth_.
I will quote the part I am going to give, from the Office Copy, with the
Attorney General's inuendoes, enclosed in parentheses as they stand in
the information, and I hope that civil list officer will caution the
Court not to laugh when he reads them, and also to take care not to
laugh himself.
The information states, that _Thomas Paine, being a wicked, malicious,
seditious, and evil-disposed person, hath, with force and arms, and
most wicked cunning, written and published a certain false, scandalous,
malicious, and seditious libel; in one part thereof, to the tenor and
effect following, that is to say_--
"With respect to the two Houses, of which the English Parliament
(_meaning the Parliament of this Kingdom_) is composed, they appear to
be effectually influenced into one, and, as a Legislature, to have no
temper of its own. The Minister, (_meaning the Minuter employed by the
King of this Realm, in the administration of the Government thereof_)
whoever he at any time may be, touches it (_meaning the two Houses of
Parliament of this Kingdom_) as with an opium wand, and it (_meaning the
two Houses of Parliament of this Kingdom_) sleeps obedience."
As I am not malicious enough to disturb their repose, though it be time
they should awake, I leave the two Houses and the Attorney General, to
the enjoyment of their dreams, and proceed to a new subject.
The Gentlemen, to whom I shall next address myself, are those who have
stiled themselves "_Friends of the people_," holding their meeting at
the Freemasons' Tavern, London.(1)
One of the principal Members of this Society, is Mr. Grey, who, I
believe, is also one of the most independent Members in Parliament.(2)
I collect this opinion from what Mr. Burke formerly mentioned to me,
rather than from any knowledge of my own. The occasion was as follows:
I was in England at the time the bubble broke forth about Nootka Sound:
and the day after the King's Message, as it is called, was sent to
Parliament, I wrote a note to Mr. Burke, that upon the condition the
French Revolution should not be a subject (for he was then writing
the book I have since answered) I would call on him the next day, and
mention some matters I was acquainted with, respecting the affair; for
it appeared to me extraordinary that any body of men, calling themselves
Representatives, should commit themselves so precipitately, or "sleep
obedience," as Parliament was then doing, and run a nation into expence,
and perhaps a war, without so much as enquiring into the case, or the
subject, of both which I had some knowledge.
1 See in the Introduction to this volume Chauvelin's account
of this Association.--_Editor._
2 In the debate in the House of Commons, Dec. 14, 1793, Mr.
Grey is thus reported: "Mr. Grey was not a friend to
Paine's doctrines, but he was not to be deterred by a man
from acknowledging that he considered the rights of man as
the foundation of every government, and those who stood out
against those rights as conspirators against the people." He
severely denounced the Proclamation. Parl. Hist., vol.
xxvi.--_Editor._
When I saw Mr. Burke, and mentioned the circumstances to him, he
particularly spoke of Mr. Grey, as the fittest Member to bring such
matters forward; "for," said Mr. Burke, "_I am not the proper_ person to
do it, as I am in a treaty with Mr. Pitt about Mr. Hastings's trial." I
hope the Attorney General will allow, that Mr. Burke was then _sleeping
his obedience_.--But to return to the Society------
I cannot bring myself to believe, that the general motive of this
Society is any thing more than that by which every former parliamentary
opposition has been governed, and by which the present is sufficiently
known. Failing in their pursuit of power and place within doors, they
have now (and that in not a very mannerly manner) endeavoured to possess
themselves of that ground out of doors, which, had it not been made
by others, would not have been made by them. They appear to me to have
watched, with more cunning than candour, the progress of a certain
publication, and when they saw it had excited a spirit of enquiry,
and was rapidly spreading, they stepped forward to profit by the
opportunity, and Mr. Fox _then_ called it a Libel. In saying this, he
libelled himself. Politicians of this cast, such, I mean, as those who
trim between parties, and lye by for events, are to be found in every
country, and it never yet happened that they did not do more harm
than good. They embarrass business, fritter it to nothing, perplex the
people, and the event to themselves generally is, that they go just
far enough to make enemies of the few, without going far enough to make
friends of the many.
Whoever will read the declarations of this Society, of the 25th of April
and 5th of May, will find a studied reserve upon all the points that are
real abuses. They speak not once of the extravagance of Government, of
the abominable list of unnecessary and sinecure places and pensions, of
the enormity of the Civil List, of the excess of taxes, nor of any one
matter that substantially affects the nation; and from some conversation
that has passed in that Society, it does not appear to me that it is
any part of their plan to carry this class of reforms into practice. No
Opposition Party ever did, when it gained possession.
In making these free observations, I mean not to enter into contention
with this Society; their incivility towards me is what I should expect
from place-hunting reformers. They are welcome, however, to the ground
they have advanced upon, and I wish that every individual among them may
act in the same upright, uninfluenced, and public spirited manner that I
have done. Whatever reforms may be obtained, and by whatever means,
they will be for the benefit of others and not of me. I have no other
interest in the cause than the interest of my heart. The part I have
acted has been wholly that of a volunteer, unconnected with party; and
when I quit, it shall be as honourably as I began.
I consider the reform of Parliament, by an application to Parliament, as
proposed by the Society, to be a worn-out hackneyed subject, about which
the nation is tired, and the parties are deceiving each other. It is not
a subject that is cognizable before Parliament, because no Government
has a right to alter itself, either in whole or in part. The right,
and the exercise of that right, appertains to the nation only, and the
proper means is by a national convention, elected for the purpose, by
all the people. By this, the will of the nation, whether to reform or
not, or what the reform shall be, or how far it shall extend, will be
known, and it cannot be known by any other means. Partial addresses, or
separate associations, are not testimonies of the general will.
It is, however, certain, that the opinions of men, with respect
to systems and principles of government, are changing fast in all
countries. The alteration in England, within the space of a little more
than a year, is far greater than could have been believed, and it is
daily and hourly increasing. It moves along the country with the silence
of thought. The enormous expence of Government has provoked men to
think, by making them feel; and the Proclamation has served to increase
jealousy and disgust. To prevent, therefore, those commotions which too
often and too suddenly arise from suffocated discontents, it is best
that the general WILL should have the full and free opportunity of being
publicly ascertained and known.
Wretched as the state of representation is in England, it is every
day becoming worse, because the unrepresented parts of the nation are
increasing in population and property, and the represented parts are
decreasing. It is, therefore, no ill-grounded estimation to say, that
as not one person in seven is represented, at least fourteen millions of
taxes out of the seventeen millions, are paid by the unrepresented part;
for although copyholds and leaseholds are assessed to the land-tax, the
holders are unrepresented. Should then a general demur take place as to
the obligation of paying taxes, on the ground of not being represented,
it is not the Representatives of Rotten Boroughs, nor Special Juries,
that can decide the question. This is one of the possible cases that
ought to be foreseen, in order to prevent the inconveniencies that might
arise to numerous individuals, by provoking it.
I confess I have no idea of petitioning for rights. Whatever the rights
of people are, they have a right to them, and none have a right either
to withhold them, or to grant them. Government ought to be established
on such principles of justice as to exclude the occasion of all such
applications, for wherever they appear they are virtually accusations.
I wish that Mr. Grey, since he has embarked in the business, would take
the whole of it into consideration. He will then see that the right of
reforming the state of the Representation does not reside in Parliament,
and that the only motion he could consistently make would be, that
Parliament should _recommend_ the election of a convention of the
people, because all pay taxes. But whether Parliament recommended it
or not, the right of the nation would neither be lessened nor increased
thereby.
As to Petitions from the unrepresented part, they ought not to be looked
for. As well might it be expected that Manchester, Sheffield, &c.
should petition the rotten Boroughs, as that they should petition the
Representatives of those Boroughs. Those two towns alone pay far more
taxes than all the rotten Boroughs put together, and it is scarcely to
be expected they should pay their court either to the Boroughs, or the
Borough-mongers.
It ought also to be observed, that what is called Parliament, is
composed of two houses that have always declared against the right of
each other to interfere in any matter that related to the circumstances
of either, particularly that of election. A reform, therefore, in the
representation cannot, on the ground they have individually taken,
become the subject of an act of Parliament, because such a mode would
include the interference, against which the Commons on their part have
protested; but must, as well on the ground of formality, as on that of
right, proceed from a National Convention.
Let Mr. Grey, or any other man, sit down and endeavour to put his
thoughts together, for the purpose of drawing up an application to
Parliament for a reform of Parliament, and he will soon convince himself
of the folly of the attempt. He will find that he cannot get on; that
he cannot make his thoughts join, so as to produce any effect; for,
whatever formality of words he may use, they will unavoidably include
two ideas directly opposed to each other; the one in setting forth
the reasons, the other in praying for relief, and the two, when placed
together, would stand thus: "_The Representation in Parliament is so
very corrupt, that we can no longer confide in it,--and, therefore,
confiding in the justice and wisdom of Parliament, we pray_," &c, &c.
The heavy manner in which every former proposed application to
Parliament has dragged, sufficiently shews, that though the nation might
not exactly see the awkwardness of the measure, it could not clearly see
its way, by those means. To this also may be added another remark, which
is, that the worse Parliament is, the less will be the inclination to
petition it. This indifference, viewed as it ought to be, is one of the
strongest censures the public express. It is as if they were to say to
them, "Ye are not worth reforming."
Let any man examine the Court-Kalendar of Placemen in both Houses, and
the manner in which the Civil List operates, and he will be at no loss
to account for this indifference and want of confidence on one side, nor
of the opposition to reforms on the other.
Who would have supposed that Mr. Burke, holding forth as he formerly
did against secret influence, and corrupt majorities, should become
a concealed Pensioner? I will now state the case, not for the little
purpose of exposing Mr. Burke, but to shew the inconsistency of any
application to a body of men, more than half of whom, as far as the
nation can at present know, may be in the same case with himself.
Towards the end of Lord North's administration, Mr. Burke brought a bill
into Parliament, generally known by Mr. Burke's Reform Bill; in which,
among other things, it is enacted, "That no pension exceeding the sum
of three hundred pounds a year, shall be granted to any one person,
and that the whole amount of the pensions granted in one year shall not
exceed six hundred pounds; a list of which, together with the _names
of the persons_ to whom the same are granted, shall be laid before
Parliament in twenty days after the beginning of each session, until
the whole pension list shall be reduced to ninety thousand pounds." A
provisory clause is afterwards added, "That it shall be lawful for the
First Commissioner of the Treasury, to return into the Exchequer any
pension or annuity, _without a name_, on his making oath that such
pension or annuity is not directly or indirectly for the benefit, use,
or behoof of any Member of the House of Commons."
But soon after that administration ended, and the party Mr. Burke acted
with came into power, it appears from the circumstances I am going to
relate, that Mr. Burke became himself a Pensioner in disguise; in a
similar manner as if a pension had been granted in the name of John
Nokes, to be privately paid to and enjoyed by Tom Stiles. The name of
Edmund Burke does not appear in the original transaction: but after the
pension was obtained, Mr. Burke wanted to make the most of it at once,
by selling or mortgaging it; and the gentleman in whose name the pension
stands, applied to one of the public offices for that purpose. This
unfortunately brought forth the name of _Edmund Burke_, as the real
Pensioner of 1,500L. per annum.(1) When men trumpet forth what they call
the blessings of the Constitution, it ought to be known what sort of
blessings they allude to.
As to the Civil List of a million a year, it is not to be supposed that
any one man can eat, drink, or consume the whole upon himself. The case
is, that above half the sum is annually apportioned among Courtiers,
and Court Members, of both Houses, in places and offices, altogether
insignificant and perfectly useless as to every purpose of civil,
rational, and manly government. For instance,
Of what use in the science and system of Government is what is called
a Lord Chamberlain, a Master and Mistress of the Robes, a Master of the
Horse, a Master of the Hawks, and one hundred other such things? Laws
derive no additional force, nor additional excellence from such mummery.
In the disbursements of the Civil List for the year 1786, (which may be
seen in Sir John Sinclair's History of the Revenue,) are four separate
charges for this mummery office of Chamberlain:
[Illustration: table110]
From this sample the rest may be guessed at. As to the Master of the
Hawks, (there are no hawks kept, and if there were, it is no reason the
people should pay the expence of feeding them, many of whom are put to
it to get bread for their children,) his salary is 1,372L. 10s.