Vindiciae Gallicae and Other Writings on the French Revolution

Vindiciae Gallicae: Section IV: New Constitution of France

91 u s e c t i o n i v u New Constitution of France.* A dissertation approaching to completeness on the new Constitution of France would, in fact, be a vast system of political science. It wouldinclude a development of the principles that regulate every portion of Government . So immense an attempt is little suited to our present limits.Butsome remarks on the prominent features of the French system are exacted by the nature of our vindication. They will consist chiefly of a defence of their grand Theoretic Principle, and their most important Practical Institution . The principle of theory which has actuated the Legislators of Francehas been, that the object of all legitimate Government is the assertion and protection of the Natural Rights of Man. They cannot indeed be absolved of some deviations† from the path prescribed by this greatprinciple; few indeed compared with those of any other body of whom history has preserved any record; but too many for their own glory, and for the happiness of the human race. This principle, however, is the basis of their edifice, and if it be false, the structure must fall to the ground. Against this principle, therefore, Mr. Burke has, with great judgment, directed his attack . Appeals to natural right are, according to him, inconsistent and preposterous . A complete abdication and surrender of all natural right is made * I cannot help exhorting those who desire to have accurate notions on the subject of this section, to peruse and study the delineation of the French Constitution, which, with a correctness so admirable, has been given by Mr. Christie. [Thomas Christie, Letters on the Revolution of France (London: J. Johnson, 1791).] † I particularly allude to their Colonial policy; but I think it candid to say, that I see in their full force the difficulties of that embarrassing business. 92 vindiciae gallicae by man in entering into Society, and the only rights which heretains are created by the compact which holds together the society of which he is member. This doctrine he thus explicitly asserts.—“The moment,” says he, “you abate any thing from the full rights of men each to govern himself, and suffer any artificial positive limitation on those rights, from that moment the whole organization of society becomes a consideration of convenience.” Burke, p. 152. “How can any man claim under the conventions of civil society rights which do not so much as suppose its existence —Rights which are absolutely repugnant to it?” Ibid. p. 151. To the same purpose is his whole reasoning from p. 149 to p. 155. To examine this doctrine, therefore, is of fundamental importance. To this effect it is not necessary to enteronanyelaborateresearchintothemetaphysicalprinciples of politics and ethics. A full discussion of the subject would indeed demand such an investigation.*The originof naturalrightsmusthavebeen illustrated, and even their existence proved against some theorists.Butsuch an enquiry would have been inconsistent with the nature of a publication, of which the object was to enforce conviction on the people. We arebesides absolved from the necessity of it in a controversy with Mr. Burke, who himself recognizes, in the most ample form, the existence of those natural rights. Granting their existence, the discussion is short. The only criterion by which we can estimate the portion of natural right surrendered by man on entering into society is the object of the surrender. If more is claimed than that object exacts, it becomes not an object, but apretext. Now the object for which a man resigns any portion of his natural sovereignty over his own actions is, that he may be protected from the abuse of the same dominion in other men. No greater sacrifice is therefore necessary than is prescribed by this object, the resignation of powers that in their exercise might be injurious to another. Nothing, therefore, can be more * It might, perhaps, not be difficult to prove, that far from a surrender, there is not even a diminution of the natural rights of men by their entrance into Society. The existence of some union with greater or less permanence and perfection of public force for public protection (the essence of Government) might be demonstrated to be coeval, and co-extended with man. All theories therefore, which suppose the actual existence of any state antecedent to the social, might be convicted of futility and falsehood. section iv 93 fallacious than to...