REFLECTIONS

ON THE

REVOLUTION IN FRANCE,

AND ON THE PROCEEDINGS IN CERTAIN SOCIETIES

IN LONDON RELATIVE TO THAT EVENT.

IN A LETTER INTENDED TO HAVE BEEN SENT TO A GENTLEMAN IN PARIS.

BY THE RIGHT HONOURABLE

EDMUND BURK E.

[Published in October, 1790. Eleventh Edition, Dodsley, 1791.]

[ARGUMENT.

PART I, PP. 4—193.

THE SENTIMENTS AND POLITICAL DOCTRINES OF ENGLISHMEN COMPARED WITH THOSE OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTIONISTS.

INTRODUCTION. The Constitutional Society and the Revolution Society, p. 4. The Sermon of Dr. Price, p. 12. It misrepresents the English Constitution, p. 15. The Right 'to choose our own governors' disclaimed and refuted as a practical doctrine, p. 18. The Right 'to cashier them for misconduct' disclaimed, &c., p. 31. The Right 'to form a government for ourselves' disclaimed, &c., and English liberties shown to be essentially an inheritance, p. 36. Comparison of the proceedings of the English Revolutionists in 1688 with those of the French Revolutionists in 1789, p. 41. The latter accounted for by the composition of the National Assembly, p. 46. Character of the representatives of the Tiers État, p. 47; of the Clergy, p. 53. Influence of turbulent nobles, p. 54. Jacobinical fallacies on the qualifications for political power, the nature of property, &c., p. 57, cannot result in the true liberty, p. 62, nor in the true representation of a people, p. 66. The true Rights of Man, p. 68, and their VOL. II.

B

connexion with the principle of government, p. 70. The distemper of remedy, p. 74. Illiberality and inhumanity of the Sermon of Dr. Price, p. 75. Price compared with Peters, p. 77. The treatment of the King and Royal Family of France, p. 79, contrasted with the spirit of old European manners and opinions, which being natural and politic, still influences Englishmen, p. 89. Louis XVI. no tyrant, p. 96. The author thinks the honour of England concerned for the repudiation of Dr. Price's doctrines and sentiments, p. 99, and proceeds to exhibit the true picture of the English political system, p. 104, which is based on 1. the Church, 2. the Crown, 3. the Nobility, 4. the People, p. 105.

SECT. I. The Church Establishment in England. Religion grounded in nature, and most necessary where there is most liberty, p. 108, aiding to enforce the obligation that ought to subsist between one generation and another, p. 111, which is the true Social Contract, p. 113. Use of the Church, as a cementing and pervading principle, to the State, p. 115. The end attained by its control over Education, p. 117. Influence of Religion equally necessary to rich

and to poor, p. 119. The rights of property apply to the Estates of the Church, and are grossly outraged by the confiscation of Church property in France, p. 122. National Credit of France, a hollow pretext, p. 126. Monied interest hostile to the Church, p. 128. Men of Letters hostile, p. 130. Their Coalition to destroy it, p. 133. This Confiscation compared with others, p. 135. Unnecessary, p. 138. Badly or fraudulently carried out, p. 142. SECT. II. (Fragment only.) The monarchical government of France; Its abuses not incurable, p. 145. Standards to judge of its effects; Population, p. 150. National Wealth, p. 152. Patriotic spirit of late Government, p. 155.

SECT. III. (Fragment only.) The French Nobility, p. 158.

SECT. IV. (No remains.)

SECT. I, continued. The French Clergy: their vices not the cause of the confiscation, p. 164.

Vices of the ancient Clergy no pretext for confiscation, p. 167. Character of modern French Clergy, p. 171. Anarchy of the new Church System, p. 173, contrasted with the Protestant Church Policy of England, p. 176. Atheistical fanaticism, p. 180. The policy of confiscation contrasted with that of conservation, p. 182.

PART II, pp. 193–294.

THE POLICY OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY CRITICISED.

INTRODUCTION. Their right to act denied, p. 193. Their spirit, p. 195.

Their ignorance of Statesmanship, p. 196. The result of their labours criticised, p. 202.

Ir may not be unnecessary to inform the Reader, that the following Reflections had their origin in a correspondence between the Author and a very young gentleman at Paris, who did him the honour of desiring his opinion. upon the important transactions, which then, and ever since, have so much occupied the attention of all men. An answer was written some time in the month of October, 1789; but it was kept back upon prudential considerations. That letter is alluded to in the beginning of the following sheets. It has been since forwarded to the person to whom it was addressed. The reasons for the delay in sending it were assigned in a short letter to the same gentleman. This produced on his part a new and pressing application for the Author's sentiments.

The Author began a second and more full discussion on the subject. This he had some thoughts of publishing early in the last spring; but the matter gaining upon him, he found that what he had undertaken not only far exceeded the measure of a letter, but that its importance required rather a more detailed consideration than at that time he had any leisure to bestow upon it. However, having thrown down his first thoughts in the form of a letter, and indeed when he sat down to write, having intended it for a private letter, he found it difficult to change the form of address, when his sentiments had grown into a greater extent, and had received another direction. A different plan, he is sensible, might be more favourable to a commodious division and distribution of his matter.

DEAR SIR,

You are pleased to call again, and with some earnestness, for my thoughts on the late proceedings in France. I will not give you reason to imagine that I think my sentiments of such value as to wish myself to be solicited about them. They are of too little consequence to be very anxiously either communicated or withheld. It was from attention to you, and to you only, that I hesitated at the time, when you first desired to receive them. In the first letter I had the honour to write to you, and which at length I send, I wrote neither for nor from any description of men; nor shall I in this. My errors, if any, are my own. My reputation alone is to answer for them.

You see, Sir, by the long letter I have transmitted to you, that, though I do most heartily wish that France may be animated by a spirit of rational liberty, and that I think you bound, in all honest policy, to provide a permanent body, in which that spirit may reside, and an effectual organ, by which it may act, it is my misfortune to entertain great doubts concerning several material points in your late transactions.

You imagined, when you wrote last, that I might possibly be reckoned among the approvers of certain proceedings in France, from the solemn public seal of sanction they have. received from two clubs of gentlemen in London, called the Constitutional Society, and the Revolution Society.

I certainly have the honour to belong to more clubs than one, in which the constitution of this kingdom and the principles of the glorious Revolution, are held in high reverence and I reckon myself among the most forward in my zeal for maintaining that constitution and those principles in their utmost purity and vigour. It is because I do so, that I think it necessary for me, that there should be no mistake. Those who cultivate the memory of our revolution, and those who are attached to the constitution of this kingdom, will