COMMON SENSE.
Junius is heard no more in England. The fame of this unknown author has gone round the world. A score of volumes have been written to prove his identity with a score of names. But all that has been said is wild with conjecture, and arguments have only been built upon "rumor," and "facts" drawn from the imagination. A scientific criticism has never been attempted. Truth has been insulted by the imagination in its wild ramblings, and writers have contented themselves with theory and fancy, "to pile up reluctant quarto upon solid folio, as if their labors, because they are gigantic, could contend with truth and Heaven." But while the king and his cabinet are setting traps, and hunting up and down the whole realm for this "mighty boar of the forest," in fear that he will again plunge at the king, or tear the ermine of Lord Mansfield, Thomas Paine, just landed upon the shores of America, hurls back a shaft at royalty which transfixes it to the wall of its castle. This was Common Sense. A reaction had taken place in England, and the people of America were also affected thereby. Reconciliation was the cry, independence scarcely lisped, and, when lisped, people "startled at the novelty of it." "In this state of political suspense," says Mr. Paine, "the pamphlet of Common Sense made its appearance, and the success it met with does not become me to mention. Dr. Franklin, Mr. Samuel, and John Adams were severally spoken of as the supposed author. I had not, at that time, the pleasure either of personally knowing or being known to the two last gentlemen. The favor of Dr. Franklin's friendship I possessed in England, and my introduction to this part of the world was through his patronage.... In October, 1775, Dr. Franklin proposed giving me such materials as were in his hands toward completing a history of the present transactions, and seemed desirous of having the first volume out the next spring. I had then formed the outlines of Common Sense and finished nearly the first part; and, as I supposed the doctor's design in getting out a history was to open the new year with a new system, I expected to surprise him with a production on that subject much earlier than he thought of, and, without informing him what I was doing, got it ready for the press as fast as I conveniently could, and sent him the first pamphlet that was printed off."—Note, Crisis, iii.
Opening the new year with a new system is emphatically what Junius also did, and it is most remarkable that the appearance of Junius' first Letter had, at first, the same effect in England that Common Sense had in America. Both came like thunderbolts. "On January 10, 1776, when 'a reconciliation with the mother country was the wish of almost every American,' a pamphlet called Common Sense, advocating the establishment of a republic of free and independent states, 'burst upon the world'—in the language of Dr. Rush—'with an effect which has rarely been produced by types and paper in any age or country.' It was immediately denounced as 'one of the most artful, insidious, and pernicious of pamphlets!' John Dickinson, a staunch supporter of the American cause, and author of the 'Farmers' Letters,' opposed the idea of independence in a speech as a member of the Continental Congress. The author of 'Plain Truth,' one of the many replies to Common Sense, thought that 'volumes were insufficient to describe the horror, misery, and desolation awaiting the people at large in the siren form of American independence.' Dr. William Smith, provost of the University of Pennsylvania, said, in his 'Cato's Letters,' published in March, 1776: 'Nor have many weeks yet elapsed since the first open proposition for independence was published to the world; it certainly has no countenance from congress, and is only the idol of those who wish to subvert all order among us, and rise on the ruins of their country.'"—Art. Thomas Paine, New Am. Cyc.
This was the first effort in America toward revolution. It was a bold hand, moved by a daring heart, that wrote Common Sense. In style and language, in argument and sentiment, in spirit and character, it is the finest political document ever produced in the English language. The object for which Junius and Common Sense were written I have shown to be the same, namely: revolution, and that the base of operation has only been changed. It is still an attack upon king, lords, and commons, and a defense of the people. I now go to show that Common Sense is a concise reproduction of Junius, in sentiment, style, and method of argumentation. But I will first call to the reader's mind a sentence from Junius in answer to the assertion of Dr. Smith just quoted, that Common Sense was "the first open proposition for independence." On the contrary, the first open statement of Junius in regard to the colonies, addressed to the king six years before this, is as follows: "Looking forward to independence, they might possibly receive you for their king; but, if you ever retire to America, be assured they will give you such a covenant to digest as the presbytery of Scotland would have been ashamed to offer to Charles the Second. They left their native land in search of freedom, and found it in a desert. Divided as they are into a thousand forms of policy and religion, there is one point in which they all agree—they equally detest the pageantry of a king, and the supercilious hypocrisy of a bishop."
I have now only to remark: when Thomas Paine came to America, at least when he wrote Common Sense, he understood the American people and what they wanted better than they did themselves; and so did Junius.
I now bring Common Sense and Junius together to show parallels of idea, method, and style.
| | |
|
Common Sense was addressed
to the inhabitants
of America, the Introduction
of which is as follows:
"Perhaps the sentiments
contained in the following
pages are not yet sufficiently
fashionable to procure
them general favor; a long
habit of not thinking a
thing wrong, gives it a superficial
appearance of being
right, and raises, at
first, a formidable outcry
in defense of custom. But
the tumult soon subsides.
Time makes more converts
than Reason."
"A long and violent
abuse of power is generally
the means of calling the
right of it in question (and
in matters, too, which
might never have been
thought of had not the sufferers
been aggravated into
the inquiry), and as the
king of England hath undertaken,
in his own right,
to support the parliament
in what he calls theirs, and
as the good people of this
country are grievously oppressed
by the combination,
they have an undoubted
privilege to inquire into the
pretensions of both, and
equally to reject the usurpations
of either.
"In the following sheets
the author hath studiously
avoided every thing which
is personal among ourselves.
Compliments as well as
censure to individuals make
no part thereof. The wise
and the worthy need not
the triumph of a pamphlet;
and those whose sentiments
are injudicious or unfriendly
will cease of themselves,
unless too much pains is
bestowed upon their conversion."
"The cause of America
is, in a great measure, the
cause of all mankind.
Many circumstances have
and will arise, which are
not local, but universal,
and through which the
principles of all lovers of
mankind are affected, and
in the event of which, their
affections are interested.
The laying a country desolate
with fire and sword,
declaring war against the
natural rights of mankind,
and extirpating the defenders
thereof from the face of
the earth, is the concern of
every man to whom nature
hath given the power of
feeling; of which class, regardless
of party censure,
is The Author."
|
Junius was dedicated to
the English nation; portions
of the Dedication are
as follows:
"I dedicate to you a collection
of letters written by
one of yourselves, for the
common benefit of us all.
They would never have
grown to this size without
your continued encouragement
and applause. To
me they originally owe
nothing but a healthy, sanguine
constitution. Under
your care they have thriven;
to you they are indebted for
whatever strength or beauty
they possess."
"When kings and ministers
are forgotten, when
the force and direction of
personal satire is no longer
understood, and when measures
are only felt in their
remotest consequences, this
book will, I believe, be
found to contain principles
worthy to be transmitted
to posterity. When you
leave the unimpaired, hereditary
freehold to your
children, you do but half
your duty. Both liberty
and property are precarious,
unless the possessors have
sense and spirit enough to
defend them.
"Be assured that the laws
which protect us in our
civil rights, grow out of
the constitution, and they
must fall or flourish with
it. This is not the cause
of faction or of party, or of
any individual, but the
common interest of every
man in Britain. Although
the king should continue
to support his present system
of government, the period
is not very distant at
which you will have the
means of redress in your
own power; it may be
nearer, perhaps, than any
of us expect; and I would
warn you to be prepared
for it...."
"You can not but conclude,
without the possibility
of a doubt, that long
parliaments are the foundation
of the undue influence
of the crown. This influence
answers every purpose
of arbitrary power to
the crown.... It promises
every gratification to avarice
and ambition, and secures
impunity.... You
are roused at last to a sense
of your danger; the remedy
will soon be in your power.
If Junius lives you
shall often be reminded of
it. If, when the opportunity
presents itself, you
neglect to do your duty to
yourselves and to posterity,
to God and to your country,
I shall have one consolation
left in common
with the meanest and
basest of mankind: civil
liberty may still last the
life of Junius."
|
I would call the attention of the reader to the manner in which they close: to the cause of which they speak: to the object of their labors: to the fact that they stand above party or faction: to the expression of Junius, "written by one of yourselves:" to the declaration that if he lives he will often remind the English people of the danger they are in and of the remedy: to the fact that Mr. Paine here does it, and continues to do it ever after while he lives: in short, I would call the attention of the reader to the perfect similarity in style, object, and sentiment, save in this—the one was the requiem of Freedom in England, the other, her natal song in America.
As I have called attention to the style, I would caution the reader not to be betrayed by the word "hath" of Mr. Paine. It by no means affects the style. It was doubtless used or not used at first as a blind by Mr. Paine; for he sometimes used it and sometimes did not. A few years later in life it is abandoned altogether, and Junius occasionally lets it slip. See Let. 37. And also the word "doth."—Note, Let. 41.
The following gives a distinction between society and government, the failure of human conscience, and the necessary surrender of human liberty:
| Common Sense. | Junius. |
|
"Society in every state is
a blessing, but government
even in its best state is but
a necessary evil. In its
worst state, an intolerable
one; for when we suffer or
are exposed to the same
miseries by a government
which we might expect in
a country without government,
our calamity is
heightened by reflecting,
that we furnish the means
by which we suffer. Government,
like dress, is the
badge of lost innocence.
The palaces of kings are
built upon the ruins of the
bowers of paradise, for were
the impulses of conscience
clear, uniform, and irresistibly
obeyed, man would need
no other law-giver; but
that not being the case, he
finds it necessary to surrender
up a part of his property
to furnish means for
the protection of the rest;
and this he is induced to
do by the same prudence
which in every other case
advises him out of two
evils to choose the least." |
"It is not in the nature of
human society that any
form of government in
such circumstances can long
be preserved."—Let. 35.
"The multitude in all
countries are patient to a
certain point. Ill usage
may rouse their indignation
and hurry them into excesses,
but the original fault
is in government.
"The ruin or prosperity
of a state depends so much
upon the administration of
its government, that to
be acquainted with the
merit of a ministry, we
need only observe the
condition of the people."—Let. 1.
"If conscience plays the
tyrant it would be greatly
for the benefit of the
world that she were more
arbitrary and far less placable
than some men find
her."—Let. 27.
"I lament the unhappy
necessity whenever it arises
of providing for the safety
of the state by a temporary
invasion of the personal
liberty of the subject."—Let.
58.
"Junius feels and acknowledges
the evil in the
most express terms, and
will show himself ready to
concur in any rational plan
that may provide for the
liberty of the individual
without hazarding the
safety of the community."—Let. 63.
|
Mr. Paine now proceeds to form a government upon an ideal plan, and show the origin of those first principles which would operate in the first peopling of a country. "But as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice," the natural restraints of society will not be sufficient to check it; this will necessitate the establishment of a government. At first, the whole colony may deliberate, and in the first parliament every man will have a seat. But as the colony increases this can not be done, because inconvenience prohibits it. He now observes:
| Common Sense. | Junius. |
|
"This will point out the
convenience of their consenting
to leave the legislative
part to be managed
by a select number chosen
from the whole body, who
are supposed to have the
same interests at stake
which those have who appointed
them, and who will
act in the same manner as
the whole body would were
they present. If the colony
continue increasing, it
will become necessary to
augment the number of
representatives; and that
the interest of every part
of the colony may be attended
to, it will be found
best to divide the whole
into convenient parts, each
part sending its proper
number; and that the
elected might never form
to themselves an interest
separate from the electors,
prudence will point out the
propriety of having elections
often; because, as the
elected might by that means
return and mix again with
the general body of the
electors, in a few months
their fidelity to the public
will be secured by the prudent
reflection of making a
rod for themselves. And
as this frequent interchange
will establish a common
interest with every part of
the community, they will
mutually and naturally
support each other, and on
this (not on the unmeaning
name of king) depends the
strength of government and
the happiness of the governed."
"Here, then, is the origin
and rise of government;
viz, a mode rendered
necessary by the inability
of moral virtue to govern
the world; here, too, is the
design and end of government,
viz: freedom and security.
And however our
eyes may be dazzled with
show, or our ears deceived
by sound; however prejudice
may warp our wills,
or interest darken our understanding,
the simple voice of nature and reason
will say, it is right." |
"The House of Commons
are only interpreters whose
duty it is to convey the
sense of the people faithfully
to the crown; if the interpretation
be false or imperfect,
the constituent
powers are called to deliver
their own sentiments.
Their speech is rude but
intelligible; their gestures
fierce but full of explanation.
Perplexed with
sophistries, their honest
eloquence rises into action."—Let.
38.
"I am convinced that if
shortening the duration of
parliaments (which, in effect,
is keeping the representative
under the rod of
the constituent) be not
made the basis of our
new parliamentary jurisprudence,
other checks or
improvements signify nothing.
On the contrary, if
this be made the foundation,
other measures may
come in aid, and, as auxiliaries,
be of considerable
advantage. If we are sincere
in the political creed
we profess, there are many
things can not be done by
king, lords and commons."—Let. 68.
"The free election of our
representatives in parliament
comprehends, because
it is the source and security
of every right and privilege
of the English nation.
The ministry have realized
the compendious ideas of
Caligula. They know that
the liberty, the laws, and
property of an Englishman,
have in truth but one
neck, and that to violate
the freedom of election
strikes deeply at them all."—Let. 39.
"Does the law of parliament,
which we are often
told is the law of the land;
does the right of every
subject of the realm, depend
upon an arbitrary, capricious
vote of one branch of
the legislature? The voice
of truth and reason must
be silent."—Let. 20.
|
In the above the sentiment is not only the same, but the same metaphors are used. As a "rod" for the representative, and the "voice of reason."
In the following the same metaphor also is used, but with a change in the application.
| Common Sense. | Junius. |
|
"But the constitution of
England is so exceedingly
complex, that the nation
may suffer for years together
without being able
to discover in which part
the fault lies; some will
say in one, some in another,
and every political physician
will advise a different
medicine." |
"After a rapid succession
of changes, we are reduced
to that state which hardly
any change can mend. It
is not the disorder, but the
physician: it is not a casual
concurrence of calamitous
circumstances; it is the
pernicious hand of government
which alone can make
a whole people desperate."—Let. 1. |
In the above, Junius is speaking, in his first Letter, with all the prejudices of an Englishman in favor of the constitution. But this soon wears off, and in his closing Letter he speaks as boldly as Common Sense.
| Common Sense. | Junius. |
|
"I know it is difficult to
get over local or long
standing prejudices, yet if
we will suffer ourselves
to examine the component
parts of the English constitution,
we will find them
to be the base remains of
two ancient tyrannies, compounded
with some new
republican materials.
First: The remains of
monarchical tyranny in the
person of the king.
Secondly: The remains
of aristocratical tyranny in
the persons of the peers.
Thirdly: The new republican
materials in the persons
of the commons, on
whose virtue depends the
freedom of England."
·····
"The nearer any government
approaches to a republic,
the less business there is
for a king. It is somewhat
difficult, to find a proper
name for the government
of England. Sir William
Meredith calls it a republic,
but in its present state
it is unworthy of the name,
because the corrupt influence
of the crown by having
all the places at its disposal,
hath so effectually swallowed
up the power, and
eaten out the virtue of the
House of Commons (the
republican part in the constitution),
that the government
of England is nearly
as monarchical as that of
France or Spain. Men fall
out with names without understanding
them. For it is
the republican and not the
monarchical part of the
constitution of England,
which Englishmen glory
in, viz: the liberty of choosing
a House of Commons
from out their own body;
and it is easy to see, that
when republican virtue
fails, slavery ensues. Why
is the constitution of England
sickly, but because
monarchy hath poisoned the
republic, the crown hath
engrossed the commons."
|
"I confess, sir, that I felt
the prejudices of my education
in favor of a House
of Commons still hanging
about me.... The
state of things is much
altered in this country since
it was necessary to protect
our representatives against
the direct power of the crown.
We have nothing to apprehend
from prerogative, but
every thing from undue influence."—Let.
44.
See how Junius now
bows to monarchy in order
to strike it: "I can more
readily admire the liberal
spirit and integrity, than
the sound judgment of any
man who prefers a republican
form of government in
this or any other empire
of equal extent, to a monarchy
so qualified and
limited as ours. I am
convinced that neither is it
in theory the wisest system
of government, nor practicable
in this country. Yet,
though I hope the English
constitution will forever
preserve its original monarchical
form, I would have
the manners of the people
purely and strictly republican.
I do not mean the
licentious spirit of anarchy
and riot; I mean a general
attachment to the common
weal, distinct from any
partial attachment to persons
or families; an implicit
submission to the
laws only; and an affection
to the magistrate proportioned
to the integrity and
wisdom with which he
distributes justice to the
people, and administers
their affairs. The present
habit of our political body
appears to me the very
reverse of what it ought to
be. The form of the constitution
leans rather more
than enough to the popular
branch; while in effect the
manners of the people (of
those at least who are
likely to take the lead in
the country) incline too
generally to a dependence
upon the crown. The real
friends of arbitrary power combine the facts, and are
not inconsistent with their principles, when they strenuously
support the unwarrantable privileges assumed
by the House of Commons. In these circumstances it
were much to be desired that we had many such men
as Mr. Sawbridge to represent us in parliament. I
speak from common report and opinion only, when I
impute to him a speculative predilection in favor of a
republic. In the personal conduct and manners of
the man I can not be mistaken. He has shown himself
possessed of that republican firmness which the times
require, and by which an English gentleman may be
as usefully and as honorably distinguished as any citizen
of ancient Rome, of Athens, or Lacedemon."—Let. 58.
|
I would remark on the above passage from Junius, that this is one of his finest rhetorical efforts, and it is well worthy of a moment's pause, to study its plan and probable effect on the English mind. This was written near the close of his literary campaign. The reaction had set in, and he was stemming the tide of public opinion. He wishes to bring the people up to his republican notions, and to rouse them to action. He begins by admiring the liberal spirit and integrity of the man, but reflects on his judgment who prefers a republic to a monarchy so qualified and limited in a country of that size. He limits monarchy to a small country. The reader will mark how guarded he is here. He is fully aware of the prejudices of the people in favor of monarchy, and doubtless he spoke his own sentiments at the time, qualified as they were. Mr. Paine afterward spoke of "setting up the Duke of Gloucester, deposing the king, and bringing the ministers to trial." Junius has now prepared the public ear for an attentive and respectful hearing; he has bowed to monarchy, and touched the heart of his audience. He now introduces the principles of a republic, which produce a spirit devoid of anarchy and riot, but one attached to the common weal and submissive to the laws only. He now tenderly chides the people for their dependence upon the crown, especially the leaders. He then advances to a charge of inconsistency, and shows the advantage the friends of arbitrary power take of it. He now supports himself by authority in a eulogy on Mr. Sawbridge, of whom he says: "He has shown himself possessed of that republican firmness which the times require." He at last caps the climax with an array of republics, and a hint that an English gentleman would be "honorably distinguished" if he would come forward and play the part of Brutus. The whole paragraph is deeply planned and finely wrought out, and would fall with stunning weight upon the mind of the English nation.
But let us proceed. Mr. Paine asked, in the last sentence quoted above in the parallel column: "Why is the constitution of England sickly?" etc. He also further says: "An inquiry into the constitutional errors in the English form of government is at this time highly necessary, for, as we are never in a proper condition of doing justice to others while we continue under the influence of some leading partiality, so neither are we capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by an obstinate prejudice. And as a man who is attached to a prostitute is unfit to choose or judge of a wife, so any prepossession in favor of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good one."—Common Sense, Part I.
Englishmen considered rotten boroughs the only rotten part of the constitution, but Common Sense and Junius both considered that the disease had extended from the extremities to the heart. Junius says:
"As to cutting away the rotten boroughs, I am as much offended as any man at seeing so many of them under the direct influence of the crown, or at the disposal of private persons. Yet, I own I have both doubts and apprehensions in regard to the remedy you propose.... When all your instruments of amputation are prepared, when the unhappy patient lies bound at your feet, without the possibility of resistance, by what infallible rule will you direct the operation? When you propose to cut away the rotten parts, can you tell us what parts are perfectly sound? Are there any certain limits, in fact or theory, to inform you at what point you must stop—at what point the mortification ends? To a man [Mr. Wilkes] so capable of observation and reflection as you are, it is unnecessary to say all that might be said upon the subject. Besides that, I approve highly of Lord Chatham's idea of infusing a portion of new health into the constitution, to enable it to bear its infirmities—a brilliant expression, and full of intrinsic wisdom."—Last Letter of Junius.
| Common Sense. | Junius. |
|
"To say that the constitution
of England is a union
of three powers, reciprocally
checking each other,
is farcical; either the words
have no meaning, or they
are flat contradictions. To
say that the commons is a
check upon the king presupposes
two things:
"First.—That the king is
not to be trusted without
being looked after; or, in
other words, that a thirst
for absolute power is the
natural disease of monarchy.
"Secondly.—That the commons,
by being appointed
for that purpose, are either
wiser, or more worthy of
confidence than the crown.
"There is something exceedingly
ridiculous in the
composition of monarchy—it
first excludes a man from
the means of information,
yet empowers him to act in
cases where the highest
judgment is required. The
state of a king shuts him
from the world, yet the
business of a king requires
him to know it thoroughly;
wherefore, the different
parts, by unnaturally opposing
and destroying each
other, prove the whole character
to be absurd and useless."
That the crown is this
overbearing part in the
English constitution, needs
not to be mentioned; and
that it derives its whole
consequence merely from
being the giver of places
and pensions, is self-evident.
Wherefore, though we have
been wise enough to shut
and lock a door against absolute
monarchy, we at the
same time have been foolish
enough to put the crown
in possession of the key.
The prejudice of Englishmen
in favor of their
own government by king,
lords, and commons, arises
as much or more from national
pride than reason.
Individuals are undoubtedly
safer in England than
in some other countries, but
the will of the king is as
much the law of the land
in Britain as in France,
with this difference: that,
instead of proceeding directly
from his mouth, it is
handed to the people under
the formidable shape of an
act of parliament. For the
fate of Charles the First
hath only made kings more
subtle—not more just.
"Wherefore, laying aside
all national pride and prejudice
in favor of modes and
forms, the plain truth is
that it is wholly owing to the
constitution of the people, and
not the constitution of the government,
that the crown is
not as oppressive in England
as in Turkey." |
"The three branches of
the legislature seem to treat
their separate rights and interests
as the Roman triumvirs
did their friends—they
reciprocally sacrifice them
to the animosities of each
other, and establish a detestable
union among themselves
upon the ruin of the
laws and the liberty of the
commonwealth."—Let. 39.
In speaking of and to the
king, he says:
"It has been the misfortune
of your life, and originally
the cause of every
reproach and distress which
has attended your government,
that you should never
have been acquainted with
the language of truth until
you heard it in the complaints
of your people."—Let.
35.
"A faultless, insipid
equality in his character is
neither capable of virtue or
vice in the extreme, but it
secures his submission to
those persons whom he has
been accustomed to respect,
and makes him a dangerous
instrument of their ambition.
Secluded from the
world, attached from his infancy
to one set of persons
and one set of ideas, he can
neither open his heart to
new connections, nor his
mind to better information."—Let.
39.
Of the king's influence
on parliament, he says:
"It is arbitrary and notoriously
under the influence
of the crown."—Let.
44.
"I beg you will convey
to your gracious master my
humble congratulations upon
the glorious success of
peerages and pensions, so
lavishly distributed as the
rewards of Irish virtue."—Let.
66.
"That the sovereign of
this country is not amenable
to any form of trial
known to the laws, is unquestionable;
but exemption
from punishment is a
singular privilege annexed
to the royal character, and
no way excludes the possibility
of deserving it. How
long and to what extent a
king of England may be
protected by the forms,
when he violates the spirit
of the constitution, deserves
to be considered. A mistake
in this matter proved
fatal to Charles and his
son."—Preface to Junius.
"The consequences of this
attack upon the constitution
are too plain and palpable
not to alarm the dullest apprehension.
I trust you
will find that the people of
England are neither deficient
in spirit or understanding,
though you have
treated them as if they had
neither sense to feel, nor
spirit to resent. We have
reason to thank God and
our ancestors that there never yet was a minister in this
country who could stand the issue of such a conflict,
and, with every prejudice in favor of your intentions,
I see no such abilities in your grace as should enable
you to succeed in an enterprise in which the ablest and
basest of your predecessors have found their destruction....
Never hope that the freeholders will
make a tame surrender of their rights, or that an English
army will join with you in overturning the liberties
of their country."—Let. 11.
|
I will now present their doctrine of equal rights:
| Common Sense. | Junius. |
|
"Mankind being originally
equals in the order of
creation, the equality could
not be destroyed by some
subsequent circumstance....
·····
"As the exalting one man
so greatly above the rest,
can not be justified on the
equal rights of nature....
"For all men being originally
equals, no one by
birth could have a right to
set up his own family in
perpetual preference to all
others forever, and though
himself might deserve some
decent degree of honors of
his cotemporaries, yet his
descendants might be far
too unworthy to inherit
them. One of the strongest
natural proofs of the
folly of hereditary right in
kings, is, that nature disproves
it, otherwise she
would not so frequently
turn it into ridicule by giving
mankind an ass for a
lion." |
"In the rights of freedom
we are all equal....
"The least considerable man
among us has an interest
equal to the proudest nobleman."—Let.
37.
"When the first original
right of the people, from
which all laws derive their
authority," etc.—Let. 30.
"Those sacred original
rights which belonged to
them before they were soldiers."—Let.
11.
"Those original rights of
your subjects, on which all
their civil and political liberties
depend....
"If the English people
should no longer confine
their resentment to a submissive
representation of
their wrongs; if, following
the glorious example of
their ancestors, they should
no longer appeal to the
creature of the constitution,
but to that high Being who
gave them the rights of
humanity, whose gifts it
were sacrilege to surrender;
let me ask you, sir, upon
what part of your subjects
would you rely for assistance?"—Address
to the
king, Let. 35.
|
While I am upon the subject of king, I will present their views in this place. And I would call attention to the severity of the language:
| Common Sense. | Junius. |
|
"In England, a king hath
little more to do than to
make war and give away
places, which, in plain
terms, is to impoverish the
nation and set it together
by the ears. A pretty
business, indeed, for a man
to be allowed eight hundred
thousand sterling a
year for, and worshiped
into the bargain! Of more
worth is one honest man to
society and in the sight of
God than all the crowned
ruffians that ever lived.
"But where, say some, is
the king of America? I'll
tell you, friend, he reigns
above, and doth not make
havoc of mankind, like the
royal brute of Britain."
In commenting on the
sentence spoken of the
king, "by whose NOD ALONE
they were permitted to do
anything," he says: "Here
is idolatry even without a
mask; and he who can
calmly hear and digest such
doctrine, hath forfeited his
claim to rationality; is an
apostate from the order of
manhood, and ought to be
considered as one who hath
not only given up the proper
dignity of man, but
sunk himself beneath the
rank of animals, and contemptibly
crawls through
the world like a worm.
However, it matters very
little now what the king
of England either says or
does; he hath wickedly
broken through every moral
and human obligation,
trampled nature and conscience
under his feet; and,
by a steady and unconstitutional
spirit of insolence
and cruelty, procured for
himself an universal hatred."
I shall now give two
passages from another portion
of Mr. Paine's work
to parallel with the last
two of Junius on the king:
"Good heavens! what
volumes of thanks does
America owe to Britain!
What infinite obligation to
the tool that fills with
paradoxical vacancy the
throne!"—Crisis, iii.
"The connection between
vice and meanness is a fit
subject for satire, but when
the satire is a fact it cuts
with the irresistible power
of a diamond. If a Quaker,
in defense of his just
rights, his property, and the
chastity of his house, takes
up a musket he is expelled
the meeting; but the present
king of England, who
seduced and took into keeping
a sister of their society,
is reverenced and supported
by repeated testimonies,
while the friendly noodle
from whom she was taken,
and who is now in this city,
continues a drudge in the
service of his rival, as if
proud of being cuckolded
by a creature called a
king."—Crisis, iii.
The above will explain
a passage in Junius—Let.
56—which is as follows:
"You must confess that
even Charles the Second
would have blushed at that
open encouragement, at
those eager, meretricious
caresses, with which every
species of private vice and
public prostitution is received
at St. James'."
|
"For my own part, far
from thinking that the
king can do no wrong; far
from suffering myself to
be deterred or imposed upon
by the language of
forms; if it were my misfortune
to live under the
inauspicious reign of a
prince, whose whole life
was employed in one base,
contemptible struggle with
the free spirit of his people,
or in the detestable
endeavor to corrupt their
moral principles, I would
not scruple to declare to
him: 'Sir, you alone are
the author of the greatest
wrong to your subjects and
to yourself.... Has not
the strength of the crown,
whether influence or prerogative,
been uniformly
exerted for eleven years
together, to support a narrow,
pitiful system of government,
which defeats
itself and answers no one
purpose of real power,
profit, or personal satisfaction
to you?'"—Pref.
"The minister who, by
secret corruption, invades
the freedom of elections,
and the ruffian [meaning
the king] who, by open violence,
destroys that freedom,
are embarked in the
same bottom."—Let. 8.
"When Junius observes
that kings are ready enough
to follow such advice, he
does not mean to insinuate
that, if the advice of Parliament
were good, the
king would be so ready to
follow it."—Let. 45.
"There is surely something
singularly benevolent
in the character of
our sovereign. From the
moment he ascended the
throne, there is no crime
of which human nature is
capable (and I call upon
the recorder to witness it)
that has not appeared
venial in his sight."—Let.
48.
"I know that man [the
king] much better than
any of you. Nature intended
him only for a good
humored fool. A systematical
education, with long
practice, has made him a
consummate hypocrite....
What would have been the
triumph of that odious hypocrite and his minions if
Wilkes had been defeated?
It was not your fault, reverend
sir, that he did not
enjoy it completely."—Let.
51, to Rev. Mr. Horne.
"Though the Kennedies
were convicted of a most
deliberate and atrocious
murder, they still had a
claim to the royal mercy.
They were saved by the
chastity of their connections.
They had a sister;
yet it was not her beauty,
but the pliancy of her virtue,
that recommended her
to the king.
"The holy author of
our religion was seen in
the company of sinners;
but it was his gracious purpose
to convert them from
their sins. Another man
who, in the ceremonies of
our faith, might give lessons
to the great enemy of
it, upon different principles,
keeps much the same
company. He advertises
for patients, collects all the
diseases of the heart, and
turns a royal palace into
an hospital for incurables.
A man of honor has no
ticket of admission at
St. James'. They receive
him like a virgin at the
Magdalen's—'Go thou and
do likewise.'"—Let. 67, to
Lord Mansfield.
|
I will now make a few remarks upon Common Sense. I have introduced a few extracts to show its spirit, scope, and object; and the opinions, principles, language, and style of Mr. Paine. I have also thrown by the side of them the similar characteristics of Junius, but this is not all.
Common Sense was to America what Junius would have been to England if the same success had attended it. There is a plan in Common Sense similar to that of Junius. It opens the new year with a new policy; it begins by a contrast between society and government; it attacks the government and defends the original rights of the people; it assaults the king and his minions; it defends republicanism against royalty; it calls on the people to rebel against the tyrant, to take up arms in their defense, and to establish government upon the natural and original rights of the people. If one will study the two works he will find not only the general plan the same, but even in detail they strikingly correspond; showing the same head to plan, and the same hand to execute. There is the same language, the same figures of speech, the same wit, the same method of argumentation, the same withering satire, the same appeals to Heaven, and the same bold, proud, unconquerable spirit, in the one as in the other.
If Mr. Paine was Junius, these things would naturally be expected. And it would be expected, also, that having failed to produce the desired effect in England, and all further effort there being at an end, that if Junius lived he would change his base of operations if a favorable opportunity offered, and strike once more for the liberties of the people. Thus the natural order of things leads us to an irresistible conclusion. But in order not to be too hasty we ought to ask: Is there not one fact in the whole life and character of Mr. Paine incompatible with Junius? When it is found I will surrender the argument. But let us proceed.
Nature is prodigal of varieties. No two individuals are alike, either in physical form or mental features. Great differences may be found even among those most resembling each other, but when we find a man prominent among his fellow-kind, it is because of marked characteristics in which he greatly differs from the rest. These characteristics are expressed in action. A record of these actions is the history of men. Faust gives us movable type, and Watt the steam-engine. Newton asks nature to reveal her mode of operation in the movement of matter. Bacon asks her for her method. Buckle inquires after the science of history. Napoleon was a magazine of war. And thus great minds reveal themselves in their own way; and the more striking and peculiar the characteristic, the more easily can we distinguish and describe the person. Mr. Paine was a literary adventurer. And unlike adventurers in conquest or discovery, he left the record of his course as he went along. His was not a path in the sea, nor foot-prints in the sand, but a work like that of Euclid or Laplace, carved out of thought; he called out of chaos a new world of politics; he fought great battles and won victories with the pen. To know the man, then, we must examine his writings. To this end, therefore, I call the reader's attention to his style.