| 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: