of IX. 1792. must have proceeded from provocation. Such was his CHAP. doctrine when he said, with equal energy and emphasis, 'that he could not draw a bill of indictment against a whole people.' I grieve to find that he has since learned to draw such an indictment, and to crown it with all the technical epithets which disgrace our statue-book, such as-false, malicious, wicked, by the instigation of the devil, or not having the fear of God before your eyes. Taught by my right honourable friend, that no revolt of a nation can spring except from provocation, I could not help feeling joy, ever since the constitution of France was founded on the rights of man-the basis on which the British constitution itself is rested. To vilify it, is neither more nor less than to libel the British constitution, and no book my right honourable friend can write, how able soever, no speech he can deliver, how eloquent soever, can induce me to change or abandon that opinion. "I was formerly the strenuous advocate for the balance power, when France was that intriguing restless nation which she had formerly proved. Now that the situation of France is altered, and that she has erected a government from which neither insult nor injury can be apprehended by her neighbours, I am extremely indifferent concerning the balance of power, and shall continue so till I see other nations combine the same power with the same principles of government as that of Old France. The true principle of the balance of power is not to keep every state exactly in its former condition, for that is impossible, but to prevent any one obtaining such an ascendency as to be dangerous to the rest. No man can say that Russia will be the successor of France in this respect. Her extent of territory, scanty population, and limited revenue, render her strength by no means formidable to us: she is a power whom we can neither attack nor be attacked by; and is it with such a power we are to commence hostilities, in order to prop up the decaying Turkish empire, the overthrow of which would be more IX. 1792. 1 Parl. Hist. xxix. 107, and Fox's iv. 217, 204, 199. 43. against it by 1 CHAP. likely to prove advantageous than injurious to our interests? If we compare the present state of France with its past condition, both as respects the politics of Europe and the happiness of the people, even those who most detest the Revolution must see reason to rejoice in its effects. I cannot but applaud the government of France, in its internal tendency, as good, because it aims at the happiness of those who are subject to it. Different opinions may be entertained by different men as to the change of system that has taken place in that country; 248, 379 but I, for one, admire the new constitution of France, Speeches, considered altogether, as the most stupendous and glorious edifice of liberty which has been erected on the foundation of human integrity in any age or country." Mr Burke commenced his reply in a grave and solemn Argument tone, befitting the solemnity of the occasion, and the Mr Burke. rending asunder of ties which had endured unbroken for a quarter of a century. "The House," said he, "is now called upon to do a high and important act to appoint a legislature for a distant people, and to affirm its own competency to the exercise of such a power. On what foundation is such an assumption to rest? Not, surely, on a vague conception of the rights of man; for, if such a doctrine is admitted, all that the House should do, is to call together the whole male inhabitants of Canada, and decide by a majority of their votes what form of government they are to receive. Setting aside so absurd a proposition, on what must this House found its competence to legislate at all on this matter? Clearly on the law of nations, and the acquired title so to legislate from the right of conquest, and a cessation of the rights of the old government, obtained by us in the treaty which confirmed it. These principles bind us to legislate in an equitable manner for the people of Canada, and they are in return to owe allegiance to us. The question then, is, On what basis is this new government to be formed? Are we to frame it according to the old light of the English constitution, or by the glare of the new lanterns CHAP. of the clubs at Paris and London? "In determining this point, we are not to imitate the example of countries which have disregarded circumstances, torn asunder the bonds of society, and the ties of nature. To the constitution of America, doubtless, great attention is due, and it is of importance that the people of Canada should have nothing to envy in the constitution of a neighbouring state. But it is plain that they have not the same elements for the enjoyment of republican freedom which exist in the United States. The people of America have a constitution as well adapted to their character and circumstances as they could have; but that character, and these circumstances, are essentially different from those of the French Canadians. The Americans have derived from their Anglo-Saxon descent a certain quantity of phlegm, of old English good-nature, that fits them better for a republican government. They had also a republican education; their form of internal government was republican, and the principles and vices. of it have been restrained by the beneficence of an overruling monarchy in this country. The formation of their constitution was preceded by a long war, in the course of which, by military discipline, they had learned order, submission, and command, and a regard for great men. They had learned what a King of Sparta had said was the great wisdom to be learned in his country-the art of commanding and obeying. They were trained to government by war, not by plots, murders, and assassinations. "But what are we to say to the ancient Canadians, who, being the most numerous, are entitled to the greatest attention? Are we to give them the French constitution -a constitution founded on principles diametrically opposite to ours, that could not assimilate with it in a single point; as different from it as wisdom from folly, as vice from virtue, as the most opposite extremes in nature IX. 1792. IX. 1792. CHAP. a constitution founded on what was called the rights of man ? But let this constitution be examined by its practical effects in the French West India colonies. These, notwithstanding three disastrous wars, were most happy and flourishing till they heard of the rights of man. As soon as this system arrived among them, Pandora's box, replete with every mortal evil, seemed to fly open, hell itself to yawn, and every demon of mischief to overspread the face of the earth. Blacks rose against whites, whites against blacks, and each against the other, in murderous hostility; subordination was destroyed, the bonds of society were torn asunder, and every man seemed to thirst for the blood of his neighbour. 'Black spirits and white, blue spirits and grey, All was toil and trouble, discord and blood, from the 66 Dangerous doctrines are now encouraged in this country, and dreadful consequences may ensue from them, which it is my sole wish and ambition to avert, by strenuously supporting, in all its parts, the British constitution. The practice now is, with a certain party, to bestow upon all occasions the very highest praise upon the French constitution; and it is immaterial whether this praise be bestowed upon the constitution or the revolution of that CHAP. country, since the latter has led directly to the former. IX. To such a length has this infatuation been carried, that 1792. whoever now disapproves of the anarchy and confusion that have taken place in France, or does not subscribe to the opinion that order and liberty are to emanate from it, is forthwith stigmatised as an enemy to the British constitution; a charge equally false, unfair, and calumnious. Doctrines of this sort are at all times dangerous, but they become doubly so when they are sanctioned by so great a name as that of the right honourable gentleman, who always puts his opinions in the clearest and most forcible light, and who has not hesitated, in this very debate, to call the French constitution the most glorious and stupendous fabric ever reared by human wisdom. That constitution, or revolution, whichever they choose to call it, can never serve the cause of liberty, but will inevitably promote tyranny, anarchy, and revolution. I have never entertained ideas of government different from those which I now maintain. Monarchy, I have always thought, is the basis of all good government; and the nearer to monarchy any government approaches, the more perfect it is, and vice versa. Those who are anxious to subvert the constitution are now, indeed, few in number in this country; but can we be sure that this will always be the case, or that the time may never come, when, under the influence of scarcity or tumult, the monarchical institutions of the country may be threatened with overthrow? Now, then, is the time to crush this diabolical spirit, and watch, with the greatest vigilance, the slightest attempt to subvert the British constitution. tween them. "It is perhaps indiscretion at any period, but espe- 44. cially at my advanced years, to provoke enemies, or give Rupture befriends an occasion for desertion; but if a firm and steady adherence to the British constitution should place me in such a dilemma, I will risk all, and with my last words exclaim,-Fly from the French constitution.”— |