BURKE, PAINE, AND THE RIGHTS OF MAN Les ouvrages publies dans la collection de l'Ecole des Sciences politiques et sociales de l'Universite de Louvain etant l'oeuvre personelle de leurs auteurs, n'engagent que leur seule responsabilite. UNIVERSITE CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN COLLECTION DE L'ECOLE DES SCIENCES POLITIQUES ET SOCIALES Nr.I7I BURKE, PAINE, AND THE RIGHTS OF MAN A DIFFERENCE OF POLITICAL OPINION PAR R. R. FENNESSY oJ.m. LICENCIE EN SCIENCES POLITIQUES ET SOCIALES MARTINUS NI]HOFF - LA HA YE ISBN 978-94-015-2387-5 ISBN 978-94-015-3637-0 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-94-015-3637-0 Nihil Obstat: Imprimi potest: Edwin Rabbitte o.f.m. Celsus O'Briain o.f.m. Roger Moloney oj.m. Minister Provincialis Censores deputati Imprimatur: A. Descamps Rector Universitatis Lovanii, die 24a ianuarii 1963 PREFACE At the present day, when there is renewed interest in the concept of human rights and in the application of this concept to the problems of government,! it may be instructive to review an eighteenth-century dispute which was concerned precisely with these themes. Nor should the investigation be any less interesting because the disputants were Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine: both these men have also been the object of renewed attention and study in recent years. Critical work on the biography and bibliography of Paine is being done by Professor Aldridge and Col. Richard Gimbel respectively;2 while Burke is being well looked after, not only by the able team of experts who, under the leadership of Professor Copeland, are engaged in producing the critical edition of his Correspondence, but also by such individual scholars as D. C. Bryant, C. B. Cone, T. H. D. Mahoney, P. J. Stanlis, C. Parkin, F. Canavan, and A. Cobban.3 But though Burke and Paine are being studied separately, little work appears to have been done on the relationship between them, apart from an essay by Professor Copeland published more than twelve years ago. 4 It is hoped that the present study, while it does not claim to add anything to the facts about Burke and Paine already known to his- 1 See Nehemiah Robinson, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its Origins, Significance, and Interpretation, (New York: Institute of Jewish Affairs, 1958); also Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1958-1959 ('s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1960). 2 Alfred Owen Aldridge, Man of Reason. The Life of Thomas Paine, (London: The Cresset Press, 1960); Richard Gimbel, Thomas Paine: a Bibliographical Checklist Of Common Sense; with an Account of its Publication, (Yale: University Press, 1956). 8 For recent works by these scholars, see Bibliography. 4 Thomas W. Copeland, Edmund Burke. Six Essays, (London: Jonathan Cape, 1950), 146-189. VI PREFACE torians,l nevertheless may suggest a valid interpretation of the relationship between the two men. In his essay Professor Copeland remarked that "the great controversy in which Burke and Paine were the principal antagonists was perhaps the most crucial ideological debate ever carried on in English." 2 This controversy began with the publication in November 1790 of Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France, and produced such other well-known works as Burke's Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs (1791), Sir James Mackintosh's Vindiciae Gallicae (1791) and Paine's Rights of Man Part I (1791), and Part II (1792); it also pro­ duced a host of pamphlet replies to Burke and Paine,3 and numerous paragraphs, letters and reviews in newspapers and periodicals. It is not intended in this study to trace the course of this long and tedious controversy, but to consider specifically the two chief publications of its early phase, Burke's Reflections, and Paine's Rights of Man, Part 1.; the pamphlets, newspapers, and periodicals will be treated only as evidence of public reaction to these two famous books. But what exactly was the controversy about? The matter is more complicated than might appear at first sight; and there is room for different methods of approach and treatment. The dispute might be considered as being primarily concerned with the merits and demerits of the French revolution; but it might also be interpreted as a theoreti­ cal discussion of rights and government; or as a controversy about the desirability of introducing political reforms in England, after the example of the French revolution. The discussion in England of the merits and demerits of the French revolution would certainly be a subject worthy of study; indeed a certain amount of work has already been done on it.4 In the present work, however, we treat of that discussion only incidentally, and with­ out attempting to assess the value of the various opinions of the French revolution expressed in England; we are concerned rather with the meaning of the doctrine of "the rights of man," and with the question of political reform in England. 1 A number of references to Paine in the Burke Correspondence are here published for the first time, but they do not add anything material to our knowledge of his life. 2 T. W. Copeland, op. cit., 148. 3 For a list of such replies, see Bibliography. 4 See P. A. Brown, The French Revolution in English History, (London: Allen & Unwin, 1923); C. Cestre, La Revolution franr;aise et les poetes anglais I789-I809, (Paris: Champion, 1906); A. Cobban, The Debate on the French Revolution I789-I8oo, (London: Nicholas Kaye, 1950); E. Dowden, The French Revolution and English Literature (London: Kegan Paul, 1897); W. T. Laprade, England and the French Revolution, (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 19°9)· PREFACE VII The justification of this choice is the fact - which, it is hoped, will be made clear in the following pages - that both Burke and Paine regarded the French revolution as primarily and essentially the appli­ cation in France of a certain set of political principles summarily described as the doctrine of "the rights of man," and that both were mainly concerned - from opposite points of view - with the possible application of that doctrine in England. We shall therefore proceed by inquiring, first of all, what exactly Burke and Paine understood by the doctrine of "the rights of man," and what place the concept of rights held in their respective political philosophies; it is hoped that a study of the political ideas of the two men, understood in the context of their respective political careers, .will enable us to see why they adopted opposing views of the French revolution, and of the desirability of radical political change in England. In examining the political ideas of the two men, no attempt will be made to trace the influence of other political writers on either, or to establish their place in the history of political theory; the intention is rather to establish the contrast between the convictions of the two men; to show how and why these two famous eighteenth-century writers could have totally different opinions on such typical eighteenth­ century topics as "nature," "reason," and "rights." We shall then examine Burke's rejection of the "rights of man" doctrine, made in Reflections, and his reasons for claiming that this doctrine was not only theoretically unsound but was also specifically incompatible with the spirit of the English constitution, and therefore by no means a suitable basis for the eventual reform of that consti­ tution. We shall see at the same time that Burke's book was a studied attempt to counteract and discredit pro-revolutionary sentiment in England. We shall then see how far, and in what way, Paine replied to Burke in Rights of Man, Part I, concluding that this book is much less an actual reply to Burke's arguments than simply a counter-manifesto of pro-revolutionary and republican sentiments. It will then be clear that there was no actual controversy between Burke and Paine - that is, no exchange of argument, reply, or counter­ argument - but simply two appeals to English public opinion, from two entirely different and totally irreconcilable points of view. It will therefore appear appropriate to inquire how these appeals were re­ ceived by English public opinion. This inquiry, made in the last two chapters of the book, reveals the fact that, despite the widespread circulation and great influence of both books, English public opinion VIII PREFACE in general did not side immediately with either man, nor did it divide into two camps, one in favour of Burke, and one in favour of Paine. Burke's attack on the French revolution and its English admirers was generally considered to be exaggerated; it was resented very strongly by the various groups and societies that were working for reform of parliament and of religious legislation; and it was badly received by a large section of his own political party - the important section which looked to Charles James Fox as its leader. As a result, Burke publicly declared his political separation from Fox and, since he was not supported by the rest of the party, remained politically isolated until the course of events in France and the consequent growth of anti-revolutionary feeling in England caused public opinion to swing to his side. Meanwhile, Paine had also been disappointed in his hopes of exercising a decisive pro-revolutionary influence on English opinion. His book was sponsored by certain societies for constitutional reform, and with their help achieved a wide circulation; but his views were too radical and republican for most of his English readers, and, by exciting protest and reaction, contributed to the defeat of the cause of political reform in England. Rights ot Man was not what Paine intended it to be, the manifesto of the revolution in England; but it achieved a success which Paine did not foresee, as the favourite text­ book of the working class political clubs.