Vergennes to have it inserted in the French Gazette, but never could
obtain his consent. The fact was that Count Vergennes was an
aristocratical despot at home, and dreaded the example of the American
Revolution in France, as certain other persons now dread the example
of the French Revolution in England, and Mr. Burke's tribute of fear
(for in this light his book must be considered) runs parallel with
Count Vergennes' refusal. But to return more particularly to his work.

  "We have seen," says Mr. Burke, "the French rebel against a mild and
lawful monarch, with more fury, outrage, and insult, than any people
has been known to rise against the most illegal usurper, or the most
sanguinary tyrant." This is one among a thousand other instances, in
which Mr. Burke shows that he is ignorant of the springs and
principles of the French Revolution.

  It was not against Louis XVI. but against the despotic principles of
the Government, that the nation revolted. These principles had not
their origin in him, but in the original establishment, many centuries
back: and they were become too deeply rooted to be removed, and the
Augean stables of parasites and plunderers too abominably filthy to be
cleansed by anything short of a complete and universal Revolution.
When it becomes necessary to do anything, the whole heart and soul
should go into the measure, or not attempt it. That crisis was then
arrived, and there remained no choice but to act with determined
vigor, or not to act at all. The king was known to be the friend of
the nation, and this circumstance was favorable to the enterprise.
Perhaps no man bred up in the style of an absolute king, ever
possessed a heart so little disposed to the exercise of that species
of power as the present King of France. But the principles of the
Government itself still remained the same. The Monarch and the
Monarchy were distinct and separate things; and it was against the
established despotism of the latter, and not against the person or
principles of the former, that the revolt commenced, and the
Revolution has been carried.

  Mr. Burke does not attend to the distinction between men and
principles, and, therefore, he does not see that a revolt may take
place against the despotism of the latter, while there lies no
charge of despotism against the former.

  The natural moderation of Louis XVI. contributed nothing to alter
the hereditary despotism of the monarchy. All the tyrannies of
former reigns, acted under that hereditary despotism, were still
liable to be revived in the hands of a successor. It was not the
respite of a reign that would satisfy France, enlightened as she was
then become. A casual discontinuance of the practice of despotism,
is not a discontinuance of its principles: the former depends on the
virtue of the individual who is in immediate possession of the
power; the latter, on the virtue and fortitude of the nation. In the
case of Charles I. and James II. of England, the revolt was against
the personal despotism of the men; whereas in France, it was against
the hereditary despotism of the established Government. But men who
can consign over the rights of posterity for ever on the authority
of a mouldy parchment, like Mr. Burke, are not qualified to judge of
this Revolution. It takes in a field too vast for their views to
explore, and proceeds with a mightiness of reason they cannot keep
pace with.

  But there are many points of view in which this Revolution may be
considered. When despotism has established itself for ages in a
country, as in France, it is not in the person of the king only that
it resides. It has the appearance of being so in show, and in
nominal authority; but it is not so in practice and in fact. It has
its standard everywhere. Every office and department has its
despotism, founded upon custom and usage. Every place has its
Bastille, and every Bastille its despot. The original hereditary
despotism resident in the person of the king, divides and
sub-divides itself into a thousand shapes and forms, till at last
the whole of it is acted by deputation. This was the case in France;
and against this species of despotism, proceeding on through an
endless labyrinth of office till the source of it is scarcely
perceptible, there is no mode of redress. It strengthens itself by
assuming the appearance of duty, and tyrannies under the pretence of
obeying.

  When a man reflects on the condition which France was in from the
nature of her government, he will see other causes for revolt than
those which immediately connect themselves with the person or
character of Louis XVI. There were, if I may so express it, a thousand
despotisms to be reformed in France, which had grown up under the
hereditary despotism of the monarchy, and became so rooted as to be in
a great measure independent of it. Between the Monarchy, the
Parliament, and the Church there was a rivalship of despotism; besides
the feudal despotism operating locally, and the ministerial
despotism operating everywhere. But Mr. Burke, by considering the king
as the only possible object of a revolt, speaks as if France was a
village, in which everything that passed must be known to its
commanding officer, and no oppression could be acted but what he could
immediately control. Mr. Burke might have been in the Bastille his
whole life, as well under Louis XVI. as Louis XIV., and neither the
one nor the other have known that such a man as Burke existed. The
despotic principles of the government were the same in both reigns,
though the dispositions of the men were as remote as tyranny and
benevolence.

  What Mr. Burke considers as a reproach to the French Revolution
(that of bringing it forward under a reign more mild than the
preceding ones) is one of its highest honors. The Revolutions that
have taken place in other European countries, have been excited by
personal hatred. The rage was against the man, and he became the