EDMUND BURKE ON FRENCH REVOLUTION

What we are not talking about already elsewhere
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 49623
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: EDMUND BURKE ON FRENCH REVOLUTION

Post by thelivyjr »

It is now to be seen what has been proposed in this exigency, one of the greatest that can happen in a state.

The minister requests the Assembly to array itself in all its terrors, and to call forth all its majesty.

He desires that the grave and severe principles announced by them may give vigor to the king's proclamation.

After this we should have looked for courts, civil and martial, breaking of some corps, decimating of others, and all the terrible means which necessity has employed in such cases to arrest the progress of the most terrible of all evils; particularly, one might expect that a serious inquiry would be made into the murder of commandants in the view of their soldiers.

Not one word of all this or of anything like it.

After they had been told that the soldiery trampled upon the decrees of the Assembly promulgated by the king, the Assembly pass new decrees, and they authorize the king to make new proclamations.

After the secretary at war had stated that the regiments had paid no regard to oaths pretes avec la plus imposante solemnite, they propose — what?

More oaths.

They renew decrees and proclamations as they experience their insufficiency, and they multiply oaths in proportion as they weaken in the minds of men, the sanctions of religion.

I hope that handy abridgments of the excellent sermons of Voltaire, d'Alembert, Diderot, and Helvetius, on the Immortality of the Soul, on a particular superintending Providence, and on a Future State of Rewards and Punishments are sent down to the soldiers along with their civic oaths.

Of this I have no doubt; as I understand that a certain description of reading makes no inconsiderable part of their military exercises, and that they are full as well supplied with the ammunition of pamphlets as of cartridges.

TO BE CONTINUED ...
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 49623
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: EDMUND BURKE ON FRENCH REVOLUTION

Post by thelivyjr »

To prevent the mischiefs arising from conspiracies, irregular consultations, seditious committees, and monstrous democratic assemblies (comitia, comices) of the soldiers, and all the disorders arising from idleness, luxury, dissipation, and insubordination, I believe the most astonishing means have been used that ever occurred to men, even in all the inventions of this prolific age.

It is no less than this: the king has promulgated in circular letters to all the regiments his direct authority and encouragement that the several corps should join themselves with the clubs and confederations in the several municipalities, and mix with them in their feasts and civic entertainments!

This jolly discipline, it seems, is to soften the ferocity of their minds, to reconcile them to their bottle companions of other descriptions, and to merge particular conspiracies in more general associations.


That this remedy would be pleasing to the soldiers, as they are described by M. de la Tour du Pin, I can readily believe; and that, however mutinous otherwise, they will dutifully submit themselves to these royal proclamations.

But I should question whether all this civic swearing, clubbing, and feasting would dispose them, more than at present they are disposed, to an obedience to their officers, or teach them better to submit to the austere rules of military discipline.

It will make them admirable citizens after the French mode, but not quite so good soldiers after any mode.

A doubt might well arise whether the conversations at these good tables would fit them a great deal the better for the character of mere instruments, which this veteran officer and statesman justly observes the nature of things always requires an army to be.

Concerning the likelihood of this improvement in discipline by the free conversation of the soldiers with municipal festive societies, which is thus officially encouraged by royal authority and sanction, we may judge by the state of the municipalities themselves, furnished to us by the war minister in this very speech.

He conceives good hopes of the success of his endeavors toward restoring order for the present from the good disposition of certain regiments, but he finds something cloudy with regard to the future.

As to preventing the return of confusion, for this the administration (says he) cannot be answerable to you as long as they see the municipalities arrogate to themselves an authority over the troops which your institutions have reserved wholly to the monarch.

You have fixed the limits of the military authority and the municipal authority.

You have bounded the action which you have permitted to the latter over the former to the right of requisition, but never did the letter or the spirit of your decrees authorize the commons in these municipalities to break the officers, to try them, to give orders to the soldiers, to drive them from the posts committed to their guard, to stop them in their marches ordered by the king, or, in a word, to enslave the troops to the caprice of each of the cities or even market towns through which they are to pass.

TO BE CONTINUED ...
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 49623
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: EDMUND BURKE ON FRENCH REVOLUTION

Post by thelivyjr »

Such is the character and disposition of the municipal society which is to reclaim the soldiery, to bring them back to the true principles of military subordination, and to render them machines in the hands of the supreme power of the country!

Such are the distempers of the French troops!

Such is their cure!

As the army is, so is the navy.

The municipalities supersede the orders of the Assembly, and the seamen in their turn supersede the orders of the municipalities.

From my heart I pity the condition of a respectable servant of the public like this war minister, obliged in his old age to pledge the Assembly in their civic cups, and to enter with a hoary head into all the fantastic vagaries of these juvenile politicians.

Such schemes are not like propositions coming from a man of fifty years' wear and tear amongst mankind.

They seem rather such as ought to be expected from those grand compounders in politics who shorten the road to their degrees in the state and have a certain inward fanatical assurance and illumination upon all subjects, upon the credit of which one of their doctors has thought fit, with great applause, and greater success, to caution the Assembly not to attend to old men or to any persons who valued themselves upon their experience.

I suppose all the ministers of state must qualify and take this test — wholly abjuring the errors and heresies of experience and observation.

Every man has his own relish.

But I think if I could not attain to the wisdom, I would at least preserve something of the stiff and peremptory dignity of age.

These gentlemen deal in regeneration; but at any price I should hardly yield my rigid fibers to be regenerated by them, nor begin, in my grand climacteric, to squall in their new accents or to stammer, in my second cradle, the elemental sounds of their barbarous metaphysics.

Si isti mihi largiantur ut repuerascam, et in eorum cunis vagiam, valde recusem!

TO BE CONTINUED ...
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 49623
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: EDMUND BURKE ON FRENCH REVOLUTION

Post by thelivyjr »

The imbecility of any part of the puerile and pedantic system, which they call a constitution, cannot be laid open without discovering the utter insufficiency and mischief of every other part with which it comes in contact, or that bears any the remotest relation to it.

You cannot propose a remedy for the incompetence of the crown without displaying the debility of the Assembly.


You cannot deliberate on the confusion of the army of the state without disclosing the worse disorders of the armed municipalities.

The military lays open the civil, and the civil betrays the military, anarchy.

I wish everybody carefully to peruse the eloquent speech (such it is) of M. de la Tour du Pin.

He attributes the salvation of the municipalities to the good behavior of some of the troops.

These troops are to preserve the well-disposed part of those municipalities, which is confessed to be the weakest, from the pillage of the worst-disposed, which is the strongest.

But the municipalities affect a sovereignty and will command those troops which are necessary for their protection.

Indeed they must command them or court them.

The municipalities, by the necessity of their situation, and by the republican powers they have obtained, must, with relation to the military, be the masters, or the servants, or the confederates, or each successively; or they must make a jumble of all together, according to circumstances.

What government is there to coerce the army but the municipality, or the municipality but the army?

To preserve concord where authority is extinguished, at the hazard of all consequences, the Assembly attempts to cure the distempers by the distempers themselves; and they hope to preserve themselves from a purely military democracy by giving it a debauched interest in the municipal.

If the soldiers once come to mix for any time in the municipal clubs, cabals, and confederacies, an elective attraction will draw them to the lowest and most desperate part.

With them will be their habits, affections, and sympathies.

The military conspiracies, which are to be remedied by civic confederacies; the rebellious municipalities, which are to be rendered obedient by furnishing them with the means of seducing the very armies of the state that are to keep them in order; all these chimeras of a monstrous and portentous policy must aggravate the confusion from which they have arisen.

There must be blood.

The want of common judgment manifested in the construction of all their descriptions of forces and in all their kinds of civil and judicial authorities will make it flow.

Disorders may be quieted in one time and in one part.

They will break out in others, because the evil is radical and intrinsic.

All these schemes of mixing mutinous soldiers with seditious citizens must weaken still more and more the military connection of soldiers with their officers, as well as add military and mutinous audacity to turbulent artificers and peasants.

To secure a real army, the officer should be first and last in the eye of the soldier; first and last in his attention, observance, and esteem.

Officers it seems there are to be, whose chief qualification must be temper and patience.

They are to manage their troops by electioneering arts.

They must bear themselves as candidates, not as commanders.

But as by such means power may be occasionally in their hands, the authority by which they are to be nominated becomes of high importance.

TO BE CONTINUED ...
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 49623
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: EDMUND BURKE ON FRENCH REVOLUTION

Post by thelivyjr »

What you may do finally does not appear, nor is it of much moment whilst the strange and contradictory relation between your army and all the parts of your republic, as well as the puzzled relation of those parts to each other and to the whole, remain as they are.

You seem to have given the provisional nomination of the officers in the first instance to the king, with a reserve of approbation by the National Assembly.

Men who have an interest to pursue are extremely sagacious in discovering the true seat of power.

They must soon perceive that those who can negative indefinitely in reality appoint.

The officers must, therefore, look to their intrigues in that Assembly as the sole certain road to promotion.


Still, however, by your new constitution they must begin their solicitation at court.

This double negotiation for military rank seems to me a contrivance as well adapted, as if it were studied for no other end, to promote faction in the Assembly itself, relative to this vast military patronage, and then to poison the corps of officers with factions of a nature still more dangerous to the safety of government, upon any bottom on which it can be placed, and destructive in the end to the efficiency of the army itself.

Those officers who lose the promotions intended for them by the crown must become of a faction opposite to that of the Assembly, which has rejected their claims, and must nourish discontents in the heart of the army against the ruling powers.

Those officers, on the other hand, who, by carrying their point through an interest in the Assembly, feel themselves to be at best only second in the good will of the crown, though first in that of the Assembly, must slight an authority which would not advance and could not retard their promotion.

If to avoid these evils you will have no other rule for command or promotion than seniority, you will have an army of formality; at the same time it will become more independent and more of a military republic.

Not they, but the king is the machine.

A king is not to be deposed by halves.

If he is not everything in the command of an army, he is nothing.

What is the effect of a power placed nominally at the head of the army who to that army is no object of gratitude or of fear?

Such a cipher is not fit for the administration of an object, of all things the most delicate, the supreme command of military men.


They must be constrained (and their inclinations lead them to what their necessities require) by a real, vigorous, effective, decided, personal authority.

The authority of the Assembly itself suffers by passing through such a debilitating channel as they have chosen.

The army will not long look to an assembly acting through the organ of false show and palpable imposition.

They will not seriously yield obedience to a prisoner.

They will either despise a pageant, or they will pity a captive king.

This relation of your army to the crown will, if I am not greatly mistaken, become a serious dilemma in your politics.


TO BE CONTINUED ...
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 49623
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: EDMUND BURKE ON FRENCH REVOLUTION

Post by thelivyjr »

It is, besides, to be considered whether an assembly like yours, even supposing that it was in possession of another sort of organ through which its orders were to pass, is fit for promoting the obedience and discipline of an army.

It is known that armies have hitherto yielded a very precarious and uncertain obedience to any senate or popular authority; and they will least of all yield it to an assembly which is only to have a continuance of two years.

The officers must totally lose the characteristic disposition of military men if they see with perfect submission and due admiration the dominion of pleaders; especially when they find that they have a new court to pay to an endless succession of those pleaders, whose military policy, and the genius of whose command (if they should have any), must be as uncertain as their duration is transient.

In the weakness of one kind of authority, and in the fluctuation of all, the officers of an army will remain for some time mutinous and full of faction until some popular general, who understands the art of conciliating the soldiery, and who possesses the true spirit of command, shall draw the eyes of all men upon himself.

Armies will obey him on his personal account.

There is no other way of securing military obedience in this state of things.


But the moment in which that event shall happen, the person who really commands the army is your master — the master (that is little) of your king, the master of your Assembly, the master of your whole republic.

TO BE CONTINUED ...
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 49623
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: EDMUND BURKE ON FRENCH REVOLUTION

Post by thelivyjr »

How came the Assembly by their present power over the army?

Chiefly, to be sure, by debauching the soldiers from their officers.

They have begun by a most terrible operation.

They have touched the central point about which the particles that compose armies are at repose.

They have destroyed the principle of obedience in the great, essential, critical link between the officer and the soldier, just where the chain of military subordination commences and on which the whole of that system depends.

The soldier is told he is a citizen and has the rights of man and citizen.

The right of a man, he is told, is to be his own governor and to be ruled only by those to whom he delegates that self-government.

It is very natural he should think that he ought most of all to have his choice where he is to yield the greatest degree of obedience.


He will therefore, in all probability, systematically do what he does at present occasionally; that is, he will exercise at least a negative in the choice of his officers.

At present the officers are known at best to be only permissive, and on their good behavior.

In fact, there have been many instances in which they have been cashiered by their corps.

Here is a second negative on the choice of the king — a negative as effectual at least as the other of the Assembly.

The soldiers know already that it has been a question, not ill received in the National Assembly, whether they ought not to have the direct choice of their officers, or some proportion of them?

When such matters are in deliberation it is no extravagant supposition that they will incline to the opinion most favorable to their pretensions.

They will not bear to be deemed the army of an imprisoned king whilst another army in the same country, with whom, too, they are to feast and confederate, is to be considered as the free army of a free constitution.

They will cast their eyes on the other and more permanent army; I mean the municipal.

That corps, they well know, does actually elect its own officers.

They may not be able to discern the grounds of distinction on which they are not to elect a Marquis de la Fayette (or what is his new name?) of their own.

If this election of a commander-in-chief be a part of the rights of men, why not of theirs?

They see elective justices of peace, elective judges, elective curates, elective bishops, elective municipalities, and elective commanders of the Parisian army — why should they alone be excluded?

Are the brave troops of France the only men in that nation who are not the fit judges of military merit and of the qualifications necessary for a commander-in-chief?

Are they paid by the state and do they, therefore, lose the rights of men?

They are a part of that nation themselves and contribute to that pay.

And is not the king, is not the National Assembly, and are not all who elect the National Assembly, likewise paid?

Instead of seeing all these forfeit their rights by their receiving a salary, they perceive that in all these cases a salary is given for the exercise of those rights.

All your resolutions, all your proceedings, all your debates, all the works of your doctors in religion and politics have industriously been put into their hands, and you expect that they will apply to their own case just as much of your doctrines and examples as suits your pleasure.

TO BE CONTINUED ...
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 49623
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: EDMUND BURKE ON FRENCH REVOLUTION

Post by thelivyjr »

EVERYTHING depends upon the army in such a government as yours, for you have industriously destroyed all the opinions and prejudices and, as far as in you lay, all the instincts which support government.

Therefore, the moment any difference arises between your National Assembly and any part of the nation, you must have recourse to force.

Nothing else is left to you, or rather you have left nothing else to yourselves.


You see, by the report of your war minister, that the distribution of the army is in a great measure made with a view of internal coercion.

You must rule by an army; and you have infused into that army by which you rule, as well as into the whole body of the nation, principles which after a time must disable you in the use you resolve to make of it.

The king is to call out troops to act against his people, when the world has been told, and the assertion is still ringing in our ears, that troops ought not to fire on citizens.

The colonies assert to themselves an independent constitution and a free trade.

They must be constrained by troops.

In what chapter of your code of the rights of men are they able to read that it is a part of the rights of men to have their commerce monopolized and restrained for the benefit of others?

As the colonists rise on you, the Negroes rise on them.

Troops again — massacre, torture, hanging!

These are your rights of men!

These are the fruits of metaphysic declarations wantonly made, and shamefully retracted!

It was but the other day that the farmers of land in one of your provinces refused to pay some sort of rents to the lord of the soil.

In consequence of this, you decree that the country people shall pay all rents and dues, except those which as grievances you have abolished; and if they refuse, then you order the king to march troops against them.

You lay down metaphysic propositions which infer universal consequences, and then you attempt to limit logic by despotism.

The leaders of the present system tell them of their rights, as men, to take fortresses, to murder guards, to seize on kings without the least appearance of authority even from the Assembly, whilst, as the sovereign legislative body, that Assembly was sitting in the name of the nation — and yet these leaders presume to order out the troops which have acted in these very disorders, to coerce those who shall judge on the principles, and follow the examples, which have been guaranteed by their own approbation.

TO BE CONTINUED ...
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 49623
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: EDMUND BURKE ON FRENCH REVOLUTION

Post by thelivyjr »

The leaders teach the people to abhor and reject all feudality as the barbarism of tyranny, and they tell them afterwards how much of that barbarous tyranny they are to bear with patience.

As they are prodigal of light with regard to grievances, so the people find them sparing in the extreme with regard to redress.

They know that not only certain quitrents and personal duties, which you have permitted them to redeem (but have furnished no money for the redemption), are as nothing to those burdens for which you have made no provision at all.

They know that almost the whole system of landed property in its origin is feudal; that it is the distribution of the possessions of the original proprietors, made by a barbarous conqueror to his barbarous instruments; and that the most grievous effects of the conquest are the land rents of every kind, as without question they are.

The peasants, in all probability, are the descendants of these ancient proprietors, Romans or Gauls.

But if they fail, in any degree, in the titles which they make on the principles of antiquaries and lawyers, they retreat into the citadel of the rights of men.

There they find that men are equal; and the earth, the kind and equal mother of all, ought not to be monopolized to foster the pride and luxury of any men, who by nature are no better than themselves, and who, if they do not labor for their bread, are worse.

They find that by the laws of nature the occupant and subduer of the soil is the true proprietor; that there is no prescription against nature; and that the agreements (where any there are) which have been made with the landlords, during the time of slavery, are only the effect of duress and force; and that when the people reentered into the rights of men, those agreements were made as void as everything else which had been settled under the prevalence of the old feudal and aristocratic tyranny.

They will tell you that they see no difference between an idler with a hat and a national cockade and an idler in a cowl or in a rochet.

If you ground the title to rents on succession and prescription, they tell you from the speech of M. Camus, published by the National Assembly for their information, that things ill begun cannot avail themselves of prescription; that the title of these lords was vicious in its origin; and that force is at least as bad as fraud.

As to the title by succession, they will tell you that the succession of those who have cultivated the soil is the true pedigree of property, and not rotten parchments and silly substitutions; that the lords have enjoyed their usurpation too long; and that if they allow to these lay monks any charitable pension, they ought to be thankful to the bounty of the true proprietor, who is so generous toward a false claimant to his goods.

TO BE CONTINUED ...
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 49623
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: EDMUND BURKE ON FRENCH REVOLUTION

Post by thelivyjr »

When the peasants give you back that coin of sophistic reason on which you have set your image and superscription, you cry it down as base money and tell them you will pay for the future with French guards, and dragoons, and hussars.

You hold up, to chastise them, the second-hand authority of a king, who is only the instrument of destroying, without any power of protecting either the people or his own person.

Through him it seems you will make yourselves obeyed.

They answer: You have taught us that there are no gentlemen, and which of your principles teach us to bow to kings whom we have not elected?

We know without your teaching that lands were given for the support of feudal dignities, feudal titles, and feudal offices.

When you took down the cause as a grievance, why should the more grievous effect remain?

As there are now no hereditary honors, and no distinguished families, why are we taxed to maintain what you tell us ought not to exist?

You have sent down our old aristocratic landlords in no other character, and with no other title, but that of exactors under your authority.

Have you endeavored to make these your rent-gatherers respectable to us?

No.

You have sent them to us with their arms reversed, their shields broken, their impresses defaced; and so displumed, degraded, and metamorphosed, such unfeathered two-legged things, that we no longer know them.

They are strangers to us.

They do not even go by the names of our ancient lords.

Physically they may be the same men, though we are not quite sure of that, on your new philosophic doctrines of personal identity.

In all other respects they are totally changed.

We do not see why we have not as good a right to refuse them their rents as you have to abrogate all their honors, titles, and distinctions.

This we have never commissioned you to do; and it is one instance, among many indeed, of your assumption of undelegated power.

We see the burghers of Paris, through their clubs, their mobs, and their national guards, directing you at their pleasure and giving that as law to you which, under your authority, is transmitted as law to us.

Through you these burghers dispose of the lives and fortunes of us all.

Why should not you attend as much to the desires of the laborious husbandman with regard to our rent, by which we are affected in the most serious manner, as you do to the demands of these insolent burghers, relative to distinctions and titles of honor, by which neither they nor we are affected at all?


But we find you pay more regard to their fancies than to our necessities.

Is it among the rights of man to pay tribute to his equals?

Before this measure of yours, we might have thought we were not perfectly equal.

We might have entertained some old, habitual, unmeaning prepossession in favor of those landlords; but we cannot conceive with what other view than that of destroying all respect to them, you could have made the law that degrades them.

You have forbidden us to treat them with any of the old formalities of respect, and now you send troops to saber and to bayonet us into a submission to fear and force, which you did not suffer us to yield to the mild authority of opinion.

TO BE CONTINUED ...
Post Reply