PUBLISHED WEDNESDAYS AND SATURDAYS BY JOHN FENNO, No . 6 9 , HIGH.STREET, BETWEEN' SECOND AND 7 HIRD STREETS, PHH A DEI PHT A
[No. 24, of Vol. lII.]
FROM THE (BOSTON) COLUMBIAN CENTINEL.
Mr. RUSSELL,
IVTR- PAINE has undertaken to compare the
-L A English and French constitutions, upon the
ai ticle of reprefentacion. He ha\ of course ad
mired the latter, and censured the former.
This is unquestionably the molt defective part
of the English constitution—but even the uioit
ellcntial of those defedls appear to flow from the
natural order of things which a revolution in go
vernment could not reform ; from a Hate of lo
ciety, where every principle of* 1 religion or of
morality has loft itsinfluence, and where the on
ly shadow of virtue, public or private, remain
ing among a great majority of the people, is
founded upon an imaginary point of honor, the
relicfl of the exploded age of chivalry. Such at
piefent is the situation of the national character
both in England and in France. To attempt to
govern a nation like this, under the form of a
democracy, to pretend to«ftabli(h overfuch be
ings a government, which according to Rousseau I
js calculated only for a republick of Gods, and
which requires the continual exercise of virtues
beyond the reach of human infirmity, even in
its belt it may poflibly be among the
dreams ot Mr. Paine, but is what even the Na
tional Aflembly have not ventured to do; their
system will avoid some of the defetfls, which the
decays ot time and the mutability of human af
fairs have introduced into that of the English,
but I do not helitate to affirm that they have de
parted much farther from theeflential principles
of popular representation ; and that however
their attachment to republican principles may
have been celebrated, die theory of their Na
tional Allembly is remote from the spirit
of democracy than the practice of the Englifb
House of Commons.
1 he grounds upon which Mr. Paine acknow
ledges his approbation of the French constitution
are that they have limitted the number of their
i eprefentatives, in proportion to the numbers of
citizens who pay a tax of 60 sous per annum, and
the duration of the aflembly to two years. It is
certainly eflential to the principles of represen
tation that there should be a frequent recurrence
to the constituent body for election, because it
is the only security of the conftitueiu for the fi
delity of the agent : It is the only practical re
fponllbility by which the representative is bound.
The term of seven years for which the House of
Commons is elected, weakens the refponlibiliry
too much, and is a proper fubjetft of constitu
tional reform ; but by the French constitution,
there is no responsibility at all; no connexion
between the representative and his constituent:
The people have not even once in seven years an
opportunity to dismiss a servant who may have
dilpleafed them, or to re-eleifl another who may
have given them fatisfatfion. 7 here is upon
the French system less dependence of the repre
sentative upon his constituent than in England,
and the mode of election renders the biennial
return of the choice almost wholly nugatory.
It is not true that the French constitution allows
he privilege of voting for a representative in
the National Aflembly to every man who pays a
tax of 6c sous per annum. Mr. Paine has mis
taken the tact, for u is impossible that he should
have intentionally misrepresented it ; though
it differs a!molt as much from his principles as
from those of a real popular representation I.
is as follows. Every Frenchman born or natu
ralized, of 25 years of age, who pays a tax equal
to three day s labour, is not a hired servant, nor
a bankrupt, nor the son of a deceased bankrupt
(a very unjufl qualification) fliall be allowed To
A ' e P re '" eilta tive to the Nati
onal Aflembly ?_By 110 means. Yet one would
think the exclusions fufficiently severe, for a Go
vernment founded upon the equal rights of ail
men ; but he fliall vote for members of a certain
aflembly : This aflembly is allowed to choose,
not the representatives of the nation, but ano
ther body of electors, who are to be the imme
diate constituents of the legislative afTembly.
Thus the supreme legislative council of the na
tion, are to be the representatives of a repre
sentative body, whose constituents are the re
prefentaiives of the people ; and at every ftae;e
ot this complicated representation, the free citi
zens ot the state, are excluded from their natu
ral rights, by additional qualifications in point.
Wednesday, July 20, 1791.
of property.—Yet this is the system which we
are told is to abolifli aristocracy.
In the formation of the legislative body, the
National Aflembly, contemplated three different
objects of representation, the perfoiu of the peo
ple, their property, and the territory which they
inhabit .- They have endeavoured to eftablifli a
proportion compounded from the three, but in
the refinement of theft- metaphysics and mathe
matics, they have loft the primary objecft itfelf,
and the people are not represented.
But setting aside their calculations, what is
the ejfential principle upon which the represent
ation of the people in the legiflalure is ground
ed ? it is, that a Freeman, /hall never be bound
by any law unless he has consented to it. It is
impossible, except in a very small slate, that eve
ry individual lhould personally give his voice,
and therefore this practice of voting by repre
sentation was invented. In its moll perf'cdt state
it cannot folly anfvier the purpose of its institu
tion, because every representative is actuated by
several powerful motives, which could not ope
rate upon his constituents. It is an artificial de
mocracy, which can never perform completely
the funiftions of the natural democracy ; but
imperfect as it always mult b», no other con
trivance has been hitherto which could
so effectually give their operation to the opini
ons of the people. In the theory of representa
tion it is a personal trust, by which a thousand
individuals may authorise one man to express
their sentiments upon every law which may be
enacfled for the benefit of the whole people :
And therefore in theory every representative
ought to be elected by the unanimous vote of
his constituents ; for how can a man be said to
have been consulted in the formation of a law,
when the agent authorised to express his opinion
was not the man ofhis choice ? every pecuniary
qualification imposed either on the electors or as
a condition of eligibility, is an additional restric
tion upon the natural democracy, and weakens
the original purpose of the institution. Thus
far the people of America have submitted to ne
cefTlty in the constitution of their popular afiem
blies. But when the principle is abandoned so
completely, the individual citizen, even in
the pretended exercise of his infinitefimal frag
ment of sovereignty cannot possibly form an o
pinion, who will be the cletfor of the repre
sentative that is to be the depofirory ofhis opi
nion in the acfts of legislation. The aflembjy
thus formed may indeed afTume the name of a
democracy, but it will no more be entitled to the
appellation than an ill drawn miniature portrait,
to that of the animated original which it may
profefs to represent.
It is obvious that the reafoji why the National
Aflembly have chosen to refine their representa
tion through so many (trainers was to avoid the
violence, the tumults, the riots which render al
most all the populous towns in England a scene
of war and blood at the period of Parliamentary
-Elections. Time alone will inform us what the
success of their system will be, even in this parti
cular. Their elections however must be ex
tremely expensive, and mult open a thonfand a
venues to every fort of intrigue and venality.
The National Aflembly as a body, will be in
theory an aristocracy without refponflbility.
This aristocracy thus constituted are to podefs
the supreme power of the nation, limitted only
by a priuted constitution, fubje<ft to their own
conftrudtion and explanation.
Happy, thrice happy the people of America !
whose gentleness of manners, and habits of vir
tue are still fufficient to reconcile the enjoyment
of their natural rights, with the peace and tran
quility of their country—whose principles of re
ligious liberty did not result from an indiscrimi
nate contempt of all religion whatever, and
whose equal representation in their legislative
councils was founded upon an equaliry really ex
iting among them, and not upon the nietaphy
fical (peculations of fanciful politicians, vainly
contending against the unalterable courfcofe
vents, and the eltablifhed order of nature.
PRINTING.
t firft Pr I NTI nc-Pr ES.< ere6}ed in America, wai v Cam
t7o J'' hy Mr. Samuh G».e», ,n ,he year
1 tie fiift work printed was the Freeman'j Oath—th-next
a:> Almanack, made lor New-England/soy Mr. Pmci, manner
— and then the Pfalras, newly turned imo metre.
93
PUBLICOLA
fyfl'oo
[Whole No. 252.]
fOR THE GAZETTE OF THE Uh'fTEl) STATES.
MR. FENNO,
' I ' HE nioft i'lgrmous authors are apt to involve themfcNf in
A contraaifliom, when they afTume principles winch aic refu
table. Th us it has happened that Mr. Paine, after laboring haid
to prove that the English nation have no conltituuon, incautiouSy
throws himfelf off his guard, and makes the following ob'ferva'-
tions : " The laws of evei y country niuft be analagous to some
common principle. In England, no parent or mailer, nor all the
authority of Parliament, omnipotent as it has called itfeif (and as
Mr. Paine himfelf has called it, for he fays it can change what in
England it called their Constitution) can bind or controul the
personal freedom even of an individual, beyond the age of twenty
one years." Admitting this alTertion to be true, whence antes
the do£lrine, if not from the constitution of England ? Wt'.v can't
a parent controul the personal freedom of his foil, or a master of
his servant, after they have attained the age of twenty-one, unless
they bereftraincd by the conftitmion ? Is there any law in that
countiy which impofesfuch a restrain; ? I know of none—perhaps
Mr. Paine does. But what is very extraordinary, why cannot
the omnipotent power of Parliament, which some writers have
said can do every thing, except make a man a woman, bind or
controul ihe personal freedom of any individual of the age of
twenty-one ? I suppose Mr. Pa ne would answer, beeaufe (he laws
of every country mufl be analagous to some common principle;
and this is a common principle in England. As I deny the truth
of this position, which is nothing more than a fanciful theory, un
wari anted by fa ft, and difptoved bv the hiflory of many coun
tries, I (hould answer, because it makes a part of the conllitution,
acknowledged from time immemorial, engrafted in the breasts of
Englishmen, and which the Parliament dare not therefore vio
late. What is meant by a common principle, to which the laws of
every country mull be analagous ? I confefs I have no clearer
conception of it than of Mr. Burke's ttnbought grace of life, which
Mr. Paine could form no idea of. I i ave no idea of a principle
paramount to the legislature of a nation, unless it be a covkitutional
principle—where is this common principle to be found ? Does it
exist merely in the minds of the people -or is it recorded on
parchment? Whence is it derived ? If it be found in every coun
try, then I should wi!h to enquire, what is a common principle
"1 Algiers, m Turkey, or in AbyiTinia ? Whether it is a religious
as well as a political principle in some countries, or whether it is
merely political ? Whether the despots of Asia are always re
drained by this principle in their decrees ? And whether the laws
of ever) country are ipfofatto null and void when they oppugn
this common principle > And finally, who arc to judge whether
they are null and void ? Unless these queries are fatisfaftorily an
swered, I Hull continue to believe that this tranfeendent common
principle exist* only in the imaginations of theoretical politicians.
Brit before I dismiss ihis fubjefl, I with to be informed with
what truth theaficrtion is made that the Parliament of Great-Bri
:»in cannot bind or controul the perform! freedom of any individual
of the age of twenty-one. The alkrtion is a very broad one. and
includts a great number of cafcs which 1 am fatisfied Mr. Paine
had not in view, viz.—the cale of debtors, lunatics, and many
others, which mull readilv occur to persons acquainted with En
glilh jurisprudence. Believing lhat he stated or meant to Hate a
modified proposition, but at a loss totfeertain the nature and ex
tent of the modification, I beg leave to recall to his rcolleftion the
power of each house of Parliament to commit to prison thofc who
have infringed their privileges, even their own members, who of
courfc mufl be twenty-one vears of age. Now I have no other
mode of reconciling this fact with Mr. Paine's afTertion, but fuo
po.ing that imprifonmrnt in England is not binding or controll
ing one's personal freedom, as it is in other countries. To com
ment a little further upon this flrange text, what magic is there in
'he age . tuevty-one, that a parent or master, or the omnipotent
Parliament, cannot controul the personal freedom of any indivi
dual who has attained that age, but have liberty to do what they
pifale i! he wants a month ot it ? Unless this particular period of
life be definedby some conditional principle, there will be some
difficulty in deducing its origin. Why Mr. Paine's common
principle fhouid exaQly fix on the age of twenty-one as the period
of free agency, he alone can. I fancy, explain. This is certain,
that this common principle is not common to all countries, for m
fomr, majority takes place only at the age of twenty-five. I (hall
be told that the common principle of England has fixed that par
ticular age, and that the laws mufl conform thereto. Common
principle is then only another appellation for constitutional prin
ciple ; and Mr. Paine admits that England has a conllitution, but
under another name. The whole difputc is then about words.
Here is admitted by Mr. Paine to exist a certain principle, call it
what you plcafe, which the Parliament ot Great-Britain mufl con
form to. Is not this alTertion dire£lly inconsistent with his other
afTertion of the power of Parliament, to do what they please, un
controuled and uncontroulable, unlimited by any constitution, and
fully competent to change the form 6t government as often as their
capricc shall dittate?
Paragraph from an old ncufpaper, printed above
90 years ago
foolilh young Men have lately
v> brought aboute a new Change in Falhione—
They have begun to faften their Shoes and Knee
Bands withe Buckles, inflead of Ribbandii,whcre
wuhe their forefathers were well content, and
moreover found them more en(y and convenient,
and surely every reasonable Man will own they
were more decente and tnodefle, than those new
fangled, unfecmly Clajps, or Buckles, as they call
them, which will gall and vex the bones of these
vain Coxcombes beyonde fufFerance, and make
them repent of their Pride and Folly. We hope
all grave and honourable perl'ons will withholde
their countenance from such effeminate and im
modede ornament*. It belongeth to the reve
rend/? Clergy to tell these thoughtlefle Youths
in a folemne manner, that such things are for
bidden in Scripture.
gracch us.
rßojlon Cazette."]