AGRARIAN JUSTICE, OPPOSED TO AGRARIAN LAW, AND TO AGRARIAN MONOPOLY. BEING A PLAN FOR Meliorating the Condition of Man, &c.

TO preſerve the benefits of what is called civilized life, and to remedy, at the ſame time, the evils it has pro⯑duced, ought to be conſidered as one of the firſt objects of re⯑formed legiſlation.

Whether that ſtate that is proudly, perhaps erroneouſly, called civilization, has moſt promoted or moſt injured the ge⯑neral happineſs of man, is a queſtion that may be ſtrongly con⯑teſted. On one ſide the ſpectator is dazzled by ſplendid ap⯑pearances; on the other, he is ſhocked by extremes of wretchedneſs; both of which he has erected. The moſt af⯑fluent and the moſt miſerable of the human race are to be found in the countries that are called civilized.

To underſtand what the ſtate of ſociety ought to be, it is neceſſary to have ſome idea of the natural and primitive ſtate of man; ſuch as it is at this day among the Indians of North [6] America. There is not, in that ſtate, any of thoſe ſpectacles of human miſery which poverty and want preſent to our eyes in all the towns and ſtreets in Europe. Poverty therefore is a thing created by that which is called civilized life. It exiſts not in the natural ſtate. On the other hand, the natural ſtate is without thoſe advantages which flow from Agriculture, Arts, Science, and Manufactures.

The life of an Indian is a continual holiday, compared with the poor of Europe; and, on the other hand, it appears to be abject when compared with the rich. Civilization, therefore, or that which is ſo called, has operated two ways, to make one part of ſociety more affluent, and the other part more wretched than would have been the lot of either in a natural ſtate.

It is always poſſible to go from the natural to the civilized ſtate, but it is never poſſible to go from the civilized to the natural ſtate. The reaſon is, that man, in a natural ſtate, ſubſiſting by hunting, requires ten times the quantity of land to range over to procure himſelf ſuſtenance, than would ſup⯑port him in a civilized ſtate, where the earth is cultivated. When therefore a country becomes populous by the additional aids of cultivation, arts, and ſcience, there is a neceſſity of preſerving things in that ſtate; becauſe, without it, there can⯑not be ſuſtenance for more, perhaps, than a tenth part of its inhabitants. The thing therefore now to be done, is, to re⯑medy the evils, and preſerve the benefits that have ariſen to ſociety, by paſſing from the natural to that which is called the civilized ſtate.

Taking then the matter upon this ground, the firſt principle of civilization ought to have been, and ought ſtill to be, that the condition of every perſon born into the world, after a ſtate of civilization commences, ought not to be worſe than if he [7] had been born before that period. But the fact is, that the condition of millions in every country in Europe is far worſe than if they had been born before civilization began, or had been born among the Indians of North America of the preſent day, I will ſhew how this fact has happened.

It is a poſition not to be controverted, that the earth, in its natural uncultivated ſtate, was, and ever would have continued to be, the COMMON PROPERTY OF THE HUMAN RACE. In that ſtate every man would have been born to property. He would have been a joint life-proprietor with the reſt in the property of the ſoil, and in all its natural productions, vege⯑table and animal.

But the earth in its natural ſtate, as before ſaid, is capable of ſupporting but a ſmall number of inhabitants compared with what it is capable of doing in a cultivated ſtate. And as it is impoſſible to ſeparate the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itſelf, upon which that improvement is made, the idea of landed property aroſe from that inſeparable con⯑nection; but it is nevertheleſs true, that it is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itſelf, that is individual property. Every proprietor therefore of cultivated land owes to the community a ground-rent; for I know no better term to expreſs the idea by for the land which he holds; and it is from this ground-rent that the fund propoſed in this plan is to iſſue.

It is deducible, as well from the nature of the thing, as from all the hiſtories tranſmitted to us, that the idea of landed pro⯑perty commenced with cultivation, and that there was no ſuch thing as landed property before that time. It could not exiſt in the firſt ſtate of man, that of hunters; it did not exiſt in the ſecond ſtate, that of ſhepherds: Neither Abraham, Iſaac, [8] Jacob, or Job, ſo far as the hiſtory of the Bible may be cre⯑dited in probable things, were owners of land. Their property conſiſted, as is always enumerated, in flocks and herds, and they travelled with them from place to place. The frequent contentions at that time about the uſe of a well in the dry country of Arabia, where thoſe people lived, ſhew alſo there was no landed property. It was not admitted that land could be located as property.

There could be no ſuch thing as landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it: neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the firſt title-deeds ſhould iſſue.—From whence then aroſe the idea of landed property? I anſwer as before, that when cultivation began, the idea of landed property began with it; from the impoſſibility of ſepa⯑rating the improvement made by cultivation from the earth it⯑ſelf upon which that improvement was made. The value of the improvement ſo far exceeded the value of the natural earth, at that time, as to abſorb it; till, in the end, the common right of all became confounded into the cultivated right of the individual. But they are nevertheleſs diſtinct ſpecies of rights, and will continue to be ſo as long as the world endures.

It is only by tracing things to their origin, that we can gain rightful ideas of them; and it is by gaining ſuch ideas that we diſcover the boundary that divides right from wrong, and which teaches every man to know his own. I have entitled this tract Agrarian Juſtice, to diſtinguiſh it from Agrarian Law. Nothing could be more unjuſt than Agrarian Law in a country improved by cultivation; for though every man, as an inhabitant of the earth, is a joint proprietor of it in its na⯑tural ſtate, it does not follow that he is a joint proprietor of [9] cultivated earth. The additional value made by cultivation, after the ſyſtem was admitted, became the property of thoſe who did it, or who inherited it from them, or who purchaſed it. It had originally an owner. Whilſt, therefore, I advo⯑cate the right, and intereſt myſelf in the hard caſe of all thoſe who have been thrown out of their natural inheritance by the introduction of the ſyſtem of landed property, I equally de⯑fend the right of the poſſeſſor to the part which is his.

Cultivation is, at leaſt, one of the greateſt improvements ever made by human invention. It has given to created earth a ten-fold value. But the landed monopoly, that began with it, has produced the greateſt evil. It has diſpoſſeſſed more than half the inhabitants of every nation of their natural inhe⯑ritance, without providing for them, as ought to have been done as an indemnification for that loſs, and has thereby cre⯑ated a ſpecies of poverty and wretchedneſs that did not exiſt be⯑fore.

In advocating the caſe of the perſons thus diſpoſſeſſed, it is a right and not a charity that I am pleading for. But it is that kind of right which, being neglected at firſt, could not be brought forward afterwards, till heaven had opened the way by a revolution in the ſyſtem of government. Let us then do ho⯑nour to revolutions by juſtice, and give currency to their prin⯑ciples by bleſſings.

Having thus in a few words opened the merits of the caſe, I proceed to the plan I have to propoſe, which is—‘To create a National Fund, out of which there ſhall be paid to every perſon, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the ſum of Fifteen Pounds ſterling, as a compenſation in part for the loſs of his or her natural inheritance by the introduc⯑tion of the ſyſtem of landed property.’ [10]AND ALSO,‘The ſum of Ten Pounds per annum, during life, to every perſon now living of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they ſhall arrive at that age.’

MEANS BY WHICH THE FUND IS TO BE CREATED.

I have already eſtabliſhed the principle, namely, that the earth, in its natural uncultivated ſtate, was, and ever would have continued to be, the COMMON PROPERTY OF THE HU⯑MAN RACE—that in that ſtate every perſon would have been born to property—and that the ſyſtem of landed property, by its inſeparable connection with cultivation, and with what is called civilized life, has abſorbed the property of all thoſe whom it diſpoſſeſſed, without providing, as ought to have been done, an indemnification for that loſs.

The fault, however, is not in the preſent poſſeſſors. No complaint is intended, or ought to be alledged againſt them, unleſs they adopt the crime by oppoſing juſtice. The fault is in the ſyſtem, and it has ſtolen imperceptibly upon the world, aided afterwards by the Agrarian law of the ſword. But the fault can be made to reform itſelf by ſucceſſive generations, without diminiſhing or deranging the property of any of the preſent poſſeſſors, and yet the operation of the fund can com⯑mence, and be in full activity the firſt year of its eſtabliſhment, or ſoon after, as I ſhall ſhew.

It is propoſed that the payments, as already ſtated, be made to every perſon, rich or poor. It is beſt to make it ſo, to pre⯑vent invidious diſtinctions. It is alſo right it ſhould be ſo, becauſe it is in lieu of the natural inheritance, which, as a right, belongs to every man, over and above the property he may have created or inherited from thoſe who did. Such per⯑ſons [11] as do not chuſe to receive it, can throw it into the com⯑mon fund.

Taking it then for granted, that no perſon ought to be in a worſe condition when born under what is called a ſtate of ci⯑vilization, than he would have been, had he been born in a ſtate of nature, and that civilization ought to have made, and ought ſtill to make, proviſion for that purpoſe, it can only be done by ſubtracting from property a portion equal in value to the natural inheritance it has abſorbed.

Various methods may be propoſed for this purpoſe, but that which appears to be the beſt, not only becauſe it will operate without deranging any preſent poſſeſſions, or without interfering with the collection of taxes, or emprunts neceſſary for the pur⯑poſe of goverment and the revolution, but becauſe it will be the leaſt troubleſome and the moſt effectual, and alſo becauſe the ſubtraction will be made at a time that beſt admits it, which is, at the moment that property is paſſing by the death of one per⯑ſon to the poſſeſſion of another. In this caſe, the bequeather gives nothing; the receiver pays nothing. The only matter to him is, that the monopoly of natural inheritance, to which there never was a right, begins to ceaſe in his perſon. A ge⯑nerous man would wiſh it not to continue, and a juſt man will rejoice to ſee it aboliſhed.

My ſtate of health prevents my making ſufficient enquiries with reſpect to the doctrine of probabilities, whereon to found calculations with ſuch degrees of certainty as they are capable of. What, therefore, I offer on this head is more the reſult of obſervation and reflection, than of received information; but I believe it will be found to agree ſufficiently enough with fact.

In the firſt place, taking twenty-one years as the epoch of maturity, all the property of a nation, real and perſonal, is [12] always in the poſſeſſion of perſons above that age. It is then neceſſary to know, as a datum of calculation, the average of years which perſons above that age will be live. I take this average to be about thirty years, for though many perſons will live forty, fifty, or ſixty years after the age of twenty-one years, others will die much ſooner, and ſome in every year of that time.

Taking then thirty years as the average of time, it will give, without any material variation one way or other, the average of time in which the whole property or capital of a nation, or a ſum equal thereto, will have paſſed through one entire revolution in deſcent, that is, will have gone by deaths to new poſſeſſors: for though, in many inſtances, ſome parts of this capital will remain forty, fifty, or ſixty years in the poſ⯑ſeſſion of one perſon, other parts will have revolved two or three times before that thirty years expire, which will bring it to that average; for were one half of the capital of a nation to revolve twice in thirty years, it would produce the ſame fund as if the whole revolved once.

Taking then thirty years as the average of time in which the whole capital of a nation, or a ſum equal thereto, will re⯑volve once, the thirtieth part thereof will be the ſum that will revolve every year, that is, will go by deaths to new poſſeſſors; and this laſt ſum being thus known, and the ratio per cent. to be ſubtracted from it being determined, will give the annual amount or income of the propoſed fund, to be applied as al⯑ready mentioned.

In looking over the diſcourſe of the Engliſh Miniſter, Pitt, in his opening of what is called in England the budget, (the ſcheme of finance for the year 1796) I find an eſtimate of the national capital of that country. As this eſtimate of a national [13] capital is prepared ready to my hand, I take it as a datum to act upon. When a calculation is made upon the known ca⯑pital of any nation combined with its population, it will ſerve as a ſcale for any other nation, in proportion as its capital and population be more or leſs. I am the more diſpoſed to take this eſtimate of Mr. Pitt, for the purpoſe of ſhewing to that Miniſter, upon his own calculation, how much better money may be employed, than in waſting it, as he has done, on the wild project of ſetting up Bourbon kings. What, in the name of Heaven, are Bourbon kings to the people of England? It is better that the people of England have bread.

Mr. Pitt ſtates the national capital of England, real and perſonal, to be one thouſand three hundred millions ſterling, which is about one fourth part of the national capital of France, including Belgia. The event of the laſt harveſt in each coun⯑try proves that the ſoil of France is more productive than that of England, and that it can better ſupport twenty-four or twenty-five millions of inhabitants than that of England can ſeven, or ſeven and an half.

The thirtieth part of this capital of £1,300,000,000 is £43,333,333, which is the part that will revolve every year by deaths in that country to new poſſeſſors; and the ſum that will annually revolve in France in the proportion of four to one, will be about one hundred and ſeventy-three millions ſter⯑ling. From this ſum of £43,333,333 annually revolving, is to be ſubtracted the value of the natural inheritance abſorbed in it, which perhaps, in fair juſtice, cannot be taken at leſs, and ought not to be taken at more than a tenth part.

It will always happen, that of the property thus revolving by deaths every year, part will deſcend in a direct line to ſons and daughters, and the other part collaterally, and the pro⯑portion will be found to be about three to one; that is, about [14] thirty millions of the above ſum will deſcend to direct heirs, and the remaining ſum of £13,333,333 to more distant rela⯑tions, and part to ſtrangers.

Conſidering then that man is always related to ſociety, that relationſhip will become comparatively greater in proportion as the next of kin is more diſtant. It is therefore conſiſtent with civilization to ſay, that where there are no direct heirs, ſociety ſhall be heir to a part over and above the tenth part due to ſo⯑ciety. If this additional part be from five or ten or twelve per cent. in proportion as the next of kin be nearer or more re⯑mote, ſo as to average with the eſcheats that may fall, which ought always to go to ſociety and not to the government, an addition of ten per cent more, the produce from the annual ſum of—£.43,333,333 will be,

Having thus arrived at the annual amount of the propoſed fund, I come, in the next place, to ſpeak of the population proportioned to this fund, and to compare it with uſes to which the fund is to be applied.

The population (I mean that of England) does not exceed ſeven millions and a half, and the number of perſons above the age of fifty, will, in that caſe, be about four hundred thou⯑ſand. There would not, however, be more than that number that would accept the propoſed ten pounds ſterling per annum, though they would be entitled to it. I have no idea it would be accepted by many perſons who had a yearly income of two or three hundred pounds ſterling But as we often ſee in⯑ſtances [15] of rich people falling into ſudden poverty, even at the age of ſixty, they would always have the right of drawing all the arrears due to them.—Four millions, therefore, of the above annual ſum of £5,666,666, will be required for four hundred thouſand aged perſons, at ten pounds ſterling each.

I come now to ſpeak of the perſons annually arriving at twenty-one years of age. If all the perſons who died were above the age of twenty-one years, the number of perſons an⯑nually arriving at that age muſt be equal to the annual number of deaths to keep the population ſtationary. But the greater part die under the age of twenty-one, and therefore the num⯑ber of perſons annually arriving at twenty-one, will be leſs than half the number of deaths. The whole number of deaths upon a population of ſeven millions and a half, will be about 220,000 annually. The number at twenty-one years of age will be about 100,000. The whole number of theſe will not receive the propoſed fifteen pounds, for the reaſons already mentioned, though, as in the former caſe, they would be in⯑titled to it. Admitting then that a tenth part declined receiv⯑ing it, the amount would ſtand thus:

There are in every country a number of blind and lame perſons, totally incapable of earning a livelihood. But as it will happen that the greater number of blind perſons will be among thoſe who are above the age of fifty years, they will be provided for in that claſs. The remaining ſum of [16] £.316,666 will provide for the lame and blind under that age, at the ſame rate of 10l. annually for each perſon.

Having now gone through all the neceſſary calculations, and ſtated the particulars of the plan, I ſhall conclude with ſome observations.

It is not charity but a right—not bounty but juſtice, that I am pleading for. The preſent ſtate of what is called civi⯑lization is * * * * It is the reverſe of what it ought to be, and * * * * The contraſt of affluence and wretchedneſs continually meeting and offending the eye, is like dead and living bodies chained together. Though I care as little about riches as any man, I am a friend to riches, becauſe they are capable of good. I care not how affluent ſome may be, provided that none be miſerable in con⯑ſequence of it.—But it is impoſſible to enjoy affluence with the fecility it is capable of being enjoyed, whilſt ſo much mi⯑ſery is mingled in the ſcene. The ſight of the miſery, and the unpleaſant ſenſations it ſuggeſts, which, though they may be ſuffocated, cannot be extinguiſhed, are a greater drawback upon the felicity of affluence than the propoſed 10 per cent. upon property is worth. He that would not give the one to get rid of the other, has no charity, even for himſelf.

There are in every country ſome magnificent charities eſta⯑bliſhed by individuals. It is however but little that any indi⯑vidual can do, when the whole extent of the miſery to be re⯑lieved be conſidered. He may ſatisfy his conſcience, but not his heart. He may give all that he has, and that all will re⯑lieve but little. It is only by organizing civilization upon ſuch principles as to act like a ſyſtem of pullies, that the whole weight of miſery can be removed.

[17] The plan here propoſed will reach the whole. It will im⯑mediately relieve and take out of view three claſſes of wretch⯑edneſs—the blind, the lame, and the aged poor; and it will furniſh the riſing generation with means to prevent their be⯑coming poor; and it will do this, without deranging or inter⯑fering with any national meaſures. To ſhew that this will be the caſe, it is ſufficient to obſerve, that the operation and effect of the plan will, in all caſes, be the ſame, as if every individual was voluntarily to make his will, and diſpoſe of his property, in the manner here propoſed.

But it is juſtice and not charity, that is the principle of the plan. In all great caſes it is neceſſary to have a principle more univerſally active than charity; and with reſpect to juſtice, it ought not to be left to the choice of detached individuals, whe⯑ther they will do juſtice or not. Conſidering then the plan on the ground of juſtice, it ought to be the act of the whole, grow⯑ing ſpontaneouſly out of the principles of the revolution, and the reputation of it to be national, and not individual.

A plan upon this principle would benefit the revolution by the energy that ſprings from the conſciouſneſs of juſtice. It would multiply alſo the national reſources; for property, like vegetation, encreaſes by off-ſets. When a young couple be⯑gins the world, the difference is exceedingly great, whether they begin with nothing or with fifteen pounds a-piece. With this aid they could buy a cow, and implements to cultivate a few acres of land; and inſtead of becoming burthens upon ſociety, which is always the caſe, where children are produced faſter than they can be fed, would be put in the way of becoming uſeful and profitable citizens. The national domains alſo would ſell the better, if pecuniary aids were provided to culti⯑vate them in ſmall lots.

It is the practice of what has unjuſtly obtained the name of civilization (and the practice merits not to be called either cha⯑rity [18] or policy) to make ſome proviſion for perſons becoming poor and wretched, only at the time they become ſo.—Would it not, even as a matter of economy, be far better, to deviſe means to prevent their becoming poor? This can beſt be done by making every perſon, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, an inheritor of ſomething to begin with. The rug⯑ged face of ſociety, checquered with the extremes of affluence and of want, proves that ſome extraordinary violence has been committed upon it, and calls on juſtice for redreſs. The great maſs of the poor, in all countries, are become an hereditary race, and it is next to impoſſible for them to get out of that ſtate of themſelves. It ought alſo to be obſerved, that this maſs encreaſe in all the countries that are called civilized. More perſons fall annually into it, than get out of it.

Though in a plan, in which juſtice and humanity are the foundation principles, intereſt ought not to be admitted into the calculation, yet it is always of advantage to the eſtabliſh⯑ment of any plan, to ſhew that it is beneficial as a matter of intereſt. The ſucceſs of any propoſed plan, ſubmitted to pub⯑lic conſideration, muſt finally depend on the numbers inte⯑reſted in ſupporting it, united with the juſtice of its prin⯑ciples.

The plan here propoſed will benefit all without injuring any. It will conſolidate the intereſt of the republic with that of the individual. To the numerous claſs diſpoſſeſſed of their natural inheritance by the ſyſtem of landed property, it will be an act of national juſtice. To perſons dying poſſeſſed of moderate fortunes, it will operate as a tontine to their children, more beneficial than the ſum of money paid into the fund; and it will give to the accumulation of riches a degree of ſecu⯑rity that none of the old governments of Europe, now totter⯑ing on their foundations, can give.

[19] I do not ſuppoſe that more than one family in ten, in any of the countries of Europe, has, when the head of the family dies, a clear property left of five hundred pounds ſterling, To all ſuch the plan is advantageous. That property would pay fifty pounds into the fund, and if there were only two children under age, they would receive fifteen pounds each (thirty pounds) on coming of age, and be entitled to ten pounds a year after fifty. It is from the overgrown acquiſition of property that the fund will ſupport itſelf; and I know that the poſſeſſors of ſuch property in England, though they would eventually be bene⯑fited by the protection of nine tenths of it, will exclaim againſt the plan. But, without entering into any enquiry how they came by that property, let them recollect, that they have been the advocates of this war, and that Mr. Pitt has already laid on more new taxes to be raiſed annually upon the people of England, and that for ſupporting the deſpotiſm of Auſtria and the Bourbons, againſt the liberties of France, than would an⯑nually pay all the ſums propoſed in this plan.

I have made the calculations, ſtated in this plan, upon what is called perſonal, as well as upon landed property. The reaſon for making it upon land is already explained; and the reaſon for taking perſonal property into the calculation, is equally well founded, though on a different principle. Land, as before ſaid, is the free gift of the Creator in common to the human race. Perſonal property is the effect of Society; and it is as impoſſible for an individual to acquire perſonal property without the aid of Society, as it is for him to make land origi⯑nally. Separate an individual from ſociety, and give him an iſland or a continent to poſſeſs, and he cannot acquire perſonal property. He cannot become rich. So inſeparably are the means connected with the end, in all caſes, that where the former do not exiſt, the latter cannot be obtained. All accu⯑mulation therefore of perſonal property, beyond what a man's [20] own hands produce, is derived to him by living in ſociety; and he owes, on every principle of juſtice, of gratitude, and of civi⯑lization, a part of that accumulation back again to ſociety from whence the whole came. This is putting the matter on a ge⯑neral principle, and perhaps it is beſt to do ſo; for if we exa⯑mine the caſe minutely, it will be found, that the accumulation of perſonal property is, in many inſtances, the effects of pay⯑ing too little for the labour that produced it; the conſequence of which is, that the working hand periſhes in old age, and the employer abounds in affluence. It is perhaps impoſſible to proportion exactly the price of labour to the profits it produces; and it will alſo be ſaid, as an apology for injuſtice, that were a workman to receive an increaſe of wages daily, he would not ſave it againſt old age, nor be much the better for it in the interim. Make then Society the treaſurer to guard it for him in a common fund, for it is no reaſon that becauſe he might not make a good uſe of it for himſelf that another ſhall take it.

The ſtate of civilization that has prevailed throughout Eu⯑rope, is as unjuſt in its principle, as it is horrid in its effects; and it is the conſciouſneſs of this, and the apprehenſion that ſuch a ſtate cannot continue when once inveſtigation begins in any country, that makes the poſſeſſors of property dread every idea of a revolution. It is the hazard and not the principles of a revolution that retards their progreſs. This being the caſe, it is neceſſary, as well for the protection of property, as for the ſake of juſtice and humanity, to form a ſyſtem, that whilſt it preſerves one part of ſociety from wretchedneſs, ſhall ſecure the other from depredation.

The ſuperſtitious awe, the enſlaven reverence, that for⯑merly ſurrounded affluence, is paſſing away in all countries, and leaving the poſſeſſor of property to the convulſion of acci⯑dents. When wealth and ſplendour, inſtead of faſcinating the [21] multitude, excite emotions of diſguſt; when, inſtead of draw⯑ing forth admiration, it is beheld as an inſult upon wretched⯑neſs; when the oſtentatious appearance it makes ſerves to call the right of it in queſtion, the caſe of property becomes criti⯑cal, and it is only in a ſyſtem of juſtice that the poſſeſſor can contemplate ſecurity.

To remove the danger, it is neceſſary to remove the antipa⯑thies, and this can only be done by making property productive of a national bleſſing, extending to every individual. When the riches of one man above another ſhall encreaſe the na⯑tional fund in the ſame proportion; when it ſhall be ſeen that the proſperity of that fund depends on the proſperity of indivi⯑duals; when the more riches a man acquires, the better it ſhall be for the general maſs; it is then that antipathies will ceaſe, and property be placed on the permanent baſis of na⯑tional intereſt and protection.

I have no property in France to become ſubject to the plan I propoſe. What I have, which is not much, is in the United States of America. But I will pay one hundred pounds ſter⯑ling towards this fund in France, the inſtant it ſhall be eſta⯑bliſhed; and I will pay the ſame ſum in England, whenever a ſimilar eſtabliſhment ſhall take place in that country.

A revolution in the ſtate of civilization is the neceſſary com⯑panion of revolutions in the ſyſtem of government. If a revo⯑lution in any country be from bad to good, or from good to bad, the ſtate of what is called civilization in that country, muſt be made conformable thereto, to give that revolution effect. Deſpotic government ſupports itſelf by abject civilization, in which debaſement of the human mind, and wretchedneſs in the maſs of the people, are the chief criterions. Such govern⯑ments conſider man merely as an animal; that the exerciſe of intellectual faculty is not his privilege; that he has nothing to [22] do with the laws, but to obey them;^* and they politically de⯑pend more upon breaking the ſpirit of the people by poverty, than they fear enraging it by deſperation.

It is a revolution in the ſtate of civilization that will give perfection to the revolution of France. Already the conviction that government, by repreſentation, is the true ſyſtem of govern⯑ment, is ſpreading itſelf faſt in the world. The reaſonableneſs of it can be ſeen by all. The juſtneſs of it makes itſelf felt even by its oppoſers. But when a ſyſtem of civilization, grow⯑ing out of that ſyſtem of government, ſhall be ſo organized, that not a man or woman born in the republic, but ſhall inherit ſome means of beginning the world, and ſee before them the cer⯑tainty of eſcaping the miſeries, that under other governments accompany old age, the revolution of France will have an advo⯑cate and an ally in the heart of all nations.

An army of principles will penetrate where an army of ſol⯑diers cannot—It will ſucceed where diplomatic management would fail—It is neither the Rhine, the Channel, nor the Ocean, that can arreſt its progreſs—It will march on the hori⯑zon of the world, and it will conquer.