DEFINITION, &c.

‘A Conſtitution is a Thing antecedent to Government, and a Government is only the Creature of a Conſtitution. The Conſtitution of a Country is not the act of its Government, but of the People conſtituting a Government. It is the Body of Elements to which you can refer and quote article by article; and which contains the principles upon which the Government ſhall be eſtabliſhed, the manner in which it ſhall be organized, the powers it ſhall have, the Mode of Elections, the Duration of Parliaments, or by what other name ſuch Bodies may be called; the powers which the ex⯑ecutive [4]part of the Government ſhall have; and, in fine, every thing that relates to the compleat organization of a civil government, and the principles upon which it ſhall act, and by which it ſhall be bound. A Conſtitution, therefore, is to a Government what the laws made afterwards by that Government are to a Court of Judicature. The Court of Ju⯑dicature does not make the laws, neither can it alter them; it only acts in con⯑formity to the laws made: and the Govern⯑ment is in like manner governed by the Conſtitution.’

Rights of Man, by Thomas Paine, &c. &c. &c.

WHAT a fortunate Age is this, Mr. Paine, when every thing is defined, every thing laid open to the meaneſt capacities, every prejudice done away, and Truth ſtands bluſhing before us ſtripped ſtark naked! I had always had a ſtrange veneration for the word Conſtitution, though, to ſay the truth, till [5]I had the good fortune to ſtumble upon the above ſhort, clear, and preciſe definition of it, I was as little able to have explained its exact meaning, as moſt of thoſe who make uſe of it every day, without aſking themſelves whether they annex to it any determinate ſignification.

You have told us, Sir, what a Conſti⯑tution is and what it is not. I am now inſtructed, that it is a thing both in fact and name: ‘"Aye, but what thing, Sir John, what thing?"’ Why it is a thing that begets Government, which begets Laws, which beget Judica⯑ture, &c. and ſo they go on begetting one another to the end of the chapter. And who begot the Conſtitution? Why the People; that is, every individual of the Commu⯑nity, who having, at ſome time or other, been aſſembled together, before the exiſtence of Law and Government, in a perfect ſtate of independent nature, did by themſelves, or by a ſelect number amongſt them choſen [6]for that purpoſe, agree upon a Body of Elements to which you can refer and quote article by article in a viſible form: Parlia⯑ments, Elections, &c. &c.—That all this is binding upon the Community for ever, not to be altered in an iota, till, by what is called a Revolution, the people think fit to put themſelves (as they have always a right to do), back again into the original ſtate, by extinguiſhing all Law and Govern⯑ment, in order to amuſe themſelves with making a new Conſtitution.

By this definition, it is indeed clear, that neither France nor England ever had a Con⯑ſtitution, nor any other country that I ever heard of. Thus, after mankind has been more or leſs in a ſtate of Civil Government all over the world, for ſo many thouſand years, it was reſerved for the Philoſophers of North America and the Jacobins ‘enlightened and enlightening,’ to convey to us the de⯑finition, through your organs, of a word, to which, though it had been ſo long in every body's mouth, the true ſenſe had never [7]been affixed—a word expreſſive of a Thing that never has had an exiſtence.

With due ſubmiſſion, Sir, to your in⯑ſtructive judgment, ſuffer me to doubt at leaſt, whether the term, in your ſenſe of it, can be, with more propriety, applied to the preſent ſtate of France ſince the Revolution, than it would under the Monarchy they have done away. I will admit, if you pleaſe (what I believe you would hardly think of aſſuming as the fact), that the elections of the Members to the Aſſembleés des Etats Generaux included the voice of every in⯑dividual in the community.

But pray, did the People firſt place them⯑ſelves in the original primitive ſtate, by de⯑claring an abolition of all exiſting eſtabliſh⯑ments? Did they delegate their authority to their Deputies in conſequence of ſuch a ſtate of things, with a formal commiſſion expreſsly to frame a new Conſtitution as the baſis of a new Government?—Surely I muſt have groſsly deceived myſelf, if, in many of their [8]inſtructions, they did not expreſsly declare that they were already in poſſeſſion of a Con⯑ſtitution which they reclaimed from the time of Charlemagne; a Conſtitution that was dear to them in the extreme, and which they recommended to the protection of their at⯑tornies in the ſtrongeſt terms of anxious ſolicitude. If this was the ſentiment ex⯑preſſed in ſome of the cahiers of inſtruction, was it not implied in every one of them, who unanimouſly declare their attachment to the Monarchy, with the other three orders of the ſtate, which they declare to be the lawful ſupreme Legiſlature of the kingdom, and which they look up to as the redreſs of all their grievances, and the Palladium of their liberties? I ſhall ſuppoſe now that the Repreſentatives are wiſer than their Conſtituents; that the body of elements they have deviſed, is as much better as you pleaſe than thoſe that were committed to their protection; nay, I will ſuppoſe even that the Nation "enlightened" ſince by the force of eloquence and of the lanthorn, are at this moment of the ſame opinion with the Aſ⯑ſembly; [9]ſtill, as the Conſtitution that has been decreed under a commiſſion, not only containing no authority from the people for the deſtruction of all exiſting eſtabliſhments, and the conſtituting new ones, but con⯑taining the moſt poſitive commands to pro⯑tect the exiſting eſtabliſhments which were held ſacred by them, it is ſubmitted to you, in all humility, whether ſuch innovations come at all within the limits of your De⯑finition; whether thoſe who accept a truſt to one purpoſe, and uſe it to the direct con⯑trary, can avail themſelves of the authority they have betrayed; whether, if added to the breach of truſt, there happens to be at the ſame time a breach of the Oath, their employers exacted from them to abide by their inſtructions, inſtead of acting in direct oppoſition to them; whether any oath im⯑poſed upon others afterwards by ſuch an Aſſembly can be conceived, even by them⯑ſelves, to have any validity: whether, in ſhort, upon your principle, the powers aſ⯑ſumed by ſuch a Body can be regarded as any thing more than a direct uſurpation upon [10]the rights of the people, and the force they exerciſe over all ranks of Citizens, from the Monarch down to the Peaſant, with ſo free a hand, can be conſidered as any thing but the ariſtocratical tyranny of an unauthorized though inviolable oppreſſion and perjured Senate.

The conciſe, clear, and explicit definition you have given us, Sir, of a Conſtitution, has one great advantage attached to it, which every Lover of Liberty will know how to appre⯑ciate. As it ſuppoſes an extinction of all law and government previous to the eſtabliſh⯑ment of the principles of a future ſyſtem; and, as it is the duty of every good Citizen to endeavour to procure to his country the beſt poſſible ſituation he can deviſe, it opens a wide field for Patriot Exertions. It is hence⯑forth not only an innocent occupation, but a meritorious exerciſe of the rights of the individual, whenever he has a new Conſti⯑tution to propoſe, to begin by removing out of his way the exiſting eſtabliſhments, that he may convene his Fellow Citizens for the [11]purpoſe of conſidering the new body of ele⯑ments he has to propound. It will there⯑fore be no longer a crime in future Le⯑giſlators, ſuch as Guy Vaux, Jack Cade, or Ld. G — G —, to deſtroy the preſent ſyſtem; much leſs to call upon the aſſiſtance of the people for that purpoſe; and ſtill leſs to ſuggeſt ſuch arguments, through the chan⯑nel of the preſs, or by word of mouth, as may awaken them to the exerciſe of their indiſputable indefeaſible rights. It is a duty they will fulfil in common with the moſt reſpectable authorities, a Paine, a Cromwell, a Franklyn, a Ravailac, and a Mirabeau. Whoever, in future, ſhall be arreſted in his career by the charge of ſedition, will anſwer calmly, ‘I am ignorant of the term; to in⯑cite my Fellow Citizens to the exerciſe of a lawful right, for their own good, can never be imputed as a crime.’ If, ani⯑mated in the cauſe of Freedom, he ſhould be tranſported beyond the bounds of per⯑ſuaſion into ſome overt act of violence, as parricide, for example, he will ſay, ‘I de⯑ſerve a crown of laurel, not a halter. I [12]have a Conſtitution to propoſe by and by, and am only preparing the neceſſary pre⯑vious ſteps to it, by bringing about a ſtate of nature through a Revolution and the extinction of all Law and Govern⯑ment.—I ſtand upon the Rights of Man, and I defy you to touch a hair of my head.’ What a field does this open for the generous efforts of active patriotiſm un⯑controuled?

Luminous, however, Sir, as your happy definition cannot but be eſteemed, the more we reflect upon it; and pregnant with all the benefits to mankind which the philantropy of Modern Philoſophy is ſo eager to impart; one regret offers itſelf upon the peruſal of it, viz. the utter impoſſibility of applying it to any practical purpoſe. Like ſo many other excellent devices, I fear it is only fitted to the ſpeculation of the cloſet and the regions of metaphyſical theory. To obtain the ac⯑tual conſent (for, alas! after all, the virtual conſent, through delegates, is little better than a mere fiction of law), by which [13]millions of individuals equal, free, and inde⯑pendent, bind themſelves to abide by a Go⯑vernment to be formed upon the Conſti⯑tution they adopt; to make a multitude and a multitude ſo compound, capaple of comprehending, diſcuſſing, and determining the nice ſubtleties of the Elements of civil Polity, without which apprehenſion and deliberation, their conſent is that of an Infant or an Idiot; a mockery and mere form; to frame theſe principles of Government and Legiſlation upon ſo broad a baſis, article by article, as to embrace at once all the poſſible circumſtances and ſituations, to be bound by them hereafter, any defect in which can have no other remedy but that of an appeal to the people in the ſtate in which alone they are competent to form a new Conſtitution: laſtly, to give efficacy, ſyſtem, ſtability, and permanence to a fabric built upon the change⯑able baſe of the pupularis aura—Such an idea, however ſublime, of the only hold by which mankind are to be cemented rightfully in ſocial relation to each other, is, in truth, a Philoſophy little framed for uſeful purpoſes, [14]and worthy only of the elevated con⯑templations of the Doctors of the Modern School.

Leſs acute and leſs ſoaring Geniuſes, whoſe notions of Liberty conſiſt in the ſecure and peaceable enjoyment of legal eſtabliſhments tranſmitted to them by their anceſtors, with ſuch amendments and renovations from time to time as the infallible teſt of experience may ſuggeſt the neceſſity of; not in forming new eſtabliſhments upon new principles; who pre⯑fer the being wiſely governed, to the govern⯑ing others; who can content themſelves with the benefits ariſing from good Laws, inſtead of indulging themſelves in the fanciful origin of Law and definition of Conſtitutions; will carefully keep thoſe theoretical ſpecu⯑lations at a diſtance from the body politic, as they will Books of Phyſic from the body natural, whilſt they feel no preſſure of bodily infirmity. No matter, in either caſe, whe⯑ther the Conſtitution (i. e. the organization of the conſtituent principle of ſound health)▪ be known or defined, they will think it bad [15]when they ſuffer, and will ſeek a remedy; when they do not ſuffer, they will, if they are wiſe, turn their ear from thoſe who try to obtrude upon them their noſtrums and me⯑dical diſquiſitions, which in one caſe will make them at leaſt hypocondriac and fan⯑taſtic, and in the other, tends to render them diſſatisfied, turbulent, and miſchievous Citizens.