Chapter 9 Part 1 - Miscellaneous Notes

In order not to affect the debate in the first part of the book, or the account which follows, I have reserved some observations in a chapter of Miscellaneous Notes; by doing so, it may be possible that the content of diversity will not be dismissed as confusion.Mr. Burke's book is utterly disorganized.His object was to attack the French Revolution; but, instead of proceeding logically, he attacked indiscriminately with a mass of interfering and contradictory concepts. But the confusion and contradictions in Mr. Burke's book are easy to explain.A man who stands on the wrong ground, unless he is guided by some truth or principle, is bound to lose his way.It is beyond his power to unite and melt all the parts of an argument unless he keeps his eyes firmly fixed on this guideline.Neither memory nor creation can compensate for this deficiency.The former will confuse him, the latter will lead him astray.

Notwithstanding Mr. Burke's nonsense (for lack of a better word) about hereditary succession and hereditary rights, and about the fact that a nation has no right to form its own government, he happens to explain what a government is."Government is an invention of human ingenuity," he said. To admit that government is an invention of human intellect must admit that hereditary succession and hereditary rights, as they are called, are excluded, since wisdom cannot be hereditary; With brains, with this invention, it is possible to put the government of a country in the hands of an idiot.Mr. Burke has taken a position that is unfavorable to every aspect of his career.The argument changes from hereditary right to hereditary wisdom; but the question is, who is the wisest man?He had to prove that every man in the hereditary line was a Solomon, or he would be unworthy of the title of king.What a blow Mr. Burke delivered!Said the sailors, he wiped the decks with a mop so that not a single name on the king's list could be recognized;

Mr. Burke, however, appears to have been aware of this embarrassing situation; and he therefore took precautions to make government not only an invention of human intellect, but a monopoly of it.He puts his citizens as fools on one side, and his wise government—the wise men of the "Village of Fools"—on the other; and then declares that "humans have a 'right' to have this wisdom serve their needs. Having made this declaration, he goes on to explain to them what their needs are, and what their rights are. In this he is quite handy, for he presents their needs as needs for wisdom; But since this was empty consolation, he then told them that they had a right—not to be endowed with wisdom, but to be ruled by it; Awe-struck by a government that could not, he further explained its powers to them with the air of an astrologer's mystique: "The rights of men in government are their interests; balance; sometimes it is a compromise between good and evil and between evil and evil.A political theory is a principle to be calculated; to add, subtract, multiply, and divide morally, not metaphysically or mathematically, to make genuinely moral arguments. "

As the bewildered audience, to whom Mr. Burke imagines himself addressing, may not understand all these inscrutable words, I should like to be the narrator.This means, good people, that government is not governed by any principle; it can make evil good or good evil at will. In short, government is arbitrary power. There were, however, some things which Mr. Burke had completely forgotten.First, he does not say whence wisdom first came; and secondly, he does not say by what authority wisdom begins to act.According to ① Solomon is the son of King David of the ancient Kingdom of Israel, known for his wisdom. - translator

According to him, either the government has stolen the wisdom, or the wisdom has stolen the government.The government has no backing and its powers have no authority.In short, this is usurpation. Whether it was shame, or a sense that some fundamental flaw in the government had to be glossed over, or both, or any other reason, I don't want to decide.But the fact is that a monarchist theorist never goes to the roots of government, or studies government from its roots.It was a test word that identified him.A thousand years from now, those who live in America or France will look back with pride on the origins of their government, and say, This is the deed of our glorious ancestors!But what can a monarchist say?What was there for him to rejoice in?oops!He has nothing.There is one thing that prevents him from going back to the source, lest some robber or some Robin Hood stand up from the ancient times and say:

I am the root.In spite of Mr. Burke's painstaking work on the Regency Act and hereditary succession two years ago, and his desperate search for precedent, he was not brave enough to bring out William of Normandy and declare: This is the first on the list, this is the source of glory ;this son of a bitch, this predator of the English nation. Now, the public opinion of the people of various countries on the government has become very fast.The American Revolution and the French Revolution cast a ray of light on the world and opened the eyes of the people.The huge expenditures of governments make people think and make them conscious; but once the mask is exposed, there is no way to mend it.There is a characteristic of ignorance: once removed, it can never be restored.Foolishness is not born with it, it is merely a lack of knowledge; though a man may be in a state of ignorance, he cannot be forced to be ignorant.The human mind discovers truth as it discovers objects through the eyes; once it has seen any object, it is impossible to restore the mind to the state it was in before seeing the object.

Those who speak of a counter-revolution in France show how ignorant they are of man.Within language there is no adequate vocabulary for expressing the means of counter-revolution.The means must be the annihilation of knowledge; and as yet no method has been found to keep people from knowing what they know, or from thinking what they think. It was in vain for Mr. Burke to prevent the progress of knowledge; and to add to his disgrace, there was a rumor in the town that he was suspected of receiving a bounty under a false name.This may explain why he put forward some strange theories in the book, although he pointed this kind of strange theory to the "revolutionary society", it was actually against the whole nation.

"The King of England," he said, "holds his crown" (for the crown, according to Mr. Burke, does not belong to the nation), "shows contempt for the choice of the Revolutionary Society, which has no right, either individually or collectively, to vote for the King; And each of His Majesty's heirs will then, one by one, take over the crown which His Majesty now wears with the same defiance of their choice." Who shall be king in England or elsewhere, or whether there is a king, or whether the people choose a Cherokee chief or a Hessian hussar, is none of my business, and they may do as they please; Especially when it comes to the theory of human rights and the rights of citizens, this kind of argument is more hateful than the argument made by the most enslaved country in the world.Whether it is because I am not used to despotism that this argument sounds worse to me than others, I cannot judge; but I will not lose my judgment on its odious principles. .

Mr. Burke does not mean the "Revolutionary Society"; he means the nation in its original and representative capacity: and he makes it understood that they have no vote, either collectively or individually. The "Revolutionary Council" is made up of citizens of all denominations and members of both Houses of Parliament!If none of them had the right to vote, neither the nation nor the assembly could have a right to vote.How England has imported foreign families to serve as kings is a matter of caution to every nation.Things seem a little strange ① Robin Hood, the hero of the green forest in the British medieval legend. - translator

①The largest tribe of American Indians. - translator ②The name of a state in central and western Germany at that time. - translator Strange, although the English people always like to talk about kings, kings are often of foreign families, hate foreigners, and are ruled by foreigners.Currently the Brunswick family, one of the small German tribes. The British Parliament has always been accustomed to control the so-called succession to the throne (that is, to take for granted that the people always agree to add a studio to the government; imposed on the nation by the king).This is certainly the limit for Parliament, but the rights of the nation extend to the whole, because it has the power to change the whole system of government.

The power of Parliament is only a delegated right, a right of representation, and this right is derived from only a very small part of the nation; neither house of Parliament has even this right.But the rights of the nation are an inherent right, as universal as taxes.The citizens pay for everything, so everything must be done according to the wishes of the citizens. I remember noticing a speech made by the Earl of Shelburne - I think he was Minister at the time - in what is called the House of Lords in England, which is very applicable in this respect.I cannot remember the full text of the speech; but as far as I can remember, it went something like this: The form of government is at all times determined entirely by the will of the people, and if the people decide for a monarchy, it has the right to do so; Republic, it has the right to create a republic and say to the king, "We don't need you as king." Even to the lowliest of men in this country, Mr. , and this is too much to say, that these men hand over part of their daily labour, and make up a million pounds a year, to be handed over by the state to the man it calls the king.It is despotism if the government is unreasonable, but if contempt is added to it, it will be even worse: being contemptuous and paying for it is excessive enslavement.This type of government comes from Germany; and reminds me of something told to me by a Brunswick soldier captured by the Americans in the last war.He said, "Ah! America is a beautiful and free country, and the people are worth fighting for; I am familiar with my own country, so I understand the difference; in my country, if the prince says to eat shrimp, we must eat shrimp." Shrimp." I thought, God bless that country, England or whatever, whose liberty is guarded by German principles of government and the princes of Brunswick! As Mr. Burke speaks now of England, now of France, now of the whole world, now of government in general, it is difficult to reply to his book without openly contacting him on the same ground. .Although the principles of government are general matters, in many cases it is almost impossible to separate them from concepts such as place and circumstances, especially when debating circumstances, as is often the case with Mr. Burke. in this way. In an earlier part of his book he said to the French people: "Experience teaches us (meaning the English) that there is no other means by which our liberties can be preserved forever sacrosanct as hereditary rights than by hereditary crowns." I ask Mr. Burke, who would take away these liberties?The Marquis de Lafayette said in his speech to France: "A country wants to be free as long as she wants to be free." But Mr Burke asserts that Britain cannot take care of itself, that its liberties must be controlled by a The king of attitude takes care.If England has fallen to this level, she must be prepared to eat shrimp, as in Hannover or Brunswick.But besides the folly of the statement, many facts happen to be against Mr. Burke.It is because the government is hereditary that the liberty of the people is endangered. Charles I and James II are proof: neither of them, however, reached the point of contempt for their subjects. As it is often in the interest of the people of another country to hear what they have to say about their own country, the people of France may learn something from Mr. Burke's book, and the people of England from the rebuttals which it provokes .When disputes arise over the question of liberty between nations, a wide field of controversy is opened up.The debate begins with the right to war, not with the consequences of war: since the purpose of the debate is to increase knowledge, the loser benefits greatly. Mr. Burke speaks of what he calls hereditary thrones, as if they were a product of nature: as if, like time, they had a power that not only worked independently, but disregarded human beings;pity!Instead of having these properties, it backfires.It is an imaginary thing whose propriety is highly doubtful, whose legitimacy will be denied in a few short years. But, to express the matter more fully than is usually expressed, several points must be drawn, under which one can say nothing of the so-called hereditary throne, or, more properly, of the hereditary succession of a state. Government to study; these key points are: First, the right of a particular family to establish its own status. Second, the right of a state to establish the status of a particular family. Regarding the first point, that is, a family relies on its own power to establish its own status by hereditary power without the consent of the people. For this, everyone will call it despotism with one voice, and no one will defend it. be forgiven. But the second point, that a country uses hereditary power to establish the status of a particular family, does not look like despotism at first glance, but if people think about it again, and look beyond themselves for the sake of the next generation, they will Knowing that hereditary succession can end up being to others the same despotism which they themselves condemn.It keeps posterity from expressing their opinion, and not expressing an opinion is tyranny.If someone who is ready to take possession of the government, or those who are waiting to succeed him, says to the nation, I will "scorn" you when I take power, it does not show that he is saying this under the pretense of any authority.An enslaved man thinks that he has been betrayed by his parents, instead of alleviating but aggravating his pain; and since the statement of aggravating the crime of an action cannot be used to justify it, hereditary inheritance cannot be used as a legal law. Something that stands firm. In order to come to a more complete conclusion on this subject, it may be useful to separate the generation which proceeds to establish a family by hereditary power, from the subsequent generations; The generation which first chose a man, and placed him at the head of the government, by the title of king, or by any other title, acted on his own choice, whether wise or foolish, for himself, and not for others. limit.The man thus erected is not hereditary, but chosen and appointed; and the generation that erects him does not live under an hereditary government, but under a government chosen and established by himself.If the generation who made him live forever, as well as the person who was treed, there can never be a question of hereditary succession; therefore, hereditary succession can only happen after the death of the first generation. Since hereditary succession is impossible for the first generation, we should study the role this generation plays for the next and for all subsequent generations. This generation has presumed to play a role it has neither the right nor the right to play.It turns a legislator into a testator, and falsely makes a will to the government, which takes effect after the maker's death: it not only intends to bequeath, but to establish to the next generation a new order under which it itself lives. different and different systems of government.It has been shown above that it itself lives not under a hereditary government, but under a government of its own choice and establishment; It wrests from the hands of one generation and all subsequent generations the rights and free wills it has exercised itself. But leaving aside the right of any generation to make a collective testament, the ends it pursues in this case are outside the purview of any law or any will or testament. In society, human rights are inalienable or transferable, and indestructible, but can only be passed on from generation to generation, and no generation has the right to break and sever this tradition.If the existing generation, or any generation, is enslaved, that does not diminish the right of the next generation to be free.Wrong things cannot have legitimate traditions.When Mr. Burke endeavors to show that the English people during the Revolution of 1688 did most solemnly renounce and renounce their own and all posterity's rights forever, his words are not worth refuting, but only contempt for his abuse of principle Or feel sorry for his ignorance. No matter how hereditary inheritance appears, as long as it comes from the will and last words of the previous generation, it is absurd.A cannot make a will to deprive B of B's ​​property and give it to C; yet, so-called hereditary succession by law does just that.Some previous generation who made a will to dispossess the rights of the next generation, and all subsequent generations, and gave them to a third party, came out and told them, in the words of Mr. Burke, that they had no rights, that their Rights have been bequeathed to him, and he will rule with contempt for them.May God save the world from such principles and such folly!But what is that metaphor or monarchy that claims to be a crown?Is it a thing, a title, or a deception?Is it an "invention of human wisdom", or is it a means of defrauding the people of money with ostentatious pretexts?Is it necessary to oppose the nationals?If so, where is this necessity, what contribution does it make, what is its duty, and what is its merit?Virtue in metaphors or in people?Does the goldsmith who makes crowns also make virtue?Is it as spiritual as Fortunatus' wishing hat or Harley Quinn's wooden sword?Can it turn people into magic wood masters? All in all, what exactly is it?It appears that it has become largely obsolete, has fallen to the point of ridiculousness, and has been dismissed as superfluous and wasteful in some countries.In America it is regarded as an absurdity; in France it has been declining, and only the goodness of man and respect for his character keep it alive. If government is really what Mr. Burke says is an "invention of human intellect," I ask him, is intellect so low in England that it must be imported from Holland and Hanoverham?But I would like to do this country justice, this is not the case!And even then, it was the wrong shipment.The wisdom of each nation, if fully exercised, is sufficient to solve all problems; England has no real reason for having a Dutch governor or a German elector, any more than America has any reason for the same.If a nation does not understand its own affairs, how should a foreigner who understands neither its laws, its customs, nor its language?There might be some truth in monarchy if it were true that there was a man of excellence whose ingenuity must lead a nation; but when we look at a nation and see how well each of its departments knows its own affairs ; when we look around the world, and see that of all men in the world, such men as kings are the most mediocre, we must ask ourselves--what are these men kept for? If there is anything we the American people do not understand about monarchy, I hope Mr. Burke will give us some advice.In the United States I have seen a government run a country ten times the size of Great Britain, and do so in such a way that it costs only one-fortieth the expenditure of the British government.If I ask an American if he needs a king, he'll scoff and ask if I take him for an idiot?How did this difference come about?Are we somewhat more intelligent than others?I have seen in America the common people live a life of opulence unknown to monarchies; and I have seen the principles of American government, namely, the principle of equality of human rights, rapidly advancing all over the world. ①Fortunetts is the hero of ancient European folk tales, the goddess of fate gave him a wallet and a hat, the money in the wallet is inexhaustible, and wearing the hat can immediately reach whatever he wants Places to go. - translator ②Harley Quinn is a character in European farce, wearing a mask, wearing a variegated floral dress, holding a wooden sword, and swinging the sword, the stage scene changes immediately. - translator If the monarchy doesn't work, why continue it everywhere?If it is essential, how can it be abolished?All civilized nations will agree that civil government is essential: and civil government is republican government.The British government, from the Police Department to the local administration, the state courts, which sit four times a year, and the assizes (including the jury system), is a republican government.Except for the title William the Conqueror forced the English to call him "His Majesty the King," there was no monarchical appearance in any of the departments. A bunch of interested parties such as bureaucrats, hirelings, bedroom nobles, kitchen nobles, toilet nobles, and God knows what else, can find out the amount of salaries paid to them at the expense of the nation—these salaries are borne by the state— — There are as many reasons for defending monarchy, which are easily conceivable; but if I ask the peasant, the manufacturer, the merchant, the clerk, and the common worker in all walks of life, what good it is for him, he cannot answer. of.If I had asked him what a monarchy was, he would have thought that it was a sort of nominal office. Notwithstanding the taxation of nearly seventeen million pounds a year in Great Britain, said to finance the government's expenses, the nation evidently felt that it governed itself, and was indeed paid, by republican principles, almost entirely at its own expense, by magistrates and juries. Do not rely on taxes to manage yourself.The only thing paid for by the treasury is probably the salaries of the judges.British taxation should be the lightest in Europe, considering that all domestic affairs are run by the people; but the opposite is true.Since this cannot be charged to the account of the civil government, the problem necessarily involves the monarchy. When the English invited George I (which would confuse a man of more sense than Mr. Burke: what he would do or what he could do, they should at least make it a condition of giving up Hanover. Except for a German elector who was Apart from the endless German entanglements which the King of England necessarily entailed, it was naturally impossible to combine liberalism and absolutism (what is commonly called arbitrary power in England) in the same person. The German Elector in his a despotism in his domain; how can he be expected to have his interests supported by absolutism in one country, and to fall in love with liberalism in another? Such fusion cannot exist; would be King of Germany. Or, in Mr. Burke's words, would govern with "contempt." The English have always been accustomed to look upon a King of England merely as king; To a man who occupies a country whose interests are different from those of the Englishman, and whose government is governed by very different principles, England is like a dwelling in the city, and the territory his estate. The Englishman Perhaps wish me to believe that they really wished the success of the principles of liberty in France or Germany. But a German elector is alarmed at the fate of absolutism in his dominion; In the wretched state of arbitrary power, the people are in a servile and vassal position. Never before had the British watched so carefully the plots on the Continent, and separated the politics of the Electorate from the politics of England.The French Revolution completely changed the foundations of England and France: but the German despots, headed by Prussia, united against liberty; and Mr. Pitt, benefiting from his official followers and his family connections, made no effort to resist this conspiracy. In view of the oblivion of everything that the world experiences, I shall now leave the subject to give a brief review of the parties and political situation in England, as Mr. Burke has done for France. Whether the present dynasty began with contempt, I leave to Mr. Burke to answer that question. However, be sure, it definitely looks that way. The hatred of the English nation was once high, and men remember it; and, had the true principles of liberty been understood then as they are today, the nation might not have endured so much humiliation.George I and II were acutely aware that the remnants of the Stuart dynasty were a formidable enemy; and as they could not fail to consider that they should stand on conformity, they took prudence to keep the principles of German rule secret; With the decline of the Tuart royal family, such caution was less necessary. The struggle for power and so-called privilege continued to roil the country until some time after the end of the American Revolutionary War, when suddenly the situation calmed down, curses turned to praise, and the court's reputation rose overnight. In order to account for this mutation, it must be known that there are two distinct kinds of reputation; the one due to merit, the other to indignation.As the country had formed two parties, each admiring the exploits of its parliamentary fighters for and against privilege, nothing could be more shocking than the sudden union of these two fighters.People from every party were suddenly duped, and all resented the practice, thinking that only the parliamentary fighters who united and cursed both sides could get it out.After arousing a more intense indignation than the struggle for power, the nation abandoned all previous goals, both right and wrong, for a moment of pleasure.The indignation at the union of the two factions took the place of the indignation at the court so powerfully that it swept away all that at the latter; Join hands and take revenge on the United Council.The question is not what they love the most, but what they hate the most, and the one who hates the least wins their favor.The dissolution of the joint parliament is enough to relieve the hatred of the people, and it will inevitably be popular, and the prestige of the court will also increase. This shift shows that a nation is governed by whims rather than firm principles; and when it does, it will go on desperately to justify its initial actions.It now applauds measures it would have criticized at other times, and has persuaded itself not to comment. When a new Parliament was elected, the new Prime Minister, Mr. Pitt, obtained a solid majority; the people expressed confidence in him, not out of admiration for himself, but because they hated another man. He attracted public attention by proposing a reform of Parliament, the implementation of which would amount to a public endorsement of bribery.The nation will pay to buy off decaying cities with dwindling populations and equal suffrage, when it should have punished those who made such deals. Leaving aside the swindle of the Dutch deal and the annual payment of the million-pound national debt, the question of the Regency now stood out.In my opinion, never has a deception been staged so successfully, nor have the citizens of a country been so deceived.In order to illustrate this point, however, it is necessary to examine the circumstances of the time carefully. Mr Fox has claimed in the House of Commons that the Prince of Wales, as heir to the throne, has the right to govern. This statement is objected to by Mr. Pitt, and as long as this objection is limited to the theoretical field, it is justifiable.But Mr. Pitt's principles, on the contrary, are in a degree as bad as those of Mr. Fox, or worse; for he would establish an aristocracy over the nation, and the minority of its representatives in the House of Commons. Whether the English constitution is good or bad is not the question here to be examined; but, whatever its merits and demerits, Mr. Pitt, as it stands, goes further than Mr. Fox. The English constitution is nominally composed of three parts: and therefore, if the nation is willing to protect such a system, these three parts have a national position, each part is independent of the other, and is not an appendage of the other.If Mr. Fox, through Parliament, declares that the man concerned is claiming on the national side, Mr. Pitt must oppose the rights of the nation by what he calls the rights of Parliament. From the appearance of the dispute, it appears that Mr. Fox is on the hereditary side, and Mr. Pitt on the parliamentary side; but the fact is that they are both on the hereditary side, and that Mr. Pitt is on the worse side. The so-called parliament is composed of two houses, one of which is more hereditary than the supposed king, and more independent of the people.This court implements a hereditary aristocracy, asserting that it has rights and authority that are completely independent of the people and cannot be abolished or changed.What, then, is there to elevate this hereditary power to another hereditary power which is less independent of the nation, and to ascribe the rights of the nation to a House which the nation can neither elect nor control What about the expectations? The general impulse of the nation is right; but its actions are thoughtless.It upholds the objection to the right established by Mr. Fox, but fails to perceive that Mr. Pitt is supporting another, indefeasible right, which goes farther than the nation has objected to. As for the House of Commons, it is elected by but a small part of the nation; but if elections were as general as taxes--as they should be--it would still be but an institution of the nation, and not have inherent rights.When the National Assembly of France decides a thing, the decision is taken by the rights of the people; but Mr. Pitt, in all national questions, as soon as he commits them to the House of Commons, ascribes the rights of the people to this body, and makes this body represent the people, And the nation itself has become insignificant. The question of regency is, in short, a question of allocating a million pounds a year to the executive, which Mr. Pitt cannot dispose of freely, without establishing the supreme power of parliament; because he had to pay for the regency at his own expense.Among the many eccentricities that have arisen from this contentious debate was the one that made the Great Seal king, and that putting the Great Seal upon an act equaled kingship.Therefore, if the royal power is the Great Seal, it itself will be wiped out; thus, a good constitution is much more valuable to the people than these three existing nominal powers. The constant use of the word constitution by the British Parliament shows that the UK has no constitution at all, and that the UK as a whole is just a political system without a constitution, and the government can exercise whatever power it likes.If there is a constitution, it is of course available for inspection; any constitutional dispute can be concluded by producing the constitution.One congressman said it was a constitution, another said it was a constitution, one thing today and another tomorrow, and such endless debate proves that there is no constitution at all.Today's constitution is nothing more than the rhetoric of parliament, used to please the people.It used to be said that Parliament was supreme--Parliament was omnipotent, but since the advance of liberty in France, those words have sounded a bit imperious; the substance of the constitution. As the government was not established by the present people of England, they are not responsible for any of its faults; but sooner or later they will bring about a constitutional reform, as surely as has happened in France.France's annual income is nearly 24 million pounds, and its fertile land is more than four times larger than that of Britain. There are 24 million taxpayers. The national circulation of gold and silver is more than 90 million pounds, and the national debt is less than the current debt of Britain. If, for whatever reason, it were necessary to settle its own affairs, it would also settle the question of funding both countries. No matter how long the so-called British Constitution has existed, nor dispute how long it will last; the question is: How long can the public debt system last?The public debt system is but a modern invention, and has not lived as long as any human being; yet, during this short period of time, the issuance of public debt has been so great that, including all incidental charges, it has been necessary to charge at least as much as the whole of the country. The annual fee is paid from the ground rent tax.It is well known that a government could not always be sustained by the same system which has been followed for the past seventy years; Bonds are not money, nor, strictly speaking, credit.实际上，它在纸面上规定一个仿佛借来的数额，通过征税付给利息来维持假想的资本，并把年金送往市场出售以换取已流通的纸币。如果真有什么信用，那也在于人民情愿付税，而不在于政府征税。一旦人民不情愿付税，所谓政府信用也随之完蛋。前政府统治下的法国的例子表明，如果全体人民坚决站在那个立场上，要用武力强迫他们纳税是不可能的。 柏克先生在评论法国的财政时宣称，法国的金银数量约为八千八百万镑。我认为，他是除以汇兑差额，而不是按二十四利弗折合一镑的标准折算。 因为柏克先生的报告是根据内克先生的报告而来的，内克先生报告的数目是二十二亿利弗，此数折合英镑九千一百五十万以上。 法国的内克先生和英国贸易和种植局——局长是霍克斯伯利爵士——的乔治·查尔麦斯先生根据本国造币厂的统计，差不多在同时（1786年）发表了各自国家货币储存的数字。查尔麦斯先生根据伦敦塔英国造币厂的统计宣称，包括苏格兰和爱尔兰在内，英国货币为二千万镑①。 内克先生①说，用回收的旧币重新铸造的法国货币总额为二十五亿利弗（一亿零四百万镑以上）；除去损耗以及在西印度群岛和别处的流通额，国内的流通量为九千一百五十万镑；即使照柏克先生的说法，也比英国全国的数量多六千八百万镑。 法国货币的数量不会低于此数，这可以从法国的税收情况一眼看出，而无需查证法国造币厂的记录。在革命前，法国每年税收将近二千四百万镑；而且由于当时法国尚未发行纸币，全部税收都是金银；如果全国货币总额比内克先生宣布的少，就不可能征收到这样一大笔税款。在英国发行纸币以前，国家每年税收约占全国金银总数的四分之一，查考一下英王威廉以前的税收和当时这个国家所宣布的货币数量就可以知道这一点，当时的货币额同现在差不多。 对一个国家来说，自己骗自己，或者容许自己受骗，都不会真正有好处；但是一些人的偏见和另一些人的欺骗却总是把法国说成一个只有少量金银的国家，而事实上法国的金额数量不但比英国多四倍，而且在数字比例上也大得多。为了说明英国的这种短缺，应当提到英国的基金制度。它以各种方式增发纸币并以纸币取代硬币；而纸币增发得越多，硬币输出的机会也越多，甚至可能以印行小额纸币的办法把纸币增加到完全取代硬币。 我知道，对英国读者而言，这不是一个愉快的话题；但我要提到的事情本身极其重要，对公共性质的货币交换有兴趣的人必须加以注意。内克先生在他的一篇关于财政管理的论文中阐述了一种情况，这种情况在英国从未受过注意，但它却据以估计欧洲各国为了和其他国家保持一定比例所应当存有的金银额的唯一基础。 里斯本和加的斯是从南美洲输入金银硬币的两个港口，这些硬币然后通过商业途径分散到欧洲，从而增加欧洲各国的硬币数额。因此，如果能够获知欧洲金银的年输入量并确定分到这笔金银的许多国家之间对外贸易的一定比例，就可以有分可靠的标准来确定任何一个国家在任何特定时间应有的硬币数量。 内克先生根据里斯本和加的斯的登记数字说明，输入欧洲的金银每年达五百万镑。他不是根据单独一年，而是根据从1763到1777接连十五年的平均数来计算的；在此期间，总数为十八亿利弗，即七千五百万镑。 ①从1714年汉诺威开始继位，到查尔麦斯先生公布数字，为期七十二年；在此期间，输入欧洲的金银额共为三亿六千万镑。 如果英国的对外贸易占欧洲全部对外贸易的六分之一（交易所的绅士们①参见乔治·查尔麦斯着作：《对大不列颠相对实力的估计》。——作者 ①参见内克着作：《法国的财政管理》第3卷。 --author ①参见《法国的财政管理》第3卷。 --author 可能认为这个数字是估计低了），那么，英国为了同欧洲其余国家保持比例，通过贸易在这个金额中所占的比例也会是六分之一，即六千万镑；如果也象内克先生那样把损耗和意外损失扣除，余数为五千二百万镑；这样，在查尔麦斯先生公布数字时，英国应当有这笔钱，再加上汉诺威开始继位时原有的款项，这样总数至少应为六千六百万镑；而不只是二千万镑，即比它的比例数少四千六百万镑。 由于输入里斯本和加的斯的金银数比输入英国的任何一项商品数都来得有案可查，伦敦塔铸造的硬币数更是千真万确，因此，主要的事实是不容置辩的。所以，要末是英国的贸易蚀本，要末是它输入的金银无形中以每年大约七十五万镑的平均率不断外流，这就在七十二年中造成了亏损；而这笔亏空就由纸币来弥补。 ①法国革命不但在政治领域内，而且在现金交易范围内，都有许多与众不同之处。除了别的情形之外，它表明一个政府可以处于破产的境地而国民却十分富足。就法国前政府而言，它是破产了；因为国民不愿再支撑政府的铺张浪费，政府就维持不下去，但国民还是拥有一切资产的。每当一个政府要求国民为它清偿债务，这个政府就可以说是破产了。法国前政府破产和英国现政府破产的差别仅在于人民的意向有所不同。法国人民拒绝资助旧政府；英国人民则乖乖地纳税而不加追究。在英国，所谓的国王已经好几次破过产；众所周知，最近一次破产是在1777年5月，当时他要国民清偿六十万镑的私人债务，否则他自己是无力偿还的。 皮特先生、柏克先生以及所以对法国情况不熟悉的人的错误，在于把法国国民同法国政府混为一谈。实际情况是，法国国民竭力使前政府破产，以便把政府掌握在自己手中：它还拥有支持新政府的手段。象法国这样幅员广大、人口众多的国家是不乏自然资源的；至于政治手段，国民执意要用立刻①英国的贸易到底是亏损，还是政府把赚进的钱又送了出去，这只能由有关方面作出满意的答复；但是存在亏空却是谁都否认不了的。当普赖斯博士、艾登先生（现在是奥克兰特）、查尔麦斯先生等人在争论英国的硬币数比革命时期多还是少，他们没有注意到一点，即自革命以来，输入欧洲的硬币不可能少于四亿镑；因而英国的硬币效按它同欧洲的比例至少应比革命时期多四倍。英国现在用纸币办的事情本来是可以用硬币办到的，如果金银按应有的比例进入这个国家或不曾向外输送的话；而英国现在却力图用纸币来恢复它因硬币所失去的平衡。可以断言，每年由登记过的船只运抵西班牙和葡萄牙的金银并不留存在这些国家。按金银价值各为一半计算，每年约为四百吨；而且根据把这些金属从南美洲运到西班牙和葡萄牙这笔交易中所用的船只和金银带的数量，就足以证明其数量而无需去核实登记数字。英国在目前情况下，要槽加硬币储备是不可能的。高额税收不仅减少个人资产，而且会由于助长走私而减少国家的货币资本，因为走私只能以金银进行。由于英国政府对德国和欧洲大陆列强所采取的政策，它已与所有海上强国为敌，因而不得不保持一支巨大的海军；英国虽已建立一支海军，海军的给养却必须从国外采购，而且必须从那些极大部分要付以金银的国家采购。在英国，已经传播了不少关于叫人相信货币的谣言，其中有些说什么法国难民带进了大量硬通货。这种想法是十分可笑的。法国的货币大多是银币，要运送一百万镑银币，就得动用二十辆以上最大的阔轮货车，每辆车要用十匹马拉。既然如此，又怎能设想，少数骑马或乘坐邮车潜逃的人，既要通过法国海关，又要渡过大海，能够携带那怕够他们自己花的金钱呢？应当明白，当谈到数以百万计的硬币时，这样的数量只能在一个国家中逐渐积累起来，而且需要很长一段时间。英国现在那怕实行最节约的制度，也难以在一个世纪内恢复它自汉诺成继位以来在货币方面失去的平衡。她现在比法国少七千万镑，落后于欧洲各国的比例也一定很可观，因为英国造币厂的报告并未表明硬币增多，而里斯本和加的斯的记录却表明欧洲各国已增多三亿至四亿镑。 --author 就可以用。柏克先生去冬在英国议会发表演说，说什么他瞩目欧洲地图，看到了过去法国所在之地现在成了个大缺口，他无异是在痴人说梦。法国照样存在着，全部自然资源也同它一起存在着。唯一的缺口是消灭专制主义之后留下的，并将由一部其力量要比业已消失的权力强大得多的宪法来填补。 尽管法国国民使前政府破产，却不让债权人受破产影响；债权人认为国民是真正的支付者，政府不过是代理人，因而信赖国民胜于信赖政府。这看来使得柏克先生大为不安，因为这个先例对各国政府据以认为自己安全可靠的政策是致命伤。政府负了债，希望国内所谓的金融界来支持它们；可是法国的事例表明给债权人以永久保证的是国民而不是政府；在可能发生的一切革命中，资财总是掌握在国民手中，而国民是永存的。柏克先生争辩说，债权人应当同他们所信赖的政府共命运；但法国国民议会却把他们看作是国民的而不是政府的债权人，是主人的而不是管家的债权人。前政府付不出经常费用，现政府却已付出大部分金额。这是通过两种办法完成的；其一是减少政府的开支，其二是出售寺院和教会的地产。往日的那些虔诚信徒、悔过自新的浪子、巧取豪夺者以及守财奴，为了确保自己身后进入一个更加美好的世界，把巨额财产赠托给教士，作为敬神之用，教士却将财产据为己有。国民议会已命令将财产出售，以造福全体人民，对教士则给以相当不错的待遇。 革命的结果，通过偿付一亿以上金额，法国国债的年息至少将减少六百万镑；政府的开支又比过去至少削减三百万镑，这就使法国处于值得欧洲效法的地位。 综观全局，对比何等鲜明！在柏克先生谈论法国彻底破产之时，国民议会却在偿付法国的债务；英国每年增税将近一百万镑，法国却每年减税数百万镑。在本届议会上，柏克先生和皮特先生对法国的事情或法国财政的情况都守口如瓶。可是这个问题已尽人皆知，再也蒙不下去了。 柏克先生的通篇叫人莫名其妙。他恼怒地攻击国民议会，但他究竟恼怒什么呢？如果他的无稽之谈居然是正确的，如果法国被革命消灭了力量并变成了他所谓的一个缺口，那么，它也许会使一个法国人——考虑到他自己是一个国民——忧心忡忡，从而对国民议会恼怒，可是，柏克先生为什么要恼怒呢？what!原来柏克先生用意并不在法国的国民，而在法国的宫廷；每一个唯恐遭到同样命运的欧洲宫廷都在同声哀悼。他既不是以一个法国人也不是以一个英国人的身份，而是以各国闻名而无人为友的那样一个阿谀奉承的家伙的身份，即廷臣的身份，来写作的。不论它是凡尔赛宫廷，还是詹姆斯宫廷，还是卡尔登王室，还是别的什么宫廷，都没有关系，因为所有官廷和廷臣的贪婪本性都是一样的。它们在整个欧洲采取一种违背国民利益的共同政策；它们表面上争吵不休，在掠夺这一点上则是一致的。对一个宫廷或廷臣而言，没有比法国革命更可怕的了。各国国民的幸福就是它们的苦难；而且，由于他们是靠欺骗一个国家而生存的，因此它们在原则面前不寒而栗，对那个威胁着要推翻它们的先例怕得要命。