Chapter 12 preamble

When I set out to write the chapter entitled "Conclusion" of the first volume published last year, I intended to greatly expand it; To make it too long is to compress my plan too tightly.I shall, therefore, close this chapter as soon as I have reached the conclusion of my thesis, and leave what I have to say further to a later opportunity. There are other reasons for my decision.I wondered, before I went on, what the reaction to this work, so different in thought and expression from the stereotypes of the British past, would be among the readers.The French Revolution opened a wide horizon for mankind.Mr. Burke's wild opposition carried the controversy to England.He attacked my principles, which he knew (on intelligence) that I would argue with him, because I believed those principles to be good, I had done my best to establish them, and I felt compelled to defend them.If he hadn't started the controversy, I probably would have kept quiet.

Another reason for delaying the last part of this work is that Mr. Burke, in his first book, promised an opportunity to revisit the subject and compare what he called the English Constitution with the French Constitution .So I'll wait and see.Since then, however, he has published two books without fulfilling his promise: If the comparison was in his favor, he certainly wouldn't pass it up. In his latest book, The Appeal of the New Whigs to the Old Whigs, he quotes some ten pages, and after doing so tirelessly, says that he "has no intention of refuting them," meaning that That is, there is no intention to refute the principles contained in the book.I know Mr. Burke well enough to know that he would refute it if he could.However, instead of refuting, he immediately said "he has done his part" to comfort himself.He didn't do his part.He has not fulfilled his promise to compare the two constitutions.

He stirred up controversy, raised a challenge, and then got cold feet, thus being a living example of what he himself called "the age of chivalry is gone and never to return." His latest book, The Appeal, deserves criticism for its title and content.A principle must be based on its own goodness or badness. If it is a good principle, it will naturally hold water.To place principles under the authority of others, as Mr. Burke did, can only call them suspicious.Mr. Burke disliked sharing his honor, but this time he skillfully shared his disgrace. To whom is Mr. Burke appealing?was born in the last century of naive thinkers and half-hearted statesmen who demanded of any principle only that it suit their party purposes, and that the interests of the nation were always left behind. A consistent feature of all parties from that time to the present day.In such writings or such politics, the national sees no merit.A little thing can move a political party, but it takes a big thing to move a nation.

Though I think Mr. Burke's "Appeal" is useless, I would like to add a comment on a passage in it.Mr. Burke, after citing profusely without refuting the principles contained therein, says: "If it is thought that such a work deserves any rebuttal other than the criminal trial, the other ideas are as much as Mr. Burke's and as vigorous people are likely to do so.” First, no one has done it so far.Since the appearance of the first part, at least eight or ten pamphlets have been published against it by various people, but as far as I know, none of them have ever been reprinted, and the titles of these pamphlets are not even known. I can't remember either.Since I don't like being flooded with unnecessary publications, I didn't reply to any of them.Besides, since I think that a man may discredit himself (as no one else can) by writing too much in a hurry, I take great care in my writing to avoid this danger.

However, just as I object to unnecessary publications, I also want to avoid as much as possible the impression that my silence is pretentious.If Mr. Burke, or anyone on his side on the subject, should write a rebuttal that would have half or even a quarter of the print run, I would answer it.Until then, however, I will rely solely on the judgment of the public (I am not a sycophant, as you know), which means that what the public thinks is not worth reading is not worth answering.I estimate that the first part sold no less than 40,000 to 50,000 copies in England, Scotland, and Ireland. Now I would like to comment on another sentence of the passage I quoted from Mr. Burke.

He said: "If it is thought that such a work deserves any objection other than a criminal trial." Indeed, if a work cannot be refuted, there is indeed no alternative but to convict it in a criminal trial.There is no worse crime to condemn a work than to refute it. But if it is done in the way Mr. Burke instructs, the conviction will ultimately be in the criminal proceeding, not in the book, and in that case I would rather be the author than be the judge or jury who convicts the book member. Let's get down to business.On the subject of prosecution I differed from some gentlemen who practiced the profession, and now that I found their views gradually agreeing with mine, I shall give a full account, but as briefly as possible.

I will first give an example of law, and then compare it with the government, or what England has always called the Constitution. To enact a law which prohibits the scrutiny of the principles upon which it or any other law is founded, good or bad, is despotism, or in England it is called hegemony. If there is a bad law, it is one thing to oppose its enforcement, but quite another to expose its fault, reason its wrongness, and show why it should be repealed or must be replaced by another law. Another matter. I have always advocated (and practiced) obeying a bad law, and at the same time trying to abolish it by using all arguments to prove its error, than to forcibly violate it; At first, it may weaken the force of the laws and lead to wanton violations of those good laws.

The same is true of the principles and forms of government, or of what is called the Constitution and its various parts. A government should be established and supported at the expense of the people, for the benefit of the people, not for the advancement of some.By analogy, the defects in principle and form of every government and every constitution must be openly discussed and pointed out as well as those of a law, and this is the duty of every man to society. obligation.When these defects, and their remedies, are known to the nation, it is for the nation to reform its government or constitution, just as it is for the government to repeal or reform laws.

The functions of government are limited to making and enforcing laws; but the right to organize or reorganize, to produce or renew constitutions and governments belongs to the people; therefore, these questions, such as those of investigation and research, are always before a country as a question of right , but cannot make it the subject of prosecution without violating the universal rights of that State.On this stand, I am willing to deal with Mr. Burke whenever he pleases.It is better to bring out the whole argument than to hide it.He was the one who started the debate, and he should not get away with it.

I don't think monarchy and aristocracy will last another seven years in any progressive country in Europe.Monarchy and aristocracy stand if the reasons for them are stronger than those against them; otherwise they cannot stand.Men do not now want to be told they should not think, or read; every publication which examines the principles of government, and encourages speculation, reflection, and demonstration of the merits and demerits of different institutions, has a right to be published.If these publications are not noticed, there is no point in prosecuting them, and if they are noticed, it is useless to prosecute, because it does not prevent people from reading, it is not a judgment on the author but on the public, and it will be a judgement. Or the smartest way to promote revolution.

A jury of twelve is not competent to decide on all questions concerning the system of government of the same country.If there are no witnesses to inquire and no facts to corroborate; In such a case, any jury of twelve would be tied with another jury, and would likely overturn the other jury's case; or be unable to reach a verdict because the jurors were divided.Whether the subjects of a country approve of a work or a plan is one thing; but whether it is willing to entrust to any such jury the right to decide whether the subjects have rights or want reforms in the government is quite another. one thing.I mention these to make Mr. Burke understand that I have not written about government without regard to what is law and what is right.In such cases the only jury of any use is an assembly of representatives fairly elected by the whole nation; for in all these cases the whole nation is unanimous.If Mr. Burke initiates the organization of such a jury, I will give up all the privileges of being a citizen of another country, and defend the principles of this jury, and abide by its decisions, if Mr. Burke does the same; It is his writings and principles that condemn, not mine. As far as education and habit favor a particular form or system of government, these prejudices are subject to the test of reason and thought.In fact, this bias is nothing.No one prefers something that he knows is wrong.He favors the thing because he believes it to be true, and gives up that prejudice once he knows it isn't.We have only a partial conception of what prejudice is.It may be said that until men can think for themselves, it is all prejudice and not opinion: for opinion is only what is reasoned and thought.I make this point, in order that Mr. Burke may not place too much confidence in all the prejudices which have ever existed in England. I don't think the British people are being treated fairly.They have been duped by parties of all kinds and by some who stole the leadership.Now is the time for this country to stand up and take down these villains.Now is the time to dismantle the carelessness that has long been the motivating reason for desperate tax hikes.It is time to remove all those hymns and odes designed to enslave people and stifle thought. With regard to all these questions, as long as people use their brains, they will not do wrong, nor will they be led astray. To say that no one deserves liberty is to keep them forever poor, and it is the same as to say that they would rather bear heavy taxes.If this can be proved, it can also be proved that those who rule are not worthy to rule over them, because they are also part of the nation. It is to be admitted that the governments of all Europe must be changed; that can certainly be done without riots or reprisals. Change or revolution is not worth engaging in unless it is for some great popular good; and if this happens in a country, as it has in America and France, disaster will befall those who oppose it; To end my preface. thomas paine London, February 9, 1792