第20章 Part The First (20)

Sixthly.Because aristocracy has a tendency to deteriorate the human species.By the universal economy of nature it is known, and by the instance of the Jews it is proved, that the human species has a tendency to degenerate, in any small number of persons, when separated from the general stock of society, and inter-marrying constantly with each other.It defeats even its pretended end, and becomes in time the opposite of what is noble in man.Mr.Burke talks of nobility; let him show what it is.The greatest characters the world have known have arisen on the democratic floor.Aristocracy has not been able to keep a proportionate pace with democracy.The artificial Noble shrinks into a dwarf before the Noble of Nature; and in the few instances of those (for there are some in all countries) in whom nature, as by a miracle, has survived in aristocracy, Those Men Despise It.- But it is time to proceed to a new subject.

The French Constitution has reformed the condition of the clergy.It has raised the income of the lower and middle classes, and taken from the higher.None are now less than twelve hundred livres (fifty pounds sterling), nor any higher than two or three thousand pounds.What will Mr.Burke place against this? Hear what he says.

He says: "That the people of England can see without pain or grudging, an archbishop precede a duke; they can see a Bishop of Durham, or a Bishop of Winchester in possession of L10,000 a-year; and cannot see why it is in worse hands than estates to a like amount, in the hands of this earl or that squire." And Mr.Burke offers this as an example to France.

As to the first part, whether the archbishop precedes the duke, or the duke the bishop, it is, I believe, to the people in general, somewhat like Sternhold and Hopkins, or Hopkins and Sternhold; you may put which you please first; and as I confess that I do not understand the merits of this case, I will not contest it with Mr.Burke.

But with respect to the latter, I have something to say.Mr.Burke has not put the case right.The comparison is out of order, by being put between the bishop and the earl or the squire.It ought to be put between the bishop and the curate, and then it will stand thus:- "The people of England can see without pain or grudging, a Bishop of Durham, or a Bishop of Winchester, in possession of ten thousand pounds a-year, and a curate on thirty or forty pounds a-year, or less." No, sir, they certainly do not see those things without great pain or grudging.It is a case that applies itself to every man's sense of justice, and is one among many that calls aloud for a constitution.

In France the cry of "the church! the church!" was repeated as often as in Mr.Burke's book, and as loudly as when the Dissenters' Bill was before the English Parliament; but the generality of the French clergy were not to be deceived by this cry any longer.They knew that whatever the pretence might be, it was they who were one of the principal objects of it.It was the cry of the high beneficed clergy, to prevent any regulation of income taking place between those of ten thousand pounds a-year and the parish priest.They therefore joined their case to those of every other oppressed class of men, and by this union obtained redress.

The French Constitution has abolished tythes, that source of perpetual discontent between the tythe-holder and the parishioner.When land is held on tythe, it is in the condition of an estate held between two parties;the one receiving one-tenth, and the other nine-tenths of the produce:

and consequently, on principles of equity, if the estate can be improved, and made to produce by that improvement double or treble what it did before, or in any other ratio, the expense of such improvement ought to be borne in like proportion between the parties who are to share the produce.But this is not the case in tythes: the farmer bears the whole expense, and the tythe-holder takes a tenth of the improvement, in addition to the original tenth, and by this means gets the value of two-tenths instead of one.This is another case that calls for a constitution.

The French Constitution hath abolished or renounced Toleration and Intolerance also, and hath established Universal Right Of Conscience.

Toleration is not the opposite of Intolerance, but is the counterfeit of it.Both are despotisms.The one assumes to itself the right of withholding Liberty of Conscience, and the other of granting it.The one is the Pope armed with fire and faggot, and the other is the Pope selling or granting indulgences.The former is church and state, and the latter is church and traffic.

But Toleration may be viewed in a much stronger light.Man worships not himself, but his Maker; and the liberty of conscience which he claims is not for the service of himself, but of his God.In this case, therefore, we must necessarily have the associated idea of two things; the mortal who renders the worship, and the Immortal Being who is worshipped.

Toleration, therefore, places itself, not between man and man, nor between church and church, nor between one denomination of religion and another, but between God and man; between the being who worships, and the Being who is worshipped; and by the same act of assumed authority which it tolerates man to pay his worship, it presumptuously and blasphemously sets itself up to tolerate the Almighty to receive it.

Were a bill brought into any Parliament, entitled, "An Act to tolerate or grant liberty to the Almighty to receive the worship of a Jew or Turk,"or "to prohibit the Almighty from receiving it," all men would startle and call it blasphemy.There would be an uproar.The presumption of toleration in religious matters would then present itself unmasked; but the presumption is not the less because the name of "Man" only appears to those laws, for the associated idea of the worshipper and the worshipped cannot be separated.