which M. du V. is involved whenever he is obliged to speak of the former. After having faid, that the ftate of nature is effentially a state of liberty and equality (P. 73); that the state of nature admits of no pofitive law, no common judge (P. 74); he infifts, that in that very state of nature, and previous to all convention, there exifted a real fociety, a domestic fociety (P. 75); and a little farther on, he admits that families, the fame as political focieties, effentially imply authority and submiffion, although he had before maintained (P. 13) that, in a ftate of nature, there is no public force to enforce the execution of fentences. It is certainly difficult to conceive what that state of nature could be which preceded focial order, and in which, nevertheless, there exifted a real jociety; and how domeftic fociety can imply authority and fubmiffion, being wholly unprovided with law, Judge, and public force.

Other writers, who have eftablifhed their fpeculative doctrines on the hypothefis of a ftate of nature, have, at leaft, drawn just conclufions from their chimerical premifes. But here the author adopts their vifions, and rejects their confequences; and, by that means, is led into the moft palpable contradictions. The whole fyftem of his work required that he fhould confider fociety as a matter of fact, and not as an abstract question; that he fhould trace its progrefs without forming conjectures as to its origin, and, efpecially, that he hould prove that, being founded on a peculiar bafis, faciablenefs, it is only fufceptible of different degrees of complication: in a word, that domeftic fociety is nothing more than a fociety in its utmoft poffible ftate of fimplicity..

Thofe who deny that France had a conftitution certainly fabour under a grofs mistake; but thofe who, maintaining a contrary opinion, undertake to trace the particulars of that conftitution, frequently produce a mere creature of imagination. The sketch of the French conftitution given by M. du V. (P. 92, et feq.) is very far from being accurate; for the preservation of morals was not folely entrusted to the Clergy, for it formed one of the most important functions of the magistracy. The defence of the state had not devolved on the Nobility exclufively; the third Eftate contributed to it. Nor was induftry confined to the third Eftate; it extended equally to the populace, a diftinct clafs, with which it should never be confounded. This claffification is founded on the falfe bafis of profeffions. We will examine the principle.

The author, throughout this book, justly maintains, that political influence belongs, exclufively, to proprietors; now the idea of property is not any wife connected with the profeffion of the proprietor. In most of the European states,

proprietors

proprietors are divided into two feparate claffes, Nobles and Commonalty. The members of the latter clafs may rife into the former, by being ennobled; thofe of the former may fink into the latter by being degraded. The Clergy, from a profeflion, have become almost every where a clafs or order. They originally acquired this diftinétion, becaufe, in times of ignorance, they were almoft the fole poffeffors of knowledge; they preferved it, in fubfequent times, partly from ufage, partly from refpect for their functions, but every where from the conviction that a third order was useful in moderating and balancing the other two.

It is of little confequence to the conftitution what civil function is generally exercifed by the individuals of each political clafs. It is the compofition of each clafs of its fub-divifions which eftablishes and maintains that public fpirit which forms the cement of fociety. In France, the organization of the Clergy was tolerably regular; they were indebted, for their political influence, to the Hierarchy. The Nobility, on the contrary, prefented a mafs without fubdivifions; it was even a matter of fome difficulty to define what was a Noble. The Courtier, fprung from a newly-ennobled family, made nobility confift in the poffeffion of titles, offices, and dignities, which fhed indelible fplendour on his race, and gave them a pre-eminence, in opinion, and an influence, in fact. The gentleman by birth acknowledged no genuine nobility but that which was derived from ancient chivalry, and entitled its pofterity to admiffion to the honours of Knighthood, and into the chapters which were ftrict in their exaction of proofs. The newly-created Noble objected, that this was no queftion of precedency, in a drawing-room or a ball, to be regulated by a mafter of the ceremonies; that all gentlemen were equal, and that his father had purchased, and transmitted to him, all the political rights of the Nobility, fince he had rendered him exempt from certain impofts confined to the commonalty, and eligible to reprefent the Nobility in the States General. As to the third eftate, nothing could be more irregular than its fubdivifions. Each, abandoning the rank in which he was placed by his property, fought to derive a falfe importance from his profeffion. The Judge of a Bailiwick, the Municipal Officer, the Lawyer, the Banker, the Tradefman, the Physician, the Farmer, far from being difpofed to unite, lived in a ftate of conftant rivality, and each of them conceived that his advantage exclufively confifted in rendering the third- eftate omnipotent, without ever confidering that when the commonally do not take property for their bafis, they merge in the populace.

After

After the Royal authority had acquired a preponderance without a counterpoife, it was the conftant policy of the Court to fhed a fupereminent luftre over all that emanated from itself; and the nation had favoured this illufion by taking much more pride in dignities than in property. A man valued himfelf little on the poffeffion of a fine eftate, while he deemed his importance greatly augmented by an epaulette, or a Magiftrate's robe. The Clergy had not experienced the bad effects of this prejudice, becaufe, in general, dignities and property increased among them in the fame proportion. But, in the two other orders, nothing was more common than to fee men of power in a state of penury, and men of opulence deftitute of influence. This is a vice, which, when it prevails in a great degree, ftrikes at the root of all political fociety. A Nobility whofe members are all equal by right is a Democratic body in a Monarchical government. A third eftate, whofe fubdivifions are not regulated by property, must be a prey to all the caprices of opinion, and be placed in a state of continual inteftine warfare.

But, to return to our author, we must observe, that, in a work devoted to the defence of focial order, it was by no means neceffary to pronounce a panegyric on the old conftitution of France. M. du V. fhould have contented himself with pointing out its imperfections, because they were fuch as did not require its fubverfion, but were fufceptible of an easy remedy. A difcuffion of this kind would have proved that its greatest defect was its tendency to nourish that anarchical difpofition, the hatred of fuperiority, and the struggle to acquire it, arifing from the circumstance of its not being legally

fixed.

Those who have attempted to enter into the particulars of the French conftitution have always forgotten, that the kingdom of France was compofed of various provinces, annexed at different times, acquired by different titles, and holden on different conditions; that the public law of Languedoc, for inftance, had no fimilarity with that of Brittany; nor that of Alface with that of Berri, &c. that, excepting the right of fucceffion to the crown, the inalienability of its domain, the diftinction of the three orders, and fome few other points, there were few laws that could be properly called fundamental, fince feveral to which that appellation was affixed did not apply to the whole kingdom. For example, the right of levying taxes, and the law of inheritance, two articles of the firft confequence in refpect of property, were very different in Brittany, in Auvergne, in Normandy, and in feveral other provinces.

provinces. Hence it is evident, that, in a state thus conftituted, opinion, that strong bond of fociety, was expofed to perpetual fluctuation, and that the political union inuft diffolve into anarchy, the moment that they, whofe duty it was to direct opinion, fhould fuffer themselves to be directed by it.

The first chapters, which extend from P. 139 to P. 233, contain a complete difcuflion of the whole doctrine of paffive obedience; to apply to them thofe critical obfervations of which they are fufceptible, would be to fwell this article into a volume. The mere abstract points of obedience and refiftance are queftions from the difcuffion of which much poffible mifchief may, but no poffible utility can, arife. The only general principle that can be laid down on the subject is-That obedience to the laws is an indifpenfible duty, prescribed by God and man; and that refillance to lawful authority is criminal in the eyes of both. The author, fearful of falling into extremes, and even of drawing the necellary deductions from his own principles, involves himself in inconfiftency and contradictions. In the investigation of two other leading queftions, the one on the divine origin of government, and the other on the boundaries of religious toleration, he is equally unfuccefsful. On the former point his conclufions, though rationally juft, are logically falfe. That government really is of divine origin, the fmalleft exertion of reafon fuffices to demonftrate. M. du V. therefore, could not be expected to deny it. But he admits the existence of a state of nature anterior to any ftate of fociety, and makes government the refult of a compact. Now, if this be true, as a compact between men is a mere human work, it is impoffible to infer that the refult of it is of divine origin. In the deliberation, which must precede fuch a compact, no other intervention of the divinity could be defcried, but the influence of an omnipotent Providence, which directed the moral, as well as the phyfical, world, by general laws which its wisdom has framed. In fact, the fuppofition of a focial compact accords equally well with the doubts of the Atheist, the creed of the Deift, and the faith of the Chriftian. But it is contrary to the evidence of facts, and, if it exifted, could have no pretenfions to a divine origin.

Refpecting religious toleration, the author's remarks are not calculated to throw any fresh light on the subject. And, indeed, there appears, throughout the difcuffion, to be a perpetual ftruggle between the genuine fentiments of his mind and the principles of his profeflion. In the former there prevaiis a tone of moderation, which confines, within juft limits, theological

theological intolerance, and condemns civil intolerance. In the latter we fee, with regret, that tolerance difappear in practice which he had previonfly eftablifhed in theory. He perpetually cenfures perfecution in marking out the duty of Princes in matters of religion; but he fixes boundaries fo uncertain, he employs expreffions fo vague, he impofes reftrictions fo ufelefs and arbitrary, he makes diftinctions fo fubtile, without any real difference, that civil toleration becomes at length circumfcribed within fuch narrow bounds, that a Sovereign may, in compliance with his maxims, without being guilty of perfecution, exercife every act of rigour that is not included under the denominations of punishment, imprisonment, and Spoliation!

Whoever will take the trouble of comparing the different paffages in the Chapter on Toleration, will be convinced that the author does not carry the doctrine of civil intolerance fo far as the inquifition, but that he makes it fubje&t to fluctuations, by leaving too great a field for the difcretion of governments. For instance, he maintains (P. 234) that there was no neceffity for any new laws in France on the fubject of religious toleration, and he had just before obferved, that Calvinifm enjoyed all the toleration which the rights of confcience required, because the rigorous edicts of Louis XIV. were foftened by the jurifprudence of the Parliaments. Now, what ftronger proof could be produced of the neceffity of new laws than this very circumftance, that the Judges were obliged to difpenfe with the old laws, to exercile their difcretion, and thus to exceed their powers, in order to avoid the ftill greater abuse refulting from the defects in the existing regulations?

In difcharging our duty to the public, by pointing out thefe errors, it is not our intention to depreciate either the work itself, which contains many excellent things, or the talents of the author, who is highly deferving of praife; but to fhow the difficulty attending the difcuffion of fuch delicate questions as those which form the fubject of this book, and to induce M. du V. should these remarks meet his eye, to revife it with attention, and to correct its defects.

ART.