f these books was the "Rights of Man," which,
crude and undigested as the arguments it contained were, was extolled by
the republican party in England as a master-piece of human intelligence
and genius, and as a complete refutation of all the arguments of Burke's
"Reflections." This may have arisen from the fact that Paine's doctrine
was much more plain and intelligible to the common people: it was
operatical and proposed immediate excision; that is, it advocated the
total overthrow of monarchy, and the establishment of republicanism.
To the honour of Sir James Mackintosh it must be mentioned, that he,
subsequently, when he read of the massacres and atrocities committed
in Paris, retracted the bold assertions he had made in the _Vindicio
Gallico_, and, finally, declared that democracy was "the most monstrous
of all governments, because it is impossible at once to act and to
control; and, consequently, the sovereign power in such a constitution
must be left without any check whatsoever." Sir James Mackintosh,
indeed, lived to regret that he had written his essay; nor does it
appear that when he wrote he had any idea of the fatal consequences
that would result from the principles he defended: like many others he
indulged the hope that the revolution would correct its own vices.
His essay, like those of Paine's and Priestley's, however, had an evil
tendency at this period of public excitement. At the same time the
_Vindicio Gallicio_ was not calculated to work such mischief as the
"Rights of Man," and the "Letters to the Right Honourable Mr. Burke,"
since the one was addressed to the educated, and the others to the
uneducated classes of the public. Cheap editions of the two latter works
were, in truth, industriously circulated throughout the country, by
the various clubs which abounded on every hand. But notwithstanding the
exertions of the press to promulgate revolutionary principles, there was
still a sound conservative principle abroad: the main body of the people
were loyal to their king, and few comparatively among the upper ranks
were found to countenance the efforts of sedition. This was manifested
in an unequivocal manner at Birmingham, where Dr. Priestley acted as
a Socinian or Unitarian minister: a manner, indeed, which must be
condemned, inasmuch as it was unworthy of the friends of order, and as
it set an example of ungovernable fury to those who were re-presented as
the foes of all established institutions. In m