I 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 ! 
 
A COMPARISON 
 
 OF THE 
 
 GREAT ENGLISH AND FRENCH 
 
 REVOLUTIONS ; 
 
 BY WILLIAM BAINBRIDGE, ESQ,, 
 
 BEING AN ABSTRACT OF A PAPER READ BEFORE THE LITERARY AND PHILO- 
 SOPHICAL SOCIETY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE, ON 
 THE 5th march, 1844. 
 
 NEWCASTLE : 
 
 PRINTED BY T. &. J. HODGSON, UNION STREET. 
 
 MDCCCXI.IV. 
 
 Library 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 UR8ANA -CHAMPAIGN 
 
' UJUu. ^4 
 
 A COMPARISON 
 
 0^ x~ 
 
 0>M<^ 
 
 OF 
 
 THE GREAT ENGLISH AND FRENCH 
 REVOLUTIONS. 
 
 [FROM THE NEWCASTLE CHRONICLE OF APRIL 6, 1844 .] 
 
 It has long been an object of paramount interest with the committees 
 of this Society to endeavour to promote the reading of papers at the 
 monthly meetings of its members, and we feel pleasure in being enabled 
 to lay before our readers an abstract of one which was read at the 
 meeting in March, and which a press of matter has prevented us 
 from giving in an earlier number. The paper was read by William 
 Bainbridge, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, and was entitled “ a Comparison 
 of the great English and French Revolutions.” In this paper Mr. 
 Bainbridge described, in graceful and often forcible language, the 
 various points of resemblance and of contrast between those two 
 great events. The French Revolution, he said, was beyond all com- 
 parison, the greatest political event of modern times, that it exceeded 
 in extent, unanimity, atrocities and splendour all other similar revo- 
 lutions. The great events of history have often been induced by the 
 nod of the sullen tyrant, the sword of the successful soldier, or the glow- 
 ing thoughts of the orator, but the French Revolution was not the act 
 of one mind only, but in it a countless multitude acted for a time with 
 all the energies of single despotism, — an indignant and oppressed peo- 
 ple groaning under long injuries, rose at length in terrible strength, 
 and hurled from their seats their lofty oppressors. 
 
 Though the French Revolution exceeded in its terrors and in the 
 extent of its influence all similar convulsions, yet it was not the first of 
 those operations which, under different guises, are destined to work 
 out the deliverance of modern Europe. 
 
4 
 
 In our own island this great work had its first triumph, and to the 
 great English Revolution those who first sought to relieve the French 
 people from their long slavery, turned for example in their own 
 course. 
 
 Between the causes which led to the two great movements there were 
 many points of resemblance. In both countries there had been cruel 
 and wanton misgovernment, disgrace abroad, and at home harsh tri- 
 bunals and financial embarrassments ; in each the monarch was im- 
 pressed with notions of prerogative which the people who were smart- 
 ing under oppression were determined to dispute. In the one country, 
 the long parliament, and in the other the national assembly, were 
 declared to be liable to dissolution only by their own act, and both pro- 
 ceeded at once to assume all the privileges and powers of the executive 
 office. 
 
 In both, grievances were examined into, and the demands of the peo- 
 ple arose with every refusal. In each august Assembly there was the 
 same dignity, the same anxious deliberation, the same vigorous and 
 eloquent wisdom, in defence of public rights, and in each the abuses 
 of generations were swept away by one revolution. There was at first, 
 at least, the same public confidence in each assembly, and the times 
 in both cases were marked by a similar spirit of philosophical specu- 
 lation, the social and political rights of man were discussed with un- 
 bounded freedom, existing institutions were boldly examined and at - 
 tempted to be reformed, till the obstinate denial of rights, extorted 
 the withdrawal of pecuniary supplies. Then followed the abrupt dis- 
 solution of parliaments, the burst of popular insurrections, the tri- 
 umph of the republicans, the death of the monarch, and the establish- 
 ment of a military government. And then it was that, in both coun- 
 tries, came the restoration of the old line of kings, a few years of 
 almost absolute monarchy, the final expulsion of the hated race, an- 
 other and kindred dynasty was called to the throne by the popular 
 voice and was based on the fabric of popular power — the long desired 
 sequel to a long course of stormy struggles and bitter sacrifices. Be- 
 tween the actors of both events there may also be traced a considerable 
 resemblance, as well as in very many other points to which the parallel 
 might be extended. But within there lies a few more instructive 
 lessons, both of comparison and contrast than are even perhaps to be 
 derived from a consideration of the more prominent points of resem- 
 blance between the two great events. 
 
 The determination of the people to obtain political freedom produc- 
 
5 
 
 ed both revolutions, but to understand the different stages of their 
 developement, and the other causes by which they were accompanied 
 requires a consideration of the previous history of the two nations. 
 
 The warriors that emerged from the plains and forests of central 
 Europe to subvert the tottering remains of the Roman Empire did 
 not concentrate themselves in one capital, but spread themselves 
 over the conquered region, each chief establishing himself as an al- 
 most independent prince in his own particular district. The king, 
 or principal leader, remained behind in some chosen seat of power, 
 and within his own boundary he was certainly absolute, but beyond 
 he was only the chief of a host of petty kings. This was the golden 
 age of aristocracy, and against such a system the progress of an im- 
 proved civilization was slow and painful, for from the land being di- 
 vided into so many petty sovereignties it was difficult for the oppressed 
 people to make any combined effort against their oppressors, and it 
 was not until the power of the feudal nobles had been gradually ab- 
 sorbed in absolute monarchy that the oppressor and the oppressed 
 were fairly arrayed against each other, and political power was ob- 
 tained by those for whose benefit it should be instituted. 
 
 In England the independence of the great feudal nobility was never 
 so decided as in France, and the sanguinary wars of the Roses so im- 
 poverished the English nobility, that they were able to offer but little 
 resistance to the growing power of the monarchy. In France the fall 
 of the great nobility was effected by artful schemes which under the 
 sanction of the law united the great fiefs of the kingdom with the 
 patrimony of the crown. 
 
 Amongst the causes which led to the overthrow of the feudal system 
 were the crusades causing the transference of land, the increase of 
 commercial activity and the consequent acquisition of wealth by the 
 middle classes. There was no bond of interest amongst the nobles 
 which could enable them successfully to resist the encroachments of 
 the crown by which in the reign of Charles V., they were finally 
 overthrown. This was the golden age of monarchy, the nobility now 
 deriving their power from the throne added to its strength without 
 giving it apprehension, and the people dazzled by the splendour of 
 the spectacle bowed their heads for a time, quietly to the yoke. But 
 the power which the kings possessed was used not in promoting the 
 happiness but in oppressing the people, who, goaded by long injuries 
 turned upon their oppressors and obtained by their own exertions those 
 rights of which they had been so long deprived. 
 
6 
 
 The change to absolute monarchy took place much sooner in France, 
 whilst that in which sovereign power was invested in the people took 
 place much sooner in England. One reason of this was, that in France 
 the monarch succeeded in obtaining absolute power without the aid 
 of the people, whilst in England the King broke up the power of 
 the nobles by granting to the people various privileges, as the price of 
 their assistance. It was in this way, and by their attachment to the 
 comparatively free institutions of their Saxon forefathers, that the 
 people of England gradually established a beneficent structure of free- 
 dom, rude and unfinished indeed, but capable of sustaining a solid and 
 enduring fabric. The feudal system was abolished, the serfs were 
 emancipated, feudal exactions were swept away, the privilege of self- 
 taxation became the law of the land, and the way was thus prepared 
 for a better political system, and for that spirit of liberty to which, 
 even the haughty Elizabeth was compelled to submit, and by oppos- 
 ing which, the first Charles lost his head. It was, therefore, the object 
 of the great English revolution to obtain for the people that constitu- 
 tional liberty which should secure to them the benefits which they 
 had gradually wrested from their rulers. 
 
 In the meantime the great reformation was making rapid progress. 
 It was introduced by the Crown for its own purposes, and eagerly 
 received by the people, because it reminded them of their early strug- 
 gles in the same cause. The addition of this new element was soon 
 converted into an element of political strife. The reformed Church, 
 with the King as its supreme pontiff, sought to be as despotic as the 
 church it had succeeded, whilst the enemies of political despotism 
 were equally opposed to that of the church; and thus, those who 
 were adverse to civil and religious depotism by uniting as in one com- 
 mon cause, chased the surpliced minister from the altar, and brought 
 the king to the block. 
 
 In France, whilst the human mind was advancing in every depart- 
 ment, the feudal system was in its full luxuriance, so that when the 
 millions of her people rose to demand justice at the hands of their op- 
 pressors, the change was sudden and sweeping, and not, as in England, 
 so gradual that the outward aspect of things seemed scarcely altered. 
 
 In France, the hold which the Reformation took on the minds of 
 the people was much slighter than in England, because the people 
 were, generally speaking, sunk in the grossest ignorance, and, there- 
 fore, the purer principles of the reformed church were unable to resist 
 the zeal of the Romish priests, aided by the power of the monarchy. 
 
7 
 
 So great, indeed, was the reaction in favour of the old religion, that 
 even Henry IV. felt it expedient to comply with the prevailing opi- 
 nions of his people. From this period there was internal peace, till 
 the French people, no longer blinded by the dazzling glories of Louis 
 XIVth, in the reign of his weak and dissolute successor, became 
 fully alive to the miseries heaped upon them by their rulers, and 
 began to show signs of that fierce indignation which entirely over- 
 threw the old and corrupt institutions. But France was not alto- 
 gether corrupt. It was then that men hitherto unheeded and un- 
 known, but who had studied with patient ardour the records of past 
 civilization, came forth to promote the cause of freedom and justice, 
 and to rouse the people to shake from their foundations the thrones 
 and dynasties which reposed on the ignominious past. But there were 
 not wanting those who consented to convert the warm sympathies 
 of mankind into the means of a deep and dark-hearted hypocrisy : — 
 falsehood was everywhere ; in the court, and at the altar, and the 
 conviction seemed to force itself on the actors in the great drama, 
 that before a sound fabric of political freedom could be reared, the old 
 corruption must be entirely sw^ept away. And this feeling extended 
 also to the national church, which became an object of intense dislike, 
 and this dislike of the established religion was not succeeded by the 
 intense religious enthusiasm which marked the English Revolution, 
 but by a hatred of every thing that bore the name of religion, thus 
 forming a striking difference between the two great events. 
 
 In addition to this, there were many other circumstances which 
 distinguished the two revolutions the one from the other. 
 
 At first, indeed, the same calm dignity marked the proceedings of 
 the two national assemblies, but whilst moderation continued to cha- 
 racterise almost all the actions of the English Reformers, the death of 
 the King excepted, the French people soon gave way to an entirely 
 contrary spirit. When Charles I. marched into the House of Com- 
 mons with armed men, there was no display of unmannerly insol- 
 ence, nor of adulation, but his ears were assailed with the stern re- 
 buking cry of privilege ! privilege ! How different the conduct of the 
 English people from that of the savage mobs that revelled in slaught- 
 er during the stormy days of the French Revolution ! How different 
 were the men that led on the two nations in their struggle for free- 
 dom! English history might have a Mirabeau, a Lafayette, a Verg- 
 niaud, and a Napoleon ! but it had no Marat, Robespierre, Carrier, 
 Collot d’Herbois. 
 
8 
 
 In England at the commencement of the Revolution the House of 
 Commons was composed of two great parties, who both, at first unit- 
 ed in demanding from Charles privileges which he was not disposed to 
 grant ; when it became evident that the sword must decide whether or 
 not those principles should be obtained, and moreover that the ma- 
 jority in the House of Commons were inclined to overturn the throne 
 altogether, the attachment to royalty was still so strong that the tw® 
 parties separated only to meet again on the field of battle, and thus 
 an army was created for Charles amongst those who had opposed, at 
 the commencement, his assumption of arbitrary power, and he thus 
 acquired a party which adhered to him through all the vicissitudes 
 of the civil war. 
 
 The English people thus deserted by those who had at first assisted 
 them, achieved the great work of their independence by their own 
 independent efforts, and temperate in success and undismayed by re- 
 verses, they displayed that quiet dignity and forbearance which 
 saved the nation from the horrors of unmanly crimes, and from the 
 memory of an inglorious history. It must not be forgotten, that much 
 of this noble spirit was owing to the infiuence of the religious element. 
 The Puritans who under the persecution of the state church, had 
 retreated into various hiding places, came forth on her fall, and threw 
 into the scale of freedom all the energy of their religious enthusiasm, 
 and when the soldiers of liberty had prostrated throne and altar, and 
 the Presbyterian sought to make his church the dominant church, and 
 also one of persecution, the independents, whose principle was, that 
 the expression of religious opinion should be altogether free, interfered 
 successfully to prevent an ascendancy which would have crushed the 
 expression of religious opinion, and which would have been fatal to 
 the cause of religious freedom. During the course of the English 
 Revolution the ranks of the parliament were thronged by religious 
 enthusiasts, who, with all their fanaticism, were never diverted from 
 their endeavours to obtain civil and religious liberty. In the midst 
 of the French Revolution there was no limit to the systems and 
 theories which the heat of political philosophy threw oflf from its fiery 
 furnace. This excitement raged furiously for a while, but, in the end, 
 was quietly absorbed in the disciplined and obedient ranks of a mighty 
 army. In England, on the contrary, there was no seeking of mili- 
 tary renown for its own sake, the founders of civil and religious 
 liberty were not to be compensated by fields of glory for the slavery 
 of their country. — There was no mutiny in the serried ranks of 
 
9 
 
 Napoleon. In England, the great leaders were compelled either plainly 
 to follow, or dexterously to direct, the self-sustained energy of an armed 
 and thoughtful people. 
 
 It is difficult now to conceive the intensity of the religious spirit in 
 the time of the great English Revolution. The religious enthusiasm 
 of the genuine puritan stands perhaps alone in history. Filled with 
 the deepest convictions of the moral depravity of human nature^ it 
 was only after a tremendous struggle that he freed, or imagined he 
 freed himself from the bondage of sin. But when this was once effect- 
 ed, he sought, after having delivered himself, the deliverance of man- 
 kind, or to gain a crown of martyrdom. Such was the intrepid spirit 
 which overcame the vaunted chivalry of an English king — such were 
 the people whose speech and manners might be ridiculed, but who 
 could not be conquered. Another peculiarity of the puritan was, 
 notwithstanding his fierce enthusiasm, perfect coolness in the field of 
 battle, and his expanded notions of the principles of government. 
 
 It was this spirit which, animating the army of independents, made 
 Cromwell himself hesitate ere he placed the crown upon his brow, and 
 which compelled him, military leader though he was, to yield full 
 deference to an army which, although the organ of a military des- 
 potism, sought to promote and secure universal toleration; and 
 if the nation generally had been ripe for such opinions, the old sys- 
 tem of things would never have been restored. Napoleon’s military 
 government was very different from that of Cromwell ; the former 
 was indeed a despot; the people submitted altogether to his will, 
 while Cromwell ruled by suiting his principles of government to the 
 temper of his friends. His power was disgraced by no persecutions. 
 The moderation and dignity of the English people formed a striking 
 contrasttothe wild ferocity of the French, who, passing at once from 
 slavery to unbridled licence, revelled in the blood of their real or im- 
 agined enemies. During the French Revolution there were the rule of 
 a savage and bloody mob, the despotism of a knot of still bloodier 
 demagogues, the reign of terror— slaughter — proscription, until in- 
 surrection, alarmed at the thought of self-destruction, stayed her wild 
 career, and by the immolation of Robespierre gave the first signal of 
 returning peace. The fierce spirit which had raged so long and caused 
 so much destruction gave a few wild throes, and finally yielded itself 
 to the absolute and lion sway of a military despot, and the spirit of 
 fierce excitement sought for gratification in the victorious armies of 
 France. 
 
3 0 
 
 2 106072967 
 
 V., 
 
 
 10 
 
 This issue, this abject submission, was in deep contrast with the state 
 of England. Amongst the armies of the empire there were undoubted 
 valour, devotion, and enthusiasm, but it was not the ardent un- 
 quenchable valour of the puritan. The French Conqueror stimu- 
 lated the courage of his soldiers by reference to former glories and by 
 the promise of military distinction, but the Puritan had within his 
 breast a far more powerful means of excitement, he fought not for 
 worldly distinction, but with the hope that if he fell he would be re- 
 warded by eternal glory, and if he conquered he would promote 
 those great principles which, as he thought, were founded on the 
 religion of the Lord. Napoleon, on one of his greatest battle 
 fields, stimulated his soldiers by exclaiming “behold the Sun of 
 Austerlitz!” But how feeble was the apostrophe compared to that 
 which Cromwell addressed to his army of fierce enthusiasts, when, 
 on the heights of Dunbar, he saw the mists of the morning dissipated 
 and the sun rising in broad splendour from the sea, he waved his 
 sword aloft, and exclaimed “ Let God arise and let His enemies be 
 scattered.” 
 
 To conclude, if the two events shewed a marked resemblance in 
 some respects, and as marked a difference in others, they must both be 
 classed amongst the triumphs of mankind ; in both the bonds of the 
 oppressor were broken, and although in both there was a re-action, 
 and for a time the old form of things seemed re-established, yet it 
 was only for a time; the spirit was checked, not quenched, and, ere 
 long, liberty was established in both lands, on a base so broad that, al- 
 though it may be shaken, can never more be overthrown. But the 
 time for violent and bloody revolutions is past ; not the power of the 
 sword but the power of opinion will henceforth decide great ques- 
 tions, and the quiet march of reform will take the place of the wild 
 anarchy of revolution. 
 
 NEWCASTLE: PRINTED BY T. AND J. HODGSON, CNION STREET.