Monarchy were distinct and separate things; and it was against the
established despotism of the latter, and not against the person or
principles of the former, that the revolt commenced, and the
Revolution has been carried.

Mr. Burke does not attend to the distinction between men and
principles, and, therefore, he does not see that a revolt may take
place against the despotism of the latter, while there lies no charge
of despotism against the former.

The natural moderation of Louis XVI. contributed nothing to alter the
hereditary despotism of the monarchy. All the tyrannies of former
reigns, acted under that hereditary despotism, were still liable to
be revived in the hands of a successor. It was not the respite of a
reign that would satisfy France, enlightened as she was then become.
A casual discontinuance of the practice of despotism, is not a
discontinuance of its principles: the former depends on the virtue of
the individual who is in immediate possession of the power; the
latter, on the virtue and fortitude of the nation. In the case of
Charles I. and James II. of England, the revolt was against the
personal despotism of the men; whereas in France, it was against the
hereditary despotism of the established Government. But men who can
consign over the rights of posterity for ever on the authority of a
mouldy parchment, like Mr. Burke, are not qualified to judge of this
Revolution. It takes in a field too vast for their views to explore,
and proceeds with a mightiness of reason they cannot keep pace with.

But there are many points of view in which this Revolution may be
considered. When despotism has established itself for ages in a
country, as in France, it is not in the person of the king only that