The Rights of Man

After devoting so much space in Part 1 to the narrative of the French Revolution, Paine henceforth focuses on Britain and the British government. This Miscellaneous Chapter makes arguments that refer back to points raised earlier in Part 1, while at the same time laying the groundwork for new and more elaborate arguments to come in Part 2.

Paine suggests that the “opinions of men with respect to government, are changing fast in all countries” (72). He claims this is especially true in America and France, where monarchy, aristocracy, and all hereditary authority are increasingly dismissed. Paine makes a similar argument earlier in Part 1, where he describes the impact of changing public opinion with regard to aristocratic titles: “If a whole country is disposed to hold them [the aristocracy] in contempt, all their value is gone, and none will own them” (41). Throughout the book, Paine both denounces and mocks monarchy because he believes that the system itself is fundamentally corrupt and flawed. Paine stresses the evils of hereditary government so that its form can be changed and a new government can be established on better principles—Paine understands that if ordinary people come to regard hierarchical distinctions and privileges as ridiculous, then those things will cease to exist. In his discussion of the Regency crisis, Paine makes a similar appeal to the will of the sovereign people, which he believes the present Parliament does not and cannot reflect due to its hierarchical nature (in particular, the House of Lords) and limited use as a representative body for the common British subject.

One of the most important arguments in Paine’s book is also perhaps the most obscure to modern readers: the 18th-century view and history of corruption in the British government. Early in this chapter, Paine mentions the House of Brunswick, more commonly known as the House of Hanover. Later, Paine describes “a band of interested men” (78). In the chapter’s final paragraph, he refers to “that creature known in all countries, and a friend to none, a COURTIER” (88) and even accuses Burke of being such a creature. All of these terms and references are connected.

In 1714, George I ascended to the British throne. The new king hailed from the German electorate of Hanover, then part of the Holy Roman Empire, and spoke no English. Since George I had little interest in British affairs, real power fell to the prime minister, a brand-new office in the early 1720s. The prime minister operated in Parliament, securing funding for the king’s foreign wars while at the same time securing his own position. The national debt exploded, heavy taxes were imposed upon the people, and the minister used the revenue to expand the size of the British government and fill government offices with his political allies and dependants. This is the “band of interested men” who grew rich on war and taxes. The term “courtier” refers to anyone who serves within the royal court.

Paine therefore makes all of these connections explicit: The corruption of the British government has a traceable history, is perpetuated by its hereditary features, and is responsible for the impoverishment of the British people. Those who defend the monarchical system­­—like Burke—have an invested interest in its continuation, and therefore, Paine suggests, they defend it not out of genuine political belief but out of personal self-interest.