The General Expediency and Necessity of a Revolution in France.

Abstract

IT is asserted in many passages¹⁵ of Mr. Burke’s work, though no where with that precision which the importance of the assertion demanded, that the French Revolution was not only in its parts reprehensible, but in the whole was absurd, inexpedient, and unjust; yet he has no where exactly informed us what he understands by the term. The French Revolution, in its most popular sense, perhaps would be understood in England to consist of those splendid events that formed the prominent portion of its exterior, the Parisian revolt, the Capture of the Bastile, and the submission of the King.¹⁶ But these memorable events, though they strengthened and accelerated, could not constitute a Political Revolution. It must have a change of Government, but even limited to that meaning, it is still equivocal and wide.

Thomas Christie adopts the same subject for his second letter (‘The Necessity of a Revolution in France’) in Letters on the Revolution of France (1791). Indeed, VG and Letters on the Revolution of France were published on the same day, and JM and Christie were also the first of Burke’s opponents to consider the importance of Calonne to the French Revolution debate. It is probable that they were exchanging ideas at this time.