The Rights of Man

When analyzing Rights of Man’s opening pages, it is important to keep in mind that Burke’s arguments in Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) had gained some traction among the British reading public, so Paine first addresses Burke’s insistence that the Glorious Revolution settled forever the question of how to balance the different powers inside the British government. In fact, Paine devotes considerable space to Burke’s claim that the Parliament of 1688, which inaugurated the Glorious Revolution in England, is entitled to special consideration and even authority. 

To refute Burke, Paine observes that neither individuals nor Parliament may exercise dominion over posterity: Ancient laws remain in force only by consent, not because those laws are inviolable. This line of argument is critical to Paine’s entire political philosophy, for it poses a direct challenge to all who assume that the constitution produced by the Glorious Revolution represents the apex of all human achievement in government. Whereas Burke cites a century-old constitutional settlement, Paine counters with the natural sovereignty of the people.

The success of Burke’s book also explains why Paine tries to correct the record on two major incidents in the early history of the French Revolution: the July 1789 storming of the Bastille and the march on Versailles less than three months later. As a veteran of the American Revolutionary War, Paine no doubt remembered the degree to which Loyalist exiles—native Anglo-American colonists who opposed American independence and then fled to England—helped shape and twist British public opinion against the Americans. The same thing happened in late-1789, when royalists from France took refuge in Britain and told only their side of the story. In countering such narratives about revolutionary events, Paine hopes to present the French Revolution as a legitimate response to real grievances instead of a random act of mob violence. 

Paine’s broader objective is to inspire in Britain the same kind of revolution that occurred in America and France. To this end, Paine cites such luminaries as Dr. Richard Price, the British radical, and the Marquis de Lafayette, hero of the American Revolution. Paine’s treatment of France’s King Louis XVI is also significant for this reason. By early 1791, Louis XVI remained a tepid supporter of the French Revolution’s reforms (at least publicly), so Paine is careful to point out that the French had rebelled against the system of absolute monarchy, not against the person of Louis XVI himself. Paine argues that “[i]n the case of Charles I and James II of England, the revolt was against the personal despotism of the men” (14, emphasis added), but insists that this would not be the case should the British adopt French-style, systemic changes to their government.