‘ACCOUNT: OF BOOKS. 
the acceptation of the term by the 
French, it is either inapplicable to 
er subversive of their system of 
legislation.. Equal proteétion frem 
the power jof government,» and 
from the injustice of individuals, 
he admits:to be the right of every 
man in society ; and on this point 
he makes this judicious remark : 
* Civil rights may be as sacred 
in.an absolute monarchy, as in a 
pure democracy: in neither, is 
-there much security that they will 
continue so. But the degree of 
authority which the sovereignty 
assumes over its subjects is by no 
means a criterion ‘of liberty, for 
personal independence is often most 
restrained in constitutions that are 
esteemed most free.’ 
The inequality of rights exem- 
plified in the exemptions from cer- 
tain burthens.of the state enjoyed 
by privileged orders, he traces up 
to times of conquest, when the 
congucrors assumed to themselves 
privileges which they did not allow 
- to tlie conquered. 
* Latterly indeed (says he), all 
peasants, whether descended from 
the conquerors or their subjects, 
became vassals; but it was because, 
in those times of confusion and 
violence, the poor Frank, unable to 
defend himself, voluntarily sur- 
rendered his liberty, in order to 
obtain protection under the wing 
of a powerful chieftain. And al- 
though all the states of Europe may 
shew privileged orders, exempt 
from the burthens which bear*on 
the community, this is the rem- 
nant of what conquerors formerly 
arrogated to themselves, and what 
no one pretends to justity.’ 
It is not necessary, he observes, 
to annihilate a constitution and dis- 
organize a nation, in order to force 
[fivileged bodies to make a sacri- 
[510 
fice of such exemptions ; in France, 
at least; it certainly was not ne. 
cessary, because, whether from vir- 
tue.or necessity, the Fyench nobles 
were ready to surrender them with- 
out a struggle. The exemptions 
and the rank which the nobility 
enjoyed he considers in a very dif- 
ferent point of view; the former, 
he says, ought to be abolished, as 
originating from the arrogance of 
conquerors oppressing or guarding 
against a vanquished) nation ;° the 
latter ought to be retained as de« 
rived from sound principles. of le. 
gislation, tending to the general 
benefit of the community,» The 
views of the French, when con- 
tending for the equality of rights, 
he insists, are political powers, the 
public cfices of governments; and 
the filling of them, he maintains, 
ought not to be called a right, but 
a duly. In this sense he shews that, 
instead of saying every man has # 
right to aspire to such offices; we 
ought to say that the state has a 
right to call on every man, accord- 
ing to his capacity, to take: his 
share in the service of his countrys 
This leads him to considerations 
respecting the army and navy. 
When citizens wish to serve only 
in lucrative or easy stations, either 
the public service must stand still; 
Or government must have recoursé 
to measures the most harsh and 
apparently incompatible with lis 
berty, in order to keep up a public 
force by both land and sea for the 
general defence. 
From the whole he deduces the 
following inferences : 
« The various offices of state are 
duties created by society, not 
rights brought by men into society, 
and possessed antecedent to it. The 
object therefore of the social union 
could net be as the French legisla- 
L1l4 tors, 
