32 
R E V 0 L 
To consider; to meditate on. „ 
You may revolve what tales I told you 
Of courts, of princes, of the tricks of war. Shakspeare. 
REVOL'VENCY, s. Constant revolution.—Its own re¬ 
volver ep upholds the world. Cowper. 
REVOLUTION, s. [revolutus, Lat.] Course of any 
thing which returns to the point at which it began to move. 
On their orbs impose 
Such restless revolution, day by day 
Repeated. Milton. 
Space measured by some revolution.—The Persian wept 
over his army, that within the revolution of a single age, 
not a man would be l§ft alive. Wake .—Change in the 
state of a government or country. It is. used among us 
kuT ebjyjjv, for the change produced by the admission of 
king Wiliam and queen Mary.—The late revolution, jus¬ 
tified by its necessity and the good it had produced, will 
be a lasting answer. Davenant. —Rotation ; circular mo¬ 
tion. Motion backward. 
U T I 0 N. 
archy and massacre, and to confound all who had any con¬ 
cern in it as madmen or assassins. But it is important that 
we should duly distinguish between the promoters of reform 
and those of revolution, and even with regard to the latter, 
between those who were actuated by patriotic, (though mis¬ 
taken) motives, and those who were urged on by the base 
inducements of self-interest and personal elevation. It is 
proper to observe, that Mirabeau and the national assembly, 
who obtained from Louis XVI. the acknowledgement of the 
constitution, were men of a temperate, rational, and even 
forbearing character. Nor can there be any doubt that if 
they had retained the administration of affairs, France might 
have been saved from all she has suffered. The grand mistake 
of that body was their too early abdication, and their carrying 
disinterestedness so far as to forbid the re-election of any of 
their body. A very little foresight might have anticipated, 
that, in a country where men had been so little habituated to 
public business, few could be found adapted to legislate for 
troublous times, and that the people at large, who were 
ignorant and debased, would be more likely to be influenced 
by violence and declamation than by worth and moderation. 
It must be granted that some excesses were committed by the 
people during the government of the national conventions, 
but it is notorious that these -were opposed and always 
repressed by the constitutionalists. The foolish encourage¬ 
ment given by the royal family of France to the old nobility, 
was a constant power placed in the hands of demagogues, to 
stir up the common people to insurrection ; yet La Fayette 
and the national guard were efficient protectors, in these 
instances, of the royal person. A cordial union on the part 
of the sovereign with this party would have established his 
throne immoveably. Unhappily, it is but too clear, that the 
excesses of the people were always represented to him as the 
inevitable result of any change from absolute monarchy. 
The dissolution of the first national assembly introduced 
men of extravagant opinions into the government: supported 
by the people, their number of course exceeded the more 
moderate party, and measures of a violent nature conse¬ 
quently were resorted to. No sooner, however, had these 
gained the victory, than others, prepared to go still greater 
lengths, arose, and carried all before them. This sort of 
struggle between those who would sacrifice much and those 
who would sacrifice more to the madness of the populace, 
continued, without intermission, until the happy usurpation 
of Napoleon. The events that occupied this period, the 
most dreadful in history, are by no means inexplicable or 
even surprising. The excesses of the people were such as 
in all countries have been committed by beings destitute of 
food, taught to attribute all their misery to the happier 
classes, and intoxicated with a freedom they had never before 
known. Unfair conclusions have been drawn from the events 
of the revolution against the character of the French nation. 
They have been accused of ferocity and cruelty, and these 
crimes strike us with the more indignation on account of 
their dreadful contrast with the light and frivolous character 
of this people. We shall acquit them, however, of any natural 
tendency to these vices, if we reflect that one principle, true in 
itself, had been effectually engrafted on their minds,—that it 
is lawful to sacrifice the few for the many. Animated with 
this notion, the slaughter of any one who opposed the eman¬ 
cipation of France seemed a virtue. Hence, massacres were 
but too frequent, while plunder was, to a great extent, ab¬ 
stained from, or at least its produce thrown into the common 
stock. Moreover, we must separate thq occasional violence 
of the mob from the' systematic murders of Robespierre and 
his cotempoiaries. These were not the acts of the populace; 
they were effected by a small number of assassins, well paid 
by a still smaller number of demagogues. Even for the 
last some palliation may be found. They also viewed their 
opponents as the enemies of liberty; and they also held the 
principle, that to maintain k good cause all measures are jus¬ 
tifiable. They had gradually advanced from one violence 
to another, pntil they lost every restraint of justice or mora¬ 
lity. The life of their fellow creatures became valueless in 
comparison with their own elevation, and the consequent 
elevation 
Fear 
Comes thundering back with dreadful revolution 
On my defenceless head. Milton. 
The most important revolutions which history has to 
record are, the English one of 1688, and the American 
revolution. 
By the former, the true principles of liberty, hitherto but 
feebly asserted and partially assented to, were established by 
the consent of all orders in the most enlightened country in 
the world ; were recorded in her laws and assented to by her 
king. By the latter, the dominion of these principles was 
secured over nearly half the globe, and an impregnable asy¬ 
lum secured to all mankind impatient of despotism. Both 
these great changes owed their stability to the moderation of 
their agents. In both the important caution was observed 
not to overturn the good of old systems as well as their evil. 
La neither was the authority of established laws and customs 
superseded by the dictates of untried and visionary specula¬ 
tion ; the lessons of experience were not thrown away, nor 
coercion of the formed habits of mankind suddenly attemp¬ 
ted. 
A third and more striking revolution than either of the 
above, is that of France. But the picture displayed by this 
event is far from containing their admirable traits. It has its 
prototype rather in the dethronement of Charles I. than in 
any other page of history. The parallel holds good in the fol¬ 
lowing points.—1. The grievances that led to both these revo¬ 
lutions were many and weighty. 2. The first opposersof the 
government acted moderately and sensibly, but the folly and 
obstinacy of the ruling powers left no middle road to the 
people, and roused the violent and interested to the struggle. 
3. The victory of the revolutionary arms brought in anarchy 
and bloodshed, until one predominant genius assumed the 
reins, and guided the state to glory and prosperity. 4. The 
disappointed hopes of the nation called back their dethroned 
dynasty, still deformed by prejudice and error. That the 
English in great part escaped the barbarous scenes that give 
so fearful a character to the French revolution, is partly owing 
to the early directorship of Cromwell, and still more to the 
better information and feeling of the people. Yet, in each 
of these revolutions much blood was shed, many fortunes 
ruined, lasting prejudices against liberty and toleration engen¬ 
dered, and all for nothing.—The old systems have returned 
invigorated by their downfall, and the cause of freedom has 
received blows from which it requires a long period of 
time to recover. 
Yet, allowing much to the natural feelings of mankind, 
abhorrent of bloodshed, the impartial observer must allow 
that the excesses of the French revolution are as much attri¬ 
butable to the folly of the ancien regime as to the turbulent 
spirit of the republicans, and that a lamentable want of edu¬ 
cation was, on both sides, the main-spring of their errors. 
It is unfortunately but too-general a prejudice in this country 
to consider the French revolution as another name for an- 
