text:
Observations on the Declaration of Rights
The first three articles comprehend in general terms the whole of a Declaration of Rights, all the succeeding articles either originate from them or follow as elucidations. The 4th, 5th, and 6th define more particularly what is only generally expressed in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.
The 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th articles are declaratory of principles upon which laws shall be constructed, conformable to rights already declared. But it is questioned by some very good people in France, as well as in other countries, whether the 10th article sufficiently guarantees the right it is intended to accord with; besides which it takes off from the divine dignity of religion, and weakens its operative force upon the mind, to make it a subject of human laws. It then presents itself to man like light intercepted by a cloudy medium, in which the source of it is obscured from his sight, and he sees nothing to reverence in the dusky ray.*[10]
The remaining articles, beginning with the twelfth, are substantially contained in the principles of the preceding articles; but in the particular situation in which France then was, having to undo what was wrong, as well as to set up what was right, it was proper to be more particular than what in another condition of things would be necessary.
While the Declaration of Rights was before the National Assembly some of its members remarked that if a declaration of rights were published it should be accompanied by a Declaration of Duties. The observation discovered a mind that reflected, and it only erred by not reflecting far enough. A Declaration of Rights is, by reciprocity, a Declaration of Duties also. Whatever is my right as a man is also the right of another; and it becomes my duty to guarantee as well as to possess.
The three first articles are the base of Liberty, as well individual as national; nor can any country be called free whose government does not take its beginning from the principles they contain, and continue to preserve them pure; and the whole of the Declaration of Rights is of more value to the world, and will do more good, than all the laws and statutes that have yet been promulgated.
In the declaratory exordium which prefaces the Declaration of Rights we see the solemn and majestic spectacle of a nation opening its commission, under the auspices of its Creator, to establish a Government, a scene so new, and so transcendantly unequalled by anything in the European world, that the name of a Revolution is diminutive of its character, and it rises into a Regeneration of man. What are the present Governments of Europe but a scene of iniquity and oppression? What is that of England? Do not its own inhabitants say it is a market where every man has his price, and where corruption is common traffic at the expense of a deluded people? No wonder, then, that the French Revolution is traduced. Had it confined itself merely to the destruction of flagrant despotism perhaps Mr. Burke and some others had been silent. Their cry now is, "It has gone too far"- that is, it has gone too far for them. It stares corruption in the face, and the venal tribe are all alarmed. Their fear discovers itself in their outrage, and they are but publishing the groans of a wounded vice. But from such opposition the French Revolution, instead of suffering, receives an homage. The more it is struck the more sparks it will emit; and the fear is it will not be struck enough. It has nothing to dread from attacks; truth has given it an establishment, and time will record it with a name as lasting as his own.
Having now traced the progress of the French Revolution through most of its principal stages, from its commencement to the taking of the Bastille, and its establishment by the Declaration of Rights, I will close the subject with the energetic apostrophe of M. de la Fayette-
"May this great monument, raised to Liberty, serve as a lesson to the oppressor, and an example to the oppressed!"*[11]
Miscellaneous Chapter
To prevent interrupting the argument in the preceding part of this work, or the narrative that follows it, I reserved some observations to be thrown together in a Miscellaneous Chapter; by which variety might not be censured for confusion. Mr. Burke's book is all Miscellany. His intention was to make an attack on the French Revolution; but instead of proceeding with an orderly arrangement, he has stormed it with a mob of ideas tumbling over and destroying one another.
But this confusion and contradiction in Mr. Burke's Book is easily accounted for.- When a man in a wrong cause attempts to steer his course by anything else than some polar truth or principle, he is sure to be lost. It is beyond the compass of his capacity to keep all the parts of an argument together, and make them unite in one issue, by any other means than having this guide always in view. Neither memory nor invention will supply the want of it. The former fails him, and the latter betrays him.
Notwithstanding the nonsense, for it deserves no better name, that Mr. Burke has asserted about hereditary rights, and hereditary succession, and that a Nation has not a right to form a Government of itself; it happened to fall in his way to give some account of what Government is. "Government," says he, "is a contrivance of human wisdom.
Admitting that government is a contrivance of human wisdom, it must necessarily follow, that hereditary succession, and hereditary rights (as they are called), can make no part of it, because it is impossible to make wisdom hereditary; and on the other hand, that cannot be a wise contrivance, which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. The ground which Mr. Burke now takes is fatal to every part of his cause. The argument changes from hereditary rights to hereditary wisdom; and the question is, Who is the wisest man? He must now show that every one in the line of hereditary succession was a Solomon, or his title is not good to be a king. What a stroke has Mr. Burke now made! To use a sailor's phrase, he has swabbed the deck, and scarcely left a name legible in the list of Kings; and he has mowed down and thinned the House of Peers, with a scythe as formidable as Death and Time.
But Mr. Burke appears to have been aware of this retort; and he has taken care to guard against it, by making government to be not only a contrivance of human wisdom, but a monopoly of wisdom. He puts the nation as fools on one side, and places his government of wisdom, all wise men of Gotham, on the other side; and he then proclaims, and says that "Men have a RIGHT that their WANTS should be provided for by this wisdom." Having thus made proclamation, he next proceeds to explain to them what their wants are, and also what their rights are. In this he has succeeded dextrously, for he makes their wants to be a want of wisdom; but as this is cold comfort, he then informs them, that they have a right (not to any of the wisdom) but to be governed by it; and in order to impress them with a solemn reverence for this monopoly-government of wisdom, and of its vast capacity for all purposes, possible or impossible, right or wrong, he proceeds with astrological mysterious importance, to tell to them its powers in these words: "The rights of men in government are their advantages; and these are often in balance between differences of good; and in compromises sometimes between good and evil, and sometimes between evil and evil. Political reason is a computing principle; adding- subtracting- multiplying- and dividing, morally and not metaphysically or mathematically, true moral denominations."
As the wondering audience, whom Mr. Burke supposes himself talking to, may not understand all this learned jargon, I will undertake to be its interpreter. The meaning, then, good people, of all this, is: That government is governed by no principle whatever; that it can make evil good, or good evil, just as it pleases. In short, that government is arbitrary power.
But there are some things which Mr. Burke has forgotten. First, he has not shown where the wisdom originally came from: and secondly, he has not shown by what authority it first began to act. In the manner he introduces the matter, it is either government stealing wisdom, or wisdom stealing government. It is without an origin, and its powers without authority. In short, it is usurpation.
Whether it be from a sense of shame, or from a consciousness of some radical defect in a government necessary to be kept out of sight, or from both, or from any other cause, I undertake not to determine, but so it is, that a monarchical reasoner never traces government to its source, or from its source. It is one of the shibboleths by which he may be known. A thousand years hence, those who shall live in America or France, will look back with contemplative pride on the origin of their government, and say, This was the work of our glorious ancestors! But what can a monarchical talker say? What has he to exult in? Alas he has nothing. A certain something forbids him to look back to a beginning, lest some robber, or some Robin Hood, should rise from the long obscurity of time and say, I am the origin. Hard as Mr. Burke laboured at the Regency Bill and Hereditary Succession two years ago, and much as he dived for precedents, he still had not boldness enough to bring up William of Normandy, and say, There is the head of the list! there is the fountain of honour! the son of a prostitute, and the plunderer of the English nation.
The opinions of men with respect to government are changing fast in all countries. The Revolutions of America and France have thrown a beam of light over the world, which reaches into man. The enormous expense of governments has provoked people to think, by making them feel; and when once the veil begins to rend, it admits not of repair. Ignorance is of a peculiar nature: once dispelled, it is impossible to re-establish it. It is not originally a thing of itself, but is only the absence of knowledge; and though man may be kept ignorant, he cannot be made ignorant. The mind, in discovering truth, acts in the same manner as it acts through the eye in discovering objects; when once any object has been seen, it is impossible to put the mind back to the same condition it was in before it saw it. Those who talk of a counter-revolution in France, show how little they understand of man. There does not exist in the compass of language an arrangement of words to express so much as the means of effecting a counter-revolution. The means must be an obliteration of knowledge; and it has never yet been discovered how to make man unknow his knowledge, or unthink his thoughts.
Mr. Burke is labouring in vain to stop the progress of knowledge; and it comes with the worse grace from him, as there is a certain transaction known in the city which renders him suspected of being a pensioner in a fictitious name. This may account for some strange doctrine he has advanced in his book, which though he points it at the Revolution Society, is effectually directed against the whole nation.
"The King of England," says he, "holds his crown (for it does not belong to the Nation, according to Mr. Burke) in contempt of the choice of the Revolution Society, who have not a single vote for a king among them either individually or collectively; and his Majesty's heirs each in their time and order, will come to the Crown with the same contempt of their choice, with which his Majesty has succeeded to that which he now wears."
As to who is King in England, or elsewhere, or whether there is any King at all, or whether the people choose a Cherokee chief, or a Hessian hussar for a King, it is not a matter that I trouble myself about- be that to themselves; but with respect to the doctrine, so far as it relates to the Rights of Men and Nations, it is as abominable as anything ever uttered in the most enslaved country under heaven. Whether it sounds worse to my ear, by not being accustomed to hear such despotism, than what it does to another person, I am not so well a judge of; but of its abominable principle I am at no loss to judge.
It is not the Revolution Society that Mr. Burke means; it is the Nation, as well in its original as in its representative character; and he has taken care to make himself understood, by saying that they have not a vote either collectively or individually. The Revolution Society is composed of citizens of all denominations, and of members of both the Houses of Parliament; and consequently, if there is not a right to a vote in any of the characters, there can be no right to any either in the nation or in its Parliament. This ought to be a caution to every country how to import foreign families to be kings. It is somewhat curious to observe, that although the people of England had been in the habit of talking about kings, it is always a Foreign House of Kings; hating Foreigners yet governed by them.- It is now the House of Brunswick, one of the petty tribes of Germany.
It has hitherto been the practice of the English Parliaments to regulate what was called the succession (taking it for granted that the Nation then continued to accord to the form of annexing a monarchical branch of its government; for without this the Parliament could not have had authority to have sent either to Holland or to Hanover, or to impose a king upon the nation against its will). And this must be the utmost limit to which Parliament can go upon this case; but the right of the Nation goes to the whole case, because it has the right of changing its whole form of government. The right of a Parliament is only a right in trust, a right by delegation, and that but from a very small part of the Nation; and one of its Houses has not even this. But the right of the Nation is an original right, as universal as taxation. The nation is the paymaster of everything, and everything must conform to its general will.
I remember taking notice of a speech in what is called the English House of Peers, by the then Earl of Shelburne, and I think it was at the time he was Minister, which is applicable to this case. I do not directly charge my memory with every particular; but the words and the purport, as nearly as I remember, were these: "That the form of a Government was a matter wholly at the will of the Nation at all times, that if it chose a monarchical form, it had a right to have it so; and if it afterwards chose to be a Republic, it had a right to be a Republic, and to say to a King, "We have no longer any occasion for you."
When Mr. Burke says that "His Majesty's heirs and successors, each in their time and order, will come to the crown with the same content of their choice with which His Majesty had succeeded to that he wears," it is saying too much even to the humblest individual in the country; part of whose daily labour goes towards making up the million sterling a-year, which the country gives the person it styles a king. Government with insolence is despotism; but when contempt is added it becomes worse; and to pay for contempt is the excess of slavery. This species of government comes from Germany; and reminds me of what one of the Brunswick soldiers told me, who was taken prisoner by, the Americans in the late war: "Ah!" said he, "America is a fine free country, it is worth the people's fighting for; I know the difference by knowing my own: in my country, if the prince says eat straw, we eat straw." God help that country, thought I, be it England or elsewhere, whose liberties are to be protected by German principles of government, and Princes of Brunswick!
As Mr. Burke sometimes speaks of England, sometimes of France, and sometimes of the world, and of government in general, it is difficult to answer his book without apparently meeting him on the same ground. Although principles of Government are general subjects, it is next to impossible, in many cases, to separate them from the idea of place and circumstance, and the more so when circumstances are put for arguments, which is frequently the case with Mr. Burke.
In the former part of his book, addressing himself to the people of France, he says: "No experience has taught us (meaning the English), that in any other course or method than that of a hereditary crown, can our liberties be regularly perpetuated and preserved sacred as our hereditary right." I ask Mr. Burke, who is to take them away? M. de la Fayette, in speaking to France, says: "For a Nation to be free, it is sufficient that she wills it." But Mr. Burke represents England as wanting capacity to take care of itself, and that its liberties must be taken care of by a King holding it in "contempt." If England is sunk to this, it is preparing itself to eat straw, as in Hanover, or in Brunswick. But besides the folly of the declaration, it happens that the facts are all against Mr. Burke. It was by the government being hereditary, that the liberties of the people were endangered. Charles I. and James II. are instances of this truth; yet neither of them went so far as to hold the Nation in contempt.
As it is sometimes of advantage to the people of one country to hear what those of other countries have to say respecting it, it is possible that the people of France may learn something from Mr. Burke's book, and that the people of England may also learn something from the answers it will occasion. When Nations fall out about freedom, a wide field of debate is opened. The argument commences with the rights of war, without its evils, and as knowledge is the object contended for, the party that sustains the defeat obtains the prize.
Mr. Burke talks about what he calls an hereditary crown, as if it were some production of Nature; or as if, like Time, it had a power to operate, not only independently, but in spite of man; or as if it were a thing or a subject universally consented to. Alas! it has none of those properties, but is the reverse of them all. It is a thing in imagination, the propriety of which is more than doubted, and the legality of which in a few years will be denied.
But, to arrange this matter in a clearer view than what general expression can heads under which (what is called) an hereditary crown, or more properly speaking, an hereditary succession to the Government of a Nation, can be considered; which are-
First, The right of a particular Family to establish itself.
Secondly, The right of a Nation to establish a particular Family.
With respect to the first of these heads, that of a Family establishing itself with hereditary powers on its own authority, and independent of the consent of a Nation, all men will concur in calling it despotism; and it would be trespassing on their understanding to attempt to prove it.
But the second head, that of a Nation establishing a particular Family with hereditary powers, does not present itself as despotism on the first reflection; but if men will permit it a second reflection to take place, and carry that reflection forward but one remove out of their own persons to that of their offspring, they will then see that hereditary succession becomes in its consequences the same despotism to others, which they reprobated for themselves. It operates to preclude the consent of the succeeding generations; and the preclusion of consent is despotism. When the person who at any time shall be in possession of a Government, or those who stand in succession to him, shall say to a Nation, I hold this power in "contempt" of you, it signifies not on what authority he pretends to say it. It is no relief, but an aggravation to a person in slavery, to reflect that he was sold by his parent; and as that which heightens the criminality of an act cannot be produced to prove the legality of it, hereditary succession cannot be established as a legal thing.
In order to arrive at a more perfect decision on this head, it will be proper to consider the generation which undertakes to establish a Family with hereditary powers, apart and separate from the generations which are to follow; and also to consider the character in which the first generation acts with respect to succeeding generations.
The generation which first selects a person, and puts him at the head of its Government, either with the title of King, or any other distinction, acts on its own choice, be it wise or foolish, as a free agent for itself The person so set up is not hereditary, but selected and appointed; and the generation who sets him up, does not live under a hereditary government, but under a government of its own choice and establishment. Were the generation who sets him up, and the person so set up, to live for ever, it never could become hereditary succession; and of consequence hereditary succession can only follow on the death of the first parties.
As, therefore, hereditary succession is out of the question with respect to the first generation, we have now to consider the character in which that generation acts with respect to the commencing generation, and to all succeeding ones.
It assumes a character, to which it has neither right nor title. It changes itself from a Legislator to a Testator, and effects to make its Will, which is to have operation after the demise of the makers, to bequeath the Government; and it not only attempts to bequeath, but to establish on the succeeding generation, a new and different form of Government under which itself lived. Itself, as already observed, lived not under a hereditary Government but under a Government of its own choice and establishment; and it now attempts, by virtue of a will and testament (and which it has not authority to make), to take from the commencing generation, and all future ones, the rights and free agency by which itself acted.
But, exclusive of the right which any generation has to act collectively as a testator, the objects to which it applies itself in this case, are not within the compass of any law, or of any will or testament.
The rights of men in society, are neither devisable or transferable, nor annihilable, but are descendable only, and it is not in the power of any generation to intercept finally, and cut off the descent. If the present generation, or any other, are disposed to be slaves, it does not lessen the right of the succeeding generation to be free. Wrongs cannot have a legal descent. When Mr. Burke attempts to maintain that the English nation did at the Revolution of 1688, most solemnly renounce and abdicate their rights for themselves, and for all their posterity for ever, he speaks a language that merits not reply, and which can only excite contempt for his prostitute principles, or pity for his ignorance.
In whatever light hereditary succession, as growing out of the will and testament of some former generation, presents itself, it is an absurdity. A cannot make a will to take from B the property of B, and give it to C; yet this is the manner in which (what is called) hereditary succession by law operates. A certain former generation made a will, to take away the rights of the commencing generation, and all future ones, and convey those rights to a third person, who afterwards comes forward, and tells them, in Mr. Burke's language, that they have no rights, that their rights are already bequeathed to him and that he will govern in contempt of them. From such principles, and such ignorance, good Lord deliver the world!
But, after all, what is this metaphor called a crown, or rather what is monarchy? Is it a thing, or is it a name, or is it a fraud? Is it a "contrivance of human wisdom," or of human craft to obtain money from a nation under specious pretences? Is it a thing necessary to a nation? If it is, in what does that necessity consist, what service does it perform, what is its business, and what are its merits? Does the virtue consist in the metaphor, or in the man? Doth the goldsmith that makes the crown, make the virtue also? Doth it operate like Fortunatus's wishing-cap, or Harlequin's wooden sword? Doth it make a man a conjurer? In fine, what is it? It appears to be something going much out of fashion, falling into ridicule, and rejected in some countries, both as unnecessary and expensive. In America it is considered as an absurdity; and in France it has so far declined, that the goodness of the man, and the respect for his personal character, are the only things that preserve the appearance of its existence.
If government be what Mr. Burke describes it, "a contrivance of human wisdom" I might ask him, if wisdom was at such a low ebb in England, that it was become necessary to import it from Holland and from Hanover? But I will do the country the justice to say, that was not the case; and even if it was it mistook the cargo. The wisdom of every country, when properly exerted, is sufficient for all its purposes; and there could exist no more real occasion in England to have sent for a Dutch Stadtholder, or a German Elector, than there was in America to have done a similar thing. If a country does not understand its own affairs, how is a foreigner to understand them, who knows neither its laws, its manners, nor its language? If there existed a man so transcendently wise above all others, that his wisdom was necessary to instruct a nation, some reason might be offered for monarchy; but when we cast our eyes about a country, and observe how every part understands its own affairs; and when we look around the world, and see that of all men in it, the race of kings are the most insignificant in capacity, our reason cannot fail to ask us- What are those men kept for?
If there is anything in monarchy which we people of America do not understand, I wish Mr. Burke would be so kind as to inform us. I see in America, a government extending over a country ten times as large as England, and conducted with regularity, for a fortieth part of the expense which Government costs in England. If I ask a man in America if he wants a King, he retorts, and asks me if I take him for an idiot? How is it that this difference happens? are we more or less wise than others? I see in America the generality of people living in a style of plenty unknown in monarchical countries; and I see that the principle of its government, which is that of the equal Rights of Man, is making a rapid progress in the world.
If monarchy is a useless thing, why is it kept up anywhere? and if a necessary thing, how can it be dispensed with? That civil government is necessary, all civilized nations will agree; but civil government is republican government. All that part of the government of England which begins with the office of constable, and proceeds through the department of magistrate, quarter-sessions, and general assize, including trial by jury, is republican government. Nothing of monarchy appears in any part of it, except in the name which William the Conqueror imposed upon the English, that of obliging them to call him "Their Sovereign Lord the King."
It is easy to conceive that a band of interested men, such as Placemen, Pensioners, Lords of the bed-chamber, Lords of the kitchen, Lords of the necessary-house, and the Lord knows what besides, can find as many reasons for monarchy as their salaries, paid at the expense of the country, amount to; but if I ask the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and down through all the occupations of life to the common labourer, what service monarchy is to him? he can give me no answer. If I ask him what monarchy is, he believes it is something like a sinecure.
Notwithstanding the taxes of England amount to almost seventeen millions a year, said to be for the expenses of Government, it is still evident that the sense of the Nation is left to govern itself, and does govern itself, by magistrates and juries, almost at its own charge, on republican principles, exclusive of the expense of taxes. The salaries of the judges are almost the only charge that is paid out of the revenue. Considering that all the internal government is executed by the people, the taxes of England ought to be the lightest of any nation in Europe; instead of which, they are the contrary. As this cannot be accounted for on the score of civil government, the subject necessarily extends itself to the monarchical part.
When the people of England sent for George the First (and it would puzzle a wiser man than Mr. Burke to discover for what he could be wanted, or what service he could render), they ought at least to have conditioned for the abandonment of Hanover. Besides the endless German intrigues that must follow from a German Elector being King of England, there is a natural impossibility of uniting in the same person the principles of Freedom and the principles of Despotism, or as it is usually called in England Arbitrary Power. A German Elector is in his electorate a despot; how then could it be expected that he should be attached to principles of liberty in one country, while his interest in another was to be supported by despotism? The union cannot exist; and it might easily have been foreseen that German Electors would make German Kings, or in Mr. Burke's words, would assume government with "contempt." The English have been in the habit of considering a King of England only in the character in which he appears to them; whereas the same person, while the connection lasts, has a home-seat in another country, the interest of which is different to their own, and the principles of the governments in opposition to each other. To such a person England will appear as a town-residence, and the Electorate as the estate. The English may wish, as I believe they do, success to the principles of liberty in France, or in Germany; but a German Elector trembles for the fate of despotism in his electorate; and the Duchy of Mecklenburgh, where the present Queen's family governs, is under the same wretched state of arbitrary power, and the people in slavish vassalage.
There never was a time when it became the English to watch continental intrigues more circumspectly than at the present moment, and to distinguish the politics of the Electorate from the politics of the Nation. The Revolution of France has entirely changed the ground with respect to England and France, as nations; but the German despots, with Prussia at their head, are combining against liberty; and the fondness of Mr. Pitt for office, and the interest which all his family connections have obtained, do not give sufficient security against this intrigue.
As everything which passes in the world becomes matter for history, I will now quit this subject, and take a concise review of the state of parties and politics in England, as Mr. Burke has done in France.
Whether the present reign commenced with contempt, I leave to Mr. Burke: certain, however, it is, that it had strongly that appearance. The animosity of the English nation, it is very well remembered, ran high; and, had the true principles of Liberty been as well understood then as they now promise to be, it is probable the Nation would not have patiently submitted to so much. George the First and Second were sensible of a rival in the remains of the Stuarts; and as they could not but consider themselves as standing on their good behaviour, they had prudence to keep their German principles of government to themselves; but as the Stuart family wore away, the prudence became less necessary.
The contest between rights, and what were called prerogatives, continued to heat the nation till some time after the conclusion of the American War, when all at once it fell a calm- Execration exchanged itself for applause, and Court popularity sprung up like a mushroom in a night.
To account for this sudden transition, it is proper to observe that there are two distinct species of popularity; the one excited by merit, and the other by resentment. As the Nation had formed itself into two parties, and each was extolling the merits of its parliamentary champions for and against prerogative, nothing could operate to give a more general shock than an immediate coalition of the champions themselves. The partisans of each being thus suddenly left in the lurch, and mutually heated with disgust at the measure, felt no other relief than uniting in a common execration against both. A higher stimulus or resentment being thus excited than what the contest on prerogatives occasioned, the nation quitted all former objects of rights and wrongs, and sought only that of gratification. The indignation at the Coalition so effectually superseded the indignation against the Court as to extinguish it; and without any change of principles on the part of the Court, the same people who had reprobated its despotism united with it to revenge themselves on the Coalition Parliament. The case was not, which they liked best, but which they hated most; and the least hated passed for love. The dissolution of the Coalition Parliament, as it afforded the means of gratifying the resentment of the Nation, could not fail to be popular; and from hence arose the popularity of the Court.
Transitions of this kind exhibit a Nation under the government of temper, instead of a fixed and steady principle; and having once committed itself, however rashly, it feels itself urged along to justify by continuance its first proceeding. Measures which at other times it would censure it now approves, and acts persuasion upon itself to suffocate its judgment.
On the return of a new Parliament, the new Minister, Mr. Pitt, found himself in a secure majority; and the Nation gave him credit, not out of regard to himself, but because it had resolved to do it out of resentment to another. He introduced himself to public notice by a proposed Reform of Parliament, which in its operation would have amounted to a public justification of corruption. The Nation was to be at the expense of buying up the rotten boroughs, whereas it ought to punish the persons who deal in the traffic.
Passing over the two bubbles of the Dutch business and the million a-year to sink the national debt, the matter which most presents itself, is the affair of the Regency. Never, in the course of my observation, was delusion more successfully acted, nor a nation more completely deceived. But, to make this appear, it will be necessary to go over the circumstances.
Mr. Fox had stated in the House of Commons, that the Prince of Wales, as heir in succession, had a right in himself to assume the Government. This was opposed by Mr. Pitt; and, so far as the opposition was confined to the doctrine, it was just. But the principles which Mr. Pitt maintained on the contrary side were as bad, or worse in their extent, than those of Mr. Fox; because they went to establish an aristocracy over the nation, and over the small representation it has in the House of Commons.
Whether the English form of Government be good or bad, is not in this case the question; but, taking it as it stands, without regard to its merits or demerits, Mr. Pitt was farther from the point than Mr. Fox.
It is supposed to consist of three parts:- while therefore the Nation is disposed to continue this form, the parts have a national standing, independent of each other, and are not the creatures of each other. Had Mr. Fox passed through Parliament, and said that the person alluded to claimed on the, ground of the Nation, Mr. Pitt must then have contended what he called the right of the Parliament against the right of the Nation.
By the appearance which the contest made, Mr. Fox took the hereditary ground, and Mr. Pitt the Parliamentary ground; but the fact is, they both took hereditary ground, and Mr. Pitt took the worst of the two.
What is called the Parliament is made up of two Houses, one of which is more hereditary, and more beyond the control of the Nation than what the Crown (as it is called) is supposed to be. It is an hereditary aristocracy, assuming and asserting indefeasible, irrevocable rights and authority, wholly independent of the Nation. Where, then, was the merited popularity of exalting this hereditary power over another hereditary power less independent of the Nation than what itself assumed to be, and of absorbing the rights of the Nation into a House over which it has neither election nor control?
The general impulse of the Nation was right; but it acted without reflection. It approved the opposition made to the right set up by Mr. Fox, without perceiving that Mr. Pitt was supporting another indefeasible right more remote from the Nation, in opposition to it.
With respect to the House of Commons, it is elected but by a small part of the Nation; but were the election as universal as taxation, which it ought to be, it would still be only the organ of the Nation, and cannot possess inherent rights.- When the National Assembly of France resolves a matter, the resolve is made in right of the Nation; but Mr. Pitt, on all national questions, so far as they refer to the House of Commons, absorbs the rights of the Nation into the organ, and makes the organ into a Nation, and the Nation itself into a cypher.
In a few words, the question on the Regency was a question of a million a-year, which is appropriated to the executive department: and Mr. Pitt could not possess himself of any management of this sum, without setting up the supremacy of Parliament; and when this was accomplished, it was indifferent who should be Regent, as he must be Regent at his own cost. Among the curiosities which this contentious debate afforded, was that of making the Great Seal into a King, the affixing of which to an act was to be royal authority. If, therefore, Royal Authority is a Great Seal, it consequently is in itself nothing; and a good Constitution would be of infinitely more value to the Nation than what the three Nominal Powers, as they now stand, are worth.
The continual use of the word Constitution in the English Parliament shows there is none; and that the whole is merely a form of government without a Constitution, and constituting itself with what powers it pleases. If there were a Constitution, it certainly could be referred to; and the debate on any constitutional point would terminate by producing the Constitution. One member says this is Constitution, and another says that is Constitution- To-day it is one thing; and to-morrow something else- while the maintaining of the debate proves there is none. Constitution is now the cant word of Parliament, tuning itself to the ear of the Nation. Formerly it was the universal supremacy of Parliament- the omnipotence of Parliament: But since the progress of Liberty in France, those phrases have a despotic harshness in their note; and the English Parliament have catched the fashion from the National Assembly, but without the substance, of speaking of Constitution.
As the present generation of the people in England did not make the Government, they are not accountable for any of its defects; but, that sooner or later, it must come into their hands to undergo a constitutional reformation, is as certain as that the same thing has happened in France. If France, with a revenue of nearly twenty-four millions sterling, with an extent of rich and fertile country above four times larger than England, with a population of twenty-four millions of inhabitants to support taxation, with upwards of ninety millions sterling of gold and silver circulating in the nation, and with a debt less than the present debt of England- still found it necessary, from whatever cause, to come to a settlement of its affairs, it solves the problem of funding for both countries.
It is out of the question to say how long what is called the English constitution has lasted, and to argue from thence how long it is to last; the question is, how long can the funding system last? It is a thing but of modern invention, and has not yet continued beyond the life of a man; yet in that short space it has so far accumulated, that, together with the current expenses, it requires an amount of taxes at least equal to the whole landed rental of the nation in acres to defray the annual expenditure. That a government could not have always gone on by the same system which has been followed for the last seventy years, must be evident to every man; and for the same reason it cannot always go on.
The funding system is not money; neither is it, properly speaking, credit. It, in effect, creates upon paper the sum which it appears to borrow, and lays on a tax to keep the imaginary capital alive by the payment of interest and sends the annuity to market, to be sold for paper already in circulation. If any credit is given, it is to the disposition of the people to pay the tax, and not to the government, which lays it on. When this disposition expires, what is supposed to be the credit of Government expires with it. The instance of France under the former Government shows that it is impossible to compel the payment of taxes by force, when a whole nation is determined to take its stand upon that ground.
Mr. Burke, in his review of the finances of France, states the quantity of gold and silver in France, at about eighty-eight millions sterling. In doing this, he has, I presume, divided by the difference of exchange, instead of the standard of twenty-four livres to a pound sterling; for M. Neckar's statement, from which Mr. Burke's is taken, is two thousand two hundred millions of livres, which is upwards of ninety-one millions and a half sterling.
M. Neckar in France, and Mr. George Chalmers at the Office of Trade and Plantation in England, of which Lord Hawkesbury is president, published nearly about the same time (1786) an account of the quantity of money in each nation, from the returns of the Mint of each nation. Mr. Chalmers, from the returns of the English Mint at the Tower of London, states the quantity of money in England, including Scotland and Ireland, to be twenty millions sterling.*[12]
M. Neckar*[13] says that the amount of money in France, recoined from the old coin which was called in, was two thousand five hundred millions of livres (upwards of one hundred and four millions sterling); and, after deducting for waste, and what may be in the West Indies and other possible circumstances, states the circulation quantity at home to be ninety-one millions and a half sterling; but, taking it as Mr. Burke has put it, it is sixty-eight millions more than the national quantity in England.
That the quantity of money in France cannot be under this sum, may at once be seen from the state of the French Revenue, without referring to the records of the French Mint for proofs. The revenue of France, prior to the Revolution, was nearly twenty-four millions sterling; and as paper had then no existence in France the whole revenue was collected upon gold and silver; and it would have been impossible to have collected such a quantity of revenue upon a less national quantity than M. Neckar has stated. Before the establishment of paper in England, the revenue was about a fourth part of the national amount of gold and silver, as may be known by referring to the revenue prior to King William, and the quantity of money stated to be in the nation at that time, which was nearly as much as it is now.
It can be of no real service to a nation, to impose upon itself, or to permit itself to be imposed upon; but the prejudices of some, and the imposition of others, have always represented France as a nation possessing but little money- whereas the quantity is not only more than four times what the quantity is in England, but is considerably greater on a proportion of numbers. To account for this deficiency on the part of England, some reference should be had to the English system of funding. It operates to multiply paper, and to substitute it in the room of money, in various shapes; and the more paper is multiplied, the more opportunities are offered to export the specie; and it admits of a possibility (by extending it to small notes) of increasing paper till there is no money left.
I know this is not a pleasant subject to English readers; but the matters I am going to mention, are so important in themselves, as to require the attention of men interested in money transactions of a public nature. There is a circumstance stated by M. Neckar, in his treatise on the administration of the finances, which has never been attended to in England, but which forms the only basis whereon to estimate the quantity of money (gold and silver) which ought to be in every nation in Europe, to preserve a relative proportion with other nations.
Lisbon and Cadiz are the two ports into which (money) gold and silver from South America are imported, and which afterwards divide and spread themselves over Europe by means of commerce, and increase the quantity of money in all parts of Europe. If, therefore, the amount of the annual importation into Europe can be known, and the relative proportion of the foreign commerce of the several nations by which it can be distributed can be ascertained, they give a rule sufficiently true, to ascertain the quantity of money which ought to be found in any nation, at any given time.
M. Neckar shows from the registers of Lisbon and Cadiz, that the importation of gold and silver into Europe, is five millions sterling annually. He has not taken it on a single year, but on an average of fifteen succeeding years, from 1763 to 1777, both inclusive; in which time, the amount was one thousand eight hundred million livres, which is seventy-five millions sterling.*[14]
From the commencement of the Hanover succession in 1714 to the time Mr. Chalmers published, is seventy-two years; and the quantity imported into Europe, in that time, would be three hundred and sixty millions sterling.
If the foreign commerce of Great Britain be stated at a sixth part of what the whole foreign commerce of Europe amounts to (which is probably an inferior estimation to what the gentlemen at the Exchange would allow) the proportion which Britain should draw by commerce of this sum, to keep herself on a proportion with the rest of Europe, would be also a sixth part which is sixty millions sterling; and if the same allowance for waste and accident be made for England which M. Neckar makes for France, the quantity remaining after these deductions would be fifty-two millions; and this sum ought to have been in the nation (at the time Mr. Chalmers published), in addition to the sum which was in the nation at the commencement of the Hanover succession, and to have made in the whole at least sixty-six millions sterling; instead of which there were but twenty millions, which is forty-six millions below its proportionate quantity.
As the quantity of gold and silver imported into Lisbon and Cadiz is more exactly ascertained than that of any commodity imported into England, and as the quantity of money coined at the Tower of London is still more positively known, the leading facts do not admit of controversy. Either, therefore, the commerce of England is unproductive of profit, or the gold and silver which it brings in leak continually away by unseen means at the average rate of about three-quarters of a million a year, which, in the course of seventy-two years, accounts for the deficiency; and its absence is supplied by paper.*[15]
The Revolution of France is attended with many novel circumstances, not only in the political sphere, but in the circle of money transactions. Among others, it shows that a government may be in a state of insolvency and a nation rich. So far as the fact is confined to the late Government of France, it was insolvent; because the nation would no longer support its extravagance, and therefore it could no longer support itself- but with respect to the nation all the means existed. A government may be said to be insolvent every time it applies to the nation to discharge its arrears. The insolvency of the late Government of France and the present of England differed in no other respect than as the dispositions of the people differ. The people of France refused their aid to the old Government; and the people of England submit to taxation without inquiry. What is called the Crown in England has been insolvent several times; the last of which, publicly known, was in May, 1777, when it applied to the nation to discharge upwards of L600,000 private debts, which otherwise it could not pay.
It was the error of Mr. Pitt, Mr. Burke, and all those who were unacquainted with the affairs of France to confound the French nation with the French Government. The French nation, in effect, endeavoured to render the late Government insolvent for the purpose of taking government into its own hands: and it reserved its means for the support of the new Government. In a country of such vast extent and population as France the natural means cannot be wanting, and the political means appear the instant the nation is disposed to permit them. When Mr. Burke, in a speech last winter in the British Parliament, "cast his eyes over the map of Europe, and saw a chasm that once was France," he talked like a dreamer of dreams. The same natural France existed as before, and all the natural means existed with it. The only chasm was that the extinction of despotism had left, and which was to be filled up with the Constitution more formidable in resources than the power which had expired.
Although the French Nation rendered the late Government insolvent, it did not permit the insolvency to act towards the creditors; and the creditors, considering the Nation as the real pay-master, and the Government only as the agent, rested themselves on the nation, in preference to the Government. This appears greatly to disturb Mr. Burke, as the precedent is fatal to the policy by which governments have supposed themselves secure. They have contracted debts, with a view of attaching what is called the monied interest of a Nation to their support; but the example in France shows that the permanent security of the creditor is in the Nation, and not in the Government; and that in all possible revolutions that may happen in Governments, the means are always with the Nation, and the Nation always in existence. Mr. Burke argues that the creditors ought to have abided the fate of the Government which they trusted; but the National Assembly considered them as the creditors of the Nation, and not of the Government- of the master, and not of the steward.
Notwithstanding the late government could not discharge the current expenses, the present government has paid off a great part of the capital. This has been accomplished by two means; the one by lessening the expenses of government, and the other by the sale of the monastic and ecclesiastical landed estates. The devotees and penitent debauchees, extortioners and misers of former days, to ensure themselves a better world than that they were about to leave, had bequeathed immense property in trust to the priesthood for pious uses; and the priesthood kept it for themselves. The National Assembly has ordered it to be sold for the good of the whole nation, and the priesthood to be decently provided for.
In consequence of the revolution, the annual interest of the debt of France will be reduced at least six millions sterling, by paying off upwards of one hundred millions of the capital; which, with lessening the former expenses of government at least three millions, will place France in a situation worthy the imitation of Europe.
Upon a whole review of the subject, how vast is the contrast! While Mr. Burke has been talking of a general bankruptcy in France, the National Assembly has been paying off the capital of its debt; and while taxes have increased near a million a year in England, they have lowered several millions a year in France. Not a word has either Mr. Burke or Mr. Pitt said about the French affairs, or the state of the French finances, in the present Session of Parliament. The subject begins to be too well understood, and imposition serves no longer.
There is a general enigma running through the whole of Mr. Burke's book. He writes in a rage against the National Assembly; but what is he enraged about? If his assertions were as true as they are groundless, and that France by her Revolution, had annihilated her power, and become what he calls a chasm, it might excite the grief of a Frenchman (considering himself as a national man), and provoke his rage against the National Assembly; but why should it excite the rage of Mr. Burke? Alas! it is not the nation of France that Mr. Burke means, but the Court; and every Court in Europe, dreading the same fate, is in mourning. He writes neither in the character of a Frenchman nor an Englishman, but in the fawning character of that creature known in all countries, and a friend to none- a courtier. Whether it be the Court of Versailles, or the Court of St. James, or Carlton-House, or the Court in expectation, signifies not; for the caterpillar principle of all Courts and Courtiers are alike. They form a common policy throughout Europe, detached and separate from the interest of Nations: and while they appear to quarrel, they agree to plunder. Nothing can be more terrible to a Court or Courtier than the Revolution of France. That which is a blessing to Nations is bitterness to them: and as their existence depends on the duplicity of a country, they tremble at the approach of principles, and dread the precedent that threatens their overthrow.
Reason and Ignorance, the opposites of each other, influence the great bulk of mankind. If either of these can be rendered sufficiently extensive in a country, the machinery of Government goes easily on. Reason obeys itself; and Ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
The two modes of the Government which prevail in the world, are-
First, Government by election and representation.
Secondly, Government by hereditary succession.
The former is generally known by the name of republic; the latter by that of monarchy and aristocracy.
Those two distinct and opposite forms erect themselves on the two distinct and opposite bases of Reason and Ignorance.- As the exercise of Government requires talents and abilities, and as talents and abilities cannot have hereditary descent, it is evident that hereditary succession requires a belief from man to which his reason cannot subscribe, and which can only be established upon his ignorance; and the more ignorant any country is, the better it is fitted for this species of Government.
On the contrary, Government, in a well-constituted republic, requires no belief from man beyond what his reason can give. He sees the rationale of the whole system, its origin and its operation; and as it is best supported when best understood, the human faculties act with boldness, and acquire, under this form of government, a gigantic manliness.
As, therefore, each of those forms acts on a different base, the one moving freely by the aid of reason, the other by ignorance; we have next to consider, what it is that gives motion to that species of Government which is called mixed Government, or, as it is sometimes ludicrously styled, a Government of this, that and t' other.
The moving power in this species of Government is, of necessity, Corruption. However imperfect election and representation may be in mixed Governments, they still give exercise to a greater portion of reason than is convenient to the hereditary Part; and therefore it becomes necessary to buy the reason up. A mixed Government is an imperfect everything, cementing and soldering the discordant parts together by corruption, to act as a whole. Mr. Burke appears highly disgusted that France, since she had resolved on a revolution, did not adopt what he calls "A British Constitution"; and the regretful manner in which he expresses himself on this occasion implies a suspicion that the British Constitution needed something to keep its defects in countenance.
In mixed Governments there is no responsibility: the parts cover each other till responsibility is lost; and the corruption which moves the machine, contrives at the same time its own escape. When it is laid down as a maxim, that a King can do no wrong, it places him in a state of similar security with that of idiots and persons insane, and responsibility is out of the question with respect to himself. It then descends upon the Minister, who shelters himself under a majority in Parliament, which, by places, pensions, and corruption, he can always command; and that majority justifies itself by the same authority with which it protects the Minister. In this rotatory motion, responsibility is thrown off from the parts, and from the whole.
When there is a Part in a Government which can do no wrong, it implies that it does nothing; and is only the machine of another power, by whose advice and direction it acts. What is supposed to be the King in the mixed Governments, is the Cabinet; and as the Cabinet is always a part of the Parliament, and the members justifying in one character what they advise and act in another, a mixed Government becomes a continual enigma; entailing upon a country by the quantity of corruption necessary to solder the parts, the expense of supporting all the forms of government at once, and finally resolving itself into a Government by Committee; in which the advisers, the actors, the approvers, the justifiers, the persons responsible, and the persons not responsible, are the same persons.
By this pantomimical contrivance, and change of scene and character, the parts help each other out in matters which neither of them singly would assume to act. When money is to be obtained, the mass of variety apparently dissolves, and a profusion of parliamentary praises passes between the parts. Each admires with astonishment, the wisdom, the liberality, the disinterestedness of the other: and all of them breathe a pitying sigh at the burthens of the Nation.
But in a well-constituted republic, nothing of this soldering, praising, and pitying, can take place; the representation being equal throughout the country, and complete in itself, however it may be arranged into legislative and executive, they have all one and the same natural source. The parts are not foreigners to each other, like democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. As there are no discordant distinctions, there is nothing to corrupt by compromise, nor confound by contrivance. Public measures appeal of themselves to the understanding of the Nation, and, resting on their own merits, disown any flattering applications to vanity. The continual whine of lamenting the burden of taxes, however successfully it may be practised in mixed Governments, is inconsistent with the sense and spirit of a republic. If taxes are necessary, they are of course advantageous; but if they require an apology, the apology itself implies an impeachment. Why, then, is man thus imposed upon, or why does he impose upon himself?
When men are spoken of as kings and subjects, or when Government is mentioned under the distinct and combined heads of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, what is it that reasoning man is to understand by the terms? If there really existed in the world two or more distinct and separate elements of human power, we should then see the several origins to which those terms would descriptively apply; but as there is but one species of man, there can be but one element of human power; and that element is man himself. Monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, are but creatures of imagination; and a thousand such may be contrived as well as three.
From the Revolutions of America and France, and the symptoms that have appeared in other countries, it is evident that the opinion of the world is changing with respect to systems of Government, and that revolutions are not within the compass of political calculations. The progress of time and circumstances, which men assign to the accomplishment of great changes, is too mechanical to measure the force of the mind, and the rapidity of reflection, by which revolutions are generated: All the old governments have received a shock from those that already appear, and which were once more improbable, and are a greater subject of wonder, than a general revolution in Europe would be now.
When we survey the wretched condition of man, under the monarchical and hereditary systems of Government, dragged from his home by one power, or driven by another, and impoverished by taxes more than by enemies, it becomes evident that those systems are bad, and that a general revolution in the principle and construction of Governments is necessary.
What is government more than the management of the affairs of a Nation? It is not, and from its nature cannot be, the property of any particular man or family, but of the whole community, at whose expense it is supported; and though by force and contrivance it has been usurped into an inheritance, the usurpation cannot alter the right of things. Sovereignty, as a matter of right, appertains to the Nation only, and not to any individual; and a Nation has at all times an inherent indefeasible right to abolish any form of Government it finds inconvenient, and to establish such as accords with its interest, disposition and happiness. The romantic and barbarous distinction of men into Kings and subjects, though it may suit the condition of courtiers, cannot that of citizens; and is exploded by the principle upon which Governments are now founded. Every citizen is a member of the Sovereignty, and, as such, can acknowledge no personal subjection; and his obedience can be only to the laws.
When men think of what Government is, they must necessarily suppose it to possess a knowledge of all the objects and matters upon which its authority is to be exercised. In this view of Government, the republican system, as established by America and France, operates to embrace the whole of a Nation; and the knowledge necessary to the interest of all the parts, is to be found in the center, which the parts by representation form: But the old Governments are on a construction that excludes knowledge as well as happiness; government by Monks, who knew nothing of the world beyond the walls of a Convent, is as consistent as government by Kings.
What were formerly called Revolutions, were little more than a change of persons, or an alteration of local circumstances. They rose and fell like things of course, and had nothing in their existence or their fate that could influence beyond the spot that produced them. But what we now see in the world, from the Revolutions of America and France, are a renovation of the natural order of things, a system of principles as universal as truth and the existence of man, and combining moral with political happiness and national prosperity.
"I. Men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of their rights. Civil distinctions, therefore, can be founded only on public utility.
"II. The end of all political associations is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man; and these rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance of oppression.
"III. The nation is essentially the source of all sovereignty; nor can any INDIVIDUAL, or ANY BODY OF MEN, be entitled to any authority which is not expressly derived from it."
In these principles, there is nothing to throw a Nation into confusion by inflaming ambition. They are calculated to call forth wisdom and abilities, and to exercise them for the public good, and not for the emolument or aggrandisement of particular descriptions of men or families. Monarchical sovereignty, the enemy of mankind, and the source of misery, is abolished; and the sovereignty itself is restored to its natural and original place, the Nation. Were this the case throughout Europe, the cause of wars would be taken away.
It is attributed to Henry the Fourth of France, a man of enlarged and benevolent heart, that he proposed, about the year 1610, a plan for abolishing war in Europe. The plan consisted in constituting an European Congress, or as the French authors style it, a Pacific Republic; by appointing delegates from the several Nations who were to act as a Court of arbitration in any disputes that might arise between nation and nation.
Had such a plan been adopted at the time it was proposed, the taxes of England and France, as two of the parties, would have been at least ten millions sterling annually to each Nation less than they were at the commencement of the French Revolution.
To conceive a cause why such a plan has not been adopted (and that instead of a Congress for the purpose of preventing war, it has been called only to terminate a war, after a fruitless expense of several years) it will be necessary to consider the interest of Governments as a distinct interest to that of Nations.
Whatever is the cause of taxes to a Nation, becomes also the means of revenue to Government. Every war terminates with an addition of taxes, and consequently with an addition of revenue; and in any event of war, in the manner they are now commenced and concluded, the power and interest of Governments are increased. War, therefore, from its productiveness, as it easily furnishes the pretence of necessity for taxes and appointments to places and offices, becomes a principal part of the system of old Governments; and to establish any mode to abolish war, however advantageous it might be to Nations, would be to take from such Government the most lucrative of its branches. The frivolous matters upon which war is made, show the disposition and avidity of Governments to uphold the system of war, and betray the motives upon which they act.
Why are not Republics plunged into war, but because the nature of their Government does not admit of an interest distinct from that of the Nation? Even Holland, though an ill-constructed Republic, and with a commerce extending over the world, existed nearly a century without war: and the instant the form of Government was changed in France, the republican principles of peace and domestic prosperity and economy arose with the new Government; and the same consequences would follow the cause in other Nations.
As war is the system of Government on the old construction, the animosity which Nations reciprocally entertain, is nothing more than what the policy of their Governments excites to keep up the spirit of the system. Each Government accuses the other of perfidy, intrigue, and ambition, as a means of heating the imagination of their respective Nations, and incensing them to hostilities. Man is not the enemy of man, but through the medium of a false system of Government. Instead, therefore, of exclaiming against the ambition of Kings, the exclamation should be directed against the principle of such Governments; and instead of seeking to reform the individual, the wisdom of a Nation should apply itself to reform the system.
Whether the forms and maxims of Governments which are still in practice, were adapted to the condition of the world at the period they were established, is not in this case the question. The older they are, the less correspondence can they have with the present state of things. Time, and change of circumstances and opinions, have the same progressive effect in rendering modes of Government obsolete as they have upon customs and manners.- Agriculture, commerce, manufactures, and the tranquil arts, by which the prosperity of Nations is best promoted, require a different system of Government, and a different species of knowledge to direct its operations, than what might have been required in the former condition of the world.
As it is not difficult to perceive, from the enlightened state of mankind, that hereditary Governments are verging to their decline, and that Revolutions on the broad basis of national sovereignty and Government by representation, are making their way in Europe, it would be an act of wisdom to anticipate their approach, and produce Revolutions by reason and accommodation, rather than commit them to the issue of convulsions.
From what we now see, nothing of reform in the political world ought to be held improbable. It is an age of Revolutions, in which everything may be looked for. The intrigue of Courts, by which the system of war is kept up, may provoke a confederation of Nations to abolish it: and an European Congress to patronise the progress of free Government, and promote the civilisation of Nations with each other, is an event nearer in probability, than once were the revolutions and alliance of France and America.


text:
|2003-12-08, 00:38
|Link #21
Steam Counter-Spoon 1.6
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Away from the dreaded spoon
Age: 34
Lol if that was the point you were trying to make me see then we kinda wasted our time man cause if you look at my first post i said that as for strenght you were right they are on chuunin level.
|2003-12-08, 00:41
|Link #22
Join Date: May 2003
Yeah but then you started going on about how they aren't chuunin level at all by arguing my points at the same time.
The Kaiten is a little more complicated then that.
|2003-12-08, 00:54
|Link #23
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Why do you want to know???
Age: 29
|2003-12-08, 01:17
|Link #25
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
It's just that only the Hyuga were able to develop the kaiten since they can see the chakara holes. Without the byakugan the kaiten could never have been developed, but I see no reason why a non-hyuuga ninja can't learn it now that it has been invented. Will it be as strong, no, can it be done, probably.
|2003-12-08, 01:47
|Link #26
A.S.S. Vice President
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: i dont know can you help me
Age: 29
no the kaiten is a bloodline technique they arent afraid of kaiten getting out they are afraid of 64 hands and byakugan getting out like kamui said with curse seal sasuke wins without neji wins
about the chuunin level thing being on chuunin level and being a chuunin are different things naruto/sasuke/gaara/neji are all on chuunin level but are not chuunin
|2003-12-08, 02:00
|Link #28
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: San Francisco
Age: 36
I think there was a whole thread (or at least a good part of a thread) about Chuunins being leadership material and Naruto/Sasuke/Neji not qualifying. Since I have nothing to add I'll leave it at that.
64 Hands is technically not a blooodline jutsu, but it is. If Sasuke/Kakashi were to
copy it (which I still believe he can't do, but that's in another thread as well)
spend a lot of time and effort into seeing the areas of the body poked, and tried to replicate it
he STILL couldn't do it. He'd just be poking random spots on the body, which may or may not be tenketsu holes.
|2003-12-08, 02:21
|Link #29
火影級 [h o k a g e LvL]
sasuke is weak without the curse seal. If he were to fight anyone of either Neji, Lee, Gara or even Shino, he would of got owned.
Yes, he did improve a lot in the 3 exam, but him self alone would have trouble fighting neji. He would have to play with distance, throwing stuff at neji (although it would be useless).
he has the speed, but like lee suggest that going at high speed wastes a lot of stamina. besides going melee on neji would be sucide.
curse seal lvl 1 would of been more of a match.
but if neji manage to poke sasuke and end his flow of chakra from the seal, it would still be over.
curse seal lvl 2 is unknown for sasuke. who knows what he would morph into. (a weasal?) He would gain a lot more in power and strength. he would probably wipe neji in no time.
But consider that sasuke has no unlimited projectiles (like spider-boy). he would some point have to go head on with neji. ONLY then does neji stand a chance. (i don't think u can escape 64 pt if you are in his range).
the match is pretty much impossible
for all we know neji might not survive his match with spider boy.
even if he does survive, he would have an hole in his arm for the rest of his life.
i still think neji is more genius than sasuke, at least he believes in hard work, not going around seeking power from mj wannabe.
conclusion neji > sasuke.
give neji curse seal lvl 2 and fight sasuke curse lvl 2. neji would wipe sasuke's uchia ass.
|2003-12-08, 02:34
|Link #30
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
I'm guessing nobody read my post...
Reread - chapter 115.
The jonin tells Sasuke he's at chuunin level. If a jonin tells you it gotta mean he at that level. Proof enough.
About Sasuke vs Haku
Sasuke might of had a chance to win if he didn't save Naruto's life. He was able to see and block the icicles remember? Hey Naruto probably couldn't win if he didn't have Kiyubi.
|2003-12-08, 02:41
|Link #31
Steam Counter-Spoon 1.6
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Away from the dreaded spoon
Age: 34
|2003-12-08, 03:14
|Link #33
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: San Francisco
Age: 36
In all seriousness, though, Sasuke
|2003-12-08, 04:16
|Link #34
Join Date: Nov 2003
Personally, I think Neji wins this fight. We need to analyze some stuff here. Let me also note that alot of questions arise because we don't know exactly how much power Sasuke would gain with Lvl 2, so keep this in mind, no one can explain this so I'm going off what we DO know, and not on "well he could have" ideas.
First, Sasuke is not as smart as...
Furthermore, what attacks does Sasuke have that would be able to get past Neji's defense?
Most melee attacks wouldn't work, unless they were executed at super fast speeds, which is highly plausible. Remember that Naruto...
His fire attack might work, personally I'm not sure if Neji's Kaiten would repel this or not.
Also remember that Tenten suggested that Neji's defenses were better then Gaara's.
It seems to me like Neji's 64 Point Hakke would seal the deal here. Even with Sasuke's intense speed, as long as Neji can bait him into coming within his Hakke the move should work, granted he's allowed to execute it, which he will, because this is anime.
Not to mention just the natural damage caused by the Hyuga fighting style, if even one clean blow lands from Neji it could be fatal.
The only way I can see Sasuke winning is if his Level 2 seal grants him:
1)a powerful, fast ranged attack while at the same time having...
2)a way to disable, or somehow infiltrate Kaiten
...or any Jutsu that is unaffected by Kaiten for that matter.
On the subject of Naruto v. Sasuke progress, I think Naruto wins by a long shot. Not strength, progress. As far as strength is concerned, I think they are very close, although Naruto is stronger.
|2003-12-08, 04:57
|Link #35
props to uzi626
Join Date: Jun 2003
if we were on the old forum we would all tell u to go look at old threads but basically what dopeskills says is the entire truth... from the gaara-sasuke battle they COULD determine if he was chuunin level just he didn't show brains just raw power... while shika just showed he had BRAINS and the smarts to kno when to give up and to think many steps ahead
unlike sasuke and naruto who would probably fight to the death...
also if Sasuke is "chuunin level" then wouldnt Naruto, Temari, and Neji be chuunin level only they werent in the ring ... he was talking about strength-wise not brains and calmness and leadership
|2003-12-08, 05:25
|Link #36
Wet Kimimaro Love
there are only two ways for Sasuke to beat Neji at current in the manga (as he still isnt at curse level 2)
1) Mange Sharingan, which he doesnt know
2) An Earth jutsu, such as Kakashi's Earth Decapitation
those so far, would be the only way to get past Neji's defense and beat the Kaiten,a nd Byakugan, and 64hands of Hakke, u cant very well block chakra points on someone under the ground, now can you?
|2003-12-08, 09:41
|Link #37
Senior Member
Everyone improved, but just not the same way as Naruto because he has Nine tails in him. We don't even get to see how good Sasuke is either - it's not like he had any real fights after his fight with Garraa...
Last edited by Ori; 2004-04-19 at 20:32.
|2003-12-08, 09:42
|Link #38
Bubbly and super fun
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Doesn't look like Kansas
Advantage of Sasuke :
Curse Seal : incredible boost of power.
Sharingan : can "freeze" the movement, but can't do anything else against Neji.
Super Fast Taijutsu
Chidori : can cut everything with a stab of chakra.
Some other Kaiton (fire) Jutsu.
Disadvantage :
He can't use the Chidori more than two time per day.
Advantage of Neji :
Byakugan : can see all things in a sphere of 50m radius at almost 360° and the inner coils.
Gentle Fist : one blow may finish the fight, can destroy the things built with chakra.
Kaiten : can stop any physical attack and return it to the opponent with a real "wall" of chakra.
64 Hands of Hakke : can stop the flow of all chakra in the opponent body
Neji's Jutsu doesn't require a hand seal
Disadvantage :
None in close combat, but useless for the fight at long distance, the Byakugan have a little blind angle.
I believe that Neji is able to see Sasuke with the Byakugan, and Sasuke is able to see, analyze and predict the Neji's attacks with his Sharingan.
At least Neji can use the Kaiten if he can't escape a blow = Sasuke take damage, Neji loose chakra.
I think it's a draw.
Sasuke doesn't need time to launch the Chidori anymore and there are no way that during a Neji vs Sasuke fight, there are no clash between the Heavenly Spin and the Chidori, so I believe that the Heavenly Spin is able to stop and return the Chidori (but obviously that use a lot of chakra) and it's bad for Sasuke because if that happen, he will take a great amount of damage and if he's wounded, Neji can use his 64 hands of hakke and it's the end for Sasuke.
So the only way for Sasuke to win is his super speed with his sharingan, if he can exceed the Byakugan vision and the reflexes of Neji, he can win.
If not he lost.
But now it's too late for Neji to win against Sasuke.
Without even speaking of the curse seal level 2 which will boost his power, ie much more fast than Lee without the weigth, stronger, etc. I don't believe that the story allows somebody other than Naruto to beat Sasuke now.
|2003-12-09, 21:03
|Link #40
Join Date: Dec 2003
unless neji beats spiderdude and lives , then it would make you wonder a bit cause sasuke = spiderguy level, neji > spiderguy, so neji may be > than sasuke lvl2. I'm just thinking logically here, but i say sasuke wins anyways it only seams right.
|Thread Tools

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Here's one small, disgusting detail from the aftermath of one of the most horrific incidents of government-instigated urban violence in modern American history:
In May 1985, a little African-American boy runs from a building in flames in Philadelphia. The fire was started by city officials, who literally bombed their own citizens, triggering a conflagration that would kill 11 people and destroy 61 houses. A white cop runs out and rescues the kid, who is covered in severe burns but survives.
Following the disaster, the rescuing officer returns to his police station to find the words "Nigger Lover" scrawled on his locker door.
Those sorts of mind-searing embers...


text:
Wet Dreams 2 (KR - DVD R3)
Click here to find out about this naughty comedy from Korea
Starring: Lee Ji-Hoon
Released: 31st March 2005
SRP: $29.95 ($26.95 here)
Further Details
KD Media will handle the March 31st release of the cheekily titled Wet Dreams 2, a comedy exploring a group of school girls' sexual fantasies. The disc will contain a 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen transfer, along with Korean audio in Dolby Digital 5.1. Furthermore, optional English and Korean subtitles will be provided. Supplementary materials include Making of Film, Cast's Shelf Camera, Photo Gallery, Music Video, NG Cuts, TV Spot, Trailer and Cast & Staff's Profile. Expect an SRP of $29.95, but it can be bought for $26.95 from top retailer DVD Asian. Read on for a few delicious screen-grabs and brief synopsis.
We would like to thank Cinecine for the images.
Directed by Jeong Cho-sin, the film revolves around sexual fantasy and episodes played out by 17-year-old high school girls. The background is set in 1991, Chung said in a post-premier news conference, suggesting that girls might sport a whiff of innocence.
Our "innocent" heroine Oh Sung-eun (Kang Eun-bi) and her close friends Bang Sue-yeon (Jeon Hye-bin) and Kim Mi-Sook (Park Seul-gi) are hanging around together, dreaming about their Prince Charmings. The dreams suddenly look achievable for Sung-eun when a handsome trainee teacher named Kang Bong-gu (Lee Ji-hoon) shows up. He is a well-mannered heartthrob with a golden-boy smile. But Kang's name is embarrassingly misleading. His name should have been corrected into Kang Bang-gu ('bang-gu' in Korean means 'fart') for he has an incurable disease that synchronizes farting with sexual stimulus - a cheesy toilet humor that reminds one of comparable scenes in the "American Pie" series.
Whenever Kang sees a sexy girl passing by, he unloads a heavy dosage of pernicious gas along with high-pitched sound effect. This ludicrous condition aimed at forcing the audience to laugh seems to be working - until the technique is used too often, too indiscriminately. Unaware of the tragic illness that plagues the handsome teacher, Oh Seung-eun sets her eyes on Kang. Here, the storyline goes somewhat overboard. Oh is so audacious that she marches toward Kang's apartment to sacrifice her virginity, a plot that might have raised some heckles among diehard conservatives 15 years ago.
Given that the movie is partly concerned about portraying sexually liberal Korean high schools in a candid way, such unrealistic development might be forgiven. But what sparks controversies among critics and moviegoers is that Oh doesn't know the difference between menstruation and bleeding from the first sex. It turns out that Oh gets so drunk before knocking on the door of Kang's apartment that she just falls asleep. In other words, nothing immoral happens, and coincidently Oh begins to menstruate for the first time, and thinks it is a sign of her lost virginity.
News by Bodhi Sarkar
Existing Posts
Hmmm...teen comedy, asian style! You gotta love it.
What the fuck is this.... it looks so screwed up!
Hmmm The film sounds mince, but Korean girls are ridiculously cute...
Follow our updates
New Easter Eggs
Star Wars: The Clone Wars - The Complete Season Two UK - BD Memento UK - BD RB Battlestar Galactica: The Plan UK - BD Moon UK - BD Star Wars: The Clone Wars - The Complete Season One UK - BD
Hot Easter Eggs
Christmas Story, A: 20th Anniversary Special Edition US - DVD R1 Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (Vista Series) US - DVD R1 Moon UK - BD Sideways UK - DVD R2 Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery US - DVD R1
Reviewer Agony
Mars Needs Moms US - BD Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel US - BD RA Perfect Sleep, The UK - DVD R2 Doctor Who: Kamelion Tales - Part 2 UK - DVD R2 Incredible Melting Man, The UK - DVD R2 | BD RB
Most Talked About
Halloween (2018) US - DVD R1 | BD RA Venom US - DVD R1 | BD RA Cloverfield Paradox, The US - DVD R1 | BD RA Suspiria (2018) US - DVD R1 | BD RA The Super US - DVD R1 | BD RA


text:
Subscribe to our Newsroom RSS feed | What is RSS?
Follow Loyola University New Orleans on Twitter
'Mentors' centennial art exhibit celebrates the value of a Loyola education
Loyola press release - October 29, 2012
"Circuit Board Study" by Analia Saban '01
More than 45 alumni and faculty artists from the Department of Art and Design at Loyola University New Orleans are participating in "Mentors," a multimedia arts exhibition that illustrates how Loyola's esteemed faculty and alumni have influenced the art community through their exhibitions and educational practices.
The exhibit, part of the ongoing centennial celebration at Loyola, will open Thursday, Nov. 1 with a free reception from 5 – 8 p.m. in the Collins C. Diboll Art Gallery, located on the fourth floor of the J. Edgar and Louise S. Monroe Library.
In addition to the artwork, the show employs timelines, photographs and quotes from participants that reflect on the value of their Loyola education. According to Karoline Schleh, gallery director, it was important that "Mentors" be more than just another "alumni exhibit."
"I wanted this centennial exhibit to really illustrate the fact that there is a continuous line between instructor and student," Schleh said. "Our graduates are remarkably loyal, and they often return to campus to work with our current students. It's extraordinary. Although we (the faculty) educated and cultured these amazing artists in their formative years, they now return and are able to teach us something new."
The exhibit is on display until Jan. 10, 2013. For more information, contact Jess Brown in Loyola's Office of Public Affairs at 504-861-5882 or firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
Mathematics Faculty and Staff
Martha Hildebrandt Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Hometown : Pittsburgh, PA
Joined Chatham : 2005
Academic Areas of Interest
Mathematics Education
Personal Areas of Interest
Skiing, Orchid Cultivation. Gardening, Needlework, Cooking
Dr. Martha Hildebrandt has a wide background in Mathematics Education. She has been a Mathematics Consultant grades K-6 and Middle School Department Chariman as well as having taught mathematics at the middle school, high school and college levels. She is a frequent speaker at teacher in-service workshops, is active in Carnegie Mellon University's C-MITES program where she conducts classes for gifted elementary students as well as area teachers, and presents regularly at both national and regional meetings of The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Additionally she has been a seminar leader for Pittsburgh Teachers' Institute. She is the editor of the column Post Scripts, which appears monthly in the NCTM publication Teaching Children Mathematics. She currently teaches in both the Mathematics and Education Departments at Chatham.
- B.S., Wheaton College (Wheaton, IL)
- M.A., Northwestern Unversity (Evanston, IL)
- Ph.D., Northwestern University (Evanston, IL)
- "Collaboration, Communication, Creativity & Curriculum: Strengthening Mathematics Teavhing Through School-University Partnership" 2011-2012 PCTM Yearbook: Teaching and Learning Mathematics in the 21st Century's First Decade
- "Dots and Squares," Teaching Children Mathematics November 2013, p. 272
- "Let's Take a Road Trip," Teaching Children Mathematics; May 2013, p. 548-553
- Illinois Teaching Certificate: Mathematics 7-12
- SDCTM--South Dakota Teachers of Mathematics
- PCTM--Pennsylvania Council of Teachers of Mathematics
- WME--Women and Mathematics Education
- AMTE--Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators
- Pi Lambda Theta
- ASCD--Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
- MAA--Mathematics Association of America
- NCTM--National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
- Keynot Address and Featured Presenter, South Dakota Teachers of Mathematics Annual Convention 2013
- "May-Mathalon," NCTM Annual Convention 2013
- "I Wish I Had a Game For.." NCTM Annual Convention 2012
- "The Best of Lola May," NCTM Regional Convention 2011; NCTM Annual Convention 2012
- "Parents and Children: Playing Math Games Together!" NCTM Annual Convention 2011; NCTM Regional Convention 2011
- "Reading and Rhyming in the 'Rithmetic Classroom," NCTM Annual Convention 2010
- "Where Mathematics Intersects with Life: Problem Solving Strategies that Extend Beyond the Classroom." Carnegie Mellon Univsersity Opportunities for Professional Growth; Spring 2009
- "Reading & 'Riting in the 'Rithmetic Classroom: Using Literature in the Context of Mathematics Instruction". PTI Spring 2009
- "Problem Solving: Where Education Intersects with Life". Pittsburgh Teachers' Institute Spring 2008
- "Games and Hands-On Math Activities", Carnegie Mellon Institute for Talented Elementary and Secondary Students Opportunities for Professional Development (Pittsburgh, PA), October 2005


text:
Contact Us!
- Call 404.918.0020
- Consult AaronMarino Shop
Product or Order Question?
Thank you for your interest in IAmAlphaM and M. Apparel. When contacting us about our products or your order, please include the (1) order number if applicable and a (2) short description of the issue, and we will be in touch!
Emails sent to this address not related to an order will not receive a response. For other issues, please visit AaronMarino Shop or take advantage of the search field in the upper right side of IAmAlphaM.com, using key words to find answers to your questions. Also utilize the menu tabs across the top of IAmAlphaM for an assortment of playlists related to style, grooming, fitness, and Alpha M lifestyle.
For all advertising questions or brand integration questions, please contact:


text: What is the proper way to set custom php.ini settings for uploads, max execution, max input size also max memory to be used by a script. I need to upload large video file on a server runing ispconfig 18.104.22.168 and every time i try to upload a file larger than the default 8Mb my server becomes unresponsive for like 7 -10 minutes which may happen because the pc its an 3.4 Ghz singlecore with 1.5 Gb ram. Can you enlight me how to the php ini settings and also if my hardware would support uploads of 300Mb per file.


text: Hey everyone! So I was browsing on google to find a nice theme for ISPConfig3 and after an hour or so I realized there are none??? At least not professional ones. So I decided to make a few. Here is my first "Pingo" (screen shots only - not done yet) theme for ISPConfig3, tell me what you think, what should I change, etc.: I'd really love some feedback on this. ** Note: I've censored out a few things... =) Also I haven't edited anything but content.css and main.tpl file.


text:
JANESVILLE—A Janesville family of four escaped what could have been deadly carbon monoxide poisoning early Monday morning.
They're not alone.
Eight Janesville residents were treated for carbon monoxide poisoning after firefighters responded to at least six carbon monoxide calls between Saturday and Monday, Lt. Kent Shea said.
The most recent call came in at 4:30 a.m. Monday in the 300 block of Rockshire Drive, according to a dispatcher at the Rock County Communications Center.
Dean Latka called for help because everyone in his home had headaches and nausea.
"I wake up at 4:15 to go to work. When my alarm went off, my wife already was up complaining she was really hot and had a bad headache," he said.
That's when Latka noticed his mouth was dry and that he had a headache, too.
Realizing something was wrong, he woke his children. His daughter was whining in her sleep and both she and her brother had headaches, Latka said.
"At that point, we got everybody out of the house and gave the fire department a call," Latka said.
Latka; his wife, Kristie; and their two children ages 10 and 12, were taken to Beloit Memorial Hospital, where they were given oxygen for a couple hours before being released. Everybody in the family had elevated levels of carbon monoxide in their blood.
There was no carbon monoxide detector in the Latka's east side home.
"We had one previously, but it had gone bad, and (I) just never replaced it," Latka said.
The first thing he did after getting released from the hospital was buy two carbon monoxide detectors—one for each level of his family's home. He said the $70 expense is worth the peace of mind and safety. He said every home should have carbon monoxide detectors.
"Definitely have them so you know if something is going on. And if people are having nausea and headaches, get out of the house and let the fire department come and check it out," Latka said.
The source of the carbon monoxide in Latka's home has not yet been determined.
Had the parts per million of carbon monoxide been higher in the home, family members could have died in their sleep, Shea said.
"It's a silent killer," he said, "with no smell and no taste."
Problem: unknown source


text:
location: Ipswich, MA
best viewing hours: 8:00am - 12:00pm & 1:00pm - 5:00pm
time zone: Eastern Time
Meet the Great Dane puppies being raised at the Service Dog Project. Located in Ipswich, Massachusetts, the Service Dog Project rests on a 12-acre property with heated kennels, fields, and a large arena. These areas provide the necessary space to raise the dogs from birth to graduation, and even back for retirement if needed.
Service Dog Project puppies will eventually be placed with people who have Multiple Sclerosis, individuals with Friedreich's ataxia, and veterans with disabilities. Each dog receives extensive training for balance, and once a dog is paired with an applicant, the dog is uniquely trained to suit the recipient's needs.
get involved:
This live cam comes to you via explore.org, the philanthropic media organization and division of the Annenberg Foundation. It is part of a collection of more than a hundred HD cams around the world established by Charles Annenberg to help people connect with nature and fall in love with the world again. To see more live cams visit, explore.org.


text:
BEIRUT — A rebel-claimed bombing Thursday in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo leveled a hotel near the ancient Citadel that government troops used as a military base, causing multiple casualties, activists and militants said.
Syrian state television said the explosion struck the Carlton Hotel in a government-held area on the edge of a contested neighborhood in the old part of Aleppo.
The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which maintains a network of activists on the ground, said at least 16 soldiers were killed in the blast. The Islamic Front rebel umbrella group, which claimed the attack, claimed to have killed 50 soldiers. Both groups did not say how they know how many soldiers died, and the claims could not be independently verified.
In a live broadcast from the site of blast, the station's correspondent in Aleppo stood on a huge pile of rubble with twisted metal and palm trees sticking out, saying that the army had been using the building as a base and soldiers were positioned there at the time of the explosion. In the broadcast, Syrian TV did not mention casualties.
The attack in Aleppo is a blow to President Bashar Assad's government in the north as his troops prepare to regain control of the central city of Homs following last week's cease-fire agreement after a fierce, two-year battle with the rebels trying to oust him.
No such agreement appears to be in sight in Aleppo, Syria's largest city and former commercial hub. The city has been carved up into opposition- and government-held areas since the rebels launched an offensive there in mid-2012, capturing territory along Syria's northern border with Turkey.
In recent months, government aircraft relentlessly has bombed rebel-held areas of the city and the opposition fighters have hit back, firing mortars into government-held areas. The rebels also have detonated car bombs in residential areas, killing dozens of people.
Thursday's attack targeted a government-held area on the edge of a contested neighborhood in an old part of Aleppo. The country's official news service said terrorists — a term the government uses for rebels — dug up tunnels under Aleppo ancient district and detonated explosives there.
A local activist group called the Sham News Network also reported the blast, saying that Assad's troops were based in the hotel.
The Islamic Front posted a statement on its official Twitter account Thursday saying that its "fighters this morning leveled the Carlton Hotel barracks in Old Aleppo and a number of buildings near it, killing 50 soldiers."
The Islamic Front is an alliance of several Islamic groups fighting to topple Assad. Many of its fighters have joined the Front after breaking away from the Western-backed Syrian Free Army last year.
The Observatory said Islamic Front fighters planted a huge amount of explosives in a tunnel they dug below the hotel and detonated it remotely. It said the hotel was completely destroyed in the blast and at least 14 government soldiers were killed in the blast.
The Syrian government does not publicize its casualties in the civil war.
Meanwhile Thursday, more rebels were expected to leave the central city of Homs as an evacuation of opposition fighters moves into its second day.
Homs Gov. Talal Barazi told Syrian state TV late Wednesday that that the evacuation process is being conducted in "positive atmosphere." He said Homs will be declared a "secure" city once the army moves in later Thursday.
Barazi was seen touring Homs on Lebanon's Al-Manar TV, which is owned by the Shiite militant group Hezbollah. Hezbollah has been battling rebels in Syria alongside government troops for months.
A reporter with Syrian state TV was seen broadcasting live from an entrance to Homs Old City. Standing near the city's main square known as the Clock Square, the reporter interviewed a priest who said he hoped people in the city would be safe again.
The Observatory, which has been documenting Syria's 3-year-old conflict through a network of activists on the ground, said that about 250 opposition fighters remain in the old districts of Homs, where they have been holed up under a crippling government siege for more than two years. The Observatory's head, Rami Abdurrahman, said more than 960 left the city Wednesday.
The rebels agreed to a cease-fire deal Friday as part of the evacuation.
An activist in Homs who goes with the name of Beibares Tellawi told The Associated Press that seven buses went into a once-besieged area of Homs on Thursday to take the remaining rebels out of the city.
"The siege of old Homs will be over in a few hours," Tellawi said via Skype. "We expect that everyone left inside will leave today."
In exchange for the rebels' safe departure from Homs, the opposition fighters have released 70 people who had been held by gunmen in various areas, including in Aleppo and in the costal province of Latakia, Barazi said.
Syria's uprising began with largely peaceful protests and has evolved into a civil war with sectarian overtones, pitting largely Sunni Muslim rebels against Assad's government that is dominated by Alawites, a sect of Shiite Islam.
Islamic extremists, including foreign fighters and Syrian rebels who have taken up hard-line al-Qaida-style ideologies, have played an increasingly prominent role among fighters, dampening the West's support for the rebellion to overthrow Assad.
Associated Press writers Albert Aji in Damascus, Syria, and Yasmin Saker in Beirut contributed to this report


text:
PX needed a new logo design and created a contest on 99designs.
A winner was selected from 56 designs submitted by 19 freelance designers.
we would like the logo to include our company name PERIOVAX and a tag line underneath saying Personalized Vaxines
include trademark, our brand name is PERIOVAX
Accepted File Formats:
Our minimum requirement is for the logo to be easy to reproduce on stationary and print material. Must contain trademark symbol. Other than that feel free to get creative...
Find out how a design contest works or learn more about our logo design services.