Reflections on the Revolution in France: Section 13 Summary & Analysis

Burke argues that there ought to be a middle ground between total destruction and a complete lack of reform. A “good patriot […] always considers how he shall make the most of the existing materials of his country.” Burke believes that a true statesman has a desire both to preserve and to improve.

Burke offers a few further thoughts on the confiscation of Church property. He explains that landed capitalists always have a surplus of income, and that the state’s only concern should be that capital be “returned again to the industry from whence it came.” If there is to be confiscation, there should be some expectation that those who purchase the confiscated property will be more laborious or virtuous than those from whom it was confiscated. Burke does not see why those “favorites whom you are intruding into their houses” are more worthy than the “lazy” monks who are being expelled. Why is it better that lands should be confiscated from those who have at least an outward pretense of morals, manners, and hospitality, and a virtuous order of life, than by those who do not?

Burke says that in view of the length of this letter, he must undertake a review of the establishments of France, rather than a more general discussion of the spirit of Britain’s monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, as he had first intended. Burke says that he cannot think of the National Assembly as anything other than a body of men who have taken advantage of the current political situation to seize power; they do not have real lawful authority. It’s only to be expected that those who value “the ancient state” of their country will question the validity of such revolutionary instincts.

Burke points out that those who have seized power “proceed exactly as their ancestors of ambition have done before them […] never depart an iota from the authentic formulas of tyranny and usurpation.” But now, in their ruling actions, they act according to “untried speculations,” “loose theories,” to which they would never entrust their personal concerns. Burke laments their “arrogance,” which “provokes […] us to an enquiry into their foundation.”

Burke asserts that eloquence can exist without wisdom. He observes that, in all he has observed among those of the new National Assembly, there appears to have been a desire “to evade and slip aside from difficulty.” There is no comprehensiveness of thought, or prudence. Where they have failed in wisdom, they insert force instead. The more they evade difficulties, the more these sneak up on them later.

Burke argues that this evasion of difficulty has led to schemes of reform that are preoccupied with destruction. Destruction requires only “the shallowest understanding.” It is easy to point out errors in existing structures, and to replace these structures with their opposites. However, to preserve and reform is something altogether different. It requires more carefulness, ability to compare and combine things. To the objection that this work takes a long time, Burke replies that it should. “Circumspection and caution” are part of wisdom.

While Paris seems to think that mere confidence suffices for a legislator, Burke argues that love, respect, and fear of oneself are vital. A lawgiver must be deliberative, patient, and ready to cooperate. This allows time to study the internal consistency of a governmental system, to deal with problems as they arise, to balance, “to unite into a consistent whole the various anomalies and contending principles that are found in the minds and affairs of men.”

One of the problems of this fixation on faults, Burke says, is that “those who are habitually employed in finding and displaying faults, are unqualified for the work of reformation.” They have too few “patterns of the fair and good” in their minds. “By hating vices too much, they come to love men too little.” If they don’t love humanity, they are not in a position to serve them, and instead they resort to tearing things down.

Burke says that someone who undertakes to remake a government, especially from scratch, should be uncommonly wise. He decides to look closely at what the National Assembly has done in order to determine if its members are of such a character. He will look first at the constitution of the legislature, then at the executive power, the judicature, the army, and the system of finance, to see if there is evidence of “portentous ability” among those who have undertaken these things.