The Rights of Man

Paine challenges Burke on the origin of rights. He asserts that all humans have natural rights that are inherent to humankind and that all humans are created equal. Furthermore, civil rights—the rights that belong to human beings as members of society—are derived from natural rights. Civil rights are therefore meant to secure natural rights, not to erode them. 

Paine then examines governments. For most of history, governments have arisen either from superstition (priestcraft) or power (conquest). Paine argues that governments arising out of society have constitutions and that these constitutions must exist in a tangible form. Since the British constitution is (largely) unwritten, it cannot be shown to exist—therefore, Britain has no legitimate constitution. France’s National Assembly, on the other hand, is in the process of forming an actual constitution, which will represent the authority of the nation. 

Paine contrasts sensible parts of France’s new constitution (which did not take full effect until later, in 1791) with irrational English practices dating to the Norman Conquest of 1066. Paine expresses hope that the British will follow the French example and “annihilate those badges of ancient oppression” (36) from their own government. Furthermore, the British Parliament and members of the government enrich themselves on war, whereas the French are determined to remove the war-making power from kings and their ministers. Paine then mocks aristocratic titles, which the French constitution abolishes, and which the contempt of French public opinion has already rendered worthless. 

Paine then turns to an examination of aristocracy itself. Through the law of primogeniture, aristocracy destroys families by providing only for the eldest son. Corrupted by privilege, aristocrats are unfit to serve in the upper house of a legislature. Paine also credits the French with reforming abuses in clerical compensation and especially for establishing true freedom of conscience, which he distinguishes from mere religious toleration. Paine criticizes Burke for celebrating the union of church and state, which Paine regards as nothing more than a basis for persecution. 

Paine concludes this section by contrasting the principles and structures of the British and French governments, reminding readers that Burke wrote nothing by way of comparison on the subject of constitutions.