Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine was a great Englishman - who played an influential role in both the American and French revolutions. Sadly, those who decree what history is taught in schools - or what we can watch on TV - don't like to pay much attention to the glorious radical tradition in Britain.

I've long been an admirer of Thomas Paine. Over the summer I published some posts about one of his great works - "Common Sense" (the series began on 28th July).

If listening to Common Sense makes you want to know more here are some suggestions for Further Reading

Why all Lawyers should read...

...the works of Thomas Paine.

There are many thought provoking comments made by this remarkable. Here are a few to reflect upon:-

"A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody, ought not to be trusted by anybody" - Rights of Man part 1, 1791. Has this new relevance when Government is handing over powers to corporations to carry out tasks once reserved to democratically elected (and accountable) bodies? Does the abandonment of regulation Threaten the accountability of those who exercise great economic (and political power)?
“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.”

“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil”

“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.” – perhaps of relevance to the doctrine of precedent; to ‘conventions’ as a source of constitutional authority, and the remaining importance of the ‘Royal Prerogative’

“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – consider with reference to the protection of Human Rights, both inside and outside the country.

“Wealth is no proof of moral character, nor poverty of the want of it.” – Worth keeping in mind as we reward the very rich, and penalise those on modest incomes – especially as a particular variant of ‘moralism’ is being increasingly used in the treatment of those previously helped by the benefits system.

On the English Constitution "But that it is imperfect, subject to convultions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily demonstrated."

Could I recommend reading two of his most famous works - "Common Sense" and "Rights of Man"
The Thomas Paine Society's website can be accessed here.

Thetford & Norwich

On Friday we took a leisurely drive towards Norwich. We stopped in the town of Thetford, just off the A11. It's a town I had always wanted to visit, as it was the birthplace of Thomas Paine. It's a very pleasant small town to visit (Jones the Butchers does an excellent sausage in a bap - and tea is available at the Art Gallery in the Guildhall). There is a town trail relating to Thomas Paine. The leaflet is available in a PDF. We did the trail, and I look took lots of video footage - which I will turn into a short video about him. (It may be a little while as I am currently in the middle of marking W201 eTMAs and preparing documents for my next meeting in Hull for my Ph.D.).

Afterwards we drove on to Norwich. We viewed the exterior of the Castle (a tour will be undertaken on a later visit). There was a memorial to Robert Kett - leader of "Kett's Rebellion" in 1549 - "a notable leader in the long struggle of the common people of England to escape from a servile life into the freedom of just conditions". The rebellion which took his name was one of many at the time againgst enclosures. The already rich and powerful were re-distributing wealth away from ordinary people towards themselves. Eventually some people said, enough is enough.

By the way the Budget Statement will be made in the House of Commons on Wednesday.

English Heroes - Thomas Paine

As you would expect (from my earlier post - and my interest in the American Revolution), I am a great admirer of Thomas Paine. There is a good biography of him on the BBC website by Professor John Belchem.

He was born in Thetford, Norfolk - and lived in Sandwich, Kent and Lewes, Sussex. He also lived in Grantham, Lincolnshire; Diss in Norfolk, London and
Grampound in Cornwall.

There is a Thomas Paine Society, whose website can be accessed here.

More substantial biographies and studies are available -

Royal Wedding Day

Want something good to read today if you aren't spending the day watching the TV? (As in 1982, I will be absenting myself from the couch in front of the television or any of the street parties - sadly an attempt to have a non Royal-LoveFest proposed by the Group "Republic" was banned)

My suggestion is Thomas Paine's excellent "Common Sense". It was written in 1776. The full text can be found here - but this is a taster -

"Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honors to their deceased kings, and the christian world hath improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!

As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings. All anti-monarchical parts of scripture have been very smoothly glossed over in monarchical governments, but they undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have their governments yet to form. "Render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's" is the scripture doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of monarchical government, for the Jews at that time were without a king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.

Near three thousand years passed away from the Mosaic account of the creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king. Till then their form of government (except in extraordinary cases, where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of republic administered by a judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the Lord of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage which is paid to the persons of Kings, he need not wonder, that the Almighty ever jealous of his honor, should disapprove of a form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of heaven. 

Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced against them. The history of that transaction is worth attending to.


The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon marched against them with a small army, and victory, thro' the divine interposition, decided in his favour. The Jews elate with success, and attributing it to the generalship of Gideon, proposed making him a king, saying, Rule thou over us, thou and thy son and thy son's son. Here was temptation in its fullest extent; not a kingdom only, but an hereditary one, but Gideon in the piety of his soul replied, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you. THE LORD SHALL RULE OVER YOU. Words need not be more explicit; Gideon doth not decline the honor, but denieth their right to give it; neither doth he compliment them with invented declarations of his thanks, but in the positive stile of a prophet charges them with disaffection to their proper Sovereign, the King of heaven. 


To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and an imposition on posterity. For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and though himself might deserve some decent degree of honors of his cotemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise, she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion.


Secondly, as no man at first could possess any other public honors than were bestowed upon him, so the givers of those honors could have no power to give away the right of posterity, and though they might say "We choose you for our head," they could not, without manifest injustice to their children, say "that your children and your children's children shall reign over ours for ever." Because such an unwise, unjust, unnatural compact might (perhaps) in the next succession put them under the government of a rogue or a fool. Most wise men, in their private sentiments, have ever treated hereditary right with contempt; yet it is one of those evils, which when once established is not easily removed; many submit from fear, others from superstition, and the more powerful part shares with the king the plunder of the rest."About one hundred and thirty years after this, they fell again into the same error. The hankering which the Jews had for the idolatrous customs of the Heathens, is something exceedingly unaccountable; but so it was, that laying hold of the misconduct of Samuel's two sons, who were entrusted with some secular concerns, they came in an abrupt and clamorous manner to Samuel, saying, Behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways, now make us a king to judge us like all the other nations. And here we cannot but observe that their motives were bad, viz. that they might be like unto other nations, i. e. the Heathens, whereas their true glory laid in being as much unlike them as possible. But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, Give us a king to judge us; and Samuel prayed unto the Lord, and the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee, for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, THAT I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even unto this day; wherewith they have forsaken me and served other Gods; so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice, howbeit, protest solemnly unto them and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them, i. e. not of any particular king, but the general manner of the kings of the earth, whom Israel was so eagerly copying after. And notwithstanding the great distance of time and difference of manners, the character is still in fashion. And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people, that asked of him a king. And he said, This shall be the manner of the king that shall reign over you; he will take your sons and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his chariots (this description agrees with the present mode of impressing men) and he will appoint him captains over thousands and captains over fifties, and will set them to ear his ground and to read his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots; and he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks and to be bakers (this describes the expence and luxury as well as the oppression of kings) and he will take your fields and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants; and he will take the tenth of your feed, and of your vineyards, and give them to his officers and to his servants (by which we see that bribery, corruption, and favoritism are the standing vices of kings) and he will take the tenth of your men servants, and your maid servants, and your goodliest young men and your asses, and put them to his work; and he will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his servants, and ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen, AND THE LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN THAT DAY. This accounts for the continuation of monarchy; neither do the characters of the few good kings which have lived since, either sanctify the title, or blot out the sinfulness of the origin; the high encomium given of David takes no notice of him officially as a king, but only as a man after God's own heart. Nevertheless the People refused to obey the voice of Samuel, and they said, Nay, but we will have a king over us, that we may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. Samuel continued to reason with them, but to no purpose; he set before them their ingratitude, but all would not avail; and seeing them fully bent on their folly, he cried out, I will call unto the Lord, and he shall send thunder and rain (which then was a punishment, being in the time of wheat harvest) that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is great which ye have done in the sight of the Lord, IN ASKING YOU A KING. So Samuel called unto the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel. And all the people said unto Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God that we die not, for WE HAVE ADDED UNTO OUR SINS THIS EVIL, TO ASK A KING. These portions of scripture are direct and positive. They admit of no equivocal construction. That the Almighty hath here entered his protest against monarchical government is true, or the scripture is false. And a man hath good reason to believe that there is as much of king-craft, as priest-craft, in withholding the scripture from the public in Popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is the Popery of government. 

Dr Richard Price

"Dr Price has been described as one of the greatest Welshmen ever. He was a great advocate of freedom and equality, becoming a leading libertarian and dissenter of that time. He supported the America in its War of Independence against Britain and the principles of the French Revolution."


Richard Price born at Tynton, Llangeinor, Glamorgan, (in the Garw Valley) on 23 February 1723. Like some other notable men of his age, his genius was not limited to one subject. He was a mathematician, a preacher and a political philosopher. His advice was sought by British Prime Ministers (the Earl of Shelburne & William Pitt the Younger - on financial reform); the Continental Congress in America in 1778. Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and John Adams visited his home in Newington Green, London.

One of his works "Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty, the Principles of Government, and the Justice and Policy of the War with America" (1776) can be accessed here.

A Radical History of Britain

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading Edward Vallance's "A Radical History of Britain". Westminster - as I noted yesterday - is decorated according to historical preferences of those in the 19th Century. Some radicals are recognised, others have less prominence. For example there is no statue of John Wilkes - but there is a fine painting (with an excellent description of him as a campaigner for press freedom and parliamentary reform) just inside the Members Dining Room.

The "history" portrayed at Westminster is a little one sided - monarchy is generally good; the French are definitely bad....

Vallance's book is a refreshing contrast to the history of Kings and conformists. He sets out the tradition of radical thought and action in Britain - which is often overlooked. There are individuals described who came from Britain - but influenced events around the world - like Thomas Paine! The Peasants Revolt; Cade's Rebellion; the events surrounding the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution; the struggle for extension of the suffrage; and the Suffragettes are all described.

All Brits should read this book - Americans can read of our shared tradition - and any citizen of the world can find this an interesting read.

The Facebook site for the book can be accessed from here.

A Guardian Review can be accessed here.

The Costs of the Monarchy

This week we are told how little the Royal Family costs the country. Of course Kings and Queens were masters of spin long before democracy emerged. The figures that are being proclaimed are just the costs of the Civil List. Indeed, if you divide those costs by the total population (which includes non-taxpayers) you come up with a "price" similar to a loaf of bread.

A fairer picture can be found here. I guess that losing £167m from your calculations is of little concern to a very rich family. [Queen's wealth] Is it worth it? Well if you haven't read Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" - this week ending with Independence Day - now's the time to do so - it is available here.

Tom Paine wrote one of the great works which influenced thinking in America at the time of the revolution. If you haven't read Common Sense, I strongly recommend it! It is available online at http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/singlehtml.htm

His chapter "Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession" greatly influenced me. We should never forget that, although Paine played a key role in developments in America and then France, he was an Englishman. But as the Bible says "A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country". Perhaps I am being a bit unfair - Tom Paine has many supporters in the UK.

His ideas on a hereditary monarch are backed by "Republic" - the Campaign for an Elected Head of State. You can visit the website at - http://www.republic.org.uk/

It states:

Britain still retains a political culture centred on "Her Majesty's Government" - not ours, but hers, a powerful reminder in days gone by of where our place was in the system. The idea of royal "ownership" continues to pervade this culture and to reinforce the idea that the system is not our own.

Despite the extravagant costs of monarchy, and the increasingly erratic behaviour of the royals, our arguments are concerned with democracy, the principle that this is our country and we should choose our heads of state.

We should have the right to elect and hold to account all who hold public office and such people must remember that they are there to serve us, and not vice versa.

It is time to claim the right to our own country and to choose our Head of State.

Le quatorze juillet

Today is Bastille Day in France. Washminster extends its greetings to all its French readers, and those who celebrate another key date in the battle for liberty. One man unites the histories of Britain, America and France - Tom Paine. In his introduction to the French edition of "The Rights of Man" Paine wrote -

"The cause of the French people is that of all Europe, or rather of the whole world; but the governments of all those countries are by no means favorable to it. It is important that we should never lose sight of this distinction. We must not confuse the peoples with their governments; especially not the English people with its government.

The government of England is no friend of the revolution of France. Of this we have sufficient proofs in the thanks given by that weak and witless person, the Elector of Hanover, sometimes called the King of England, to Mr. Burke for the insults heaped on it in his book, and in the malevolent comments of the English Minister, Pitt, in his speeches in Parliament.

In spite of the professions of sincerest friendship found in the official correspondence of the English government with that of France, its conduct gives the lie to all its declarations, and shows us clearly that it is not a court to be trusted, but an insane court, plunging in all the quarrels and intrigues of Europe, in quest of a war to satisfy its folly and countenance its extravagance.

The English nation, on the contrary, is very favorably disposed towards the French Revolution, and to the progress of liberty in the whole world; and this feeling will become more general in England as the intrigues and artifices of its government are better known, and the principles of the revolution better understood. The French should know that most English newspapers are directly in the pay of government, or, if indirectly connected with it, always under its orders; and that those papers constantly distort and attack the revolution in France in order to deceive the nation. But, as it is impossible long to prevent the prevalence of truth, the daily falsehoods of those papers no longer have the desired effect."

An untrustworthy British press - some things never change!