By R.W. Morrell
Debate Aborted. Burke, Priestley. Paine And The Revolution In France. 1789 – 91. P. O’Brian. 283pp. Paperback. Bishop Auckland. The Pentland Press. 1996. £12.50
It is a long time since I have read a book on the controversy Edmund Burke launched with his Reflections on the Revolution in France that I have not only thoroughly enjoyed but also learned a great deal from. Dr. O’Brien discusses Burke’s opinions in detail while contrasting them with the criticism made of them by Thomas Paine and Joseph Priestley. There were. of course. many other replies to Burke, most are largely forgotten even amongst academics. In fact Priestley’s reply has for the most part been lost sight of. For example, in Professor Keane’s recent political biography of Paine. Priestley receives minimal attention. In focusing as much on Priestley as on Paine. Dr. O’Brien restores an all important balance. for the criticism made of Burke by Priestley excellently supplements what Paine has to say. Indeed we often find in the extensive quotations reproduced in this book, that both men arc saying much the same thing. though Priestley’s language is all too frequently stolid when compared with Paine’s method of expressing himself.
The author’s title may at first appear something of a puzzle for it can be said that far from being aborted the debate Burke initiated continues still. however. Dr. O’Brien considers Burke’s failure to enter into the debate by curbing it with his rather weak and puzzling. An Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs, published anonymously in 1791. This has been seen as an attempt to reply to Paine’s Rights of Man but if so it must be counted as a dismal failure. Burke the controversialist had clearly got cold feet.
Like Paine, Priestley was to leave England for America, where he settled. He shared Paine’s political radicalism, but not his revolutionary attitude. In fact he knew Paine personally. but he was to part company when he published a bitter criticism of The Age of Reason, Priestley’s attack is perhaps one of his poorest works and rightly forgotten. Debate aborted though, goes a long way to restore Priestley’s political reputation and to remind the world that he was not just a scientist.
The author acknowledges Burke to have been a ‘great man’ but one who was ‘scarcely rational about human rights’, who resorts to sneering when he fails to have better of an argument. ‘This man’ concludes the author, ‘must have had a large mental block’. One criticism. Throughout his book Dr. O’Brien uses the title The Rights of Plan rather than Rights of Man. Paine’s choice of title was deliberate as he did not restrict rights. Hence it is important to use the correct title.