從法國大革命到光榮革命─埃德蒙•柏克的1688年革命詮釋

Abstract

1688年的光榮革命奠定英國君主立憲體制，也為十八世紀上半葉的輝格霸權打下基礎。時隔百年，1789年爆發法國大革命時，許多英國激進派人士將光榮革命與大革命連結，鼓吹愛好自由的英國人支持大革命。著名的輝格黨議員埃德蒙•柏克卻反對法國大革命，在他的作品與演講中致力闡述大革命與光榮革命的不同。其中最有趣的一本是出版於1791年的《呼籲從新輝格回歸舊輝格》，在這本小冊子中，柏克引用發生於1710年，一場涉及光榮革命性質與抵抗權爭論的政治審判作為主要材料，證明早期輝格對這兩項議題的見解與自己相一致，希望說服其他輝格黨員拋棄以潘恩為代表的｢新輝格」，回歸｢舊輝格」的理念。關於柏克所謂新舊輝格的區分，歷史學者多已了解這兩項用語的指涉是由柏克自己發明，與十八世紀初期類似語彙的意思並不相同；而1710年薩切威羅審判中，輝格派的證詞可以支持柏克的反大革命論述，這點在一些學者如肯揚、波考克看來，是由於1710年輝格已經趨於保守。本文先檢視柏克於1790年首次提出的光榮革命詮釋，再介紹1710年薩切威羅審判的背景、過程與結果，然後分析柏克《呼籲從新輝格回歸舊輝格》對這場審判的應用。柏克筆下｢新舊輝格」的不同，主要在於抵抗權的行使，以及對古憲法與社會契約的不同看法。在抵抗權的問題上，柏克或｢舊輝格」與洛克並無明顯不同，都主張當統治者非法侵犯人民權益時，抵抗才是合理的；關於契約論，傳統輝格傾向將原初契約的理論與古憲法混合，認為英格蘭古憲法是原初契約的具現，由君主、貴族、平民三階層的平衡組成，至少在法國大革命以前，古憲法與平衡政體的理想一直是英格蘭朝野皆選擇使用的論述。大體上，柏克的光榮革命詮釋仍屬於主流輝格的脈絡。

The Glorious Revolution in 1688 established the British constitutional monarchy, and paved the way for the Whig Supremacy in the early 18th century. A hundred years later, when the French Revolution erupted in 1789, many British radicals linked the French Revolution to the Revolution of 1688, encouraging Britain people to support French one. Yet Edmund Burke, the famous Whig parliamentarian, was against French Revolution. He committed to elaborate the difference between Glorious Revolution and French Revolution in his works and speeches. One of them particularly interesting was An Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs. In this pamphlet, Burke cited a political trial concerning the nature of 1688 revolution and the right of resistance, which happened in 1710, to prove that his own arguments coincided with the early Whigs’. He hoped it could persuade his Whig fellows to give up on the “New Whigs” represented by Paine and embraced the “Old Whigs” creed instead. About Burke’s dichotomy of “New Whigs” and “Old Whigs”, historians have known that it was Burke’s invention and not identical to the older meanings of similar terms. As for how could Whigs’ testimony in the Sacheverell Trial of 1710 be used to support Burke’s counter-revolutionary statements, scholars like J. P. Kenyon and Pocock had suggested it was because the Whigs in 1710 had become conservative. This thesis examined Burke’s interpretation of 1688, and introduced Sacheverell Trial’s background, process, and outcome. Then it analyzes Burke’s uses of this trial. For Burke, the main difference between “New” and “Old” Whigs were about the right of resistance, the ancient constitution and social contract. On the right of resistance, Burke or “Old Whigs” were not very different to Locke, all argued that resistance was only just when the ruler illegally harmed the ruled. About contract theory, traditional Whigs tended to mix it with the ancient constitution, believed the later was the representative of the former. The ancient constitution and the ideal of balanced polity composed of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, were discourses common to both Court and Country party at least until French Revolution. Overall, Burke’s interpretation of 1688 belonged to the mainstream Whig context.