after having ftricken terror into all Europe, and deftroyed at their pleasure a number of governments, incapable either of carrying on the war or [of] making a peace, were overturned with a breath on the 30th of Priairial. Thus, judging only from notorious facts, the French Government must be confidered as having nothing_fixed, either in refpect [in refpect either] of men or things.' The French Revolutionists have, through the whole of this political conteft, thus fupplied their enemies with weapons to combat their friends and advocates; who, notwithstanding fuch ungrateful return, still continue with the most difinterested zeal to plead their cause with undiminished ardour."

In this manner is the oppofition of a few in our House of Commons to the fentiments of his Majefty, his Ministers, and his people, very properly exhibited to the finger of fcorn; as afferting what even French Republicanifm denies, as fighting in the face of plain facts, and as meriting moft juftly the contempt, the deteftation of every honeft, every thinking Englishman for their conduct.

After this full and final reprobation, we fhall only fubjoin one remark concerning a collateral point; being one, in which we concur equally as in the others before.

"I do not think," adds Mr. Gifford, at the close of his Preface, we are wiser, I am fure we are not better, than our fathers; it is with pain therefore and apprehenfion, that I witness some occafional deviations from their conduct and principles, which only ferve to convince me, that we shall advance in vanity in proportion [proportionally] as we recede from virtue. The omiffion of the annual fermon at Westminster on the 30th of January laft, affords no proof of improvement either in religious zeal or [in] political wisdom. Is this the time for weakening thofe falutary impreffions, which the contemplation of a Monarch murdered by his fubjects muft excite? Is this the time for diminishing that horror at the violation of allegiance, which tends to fix the wavering and confirm the weak? Is this the time for difpenfing with the public repentance of a contrite nation, lamenting the fins of their fathers, which their religion tells them will be vifited on their children to the third and fourth generation;' or to give up the great example exhibited to the inhabitants of Europe, on this folemn day of expiation and atonement? If it were purely accidental, the neglect is culpable; but, if intentional, it cannot be too feverely reprehended." "I have heard," the author goes on in a note," that an attempt has been made to juftify this omiffion by one who ought to know better," who certainly did know better, and, therefore, could never have made the attempt if he was, as reported, Dr. Buckner the new Bishop of Chichester : ་་ on a plea not lefs extraordinary than falfe, that the lefs that [which] is faid about the character of the pious Prince, for whofe murder the piety of our ancestors deemed it neceffary to atone by an annual expiation the better. Ignorance alone could give birth to such a reflection on the character

of

of our First Charles; and happy, moft happy is it for himself, if the individual in queftion can confcientiously fay, that he discharges all the religious and moral duties of a Chriftian and a man, with the fame confcientious fcrupulofity which, whatever political errors he may have committed at one period of his reign, uniformly marked the conduct of that virtuous and perfecuted Monarch. Befides, were his character lefs excellent, it would be the height of arrogance and prefumption in us to impeach the wisdom of our ancestors by the abolition of a religious cultom, which has been uniformly obferved for near a century and a half; and that too at a time when the Gallic regicides have instituted an annual festival for the celebration of the murder of their Sovereign!! The contraft was, indeed, humiliating to the advocates of France; and perhaps the omiffion was influenced by a fpirit of Christian humility which fhuddered at the idea of exalting us above our neighbours."

Or, to conclude as gravely as we think our author should have concluded, if any Bifhop could poffibly have spoken in fuch a strain concerning the folemnity or the Sovereign commemorated on it, he muft have been ignorant of all hiftory, ignorant of all politicks, ignorant of all theology.

We thus conclude our extracts from the Preface, which is dated fo late as March 11, 1800; and go on to the additions made to the Letter itself; the reft of the Letter (as published previous to the commencement of our Review) not properly coming under our cognizance now.

The decree of the 19th of November, 1792, that first bolt of war which was levelled at the head of Britain, by the hands of Republican France, ran in thefe terms of aggreffion and hoftility to us:

"The National Convention declare, in the name of the French nation, that they will grant FRATERNITY and ASSISTANCE to ALL PEOPLE who wish to recover their liberty; and they charge the Executive Power to fend the neceffary orders to the Generals, to give affiftance to fuch people, and to defend thofe citizens who have fuffered, or may fuffer, in the caufe of liberty."

By the publication of this decree a formal war was proclaimed, by thofe wild-headed republicans, against all the exifting governments. But, to proclaim the war more diffufively, to make all governments fhake and tremble at the blast of this trumpet of war, the decree was ordered to be tranflated into, and printed, in ALL LANGUAGES. Such a decree could not but be pronounced by BRISSOT himself, abfurd and impolitic, as very justly exciting uneafinefs in foreign cabinets. Even Mr. Grey has been compelled to acknowledge, that it was in a great measure liable to the objections which our Minifters urged against it." And we have already feen Mr. Sheridan

declaring,

declaring, that this decree particularly was too offenfive, too tyrannical to remain unrepealed. But let us now afcend from the follower to the leader, and liften to a fimilar declaration from the lips of oracular authorities.

« Mr. Fox," we are told, "has, fince this letter was written, once ventured to affert in the Houfe, (if the Parliamentary Reports be correct,) that the decree in question was repealed. But the fact is, that to this moment (Jan. 1800) it remains a part of the laws of the French Republic. Mr. Fox's affertion, ftrange to fay! was fuffered to pass without contradiction; it ferved, however, to fhew, that he attached a proper degree of importance to the existence of that decree, as it affected the question of aggreffion, the origin and continuance of the war."

It served to fhew, in union with Mr. Sheridan's and Mr. Grey's declarations, as we beg leave to add, that even an oppofition, so marked with boldness in denying, with audaciousnefs in affirming, had not the audaciousness to affirm the inoffenfiveness of this decree particularly, and could only affumé the boldness to deny the present existence of it; yet could only deny this existence, without pretending to specify when it ceased to exift, by averring vaguely that it was repealed, by averring more vaguely that it had been long fince fwept away. Could they have specified when it was repealed, and how long fince it had been swept away, we should not have been left involved in the cloudy chronology of Mr. Sheridan, or repofing on the frail faith of Mr. Fox.

"General Dumourier," as Mr. Gifford proceeds to tell us, "who was at Paris at (in) the clofe of the year 1792, and during the first month of the fubfequent year, aware of the juft grounds of alarm which the decree afforded to all other states, exerted himself to procure its revocation, or, at leaft, to obtain a limitation of its provifions to countries at war with France; but as this would have defeated` its object, which was, and ftill is, to excite infurrection throughout Europe, the efforts of the General proved abortive, and the decree now remains in the revolutionary code, exhibiting to the world a memorable record of the destructive principles of the French republic, and an inftrument ready to be called into action, whenever, by an infidious peace, or a fuccefsful war, her power may be rendered comménfurate with her views."

This, however, must be allowed in favour of Republican France, that, by fuch a decree, fhe honeftly avowed her worst defigns to Europe, held up the bloody flag openly to the world, and denounced her determination (if it ever was in her power) to extinguifh all order, all civility, all religion among mankind. But the denunciation, gigantic as it was in itself, detestable as it was in its fpirit, and fit only for the citizens of

C 2

the

the lowest deep, was rendered more gigantic, deteftable, and fit, by the unanimous refolution not to repeal it, not to foften it, even though all Europe around them was agitated with apprehenfions, and convulfed with tremours, by the audacious call to rebellion in its states. And all Europe, even Africa, even Afia itself, have fince felt the powerful call working within their fates, muftering their fubjects in impudent rebellion against them, and threatening even to deftroy the whole fyftem of civilized nature. Such a powerful engine of deftruction, against the peace of all mankind, was never fabricated by the combined brothers of the deep before.

"Mr. Fox had the boldness to declare, in a late debate, Feb. 3, 1800, that previous to August 1792, there was the utmoft and most decided neutrality on the part of France.' To what lengths will men fuffer themselves to be carried by the fpirit of party! For, at the very time, and in this very pamphlet, I could produce," Mr. Gifford had faid, after various proofs from the acknowledgments of the French agents themfelves, "the authority of BRISSOT, and feveral of his aflociates, to prove that France was the aggreffor, and that the powers against whom he waged war, acted merely on the defenfive. So early as the 20th of October, 1791, BRISSOT urged the Legislative Affembly to declare war. You must not only defend yourselves, you muft BEGIN THE ATTACK,' faid he. He returned to the charge, on the 29th of December, 1791, when he did not blush to affign the following reafon for his earnestnefs; in fhort, we must have gold to pay the troops; France must have war to re-establish her finances and her credit. In the fame affembly, on the 4th of January 1792, ISNARD exclaimed, Let all Frenchmen haften to the Jacobin-club, we are this moment about to declare war. In the fummer of 1792, when employed in the execution of his plan for the depofition of his Sovereign, BRISSOT faid, 'We made him declare war in order to put bim to the test.* At the fame time COLLOT D'HERBOIS, the fa. ther of the Republic, openly declared we were RESOLVED to have war, because war would kill royalty.' In his factious paper, Le Patriote François, BRISSOT, after his plan had fucceeded, spoke in fill plainer terms, and openly avowed the motive of his conduct : ( BUT FOR THE WAR, THE REVOLUTION OF THE TENTH OF AU. GUST WOULD NEVER HAVE TAKEN PLACE; BUT FOR THE WAR, FRANCE WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN A REPUBLIC.+"

So very wild and wanton was Mr. Fox, in his affertion concerning the decided neutrality of France, up to Auguft, 1792! But thefe dates are the deftruction of all factious oratory.

"See Le Tableau de Paris, par Peltier."

"Sans la guerre, la Revolution du 10 Août n'auroit eû lieu ; fans la guerre, la France ne feroit pas Republique.' Le Patriote François, Samedi 22, Sept. 1792.”

66

"I had as leave they would put ratfbane in my mouth," cry the Foxes, the Sheridans, and the Erfkines, as offer to flop it" with a date.

"It has frequently been infinuated," Mr. Gifford alfo tells us, "that a refufal to open a communication with the French Minifter was the means of preventing an accommodation, which would otherwife have taken place. The infinuation is falfe in itself, and the inference drawn unfounded in fact. Though our Monarch, very properly, refused to acknowledge M. Chauvelin in the new official capacity, which by a ready transfer of his allegiance from his Sovereign and benefactor, to the traitors who had hurled him from his throne, to the affaffins who dragged him to the scaffold, he had affumed, yet that refufal did not operate as an impediment to a communication, which, though non-official, was equally alculated to facilitate the means of accommodation. The ground of complaint was formally specifiedThe fatisfaction required clearly explained--and reparation for the injury pofitively refused. Thus every purpose of an official communication was completely anfwered. Had the French council been dif. pofed to accommodate matters, every opportunity was allowed them for fo doing. Our government not only difplayed a willingness, but even an eagerness, to bring the points of difpute to an amicable termination. Of this the correfpondence between Lord Grenville and Chauvelin affords a complete proof; which is farther corroborated by the inftructions fent to Lord Auckland, at the Hague, to propofe a conference with Dumourier, on the frontiers of Holland. (See Dumourier's Letters to Miranda, State Papers, P. 246.-The whole bufinefs of this propofed conference, which is more fully explained by DUMOURIER, in his Memoirs, (from P. 143 to P. 163, Vol. I.) exhibits the profligacy of the French government, and the grofs mif reprefentations of your Lordship, in a moft ftriking point of view. But if a contemplation of these be fufficient to excite our indignation, how much must that indignation be increased, when we confider the unprincipled conduct of the prefent French Minister for foreign affairs, Talleyrand, the apoftate bifhop of Autun, who can boaft of one honour in common with Briffot, that of the friendship of fome of the leading members of the British oppofition.-This man, in his letter to Lord Grenville, of the 14th of January, 1800, (a State Paper, for its impudence and falfehood, without a parallel in the annals of diplomacy). does not fcruple to affert, respecting the war, that, on the part of the enemies to France, The aggrefion was real a long time before it was public: internal refiftance was excited: its opponents were fa. vourably received: their extravagant declamations were fupported: the French nation was infulted in the perfon of its agents, and England fet particularly this example, by the difmiffal of the Minister accredited to her.'-There is not one charge here preferred, which, if applied to France, is not perfectly juft; nor is there one, which, applied to England or her allies, has even the fhadow of truth to fupport it.The aggreffive conduct of France, long before the war, will be found fufficiently demonftrated in the fubfequent pages of this tract;

C 3