dering himself to be buried far from the vault of his ancestors, far from every religious monument, in the midft of the brute creation who grazed upon his den." The author, having been apprized of the falfehood of this accufation, but still unwilling to facrifice a well-rounded period, afterwards added; " I learn that an article of the Duke de Choifeul's will relating to his burial was not attended to." Unfortunately this affertion is not more correct than the other. The fact is, that the Duke had left an injunction in his will, to bury him in the church-yard of Chanteloup, and to plant a male cyprus over his grave. He, at the fame time, expreffed a wish that it would please the Duchefs of Choifeul to be buried clofe to him, and that she would order a female cyprus to be planted over her grave, in commemoration of the ftrict union which had prevailed between them during their lives.-This fact fpeaks for itfelf; and we shall forbear any reflections on it, because it naturally fuggefts too many. It would be easy to demonftrate, from the correfpondence of D'Alembert himself, that the Duke de Choifeul was not attached to the philofophifts, and that the countenance which he gave to their leader originated folely in political motives, from the connection of the latter with the King of Pruffia; in which inftance he only imitated the conduct of his predecef fors, and particularly Cardinal de Tencin; that the paffages quoted from that correfpondence in order to fupport the allegations againft the Duke, are fufceptible of a different interpretation, when confidered in their connection with preceding and fubfequent paffages; that, as a statesman, he confidered religion as one of the best and maft powerful fprings of civil government; and that, although he was loofe and unguarded in his language, nothing has been adduced againft him that can poffibly impeach his religious faith. Befides the matter for confideration in this place is not what the Duke de Choifeul thought, but what he did; the jurifdiction of the Deity alone extends to thought, that of man is confined to actions. The minifters of Louis the Sixteenth are not treated with more indulgence than thofe of his predeceffor. There can be no doubt, that the apathy and careleffnefs of the Count de Maurepas contributed effentially to promote the progress of philofophifm in France: but what proof is there that he was himself an infidel philofophift? When Mr. Turgot became minifter, he was certainly known to be an inveterate deift, but it is equally certain, that he was diftinguished for his probity, his difpofition to do good, his excellent establishments, and the aufterity of his manners, which had endeared him to the people, during his long administration in the Limoufin. moufin. Thofe who knew him perfonally will never be peř fuaded that he was a perjured man, a traitor, and a hypocrite; they never will accufe him of having exerted his influence to infpire his young fovereign with that difguft for monarchy, which, it is pretended, he entertained himfelf; of having con tributed, as much as lay in his power, to make a Jacobin of him; and of having endeavoured to involve him in the fophifms of the philofophiftical fest. At least, it will be allowed, that he took a ftrange means of ferving that fa, when he advised the king to appoint the Count de St. Germain, minifter of war, who had been a Jefuit, and was a determined enemy to the philofophifts. But the mode in which M. de Malefherbes is treated by the author, has, we confefs, difgufted us more than any part of his book. In the difcharge of the duties attached to his ftation, a ftation which he held from 1750 to 1763, and which gave him a kind of fuperintendance over the prefs; that magiftrate was undoubtedly guilty of an unpardonable negligence, which nobody can condemn more ftrongly than ourfelves; and, on this point, the reflections of Mr. B. are very judicious. But, as minifter of ftate, M. de Malefherber fully juftified the opinion which the public entertained of him, and which induced Louis XVI. to place him in a fituation where he had to repair the abufes of the preceding adminiftration. We are forry to fee the author fpeak with fo much indifference of the moral virtues of this celebrated character; and undervalue his meafures for mitigating the feverities of imprisonment, and supplying a remedy to the inconveniences arifing from Lettres de Cachet. During the whole progrefs of the revolution, M. de M. had his eyes conftantly fixed on his unhappy fovereign, and, fubduing his natural fondnefs of retirement, went regularly to court every Sunday, to give him proofs of his refpect and attachment. He impofed it as a duty on himself to give the minifters 'regular information of the defigns of the regicide factiont; and when it was determined to bring the king to trial, he voluntarily offered to be the defender of his mafter, in his memorable letter of the 11th of December, 1792, that eternal monument of his loyalty, which occafioned not only his death, but that of his fonin-law, and his grandfons, thus extinguifhing, in one day, three generations of an illuftrious family. What Frenchman, what virtuous man, of any country, can ever forget Chef de la librairie. + Bertrand's Memoirs, Vol. iii. chap. 31. that that affecting scene, when the refpectable old man, penetrating, for the first time, into the prifon of the Temple, melted into tears, on finding himself prefled in the arms of his king, and that ftill more affecting fcene, when, entrusted with the moft agonizing commiffion that a fubject could poffibly have to his fovereign, he threw himfelf at the feet of the innocent victim, while, fuffocated with his fobs, his voice, till re-animated by the courage of the virtuous Louis, was inadequate to announce the fatal fentence of death.* And yet, this is the man, who, at the moft glorious period of his life, is put on a level with Roberfpierre, and held up in the midft of his voluntary facrifice, as the executioner of the moft benevolent of princes! If the author's pen were guided by religious zeal, why did he not rather prefent to our view, the illuftrious Malefherbes, having difpelled the vain illufions of philofophifm, acknowledging his paft errors, and exclaiming in the accents of grief, That falfe philofophy, (to which I confefs I was myfelf a dupe,) has plunged us into the gulph of deftruction, and, by an inconceivable magic, has fafcinated the eyes of the nation, and made us facrifice reality to a mere phantom. For the fimple words, political liberty, France has Toft that facial freedom, which the poffeffed in every respect, in a higher degree, than any other nation! How truly great did the king appear in his last moments! All their efforts to degrade him were vain; his unfhaken virtue triumphed over their wickednefs. It is true, then, that religion alone tranffufes fufficient courage into the mind of man, to enable him to fupport with fo much dignity, fuch dreadful trials!" Thefe are fuch confeffions as a true defender of religion, when animated with a zeal fecundum feientihm, loves to trah mit to pofterity, as one of the triumphs of that religion! It is for this purpofe that we quote it, in oppofition to a declaration, which, to fay the leaft of it, is inconfiderate. The extent to which our remarks on this volume have als ready been carried, prevents us from noticing many other parts of it, deferving either of praife or of reprehenfion. Probably our obfervations may ftrike the author as too fevere but, in the first place, he fhould remember, that it is the fate of books, which have made a great noife in the world, to be Tubjected to a very rigorous examination; and, in the next place, that it is the duty of a critic, not to confult the feelings of an author, but the caufe of truth. The object of the book before us, is excellent, and the motives which influenced the Clery's Journal, P. 158-196. + Bertrand's Memoirs, ch. 40. author author to compofe it, are entitled to commendation. We are Torry to add, that its execution is highly defective, on the score of impartiality and moderation. The caufe which we have to defend against the enemies of all order, moral, religious, and focial, is fo refpectable in itself, and, at the fame time fo delicate, from the character of our adverfaries, that it is not poffi ble to exert too much prudence and circumfpection, in making it thine forth in all its fplendour, in avoiding every thing which favours of the fpirit of party; and, in presenting no weak fide to an enemy, fo fkiltul in feizing every opportunity to turn it to his own advantage, with a view to obfcure the merit of the cause, and to weaken the force of the strongest arguments. We are very far from recommending, in the prefent age, a ftrict adherence to the literal interpretation of the old maxim, "Dicere de vitiis, parcere perfonis," but we certainly muft condemn the illiberal practice in which the author has indulged himself too much, of making the natural defects of those whom he affails, on account of their political or religious principles, fubjects for cenfure or farcafm. For inftance, of what confequence is it to the caufe of religion, that D'Alembert was a baftard; that the old duke D'Ufez was humpbacked; or, to adopt the author's flyle, had a double protuberance on his back and breaft. In fuch a cafe as this, none but inconteftible facts fhould be admitted, particularly when they tend to accufe individuals of ferious crimes. But this alfo, is a rule from which Mr. B. has frequently deviated. His anecdotes are not selected with more judgment than his proofs; as when he afcribes to the philofophifts, the measure of suffering no bishop to be concerned in educating the children of Louis the Sixteenth, when every body knows that this step was adopted by the advice of a minifter, who is now in this country, and who, most certainly, is neither a confpirator nor a philofophift; and when he afferts that the philofophical catechifm of the ex-Jefuit Feller, could not procure a free entrance into France, folely because it contained an excellent refutation of the new fyftems, when we have that very work in our poffeffion, printed at Paris, in 1777, with the King's approbation and privilege. It is poffible, indeed, that the first edition, printed in a foreign country, might experience fome difficulty, as being contrary to the established regulations of the national prefs, but there could be no philofophiftical confpiracy in that. Befides, M. Feller himself makes no complaint of the kind, in his preface to the fecond edition; and the epoch of 1773, when the first appeared, was, by no means unfavourable to works written by perfons of that clafs, to which M. Feller belonged. Laftly, we could demonftrate, that the precipitation with which M. Barruel has written, has prevented him from catching the true fenfe of the works which he undertakes to confute, has made him difcover contradictions which do not exift, and has fometimes made him appear in the wrong, in respect of perfons with whom it is fo eafy to be always in the right; but we muft conclude this article, for the prefent, addreffing Mr. B. in the words of St. Auguftin to Pofcentius, "Da veniam, fi quid liberius dixi, non ad contumeliam tuam, fed ad defenfionem veritatis.” (To be continued.) ART. II. Hiftorifche Ueberficht der Politic Englands und Frankreichs von der Zeit der Conferenz zu Pillnitz bis zur Kriegserklärung gegen England, durchaus aus authentifchen · Actenftücken begründet, von Herbert Marsh. i. e. An Hiftorical Examen of the Politics of England and France, from the Conferences at Pilnitz to the Declaration of War by France against England, founded entirely on authentic Documents. By Herbert Marth, 8vo. 602 Pp. Leipfic. Dyke. 1799. "HIS excellent work may depend on obtaining the unani THIS mous approbation of an impartial public, on account of the moderation, candour, and ftrict adherence to the rules of found criticism, with which the author has difcuffed in it a remarkable period of the hiftory of the French revolution. Notwithstanding the numerous efforts of the declared enemies of the old order of things, of the apoftles of liberty, and of the ignorant illumines, to difguife and pervert the circumstances which were the causes of the prefent war between France and England, the author of the work before us, who is an Englifhman, and well known by his theological writings, and who for a long time past has refided in Germany, has demonftrated in it by inconteftible arguments, that from the year 1789, Great Britain has made the greatest efforts to live on good terms with France: that all the conftituted authorities of France have been convinced of the peaceful difpofition of the English government; and that Great Britain, from the France declared war against her, has repeatedly tried to bring about a peace. In oppofition to the mifreprefentations of the advocates of the great nation, who without the flighteft appearance of argument have thrown the most odious colours on the conduct of England, and praised the abfurd measures of France, and miftated and mutilated facts which they could APPENDIX. VOL. III. LI not |