been facrificed without a murmur, to the danger of injuring their college in the opinion of the world? To one of them who held an official fituation of infinite importance, it appears to me that this reafoning applies with particular force; and I am well convinced that his conduct, upon this occafion, very materially injured a fociety which it would have been his best intereft, as well as his duty, to have ferved as much as he could.

The circumftance of only three members being found in fo large a Society, to join in fo neceffary a profecution, is likewise a striking one toward itigmatifing the Society in general with the epithet of Jacobinical. Thefe three were the Rev. Meffrs. K- -g, R―n, and Ph; gentlemen, I understand, the goodness of whofe lives, and the refpectability of whofe attainments, entitle their names to be recorded for their very honourable conduct upon this occafion; if only with a view to except them from the general cenfures which has been caft upon their College,

We come now to the circumftance of Meffrs. Sheridan and Erskine, jun. Lord Stanley and the Hornbys, together with many like. affected gentlemen from Ireland, being entered of this fociety imme diately after the abovementioned declaration of its principle. This may, no doubt, have been the effect of accident, and I earnestly hope it was fo: yet, at any rate, the circumftance is ftriking; and, when we recollect in what manner the Jacobins hang together, and are, moreover, told that St. John's College, with a fociety nearly as numerous, did not, at this time, receive one member diftinguished for fimilar fentiments, what fhall we say?

The heavy charge of the Temple, in which their prayers are offered, being frequently profaned with noify jacobinical harangues, is, I am informed, a very notorious fact; as well as that the prizes for the declamations have, for many years paft, been adjudged to compofitions abounding with democratic fentiments. A gentleman, who was prefent at the commemoration-dinner, fome years ago, affured me, that he was extremely offended by the indecency (in this sense} of an harangue from a Mr. P**** ; and that, upon converfing with an Under-graduate on the subject, he was told, that fimilar offences against decorum had frequently been committed-often to the dispa ragement of diftinguished merit of a contrary political perfuafion, owing to the partiality of the judge, upon thefe occafions, to the democratic cause,

But I have already faid enough, and fhall only quote the conclufion of the note:-

"A noble Lord, who lately defigned his fon to become a member of this fociety, upon hearing the character of its feniority, fent him to Chrift-church, Oxford, The determination was certainly wife; and every nobleman and gentleman, who duly blends the feelings of a parent with a juft fenfe of the circumftances of the times we live in, will think like his Lordship. The fuperiority of Oxford, in the proper confideration of rank and gentility, is almoft proverbial; and even in Cambridge, fuch, in the true fpirit of their principles, are

the

the encroachments made in College upon thefe juft claims, that young gentlemen of birth and fortune will even prefer Johnian hoggifm to the lizar-notions of this fociety; while the fuperior care of St. John's College, in rewarding merit, and the fuperior affiduity of her tutors and Returers in the promotion of knowledge, will make parents gladly acquiefce in the preference. Thus is, in fact, evinced an affertion which has often been made, and which we repeat with deep regret for we remember the fair foundation in her mid-day fplendour,) that ST. JOHN's, with an endowment and character infinitely less adapted to the exercife of the moft liberal policy, is THE FIRST COLLEGE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE."

Allow me to add, that the compliment paid to St. John's College is perfectly juft; and that, notwithstanding an inelegance of manners, which is certainly too remarkable in the fociety, the pains which are taken by the instructors to inftil useful knowledge into the pupils committed to their care, and the affiduity with which those inftructors introduce and recommend them in the world, when fuch pains have proved effectual, are more commendably exemplary.

I remain, Sir, your conftant reader,

A FRIEND TO TRUTH.

SIR,

To the Editor of the Anti-Jacobin Review and Magazine.

TN the Anti-Jacobin Review for February laft, a perfon, under the fenters have avowed principles unfavourable to Monarchy ?" Pray, does he not know that the principles of all Diffenters are democratical, and is not every democracy, to its dependents, a tyranny? Was there not a time when the Prefbyterians, being in power, not only deprived Clergymen of their benefices, but the laity alfo of their eftates?

Let this writer only read Dean Swift's arguments on this head, which are very applicable to the prefent times :-"The Sectaries,” fays the Dean, attempted the three moft infernal actions which could poffibly enter into the hearts of men, forfaken by God—which were, the murder of a moft pious King, the deftruction of the Monarchy, and the extirpation of the Church." Are these not facts-facts which ought never to be forgotten. Then, querywhether the Diffenters have ever, in a folemn maier, renounced any of thofe very principles upon which their predeceffors then acted? And whether any man, who is a fincere friend to his country, can, after cool reflection, with to fee a power placed again in the hands of fo reflefs-fo ambitious, and fo mercilefs a faction, which, under the mask of hypocrify, veils its diabolical defigns?

THE

Continued from VOL. 1.)

HE occafional writings inimical to the conftitution of our church and ftate, found powerful and fuccessful auxiliaries in certain periodical works of the times. The Monthly Review, infinitely fuperior then to contemporary publications, had procured a very extenfive circulation. The literary ability with which it was conducted ted many to overlook its tendency fo invariable as to imply intent. The juft and profound criticisms on great works of literature and fcience, gave a currency to partial and fuperficial accounts of temporary productions. Pleafed and inftructed by their analysis and review of the works of a Stewart, a Reid, a Gibbon, a Gillies, and a Robertson, readers too readily admitted their accounts of the ephemerous pamphlets, fermons, and tavern confissions of faith, oẾ fectarian republicans: at the fame time that the Monthly Review fupported anti-hierarchical do&trines, it countenanced the extravagant ideas of change in the state, derived from the writings of the three eminent republicans whom we before mentioned, it celebrated the praifes of the moft trifling pamphlets in favour of univerfal fuffrage, as the most profound effort of political philofopy. It quoted the moft plaufible puffages, gave a varnish to abfurd and pernicious doctrines, if for the fake of apparent impartiality it in the detail of its remarks mentioned defects, it mentioned them flightly, and took care to loofe fight of them in its general character. Sometimes the Reviewer would declare that a work of very hurtful principles, fentiments, and doctrines,* really did not meet his approbation, but would proceed to praife ftrongly particular parts, felect thofe moft animated, eloquent, and delufive, fo as to lead his implicit votaries to think highly of the book which he himself pretended to diflike; and, at any rate, to ftimulate their curiofity to perufe the work. If, on the other hand, a work made its appear. ance conducive to the prefervation of the exifting establishments, the Monthly Reviewer, inftead of examining the general scope of the doctrines and reafoning would try to find out fome particular defect, make that defect the principal fubject of criticifm, and to miflead fuperficial readers, (a numerous clafs,) as to make them reft their judgement of the work on that detached part of it, and induce them to pronounce a verdict on the moft garbled evidence, Sometimes it would change its mode and fpeak favourably of compofitions of an oppofite tendency, and unfavourably of thofe that maintained fimilar principles with itself. The praifes, in thofe inftances, were generally managed in one or two modes, it was either beftowed on fome fecondary conftituent, for inftance, on the literary merit of a work intended to be political; or withhold the praife, if di reted to the main object, until the circulation was fo well afcer

*As, for instance, Paine's Rights of Man, as we shall afterwards thew, REVIEWER.

tained as not to be affected by the Reviewer's criticifm. When it blamed writings of its own kidney, it was generally thofe that were not likely to be very ferviceable to the caufe. Thus Fielding reprefents a higgler as giving information against poor black George for one act of poaching, and fereening others, who were his good cuftomers, by repeated and perfevering efforts against the laws of their

country.

The Analytical and Annual Regifter laboured in the fame service with equal zeal, but much less addrefs and ability. The Analytical Reviewer proceeded much more openly and directly; every one could always fee what he aimed at. He poured out the most unqualifed praite on the moft extravagant, violent, and noxious writings. The Monthly made them read. The Analytical praifed the poifon, the Monthly made it fwallowed. The Analytical told us Paine's Rights of Man is one of the wifeft works that ever was written ; no, fays the Monthly, that will not go down; there are faults in Paine's works, but many a charming paffage there is in it; fays the Analytical let all men read Paine's works; fays the Monthly we do not advise you to read the book, but you will be delighted if you do.

The feeds of Jacobinifm fown by the herefiarchs, and carefully watered by the Reviewers, were now in blade, when their cultivations were led to hope for their fpecdy maturity from the French zevolution.

This great change was, at the commencement, admired by many Britons who were not Jacobins. They were delighted with the overthrow of a fyftem, fo contrary to that liberty which they enjoyed under their own institution, looking on it as a triumph of freedom over flavery in general, without attending to its appropriate features; many benevolent men rejoiced in the belief that another great nation was in the way to that happiness which they experienced under this nation. Some men of more profound investigation faw that the intellectual, moral, and religious principles, which marked the earliest stages of the French Revolution, were totally different from thofe prevalent in England. They allowed that the old government of France was, in many refpeéts, bad; but by no means concluded from thence that every change muft be good. In fact, they faw the contrary exemplified in the effects, as well as the principles, of the change in queftion. Candour mult allow that many men, even of contiderable talents, approved of the French revolution without being influenced by bad motives; It is, however, more ealy to difcuts the force or weakness of reafons than to inveftigate, at leaft to afcertain, the rectitude or pravity of motives. Thefe drew their conclufions from very partial, and fome from hypothetical premifes. And, therefore, furprizing that their judgement proved erroneous. Leading men in oppofition conceived that because the French revolution was a change from that fyitem, under which to expenfive and bloody wars had been carried on againt this country, one efect of it would be permanent peace. Although this was the opinion of a man of great ingenuity, it was not the inference of

wifdom,

wildom, reafoning from her only fure guide in matter of prac tice, conduct, and experience. Had he recollected hiftory, he mus have been convinced that freedom, inftead of diminishing, increases the warlike fpirit. Another caufe, which made the great man in question, his parliamentary followers, and political votaries, friendly to the revolution of France, was that they confidered it as fimilar to the revolution of England. This was an opinion which thewed a very fuperficial knowledge of the hiftory, circumfiances, and principles, (I will not prefume to fay of both, but) of that of France. Certain writers approved highly of the French revolution, not because they conceived it likely to produce fuch a government as that of Britain; that was not the object which they fought. Their writings, for many years, fhewed that what they held up as the model of political perfection, bore no refemblance to this conftitution. They had attacked its eftablishments, they had attacked its principles, they had taken their plans of polity from their own vitionary fancies, and not from experience. They conceived that the French doctrines coincided with their own ideas on the origin of civil and religious liberty, and the first principles of government. They opened in praiies of the new order of things. From them and their votaries, whether preachers, pamphleteers, club haranguers, or book-makers, came the firft fyftematic exertions in favour of the French revolution. Their own Reviewers moft readily and strongly praised their various literary efforts, however frivolous. Laudare parati fi rectum, &c. It was not to much the fuppofed attainment of liberty that they chiefly celebrated. It was the confifcation of property, the annihilation of nobility; robbery of the clergy, and de-batement of royalty. These were the objects which framed the principal themes of THEIR applaufe. They pretended to commend the change in France, on account of its refemblance to the revolution in England, although the fubjects of their most frequent, longest, and loudest praises were diametrically oppofite to any of the regula tions of 1688. As in England, property had not been confifcated, nobility had not been deftroyed; the clergy had not been plundered, and royalty had not been debafed. The clafs which I am now defcribing, appears to have confidered the French revolution much more profoundly than its parliamentary champions. It appeared, from the particular objects of their praife, that they faw in its principles and early effects, its probable confequences. The parlia mentary orators, praited it vaguely and generally for being like the "revolution of England. The heresiarchical fupporters praifed it for that which was not like our revolution, nor like any government, even the most democratical of antiquity. Conftitutional patriotic men, might take the ground of thofe orators merely from mifapprehending the cafe. No one could concur with Price and. Priefiley, without the adoption of principles totally unconftitutional, and, confequently, unpatriotic.

The votaries of the leading diffenters, and other republicans, either employed old clubs, or formed new, for the diffemination of their favourite notions. The pulpits and the taverns were jointly the fcenes of declamation in favour of the "Rights of Man."

The