abhor its principle; who, in every step he may take to render it successful, confirms the power of those by whom he is oppressed? Will foreign States seriously treat with him who has no prerogative of peace or war? No, not so much as in á single vote by himself or his Ministers, or by any one whom he can possibly influence. A state of contempt is not a state for a Prince: better get rid of him at once."

With regard to the consequences of degrading religion and the church, Mr. Burke is not less forcible; but he is less fortunate; for had the Revolution been upon wise principles in regard to establishing a good government, the creation of assignats, and the alienation of church property, would have served as the means to accomplish that end more effectually than any others. It is not necessary to prove, in a Protestant Country, where the experiment of a clergy, without landed property, has long since been tried with success, that we can doubt of the advantage that France would have received so far as the temporalities of the church went; but as to the degradation of religion itself, nothing could be either more unwise or more wicked. In all other countries, but more particularly in this, when we renounced the Church of Rome, it was to substitute the Reformed Protestant Church in its stead, a religion incompatible with the possession of those great temporalities. But the French had no plan of religion; their plan was, to abolish

what

what they had, and to let every man take his own wicked way; and the unfortunate notoriety of this experiment renders it totally unnecessary to enregister its result.

Mr. Burke wrote this excellent philippic. before the 10th of August, which was brought on by intriguers, who wished to destroy the constitution; but as it was necessary to act on public opinion for that purpose, the public brators told the mob and the groups, that universal suffrage was necessary; that a man, being a man, required no other qualification to be an active citizen, that is, to have a vote. In short the constitution was overturned with general consent of the people, on account of this very contradiction between the principle and the regulation.

Certainly Mr. Fox could not have recollected this, when he pronounced a high eulogium on the constitution some years after; for there is no possibility of reconciling the contradiction, and it is equally impossible to deny its reality. As the consequences were the reign of Robespiere and the universal representation, it is clear enough that to the Constitution of 1789 did the French owe the miseries that followed its fall, and the despotism under which they labour at the present day; that is to say, that into whatever error Mr. Burke fell in the form and shape which he gave to the miseries that would arise ⚫ from so ill-digested a system, he was perfectly right when he predicted misery and misfortune.

It is scarcely possible to read this without adverting to a Reform in our Parliament, so long talked of, and now more than ever insisted upon. The Reform of the 10th of August was what may be termed a radical Reform. Universal suffrage, and equal representation, were then put in practice; and surely never did any combination produce a more wretched, a more miserable, a more horrible result. The first Assembly, of which Mr. Burke speaks severe truths, was composed of Gentlemen, Philosophers, and men of principle and moderation, compared with the Convention. The Legislative Assembly, which had been elected according to the regulations which Mr. Burke has so justly criticised, was much worse than the first Assembly, but much better than the Convention. In fine, as the mode of election became nearer what those who aim at radical Reform demand, the elected Assembly became worse; and it would be very difficult for the imagination to conceive a body of men acting in a more atrocious and ruinous way, than did the National Assembly chosen in the end of 1792 by universal suffrage.

It is well to remark, that in Reform, on what is termed principle, THERE IS NO POINT TO STOP AT; for when principle is all, expediency and the fitness of things, as well as the lessons of experience, go for nothing. It was this system that Mr. Burke so much reprobated before the

fésult

result proved its baneful tendency, and that result was such as fully bears him out in all his invectives.

Mr. Burke saw that the French aimed at a Republic; but he did not see that they would be as little satisfied with any possible form that could be given as with the Constitution of 1789.

Mr. Arthur Young shews best the absurdity of the French mode of universal suffrage; and our Reformers in this country would do wisely, if they mean well, to read attentively what he says.They will then see, that Reform, once begun, will become radical whether Reformers will or not.

In discussing on the finances of France, Mr. Burke is less happy and less just, though the subject was by no means intricate; but then it is right to add, that Mr. Mackintosh, and his other opponents, were equally in error.

Mr. Burke saw nothing but plunder, robbery, and oppression. The others saw burthens lightened and the Fiscal Department improved, when the simple fact was merely this, that, so long as the assignats served the purpose of the revenue, there was a complete cessation of what ought properly to be termed the Financial System. By the assignats the Assembly brought over the army and the mob; by the assignats they coined the lands of the church, and the estates of those whom they had forced to emigrate, into money and transferred them to the jobbers, contractors, money brokers,

brokers, and new men, whom the Revolution had enriched.

The freedom from taxation was only a tempo. rary relief, as a small legacy may relieve a labouring men from a few weeks' toil. The Revolution could never have been effected as it was without the assignats; and it was evident to all thinking men, that when they could no longer supply the place of money, the burthens of the people would return with double weight.

When the assignats were first created, it was on the pretence of paying the creditors of the State, by seizing on the lands of the church. This, Mr. Burke says, was unjust; this Mr. Mackintosh vidicates: but the Revolutionists have saved us now the trouble of discussing that question, for the creditors of the State were never paid, and the assignats were employed to replace, for a time, the taxes that disorder had abolished, and to enable the leaders of Revolution to carry on their projects.

Before the King and Royal Family were forced to reside in Paris, the distress for money was extremely great. The Revolution was nearly at a stand; but, when the Sovereign became a prisoner, the Assembly ruled the mob, serving sometimes as a tipstaff, and not unfrequently acting as a master; then the assignats were decried, and, like a brook that had nearly become dry, after the bursting of a water-spout in its vicinity, the Revolutionists