superior to all tricks and expedients, which could venture on bold measures, conscious that even their errors would be pardoned, because men reposed the most unbounded confidence in their vigour, their capacity, and their intentions. With such a ministry there was to be no petty balancing and dividing of parties-no sacrifices to undue inAuence, either in the choice of commanders or in the direction of measures. Different patching coalitions of underlings had been tried, but in vain; at last, however, (the late King, being the first patriotically to sacrifice his personal feeling to the public good,) a grand coalition was formed, comprehending all the leading interests, all the leading talents; and that coalition lasted till it was overthrown, not by the discord of its own elements, but by the malignant influence of favouritism, by an influence which for the last forty years has been steadily opposed to all men of ability and natural weight, and which has been uniformly exerted in the protection of underlings, drivellers, minions, and sycophants.It is impossible to carry one's mind back to the Auctuating state of public councils, to the degraded state of the country, during the first period of the seven years' war, without thinking of the miserable state of the government of this country now; and yet, who would be so unjust to the memory of the dead, so faithless to the truth of history, as to compare the present drivellers with a ministry of which the powerful connexions and the sound judgment, diligence, and experience of the Duke of Newcastle, and the great abilities of Mr. Henry Fox, formed a part. Far less would any man compare the object, the nature, and the scale of the war in which we are now engaged against France, with a war carried on against the monarchy under a doating debauchee, governed by a profligate mistress. The novelty of the contest, indeed, is a matter of most serious consideration. England never beforewas engaged corps to corps with France as she is now, and this of itself, though it ought not to appal, ought to put us upon every effort to meet the untried danger. The Romans were cautious when they had to do with a new enemy. France, revolutionary France, aggrandized, republican France, is, indeed, a new enemy to EngJand. But shall we not fight France single handed, which, by the way, France is too wise to do, for she has Holland, and would have more if she could get them. Yes, to be sure! But is fighting France single handed a thing to be laughed at like a Har lequin's jest in the holidays? If we must

fight single handed, should we not call forth all our means, all our abilities, to equal the magnitude and novelty of the occasion Mr. Sheridan can tell Mr. Addington what sort of an enemy we have to contend with in Buonaparté. Let him read to ministers that brilliant and eloquent eulogy which he pronounced upon the First Consul of France, a few days after the vic tory of Marengo had consummated the ruin and degradation of Europe. They will there find, to sum up every thing in Mr. Sheri dan's quotation from Cicero, that Buonaparté is a man who, plures provincias confecit quam alii concupeverunt; cujus adolescentia ad scientiam rei militaris; non alienis præceptis, sed suis imperiis; non offenso melius belli, sed victoriis; non stipendiis, sed triumpbis est erudita. Buonaparté, indeed, at the head of all France, at the head of all which the event that inspired the panegyric have gained him, is a most formidable enemy. And who are those who oppose him? Mr. Addington, Mr. Bragge, Lord Hobart, with the rest of the present Cabinet! And in what camps or fields, in what commands or victories, or triumphs have they learnt to oppose so mighty a foe? Or rather, might we nct say, under what gowns and wigs, behind what desks and counters have such men learnt to defend an empire? How, in such eventful circumstances, can such presume to lay their hands upon the ark of "our magnificent and awful cause?" From such a responsibility, did not duty command wise men would shrink, if net with dismay, at least with sacred awe and discerning fear. Yet Mr. Addington, Mr. Bragge, and Lord Hobart, amidst so many wiser and abler, venture to stand forth as the leaders and rulers in a contest which involves the destinies of England -and of the civilized world. Whatever may have been the causes of this war, the consequences must be either to raise the British nation to an eminence great and glorious beyond example, or to decide our inferiority for ever. Even were a ministry formed of underlings, without any leading connexions, without parliamentary interest independent of the Treasury Bench, yet possessed of much greater abilities than their friends will claim for them, they could not act with vigour and effect in the present circumstances. Men, like the present ministry, have every thing to fear. They dare not venture upon any bold and strik ing enterprizes, because they dare not take the risk of bad success. They are so feeble and precarious that any puff of bad for tune would blow them down. They dare

not take upon themselves the responsibility of measures. Hence they keep the country in the present pining state in which there is no hope. We wait the attack to be sure, but if the enemy will not come, how are we to gain the victory-how are we to gain the war? A defeat would be preferable to this languishing state, because defeat would rouse our faculties, and prove the necessity of exerting all our mental and physical resources. At present what have we to hope bur from accident? We trust every thing to fortunes but do nothing to deserve her favour This, to wise and reflecting men, constitutes the greatest danger of our siruation. Fuit boc quondam fuit proprium Populi Romani longe à domo bellare, et propug-naculis imperii Sociorum fortunas non SUA TECTA DEPENDERE. Hannibal is indeed at our gates, but where is the Scipio to call shim back to Carthage? This is the fist war in which England was ever besieged so disgracefully. We have been often threatened with invasion, but the answer to the menace was to send our fleets and armies to gather laurels in every quarter of the globe on the Continent of Europe, in Asia, Africa and America. In those days the messengers of victory crowded every avenue to the metropolis. But now we boast and bluster, because we are not subdued. The whole cry of a stupid, gaping rabble, at the head of which are the ministrv, is, "Are "they come! Are they coming!" Gracious

God! and is this to fight France singlehanded? Is this giving a great and glorious bexample to Europe? Is this the path of renown, of honour, or of safety?——Amidst as disgusting and senseless contest of ribbaldry and reproach with our enemies, it is ia their power to render England the scorn ...and derision of Europe, unless England has a government with spirit and talent, to make France feel that it is dangerous to provoke the British nation. At present France has the whole plan and conduct of the war in her own hand. By no one act of war or & negotiation does she encounter a serious opposition from the British government. While Mr. Addington governs England, there is no coalition on the Continent to be feared by: Buonaparté. His undivided attention, his undivided means are given to our destruction. Mr. Addington is resolvred to fight France single handed, but he seems determined never to strike a blow. - Will Mr. Addington dare to undertake any :thing great? No-he must consult the people! He must wait for the public opinion before he initiates a measure, either legisla tive or administrative; and the mixed go

vernment of England is to be converted into the feeblest and most inefficient of all democracies, without form or freedom of daliberation; without energy in the administration, and with a man at the head of its affairs, who boasts, that in every measure he waits to make the people of England, the dupes, the partners, and the apologists of his imbecility. If the people of England indeed, can submit in torpid indifference to all this, the brains are out, and there should be an end of them at once.What is the remedy for this deplorable situation? the more deplorable, perhaps, that it is without any crisis, and may be, nay must be, without any till the moment of dissolution? We answer, bold, vigorous government, founded upon the union of all the talents fitted to serve the country, at this time of peril and difficulty. What! shall it be said that every measure of administration shall have the sanction of a Plebiscitum ? unheard of, abominable in this constitution! What! shall the spirit of the people, and nothing but the people, not in their assemblies, tribes, or centimes, but the people in an indefinable mass, and in the first resort, supply counsel to Ministers, Parliaments, and Kings? Shall the responsibility of a minister be destroyed by this monstrous kind of democracy? God forbid that we should undervalue the spirit and voice of the people, for whom all government exists. But let the opinion and the voice of the people be led to their true interests, by men in whom they confide; let the voice and opinion of the people, deter all bad men, and bad ministers, from doing, or advising, what is repugnant to their rights, their liberties, and their safety. But let not Mr. Addington make the dispersed mass of the people, the legislative and executive power in the first instance, to the overthrow of every thing in government that is rational in theory, and beneficial in practice.————We repeat then, however, that if we are not wise to prevent calamity by resorting to it, calamity will compel us to fly to a system of administration on a comprehensive basis. All the patching and turning of the underlings will not do. Even partial unions of men of greater reputation will not give that government, calculated to produce an undivided effort; that government, which conscious in its integrity and in its strength, will venture every thing for the safety of

FROM A CONTINENTAL OBSERVER.
Hamburgh, Nov. 10, 1803.

SIR, When you read my last letter, you may, perhaps, have supposed that some of the reflections which it contained, bore the marks of an influence foreign from that which I profess. In this, however, you would have been totally mistaken. I have no connexion, whatever, either direct or indirect, with those who are most interested in the subject which I have discussed. The situation of the affairs of Europe is, at this time, so particularly important, as to excite universal attention. Every country, and every individual has the right of being an observer, because all are interested in the great scene which is passing; and because the happiness of all depends, essentially, upon the decision of the present war. This right I have exercised in submitting to your consideration, my ideas upon some of the most important objects which are involved in the present state of Europe. They appcar to me to be conformable both to reason and justice; but if you should think them different, I can produce no authority to add to their weight. I will, however, beg a little further indulgence, while I examine, whether it would be proper to make any declarations to the people of France, relative to the future state of the internal government of that kingdom, in case the restoration of monarchy should be attempted, upon the plan of Inquisitor and, if it should be proper, what those declarations, ought to be? Relative to this subject there are four ways of proceeding

1. To make no declaration at all: 2. To declare that every thing shall remain in its present state: 3. To declare that every thing shall be immediately restored, as nearly as possible, to its former state and 4. To declare that certain of the revolutionary innovations shall remain, and that certain others shall be abolished.1. As to the first of these modes, it appears to me to be absolutely unreasonable. If this revolution had been an ordinary one, or such as most of its historians have represented it; if the renunciation of the monarchy had not been enforced for at least ten years; if the alterations and the changes of every sort had not been universal; it the system now existing in France, did not materially affect the happiness of mankind, and even the foundation of all society; then, it might be wise and politic to make no stipulations whatever, but to leave every thing to be determined between the monarch and his people. But, under the

present circumstances, every thing seems to require, that, if we really wish to prevail on the French to receive their king, some explanation should be given, generally, at least, of the principal consequences which will ensue from such a measure. If this be not done they may suspect that some snare is laid for them; and say, that, after what has happened to them, they cannot be too cautious in their engagements. But if, not withstanding, the project should be successful, that state of uncertainty would render the first measures of the government infi nitely more difficult; its progress would become wavering and precarious; and its intentions would be constantly misrepre sented, and its acts constantly calumniated In fact, it appears to me, when it is so dif ficult to gratify or even to conciliate so many opposite sentiments, to make no de claration or explanation on the subject, would be the most effectual means of ren dering every one dissatisfied.-2. Alı though many of the existing institutions of France, and the general inclination of the people are favourable to the principles of royalty; it is, nevertheless, certain that the present state of France is very different, in, deed, from that of a true and legitimate monarchy. The government seems to aim at the impracticable combination of all the freedom of a democratic republic, with all.. the vigour of an arbitrary dictatorship. This is the most effectual mode of keeping it consi stantly balancing between despotism and anarchy. The worst is, that not only everyo thing is changed, but that every thing is destroyed or subverted. A lawful monarch, if he were established in France, as shev now is, would find himself, in the midst of such incongruity, entirely out of his sphere. Usurpation takes advantage of every thing; and tyranny controls every thing. It could not be thus with a king; who ought to reign without violence, and whose justice alone ought to be dreaded. I can readily imagine that it may seem easier to declare. to the people of France, that all the effects of the resolution shall remain entire. This would be cutting the gordion knot, which ought, and indeed, which. I think, the ac tual state of things absolutely requires should be untied. Can we forget that it is the revolution which we affect to combat and shall we begin by abandoning to it all. its usurpations? We wish to re-establish a monarchy which has been destroyed by the revolution; and shall we surround in with revolutionary elements? In announcing the reign of justice and moderation, shall we introduce it by sanctioning violence and

iniquity? Dare we require the French people, not only to return to the sway of their lawful sovereign, but to confirm every thing which oppresses and degrades them? Certainly not.. That would only be placing Louis XVIII. at the head of the revolution, and would, if it were possible to be effected, contribute neither to the happiness of France nor the tranquility of Europe. If this be the course which is to be pursued, it would be better to abandon France 10 her fate, and to hold her purely and simply by the right of war. I am unacquainted with the intentions and dispositions of Louis XVIII. but, if I were in the situa tion of that prince, cruel and unfortunate as it is, I would never consent to such a negotiation; and if I were a Frenchman, I would never accept of terms so contradictory.But, perhaps, it may be asked whether those who proscribed the monarchy were not rebels; and whether those who rule in its stead are not rebels: whether those whose consent must now be obtained for the restoration of the king are not rebels; and whether, in order to satisfy and conciliate them, it will not be necessary to pass an act of oblivion for all that has been done, and, thus, provide for the future at the expense of the past? This reasoning is fallacious; because it is not from those who now wield the sword of authority, that the reinstatement of the monarch is to be obtained. Those must be foolish, indeed, who suppose that that could be done, on any terms whatever. But the mass of the people of France, who have already suffered, and who still suffer under the sway of the revolution, were never so essentially revolutionary as has been supposed, and are, now, still less anti-monarchical in their principles than ever. How can it be supposed that the French, harassed and disgusted with the revolution, and longing for their lawful king, would, willingly, see him return and sanction the revolution? No: the great body of the people look for no such monstrous association; and they would justly think, that for such a purpose, it would be unnecessary to change. It is by no means certain, they would say, that the govern ment, vicious and illegitimate as it is, may not fall into the hands of those who would be more moderate and less oppressive. its phases may not be so noxious. The present government condemns the Directory with the same justice as the Directory condemned the reign of terror; and another government may, perhaps, now be approaching, which will, in turn, acquire the sight of anathematizing the reign of the

All

Consuls. Can we then be unmindful of those immemorable crowds of Frenchmen, whose persons and whose fortunes have suffered so grievously from the revolution, and who are still the victims of its tyranny? They, most assuredly, are not the faithful and zealous partisans of republic anism. From these things, it is evident to me, that to assure the French people of the preservation of the fruits of the revo lution, after the reinstatement of the king, would be unwise, impolitic, and unjust.

3. The idea of making justice, thats supreme attribute of kings, uncontroled and unlimited justice, the suite of a returning monarch, and of re-establishing with the throne, all that was destroyed with it, is noble and consolatory. It would be sound policy to sweep from the surface of France every thing which history wishes to obliterate from its records. Nothing could be better than, with one hand to repress the spirit, and, with the other, to destroy the effects of revolution. But these are delusive reveries. None but the Omnipotent exercises this complete justice; and, although he suffers men to conceive the idea, he reserves the power for himself. We ought not, always, to wish for that which we can obrain. Summum jus, summa injuria. Justice, if carried too far, would producean overthrow, rather than a re-establishment; and we wish not to effect a counterrevolution, but a restoration.I therefore, think it, not only wise, but necessary, and even indispensable, that this third course should be rejected. 4. It would then seem most expedient to declare to the peo ple of France, that the return of the king should be signalized by the destruction of certain effects of the revolution; but that others should exist after the restoration, some provisionally, and some permanently. The selection would certainly be difficult : however, I will state my ideas on the subject.- -The present forms of government, at least in the executive departments, ought, I presume, to be preserved provisionally, as well as the army, and the taxes, which lat ter should, in the mean time, be levied with all possible gentleness. Every thing relating to religion, or rather to religious worship, ought to be exclusively under the direction of the prince; and should, therefore, I think, be passed over in silence. It might be well, however, to guarantee.toleration, the free exercise of their own modes of worship, and the royal protection to those Frenchmen who are not Catholics,

I have already explained myself rela-tive to the power of the king. On that

subject, I think nothing more need be said. The French rose in rebellion against their monarch: but they now return to their duty. The king has been proscribed by powerful factions; and royalty has been eclipsed. The French call back their king, and he returns I should think that every thing which the civil state of France, whether it relate to the clergy, or to the nobility, ought not to be mentioned. Trials by jury, in criminal cases, ought, I think, to be preserved. The laws both civil and criminal, might, provisionally, remain as they may be found; subject, however, to future revision. Both the conscription and the requisition should be absolutely abolished, as manifest infringements of personal liberty; together with the odious right which revolutionary governments have assumed, of placing any part of the kingdom in a state of siege.All other objects appear to me superfluous, except the question relative to confiscated property, called, by way of excellence, national property: this, I think, merits particular examination --Under this general head are comprehended three different sorts of property: 1, that of the prince, and of the princes of the blood royal, which I rank in the same class, inasmuch as, in default of nearer heirs, it reverts to the prince: 2, that of the clergy, the title of which is of a particular nature, and, notwithstanding the cavillings of the constituent assembly, not less valid: 3, that of the laity, usurped by various decrees, by the means of lists of emigration, and arbitrary imprisonments, decapitations, shootings, and drownings. According to different modes of thinking, some of these spoliations may, perhaps, appear more criminal than others; but all are culpable from the absolute disregard of right and justice, with which they have been made. They are contrary to the spirit of natural and christian morality, and to every principle of sound policy, and tend to destroy those general notions respecting property, which constitute the pivot of civil society, Had the French revolution no other stain than this, she would be for ever polluted. Conscience, always inflexible, is constantly revolting against the silence which has been attempted to impose. The endeavours which have been, so frequently made, by the different governments which have succeeded each other, to confirm the new possessors in the quiet enjoyment of their acquisitions, originate in the same motives as the proposition made to Louis XVIII. for the renunciation of the throne. I even suspect that those who govern, have, themselves, found the disgrace so great and

so public, that, when they had effected the revolution, they were strongly tempted, in order to establish it, to make some composition with some of the principal sufferers; with the hope that this partial act of justice would palliate it. But two things have prevented this. They thought to make confirmed and steadfast creatures of the new possessors by guaranteeing them in their acquisitions and they stood greatly in need of creatures. Besides, the treacherous baits, with which they allured those emigrants whom adversity had wearied and harassed, were so successful as to bring back the greatest part; and these it was more easy to op. press and controul than to restore them what they were entitled to.-Every wise government is, generally, extremely cautious in confiscating property. When it is once begun it is difficult to act rightly. The great basis of society, once removed, is not easily re-established. It may happen," when a country is revolutionized, that the ruling party will seize the wealth of the other; but this is only a temporary possession, and, in such a case, the termination of the war would restore the status quo antebellum. There are instances in which legitimate governments seize and confiscate the effects of certain disobedient or rebellious subjects, conformably to existing laws, and with the necessary formalities: but in such cases the crimes must be very great and incontestibly proved. Here, an illegitimate government, censured more than all others, by its successors, who were not less illegitimate, pretend, ed to have the right of confiscating for ever the wealth of those who opposed the hand raised for the usurpation of the lawful government, and for the overthrow of the religion and laws of their country, for the confusion of society, for the perpetration of the most shocking crimes, and for the exercise of every species of oppression. Upon this iniquitous pretext they took and kept the property of all; and the clergy, who cannot have been accused of bearing arins, were more completely robbed of their property than the prince, or the laity themselves. All this is, assuredly, irreconcilable with reason, justice, humanity, religion, and even with policy; and, while it remains, thus will it ever continue. And, I defy the most cunning French advocate, ever to justify, excuse, or even palliate such extraordinary spoliations.I cannot, however, suppose that England, where the laws of property are so well known and so highly respected, will ever be brought to sanction, among her neighbours, so dreadful an example of abo minable violation. That appears to me to