that adjoins us-we shall not be destroyed by men of mean or fecondary capacities.

All these confiderations of party attachment, of perfonal regard and of perfonal admiration, rendered the author of the Reflections extremely cautious, left the flighteft fufpicion fhould arife of his having undertaken to exprefs the fentiments even of a fingle man of that defcription. His words at the outfet of his Reflections are thefe:

"In the first letter I had the honour to write to you, and which at length I fend, I wrote neither for, nor from any defcription of men; nor shall I "in this. My errors, if any, are my own. My repu-, "tation alone is to anfwer for them." In another place, he fays (p. 126.) " I have no man's proxy. I fpeak only from myself; when I disclaim, as I do, "with all poffible earneftnefs, all communion with "the actors in that triumph, or with the admirers of it. "When I affert any thing elfe, as concerning the people of England, I fpeak from obfervation, not from authority."

(6

To fay then, that the book did not contain the fentiments of their party, is not to contradict the author, or to clear them felves. If the party had denied his doctrines to be the current opinions of the majority in the nation, they would have put the queftion on its true iffue. There, I hope and believe, his cenfurers will find on the trial, that the author is as faithful a reprefentative of the general fentiment of the people of England, as any perfon amongst them can be of the ideas of his own party.

The French revolution can have no connexion with the objects of any parties in England formed before the period of that event, unless they choofe to imitate any of its acts, or to confolidate any principles of that revolution with their own opinions. The French revolution is no part of their original contract. The matter, ftanding by itself, is an open fubject Bb 2

of

of political difcuffion, like all the other revolutions (and there are many) which have been attempted or accomplished in our age. But if any confiderable number of British subjects, taking a factious intereft in the proceedings of France, begin publicly to incorporate themfelves for the fubverfion of nothing short of the whole conftitution of this kingdom, to incorporate themfelves for the utter overthrow of the body of its laws, civil and ecclefiaftical, and with them of the whole fyftem of its manners, in favour of the new conftitution, and of the modern ufages of the French nation, I think no party principle could bind the author not to exprefs his fentiments ftrongly Against fuch a faction. On the contrary, he was perhaps bound to mark his diffent, when the leaders of the party were daily going out of their way to make public declarations in parliament, which, notwithstanding the purity of their intentions, had a tendency to encourage ill-defigning men in their practices against our conftitution.

The members of this faction leave no doubt of the nature and the extent of the mifchief they mean to produce. They declare it openly and decifively. Their intentions are not left equivocal. They are put out of all difpute by the thanks which, formally and as it were officially, they iffue, in order to recommend, and to promote the circulation of the most atrocious and treafonable libels, againft all the hitherto cherished objects of the love and veneration of this people. Is it contrary to the duty of a good subject, to reprobate fuch proceedings? Is it alien to the office of a good member of parliament, when fuch practices encrease, and when the audacity of the conspirators grows with their impunity, to point out in his place their evil tendency to the happy conftitution which he is chofen to guard? Is it wrong in any fenfe, to render the people of England fenfible how much they muft fuffer if unfortunately fuch a wicked faction

fhould

fhould become poffeffed in this country of the fame power which their allies in the very next to us have fo perfidiously ufurped, and fo outrageoufly abused? Is it inhuman to prevent, if poffible, the fpilling of their blood, or imprudent to guard against the effufion of our own? Is it contrary to any of the honeft principles of party, or repugnant to any of the known duties of friendship for any fenator, refpectfully, and amicably, to caution his brother members against countenancing by inconfiderate expreffions a fort of proceeding which it is impoffible they fhould deliberately approve?

He had undertaken to demonftrate, by arguments which he thought could not be refuted, and by documents, which he was fure could not be denied, that no comparifon was to be made between the British government, and the French ufurpation. That they who endeavoured madly to compare them, were by no means making the comparison of one good fyftem with another good fyftem, which varied only in local and circumftantial differences; much lefs, that they were holding out to us a fuperior pattern of legal liberty, which we might fubftitute in the place of our old, and, as they defcribe it, fuperannuated conftitution. He meant to demonftrate, that the French scheme was not a comparative good, but a pofitive evil. That the queftion did not at all turn, as it had been ftated, on a parallel between a monarchy and a republic. He denied that the present scheme of things in France, did at all deferve the refpectable name of a republic: he had therefore no comparison between monarchies and republics to make.-That what was done in France was a wild attempt to methodize anarchy; to perpetuate and fix diforder. That it was a foul, impious, monftrous thing, wholly out of the courfe of moral nature, He undertook to prove, that it was generated in treachery, fraud, falfehood, hypoerify, and unprovoked murder.-He offered to

make

make out, that thofe who have led in that business, had conducted themfelves with the utmost perfidy to their colleagues in function, and with the most flagrant perjury both towards their king and their conftituents; to the one of whom the affembly had fworn fealty, "and to the other, when under no fort of violence or constraint, they had fworn a full obedience to inftructions. That by the terror of affaffination, they had driven away a very great number of the members, fo as to produce a falfe appearance of a majority.-That this fictitious majority had fabricated a conftitution, which, as now it ftands, is a tyranny far beyond any example that can be found in the civilized European world of our age; that therefore the lovers of it must be lovers, not of liberty, but, if they really understand its nature, of the leweft and bafeft of all fervitude.

He propofed to prove, that the prefent ftate of things in France is not a tranfient evil, productive, as fome have too favourably reprefented it, of a lafting good; but that the prefent evil is only the means of producing future, and (if that were poffible) worfe evils,

That it is not, an undigested, imperfect, and crude fchenie of liberty, which may gradually be mellowed and ripened into an orderly and focial freedom; but that it is fo fundamentally wrong, as to be utterly incapable of correcting itfelf by any length of time, or of being formed into any mode of polity, of which a member of the houfe of commons could publicly declare his approbation.

If it had been permitted to Mr. Burke, he would have fhewn diftinctly, and in detail, that what the affembly calling itself national, had held out as a large and liberal toleration, is in reality a cruel and infidious religious perfecution, infinitely more bitter t'han any which had been heard of within this century. That it had a feature in it worse than the old perfe

perfecutions. That the old perfecutors acted, or pretended to act, from zeal towards fome fyftem of piety and virtue: they gave ftrong preferences to their own; and if they drove people from one religion, they provided for them another, in which men might take refuge, and expect confolation.-That their new perfecution is not against a variety in confcience, but against all confcience. That it profeffes contempt towards its object, and whilft it treats all religion with fcorn, is not fo much as neutral about the modes; It unites the oppofite evils of intolerance and of indifference.

He could have proved, that it is fo far from rejecting tefts (as unaccountably had been afferted) that the affembly had imposed tests of a peculiar hardship, arifing from a cruel and premeditated pecuniary fraud; tefts against old principles, fanctioned by the laws, and binding upon the confcience.-That thefe tefts were not impofed as titles to fome new honour or fome new benefit, but to enable men to hold a poor compenfation for their legal eftates, of which they had been unjustly deprived; and, as they had before been reduced from affluence to indigence, fo on refufal to fwear against their confcience, they are now driven from indigence to famine, and treated with every pof fible degree of outrage, infult, and inhumanity.-That these tests, which their impofers well knew would not be taken, were intended for the very purpose of cheating their miserable victims out of the compenfation which the tyrannic impoftors of the affembly had previously and purposely rendered the public unable to pay. That thus their ultimate violence arofe from their original fraud.

He would have fhewn that the univerfal peace and concord amongst nations, which thefe common ene mies to mankind had held out with the fame fraudulent ends and pretences with which they had uniformly

con