SECRET HISTORY, &c.

INTRODUCTION.

WHEN I undertook the task of writing the Secret History of the Cabinet of Bonaparte, the object I had principally in view, was the discussion of the grand question, WHETHER GREAT BRITAIN CAN EVER BE AT PEACE WITH THE PRESENT RULER OF FRANCE?

In the present state of Europe, this is a most important question. The different nations of the Continent have lost their independence; either their sovereigns have been reduced by this man to a state of vassalage, or, they have received new masters of his appointment, and subservient to his nod, and whom he may remove at his pleasure. It ought not to surprise any man, who attends to the progress of events, within the last seven years, that not only the old sovereigns, who, from temporary political motives, have been permitted to retain the shadow of their sceptres, but those newly created, should all sink into annihilation, when the despot shall think it convenient to put such his determination into execution.

The well-directed efforts of the united kingdoms can alone avert this direful calamity to the human

B

race: the independence of these islands themselves depends on those efforts. Do they wish to retain their independence? If they do, can they ever make peace with Napoleon Bonaparte?

Previous to the discussion of this question, it will be necessary to take a cursory review of the French Revolution: a Revolution which will not soon be effaced from the memory of man, and which will long, very long, have an influence on the destinies of this part of the globe, perhaps in its consequences, over those of the whole human race-we can trace its origin, we have witnessed its progress, and some of its effects, but the final consequences will not be seen for centuries to come. Were even the whole race of Frenchmen extinct, the troubles they have caused would be felt in distant ages.Their crimes can never be forgotten.

At Naples, we contemplate the ruins of Herculaneum; Lisbon is built on the ruins of a former city of that name. These circumstances will never be forgotten, while the page of history remains; and the revolutions of states are equally permanent with the convulsions of nature.

It has been the opinion of some, that the progress and propagation of knowledge brought about the Revolution of France, whilst others have asserted, that it was produced by the disorder of her finances. A long residence in that country, however, and an intimate acquaintance with the main springs of that Revolution, make me dissent from those favour

able opinions. The result of my observation and experience has been, that it was nothing else than ambition in a few individuals, and a thirst for plunder in a more numerous class of men, who had themselves nothing to lose in the convulsions of the state. Sieyes, conversing on the cause of that vicious Rebellion, honestly said, "Ce n'était que l'Antichambre qui a voulu entrer au Salon!!!" which, in plain English means, that the servant wanted to get his master's place.

That the philosophers, or those men known in France by the appellation of Encyclopediasts, greatly contributed towards the destruction of the ancien Régime, cannot be denied. cannot be denied. It answered their views in every respect; but it must not be inferred from this, that knowledge was, or still is so general in France, as that the people at large could or can ascertain the preference to be given to this or that particular form of government. The mass were deluded by these Savans; the most conspicuous of the latter had neither honour, morality, religion, nor property. I shall mention only a few of the most conspicuous, beginning with

D'Alembert, who was a foundling, and who took his name from a gentleman, at whose door he was left when an infant. He was from that time taken care of by that same gentleman. When he became the great man, a woman called upon him, and declared herself to be his mother. D'Alembert very properly told her, that if she was unnatural

enough to desert her infant, he would leave her to her fate, and turned her out of doors.

Diderot was the son of a cutler, a very immoral man, and the author of a most licentious publication in four octavo volumes, entitled Le Compère Matthieu, and several obscene works, such as La Réligieuse, Le Bijou enchanté, &c. &c.

Rousseau was known by every body in France to be the worst of men in his infamous Confessions he not only makes a merit of having sent his children to the foundling, but exulted even at not knowing what became of them *.

Voltaire, the grand master of the literary Sanhedrin, I believe, was never accused of having either religion, honour, or morality. His printed correspondence with his fellow Encyclopediasts discloses his design, and shews with what frivolity he treated the most essential points which constitute the happiness of society.

Helvetius was a physician, a well meaning man, but an enthusiast!

The Abbé Morellet, still living, is a very profligate man, according to Voltaire's account of him, which is to be seen in his letters to D'Alembert. This Mr. Morellet was attacked about two years ago in a French newspaper, called Le Journal de

ROUSSEAU's character is not very well known in England. I refer the English reader to DIDEROT's work, entitled "Essai sur les Règnes de Claude et Néron," in which a true portrait is given of that "Ours Literaire."

L'Empire, and accused of a robbery in his diocese, before the Revolution, and other infamous acts, which the Journalist extracted from several printed memoirs of different persons, published at that time.

Suard is still living; he is one of the perpetual Secretaries of the National Institute, and till very lately was the proprietor of the Publiciste, and was a spy of the Police before the Revolution, in the time of Mr. Le Noir, but quitted that station when he became one of the Editors of the Encyclopedia, jointly with the persons above-named.

Such were some of the leading men, who sowed the seeds of subversion political and moral, and who were the cause of the hideous disorganization which followed.

Statesmen and experienced administrators were to be supplanted by Philosophers and Theorists, who wished to trifle with the happiness of the people by new experiments.

The celebrated Montesquieu, it seems, guessed the views of his colleagues of the Académie Fran

The great Frederick of Prussia frequently said, that "if "he should at any time be disposed to punish the people of "any of his provinces, he would send a philosopher to govern "them."-The woeful experience of Europe gained by the French Revolution proves that he was well acquainted with the administrative talents of men of that description. To this just observation of Frederick, I must add that of a celebrated modern French Writer, who says, "Pour moi, lorsque je dis "Philosophic du 18 Siècle, j'entends tout ce qui est faux en "morale, en législation, et en politique."