After all these strictures on the very learned and lively Mr. Burke, we must confefs, that if there had been any rational ground of hope that fuch a confederation might be formed ast might crush at once the French republic, it might have been juftified by a regard to the peace, moft certainly to be preserved, by preferving the ufeful relations of the different ftates of Europe: for we hold Mr. Burke's reafoning on the fsubject of national, as well as individual vicinage, to be irrefragable. But the fragility of confederations, the compactive power of external preffure, over a wide kingdom and populous nation, the refources of France, the invincible fpirit of liberty, and, finally, the failure of the meditated confederate war, were loudly predicted, by word and by writing, by fenators of the first reputation, and by others, both in and out of parliament. It is therefore on the ground of political expediency or prudence, that the brighteft geniufes will find it difficult to vindicate the conduct of our prefent adminiftration. But this fubject is treated with greater powers than fuch as we can command, in a late publication, which forms the fubject of our next Article.

t

ART. XII. Utrum Horum? The Government, or the Country?

By D. O'Bryen. Fourth Edition. pp. 132. 8vo. 25.
brett. London, 1796.

De

MR. R. O'Brien, at his outfet, guards his reader against a mifconception of the fenfe in which he uses the term government. This he does not extend to our political conftitution, but restricts to adminiftration. None but a traitor to the

king, none but an enemy to his family, will blend his perfon, or mix his fate, with the fate of his minifters. I fhall feparate the royal authority from the crimes of the government; and, without once touching even the exterior of the conftitution, I fhall strive to convince my reader, as I am convinced < myself, that the falvation of the empire calls for the overthrow of the adminiftration; and that its future fecurity demands the punishment of the principals.'

In the profecution of this defign Mr. O'Brien fets himself to fhew, first, that the duration of the war is ruin, and that peace alone can save us; fecondly, that the best peace which can be rationally expected, from the prefent miniftry, would be a greater calamity than even a continuance of the war; thirdly, that the true policy and beft hope of the country will be, firft in a grand act of juftice, and finally in a courage worthy of its

ancient character.

• Future

Future ages,' fays Mr. O'Brien, will fcarcely credit the grofs impofitions that have been paffed upon the people by the authors of the war. Mr. Pitt, for four years, has uniformly given the House of Commons the pious and moral fatisfaction, that France was undone, regularly undone, upon each fucceffive loan! and they believed him. His information was fo correct, his calculations fo exact, he might have paffed for • Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Committe of Public Safety in the years 93 and 94-or Minifter of Contributions to the Directory in 95 and 96-fo detailed was his knowledge of the immediate ruin of France, from the ftate of her credit. The House of Commons waited, and waited, and waited, for ⚫ the promise of the oracle-and ruined France has brought Europe at her feet.'

The error into which Mr. Pitt was led by poor Sir John D'Ivernois and others, refpecting the failure of France, on the failure of the affignats, notwithstanding the clear demonftrations of M. de Calonne, and the reafoning of other writers, to the contrary, was no doubt the principal cause of continuing the war beyond the first and unfortunate campaign. Even Mr. Burke is now fatisfied that the affignat argument was fallacious: yet Mr. O'Brien propounds it as a fpeculation' (one of those cant or flang terms that have of late, crept into our language, chiefly from the ufage of political writers and members of parliament) perfectly confiftent with the characters of the minifter and of his parliament, for him to feast them again with one more banquet upon French ruin, and for them again to digeft, as, he fays, we fhall fee.'

Having contrafted the late acquifitions of France with the immenfe debt incurred by England, and her exclufions from the ports of France and the Mediterranean, he concludes, from a review of the whole ftate of the empire, that peace alone can fave us; which is the firft propofition in his argument.-In difcuffing the fecond, he is naturally led to examine the conduct of the British government towards the French revolution. The following pofitions he confiders as axioms: That the English government had but one of two courses to purfue upon the great event of the French revolution-either to oppose the freedom of France in the outlet with all its might, or to encourage it with cordiality.-And, that even a faithful neutrality would have been only negative wifdom; but that a treacherous

The ministry, in order to confole M. D'Ivernois under the mortification of a reiterated falfification of prediction, beftowed on him a handfome penfion, and the honour of knighthood.

7

• neutrality

neutrality was the most deftructive policy our government could poffibly adopt. Great diftrefs had been occafioned to Great Britain from the fyftematic ambition of the three laft kings of France; and danger, too, was to be apprehended from the establishment of liberty in a neighbouring, great, and commercial kingdom. If it had been the policy of miniftry even to take their chance with the old tyranny of France, they ought to have crushed, if they could, her new-born freedom.'-But, in Mr. O'Brien's opinion, the English go'vernment should have made a virtue of neceffity, and have furveyed the revolution with complacency, confidering that ⚫ event as a mere fubject of strict fpeculation: but that it was doubly their duty to adopt this courfe when, in truth, the first measures of emancipated France, confirmed it as the foundest practical wisdom.'

Our author, on this point, brings forward two very fstriking facts: ft. That the French, as the first fruit of their freedom, did folemnly proclaim, in the face of the world, as the fundamental principle of their new fyftem, never again to " wage a war of conqueft. adly. That Louis XVI. in con* fequence of the family compact, would have joined the • Spaniards in a war with England in 1790, about Nootka Sounds

but was réftrained by the national aflembly, which, on that occafion, abrogated the offenfive part of that compact, and • afterwards took away from the crown the ftupendous prerogative of making war. Of the further fincerity of the French upon this grand point, of never waging wars of ambition, there is no opportunity of judging, for they never had any fair play. The flagitious confpiracy of Pilnitz brought the gang of tyrants upon them; and those tyrants alone are answerable for the confequences.'

Mr. O'Brien fhews the impreffion made on the French National Affembly by the conduct and difpofitions of the Briti miniftry, whom they confider as barbarous in hoftility, and treacherous in neutrality.-Mr. O'Brien next confiders the effect of the minifter's fyftem on England: Immortal (he exclaims) be the difference between the perfons who affirm, that the true conftitution of England exifts at this moment, and those who have uniformly oppofed its innumerable adulterations by the prefent ministry; efpecially the two laws of the laft year!-What foreign nation is likely to entertain reipect for a country whofe adminiftration is at once a mischief to its interefts, and a reproach to its fpirit?What fort of a go•vernment is that which shall make peace with an enemy only to contend with its own people ?-Let any man read the late laws against liberty, obferve the barracks, liften to their own

fyftem,

fyftem, propounded by their own lips, and then judge for himfelf of the probable ftate of this country under a peace negociated by the prefent ministry.'

As to the grand act of justice recommended by our author, he would not ftrike at the life of the minifter, but fix on him fome mark of degradation, which fhould draw a bold line of diftinction between the prefent adminiftration and the effablished conftitution and government of the country; and produce in our enemies a fincere defire of bringing about a pe manent peace, on fair and liberal terms. Can any minifter do this great work? Is fuch a man to be found amongst us? Yes. A man whofe indifference about office is proverbial; whose whole life is a < demonstration of the most incorruptible integrity; whofe foul was never stained with the flightest tinge of avarice; and whofe glory it is to have lived in the conftant disfavour of a court, the fatal politics of which have brought on the greatest evils which any nation, that ever furvived its misfortunes, has fuffered-the whole, both in grofs and detail, in diametrical oppofition to the advice, and confirming, with the most extraordinary minutenefs, the reiterated but fruitless predictions of this very perfon.'-The character, education, and public conduct and fentiments of Mr. Fox, particularly towards France, are fet forth in glowing, yet faithful colours, by our author, at greater length, page 100-3. On the whole, Mr. O'Brien concludes, that this country has every thing to dread from the prefent administration, and every thing to hope from its opponents.'

Having given a much fuller analysis of this work than our limits afford to publications on political and temporary fubjects, we must endeavour to be very brief in our critical obfervations. Thefe, indeed, with regard to a work that does not pretend either to discovery in fcience, or to excellence as a compofition of art, are of no great importance. The reafoning of Mr. O'Brien is as intelligible to his readers as to profeffed critics.In our opinion, in the great and moft effential points for which he contends, he is right.-We have uniformly maintained, and still maintain, that the conduct of government, in the present unexampled war, has not been directed by any profound views or general principles of action, which, by fuppofing and com-, prehending, might give a degree of control over contingent circumftances and particular events.-Such are our fentiments, • Ideoque multos homines nobis advorfos habemus.' We cannot but agree with our author in the leading thought in his general conclufion: There is an eternal fidelity in principles. Civil government is a great machine, and when the grand fpring is

3

" falfe,

falfe, every other movement is confused and irregular. The "government began this bufine fs in the wrong, and can never finish it in the right.' Mr. Burke traces the hoftile aggreffions of France to a deliberate, and even long-premeditated train of ambition of conqueft in the republican politicians of France. The facts ftated by Mr. O'Brien feem, to us, to demonftrate the contrary. The philofophical and penetrating mind of Mr. Burke, if he had not been under the influence of prejudice, and even paffion, would have perceived, that, in the whole of the revolution, the French, faithful to their national character, have run from extreme to extreme. Formerly the most ardent of nations in religion, and in munificence to the church; now profelled atheifts formerly devoted to gallantry in war, loyalty, honour, and love; now murdering their king, affecting plebeianifm, defpifing the nobleft ingredients in love, and encouraging, in the female character, all manner of rudeness and brutality-and, analogically to this temper, rejecting extent of conqueft, the prime pursuit of their hateful kings, and pretending to a more glorious dominion; a dominion over the minds of men, by means of their fuperior attainments in philofophy.-It feems also very natural to suppose that Mr. Fox wo. be 4 proper minifter for negociating a peace, and the most proper that could be appointed. But on this queftion an appeal is, in fact, made to the French government; and we shall forbear all theory or conjecture. As to the apprehenfions entertained by our author of a deliberate and fyftematic design, on the part of administration, to fubvert the liberties of this country, we cannot think they are well founded. But what we think, or do not think, on affairs of ftate, is of no manner of importance in a literary Review-and, in our Appendix, we ftate the reafoning, pro and con, on all great questions, with perfect impartiality; giving to each the fame portion of space in our Review, and pledging our reputation for the ability and fincerity with which, in our commentaries, we state the adverfaria.

very

Mr. O'Brien is a clofe reafoner, and a very animated writer. His firft principles, or premises, may, fome of them, by fome be doubted. But grant these, and his reasoning is generally unexceptionable. We have taken frequent opportunities of declaring, that we hold all nicety and faftidiousness about words in contempt; and that, in our judgment, an old-fashioned, vulgar, and ftrange or uncouth term, will fometimes hit the nail on the head, and communicate the precife idea in question more happily than one of claffical livery. Yet we do not like to fee fo frequent a recurrence of the cant term, already noted, speculation, p. 10, p. 32, p. 102, &c.-As one great end of eloquence is to make an impreffion, and command attention, we ENG. REV. VOL. XXVIII. NOV. 1796.

Kk

make