Why the wide domains of Ruffia? The reafon appears indeed to be very obvious. The principality of Piedmont, from its natural strength of fituation, prefented the greateft obftacles to the progress of the French armies into Italy, the country of all Europe at prefent the leaft capable of refiftance, when once an invader has defcended from the mountains into its plains, and at the fame time the best able to furnish an immediate and immenfe fupply of wealth from the spoils of the church. The plunder of Italy would give France the means of continuing the war against the rest of the world, and of keeping up the value of her affignats; while the poffeffion of the fea-ports of that vaft and valuable peninfula would fecure to the French the dominion of the Mediterranean and the Adriatic, and give them the complete monopoly of the Turkey or Levant trade. If he could have had any excufe for not addreffing the Turks, and exciting them to affert the rights of men, why did not the author addrefs his letter to the Venetians, in comparison with whom the Piedmontefe are the freest people on earth? The reason is obvious; Venice and France were on a footing of friendûlip; and that friend fhip, fo ufeful to the latter, was not to be hazarded. So much for the principle of this Letter: we will now fay fomething of its expediency. The phyfician who hears a patient's complaints, and removes them, is an ufeful and valuable member of fociety: but that phyfician ought to be confidered as a nuifance, who fhould endeavour to perfuade people that they were ill, though they had not confulted him, nor told him that they felt any pain. Such is precisely the cafe of Joel Barlow and the Piedmontefe. They have not, we believe, complained to him, nor asked his advice: but he goes to them unasked, and tells them that they are very ill indeed! that their fituation is truly deplorable! and that, if they do not follow his prescription, they are loft for ever! Is this, however, the conduct of a regular practitioner, or is it that of a mere empiric? Our readers may think that this author had more than ordinary grounds for his proceeding, and that proofs had been communicated to him of the wretched condition of this people:-but the truth is that he knew nothing of the matter, and that he affumes the whole cafe. His words are- I prefume in the first place, and I think I am not deceived, that you are difcontented with your prefent fituation. I believe you are convinced that you cannot be happy, as a people, while the powers of your government remain as they now are, as relative to the church, the ftate, and the army. If this be true, you must wifh for a change.-' Suppofe it fhould not be true, then it does not follow that they must wish for a change. How does Mr. B. know that they are not happy? but he finds it convenient to suppose that they are not; for it is only on that fuppofition that he could preterd to fpeak to them in the ftyle of his prefent letter. He ftates no remonfirance from magiftrates, judges, or corporations, enumerating public grievances, and calling for redrefs; he prefumes, however, that thofe grievances exift: why? Is it because they profefs a religion which he thinks erroneous, and they deem orthodox? Is it because they have a king, when he thinks monarchy a nuifance ? Is it because they have a clafs of men diftin guithed guifhed by hereditary titles, which they refpect, and which he thinks they ought to abolish? If in all these points it thould happen that they follow their own inclination, that very circumftauce conftitutes their happiness; and to attempt to force them to be happy, in a way not fuited to their inclination, would be to render them completely miserable. Invitum qui fervat idem facit occidenti. Happiness exifts in the imagination, which will not bear to be forced: like confidence, it muft fpring up fpontaneously. We could not be happy under the government of a prince whofe power was bounded only by his will; and yet we find vaft nations fubmitting without reluctance to fuch a sovereign; nay, we fee the most powerful of his fubjects kifs the bowftring with which they are about to be ftrangled. We could not find happiness in the roving life of thofe hordes of uncultivated men, who are ufually called favages, and who acknowlege no reftraint on their natural liberty: we are for civil and focial life: but there are whole. nations which would confider it as fupreme mifery to be obliged to partake of what we call the enjoyments of fociety, the felicity of domeftic intercourfe, and the comforts of a fixed habitation and a regular course of life. In our opinion, therefore, Mr. B. proceeds on weak grounds, when he prefumes that the Piedmontese must wish for a change, merely because they live, however quietly, under a form of government which never could be his choice. Having, however, laid it down as a certainty that they do wifh for a change, he difcuffes two important questions-It, Whether they are able to effect a revolution in their government; 2d, Whether fuch a measure would benefit them. It is needlefs to add here the refult of his difcuffion. Even Joel Barlow, who affects to write with precifion, can make ufe of ambiguous terms, and can build on them arguments which, according to the different meanings of thete terms, may be faid to be both true and falfe. An inftance of this occurs in what he says about Jovereigns: France has taught you a great practical truth, which is too confoling to be rejected, and too clear to be called in question, that you are the fovereigns in your own country; that you have not, that you cannot have a master, unless you choole to give up your reafon, and renounce the character of men; that for any man to call himself your fovereign is a blafphemy against God the fovereign of nature, and against men the proprietors of the earth.' The king of England is ftyled fovereign; nay the two houfes of parliament call him their fovereign; yet it is certain that in acts of legiflation they are co eftates with him, and perfectly equal in authority; and that legislatively he can do nothing without them: but, as the fupreme head of the executive power through all its departments, and as the hereditary reprefentative of the nation, he is the fuperior of every man individually who fits in parliament, and can by law lay claim to allegiance from all, and to the obedience of every individual to all lawful command. The abfolute fovereignty, however, is not in him; for there the fovereign power refides where the power of making laws is acknowleged and exercifed. Our Our author finds it fo eafy a task on the part of the Piedmontefe to effect a revolution in their government, and perceives fo many calls and incentives to it, that he changes his first queftion, and fays that the more natural queftion is, are they able to refift it? This latter queftion certainly has fo much more the advantage of the former, that it speaks out; and the clear meaning of it evidently is, can they refift the change which France wants to impofe on them?' To impoje on a free people, a jovereign people, who have an undoubted right to checje for themselves? Confidering the question whether a change of government would be a benefit to them, he tells them that their condition is fo bad, that it can scarcely be rendered worfe. Now, thould this happen to be news to them; fhould they compare their fituation with that of France, and deem their own truly enviable on a comparison; what would they fay of his opinion and his advice? Left they fhould think too unfavoura bly of the French revolution, he fays that they have been misinformed with respect to its nature and the events that have attended it; and that their religious teachers and political masters have an intereft in deceiving them. This prefumes that the French newspapers have never reached Turin; and that the people of that city could procure no other than garbled accounts of the tranfactions in France. We may be thought by fome to have treated Mr. Barlow with feverity: but we appeal to the good fenfe of mankind, whether we should not have run the risk of being thought infincere in our declarations of inviolable attachment to the British conftitution, nay downright prevaricators, were we to countenance the author of fuch a doctrine as the following, relative to one of the integral parts of the conftitution of our country. Mr. B. thus dogmatically decides on the nature of kingly government: This is the true ftate of the cafe. The whole of this war on the part of your monarch is maintained by deceiving you. Indeed the whole bufinefs of monarchy is deception; kings must govern by deception, as long as they govern at all; for it is impoffible for one man to tyrannife over a whole people, but by deceiving them. I have no particular diflike to your king, any more than to all others; he is probably no worse than kings in general. They hold an office that is perfectly ufelefs in fociety, and exceedingly deftructive to the peace and happiness of mankind. In this view they ought to be detested by every man, and rejected by every nation.' Such is his opinion of kings and of their office! This was certainly taking a bold flight: but he foon after foars fill higher, and, oppo. fing his own wildom to that of all the people of Europe, of every religion and of every government, he most authoritatively condemns the law of nations; which, without mincing matters, he ityles a fyitem of robbery and murder.' After this, who will venture to fay that our author has not raifed himself à la hauteur de la revolution? It would feem, however, that he is but ill qualified to write on this fubject; for it does not appear that he knows any thing more of the Jus Publicum, than merely what relates to fome politive compacts made for fecuring and guaranteeing conques. The The ftyle of this pamphlet is not inferior to that of the author's other works: but most unquestionably his arguments are weaker, and his fuppofitions ftill more groundless than those which we condemned in the fecond part of his Advice to the privileged orders. See Rev. Nov. CONVENTION and SEDITION BILLS. Art. 25. A Dialogue upon the two Bills now depending in Parliament, relative to the Rights of the People, tranfcribed by William Wilfon, Jafper's Brother. 8vo. Is. 6d. Owen. 1795. Thefe bills having, after uncommon oppofition, gone through the ordeal of parliamentary difcuffion, and received the conflitutional fiat, all debate on the fubject feems to have died a natural death. -- We hall, however, for the fatisfaction of fuch of our readers as may incline to take the principles and probable confequences of those extraordinary measures into farther confideration, flightly record the ap pearance of thofe publications on the fubject which have been laid before us, either prior to, or after the paffing of the bills in question. The firft production of this kind is the Dialogue above mentioned. Its general defign is to explode the bills, as being of a defpotic unconftitutional nature, inconfiftent with the rights of free-born Britons, and of evil tendency even towards the very government which they profess to fupport; and which they will, in the opinion of Jafper Wilfon's pretended brother, confiderably weaken, by increafing the number of its difcontented subjects. What reafon there may be for this apprehenfion, we cannot determine, till we have seen more of their operation on the public mind. tran We lay pretended brother of Jasper Wilfon, for we doubt the affinity here claimed with a writer of the first reputation. We always underflood that Jafper is an Englishman: but this gentleman (the fcriber' of a coffee-houfe converfation,) is evidently a North Briton, as appears from the Scotticifms in his language,—as will' for fhall, and fhall' for will; with a frequent recurrence of hatred AT' one thing, and hatred AT' another, till the ear of the English reader is quite difgufted. Yet, whatever defects of this kind are found in his performance, he appears to be a man of obfervation and good fenfe, and a zealous well-wisher to the conftitutional liberties of his country. He has fhewn, however, a want of judgment in one inftance, which we cannot avoid pointing out: p. 25, he remarks that the age of belief in divine infpiration is past among all men of common fenfe.' - However restricted, or applied, may be his meaning in this remark, fome readers will perhaps mifunderstand or misapply it; and not a few may be greatly offended on a religious account, who might not have had any great objection to his politics. Art. 26. Confiderations on Lord Grenville's and Mr. Pitt's Bills, concerning treafonable and feditious Practices, &c. By a Lover of Order. 8vo. 1s. 6d. Johnfon. This animated writer fets out with feveral preliminary remarks, which are moderate, candid, and judicious; he then difcuffes the irregularities profeffedly intended to be corrected by the bills, and expatiates on the importance and formidable appearance of the London Correfponding Society: comparing its principles and conduct with 3 thofe thofe of the Jacobins in France. He paffes a degree of cenfure on the political Lectures lately given in Beaufort Buildings; makes warm encomiums on the genuine principles of parliamentary reform; juftiy explodes all intemperate endeavours to carry thofe principles into. practice; and concludes thefe copious introductory obfervations with denouncing the Corresponding Society as a formidable machine, and the fyftem of political lecturing as a hot-bed perhaps too well adapted to purposes more or lefs fimilar to thofe of the Jacobin Society of Paris. He admits that the proceedings of fuch a fociety, and of fuch lecturers, deferve the attention of government; and he then proceeds to confider the fort of attention which wife statesmen in fuch cafes ought to employ. Thus far all feems to promife much in favour of the bills; which, however, are here, after a strict and ample fcrutiny, totally condemned, as in the highest degree unjuft, arbitrary, and dangerous.Farther than this conclufion we need not proceed in opening the defign and tendency of thefe Confiderations.' We therefore only add that the pamphlet is written with uncommon energy and animation;and that, en paffant, Bishop Horfley comes in, (as a favourer of def. potifm) for fome fmart and cutting strokes of this writer's keen, acute, and formidable pen. We understand that this production is attributed to Mr. Godwin, author of the well-known work on political justice. Art. 27. The Proceedings at the Meeting, 17th Nov. 1795, at St. 8vo. This pamphlet contains the account of a provincial meeting, called to oppofe the new measures, as above mentioned, and has no doubt great local circulation. It is admitted by the different fpeakers, that fedition is a proper object of prohibitory regulation. The word (derived à feorfum eundo) properly means a feparation of the people into two parts, for the purpose of reckoning their relative numbers. The feditious, the feparaters of the people, may be troublefome, particularly if the motive be flight: but, abftractedly speaking, can they be criminal, if fedition, as has been afferted, bears to politics the precife relation of herefy to religion? Art. 28. A Remonftrance in Favour of British Liberty, addreffed to the Right Hon. W. Pitt, First Lord of the Treasury, &c. By a Country Gentleman. 8vo. Is. Symonds. This country gentleman' employs warm declamation and fericus argument in fupport of the people's right of petitioning government for the redrefs of grievances, and of affembling for that purpose; to which right, he apprehends, the minifter whom he here addrefles is decidedly hoftile. He feems perfuaded that what he deems the late intringe. ment of thefe facred rights is but the first link of a chain, now actually forging, if not already forged, for the fhackling of British liberty; and he fears that the trial by jury, and the freedom of parliamentary In cenfuring both the bills, Lord Grenville's is ftigmatized as the worst of the two. debate, |