fidential intercourfe with the Directory, and their communication had been almost entirely upon fubjects of a political nature:---If, I say, Sir, fuch had been the teftimony in favour of France, given with all folemnity of an oath, by the great perfonages to whom I have referred. I fhould yet be willing to allow fome credit to their affeveration, if they were now to come forward and tell us, that the circumftances of the conduct of France fince the time when this teftimony was given,---that, above all, the declarations and confeffion of France herfelf, had completely changed their opinion; had detected the fraud which had been practifed upon their judgement, and had convinced them of the profligacy, the atrocity, and the hypocrify of the Directory. "I fay, Sir, I fhould be willing to give full credit to this penitent retraction. I should be willing even to profit by their offers of future co-operation against France. Nor do I well fee on what ground the Honourable Gentlemen could reject fuch offers, unless they are prepared to argue (which if they are, on their own judgements be the refponfibility,I do not prefume to give any opinion for or against fuch a propofition,) that no man who has once been contaminated by the communion of French principles,---who has been drawn, however innocently or mistakenly, into an approbation and encouragement of perfons acting upon thefe principles,---can ever again be a found man.' "I, for my part, fhould in fuch a cafe incline to believe the recantation fincere, and to act upon it as fuch ;---unlefs, indeed, at the moment of making it the fame perfon were to fay to me, I do not, however, fo much difapprove French principles in themselves: I only doubt the propriety of their application."---Then, indeed, I admit, that I fhould diftruft him again as much as ever." The numberless acts of tyranny, oppreffion, and cruelty, perpetrated by the republican troops in different countries, are pourtrayed in nervous and elegant language. One mistake, however, occurs refpecting the town of Soleure in Switzerland, which fhould be corrected in a future edition. The magiftrates are stated to have been murdered by the French in cold blood, after the reduction of the place; but, though still greater enormities than this were committed in various parts of Switzerland, the fact, we believe, is, that none of the magiftrates of Soleure were put to death.. ART. XIV. Ode to Lord Nelfon on his Conqueft in Egypt. By Harmodius. 4to. Pp. 12. Price is. Egerton, London. 1798. THE THE Poet celebrates, at once, the martial feats of the BriAtish Hero, and the bleffings of peace; and expreffes a fervent with that the former may be productive of the latter. His His ftrains are neither deftitute of energy nor harmony, and the fpirit by which they were dictated is a spirit of meeknefs, benevolence, and humanity. We extract the concluding paffage in confirmation of our remarks. "But to that all-difpofing PowER, To whom in Conqueft's flattering hour, To his fupreme, celeftial throne Hafte, and with proftrate homage fue, ART. XV. British Public Characters.- SINCE Concluded from INCE writing the preceding part of this review, we understand that two of the chief authors are Dyer and Wakefield, both fo well known in the democratic literature of the times. These writers, however, have occafionally been favourable to conftitutional men; probably hoping, by apparent moderation, to conceal their principles and conduct, and fo procure a currency to the work. The account of Mr. Dundas profeffes to be laudatory, but the cloven foot appears. The character of this great man is without difcrimination. The writer allows the talents of the Secretary to be eminent, but does not mark their nature. He does not draw that acute and strong understanding, that "ready comprehenfion of the moft complicated details and intricate relations; inftantaneous perception of the cafe, application of the principle; decifion of refolution, and promptnefs of dispatch,*" which distinguish * See Dr. Biffet's character of Mr. Dundas, in the Life of Burke, F. 557. NO. VII. VOL. II. I this this illuftrious character. Having beftowed on Mr. Dundas's intellect unappropriate praife, the author very falfely imputes to him great corruption of principle; and, to fupport his allegation, he brings forward feveral charges totally unproved by . teftimony, and unfupported by the Secretary's general conduct. On the whole, this attempted sketch of Mr. Dundas is a paultry daub, very unworthy of the fubject in the ability of the execution; and, under the pretence of impartiality, a molt falfe and malignant account of his principles and actions: but as foolith as malignant, becaufe the falfehoods are fo grofs and palpable as to be liable to immediate detection. We trust that portraits of our ftatefimen will, ere long, be drawn by powers fitter to delineate the general and peculiar features of their minds; to illuftrate, by their counfels and actions, the talents and qualities of fuch heads and hearts. The ftrong comprehenfive intellect, and the felf-governing refolute, mind, of the venerable Thurlow, are very feebly pourtrayed. More juftice is done to his fteadinefs and integrity. There is a very ufelefs quotation of a paffage from Dr. Parr's Bellendenus, in which that erudite gentleman pours out the moft fcurrilous abufe, totally inapplicable to its object, in very elegant Latin. The article concerning Lord Monboddo is a moft barefaced plagiarifm from the Account of Living Authors, publifhed about a year ago. The character of Dr. Horfeley is drawn with more ability than most of the reft; and, though no facts are exhibited which were not well known before, yet thofe narrated are arranged with fo much judgement as to convey not an inadequate idea of that able and learned Prelate. A confiderable degree of juftice is alfo rendered to the genuine Chriftian fimplicity and primitive piety of that zealous promoter and exemplary pattern of pure religion-the Bishop of London. Dean Tucker fucceeds the amiable and worthy Porteus. The fketch of his hiftory, his commercial and political talents, is rather feeble than unlike the original: the lines, tho' faintly drawn, yet ftill are right." They befides contain nothing that is not known to every man acquainted with literary hiftory. Soon after Dr. Tucker, come two pairs of very heterogeneous portraits, Mr. King, the Comedian, and the Bishop of Durham; the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Peter Pindar. The account of the two Prelates is fo very' fuperficial as to convey only a moft vague idea of their characters. tketch of Dr. Moore is prefaced by an obfervation which, though true as to the Archbishop himfelf, is very far from The being juft in all the inftances quoted. "Some (fays the writer) of the ableft and beft Prelates of whom the Church of Engand has to boaft, originally arofe from very humble fituations in fociety." In exemplifying this remark, probably just, he cites the Archbishop Laud, whofe father was a weaver. Although very inimical to that puritanical fpirit which overthrew the church and ftate, we cannot allow more merit to its victims than they actually poffeffed. Though Anti-Jacobins, we will not hesitate to pronounce our opinion, that Laud, fo far from being one of the wifeft and best of our Prelates, was a weak, narrow-minded, intolerant bigot. This article we prefume to be written by fome lefs difcerning man than Dyer or Wakefield. The account of Peter Pindar is very trifling and fuperficial, evidently the work of a writer unqualified to inveftigate the fatire of that poet, to appreciate its character, and eftimate its moral and political tendency. A critic of genius and learning would, on fuch a fubject, have viewed the nature and object of the poems, and compared them with the fatires of Horace, Juvenal, Swift, Pope, &c. enquired whether, in point of durability and importance of theme, force, and dexterity of execution, Pindar, in any degree, refembled the one or the other of thofe writers, and have tried to afcertain whether Peter's fame was likely to be temporary or permanent. The life of Dr. Watfon is pourtrayed with impartiality, but not ably. Such minds as Watfon's, and of feveral other fubjects of this work, are evidently beyond the depth of the writers. Thofe may be fit for fketching David Williams, Gilbert Wakefield, Dr. Towers, and Dr. Darwin, who are very inadequate to the tafk of exhibiting a Watfon, a Thurlow, a Dundas, a Fox, and a Pitt. The critical abilities, elegant literature, profeffional and general knowledge of the venerable Douglas, deferve a much abler painter than the author of the feeble daub over which the name of that Prelate is written. The obfervation which we have made concerning jejunity of fact, and inadequacy of powers, applies to the attempted exhibitions of the Earl of Clare, the Bishop of Worcester, Lord Duncan, Lord Nelfon, Marquis Cornwallis, and other illuftrious characters. The authors appear to know little but what every one knew before; and to be deficient in that vigour and comprehenfion of understanding, without which, though fupplied with abundance of materials, no writer can be competent to the task of appreciating and exhibiting characters. A certain clafs of fubjects has called forth from the authors greater induftry of enquiry than thofe of much fuperior talents talents and confequence. On these the writers have dwelt con amore. Mr. Dyer and Mr. Wakefield have, we understand, been the biographers of each other. The confequence of this is, as might be naturally expected, a fee-faw of compliment. The life of Wakefield occupies feventeen pages, while the Bishop of Salisbury's is comprifed in two! M George Dyer's is more moderate in its length, being not much longer than thofe of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and Mr. Dundas. According to his biographer, Mr. Wakefield is one of the first intellectual and moral characters of the prefent age. We believe Mr. Wakefield to be a very expert linguift, but we have feen none of his works which, by the ftrength of the reasoning, or profoundness of the philofophy, entitle him to rank very high as an intellectual character. We who, in the old ftyle of morals, include patriotifm in our lift of virtues, will not allow that a man who has uniformly endeavoured to represent our excellent Conftitution as a system of oppreffion and injuftice, and who has attempted to diffuade bis countrymen from oppofing an invafion, and an invasion by the most atheistical, profligate foe that ever fcourged mankind, can deserve to rank very high as a moral character. Whether the authors intend to apportion the length of their portraits to their conception of the utility of the fubjects to the CAUSE which they wish to ferve, it is impoffible for us to determine. We must confefs we could not avoid remarking that the greatest portion of the work is devoted to Gilbert Wakefield! excepting two other fubjects, Mr. Grate tan and Mr. Fox. Were, however, any readers to form the conclufion on the fubject which we do not attempt, they would find one fact militate against the probability of its juftnefs; a very short article is allowed to Dr. Priestley, who has certainly contributed more to the caufe than Wakefield either did, or, from his powers, could, or can, contribute. David Williams is not neglected. Indeed were we to judge of him through the medium of this work, instead of his writings and conduct, we should suppose this perfon to be a great, wife, and good man. There are not wanting, in the account of Mr. Williams, obfervations irrefragably juft. Having detailed his republican and anti-chriftian works and proceedings, the biographer fays, "his religious and political opinions, at length, connected him INTIMATELY WITH THE POPULAR PARTY in this country, and his celebrity recommended him to the notice of the GIRONDISTS in France, who invited him over to affift them in the formation of the Conftitution. He was intimately acquainted with BRISSOT." WE MUST HERE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE CONNECTION OF CAUSES |