which he recommends or executes in the name of his Majefty, the author of this letter pursues a ftrictly conftitutional line in confidering the declarations, to which he refers, as the acts of the minister of the crown: but he departs from both the letter and the fpirit of the conftitution, when he imputes wrong, which he certainly does by implication, to the chief magiftrate himself; whom the law declares to be incapable of doing wrong, and thus fhields the royal perfon, for the purpose of annexing a more ferious and awful refponfibility to the office of his minitters. Nothing can be more cutting than irony conveyed in terms of affected respect; it is what the French emphatically call cafer le nez à coups d'ençenfoir. A king, who adopts contradictory meafures in compliance with the advice of his minifters, fhews, it is true, that he is not either obstinate or felf-opiniated: but he fhews, at the fame time, that he has not judgment enough to difcover the contradiction, and to avoid the labyrinth, into which his advifers would lead him; nor fpirit enough to difmifs the minifters who would injure the reputation of his government, by involving him in engagements abfolutely incompatible with each other; confequently fuch as, on the one hand, it would be impoffible for him to fulfil; and fuch as, on the other, he could not break without difcredit.

Such is the fituation in which the writer of this letter places the great perfonage to whom it is addreffed; a fituation by no means calculated to conciliate that refpect which ought to be infeparable from the perfon of a chief magiftrate, and without which it would be difficult for him to establish an efficient government in the country.

The author finds contradictions in the different declarations published by minifters in the Gazettes of the 29th of October and 24th of December, 1793; one of which is faid to have pledged the public faith of England to the inhabitants of Toulon for the fupport of the conftitution of 1789; while another, addreffed to the French nation. at large, is completely filent with respect to that conftitution, inviting the people to reftore hereditary monarchy, and to wait for times of tranquillity and peace to confider in what manner, and to what degree, it would be expedient to limit it. The former spoke of a monarchy, the boundaries of which were already afcertained; the latter, of one to be limited at a future day. It appears that this latter declaration was announced to the people of Toulon by General O'Hara : but it does not appear that they prefented any remonstrance against it, nor complained that it violated the engagements which Lord Hood had contracted with them in the name of the British government. If the two declarations were as contradictory as the writer defcribes them, minifters, may confider the evacuation of Toulon as a fortunate event for themfelves at leaft; fince it relieved them from embarraffment, by cancelling an agreement that they could not perform without breaking through another, which they had concerted with different members of the prefent confederacy against France, and which they held out to the people of that country as a pledge of British faith,

For our part, we moft fincerely deplore the fate of the Toulonefe whom our admiral did not carry off; and we think that Lord Hood is engaged to prove that nothing in his power was omitted to preferve them from the fury of their enraged and victorious countrymen, either

by

by removing them from Toulon, or by ftipulating with the conquerors, before his departure, for their impunity:—but we do not think, with the letter writer, that he was bound to restore to them, or to France, the fhips, &c. which had been committed to him in trust for Louis XVII.; nor that fetting them on fire was a violation of the engagement contracted by England on that occafion: on the contrary, it rather appears that the fpirit of it was fulfilled by the measure which prevented the enemies of Louis XVII. from gaining an acceffion of ftrength that would render them still more formidable to him.

The author is certainly right when he fays that, with respect to Pruffia at leaft, the war in which France is engaged is defenfive on ber fide: but he is wrong, both in point of fact and of principle, when he reprefents the King of Sardinia as an aggreffor in the war. He fays that Monf. de Semonville, who was fent to notify to that monarch the eftablishment of the conftitution of 1789, was fopped on the frontiers, and thrown into prifon among felons; where he remained three days, while a meffenger was dispatched to the court of Turin for further orders: thefe orders arrived, and were, that he fhould be fet at liberty, and that he fhould quit the country immediately.' The true state of the cafe was this: The King of Sardinia had acknowleged the conftitution of 1789, and was willing to receive an ambaffador from France, but objected to the individual who was invested with that character; the King faid that he would admit any other man, but he never would receive Monf. de Semonville, because, where he refided last in a public character, he had endeavoured to excite the people to rise against their government. This was fignified to Monf. de Semonville, who was defired not to proceed to Turin; he difregarded this injunction, and fet out for that capital. The officers of the Sardinian monarch arrested him, when they found him in the act of refifting the orders of their fovereign. The law of nations recognizes the right of a flate to urge a perfonal objection to a minifter, and to refuse to receive in a public character the perfon against whom the objection lies. The court of St. James's exercifed this right fome years ago, when the King of Spain propofed to fend Gen. Count O'Reilly as his ambaffador to London. The King of England did not chufe to receive, as the reprefentative of a foreign power, a gentleman who was born his own fubject: the court of Madrid admitted the objection, and another perfon was fent. When France perfevered in forcing Monf. de Semonville on the court of Turin, it was The who violated the law of nations, and not the King of Sardinia, who imprisoned, and afterward banished from his dominions, a man who difputed his authority within his own territory. If these be the only grounds on which the charge of aggreffion on the part of that Prince can be established, and the author has not urged any other, it muft neceffarily fall to the ground.

The writer is in fome inftances very incorrect; he calls the British minister to the Swifs Cantons, Lord Edward Fitzgerald; though that young nobleman has been difmiffed from his Majesty's fervice, becaufe, it is faid, he profeffed democratical principles; it is his brother, Lord Robert Fitzgerald, who is the King's reprefentative in

Swifferland.

Swifferland. The treaty of Pilnitz is called the treaty of Padua; the author mistaking, for the former, that which is generally called by the French, Le circulaire de Padoue-a circular letter written by the Emperor Leopold to the different courts of Europe, and dated at Padua in Italy. In the article of this treaty refpecting Spain, it is faid, His Majefty the King of Spain fhall have Rouffillon and Berne.” This may be an error of the prefs; it should be Bearn, a province in the fouth-west of France, bordering on Spain.-Berne is one of the cantons of Swifferland.

The author of this letter writes forcibly, but he is cold and phlegmatic; he does not warm his readers; he foars not to the manliness of bold fatire, nor does he rife fuperior to a fneer.

Art. 26. A fhort Review of the principal Events of the Campaign 1793. 8vo. PP. 34. Is. Owen. 1794.

We have here little more than a chronological table of the events of the last campaign, in which the fucceffes and loffes of the allies appear to be ftated with accuracy and fairness. The object of the compiler is to fhew that the fortune of war has been fo far favourable to us, that we have gained confiderably more than we have loft during the period in queftion. The acquifition of Tobago, of part of St. Domingo, Miquelon, and St. Pierre, (all nurseries of feamen,) taken by us in the West, and all the French fettlements in the East, the deftruction of forty-five French fhips of war, nineteen of which were of the line, (but fome of which, by the bye, never fell into our hands,) he describes as advantages furpaffing any which we could have expected from the moft fuccefsful war, in as much as they deprive the French of more than one-half of their means of training up men to the fea, and confequently leave us in poffeffion of an extended and undisturbed commerce. He adds fome reflections to prove that we were bounden by intereft, had treaties and national faith been out of the queftion, to defend Holland; and that, while the French continue to profefs the principles which have hitherto governed their conduct, it would be abfurd in us to expect any fecurity from them for the faithful obfervance of any articles of peace. The ftyle and candor of the writer are entitled to commendation.

Art. 27. A feasonable Publication, in Two Parts. By the Rev. Richard Tapprell. 4to. pp. 48. 25. Dilly.

The firft part of this pamphlet contains Obfervations on the origin of government, and on the advantages of a wife and good government;-thefe advantages are fhewn by a short contrast between good government and a ftate of anarchy on the one hand, and tyranny on the other; reafons are urged against what is called a state of natural liberty; with an encomium on the English conftitution.-Some of the duties of fubjects to their lawful fovereign.'

The fecond part contains, First, reafons for a revolution in France. Secondly, reafons against fuch a revolution in England.'

The first part was delivered as a fermon from Jer. xviii. 6. on the day of thanksgiving for his prefent Majefty's recovery;-the fecond is wholly new. Both are introduced by an addrefs to Mr. Pitt, in which the writer profefies his loyalty, and at the fame time, with

modelly

modefty and firmnefs, urges that fome more equitable mode of conduct may be adopted refpecting proteftant diffenters.

Mr. Tapprell writes like a plain, fenfible, honeft man, and difcovers both reading and learning. Every impartial reader, though. he should not always affent to his ideas, will be pleased with that air of candor and fimplicity, integrity and piety, which thefe pages manifeft. While Mr. T. applauds and rejoices in the benefits of the English constitution, he does not deny its defects. While he approves of the original French revolution, and is convinced of its neceflity, he deplores the evils with which it has been attended, and the horrid ext ceffes which have been committed. He warns his countrymen against rash attempts at revolution. He flatters himself that the eye of common fenfe will immediately discover, that the general state of things in the two nations is exceedingly diffimilar; if France wanted medit cine, that is no reafon why England fhould take poifon.'-The reader of this pamphlet will be agreeably amufed, and will have no reafon to think that his time has been mifemployed.

Art. 28. An Address delivered at a Meeting of the Magiftrates, Clergy, Merchants, and other Inhabitants of Wisbech and its Neighbourhood, Dec. 19, 1792. By Oglethorpe Wainman, M.D. Published by the unanimous Defire of the Meeting. Svo. Wisbech, printed by John White. 1793..

It appears, from this small tract, that the meeting mentioned in the title was numerously attended by perfons of all ranks and defcriptions. Dr.W. therefore very properly embraced the favourable opportunity for the delivery of a speech fraught with fentiments of loyalty, and animated by a becoming zeal for the prefervation of our conftitution, and for the fecurity of our prefent government.-Perfons of all degrees of influence, and of property, are here very earneftly exhorted to exert their utmost abilities, of every kind, againit the enemies of our country, foreign and domestic.

Art. 29. A Propofal to the Ladies of Great Britain, respectfully offered. 4to. IS. Printed at Bath; Robinfons, London. 1794.

The propofal is that the ladies fhould raise a subscription for the affiftance of government in the war against France. To induce his fair readers to carry this advice into immediate execution, the loyal propofer endeavours to inflame their zeal by an animated though fomewhat flighty invective, (we had almoft said, a Philippic oration,) against the French, and against thofe of our own country who recommend peace with thofe Monsters,' &c. &c.-treating all, who are in oppofition to the measures of our present adminiftiation, with the worlt language that Abufe can furnish.

To manifeft his own zeal in the cause which he fo eagerly pleads, the philanthropic propofer makes the following declaration: Saoner than fue for peace, or even accept it by thofe apoftates, I had rather behold the city of London razed to the level of the earth; and a pile made of every thing valuable in it;' [how VAST and RICH that pile!] when blazing, fee the inhabitants, with myfelf, rufh into the flames, rather than deny our God or our King, or fubmit to the mifery of prolonging an exiftence under tyranny the most com

plete,

plete, and fubjection the moft abject; which would inevitably follow admitting a fyftem of republican government.'

What true-born Englishwoman, after reading the foregoing "fpirit-firring" lines, (which, the writer affures us, contain the ⚫ fentiments of one who is not apt to be led away by INTEMPERATE HEAT,') will for a moment delay her subscription?

AFFAIRS OF FRANCE.

Art. 30. Original Correfpondence between Generals Dumourier, Miranda, Pache, and Beurnonville, Minifters of War, fince January 1793. Including the Orders of General Dumourier to General Miranda, from the Invasion of Holland to the Overthrow of the French after the Battle of Nerwidden. Tranflated from the French published by General Miranda. 8vo. 3s. Owen.

This correfpondence, which commences on January 5th, 1793, concludes with fome particulars relative to the defeat of the French in the actions of March 18th, &c. and the fubfequent movements, continued to the 24th of the fame month. All the letters relate to the plans and manoeuvres for profecuting the campaign. Thofe of Miranda feem to manifeft the abilities and prudence of that officer; while thofe of Dumourier ferve to confirm the general opinion of the enterprizing fpirit, but flighty and random conduct, of that commander in chief: whofe victory at Jemmappe has been much tarnished by his fubfequent measures.

It appears that General Miranda published this correspondence to pave the way for his defence at his fubfequent trial; when, if we are rightly informed, he was acquitted;-much to the fatisfaction of his military affociates, who were beft acquainted with the merit of his conduct as a general officer.

Art. 31. Hints; or, a fhort Account of the principal Movers of the French Revolution. 8vo. Is. Egerton.

The only merit of this pamphlet confifts in its being a record of the principal perfons who have ftrutted and fretted their hour on the ftage of revolution. For the reft, it is but a meagre repetition of the common reports and vulgar abufe of the times; in which Frenchmen and monsters are fynonymous terms:-but this is John Bull's way; when John quarrels, he is always foul-mouth'd: yet, when it comes to hard knocks, John is not an ungenerous adverfary; he always fights fair.

AMERICA:

Art. 32. A Cafe decided in the Supreme Court of the United States, in February 1793. In which is difcuffed the Queftion," Whether a State be liable to be fued by a private Citizen of another State?" 8vo. pp. 120. 2s. 6d. Philadelphia, Dobfon: London, Dilly.

1793.

The court intimated a defire that the four following points should be confidered in the prefent queftion:

1. Can the State of Georgia, being one of the United States of America, be made a party-defendant in any cafe, in the Supreme Court of the United States, at the fuit of a private citizen, even although he himself is, and his teftator was, a citizen of the State of South Carolina ?