nicipalities, and fections; and from the declarations of many members of the Convention, taken from the Moniteur. The Convention projected a decree of guards for themselves, the 48 fections of Paris interfered, and, in the most arrogant terms, declared, they would suffer no such decree. On this fubject Mr. Young obferves, "Here Paris exprefsly declares to the Convention, that their decrees were wafte paper, till the people fanctioned them: fuch is perfonal representation; an affembly is fo elected, and the people no fooner poffefs fuch reprefentatives than, intoxicated with power, they declare their deputies things of straw, and their decrees null, till fanctioned by the people themselves! What a leffon to the friends of reform!" P. 11. The perfonal liberty or fecurity of France is dispatched, as our author remarks, in few words: THERE IS NO SUCH THING.' He gives proofs in the arbitrary modes of imprisonment and execution continually practifed at Paris: and particularly remarks a decree of the Convention, "That people arrested. "without warrant, or decree, fhould be removed into legal prifons after fifteen days, and then, on further inquiry, re"leafed." He adds, "And it merits great attention, that during this long period of the imprisonment of so many unhappy people, Paris was inceffantly convulfed, and every day "brought reafon to expect, that imprisonment and flaughter "would prove fynonimous terms.' P. 21. 66 The fecurity of property is happily illuftrated by the following fact: "In a parish in the Clermontois (Croté-le-Roy) the steward of a gentleman refiding at a distance, came to receive the rent of three confiderable farmers. He was told that the Convention had decreed equality, and that paying rent was the most unequal thing in the world; for it was a man who did much to receive a little, paying to one, who receiving much, did nothing at all. The fteward replied, that their joke might poffibly be good, but that he came not for wit but money; and money he must have: he was ordered inftantly to depart, or to ftay and be hanged. The proprietor demanded juftice, but in vain; the municipality was applied to: and the only refult was, that body (the veftry) ordering the farmers to yield up the land; they were taken poffeffion of by themselves in depofit redeemable for the nation; and actually divided in portions among the labouring poor, that is among themfelves." P. 25. The following question is alfo very well worthy of the confideration of farmers: "Let the farmers of this kingdom reprefent to themfelves a picture of what their fituation would be, if their labourers, their fer vants, and the paupers whom they fupport by poors-rates, were all armed, and, in fome measure regimented, and in poffeffion of the veftry, voting not only the money to be raised by rates but the divifion of it among themselves: decreeing what the price of all the farmer's products fhould be; what wages fhould be paid to fervants, and what pay to labourers. Under fuch a fyftem of government, I beg to afk, what fecurity would remain for a fingle fhilling in the pockets of those who are at present in a state of eafe and affluence? And whether fuch a tyranny would not be worfe than that of the moft determined defpotifm at present in Europe?" P. 27. Perfonal reprefentation, the fyftem eftablished in France, and defired by our reformers here, is thus explained and condemned by Mr. Young: "In any reprefentative government, if perfons only are reprefented, that is to fay, if a man without a fhilling deputes equally with another who has property, and if men in the former fituation are ten times more numerous than those in the latter; and if the reprefentatives fo chofen, fit for so short a time as to vote truly the wills of their conftituents, it follows, by direct confequence, that all the property of the fociety is at the mercy of those who poffefs nothing s and could theory have blundered fo ftupidly as to fuppofe for a moment that attack and plunder would not follow power in fuch hands; let it recur to France, for fact, to prove what reafon ought to have foreseen." P. 41. Perfonal reprefentation, it may be observed, is a convenient term to denote the indifcriminate diffufion of the right of voting, which makes the representatives depend upon the will of mere numbers. Its effects are thus further illustrated: "Perfonal reprefentation in cities must be apt to fall into the hands of a few of the most daring and profligate of the mob: of this we have an inftance, ftrangely remarkable in the case of Paris; in that city there are about 150,000 voters, yet the numbers who have been brought to vote have varied from 9,000 to 12,000; it is, therefore, evident that the mafs of the inhabitants, finding they could not vote freely and in fafety, would not vote at all. What a fatire is this on the univerfal fuffrage of the mob, who regulate the right of their neighbours voting, as they diftribute justice-by the pike." P. 47. Under the topic of the Rights of Man Mr. Young very pro perly adverts to the fate of that conftitution that was built on the declaration of them, obferving, that " as if every para"graph of the code had been formed only to be broken, practice "has torn the whole into fritters, or trampled it under feet "with a contempt it never experienced in any other country," P. 50. - On the fubject of equality, the following paffage feems to contain an answer to those who would perfuade us that its meaning had been mifreprefented by the adverfaries of that doctrine here. "The equal right of all citizens to equal laws, "was declared in the first conftitution, the new equality of the "convention therefore means fomething more.' Again: If "equality of rights were only in contemplation, why call the year 1792 the first year of equality? A clearer proof cannot be. "defired, that the equality of 1792 was not the equality of 1789; let the writers and fpeakers who affert the term in "the two points to mean the fame thing, reconcile the abfurdity if they are able." P. 50. 66 To the fpecious plea of reformers, that they only wish to make the commons what they purport to be, the reprefentatives of the people, Mr. Young thus replies: "I contend, in reply, that it is mere theory to suppose that the Houfe of Commons purports to be the reprefentatives of the people, if by reprefentation is meant choice. Being once chofen by the few, they reprefent the many. They purport to be nothing more than what they are; and they are nothing more than this-Men fitting in a fenate, and forming a third branch of the legislature, chofen by certain bodies, who, by the conftitution, have the privilege of electing them." P. 65. One chimerical notion feems to have infinuated itself into Mr. Young's mind at the time of compofing this tract, which is that of a militia, rank and file, of property:" mentioned in p. 99. This, if by it is meant an army compofed of men of property, privates and all, feems not only impracticable, but not defirable. Better ties than the awe of arms muft fecure property, or it will fall: and happily for us it is better fecured in this country. We cannot, however, take our leave of this author's performance without commending the spirit and ability with which he has offered to his country, not the pomp of eloquence, not the fport of words, but the plain and clear refult, drawn from experiment by obfervation and found reafon. The 2d edition of this publication contains feveral important augmentations judiciously incorporated into the body of the work an addition of eleven pages on the Question of War: and an appendix of eighteen pages, chiefly intended to illustrate the hiftorical fact, that the reprefentation of property, not of perfons, has been uniformly the object of our conftitution, in all periods. On the former fubject this paffage well deferves attention: Had the French contented themselves with the domeftic ar rangements rangements of their own government, what would have been our concern in their tranfactions? None. Nothing either in policy or pretence. Whether their edifice were philofophical, atheistical, or metaphyfical: whether their parliament affembled in one or two houfes; whether they purfued the rights or wrongs, of man, all were the fame to us; and accordingly our government, greatly to its honour, was a mere fpectator, not an indifferent fpectator, but rather friendly than otherwife. But when the new revolution of the Loth of Auguft brought other principles into play; when the republicans, who then mounted aloft in the ftorm of their own raising, proclaimed principles directly and hoftilely offenfive to the government of every country around them and in effect declared war against them, in the famous decree of fupport to all rebels who withed for French Freedom;—when these hoftile declarations were found to spring from the victories that attended their arms: when they were accompanied with the moft bufy, impudent, and intrufive interference in the parties and discontents of these kingdoms, and that in a tone and manner equally infidious and dangerous: when all these circumstances combined to fill our government with the utmost alarm, what epithet of condemnation would have been adequate to their demerit had they acted on any other plan than they purfued? It is not, war or no war? but war in 1793, or in 1796? War with an enemy powerfully attacked by others? or with the fame enemy after the have conquered others? fhall it be war in St. Domingo and Martinique, or in Ireland and Suffex?" P. 155. Mr. Young has apologized, in a fupplemental leaf, very fufficiently, for the errata that occur in both editions. Several of the new readings propofed are indeed more properly corrections of his own text, than of any errors of the prefs. The ftyle would undoubtedly admit of further improvements, in many parts; but the merit of the work depends not on style; its great characteristics are vigour of thought, and ftrong application of novel reafonings and undoubted facts to the circumftances most important to this country in the ftate of public affairs. For these it has been fought, and for thefe it will undoubtedly continue to be fought, whether the ftyle receive or not a further polifh, at the author's times of leifure. ART. VI. A Sermon preached before the Lords Spiritual and IT ary, itself itself at prefent experiences, that of being cavilled at, attacked, and declared to have no merit even in matters indifferent, on account of the one crying fin of oppofing certain opinions. The Bishop, however, we may refonably conclude, is willing to fuffer with the conftitution; and, like that, we can venture to predict for him, is fure to rife fuperior to these efforts of difcontent. The arguments of thofe who would have every man his own governor, stand upon this fuppofition, that abfolute liberty is natural to man: and that every thing fubtracted from that, ought to be taken with his confent, or not at all. But these arguers do not condescend to take into the account the manifeft intention of God, in the formation of man. If he be fo conftituted by nature that he cannot subsist out of society, nor in it without government; if he be as the great Peripatetic teacher pronounces, πολιτικον ζωον, πασης μελιτίης, και πανίος αγελαιο ζων av, all that is built upon the notion, that he is by nature fubject to no government, falls to the ground. If alfo, in the authentic hiftory of man, it appears that he was fo placed from the beginning, by the appointment of Providence, that what is idly called a state of nature, never did, in fact, take place among his tribes; we can have little veneration for a theory which fuppofes that to be natural, which nature abhors, and the world has never feen. The latter part of the above argument is that taken up by the Bishop; he appeals to the records of fcripture for proof that man never did exift in what is called a state of nature. Very justly conceiving, that, if God had intended to have given any countenance to the fuppofed rights of abfolute independence, he would fo have placed man in the beginning as to have been capable of exercifing thofe rights. From the confideration of our true nature, and from the hiftory of the world, the Bishop and others conclude, that it is the will of God that man fhould fubmit to government: from viewing an ideal phantom of natural liberty, his opponents conclude, that he ought only to be governed by his own confent. Hence it is truly faid, in this difcourfe, that "the principle of fubjection is not that princi ple of common honefty which binds a man to his own engagements, much lefs that principle of political honesty which "binds the child to the ancestor's engagements, but a confci"entious fubmiffion to the will of God." P. 7. Under this doctrine the wisdom and the justice of actual compacts between the governors and governed is not denied, and the nature of that compact on which our own conftitution stands is ably illuftrated. The mode by which the performance of that compact has been fecured is explained in the following clear and luminous paffage: " Our |