It is not neceffary to make a formal defence of Lord Hood; you have at prefent only calumniated him, and menaced him with an inquiry which you dare not profecute.'

It would be too difgufting to follow the author through all his various attacks on Mr. Sheridan's conduct during the laf feffion; we pretend not to be either the panegyrifts or the defenders of that gentleman; he may have been as wrong in fome inftances as he was right in others but, whether right or wrong, the author profecutes his charges in a manner that can answer no good purpofe, while it dif graces literature, truth, justice, and good breeding, by fubftituting fcurrility for argument, and affertion for proof. We will therefore here close our remarks on this publication, as far as it concerns the member for Stafford and other members of oppofition: but we must take notice of fome pages prefixed to this letter, and addreffed to us.

The exact ftate of the cafe between the author and the reviewers is this: in our account of his "Obfervations on the Conduct of Mr. Fox," (Rev. for Mar. 1794, p.343,) we afferted that he grofsly misrepresented the fpeech of that gentleman. In a private letter to us, under the fignature of " a Suffolk Freeholder," he complained of this, and in a very peremptory manner called for an apology; obferving that the ftatement which he had given of Mr Fox's fpeech had been derived from a publication called The Senator. This was fhifting the guilt of mifreprefentation from himself, and affording ground for an opinion that he had not intentionally helped to propagate a falfe report. We therefore advised him to be more cautious in future on the choice of the documents on which he founded a charge against any public man ; and, to foothe his wounded fenfibility, we paid him a compliment in the following words: "We are perfuaded that he must have been milled by an erroneous account of the fpeech to which he refers; for it is a fair prefumption that the man, who exacts an apology for a mifreprefentation, is himself incapable of wilfully misrepresenting another."' We appeal to the general fenfe of mankind, whether any one who had the feelings of a gentleman, and who wished only to vindicate his own character, would not have confidered this as handsome and fatisfactory proceeding on our part. The Suffolk Freeholder would not acknowlege it to be fuch; on the contrary, in a fecond letter, he called it, evafive and unfatisfactory," and perfifled in his demand of an apology. With this we peremptorily refused to comply, ftill relying most firmly on the account of Mr. Fox's fpeech given to us by one of our accomplices,' (as the author politely styles him,) who heard it delivered; and on the ftrength of which we then afferted, and yet continue boldly to affert, that in this writer's former pamphlet that fpeech was moft grossly misrepresented. We were, however, difpofed to refer the whole matter to an authority which we conceived to be the only one that could decide without appeal. We accordingly propofed, in our anfwers to correfpondents, (May 1794) to lay before Mr. Fox himself the Suffolk Freeholder's pamphlet and the report of the debate on which it was founded, together with our review of the former, and our explanation of it in our answer to the author's first letter; declaring that by Mr. Fox's judgment we would abide, provided the Suffolk Freeholder would do the like; and

pledging

pledging ourselves to make to him the amende honorable, should that
right hon. gentleman fay that in our review his fpeech was mifrepre-
fented, and not in the pamphlet of our adverfary. On the other
hand, we expreffed our expectation that, fhould the award be the re-
verfe, the Suffolk Freeholder would then make to us an apology, pro-
portioned to the pertinacity and peremptorinefs with which he had
called for one from us. This fair propofal he has rejected; for, he
fays, the reference to Mr. Fox is not fo much to be depended upon,
as accounts taken from the mouth of the fpeaker in writing, and im
mediately given to the public in works by no means unfavourable to
Mr. Fox. We did not know, before, that accounts of speeches were
written down in the House of Commons; we were aware indeed that
(contrary to the orders of the House) notes were fometimes taken to
refresh the memory of the reporter: but fill we thought that more
reliance might be placed on the recollection of the member who made
the fpeech, than on the report of it by a person who, from the very
nature of his employment, is obliged to facrifice a great deal to dif
patch. It is true that inftances have occurred, in which the ears of the
reporter were fo remarkably fharp as to hear more than a member ut.
tered; nay to hear, at the diftance of a mile and a half from St. Ste-
phen's chapel, a fpeech that was never delivered, in a debate that
never took place. We have been told of a speech, (which, as a proof
of fuperior accuracy, was given in the firft perfon,) that was put in
the mouth (we think) of the late Lord North, on a queftion which
had been fixed for difcuffion on a particular day. The motion was
ftated, and the fpeech of the then premier reported at full length, as
if in his own words, in one of the daily papers: but, unfortunately for
the character of the reporter, the expected difcuffion did not come on;
the noble Lord did not open his lips that day on the fubject, and
the Houfe adjourned almoft immediately after the Speaker had taken
the chair. Has our Suffolk Freeholder ever heard of this anecdote ?
can his memory furnish him with any faint recollection of it? does he
understand us? Le fage entend à demi mot is a true adage, which we
take the liberty of whispering in our author's ear; we fhall fee if he
can wifely take a bint, and never let us hear more of his complaints
about mifreprefentation, nor of his demands for apologies. Should
he, after this, deem it prudent to renew the attack, we think that be
ought, if he has a particle of manliness about him, either to ufe fuch
language only as one gentleman ought to ufe to another; or boldly
pull off his mafk, that those whom he prefumes to call by opprobrious
names may have an opportunity of telling him, to his beard, how a
foul-mouthed writer deferves to be treated.

Art. 17.
The Speech of the Right Hon. Charles James Fox, in the
Houfe of Commons, March 24, 1795. On a Motion" That the
House do refolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to
confider of the State of the Nation." To which is added, a cor.
rect Lift of the Minority. 8vo. IS. Debrett.

If it should be afked why fo hopeless a motion was brought forwards in parliament, and enforced by all the oratorical but unavailing powers of the eloquent mover, Mr. Fox has himself provided an answer to the question, in the conclufion of his admirable speech :- Whether a

Committee

Sh.....n.

Committee of inquiry is granted or not, I fhall at leaft derive this fatisfaction from having moved for it, that I fhall fhew to the people of England that there are still some men in the great council of the nation, who anxiously wish to have an opportunity of proving to them, what is their real fituation, and of doing every thing in their power to avert, if poffible, the farther calamities of war, and effufion of human blood.'

Art. 18: Confifcation confidered; or Doubts on the Propriety of plundering our Friends. 8vo. Is. 6d. Owen. 1795.

We have frequently heard complaints of the plundering spirit of our troops, as manifefted in the iflands which, in the prefent war, we have taken from the French in the Weft Indies. It has been faid that to this impolitic as well as bafe conduct, we are in a great meafure to afcribe the recapture of Guadaloupe; and the author of this very fenfible pamphlet is of opinion that we may, with too much reafon, apprehend that Martinique, &c. will follow; and which may not be all.

* If the account here given by an anonymous but, apparently, well, informed writer fhould-remain unrefuted, we fhall make little fcruple, however unwilling, of admitting the truth of his representations; humiliating as the circumftances must prove to our national pride, and grating to our feelings and jealoufy for the honour of the English name and character.

We are the more concerned to find that, when the author speaks of thefordid fyftem of peculation' adopted by our army and navy in the French Weft Indies, he does not, by any means, exempt the Chiefs from his accufation; though he guardedly adds that he prefumes not to charge the blame of those transactions even on them,` until time and an inquiry, which he trufts will foon be inftituted, shall decide whether they acted by order, and under inftructions, or of their own mere motion.' We hope, indeed, that fuch inquiry will be foon and ftrictly made, that the truth may be known to the whole world, and juftice done to the oppreffed. Should the charges here brought against our victorious troops be fubftantiated, and reparation to the injured yet with-holden, the blafting of their laurels will be the fmalleft part of the confequence; for, on the great, though not always juft, principle of retaliation, there may be too much reason to apprehend a poffibility of the most dreadful confequences to ourselves, not only in the Weft Indies, but even in Europe!

In reviewing the proceedings of our army in the French islands, and comparing them with thofe of the French in the laft war, when lefs propitious events had put our islands into their poffeffion, the author fays, he feels humbled by a comparison † fo difgraceful to the

It is fyftem, government fyftem, and mal-administration, not the want of military difcipline, that is here the fubject of complaint nor are the neceffary vouchers wanting.

In this comparative view, the conduct of the truly noble MARQUIS DE BOUILLE rifes with that juft and honourable diftinction which has since been gratefully and handsomely acknowledged in this, country.

British

British name, and fo honorable to that of France!'-We feel, while we read, exactly in the fame manner;-till we recollect that the charge which is anonymous may not be strictly true; and then Hope cries out "Who is the accufer ?"

Art. 19. A Letter from a young Prince to his Royal Father. 8vo. IS. Owen. 1795.

Given to the public as an expoftulatory epiftle from one of the fons of our gracious Sn, complaining of the unnatural cruelty of thole laws which tear from his arms his beloved AUGUSTA.After fome warm, pathetic, and eloquent paragraphs, the fuppofed princely writer thus concludes: I humbly, I earnellly intreat, that, your Majefty will direct your Minifter to procure an act of the legiflature, which fhall effectually cut me off, and my pofterity, from all hereditary claims to your Crown. The only objection to my having married one of your fubjects, will then be removed, and I trust that. you will, in that cafe, permit the holy ceremony to be again per-, formed, which makes Augufta legally mine.'

On the whole, perhaps, this letter is too well written to be what it pretends to be. There are always artifts in Grub-street, ready to forge, and file, and polish fuch literary wares to fuit the demand of any market; inquire at the Pegafus, up three pair of stairs backwards.

Art. 20.
A Statement of Facts; or an Inquiry into the Juftice and
Neceffity of the prefent War; in a Letter to the Right Hon. Mr.
Pitt. To which are added, Reflections on the new Taxes,' &c.
8vo. Is. Cambridge, printed by Flower, and fold by Symonds in
London. 1795..

The author of this tract introduces himself to the public in the character of a young man. That he is a young politician will be evident to every competent reader who perufes his pamphlet. He difapproves the war, and he treats Mr. Pitt rather cavalierly: but he has faid little that has not been often urged with fuperior weight, by our best political writers. With refpect to his proposals for new taxes, we have only this to remark, that, were volunteer fchemes of this fort too much encouraged; [fufficiently we know they have been,] we should have little hopes that any thing, even the very air which we breathe, (the light is in a great measure extinguished already!) would efcape the fine of taxation.-Surely we have taxes enough! When peace returns, and foon may that happy time arrive! we fhould think of a reduction of our taxes.

Art. 21.

AFFAIRS OF IRELAND.

The Speech of Henry Duquery, Efq. in the Houfe of Commons of Ireland, Jan. 22, 1795, on the Addrefs to the King, on propofing an Amendment to entreat his Majefty not to refufe entering into a Negociation with the prefent Government of France, for the Attainment of Peace. 8vo. 6d. R. White, Piccadilly. The abilities of Mr. Duquery, who, at the clofe of Lord Weftmorland's lieutenancy, was removed from the office of one of his Majefty's three ferjeants at law in Ireland, are rated very highly both

ac

at the bar and in the fenate of that kingdom: this fpeech is a fuffi. cient proof that they are not too highly rated: it is remarkable at once for elegance of edition, purity of language, and force of argument. If we view it in a political light, we may confider it as the dawn of a change of fyftem in Ireland, which must neceffarily affect the politics of Great Britain. The Irish parliament formerly was as little confulted on quellions of peace or war, as the affembly of St. Kitt's but it would appear now that it entertains at least, if it does not actually profefs and avow, opinions, from which it may be inferred that Ireland is difpofed to put forth a claim which, if admitted, would shake the right of the British cabinet to involve the Irish nation in any foreign war, without a previous communication with the Irish administration. It would feem as if it were the difpofition of Ireland to have an executive government fo conflituted, that the officers acting under it should be refponfible to the Irish parliament for the advice which they fhould give to the crown to go to war; that their previous concurrence fhould be as neceffary to the declaration of war, as that of his Majefty's advifers in England; and that, if the concurrence of the Irish miniftry were not previously required and obtained, Ireland fhould not be deemed in any respect a party to the

war.

We do not pretend to fay that Mr. D. maintains in terms any propofition to the above effect: but we think either that nothing can be deduced from the principles which he lays down, or that they lead to fuch a change of fyftem in Ireland as we have already ftated. It is true that Mr. D. profeffes, and we by no means question his fincerity, a refolution to maintain inviolably the connection between England and Ireland, to make a common caufe with both, and to enact it as a part of his political creed, that the two countries fhould ftand or fall together but it is very poffible that, believing fincerely in that creed, and being decidedly against every idea of fevering the twokingdoms, he might alfo think it neceffary that the king should be obliged to confult his Irish counsellors before he declared war; and that Ireland ought not to be involved in the hazards and expences of hoftilities by a cabinet not refponfible to and not punishable by Ireland, fhould its advice be ever fo corrupt, impolitic, unjust, or difaftrous in its confequences. Sh-n

Art. 22. A Letter to his Excellency Earl Fitzwilliam, Lord Lieute nant, &c. of Ireland. 8vo. pp. 63. 1s. 6d. R. White. 1795This letter bears the name of Dr. Drennan, a medical gentleman, whofe writings have made much noife in the political, and have eftablished a very high character for their author in the literary world. His ftyle is uncommonly forcible and expreflive; and, though there are inequalities in it, yet, like thofe of nature, they rather diverfify than mar the profpect, and they enrich it by contrast; every part poffeffing fome beauty though differing in degree, like the face of the earth from the pleafing landfcape to the towering mountains, or her productions, from the fragrant ornaments of the parterre to the lofty trees of the foreft. He prefents himfelf before the Viceroy in the garb of manlinefs, and addreffes him in the language of plain dealing, equally remote from rudeness and adulation. He gives him a picture

of