Preface and Additions to the Difcourfe on the Love of our Country. By Dr. Price. 8vo. 6d. Cadell,

IN

N the lift of anfwers to Mr. Burke, Dr. Piice claims a particular attention from his age, fituation, and character, Yet this is not a laboured reply, but only a few remarks on what are flyled mifreprefentations. His life, he tells us, has been employed in promoting thofe intercfts of liberty, peace, and virtue,' which he reckons to be the best interests of mankind. On these subjects we have never differed from Dr. Price; nor should we ever have met him without the most respectful attention, without the applaufes which his private conduct, and the purity of his more public moral and theological effays would have demanded, if his other works had not been hoftile to the best interefts of his country; if he had not contributed to its calamities in the late moft dangerous crisis of an unfortunate war. Was there an evil which Dr. Price did not denounce? was there a method left untried to fecure the completion of the prophecy? The finances, the population, and the power of this kingdom were conftantly depreciated, and thofe of its antagonists magnified. When convicted on fome of thefe fubjects, did he not have recourse to subter fuges, the difgrace of fcience? We now allude to our author's obfervations on the gold coin, and we shall foon have occafion to make a fimilar remark on the fubject of the population of France. An exemplary private life has given force to obfervations totally unconnected with private virtue; and those, who think with us, that Dr. Price would not wilfully mislead, muft join with us in opinion, that with fuch perverted judg ment, his talents may be dangerous.

While we are speaking with a folemnity which the fullest conviction of fpeaking nothing but truth infpires, we may add something on our own account. We have been accounted the enemies of Dr. Price, the enemies of civil and religious liberty. We are the enemies only of Dr. Price's opinions, because we think them injurious to the welfare of this country; and attached, as we are, by principle, to the prefent eftablishment in church and ftate, the innovations of pretended patriots we conûder as dangerous, and oppofe as fatal. On the fubject of the French Revolution we early engaged, and we hailed the progrefs of liberty with as much heartfelt applaufe as any member of the Revolution Society. We pronounced the first steps to be cool, deliberate, and judicious. We ftill think fo, and the horrors of the first moments were the evils to be unavoidably encountered in the way to a more perfect and more permanent good. But to the deftruction of defА а а 2 potifm

potifm infult need not have been added; and thofe who had confented to refign their power, fhould have preserved their lives fecure from even the fufpicion of danger. Mr. Burke has been ridiculed for his obfervations refpecting the queen; but every man would reflect that, whatever her faults had been, The was degraded, a prifoner, a fuppliant, and a woman. Oạ the other hand, the affembly, rafh in deftruction, indecifive and timid in the re-establishment of the conftitution, without power to infure perfonal fafety, without abilities to guard against a national bankruptcy, except by the poor expedients of the day, employed their time in idle fpeculative enquiries, in abstract questions, and feemed only in earnest in fecuring the whole executive power to themselves. With these views could we any longer praise them; and with these objects before us, could we refrain from joining in the applauses of the Reflections, applaufes echoed by the wifeft and the most judicious? Such has been the state of our opinions, and with thefe we proceed in our examination of the different works on this fubject.

The first part of the Preface relates to what is ftyled a mifreprefentation of Mr. Burke's. Dr. Price tells us that he alJuded in the triumph' to the 14th of July, not to the 6th of October. We may for a moment admit this explanation 2 but the perfon who fo indifcriminately praifes the Revolution, if he does not except fo fingular an event, will be supposed to praise it also. We obferve, however, that Dr. Price does not at this moment feem to think the conduct of the French barbarous, unmanly, or unjust.

On the second objection to Mr. Burke's pamphlet he is more correct; and the act of the fixth of queen Anne destroys, in a great degree, the indefeafible claim of inheritance. The conduct of the parliament refpecting the abdication of James, fpoke the fame language.

The poftfcript we must tranfcribe :

In the Journal of the Debates and Decrees of the National Aflembly of France for Oct. 4th, 1790, I find an extract from a report delivered to the affembly by M. Du Pont, in the name of the committee of finances, which states, that an enumera. tion (in which only deficiencies could be fufpected) made in786, of the inhabitauts of the generality of Paris, exclufive of the city itfelf, had difcovered the number of inhabitants to be 1,198,coc, though a multiplication of the births by 26 had made them only 998,coo. In this cafe, therefore, the right multiplier of the births was 314; and if this was also the right multiplier of the births for the whole kingdom in 1780, the inhabitants of France were then THIRTY MILLIONS, even on the fuppofition that the returns were not deficient in the manmer that has been specified.'

This is furely an extraordinary argument, which we need not oppofe at any great length. When they exclude the city, they do not exclude the adjoining fuburbs, Versailles, or many villages, where various people, from every district, come for the purpose of business or pleasure, to attend the court (the numeration was in 1786), the parliament, or the amusements of Paris, without being confined by the clofeness of its streets. In this cafe, the number of inhabitants must be greater than can be estimated from the births; and indeed M. Necker has properly shown, that from the numbers fent to the Foundling" Hofpitals, the births are with difficulty afcertained in this ge nerality. After all, M. Necker, who reckons the inhabitants of France at 24 millions, makes thofe of the generality of Paris, exclufive of the city, only 68,300 lefs than M. du Pont. At the fame time we may observe, that M. de la Place's calculation is yet únimpeached, and the multiplier 251⁄2 was founded on an enumeration of nearly double the numbers mentioned by M. du Pont, in fituations more favourable for general conclufions.

The Additions to the Appendix relate to the toasts which have been the objects of fo much difcuffion, the parliament of Great Britain-may it become a national affembly.' If it was aimed only at the reform of reprefentation, fuppofed to be neceffary, we need not add a word on the fubject; for we do not fufpect the author alludes to their disregard of the instructions of their constituents. The alliance with France would indeed be defirable, if there was any permanent government to treat with; but fince the declared views of the national assembly to fupport the family-compact, we suspect our author's enthusiasm will be a little abated.

Remarks on the Letter of the Right Hon. Edmund Burke concerning the Revolution in France, and on the Proceedings in certain Societies in London, relative to that Event. By Capel Lofft. 8vo. 25. Johnson.

TH

HIS is one of the most reasonable and judicious answers to Mr. Burke that has yet occurred; and though we may occafionally differ from Mr. Lofft, yet the able manner in which he fupports his opinions, as well as the candour and ingenuity with which he allows what may have been erroneous, render him a very refpectable antagonist. We have no doubt but if

We added the mean of M. Necker's calculation of the number of inhabitants of the city of Paris to M. du Pont's numbers, and then found the difference. In this way, though not perfectly correct, there can be no material error.

Mr. Burke means to reply to his hoft of adversaries, anfwerers, expoftulators, and remarkers, our author will be received with peculiar attention. The queftions which Mr. Lofft propofes to examine, but he has not very closely kept to his text,' are—1. whether a revolution or change, by the interference of the people, was neceffary; 2. whether the means have been fuitable to the end? and from these another question arises, whether the révolution in France as a fact, or as an example, is interefting to this and other nations, and how far it ought to influence their conduct?

For our own part, we freely declare our opinion that a revolution was neceffary: we venerate the rights of men; but in a queftion of a political nature they muft yield to the general welfare; and thefe rights must be infringed on in the neceffary fubordination of government. If all are commons, all will be mafters: the example of all ages has fhown, that fome will be greater, fome wifer, and fome ftronger than others; and of thefe, one, from natural or accidental pre-eminence, will rise above his fellows. Thus three orders are the natural confequences of the human conftitution, and it is the only fecret of political government to balance thefe. When the king by his power over the 'Apro influences them, and together they opprefs the people, it is neceffary, expedient, and proper, that the commons fhould exert themselves in their own defence. The firft fteps of the people in France we have commended; but we have no hesitation in saying, that their fubfequent conduct will not justify any farther commendation; and, if neceffary, we could affign the reafons. To the third question we can fafely reply, by faying that the example, in the first inftance, we have no fimilar motive to induce us to follow; and from the events, if it was proper and expedient, our steps, we think, ought to be very different. Such are nearly our political opinions in a fhort compafs; on another occafion we may particularly fhow what are the real grievances, and to what the efforts of the people in this country ought to be directed.

Mr. Lofft and Mr. Burke agree in the propriety of depofing, or if the fociety choofe the term, cafhiering kings for mifconduct.' They differ only about the meaning of this laft term; how far misconduct ought to proceed. With this is connected the opinion refpecting the king's refponfibility to the public. The king is undoubtedly refponfible fo far as regards his executive power; but as he is one member of the government, the conftitution of this country has transferred, in general queftions, his refponfibility to his minifters. His own acts, as a member of the conflitation, are very few, and the general conduct of his minifters

minifters is, in general, properly fubmitted to the decision of the people in the house of commons. In the last change of adminiftration, the king acted apparently contrary to the wishes of the people; and the only alternative left was, a fresh appeal to the people at large, by a new election, when it appeared that this oppofition was apparent only. Perhaps it might have been more strictly conftitutional if the king had availed himself of his prerogative, of a negative to Mr. Fox's India bill, and im-"mediately diffolved the parliament, giving his reasons for this mode of proceeding We think he loft an opportunity of becoming the most popular monarch that ever reigned; but perhaps the experiment was too rafh, while the opinion of the peo ple was not yet known. To return:

The queftion of inheritance is next confidered; and here, like fome lefs able objectors, Mr. C. L. goes back for his inftances beyond the period of which Mr. Burke (peaks, and, we think, reafons a little inconclufively. The claims of ancestry, the unequal reprefentation, and toleration, claim alfo their fhares of our author's attention; and his obfervations on the natural rights of man, with a few exceptions, are very judicious and proper. We are happy to fee one anfwerer to Mr. Burke fpeak in favour of the age of chivalry: we think its influence on the present state of society has not yet been fully confidered. It is a new question, and requires more reflection than the urgency of the prefent moment will allow. We fear, at this time, the queen of France bas infults,' perhaps worse, to fear.'

The proceedings of the national affembly Mr. Lofft blames in many refpects. The want of a fenate, the circuitous mode of election, the fmall qualifications of the inferior electors, the confifcation of the lands of the clergy, the abolition of titles and armorial bearings, and of the king's power of making war or peace, with the appointments of the judges, fhare his difapprobation. On these fubjects he expatiates at fome length with great propriety. The conduct of the affembly respecting the finances he speaks of with referve, but mentions that, in 1695, the notes of the bank of England were at a discount. We be lieve he might have come nearer the present æra.

The last part of the pamphlet relates to Dr. Price, and to the Revolution and Conftitutional Societies; but on our author's defence we cannot with propriety make any remarks; it is enough to obferve, that their conduct appears to us in a very different light; and this we fay without the fmalleft intention of infinuating that our author is in an error, or pofitively affirming that we are right. We have already fufficiently enlarged on the fubject.