de-Mars, and its confequences, of the reading of the Conftitutional Act, of the rewards granted to the villains who had affifted in the King's arreft, of the denunciation of the Clubs by the Minifters, of the debate on the title and rights of the Royal Family, of the conduct of the DUKE of ORLEANS on the occafion, of a debate on National Conventions, of the form of presenting the Conftitution to the King, of the mifcarriage of a plan concerted between the Conftitutional Party and M. MALOUET, and of the clofing and prefenting the Conftitutional Act to the King.

The forty-fifth and laft chapter of the Annals contain the following fubjects: the different counfels that were given to the King refpecting his acceptance of the Conftitution--a view of the Revolution and the ftate of parties---the fuppreffion of the Order of the Holy Ghoft---the union of the Comtat of Avignon with France---the King's letter to the Aflembly, in which he accepts the Conftitution---his oath--public rejoicings---the conference at Pilnitz---the ftate of France at that period---the Finances---the clofing of the Affembly by the King, and its diffolution, with which M. DE BERTRAND terminates the Annals, informing his readers that the fubfequent events of the reign of LOUIS XVI. took place after his nomination to the Miniftry, and that they are circumftantially related in his private memoirs."

To the 4th volume is fubjoined an Appendix of Papers alluded to in the courfe of the work. Some of thefe appear in English, in their places, in the Annals, and others are not tranflated.

From the sketch of the Annals of the French Revolution which we have laid before our readers, they will fee the fcope taken by the author, and be enabled to judge of the information and entertainment they may expect in the perufal of the volumes themselves. Though many of the facts were known, the clearness and order of the narrative, and the authority of the writer, will give them a double intereft in the mind of the public. Much too is novel, or, at leaft, far from being generally known, and particularly the circumftances relative to Mirabeau's converfion, and his grand project for putting a ftop to the Revolution.

That a work of fuch importance fhould immediately attract the notice of the critic as well as of the public was to be expected. Gratified with the narrative which, to ufe the words of an eminent writer, in his obfervations on the Annals, "flows with a conftant perfpicuity," and fatisfied with the honourable authority from which it does flow, we thould, probably, have terminated our remarks here with a warm

approbation

approbation of M. DE BERTAND'S work; but finding feverat paffages of it difputed by fo eminent a writer as M. MALLET DU PAN, we fhould not perform our duty to the public, or do juftice to M. DE BERTRAND or ourselves, were we to reft contented with bestowing our praife without examining the objections and remarks of the author of the British Mercury, inferted in the thirty-third number of that nervous and interefting periodical publication. But the performance of this duty must be referved for the fucceeding Article.

ART. VI. A Supplement to the Annals of the French Revolution; or, Obfervations upon the Critical Remarks of M. Mallet Du Pan, by the Author of the Annals. Octavo. PP. 24. Price 6d. Cadell and Davies. 1800.

N this pamphlet, which is of the fame fize as the Annals,

flates the remarks of M. Mallet du Pan, one after the other, replying to each as he ftates it. The fubjects in dispute we fhall briefly abftract as follows:

ift. M. Mallet du Pan denies that the inftructions for the Duke of Orleans's Bailiwicks were drawn up by the Abbé Sieyes, or that there was an intimacy between Sieyes and the Duke-he fays, the former always difavowed it. M. de B's anfwer is, that as M. M. du P. admits that a pamphlet of Sieyes's intitled, Refolutions to be taken by the Affemblies of the Bailiwicks was annexed to the inftructions, the difference is trivial; and as to the connection of the Abbé, and the Duke, he fays the difavowal of a Regicide does not weaken the authorities he cites, which are the King, M. Montmorin, and Mirabeau himfelf. To this we may add, that hypocrify is a grand feature in the character of Sieyes, and fo far from being, in all cafes, averse to a connection with Princes, we believe he would literally, as well as morally, league with the Prince of Hell to gratify his avarice and ambition. He leagued with Barras, he leagued with Bonaparte, both of them Princes in power, both of them defpots; and, we confefs, we cannot fee why he fhould not have leagued with the Duke of Orleans, who was a Republican Prince, a Democratic Prince, a man after Sieyes's qwn heart, and a fit tool for his ambition. The anecdote at the end of the 1ft. vol. of the Annals fhows his readiness to have fold himself to an Archbishop, and his letter printed in the 4th. vol. P. 219, written at a more advanced period

of

of the Revolution, teftifies his Monarchical principles; that is, his felfish principles.

2dly. M. M. du P. charges M. de B. with not having fully enumerated the caufes of the Revolution.-M. de B. anfwers, that he did not mean to analyze the origin of the Revolution, for fear of lofing himself in abstract distinctions, and of fatiguing instead of informing his readers.

3dly. M. M. du P. thinks it difficult to reconcile the praifes beftowed by M. de B. on feveral of the Ministers of Louis XVI., with the censures cast by him on the Miniftry.---M. de B. cites M. M. du P. himfelf, to show that by the Miniftry he may chiefly allude to the directing Minifter, which does not preclude the particular praife due to individuals.

4thly. M M. du P. afferts that there was not a fingle body of men in the State that remonftrated against the determination of the Council of the 27th of December 1788. M. de B. adduces proofs of there having been feveral remonftrances.

5thly. M. M. du P. affirms, that the Notables were not almost unanimous against the measure of doubling the TiersEtat-that there was a majority for it at one board, and that there were confiderable minorities at two others. M. de B. quotes the Journals to fhew that there were feven boards, that of these fix negatived the double reprefentation, and that it paffed at the feventh only by a majority of a fingle vote, maintaining his affertion therefore not to be erroneous.

6thly. This point is a mere matter of opinion, whether M. Necker could and fhould have prevented the King from going to Paris on the 6th of October? M. de B. fupports the

affirmative.

7thly. This is alfo a point of opinion refpecting the degree of energy and activity incumbent on the miniftry after the 14th of July 1789.-M. M. du P. thinks that the vis inertiae had become the only refource, and the last defence of the difinantled Crown. M. de B. argues, that the poft of the Minifter requires conftant and indifpenfible activity, and that the prudence of inaction neither protects, nor preferves. any thing.

8thly. There is a difference between M. M. du P. and M. de B. as to the time and mode of the union of the Order of the Clergy with the Third Eftate. M. de B. defends his statement at fome length, in which our limits will not allow us to follow him, nor do we think the difference very material in the hiftory of the Revolution, or that the character of the clergy depends

upon

upon the decifion of it. The step itself was indeed of the highest importance in advancing the Revolution, but whether it was refolved upon on the 19th or 24th, only fhews a more or lefs marked difobedience to the King. The unworthiness of many of the Clergy will never diminish the admiration and veneration with which we contemplate the conduct of the majority of them, in the fitting of the 2d of January 1791. See Chapter XXXV. of the Annals.

9thly. M. M. du P. thinks M. de B. fevere on the Archbithops of Vienne and Bourdeaux for keeping the Pope's correspondence with them fecret. M. de B. anfwers, that ignorant of the motives he merely ftated the fact without adding praife or blame.

1othly. M. M. du P. extols the piety and virtues difplayed for forty years by the Archbishop of Vienne, and thinks the recital of his errors fhould have been accompanied with fome account of his former excellence. M. de B. confiders those virtues as the chief inftrument of his errors, and the real cover of all the evil he did.

Thefe are all the points on which M. de B. and M. M. du P. differ. They do not feem to us to be very material, and it is no flight confirmation of the high opinion we have expressed of M. de B.'s work, that after the examination of fo eminent a writer as M. M. du P. all his facts remain eftablished. We fhould, however, add, that the latter, in his 34th number of the British Mercury, afferts, that no plan whatever of a war against France ever entered the head of Leopold II. This is denying the existence of the plan related by M. de B. in his 4th vol. P. 70. To this M. de B. in a poftfcript to his obfervations, fays pofitively, that the original of the plan is still in existence, with notes on the margin, written in the Emperor's hand, and that a copy, attefted by the perfons who saw the original, is in his poffeffion. Nothing can be stronger. Had M. M. du P.'s obfervation been confined to the execution of the plan, the feeming inconfiftency might have been reconciled, but that it must have been thought of by the Emperor is cvident, unless we are to doubt the authority of the perfons who M. de B. tells us faw the original. When Mr. Fox afked in the Houfe of Commons if any one was prepared to deny the plan as related by M. de B. he little thought that M. M. du P. would be the perfon to answer in the affirmative. Yet we cannot but fufpect that the author of the British Mercury means the execution of the plan was not intended in the cabinet of Vienna. Be that as it may, he has, in other refpects, paid the tribute of praise due to the author of the Annals, and we fhall conclude our review of the volumes before us with M. Mallet

M. Mallet du Pan's words, that the public "will thank M. de Bertrand for having reduced fuch a mafs of matter into form and order."

Before we lay down the pen we ought to obferve, that M. de Bertrand has been fortunate in a tranflator, and we congratulate him on Mr. Dallas's ftyle; for, although here and there we remark the effects of rapidity, it would be unjust in us to fupprefs our acknowledgement of the pleasure we received from the natural and elegant flow of the language. Few gallicifms appear to torture the English ear; the narrative is plain, fimple, and perfpicuous, and where the fubject requires elevation it has been preserved, particularly in the eloquent fpeeches of M. de LALLY TOLLENDAL, and MIRABEAU, of which none of the spirit has been fuffered to evaporate.

ART. VII. Thoughts on the English Government. the Quiet Good Senfe of the People of England. of Letters. Letter the Fourth. 8vo. Pr. 74. Wright. 1800. '

THE

Addressed to

In a Series
Price 2s.

HE commendations which we bestowed on the former productions of this writer were not founded on a partial and fpeculative view of the fubject which he difcuffes, nor did they confift of affeverations unfupported by proof. We had attentively confidered the bafis of his doctrine, and, having afcertained the purity of its fource, we carefully marked its tendency, which we found to be highly beneficial. We fhewed, too, as it is ever our wish, and, we will add, our duty, to do, on what our opinion was founded, fuffering the author to be the interpreter of his own fentiments, and fo enabling the reader to form an accurate judgement, both of the writer and his critic.

That the author of these letters has more deeply studied the nature of our Conftitution, has confidered its frame and ftructure with closer attention, has acquired a more extensive knowledge of its legal operations, its object and its end, than any of its modern affailants or defendants, is not the award of prejudice, but the decifion of juftice. And it is our earneft recommendation to all who are defirous of attaining a neceffary portion of that knowledge, not haftily to reject or adopt his doctrine, but clofely to examine his premises, and deliberately to weigh his conclufions. He does not shun detection, but courts investigation. He aims not at deception, his object is to communicate inftruction, for the establishment of truth. Let not any man be deterred from entering upon

"NO, XXI, VOL. V.

C c

this