perties which they possess, so, thereby, they subject themselves, by their own rules, to be deprived of these by a stronger power, whether that power be more just or not.

But whatever were the intentions of Louis on this head, that was a question for him and these people to settle among themselves. As Europe was not bound to support Louis on the French throne, so neither was she bound to guarantee to these men their properties, against the will and the power of the French government. She was only interested so far in this matter; that if these men, and that formidable Jacobinical party in France, should either attempt to destroy, or succeed in overthrowing the government of Louis, and establishing in its stead any one similar to those which had previously existed in France, and which had been proven by experience, to be more or less dangerous to the repose of Europe; that then it became an imperions duty, on her part, to take such measures as would insure her safety from the consequences of such a proceeding.

Much discontent also was created in the public mind in France, but more particularly in Paris, from the example which the King set in following, and the endeavours he made to restore the duties of morality and religion. These were doctrines which had long been exploded by the leading characters in France, and were wholly unknown to the Jacobinical school. The encouragement held out to religion, and the favour shewn to the teachers thereof, procured the King many enemies; and was met by the insinuations of his implacable foes, with the general cry of innovation on their liberties, and the wish to restore the power of the church, such as it was in its darkest and its most arbitrary times. Nothing could be more unjust than this accusation; but the support given to religious pursuits, by the government, was wrested by these factious demagogues to suit their own mischievous designs, for what they most feared was not the return of Roman superstition, tythes, and ignorance; but the fear of being subjected to the duties of morality and the principles of religion at all. Perhaps in no nation that ever existed were these grand features of the human char acter, and links of rational life, so completely broken and destroyed as these had been, and now were, in modern France. In

every shape these were laughed at, and turned into ridicule by all ranks and degrees of men; but more particularly so by every one connected with the government of France. Under such circumstances, and such a system, it cannot be wondered at that no measures were taken to instruct the youthful mind in sound principles, and the social duties of life. Such proceedings did not suit the views of their tyrannic governors, and would have unfitted the people of France for becoming the tools to execute their lawless projects. In this most essential point, the youth of France were most lamentably deficient Instead of being taught to reverence and obey their parents, they were torn from them; and from their earliest years taught only the most abject devotion and submission to their governors. Instead of being taught Love to their neighbours, and Fear of their God; they were taught to forget, perhaps deny the latter; and to hate, tyrannize over, and trample upon the former. The little education which their youth received, consisted in being taught to march to the sound of the drum-to obey without reflection the severe command of military discipline—to understand the word of command, which led them to plunder, battles, and blood-to plant cannon-to weild the sabre-to erect fortifications to oppress nations-to extract indigo from woad, and sugar from beet root. Such has been the nature and extent of the knowledge taught during the proudest days of Imperial France. The mind of her youth was thus led astray from every thing that was just, peaceable, or good. Noise, confusion, and violence were the spheres in which they delighted to move, and out of which they were nothing-out of which they were lost and unknown. At Paris, on the return of Bonaparte, the scholars of these schools solicited the Emperor to be allowed to march to their studies at the sound of the drum, and not of the bell. Miserably deficient, however, as they were, in instruction regarding useful knowledge, and the moral duties of man, they were still more so in all that concerned religion. This was first proscribed, and afterwards completely neglected in France. "There are, (said Carnot) two millions of children in France, who require primary education; and yet of these two millions, some are educated very

imperfectly, and others have no education at all."* The total number of children born annually in France is about 900,000; half of these die under five years of age, at which period we shall suppose that the remainder become fit to receive education. Consequently, every child born in France, and surviving from five to ten years of age, receive either a very imperfect education, or no education at all. If this is the case now, how much worse must it have been when education was either altogether proscribed, or only what was most wicked and ruinsus bestowed upon the youth of France. What must the present race of men, now moving in the most active scenes of life, in France, be, who were born between 1791 and 1796, when there was no education at all. Severe as is this censure; gloomy as is this picture, still, it is evident, it is not overcharged. Dreadful as is the prospect which the contemplation of this affords unto Europe, still it is but too correct. It is the teachers and the taught of these abominable principles, or those who have received no instruction at all, which Europe has now to encounter; and whose dark designs and dangerous principles she will long be compelled to watch with the eagle's eye, and to guard against with the lion's strength.

In a country thus situate, every tie that had hitherto bound man to man in society, and every political contract, that knit him in bonds of amity with his neighbours, was broken through; not only without shame and remorse, but with open exultation. and haughty contempt. In vain will the admirers of French prowess, the advocates of French honour, any more attempt to rob mankind of their senses, by advocating her cause, and proclaiming to the world, that all the wars and miseries which have afflicted Europe, during the last twenty-five years, were not the evil production of French principles, the diabolical works of French ambition. These are wrote in indelible characters throughout Europe; and while the name of France and Napoleon endures-while they are remembered with sorrow, and pronounced with execration, the true sources of the calamities of Europe cannot remain hid-the direful consequences

• Carnot's report to the Emperor, Moniteur, April 29th, 1815.

of French folly and ambition cannot be perverted-cannot be disguised or remain unknown. I shall not attempt to insult the understandings of my readers, or waste their time in wading through the voluminous records of the last twenty-five years, for documents to prove this. Without the fear of contradiction, on any principle of justice or truth, I here venture to state, that every contest which has lately taken place in Europe, has originated solely from French principles and French ambition. In order to justify a declaration of war, her mad rulers began that system of diplomatic imposition, which has continued for twenty-five years. They forged a treaty of Pavia, and distorted that of Pilnitz. Man, at this moment, could not conceive, that any government would so far disgrace itself, as have recourse to such a desperate expedient. Succeeding years, however, saw volumes of such impositions issued by Gallic audacity; and because no one, on the Continent, dared or was allowed to contradict it, therefore such documents were accounted true; as the interested testimony of Britain, by a denial, was accounted as only more fully establishing the fact. The treaty of Pilnitz, it is well known, provided for the establishment of the French monarchy, and not as the French demagogues echoed, the dismemberment of France. When France was set in flames from one end to the other, by a set of madmen; because all her neighbours took immediate measures to guard their frontiers, least the flames should enter their states, it was proclaimed, that their object was to attack France, crush liberty, and prevent the dispersion of light. But France did not wait to put their intentions to the proof. She first declared war; and what all her supporters, from that period downward, asserted as an incontestible sign, of the real and unjustifiable views of her adversaries, in first declaring war against France, was in this instance, because done by her, accounted an act of justice and necessity. But war she wanted against any one. "War," said Imard, "war which is necessary to complete the Revolution." In that war she attacked and overrun the Netherlands, and then decreed the opening of the Scheldt; though she well knew that Great Britain, as well as Austria, was bound by a treaty to prevent that from taking place; and also that the

immediate interests of Great Britain, imperiously demanded that this should not be the deed of France. This France knew, but she said she did no wrong. On the 19th November 1792, she openly decreed war against all nations, by calling upon all to follow her example, and offering her assistance to do so.She continued, from her undermining principles and the fury of her arms, to conquer and to add state to state, and to carve out new wars, in order to benefit her great family, and extend her empire. These conquests were carried on in a manner marked with atrocity and injustice, altogether unprecedented and unknown. Wherever their arms overrun or were victorious, those countries were without ceremony incorporated with the French territory, without even admitting the question of compensation from their lawful owners, to come into discussion at all. It was the very Constitution of France to act thus. "Charged by the Constitution," said Barthelemy," with the execution of the Laws, it (the Directory) cannot make or listen to any proposal, that may be contrary to them. The Constitutional Act does not permit it to consent to any alienation of that, which according to the existing laws, constitutes the territory of the Republic-but the countries occupied by the French armies, and not united, may form the subject of negociations."* Such were the Constitutional Laws of France; yet, when necessity drove other nations to follow a similar course, in order to counteract her views; when Britain ceded Guadaloupe to Sweden, France immediately came forward and declared it unjust; and passed a decree, denouncing all the inhabitants of that Colony as traitors, who should take the oath of allegiance to Sweden; upon the principle that she had not ceded it by treaty, and had not yielded her right to it. How different was her conduct, when it suited her own interests? She united, without a treaty, all the Netherlands to France; because the Rhine was the only boundary worthy of being the natural limits of the great nation! She added Savoy, because the Alps were another natural boundary; and when possessed of it, she added Italy, because she had made good roads, and

• Barthelemy's letter to Mr. Wickham, March 26th, 1796.