creed. They neglect the progress of the human mind fubfequent to its adoption, and when, as in the prefent cafe, it has burst forth into action, they regard it as a tranfient madnefs, worthy only of pity or derifion. They mistake it for a mountain torrent that will pafs away with the ftorm that gave it birth. They know not that it is the ftream of human opinion in omne volubilis avum, which the acceffion of every day will fwell, which is deftined to sweep into the fame oblivion the refiftance of learned fophiftry, and of powerful oppreffion.

But there ftill remained ample matter of aftonishment in the Philippic of Mr. Burke. He might deplore the fanguinary exceffes-he might deride the vifionary policy that seemed to him to tarnish the luftre of the Revolution, but it was hard to have fuppofed that he should have exhausted against it every epithet of contumely and opprobrium that language

can

can furnish to indignation; that the rage of his declamation fhould not for one moment have been fufpended; that his heart should not be tray one faint glow of triumph, at the fplendid and glorious delivery of fo great a people. All was invective-the authors, and admirers of the Revolution-every man who did not execrate it, even his own moft enlightened and accomplished friends, were devoted to odium and ignominy.

This speech did not stoop to argument-the whole was dogmatical and authoritative; the cause seemed decided without difcuffion; the anathema fulminated before trial. But the ground of the opinions of this famous speech, which, if we may believe a foreign journalist, will form an epoch in the hiftory of the eccentricities of the human mind, was impatiently expected in a work foon after announced. The name of the author, the importance of the fubject, and the fingularity of his opinions,

all contributed to inflame the public curiofity, which though it languished in a fubfequent delay, has been revived by the appearance, and will be rewarded by the perusal of the work,

It is certainly in every refpect a performance, of which to form a correct eftimate, would prove one of the most arduous efforts of critical fkill. "We scarcely can praise it,

66

or blame it too much." Argument every where dextrous and fpecious, fometimes grave and profound, cloathed in the most rich and various imagery, and aided by the most pathetic and picturesque description, speaks the opulence and the powers of that mind, of which age has neither dimmed the difcernment nor enfeebled the fancy, neither repreffed the ardor, nor narrowed the range. rulent encomiums on urbanity, and inflammatory harangues against violence; homilies of moral and religious myfticifm, better adapted

Vi

to

to the amusement than to the conviction of an incredulous age, though they may rouse the languor of attention, can never be dignified by the approbation of the understanding.

A

Of the Senate and people of France, his language is fuch as might have been expected to a country which his fancy has peopled only with plots, affaffinations, and màffacres, and all the brood of dire chimeras which are the offspring of a prolific imagination, goaded by an ardent and deluded fenfibility. The glimpfes of benevolence, which irradiate this gloom of invective, arife only from generous illufion, from mifguided and mifplaced compaffionhis eloquence is not at leifure to deplore the fate of beggared artizans, and famished peafants, the victims of fufpended industry, and languishing commerce. The fenfibility which feems scared by the homely miseries of the vulgar, is attracted only by the fplendid forrows of royalty, and agonizes at the flendereft

A 3

dereft pang

that affails the heart of fottishness

or prostitution, if they are placed by fortune on a throne.

To the English friends of French freedom, his language is contemptuous, illiberal, and fcurrilous. In one of the ebbings of his fervor, he is difpofed not to difpute "their good in"tentions." But he abounds in intemperate fallies, in ungenerous infinuations, which wisdom ought to have checked, as ebullitions of paffion, which genius ought to have difdained, as weapons of controversy.

The arrangement of his work is as fingular as the matter. Availing himself of all the privileges of epiftolary effufion, in their utmoft latitude and laxity, he interrupts, difmiffes, and refumes argument at pleasure. His fubject is as extenfive as political science his allufions and excurfions reach almost every region of human knowledge. It must

be