one of those who the moft heartily con curred in the particular proceedings which have given fo much umbrage to Mr. Burke, I thall take this opportunity of making fome remarks on his publication.

OF Mr. Burke I fhall previously observe, that I have always entertained a high respect for the talents and the character of this very ingenious, eloquent, and learned writer, though I could not always concur with him in fentiment; and I have confidered many of his parliamentary exertions as justly entitled to great and diftinguished applaufe I cannot, therefore, but moft fincerely re gret, that fuch admirable abilities fhould be employed, in productions fo little friendly to fome of the most important interests of mankind, as his late" Reflections on the "Revolution in France."

Ar the beginning of his book Mr. Burke gives his French correfpondent fome ac

count

count of the two Societies whofe conduct he arraigns. But his account of these Societies is not remarkably courteous, and not very accurate. Of the Society for Conftitutional Information, he fays, among other things, That the inftitution of this So

ciety appears to be of a charitable, and fo far of a laudable, nature: it was intended for the circulation, at the expence

of the members, of many books, which few others would be at the expence of

buying; and which might lie on the hands of the booksellers, to the great • loss of an useful body of men".' The defigns of this Society were not quite fo charitable, either to authors or booksellers, as Mr. Burke fuppofes. The intention of the Society, and the object of their inftitution, as expreffed by themselves, was

to diffufe throughout the kingdom, as

"Reflections on the Revolution in France, p. 3.
❝ univer-

"univerfally as poffible, a knowledge of the ❝ great principles of Constitutional Free"dom, particularly fuch as refpected the "election and duration of the represen"tative body." With this view conftitutional tracts, and effays and extracts from various authors, fuch as Sydney, Locke, Trenchard, lord Somers, and many others, were printed and diftributed GRATÍS, at the expence of the Society: but no authors, or bookfellers, derived any pecuniary advantage from the publications of the Society. In juftice to the Society, I fhall alfo obferve, that I have never known any body of men whofe views appeared to be more pure and patriotic, and which confifted in general of perfons of more integrity, or of more unblemished characters. Nor was it fo obfcure a Society as it is reprefented by Mr. Burke. This "poor cha"ritable club," as he is pleased politely to

ftile it, has numbered among its members, lord Surrey, the prefent duke of Norfolk, the duke of Richmond, the earl of Effingham, Sir William Jones, Mr. Sheridan, Sir Cecil Wray, Mr. James Martin, the late excellent Dr. John Jebb, and many other very respectable men.

THE Vote of congratulation to the National Affembly of France, which has been so severely attacked by Mr. Burke, originated in the Revolution Society, though it was afterwards adopted by the Society for Constitutional Information. The Revolution Society Mr. Burke ftiles "a club of "Diffenters ";" and it is true, that this Society was originally established by Dif senters, who, as a body, have always been zealously attached to the Revolution, and to thofe principles of civil and religious liberty, which they conceive to be natu

12

"Reflections on the Revolution in France, p. 4.

rally

rally connected with that important event. But, for fome years paft, many members of the established church have attended their annual and other meetings. At fome of those meetings I have also occafionally feen lord Surrey, the present duke of Norfolk, the marquis of Carmarthen, now dúke of Leeds, the duke of Richmond, and the duke of Manchester: for lords, when they are out of office, will fometimes do themfelves the honour to appear as members of fuch Societies. The meetings of the Revolution Society have likewife been attended by very refpectable members of the House of Commons.

BUT the meeting of the Society, which has principally given offence to Mr. Burke, was that of the fourth of November, 1789. • I never heard,' fays he, that any public

measure, or political fyftem, much less ⚫ that the merits of the conftitution of any

foreign