from the celebrated Mr. Locke's Treatife on Government, written avowedly for the purpose of defending the English revolution; and for writing of which, he was rewarded with a thousand a year from the British govern

ment.

It should seem then that these principles are not quite new, that the French philofophers have not invented them; they have it seems for a century past curfed this country, and now they are fermenting and fpreading their baneful effects through Europe. It is not then the principles themselves, but it is these principles becoming French, which conftitutes the danger; while they were confined to this foggy ifland, while they were locked up in a language almoft unknown upon the continent, the monarchs of Europe were either strangers to their exiftence, or fearless of their effects. But when these principles are adopted by a nation, fituated in the midst of happy defpotic monarchies; by a nation whofe language is the universal language of Europe; and whofe writers by their genius, their wit, their learning, and their tafte, had almost monopolized the literature of Europe; then it was that these principles excited their alarm, and threatened danger. The French writers have until lately been admired through Europe, patronized by kings and applauded by nobles. Some of them indeed were tinctured with deifm, fome even with atheism; but that did not feem much to diminish their celebrity, or draw down the indignation of the monarchs and nobles of Europe. But when these writers adopted the principles of Mr. Locke, when thefe principles began to operate, when the ftate of France threatened an extenfive circulation of them. Then the alarm commenced; then it was discovered that the only writers in Europe, who were univerfally read, were a fet of unhappy, miferable philofophers. That the only literary nation on the continent, were inadequate judges of their own happiness, and that it was requifite to fend them Ruffian and Pruffian foldiers to teach it them.

Let it not be imagined that I mean to infinuate, that these principles are not dangerous. Principles of liberty, whether English, French, or Polish certainly are dangerous to the defpots of Europe, in proportion as they

are beneficial to their fubjects; and that these defpots fhould unite to eradicate thefe principles, by deftroying the new Polish and French governments is extremely natural. I only mean to dispute the propriety of our joining the confederacy.

But probably I may be told that the French have introduced fome new principles in addition to Mr. Locke's. True, but these principles do not feem to be very mischievous, or very hoftile to human happinefs. To renounce foreign conquests and aggreffive warTo confine themfelves to the arts of peace, content with cultivating the foil, and improving the natural advantages beaven bath alloted them-To improve the human species by national education, thus attaching man to fociety by enabling him to partake of its benefits, and apportioning human bnppiness as equally as possible amongst human kind. Thefe if errors, do not feem to be of a very atrocious nature, and should they fail of being realised, it ought rather excite our forrow and commiferation, than our contempt, our indignation, or our vengeance.

But it is faid, that in the feeming excellence of these principles, confifts their danger; that by these reveries of literary enthusiasts, mankind are induced to abandon a present and practicable state of happiness, in pursuit of a visionary fyftem which never can be realized. If so, it became more peculiarly neceffary that the French government should have been left undisturbed; that its impracticability and inutility might have been clearly manifested. Even the Ruffian peafant and the German boor might have been more content under their prefent defpotifm, had it appeared that the principles of the French revolution naturally led to a state of anarchy, or a state of defpotifm, more oppreffive than their own; whereas the anarchy and disorders of France may now be afcribed to the obftruction it has met with, and disturbance it has received from foreign powers. Its advocates may now fairly contend-Had the French government been left to its natural course, it would have produced a state of human happiness, fuperior to what the world ever bebeld. The defpots knew it, they knew the contrast it would form, to the mifery they spread around them. They refolved to prevent its maturity, they combined to ftrangle it in its birth. They attempted it, but in vain.

(9)

▪And tho' defeated, and defeated in a manner that must deftroy every hope of effecting its overthrow, yet they threaten renewed hoftilities; and keep them in perpetual alarm, in hope their deluded fubjects may believe, that the miferies and calamities France endures from their machinations, are the confequences of the government they have adopted.

The continental potentates have confederated against France, not from any thing peculiar to her, either as to principles, government, or conduct; and whether we stand by a calm fpectator of the deftruction of Polifh liberty, or join the continental powers in fubverting the French; in either cafe, it is the general principles of liberty, and not any particular modification of them we are affifting to destroy; and it is the general system of tyranny which we in such case neceffarily support.

That the Auftrian, Ruffian, and Prussian monarchs are to confederate with us to force upon France, the English Conftitution, or any kind of free government, is too abfurd to be fuppofed. It is even not pretended by those who have promoted this war. To our confedcrates, the English principles of government are as obnoxious as the French. Poland had formed a government fimilar to our own; the neighbouring monarchs beheld it with abhorrence, confpired to deftroy it; and his majefty of Pruffia, after due deliberation, pronounced that Poland was contaminated with French principles, which he was determined to deftroy. These fentiments we alfo apparently adopt, for with every diverfified fyftem of tyranny, with every fpecies of arbitrary power, we can cordially coalefce; we can confederate for mutual defence. But let any fyftem of liberty appear among the nations of Europe; let a form of government arife approximating to our own, with them we difdain treaty or alliance: we look on them with abhorrence, or turn from them with contempt; we fuffer them to be destroyed by the furrounding tyrants; and if their power proves infufficient for the purpose, we at laft join the confederacy to fubvert them. We at least cannot be accufed of offering confraternity. We ally ourselves with any government, provided it be hoftile to freedom, but liberty and happiness, it seems, we deem so estimable, that we keep them to ourselves. To fee the British arms otherwife employed, would

indeed be an uncommon circumstance. The effects of our power and influence, are indeed to be very vifibly traced throughout every quarter of the globe, but alas! it is in one unvaried fcene of flavery, defolation, and blood! No wonder we look with abhorrence on the French principle of communicating to others that liberty they have themselves obtained. It is a principle they certainly cannot be accused of having learned of

us.

The intereft the continental monarchs have in fuppreffing the principles of liberty, is plain and obvious; but let it be asked, what intereft have we therein? I will not afk if his majefty, as elector of Hanover has any! but it will not be eafy to fhew, that the king and people of England can poffibly have any: to them it must be perfectly indifferent whether the principles of liberty exift on the east or the west of the Rhine, or whether they be bounded by the Alps or the Pyrennees.

Yet it is the danger from these principles which is chiefly founded in our ears. It is their principles Mr. Dundas tells us, which has rendered France obnoxious and dangerous. And it is their principles Mr. Burke fo vehemently calls on us, to wage eternal war, to eradicate.

The war then it seems is intended to fubvert thefe principles? Difmiffing for a moment the enquiry, whether they be true or falfe, dangerous or beneficial; let us afk a plain queftion, How a war with the French republic is to destroy them? England is their native land; here they may be deemed indigenous, in France only exotic; and whether suffered to remain, or whether the hand of violence tears up the new planted offset, the mother plant ftill remains. Here if any where, that must be destroyed: not only Mr. Burke's fpeeches and the Duke of Richmond's letters, but Mr. Locke's writings must be configned to oblivion before the principles of the French revolution can be annihilated. They are not merely the principles of that revolution, but of all our modern revolutions. Mr. Locke reduced them into form for the English revolution; Mr. Molyneux reforted to them as a proper foundation for an Irish revolution; Mr. Burke's coadjutor, Dr. Price brought them forward for the American, and the national

affembly adopted them for the French revolution. They are still very little the worse for wear, and may ferve for twenty revolutions more. It is true thofe

who have used them to effect a revolution, have usually wifhed, as foon as the end has been answered, to confign them to oblivion; yet they furvive. 'Admitting then these principles to be dangerous in the extreme; admitting allo that their progrefs in this nation be rapid and alarming: nay, that all the exertions of government will be inadequate to preferve the public peace from the disorders that thefe principles will occafion. Still we must request Mr. Dundas, Mr. Burke, or Mr. Jenkinson to inform us how a war will eradicate these principles, or prevent their further progrefs amongst us? Suppofing the Anftrian and Pruffian grenadiers, with the affiftance of the English guards, were to eat up thirty millions of French, and bring away the eighty-three Departments in their knap-facks; would thefe principles be loft? would the murder of thirty millions of people prove them to be falfe? or would any calamities the French may endure from the band of violence make these principles be lefs admired? If it be intended to root them out, measures very different indeed from thofe avowed must be adopted.

Should we indeed ever be informed that we have fucceeded in reftoring the antient French monarchy to its former luftre, and that the national convention have been all fent to a new Baftile, erected on purpose to receive them. Should we be told that the British arms had turned the scale, and determined the war in favor of the allied monarchs, that they had determined no longer to quarrel about the boundaries of their territories; but, from a fenfe of common danger had affociated together against their fubjects as their common enemy; I know not but fome inquifitive perfons amongst us might be apt to enquire the names of the allied kings; and probably might be foolish enough to imagine, that if ever we fhould have an enterprising monarch on the throne, our liberties might be in rather more danger from the nations of Europe being governed by defpotic monarchs, who had effectually fubjugated their fubjects, and had large ftanding armies at their abfolute difpofal, than if these nations were all democratic republics.-And it is not undeferv