out by all those who have successively directed the resources of France." Young children, who have been lately held out by their nurses, often talk as vulgarly. The latter part of the sentence should have been," who successively have directed," not "who have successively directed.” — Is not Mr. W. metaphysician enough to perceive the difference?

"the

"But the conviction of such a change, however agreeable to His Majesty's wishes, can result only from experience, and". - What is to follow this "and?" Experience we apprehend to mean evidence of facts." We will substitute this definition, and then observe what follows "But the conviction of such a change can result only from the evidence of facts, and (what else?) the evidence of facts! Mr. Windham! your writings will die of a plethora of meaning.

"It would confirm to France the unmolested enjoyment of its antient territory; and it would give to all the other nations of Europe, in tranquillity and peace, that security which they are now compelled to seek by other means." Are tranquillity and peace then means?

Louis the 14th left no pernicious example of disturbing the security of nations; this was a mushroom of republican growth! But hush! our criticism must be verbal; else we could have smiled in observing, how curiously and expressly the sovereignty of the people is admitted and recognised in

the following paragraph: "or in whose hands she shall vest the authority," &c. But we have given enough "by which to judge." 'Twere a wearisome and idle task to pluck all the nettles and stinking henbane out of a ditch where not a flower grows to be injured by them.

From a metaphysician we naturally expect a logical combination of sentences; from a scholar, accuracy in the use of words; from a gentleman, ease and elegance of style. Mr. Windham is believed to be at once gentleman, scholar, and metaphysician. Can it then be true, that Mr. Windham is the author of the Official Note? In almost every paragraph we meet with solecisms "unknown to the practice" of any classical writer. So endless are the repetitions and recurrences in this Note, that it seems almost to explain by analogy the curious difficulty how the same thing can be at once protracted and renewed." Indeed so obscurely is it worded, that it appears little calculated to produce an extension" of ministerial power at home, or a propagation of their system abroad.

66

66

Through the whole of this note we may observe the clearest marks of labour strangely modified by two opposite principles, the consciousness of debility, and the self-complacent pride of office. The forms of connection are multiplied unnecessarily, and in the most obtrusive manner; but the connection itself is sufficiently slender for a Pindaric Ode. The same idea is repeated in a variety of

phrases, than which no stronger proof can be given of dimness in the intellectual, and vanity in the moral, character. It is a mad beggar's dream of riches. We conclude with two quotations, one from Lord Rochester, the other from Geoffrey Chaucer; and leave the application of the first to our readers.

"Nature's as lame in making a true fop,
As a philosopher: the very top
And dignity of folly we attain

By studious search and labour of the brain-
God never made a coxcomb worth a groat."

ROCHESTER.

"And if it be so, that we have yshewed in our lith English trewe conclusions, conne us the more thank, and praye God save the King that is Lord of this language, and all that him faith bereth, and obeieth everiche in his degree, the more and the lass."-CHAUCER'S Astrolabie.

(Probably January 22, 26 or 27, 1800.)

HE result of the Irish debates has confirmed

THE

hopes which the Anti-Unionists appeared to have entertained. We know too well the materials of which that faction is composed, who form a large part of the parliamentary Anti-Unionists. On the question itself, in all its bearings, we shall have frequent occasion to deliver our sentiments; at

present we shall only express our surprise and regret, that Sir Laurence Parsons should have rested so much of his argument on the merits of the Irish parliament. His very motion, as Lord Castlereagh justly observed, was in direct contradiction to his argument. What must that assembly be, in which a question of such immense national importance can be lost or carried by a low manoeuvre? Twenty writs are issued. It is known that the persons returned will be creatures of government; and we must therefore anticipate this intrigue by a trick of our own. Thus must the motion be construed: it admits of no other construction. "But (says Sir Laurence) if the subserviency of the Irish parliament were a fair ground to call for its extinction, would not the argument be at least as strong against that of England? Let any man state to me an instance of base servility to the Minister by the Irish Senate, and I will pledge myself to find him one, equally base and servile in the British Parliament." Let this be accurate or erroneous, it does not appear that the question of the Union is affected by it; for even on the hypothesis that both parliaments were involved in one character, it would by no means follow that it is better and more economic for the empire to have two vicious assemblies than one. An honest man, who should give his real opinions on certain subjects, would probably exhibit more truth than prudence; but were we to enter on the comparative merits of certain great assem

blies, we should be inclined to decide in favour of one of them, not only from national partiality, but because, if, as Mr. Burke observed, "vice loses half its evil, by losing all its grossness," corruption may be more pernicious by being more palpable, even though it should not be more intense.“ I keep up appearances, Sister!”

ON THE LATE DEBATE.

(Saturday, February 1, 1800.)

ORD GRENVILLE on Tuesday night stated,

"That peace was an object, not only to be devoutly wished for, on the score of humanity, but that the interests of our commerce likewise were decidedly in favour of so desirable an event." The Earl of Liverpool, on the same evening, found his arguments so completely anticipated by Lord Grenville, and their opinions so perfectly similar, as to leave him little occasion to develope them in his own person and almost immediately hereupon proceeded, in words of the following import: "Our commerce, since the war, has prospered beyond example. In fact, we may almost be said to have the whole commerce of the world in our hands. Our trade, manufactures, and agriculture, also flourish extremely. Ought we, then, to consent, by a premature peace, to open the ports of France, to