cause the bufinefs never came to the point of refufal, or acceptance; all that he did was, to receive the Ruffian project for a treaty of commerce, and to transmit it to England. This was in November 1764; and he left Petersburgh the January following, before he could even receive an anfwer from his own court. The conclufion of the treaty fell to his fucceffor. Whoever will be at the trouble to compare it with the treaty of 1734, will, I believe, confefs, that, if the former minifters could have obtained fuch terms, they were criminal in not accepting them.

But the merchants "deemed them unfafe and unprofitable." What merchants? As no treaty ever was more maturely confidered, fo the opinion of the Ruffia merchants in London was all along taken; and all the inftructions fent over were in exact conformity to that opinion. Our minifter there made no ftep without having previously confulted our merchants refident in Petersburgh, who, before the figning of the treaty, gave the most full and unanimous teftimony in its favour. In their addrefs to our minifter at that court, among other things, they fay, "It may afford fome addi"tional fatisfaction to your excellency, to receive "a publick acknowledgment of the entire and un

referved approbation of every article in this treaty, "from us who are fo immediately and fo nearly "concerned

"concerned in its confequences." This was figned by the conful general, and every British merchant in Petersburgh.

The approbation of those immediately concerned in the confequences is nothing to this author. He and his friends have fo much tendernefs for peoples' interefts, and understand them fo much better than they do themfelves, that, whilft these politicians are contending for the best of poffible terms, the claimants are obliged to go without any terms

at all.

One of the firft and jufteft complaints against the administration of the author's friends, was the want of vigour in their foreign negotiations. Their immediate fucceffors endeavoured to correct that errour, along with others; and there was fcarcely a foreign court, in which the new fpirit that had arisen was not fenfibly felt, acknowledged, and fometimes complained of. On their coming into administration, they found the demolition of Dunkirk entirely at a stand: instead of demolition, they found conftruction; for the French were then at work on the repair of the jettees. On the remonftrances of General Conway, fome parts of thefe jettees were immediately deftroyed. The Duke of Richmond perfonally furveyed the place, and obtained a fuller knowledge of its true state and condition than any of our ministers had done;

and,

and, in confequence, had larger offers from the Duke of Choifeul than had ever been received. But, as thefe were fhort of our juft expectations under the treaty, he rejected them. Our then minifters, knowing that, in their adminiftration, the peoples' minds were fet at eafe upon all the effential points of publick and private liberty, and that no project of theirs could endanger the concord of the empire, were under no restraint from pursuing every juft demand upon foreign nations.

The author, towards the end of this work, falls into reflections upon the state of publick morals in this country: he draws ufe from this doctrine, by recommending his friend to the king and the publick, as another Duke of Sully; and he concludes the whole performance with a very devout prayer,

The prayers of politicians may fometimes be fincere; and as this prayer is in fubftance, that the author, or his friends, may be foon brought into power, I have great reafon to believe it is very much from the heart. It must be owned too that after he has drawn fuch a picture, fuch a fhocking picture, of the ftate of this country, he has great faith in thinking the means he prays for fufficient to relieve us after the character he has given of its inhabitants of all ranks and claffes, he has great charity in caring much about them; and indeed, no less hope, in being of opinion, that such a deteftable

teftable nation can ever become the care of Providence. He has not even found five good men in our devoted city.

He talks indeed of men of virtue and ability. But where are his men of virtue and ability to be found? Are they in the 'prefent administration? never were a fet of people more blackened by this author. Are they among the party of those (no small body) who adhere to the fyftem of 1766? thefe, it is the great purpofe of this book to calumniate. Are they the perfons who acted with his great friend, fince the change in 1762, to his removal in 1765? fcarcely any of these are now out of employment; and we are in poffeffion of his defideratum. Yet I think he hardly means to felect, even some of the highest of them, as examples fit for the reformation of a corrupt world.

He obferves, that the virtue of the most exemplary prince that ever fwayed a fceptre * "can

66

66

never warm or illuminate the body of his peo

ple, if foul mirrors are placed fo near him as "to refract and diffipate the rays at their first ema"nation." Without obferving upon the propriety of this metaphor, or afking how mirrors come to have loft their old quality of reflecting, and to have acquired that of refracting, and diffipating rays, and how far their foulnefs will ac

* P. 46.

count

it;

66

count for this change; the remark itself is common and true: no lefs true, and equally furprifing from him, is that which immediately precedes *"it is in vain to endeavour to check the "progress of irreligion and licentiousness, by punifhing fuch crimes in one individual, if others "equally culpable are rewarded with the honours " and emoluments of the ftate." I am not in the fecret of the author's manner of writing; but it appears to me, that he muft intend these reflections as a fatire upon the adminiftration of his happy years. Were ever the honours and emoluments of the state more lavishly fquandered upon perfons fcandalous in their lives than during that period? In these scandalous lives, was there any thing more fcandalous than the mode of punishing one culpable individual? In that individual, is any thing more culpable than his having been feduced by the example of fome of thofe very persons by whom he was thus perfecuted?

The author is fo eager to attack others, that he provides but indifferently for his own defence. I believe, without going beyond the page I have now before me, he is very fenfible, that I have fufficient matter of further, and, if poffible, of heavier, charge against his friends, upon his own principle. But it is because the advantage is too great,

*P. 46.

that