are to govern our negociators, we should conjecture that this event is at a remote distance. The author, in taking the part of Great Britain, assumes the loftiest attitude, and demands such concessions from America as we should suppose she would not, except in the last extremity, allow. Commencing with the mention of our maritime rights, he prohibits the smallest discussion of them; and, since the Americans have dared to declare war against us, he regards all former treaties with the United States, and all impolitic concessions made by us in those treaties, as completely abrogated. On this ground, therefore, he urges our government to demand, in the first place, a new line of boundary for the enlargement and better security of the Canadas, and for the benefit of our faithful Indian allies. The exclusion of the Americans from the navigation of the St. Lawrence, and all the lakes which ultimately discharge themselves into it, is the object of this new demarcation; which is not to follow the course of rivers, but to be formed by high ground: for the author remarks that mountains separate, but rivers approximate mankind.' Should we, however, not be able to exclude the Americans altogether from the navigation of the lakes, it is recommended to our negociators (among other points) to insist on restricting the Americans to the use of ships of small tonnage.

It should be stipulated, that no vessel belonging to the Americans, exceeding a certain burthen, twenty or thirty tons, which is a size quite adequate to the trade of those regions, should be suffered to navigate any of the lakes, and that no fortifications of any kind should be erected upon their borders, or the borders of the St. Lawrence, or upon any of the waters that fall into them from the American side: whilst the right of the British in these respects should be reserved to be exercised without restriction: because one of the avowed and main objects of the American government, in this war, being the conquest of the Canadas, and the object of Great Britain merely the security of these provinces against aggression,-it is indisputable, that no peace can be safe or durable, without providing ample security against attacks of that nature in future. It is equally important that the new claim set up by the United States to the whole of the north-west coast of America, as far as the Columbia River, in consequence of their possession of Louisiana, should be set at rest and extinguished for ever."

The author has still other rods in pickle for the Americans. He would prohibit them from the fisheries of Labradore, Newfoundland, ' and the Gulf of St. Lawrence; from all intercourse with the British West India islands; from our Asiatic possessions; and, lastly, he would not allow Florida to be incorporated with the United States.

In short, this writer would not only curtail the existing possessions of the Americans, but he would contrive in future to keep them within due limits, and effectually to curb all their ambitious projects. As an advocate for British interests, we applaud the author's zeal: but it can never be supposed that the enemy will submit to all the mortifications which he would impose. The subject must be more impartially weighed before any accommodation can ensue.

A letter

A letter in the Appendix places in a horrible point of view the conduct of the government of the United States towards the Indian tribes.

ART. 20. Memorial of M. Carnot, Lieutenant-General in the French Army, Knight of the Order of St. Louis, Member of the Legion of Honor, and of the Institute of France, addressed to his Most Christian Majesty, Louis XVIII. Translated from the French Manuscript Copy. To which is subjoined, a Sketch of M. Carnot's Life, together with some remarkable Speeches which he made on former Occasions, in the National Convention and Tribunat. By Lewis Goldsmith, Author of "The Secret History of the Cabinet of Bonaparte," &c. 8vo. 2s. Hookham, junior. 1814.

It is well known, and the memoir here subjoined establishes the fact, that M. Carnot, through all the vicissitudes which France has experienced for the last twenty-five years, uniformly espoused republican principles. Whether he goes so far as Cato, who thought that a good king was an impossibility, we shall not pronounce: but it is very certain from this memorial that he prefers a republic, with all its evils, to a monarchy, with all its blessings. As a composition designed for the perusal of Louis XVIII., the present memorial is a curiosity. The translator protests against the sentiments avowed by the memorialist; and to his Most Christian Majesty they must have been wormwood. The writer reminds the people of the futility of all their sacrifices, and would produce a feeling in them the very reverse of contentment. The best way, perhaps, of giving our readers an idea of the spirit of this pamphlet is by presenting them with a few extracts:

Formerly the Kings of England came to render homage to the Kings of France, as to their Sovereigns:- but Louis XVIII. has, on the contrary, declared to the Prince Regent of England, that, under God, he owed his crown to him; and when his countrymen flew to meet him, and in order to decree that crown to him by an unanimous vote of the nation, he was instructed to answer, that he did not wish to receive it from their hands, that it was the inheritance of his fathers; then were our hearts closed they were silent.

It is thus that Louis XVIII. was made to begin his part in the midst of us by the most violent of all outrages which a sensible and amiable people could receive. We smoothed the way to the throne for him by shewing our eagerness to adhere to the, perhaps, inconsiderate measures of the Provisional Government; in the liveliness of our satisfaction we had spontaneously abandoned our conquests, we gave up from our national limits that flourishing Belgium, which joined its wishes to our's for its re-union to France. A stroke of the pen sufficed to make us give up those superb countries which all the forces of Europe would not have been able to take from us in ten years. Was Louis, then, under the necessity of imitating the Usurpers, who, not being able to become Kings by the assent of the people, make themselves Kings by the grace of God? Did he not know that we have had Napoleon, by the grace

of

of God, and that it was by the grace of God that the most powerful have been always, and will be always seen to reign?

Louis caused himself to be preceded by proclamations, which promised an oblivion of the past; which promised to preserve to each man his situation, his honours, his salary. In what manner have his counsellors made him keep his promise? By causing him to drive from the Senate all those who might have appeared guilty in his eyes, had he not promised to forget every thing. But not an individual of those against whom the public opinion was raised, not one of those who, by the poison of their flattery to Napoleon, had reduced the French to the last degree of debasement. Thus it appears more and more evident, that flattery is the first want of princes, under whatsoever title they may reign.'

When the power of a King over his people is compared to that of a father over his family, the fiction is a happy one; but it is far, very far from the truth. Men speak rather of what ought to be, but not of that which can be,still less of what is. A good father does not establish odious distinctions among his children. His real quality of father inspires him with sentiments which are the inimitable work of nature, and cannot belong to a Sovereign, who is nothing more than a Sovereign. In a word, a father is not vindictive: he often pardons after threatening; but he never punishes after having promised to forget.

It is impossible to conceal that we experience this difference in an acute manner. The return of the Lilies has not produced the effect which was expected from them, the fusion of parties is an operation which has not been performed: so far from that, parties, of which a vestige hardly remained, have been renewed.

Those persons are very culpable, or very blind, who have commenced by detaching from the cause of the Prince every thing which had borne the name of patriot, that is to say, seven-eighths of the nation, and have changed them into a hostile population, in the midst of another to whom they have indirectly given a transcendent preference. If you wish to appear at court with some distinction, take good care that you do not mention that you were one of the twenty-five millions of citizens who defended their country with some degree of courage against hostile invasion; for you will receive for answer, that "those twenty-five millions of pretended citizens were twenty-five millions of rebels; and that those pretended enemies are, and always have been, friends." But you ought to say, that you have had the happiness to have been Chouans, or Vendeans, or deserters, or Cossacks, or English, or, finally, that having remained in France, you never solicited a place under the ephemeral governments which preceded the restoration, but for the purpose of betraying them more conveniently, and hastening their downfall. Then, indeed, will your fidelity be extolled to the skies: you will receive the tender congratulations, the decorations, the affectionate answers of all the royal family.'

Notwithstanding the suppression of this pamphlet in France, it may possibly contain the sentiments of a large proportion of the population; and we have no doubt that this is the case when it ex

presses

presses the mortification which they feel in their present circumstances of humiliation. The loss of Belgium they cannot relish; and the strong force which we now maintain in that quarter sufficiently indicates our apprehensions. Some persons, indeed, are of opinion that this circumstance alone will generate a new war.

An unexpected stroke has brought us low: we feel in our hearts a void similar to that which a lover finds who has lost the object of his passion: every thing which he sees, every thing which he hears, renews his grief. This sentiment renders our existence uncertain and painful; every one searches to dissimulate that wound, which he feels at the bottom of his heart. We regard ourselves as brought low, notwithstanding 20 years of continual triumphs, because we have lost one game alone, which unfortunately was that of honour, and which made the guide of our destinies.'

Glancing at the deposed Emperor, who would still have remained on the throne of France had it not been for the perfidiousness and extravagance of his last expedition,' M. Carnot explains the cause of Napoleon's popularity:

What was it which made us support the tyranny of Napoleon? It was because he had exalted the national pride. With what devotedness did not even those serve him who detested him the most? It was despair alone which caused his eagles to be abandoned. His character imposed upon men, to the last moment, and even in his distress he treated on equal terms with the Allies, who dictated laws to us within the walls of Paris.'

The observations on History, on the Social State, on the Science of Government, and on Public Spirit, prove M. Carnot not only to have read much, but to have thought correctly; and, could we diffuse more virtue among men, some of his ideas would, no doubt, be realized. The republican, however, peeps out in his distinction between honour and honours; which, in the present day, none but Quakers will relish.

RELIGIOUS.

Art. 21. A Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Chester, at the Primary Visitation of that Diocese, in July, August, and September, 1814. By George Henry Law, D.D. F.R.S. Lord Bishop of Chester. 4to. 25. Rodwell.

Prelates are the appointed guardians of our ecclesiastical establishment, and are induced by duty, by professional habits, and by the great interest which they have at stake, to watch with a vigilant eye over their own church, both to promote its prosperity and to secure it from every lurking evil. The Bishop of Chester, with the zeal of a true churchman, and with the policy of a sagacious advocate, brings into the fore-ground of his charge two objects which have obtained the warm approbation and the vigorous support of many of the most intelligent and liberal persons in the kingdom, but which nevertheless have been viewed with a suspicious eye by some individuals, as having an operation unfavourable to the established system of religion we mean "The Bible-Society," and the Lancasterian mode of education. In lieu of the first, Dr. Law recommends "the

:

I 2

Society

Society for promoting Christian Knowlege ;" and instead of the second, Dr. Bell's or the Madras mode of instruction. We shall not discuss these points with the Bishop of Chester: but we may observe that he does not appear to us to do justice to the Bible-Society; and that, though he disclaims all hostility' to it, his representation cannot fail to operate in a hostile manner. The tendency of the BibleSociey,' he thinks, is unfavourable to our Church Establishment ;' and he thus attempts to prove his proposition: The Bible-Society, by the very terms of its constitution, disperses the Bible alone, excluding the Prayer-Book. Now as the one has been heretofore accompanied with the other, the systematic rejection of the latter may induce the suspicion, that our Forms of Prayer are not held to be essential, and, by consequence, that our religious establishments are not necessary.' Why should such a suspicion be entertained, when the reason assigned for excluding not only the Prayer-Book, but even every note and comment, is the comprehension of all sects and parties? It would be fair for the clergy to say in return, "Will not our objection to the distribution of the Bible alone induce a suspicion that the Bible alone will not answer our purpose?"

On the Lancasterian Institution, we suspect that the R. R. author is rather too severe, when he remarks on it that it leaves the rising generation to pick up their religion as they can, any where or no where.' Surely, if the lessons in Lancaster's school are taken from the discourses of our blessed Saviour, may the children in his school be truly represented as left to pick up their religion as they can? Here its first rudiments must be found.-We shall say no more on this occasion, than that we are sorry to perceive that a scheme, which was designed to amalgamate all parties, has excited so marked an opposition . even from our bishops. Religion, it seems, must be conducted with human passions, and associated with human prejudices.

In the remainder of the Charge, the Bp. of Chester advises his clergy to be cautious in giving testimonials, and in lending their pulpits to itinerants. He adverts also to the cases of curates and non-residents, and gives a very favourable report of the state of his diocese. He orders the whole of the Liturgy to be read, without any alteration, and concludes with exhorting his clergy to set a good example to their flocks. It is not enough to be moral, you must be exemplary.' — The clergy should not forget this short sentence. multum in parvo.

MISCELLANEOUS.

It is

Art. 22. Classical English Letter-writer: or Epistolary Selections, designed to improve Young Persons in the Art of Letter-writing, and in the Principles of Virtue and Piety. With Introductory Rules and Observations on Epistolary Composition, and Biographical Notices of the Writers from whom the Letters are selected. By the Author of "Lessons for Young Persons in Humble Life." 12mo. 5s. bound. Longman and Co. 1814.

This cheap volume contains a considerable assemblage of letters, with a dissertation on the art of letter-writing, and a series of short biographical notices, respecting the persons whose epistolary remains have been ransacked for the compilation. The plan of the

work