132 
which France so lately attained, and 
though some may consider it as. pro- 
ducing only an evanescent effect, others 
have observed that its results are likely 
to be far more substantial, So that our 
fears, as Seneca exclaims, may be more 
numerous than our dangers, and we 
may suffer more from apprehension than 
from any real cause of alarm... “ Plura 
sunt que nos terrent, quam que pre- 
munt, et se@pius opinione quam rela- 
boramus.” 
Who can set forth the effectual sup- 
port which the profound abilities and 
undaunted valour of one man can give 
to the power of a country ? Frederick 
of Prussia, by his determined firmness, 
wisdom, perseverance and activity, re- 
tained his situation, in opposition to the 
strongest conflux of military numbers 
combined against him. Many have been 
dazzled with the glare of French achieve- 
ments, when, during the revolution, 
other countries, from their officious in- 
termeddling, were involved in the direful 
consequences of its convulsions. As 
far as it is possible for human foresight 
to calculate, Frederick would have main- 
tained his, post—his solid merits would 
have rendered abortive any combination 
which the French could have excited 
against him. Buonaparte, their dictator 
and sovereign, would have been limited 
in his ambition, reduced to renounce his 
presumptuous attempts, perhaps to for- 
feit all the advantages he enjoyed, had 
that one man been amongst his foes, on 
the stage of action, 
In choosing an alternative between the 
two powers, M. de Pradt declares openly 
for England. It is certain that the pre- 
judices against our nation, during the 
ancient monarchy, were illiberal and 
unjust; that these are no longer regard- 
ed in France, is curious and _praise- 
worthy. They acknowledge the excel- 
lence and purity of our institutions, the 
moral sanctity of our religion, the pro- 
tection of the laws, to preserve those 
virtues with which a good citizen may 
fearlessly. shew himself encircled. But 
as to the French deriving advantages 
from being protégées of the English, in 
any other way than that of borrowing 
the most important parts of our: civil, 
political and ecclesiastical establish- 
ments, such a notion is liable to ex- 
ceptions, and improbable in the extreme. 
M. de Pradt discovers awful and 
alarming signs, in the field of observa- 
tion which he opens, notwithstanding 
which he praises our once happy con- 
stitution indiscriminately. It is not 
Russia and Britain compared. 
[Sept. 1, 
wanting in a thousand mild, beneficent, 
generous provisions, to excite an in- 
terest in strangers, but how many ach- 
ing hearts would be gladdened could 
that corruption which, through the last 
half century, has accelerated, to an ex- 
treme degree, be exterminated ? This 
devastating scourge of our nation has 
been the best instrument of almost every 
tribe of ourrulers, a medium of govern- 
ment to which they constantly have re- 
course. Facts fall infinitely, short of 
this writer’s description, and there seems 
reason to accuse him of haying taken 
stolen glances rather than full views of 
the objects he produces. In the whole 
fabric of our social compact, it is cer- 
tain that the influence and agency of 
the people are necessary to ensure the 
welfare of the community. This would 
die the victim of neglect, judging from 
their increasing depravity, were it to be 
engrossed by the enervating egotism of 
statesmen. Our author has not had 
time or opportunity to fasten on such 
feelings. In summing up his account of 
the plans which compose British phi- 
lanthropy, he gives. an impressive view 
of their combination, but forgets that it 
is the. benevolent ingenuity, and pro- 
ductive diligence of the citizens that 
have erected these, and that ministers, 
as such, devote themselves to pursuits, 
the essenced aim of which are very dif- 
ferent. 
There are other positions which de- 
serve attention, as descriptive of the 
mind and character of our countrymen, 
but is he justified, in affirming that the 
power and opulence of England can 
only be continued and extended, by 
promoting civilization throughout the 
world ? Is not this too highly drawn ? 
Is it not our interest that the arts of 
industry should be Jess “advanced in 
other states than in our own ? Without 
going into details, confine your obser- 
vation to the making of cotton, wherein, 
as we excel the French on the degree 
of general merits and superiority of im- 
provement, we export ten times as 
much, 
And have not English ministers sacri- 
ficed the liberties and national inde- 
pendence of other commercial states, 
Genoa, Ragusa, Venice? and did they not 
guarantee to Sicily her parliament and 
fundamental laws? Are not their indif- 
ference as to what became of them, and 
their wickedness respecting the subse- 
quent events of their desolation, loudly 
reprobated? It seems unnecessary: to 
go over other grounds. of inquiry, in 
various 
