= 
BISSET’S REIGN 
one effort ; and, if we must fall, let us fall 
like men.’ 
« The Duke of Richmond declared his grief 
and horror at the dismemberment of the 
‘empire to be as great as that of any man in 
the house or nation, but how was it to be 
avoided ? he himself was totally ignorant of 
the means of resisting with success the 
combination of America with France and 
Spain. He did not know how to preserve 
the dependence of America. If any person 
could prevent such an evil, Lord Chatham 
was the man; but what were the means that 
eat statesmen would propose? Lord Chat- 
am, agitated by this appeal, made an 
eager effort at its conclusion to rise; but 
before he could utter a word, pressing his 
hand to his heart, he fell down in a convul- 
sive fit. The Duke of Cumberland and Lord 
Temple, who were nearest to him, caught 
him in their arms. The house was imme- 
diately in commotion, strangers were ordered 
to depart, and the house was adjourned. 
Lord Chatham being casried into an adjoin- 
ing apartment, medical assistance soon ar- 
rived. Recovering in some degree, he was 
conveyed in a litter to his villa at Hayes in 
Kent, and there he lingered till the 11th of 
May, when he breathed his last, in the 70th 
- : ” 
year of his age. 
The coalition between North and Fox 
is discussed and blamed by Dr. Bisset, 
very consistently with his disposition to 
preserve the influence of the crown from 
being overpowered. But the people 
ought never to forget that all coalitions, 
not suggested by the sovereign, are 
necessarily bottomed on the principle of 
a parliamentary dictation of ministers 
being preferable to their selection by 
the personal will of the king. This is 
a somewhat republican, though not at 
alla democratic, principle: it does not 
threaten any change in the form of the 
constitution; but it tends clearly to 
transfer a portion of real and efficient 
power from the crown to the house of 
commons, from an hereditary to an 
elective branch of the constitution. The 
oo hn of friends of liberty ought to 
e in tavour of coalitions: the choice of 
ministers too ought to rest in the house 
of commons ; for the delegates of the 
_ people have more assuredly, in their 
collective capacity, the wisdom requi- 
Site to appoint ruinisters skilfully, than 
any one man is likely to have, whom 
neither native or acquired ability has 
rendered conspicuous as a judge of me- 
rit; and they have more assuredly a 
common interest with the nation, than 
any particular reigning dynasty, whose 
continental and domestic interest may 
IAS 
» 
OF GEORGE Ill. 
both differ occasionally from those of 
the country. 
The fifth volume opens with an ac- — 
count of the revolution of France. It 
is yet too soon to appeal to experience, 
for a decision concerning the utility of 
this formidable change. Many great 
and permanent benefits were conferred 
by the legislation of the constituting as- 
sembly. A military despotism has ter- 
minated, forthe present, the hope of a 
rational and enduring liberty. But it 
is by no means improbable that the sway 
of the new Cromwell will be superseded 
by institutions more popular, and that 
the national assemblies of France will 
be found to have conferred the same 
benefits which the long parliament of 
England bestowed on this country: be- 
nefits far superior to the more valued 
innovations of any subsequent revolu- 
tion. The French suffered not from 
their legalized representation, but from 
that Parisian faction which superseded 
representative authority, and introduced 
the direct sway of a democratic oligar- 
chy ; by appealing from the delegates 
of the people to the people in their indi- 
vidual capacity, in the form of ig. 
norant assemblages or factious clubs. 
Not to republicanism, but to ochlocracy, 
they owe their greatest evils. 
In this volume the forty-sixth chapter 
narrates the discussion of the abolition 
of the slave-trade. Here Dr. Bisset 
leans to the cold and puny policy adopted 
by the country. What is now to be ex- 
pected from it, but that a legislature, 
which, instead of considering the hap- 
piness of its subjects as the binding 
principle of its policy, has preferred to 
consult the harsh wishes of an aristo- 
cracy of tropical land-owners, will be 
repaid with an ingratitude not more 
disgusting than its conduct, and will 
find its authority disputed by the very 
men to whom it lent the aid of its 
power, beyond the limits of its-sense of 
justice. 
The writings of Paine, the riots of 
Birmingham, come under examination. 
These tumultuous excesses, Dr. Bisset 
complains, were ascribed by Dr. Friest- 
ley to the badness of the cause: as if 
the intrinsic merits of any system could be 
lessened by the folly or madness of its de- 
fenders. ‘There is an incorrectness in 
stating (p.403) that Robespierre and 
his supporters abjured the Supreme Be- 
ing: the reverse is the case. Other 
flaws occur in the narrative, which to 
R2 
