of the French liberty, and rejoiced at the annihilation of 
Gallic defpotifm, without confiderijjg its peculiar nature, 
adjVinCts, and effects, the book was abufed as a defence 
©f arbitrary inflitutions. 
In this'clafs was Mr. Fox ; who, in his fpeeeh on the 
army eft inflates, in 1790, adverting to the revolution, faid, 
“ that he confidered that event as a reafon for fuppofing 
that France was likely to become a better neighbour, and 
lefs propenie to hoftility, than when (lie was fubjeft to 
the cabal and intrigues of ambitious-ftatefmen.” Burke, 
who had been waiting for an opportunity of declaring his 
dilifpprobation of the principles and the proceedings of the 
French revolution:(Is, delivered his fentiments on this 
occafion. In the courfe of his foeech, after having djf- 
fented from Mr. Fox, he expreffed his fear of this coun¬ 
try “ being led, through an admiration of fuccefsful fraud 
and violence, to imitate the excels of an irrational, un¬ 
principled, profcribing, confiscating, plundering, ferocious, 
bloody , and tyrannical, democracy .” Without inquiring whe¬ 
ther this fentiment of Mr. Burke may or may not be re¬ 
conciled by me tap by deal ingenuity with fome latent prin¬ 
ciple extracted from the great m.ifs of his former writings 
and (peeclies, it is eafy to conceive that the application of 
the words ‘ ferocious, bloody, and tyrannical, democracy,’ 
to thole who had overthrown the French defpotifm, by a 
man who during a long life had been the 1110ft bold and 
zealous member of a popular party, and who had juftified 
and praifed America for venturing on all the horrors of a 
revolution rather than fubmit to the impofition of a tri¬ 
vial import, inuft have been heard by his old friends with 
aftonifhment. Mr. Fox, in his reply, having expreffed in 
very high terms his efteem and veneration for his old co¬ 
adjutor, declared that he could not agree in his opinion 
reipecting the French revolution, at which he rejoiced as 
the triumph of liberty, over defpotifm. In this reply, all 
was mild and conciliating : but Mr. Sheridan expreffed his 
difapprobation of Burke’s reafoning and opinion in a man¬ 
ner much lefs complimentary. He thought them, he faid, 
quite inconfiftent with the general principles and conduct 
of fo conftunt and powerful a friend of liberty, who had 
io much valued the purity of the Britifh government and 
revolution, and who had uniformly profelled himfelf an 
enemy to defpotifm and arbitrary power. In anfwer, Mr. 
Burke faid, that his obfervations’ had been uncandidly con- 
ftrued, and that from that moment Mr. Sheridan and lie 
were forever feparated in politics! “ Mr. Sheridan has 
facrificed my friend Hi i p in exchange for the applaufe of 
clubs and allocations; I allure him he will find the ac- 
quilition too infrgnificant to be worth the price at which 
it is purchafed.” The fentiments now declared by Meft". 
Fox and Sheridan- in the houfe of commons, and in Dr. 
Price’s fermon at the Old Jewry, induced Mr. Burke to 
enlarge the firft (ketch of the “ Reflexions,” until it af- 
fumed the form in which it appeared before the public in 
October 1790. The firft public mark of approbation with 
which this compolition was honoured, was an addrefs from 
the univerfity of Oxford. It was propofed, by many mem¬ 
bers of that learned body, that the univerfity (hould con¬ 
fer the degree of IX. D. on the author: but the propofal 
was rejected by (even to fix, from an apprehenfion, it is 
faid, that the degree would not have met with the unani¬ 
mous votes of the members of convocation. The addrefs, 
which came from the refident graduates, was conceived in 
term's very flattering to Mr. Burke and his performance. 
It was conveyed by Mr. Windham, of Norfolk, through 
whom Mr. Burke returned his anfwer. The miniftry alfo 
conceived an opinion not lefs favourable to the work than 
that of the.univerfity of Oxford. 
The next publication of Mr. Burke was his “ Second 
Letter to a Member of the National Airembly in which, 
after having re-touchcd the feveral topics of the “ Re¬ 
flexions,” he now carries Iris view to the effeCts of the 
revolution on private and facial happinefs, and labours to 
prove that the plans of education and civil regulations, 
which the alfembly had formed, fprang from the fame 
3 
R K E. 
fource of untried theory, and tended to the fame diforder 
and mifery. Knowing that Rondeau was the model held 
up to the imitation of their youth, he analyfes-phe cha¬ 
racter of Jean Jaques, along with thofe of Voltaire and 
Helvetius. In 1791, in difeufling the bill for forming a 
conftitution for Canada, Burke again introduced the fub- 
jeCt of the French revolution, of which he talked in the 
fame drain as formerly. Mr. Fox replied, and expreffed his 
diftent trom Mr. Burke’s opinions on that fubject, Con¬ 
tending that they were inconfiftent with his former prin¬ 
ciples. Mr. Burke complained that he had been treated: 
by Mr. Fox with “ harfhnefs and malignity,” denied the 
charge of inconfiftency,' defended His opinions relative to 
the French revolution, and faid that, though Mr. Fox 
and lie had often differed, there had been no breach of 
friendfiiip : but, he added, “ there is fomething in this 
curled French conftitution which envenoms every thing.”’ 
Mr. Fo-x whifpered, “ there is no breach of friendfiiip 
between us.” Burke anfwered, “ there is 1 I know the 
price of my conduct; our friendfiiip is at an end !”■ Thus 
prompt was Mr. Burke to terminate a friendlhip which 
had been cemented by fo many ties, and had lafted for fo 
many years! It is faid that the animollty arifing from po¬ 
litical differences had been aggravated by fome critical 
obfervations that Mr. Fox had made on the “ Reflexions,” 
which he called rather “ theeffufion of poetic genius, than 
a philofophical inveftigation.” This difference between 
Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke was noticed by the whig club ; 
who declared Mr. Fox to have maintained the pure doc¬ 
trines by which the whigs of. England were bound toge¬ 
ther. That publication gave rife to Mr. Burke’s “ Ap¬ 
peal from the New to the Old Whigs in which he de¬ 
fends his reafonings cn the French revolution, and endea¬ 
vours to prove them to be confident with the principles- 
that he always profelled, and with thofe which diftin- 
guifhed the old whigs. In this fummer, (1791,) appeared 
Mackintofh’s Vindiciaj Gallicae ; in which that able wri¬ 
ter made a mod powerful alfault on the principles and rea¬ 
foning of the “Reflexions.” On the annunciation by the 
French ambaffador of the acceptance of the new conftitu¬ 
tion by the king, Burke wrote his “ Hints for a Memo¬ 
rial,” to be delivered to M. de Montmorin ; which went 
to prove, firft, that no revolution is to be expeCted in 
France from internal caufes folely; fecondly, that, the 
longer the prefent fyftem exifts, the greater will be its 
ftrength ; and thirdly, that, as long as it exifts, it would 
be the filtered of the revolutionifts.to diftraCt and revolu¬ 
tionize other countries. The procefs of affairs in France 
had now greatly increafed the violence of thofe who in 
this country demanded parliamentary reform. Burke op- 
pofed every idea on that fubjeft which was delivered in 
parliament, with great vehemence and perfeverance; and, 
foon after the retreat of the king of Pruflia and the fuc- 
ceffes of the republicans, he wrote the “ Second Memo¬ 
rial,” contained in his pofthumous work ; in which he ex¬ 
horts this country to take the lead in forming a general 
combination for the repreffionof French power and French 
principles. 
At the commencement of the war, he had fent his fon 
(with the approbation of government) to Coblentz, in 
order to collect information relative to the difpofition of 
the allied powers; and from him he learned how little 
was to be expected from them without the interpofition of 
Great Britain. During, this period, in which Burke, tho’ 
now at iiis grand climacteric, continued to make the mod 
brilliant difplay of his parliamentary eloquence, lie ap¬ 
peared peculiarly defirous of finprefiing Mr. Fox with his 
own notions on the French revolution; but, .difappointed 
in thefe attempts, lie felt the moll extreme difpleafure; 
to which he gave vent in his letter to the duke of Port¬ 
land, “ on the Condmft of Domeftic Parties.” This let¬ 
ter, it is faid, was not defigned for publication : but a 
rough draft having been copied by the amanuenfis whom 
he employed, it was printed in the beginning of 1797, un¬ 
der the title of “ Fifty-four Articles of Impeachment a- 
gainft 
