‘A Dialogue in Empyreum, between Louis XV1. and Charles 1. 2 53 
Without a party among your fubjetts, 
you had long cealed to be attended to. 
L. They feemed to prize my accept- 
ance of the conftitution. 
C. As if willing to revive an opinion 
of indefealible right, when it was likely 
to operate in their own favour. Was it 
this which duped you into over-rating 
your refiduum of power fo far, as to 
think you could withftand an adminiftra- 
tion enjoying the confidence of the legifla- 
tive allembly ? Prince—prince ! 
L. I only withed to fecond the Feuil- 
lant party, who were not, like the Jaco- 
bins, aiming at my very being. 
C. Had you taken the moft defperate 
into pay, thefe Jacobin minifters, like 
all others, would have endeavonred to 
ftrengthen an authority which made a 
part of their own. They would have 
erected their ftatue To the refforer of French 
iberty, which their antagonifts voted you. 
They would have increafed a civil lift, 
which was to buy them creatures. But 
your eternal blind preference of whatever 
men promifed you molt appearance of 
power, naturally led the people-to believe, 
that even a conftitutional king would op- 
pofe them all he could. 
L. And the accurfed roth of Auguft! 
C. The right of nations to decree the 
forfeiture of a crown, my good people of 
England atknowledged, jyou know, in 
1688. 
L. But ¢heir motives— 
C. Were chiefly to unfeat an admini- 
ftration. Wildman, Fletcher, and the 
difinterefted friends of freedom, would 
have preferred James with a diminifhed 
prerogative, to William with an in- 
creafed influence. Burthenfome church- 
men of the time could not abide a mif- 
creant king, willing, perhaps, out of 
bigotry, to tolerate both Catholics and 
Diffenters. William, ‘indeed, had the 
like wifh, hut he knew better than to 
facrifice his crown to his liberality. 
L. Igave.no grounds of alarm or pro- 
vocation, religious or civil. 
C. The obftinate detention of a fo- 
reign guard, which the conftitution for- 
bad, which the legiflative affembly ad- 
vifed you to difmifs, and which feemed 
likely to co-operate with the Duke of 
Brunfwick, then rapidly approaching to- 
wards Paris; was this no ground of 
alarm, of provocation? A fovereion 
fhould never excite jealoufy, if he cannot 
command acquiefcence, 
L. They imprifoned me in avowed 
sontempt of my conftitutional inviolabi- 
Rity. Atrocious, faithle{s monfters! 
C. I thall not defend it, TI expe&ed 
that, at the meeting of the convention, 
you would have been Jiberated—informed 
with as much indifference as had you 
been 2 toll-gate-keeper, that your fervices 
were to be difpenfed with—counfelled to 
pafs your carnivals at Venice—and fuf- 
fered to retire upon a penfion, neglected 
and content. ise | 
L. And content? You do not fufpec® 
me of fuch vilenefs. 
C. If contentment were the wifeft 
courfe, why not? 
L. O but I had friends! 
-C. You fappofe then, that a ftrong 
party in the country would at any time 
have marfhalled around your name, would 
have affifted you to recover your fallen 
dignity, and to replace the fcutcheons of 
your nobility among the civic honours 
of the country. Elie— 
L. Surely Ido. | 
C. And if the members of the conven- 
tion were alfo aware of the exiftence of 
this party—if the fuperftition about kings 
had given way rather to an oppofite en- 
thufiafm, than a national indifference for 
them—if the exiftence of a man believed to 
have innate, indwelling, or divine rights, 
was really dangerous td that unanimous 
fubmiffion to’ the newer powers, which 
could alone enable them to dire& the 
public force with fufficient energy againit 
the foreign foe— 
L. You are not daring to palliate the 
lait at of our common ill-ufage. 
C..I think as ill as ever of fuch as 
thought by my execution to fecure per- 
fonal impunity or individual advance- 
ment; but I have had fo much converfa- 
tien with Hampden, Bradfhaw, Milton, 
and the reft of that itamp, that I begin 
to enter into the grouhds of their party. 
L. Which were— : 
C. That, although no previoufly ex- 
iting law juftified my removal, yet that 
my acting in concert with perfons hoftile 
to the progrefs of popular influence upon 
government, which they call liberty, 
tended to defer the improvement of the 
conftitution—that opinions of hereditary 
right cannot, by their very nature, be 
compounded with, but muft either be 
allowed to eftablifh their fuperftitions (the 
monarchy or feigniorage of certain fami- 
lies), which is unjuft to the oppofite opi- 
nions, or muft be coerced in the exercife 
of their claims—that the feftators of ne- 
bility, having acquiefced in the fuppretf- 
fion of peerage, and thus concentered 
their wifhes upon the retention of kingly 
power, would have no pretext to revolt 
again{t the more general will, if deprived 
of their only poflible leader—and that 
the backward minority of my fon ren- 
Zia dering 
