534: 
fible defence of the Erench conftitution, 
as now eftabufhed. Fhe author begins 
with fhewing the various changes in the 
national charaéter; he afferts, that Ri- 
chelieu firft broke the power of the people, 
as he did that of the nobles; and that it 
was only from the date of his adminiftra- 
tion that the Englifh looked wpon the 
French as flaves. In this the ingenious 
author is grofsly miftaken, for Fortefcue, 
im the fifteenth century, forms a compa- 
rifon between the Englifh and French, 
and formally terms the latter flaves, be- 
caufe in France the people had no fhare 
in the government, the boafted ftates- 
general being arbitrarily fummoned by the 
king, and arbitrarily ruled by him and 
_ the ariftocracy; whereas England had a 
Houfe of Commons apart. an inftitution to- 
tally unknown, at all times, to all other 
countries in the world. Does M. The- 
remin imagine, that the \French ftates- 
general had the flighteft connexion with 
freedom ? What could a miferable third, 
the ters efat, do againft the nobility and 
clergy, united to opprefs them ? If this 
third had ever had the fmalleft influence, 
would they have permitted the privileged 
orders to faddle them with all the taxes > 
He has only to look -into Froiffart, and 
other early French writers, to: fee the 
bleffed power of the ftates-general ; the 
affembling of which the people, in fact, 
abhorred, as they knew well it was only 
a fignal of frefh taxations. In 1384, fuch 
enormous taxes were impofed by, or ra- 
ther through, the ftates-general, that vat 
numbers of French emigrated. 
The author preceeds to fhew, that the 
public opinion is not yet fixed and decided, 
om account of the ferment excited by the 
change of property, in the diforders infe- 
parable from a great revolution, in the fale 
of the national property, amd in the tran{f- 
fer of places and power, from the former 
monopolifts of rank to men of merit. A 
natural confequence of this tranfition of 
property into the hands of friends of the 
revolution was, that the new conftitution 
reqtires property as a qualification to vote ; 
for a great number of thofe without pro- 
perty either had loft it by the revolution, 
and were, of courfe, its enemies ; or hoped 
to gain by another change. 
Our fpace will not permit us to extend 
our extraéts much further. Theremin, 
in pointing out the advantages which have 
followed the revolution, obferves, that 
the very features of the fair fex have been 
improved by it, and efpecialty thofe of 
the rifing generation ; the hard-conftraine 
Retrofpect of French Literature.—Politics. 
[Sup.' 
ed countenances of flaves begin to dif- 
appear, and are fucceeded by the foft 
beauty, and Grecian form, fo common in ~ 
England: old ladies, accuftomed to the 
former court, are aftonifbed at the change. 
He then demonftrates the fuperior ad- 
vantages of a government, conduéted by 
men of letters, like that of France at pre- 
fenr, to any other form, “ becaufe it is 
that of men of fkill, who defire no ap- 
plaufe, fave what is given to fcience and 
virtue; who are, fo to fpeak, branded 
with infamy if they enrich themfelves ar 
the public expence, having a fame to lofe, 
and being anxious to preferve it; and 
being, moreover, accuftomed to exert 
themfeives for the advantage and inftruc-. 
tion of others, without any view of pecu- 
niary reward.” A military government, . 
he fays, is fo completely bad, that a defert 
is preferable: next to this, in producing 
evils, is the {way of the nobles. That of 
men of property has great inconvenience, 
for it aflfigns every thing to wealth, and 
nothing to perfonal merit, or fkill. In 
Germany, fays he, a man is valued by 
birth, in England by wealth, in France 
by merit only. What would Epaminon- 
das, Miltiades, Regulus. Fabricius, or any 
ancient hero, proud of virtuous poverty, 
have done in England? Could any of 
them have bought an enfigncy? There- 
min proceeds to ftate, that the rule of the 
military, of nobles, or of peuple of pro- 
perty, always partakes of tyfanny, while 
men of Jetrers can rule by nothing byt 
reafon ; inftead uf weapons and prejudices, 
the fole fupports of the former, they only 
ufe arguments. ‘¢ Where fuch men 
fhew themfelves m a public ftation, 
they evince an extent of mind, a faci- 
lity of conception and general ideas, only 
to be acquired by ftudy ; and they foon “ 
furpafs thofe who have only.the a€tivity 
of intrigue, perfonal interefts, or the 
experience of rovfime. Hence, amongft 
the ancient Romans, the mof i!luftrious 
of the people and patricians, whether of . 
the {word or of the gown, cultivated 
letters and philofophy, as indifpenfable 
in the government of the ftate.” 
The citizen Anquetil lately read in the 
Inftitut, a memoir on the peace of the Py- 
rennées, in 1659. Don Louis de Haro, 
the ambaffador for Spain, never fpoke po- 
fitively ; and Mazarin, for France, was 
always equivocal. Lockhart, the: Engliih 
ambaffador, was a match for both in this 
refpect ; and England being then floating — 
between republicanifm and monarchy, he» 
was afked which he preferred? He an- 
§ {wered, 
