510 
Mr. Duppa’s Fourtal of the moft re- 
markable Occurrences that took Place in 
Rome upon the Subverfion of the Ecclefafti- 
cal Government, in 1798, 1s an hittorical 
memoir of confiderable intereft. Lhe au- 

trofpect muft in great part be a cyimrlation. 
Though many new books really pafs through 
eur hands, for the accounts of many we are in- 
debted to the literary journals, from which we 
do not fcruple to borrow what appears to us 
matked with intelligence. The cenfure on Mr. 
B.’s palliation of King William’s conduct re- 
{pe€ting the maffacre of Glencoe, we, in fact, 
took in fubftance from the Critical Review, 
vol. xxill, and we believe we fhall not be found 
to have aggravated it. The fecond fubje@ of 
Mr. B’s complaint is, that we accufed Mr, B, 
ef ‘ decifive hoMility againft Mr. Haftings at 
- the time that gentieman was under trial.”” We 
did fo: the accufation is our own: we are re- 
fponfible for it, and feel no difpofition to recant 
one tittle. Mr. Belfham, in his vindication, has 
offered no fingle argument to induce a recanta- 
tion: he has only given us the private opinion 
of Major Scott, which can ne more be admitted 
as the juftification of Mr. B. than the private 
opinion of another individual would have been 
admitted as the eftablifhment of a charge againft 
him. ‘ As to the period of publication,” fays 
Mr. B “ Fcan truly affert that it never entered 
into my imagination to conceive, that after nine 
_ years parliamentary inveftigation of the queftion, 
after pamphlets, ipeeches, and reports innume- 
table, had been circulated relative to it, that any 
thing I could fay would in the flighteft degree 
anfluence the judicial decifion of the Houfe of 
Peers: or that a rule of diicretion adapted to 
common cafes could poffibly be fuppofed te ap- 
ply to this.” We muft take the liberty to fay, 
in felf-defence, that this does not ftrike us as 
being at all to the purpofe; that other people 
«irculated pamphlets in crimination of Mr. Haft- 
ings, is certainly no excufe for Mr. B. even on 
rhe injurious and derogatory fuppofition, that 
juis hiftoric work is not entitled to more general 
and permanent attention than thofe hafty ephe- 
mzral publications; and, furely, that the trial 
Jatted nine diferaceful years, gave him no right 
to look upon that as eftablifhed which remained 
te be proved. Mir. Fox, Mr. Burke, Mr. She- 
ridan, &c. might each be allowed his philippic, 
as a manager of the profecution, but Mr. Bel- 
fham, notwithfanding he might not in any de- 
gree influence the judicial decifion of the Houfe 
of Peers, had certainly no claim to fuch an al- 
iowance ; he ought to have confidered that Mr. 
Hattings ftood at the bar of the nation; that the 
eyes of the people of Great Britain, were almoft 
to a man direéted on him; and that the opinion 
which might be formed in the latter tribunal, 
might be regarded perhaps with more folicitude 
by the prifoner, than the fentence which might 
be pronounced in the former. 
We are forry, truly forry, to have given of- 
fence to a gentleman whole perfenal character, 
and te an author whofe writings we fo much ie- 
Retrofpec? of Dometic Literature...Hiftary. 
thor witneffed the entrance of the Frenctt 
army into the capital of the ancient world, 
he witnefled tne fubjugated pontiff’s hu- 
miliating abdication of his temporal powers 
he witneffed the nominal inveftiture of 
this power in the deluded people; and he 
was a witnefs, too, of thofe mercilefs 
depredations which were committed by 
the republican army as a recompenfe for 
their time and trouble in the achievement. 
All accounts which have been given us of 
any fucce({sful invafion of the French army, 
and we have had too many! unite in ex- 
pofing the treacherous friendfhip of thefe 
republican miffionaries: we obferve that 
the palaces are invariably pillaged, the 
churches violated, and the people at once 
oppreffed and laughed at. Mr. Duppa, 
whofe account of the fubvertion of the 
papal government feems to be drawn up 
with much impartiality, in relating the 
proceedings of the French at Rome, tells 
us, that, in the opening of the fcene, “ all 
was liberality and juftice; in one and the 
fame day all right of conqueft was relin- 
quifhed, and Kome declared a free and 
independent government: to exercife 
whofe functions, the honefteft, the ableft, 
and the beft men that could be chofen out 
_ of the party were feleéted.” Bur this fun- 
fhine was of facrt duration, the people 
were lulled by it, and a terrible tempeft 
fucceeded! It was foon difcovered that the 
men who were made oftenfible to the Ro- 
man people as provifionary governors had 
only the fhadow of authority: at their 
peril, they were forced into obnoxious 
meafures, the odium of which it was con- 
ceived themfelves would alone fuftain. 
The obvious and almof{ immediate confe- 
quence was, that all thofe perfons who 
had any regard for their perfonal charac- 
ters withdrew themfelves, or by making 
oppofition were compelled to retire, *¢ The 
vacancies produced,” fays Mr. Duppa, 
« were now filled up by men of unfcru- 
tinized charaéters, who, in this opportu 
nity, boldly ftepped forward to recommend 
themfzlves, thrcvgh the intereft of their 
money, or other collateral means, and were 
nominated, as thofe means feemed to bear 
a proportion to their pretenfions.’”’ 
The Fall of Underwald, by an Eye- 
witnefs, is a publication of a fimilar im- 
port to the preceding. 
Sir FRaNCiIs D’IVERNO!s has pub- 

fpc&t as thofe of Mr. Belfham; we utterly dif- 
claim the moft diftant intention of attacking his 
moral charaéter, though we have differed and 
(ill differ from him in ovr notions of hiftorical 
propriety with segard to the point in queftion. — 
lifhed 
~ 
