to be fecure of being panegyrized by a party within her own dominions. Even at this moment, we are told, it operates, but with this we have no prefent concern. For the practice we may thank Mr. Fox, for till his courage ventured upon fuch measures, they had not certainly be come common. Whether Mr. F. did once go fo far as actually to nego. tiate against the lawful governinent of the country, we will not undertake to affert . Mr. Burke, however, who feemed to poffels the best means of knowing, pofitively declared it . It is now called in queftion. But as many perfons are living who must have known the truth, it is flrange that it fhould be liable to controverfy. Still we feel it very difficult to believe, that Mr. Burke could write a long political tract on a fuppofed tranfaction of his own time, and among his own connections, which never had existence. Be this as it may, for the fake of oppofing minifters Mr, Fox was, in our opinion, the decided enemy of his country, on many memorable occafions. When from the alarming progress which the French revolutionary principles were making here, foon after the murder of Louis XVI, Mr, Burke, and feveral of the moft eminent members of oppofition, thought it neceflary to ftrengthen the government by uniting with it, Mr. Fox remained unmoved. So far was he from endeavouring to ftrengthen the government that he laboured even then to weaken it, by all means in his power, joining with what Mr. Burke termed the New Whigs in all the exceffes of republicanifm‡; and extolling the French Revolution to the fkies, at the very period when its dire example was chiefly to be dreaded: and when the country, almost as one man, united to refift the attempts of republicans and levellers, he was the chief of thofe who ridiculed the friends of the conftitution as alarmifls, and their union as abfurdity and folly. The country was preferved in fpite of him. It is controverted by Philopatris, in a long argument beginning at page 239, Vol. I., but which does not bring conviction to the leader. In the Anti-Jacobin Newfpaper, No. 11, in the Verfes to the author of an Epistle, &c. it is taken for granted as a fact of notoriety. Yet Mr. Fox was not really a republican. See his fpeeches on the Quebec Bill, 1792. It remained to fhow ftill more completely, if poffible, that he was incapable of feeling for his country, even in the moft trying moments, fo long as the objects of his perfonal ambition feemed to fland in competition with her interefts. In the dreadful fummer of 1797, when the fleet was in the moft alarming ftate of mutiny, he fuffered another friend to leave him, and to demonftrate a patriotifm, of which he had no conception. Mr. Sheridan arofe in the Houfe of Commons, and in a fpeech, for which the country felt grateful to him from one end to the other, cruihed the hopes of the mutineers, and expreffed the proper determination to refit and bring, them to obedience. Mr. Fox remain unmoved. Such a step on his part might have ftrengthened the hands of his rival, and the fleet might go to deftruction, before he would en-deavour to preferve it at fuch a hazard. The very next year, 1798, when the rebellion broke out in Ireland, Mr. Fox did not hesitate publicly to drink "fuccefs to the caufe of liberty in Ireland;" a toaft no more equivocal than it was patriotic, but perfectly confiflent with the general tenor of his conduct at that time. Yet to prove how perfectly he was without principle, at the lamented period of our Sovereign's illness in 1788, for what. purpofe did Mr. Fox haften back from the continent, and refume his attend nce in parliament? Only to oppofe the neceflary interference of that parliament; and to advance and maintain the moft violent Tory doctrine, perhaps, that was ever fupported within thofe walls. Mr. Pitt, guided by principle and patriotism, took at once the ground, which regard to the Sovereign and the conflitution equally pointed out; and his opponent had the deferved mortification of, having returned to England, only to experience the most fignal and entire defeat, Thus alfo, though in oppofition he always formed against influence, yet in power he fhowed ̧ by his famous India Bill, in 1784, how little averfe he was to the most extenfive and unprecedented influence, when he could hope to wield it, It is evident that what we have here flated can only be a fketch. We might have gone much further, and have noticed inconfiftencies, and offences, as we deem them, without number. But this may fuffice, to show the nature and extent of our deviation from the opinions collected in these volumes. There are doubtlefs thousands of our countrymen whofe recollection could fill up the omiffions in our flate. ment, and who would fupply them with the fame feelings as ourfelyes. The popular cry, we grant, has often been P4 against against us; but the very offence of inflaming and leading on the people, when they were of themfelves inclined to rufh onwards to their own deftruction, is one of the worst of which we complain. The Man of the People is at many periods the very man whom the people would, if they could poffibly have wisdom, fpurn from them as the moft dangerous flatterer. Yet we cenfure not thofe who differ from us. The effect of popular eloquence is prodigious: and different opinions in politics (though of course we consider our own as the right) may be held with perfect integrity. We afk only for fincerity and confiftency, and in thefe, we think, Mr. Fox was deficient. Our friend Philopatris has always been confiftent, and is, we doubt not, what the interpretation of that name implies. But we could not honeftly pretend to give him our affent, when he raised a monument to a man whom we confider as most unworthy of it; or deferving of it only from those, from whom his warmeft praises have often been derived, the enemies of his country*. We fhall now proceed to the work of Philopatris Varvi. cenfis; in which the introduction we have here given will excufe us from the neceffity of all difcuffion or controverfy as to particular parts. It will be fufficient for us to flate of what nature the publication is, and to give fuch fpecimens from it as will, in our opinion, be moft honourable to the good friend by whom it was compiled. The first volume confifts of the following materials: a dedication to Mr. Coke, of Norfolk; a fhort but fatisfactory preface, in which the author accounts for his defign, and the mode of its execution, and grievoufly laments his own early, and now irremediable inattention to the art of penmanship; ftrenuoufly recommending a different conduct to others, on his own authority, and that of Quintilian. Then follows the character of Mr. Fox, in Latin, taken from the preface to Bellendenus," with the permiffion of the author," which no one certainly could have a better chance to obtain than Philopatris. Then follows a collection, in general but little worthy to ftand in fuch company, of cha * As from Napoleon, and fome others, whom the reader will recollect. We purpofely abstain from all mention of the morality and religion of Mr. Fox; not as fatisfied with them, and ftill lefs as thinking them matters of indifference in a great statesman, but because we would confine ourselves to his political character. racters rafters of Mr. Fox, taken from newfpapers, metropolitan and provincial, with a few from other fources. The lift of authorities is the following. 1. Morning Poft, Sept. 1, 1806. 2. Courier, fame date. 3. Times, Do. 4. Herald, Do. 5. Morning Chronicle, Do. 6. York Herald, Sept. 20. 7. Shrewsbury Chronicle, Sept. 25. 8. Liverpool Chronicle, Sept. 24. 9. Tyne Mercury, Sept. 30, and oa. 7. 10. Bury Poft, O&. 19. 11. An anonymous epitaph. 12. Oxford Review, Auguft, 1807. 13. Univerfal Magazine, March and April, 1805. 14. Monthly Magazine, Sept. 1805. 15. Epics of the Ton. 16. Rofcoe's Confiderations, &c. 17. Stewart's Refurrection. Sermon at Hackney, Sept. 21, 1806, by Rob. Afpland. 19. Do. in Effex Street, by Thomas Belfham. 20. Do. at Richmond, by Dr. Charles Symmons. 21. Mr. Edgworth, in a pamphlet. 22. Mr. Sheridan's Speech at Westminster, Sept. 19, 1806. 23. London Chronicle, Nov. 25, 1806, by Godwin. 24. Verfes by the Dutchefs of Devonshire. 25. Bath Chronicle, Sept. 25, 1806. 26. Character of Mr. Fox by Sir James Mackintofh. 27. Critical Review, March, 1808, by Mr. Fellowes. 28. Maurice's Richmond Hill. 18... To this mifcellaneous collection, in which the character bySir James Mackintofh has by far the moft difcrimination and elegance, fucceeds an original character, by Philopatris himfelf, in the form of a letter, greatly outweighing in merit all the reft united. It is well and vigorously written, and as far as perfonal knowledge could give infight into private character, much to be depended upon. The fecond volume, which is confiderably the larger, and printed in a smaller type, confists entirely of notes upon the Epiftle, which are fometimes, it must be confeffed, not a little excurfive. Of fuch ingre dients are compofed two volumes, in which a great writerhas, with unexampled modefty, placed himself in the rear of his inferiors, and has poured into notes matter that well deferved to form the fubject of a separate work. It must be unneceffary for us to characterize the style of our learned friend. Its vigour is known, and its variety; the delight with which he infufes the copioufnefs of his learning into his writings, and gives in many languages what few perfons could better exprefs in any. The opening of his letter, however, is original, and is worthy of the writer.. "I have long been anxious to convey to you my condolence on the death of ur inestimable friend Mr. Fox. But I have been hitherto reftrained by the dread of appearing to you obtru. five, * five, in the fresh hour of your affiction; and by a consciousness of my own inability to adminifter much to your comfort. Such is the wife conftitution of our nature, that in certain fituations, and for a certain time, it is better for us to follow the instinctive impulfes of our feelings, than to wait for the flow and calm direction of our reafon. Grief, under fuch circumftances, is im patient of the flighteft interruption to that feries of ideas which is congenial to itfelf; and we then reject the very fame topics of confolation, which we afterwards cherish and approve, when they occur to us fpontaneously, or when flowing from thofe around us they fall in with other trains of thinking, which time has filently introduced into our bofoms." P. 177. It is to be fuppofed that the confidential friend here addrefled is the fame to whom the dedication is inferibed, and what is faid of the abilities and judgment of the perfon, in the body of the letter, confirms the conjecture. The chief part of this letter is employed in celebrating the mental powers and oratorical talents of the extraordinary perfonage who is the fubject of it; and on thefe fubjects there is but little from which we fhould diffent. The author contends against Mr. Burke, cited in the fketch attributed to Sir James Mackintosh, that Mr. Fox was much more than "a brilliant and accomplished debater." He maintains that he was an orator of the higheft order, and thinks that fome degree of envy or jealoufy in Mr. Burke prompted him to give fo imperfect a commendation. Yet others, of great judgment, have thought that Mr. Fox, with all his wonderful powers, wanted many qualities of an accomplished orator. In defending Mr. Fox, Philopatris is rather fevere in fome paffages upon Mr. Burke, whofe talents, however, he allows with ample measure: and fpeaking of the famous work of that great genius on the French Revolution, he grants almost as much to it as we fhould demand. We have pleafure in tranfcribing his words, as they appear to us full of wifdom and difcrimination. "In the controverfy which arofe about a late revolution, Mr. Burke is entitled to my gratitude and my refpect, for fpreading before the world many adamantine and imperishable truths, which are quite worthy of protection from his zeal, and embellishment. from his eloquence-many, which unfold the fecret fprings of human action, and their effects upon human happiness-many, in * We fufpect that it should be "and to wait," except that then it ought to be "belt." There is fome want of clearness, probably from prefs error. |