M. Montgaillard, and of the faculty which he possesses of saying, not multum in paroo, but the contrary; not much in a little, but a little in much. M. Montgaillard talks of the profound notions, scintillations of genius,' pointed anxieties, ardent patriotism,' astonishing knowledge,' of Lord Bolingbroke; but, not contented with the above complicated vocabulary of his wisdom, he adds that he comprized in his mind the fate of empires, the caprices of fortune, and the probabilities of chance, &c. &c. as if he were a greater prodigy than ever before appeared in our hemisphere. And a prodigy he must certainly have been who could comprise in his mind the caprices of fortune and the probabilities of chance.' M. Montgaillard seems to think that Bolingbroke knew every ticket that would ever turn up in that revolutionary wheel which has during the last twenty years,' made such a hurly-burly in the state of Europe.

At p. 30 we are gravely told by M. Montgaillard, that NATURE has decreed that the French empire should be the centre of power and protection for all the nations of the Continent: this political decree is fixed and immutable.' If this be not Gallic self-sufficiency and absurdity we know not what is? So! NATURE has decreed, has she, that the French empire should be the centre of continental protection? and this NATURE, we suppose, means here the will of Napoleon; for we are sure that no higher nature than his would ever think of giving the name of 'centre of protection' to an organized system of conquest and rapine. And moreover, M. Montgaillard thinks right to add that this political decree is fixed and immutable.' That Bonaparte has decreed that the blood and treasure of Europe shall flow in a tributary stream to the court of the Thuilleries, the centre of protection,' that is of carnage and spoliation, we have no doubt; but though this decree has the stamp of his ambition, we trust that it has not the sanction of any superior destiny.

In the sentence, next to that quoted above, the writer says though he has not assigned a single reason for his inference.

• Hence it will be evident that the momentary transfer of the sceptre of the ocean to the hands of England has been occasioned by circumstances radically false, corrupt, and unstable; and by these alone.'

Without staying to inquire of M. Montgaillard what he means by circumstances radically false, corrupt,' &c. which we believe he would find it difficult to define, we

remark that the naval dominion of Britain has not been very momentary; for she has possessed it for more than a century. If Bonaparte had made the French empire the centre of protection," for such a length of time would M. Montgaillard call it momentary? If he would, we believe that the nations of Europe would be of a different opinion.

M. Montgaillard talks of the maritime tyranny of Great Britain' having caused all the ravages, and engendered all the plagues under which both sovereigns and people have groaned down to the present hour.' Such is the frothy virulence of this Gallic declaimer! But we beg leave to ask him, did the maritime tyranny of Great Britain,' cause the extermination of Swiss liberty, the subjugation of Holland, or the spoliation of Spain? Did the maritime tyranny of Great Britain' cause Pichegrü to be strangled in prison, or the Duke d'Enghien to be shot by torch-light in the castle of Vincennes? If it did not occasion these acts of barbarity and oppression, then it is clear that M. Montgaillard is not quite correct in as cribing all the ravages and all the plagues under which both the sovereigns and the people have groaned,' to the maritime tyranny of Great Britain. Perhaps M. Montgaillard, if he had considered the subject a little more maturely, would have found in his boasted' centre of protection, for all the nations of the Continent,' the cause of all the ravages and plagues' which he has mentioned, The following, while it shews what a verbose and flimsy writer M. Montgaillard is, is a pretty specimen of the tone of servile flattery which prevails in France, when Napoleon is the theme.

It is necessary to explain the naval power and the commercial riches of England, and to explode in the face of all Europe, this phantom of prosperity which has deluded every government, which oppresses every people, and which might have enchained the universe by the most scandalous and rigid Jaws, if, amidst all the prodigies and every kind of glory which can do honour to human nature, Providence, in its eternal justice, had not indicated to all nations the avenger of their rights, ánd the protector of their liberties--such, in short, might have been the result, if Providence had not granted to the French empire a statesman profound in his councils, a warrior invincible in the field, the wisest administrator, and the greatest as he is the best of monarchs.'

In the above we find nonsense and verbiage in abundance; but, in addition to this, we see adulation carried

to the verge of blasphemy. We can hardly spare time to inquire how a phantom of prosperity' can oppress every people,' and enchain the universe, but we cannot help saying that to talk of providence, having in its eternal justice' made Bonaparte the avenger of the rights' and the protector of the liberties' of nations, is such a monstrous outrage upon decency and truth, as we thought that Bonaparte himself would hardly permit to be perpetrated even by the meanest of his slaves. But he, who can consent to be a tyrant, will not long deem it blasphemy to affect to be a god, or at least a special instrument of God. This is the natural progress of that intoxication of mind which is produced by absolute power; and we suppose that Bonaparte, like Nero, will hereafter be gra tified to be asked in what part of the starry regions he will choose to dwell when he pleases to make his exit from the earth? If Napoleon in his unembodied state should take this freak into his head, all that we request of him is expressed in the language of Lucan,

Sed neque in Arctoo sedem tibi legeris orbe.'. We do not wish to have his malignant influence transferred into one of the constellations over our heads. We have said that M. Montgaillard is a vague and indefinite writer. There is a want of closeness in his reasoning and of distinctness in his ideas, which always proves either some particular perversion of judgment, or a general imbecility of mind. M. Montgaillard is not only very vague but very common-place; and some of his commonplaces are very common indeed; and prove him hardly to have advanced beyond the degree of a babe in political economy. He appears hardly qualified to administer the pap-spoon of financial instruction to the infant King of Rome. The shallowness, and at the same time, indistinctness of his composition, will be seen in the following specimen :

'Commerce is attended with results which are infinitely advantageous: but its spirit of enterprise is frequently injurious, because the love of gain tends to obliterate sentiments of liberality, and always ends by substituting self-interest in the place of honour; so that amongst people essentially or generally commercial, riches obtain too much consideration and influence, to the detriment of honour and good faith. Commerce is attended with certain necessary or unavoidable effects, which no political regulations can prevent: a good system of administration may nevertheless direct those effects to the prosperity of the state, because it would modify whatever might be in proper or detrimental in the system. The parents of Com

merce, are Industry and Labour: the offspring, in return, produces Riches, and consequently Luxury and Avarice; that is to say, the wants, which Luxury requires, in order to be supported. From these causes originate Corruption, Fraud, and War. In every state, the existence of which is principally founded on commerce, these results acquire such a degree of consistency, that fictitious riches eradicate, after a certain time, those arising from territory, and in consequence of being rich, a state finds itself reduced to poverty. Hence the conquests or commercial usurpations of England are now at this period in the progress of exhaustion, and will terminate in swallowing up all the principles of its political existence.'

If the results of commerce are so infinitely advantageous,' as M. Montgaillard represents them, those advantages must so much exceed the accidental inconveniences, that the latter are as nothing in the account. M. Montgaillard says, that amongst a people essentially or generally commercial, riches obtain too much consideration and influence,' &c. Now we must remark, that whether a state be commercial, or not commercial, property (or what the author calls riches), will always possess a degree of consideration and influence proportioned to its extent. This happens in the common course of things, and must always be as long as the present constitution of the physical and moral world endures. It is one of those arrangements which even Bonaparte cannot alter by an imperial decree. But it is far from being true, that riches obtain too much consideration and influence' in a commercial state more than in any other state. The contrary is rather the fact, for wealth or property is generally most overbearing and oppressive in a state composed principally or exclusively of great landed proprietors. Witness the state of England before the reign of Henry VII. Witness the present state of Poland and of the greater part of Russia. Commerce is what chiefly contributes to break the galling yoke and diminish the undue influence of great landholders, and consequently to promote individual comfort and general liberty. This signal benefit it effects by multiplying the number of proprietors and causing a more general diffusion of wealth. In a commercial country, therefore, property is not so likely to obtain an excess of consideration and influence,' as amongst a people where commerce is unknown. The remark, therefore, of M. Montgaillard, only shows how vague and confused are his notions of political economy. M. Montgaillard moreover tells us, in the profundity of his wisdom, that commerce is attended with certain necessary or unavoidable effects which no political regulations

6

can prevent.' What is this but to say, that political arrangements cannot alter the properties of causation, or change the relations of cause and effect? Who did not know this, without the instruction of such a sage as M. Montgaillard or any of Bonaparte's ministers of finance or counsellors of state? The parents of commerce,' says M. Montgaillard, are industry and labour." This is another marvellous discovery which Adam Smith's chambermaid or scullion could probably have hit on as well as the author of this work. But M. Montgaillard goes on to tell us, that commerce generates luxury and avarice, and that from luxury and avarice proceedcorruption, fraud, and war. M. Montgaillard should have recollected, that gluttons and misers are as common amongst farmers and landholders as amongst manufacturers and merchants. And, with respect to the genealogy of war, which M. Montgaillard traces from commerce, he ought to have known, that whatever may be the ambition of governments, commerce is, in its own nature, in its spirit and operations, really and essentially pacific. Commerce is not accountable for the military mania of kings or ministers, who have made use of its resources to prosecute unjust and bloody wars. War is not the natural element of commerce. Her energies are always most vigorous in a period of peace, and her ensign is always the olive-branch rather than the sword.

Though M. Montgaillard had, in p. 8, represented commerce as the fruitful parent of war; yet, in the following page, he talks as if a military were in direct opposition to a commercial spirit. He says: Economists, philanthropists, and philosophers, have wished to give dignity to commerce, and to raise it by their scientific eulogies to a level with the nobleness of military distinctions.' If what M. Montgaillard had previously asserted were true, that commerce was the origin of war, and that no commercial state can ever enjoy a long period of peace,' as he intimates, p. 9, then it is certain, that commercial wealth must, more than any thing else, conduce to what he calls the nobleness of military distinctions. Such is the rare consistency of M. Montgaillard, that he in fact extolsand abuses, enhances and depretiates the value of the same thing in the same breath. If M. Montgaillard set so high a value on what he calls the nobleness of military distinctions,' he ought not, at the same moment, to deny the dignity of commercial enterprize, by which, according to his own theory, military distinctions' are essentially promoted. But the truth is, that when M. Montgaillard at