well as its property. But as ability is a vigorous, and active principle, and as property is fluggish, inert, and timid, it never can be fafe from the invafions of ability, unless it be, out of all, proportion, predominant in the reprefentation. It must be reprefented too in great, masses of accumulation, or it is not rightly protected. The characteristic effence of property, formed out of the combined principles of its acquifition and confervation, is to be unequal. The great maffes therefore which excite envy, and tempt rapacity, must be put out of the poffibility of danger. Then they form a natural rampart about the leffer properties in all their gradations. The fame quantity of property, which is by the natural course of things, divided among many, has not the fame operation. Its defenfive power is weakened as it is diffufed. In this diffufion each man's portion is less than what, in the eagerness of his defires, he may flatter himself to obtain by diffipating the accumulations of others. The plunder of the few would indeed give but a share inconceivably small in the diftribution to the many. But the many are not capable of making this calculation; and those who lead them. to rapine, never intend this diftribution.

The power of perpetuating our property in our families is one of the most valuable and interefting circumstances belonging to it, and that which tends the most to the perpetuation of fociety itself. It makes our weakness fubfervient to our virtue; it grafts benevolence even upon avarice. The poffeffors of family wealth, and of the distinction which at$

tends

tends hereditary poffeffion (as most concerned in it) are the natural fecurities for this tranfmiffion. With us, the house of peers is formed upon this principle. It is wholly compofed of hereditary property and hereditary diftinction; and made therefore the third of the legislature; and in the laft event, the fole judge of all property in all its fubdivifions. The house of commons too, though not neceffarily, yet in fact, is always fo compofed in the far greater part. Let thofe large proprietors be what they will, and they have their chance of being amongst the best, they are at the very worst, the ballaft in the veffel of the commonwealth. For though hereditary wealth, and the rank which goes with it, are too much idolized by creeping fycophants, and the blind abject admirers of power, they are too rafhly flighted in fhallow fpeculations of the petulant, affuming, fhort-fighted coxcombs of philofophy. Some decent regulated pre-eminence, fome preference (not exclufive appropriation) given to birth, is neither unnatural, nor unjuft, nor impolitic.

It is faid, that twenty-four millions ought to prevail over two hundred thousand. True if the conftitution of a kingdom be a problem of arithmetic. This fort of difcourfe does well enough with the lamp-poft for its fecond: to men who may reafon calmly, it is ridicu lous. The will of the many, and their interest, must very often differ; and great will be the difference when they make an evil choice. A government of five hundred country attornies

and

and obfcure curates is not good for twenty-four millions of men, though it were chofen by eight and forty millions; nor is it the better for being guided by a dozen of perfons of quality, who have betrayed their truft in order to obtain that power. At prefent, you seem in every thing to have frayed out of the high road of nature. The property of France does not govern it. Of course property is destroyed, and rational liberty has no existence. All you have got for the present is a paper circulation, and a stockjobbing conftitution: and as to the future, do you feriously think that the territory of France, upon the republican fyftem of eighty-three independent municipalities, (to fay nothing of the parts that compofe them) can ever be governed as one body, or can ever be fet in motion by the impulfe of one mind? When the National Affembly has completed its work, it will have accomplished its ruin. These commonwealths will not long bear a ftate of fubjection to the republic of Paris. They will not bear that this one body fhould monopolize the captivity of the king, and the dominion over the affembly calling itfelf National. Each will keep its own portion of the fpoil of the church to itself; and it will not fuffer either that fpoil, or the more juft fruits of their industry, or the natural produce of their foil, to be fent to fwell the infolence, or pamper the luxury of the mechanics of Paris. In this they will fee none of the equality, under the pretence of which they have been tempted to throw off their alle

2

giance

giance to their fovereign, as well as the antient conftitution of their country. There can be no capital city in fuch a conftitution as they have lately made. They have forgot, that when they framed democratic governments, they had virtually difmembered their country. The perfon whom they perfevere in calling king, has not power left to him by the hundredth part fufficient to hold together this collection of republics. The republic of Paris will endeavour indeed to compleat the debauchery of the army, and illegally to perpetuate the affembly, without refort to its conftituents, as the means of continuing its defpotifm. It will make efforts, by becoming the heart of a boundless paper circulation, to draw, every thing to itfelf; but in vain. All this policy in the end will appear as feeble as it is now violent.

If this be your actual fituation, compared to the fituation to which you were called, as it were by the voice of God and man, I cannot find it in my heart to congratulate you on the choice you have made, or the fuccefs which has attended your endeavours. I can as little recommend to any other nation a conduct grounded on fuch principles, and productive of fuch effects. That I must leave to thofe who can fee further into your affairs than I am able to do, and who best know how far your actions are favourable to their defigns. The gentlemen of the Revolution Society, who were fo early in their congratulations, appear to be ftrongly of opinion that there is fome fcheme of politics relative to this

country,

country, in which your proceedings may, in fome way, be ufeful. For your Dr. Price, who feems. to have fpeculated himfelf into no fmall degree of fervour upon this fubject, addreffes his auditory in the following very remarkable words: "I cannot conclude without recalling particularly to your recollection a "confideration which I have more than once al"luded to, and which probably your thoughts "have been all along anticipating; a confidera

tion with which my mind is impreffed more than "I can exprefs. I mean the confideration of the favourableness of the prefent times to all exertions in the cause of liberty."

It is plain that the mind of this political Preacher was at the time big with fome extraordinary defign; and it is very probable, that the thoughts of his audience, who understood him better than I do, did all along run before him in his reflection, and in the whole train of confequences to which it led.

Before I read that fermon, I really thought I had lived in a free country; and it was an error I cherished, becaufe it gave me a greater liking to the country I lived in. I was indeed aware, that a jealous, ever-waking vigilance, to guard the treafure of our liberty, not only from invafion, but from decay and corruption, was our best wisdom and our firft duty. However, I confidered that treasure rather as a poffeffion to be fecured than as a prize to be contended for. I did not difcern how the prefent time came to be fo very favourable to all exertions in the caufe of freedom. The pre

fent