much partiality and exaggeration, and as much hoftility and rancour, as could well have been found in the earlier days of the Revolution.

The book called De l'Etat de la France, to which this publication of M. Gentz is announced as an answer, is written by a Frenchman* in office, in the true spirit of his country and his ftation. It contains a moft captivating reprefentation of the happiness, and power, and moderation of France; and a very animated expofition of the crimes and impending humiliation of this country. Though the partiality and acrimony of the author are fo apparent throughout as to take from his performance all the authority of fober judgement, it ftill indicates fo much talent, and fo much information, as to be highly deferving of attention. He has refted the juftification of his country upon a much wider range of hiftorical deduction and political inference than have hitherto been brought to bear upon the question; and by reprefenting the Revolution as the crifis of a great diforder in the general fyftem of European politics, he has given an intereft and a fimplicity to his fpeculations which the subject did not seem to promife. He writes, too, with a certain air of confidence. and authority, that it is not always easy to refift; and while he throws out fome fpecious and brilliant ideas upon every fubject that prefents itself, he dextrously avoids thofe fpecifications of minute detail by which all general principles must be verified.

Such a performance, if it admitted at all of an anfwer, feemed to require one, in a particular manner, on the part of this country. Our politicians, however, appear to write only for the fatisfaction of their countrymen, and to think that a book published in French cannot be deferving of their notice. In this inftance, we conceive that their backwardnefs, though not very cafily accounted for, has been of great advantage to their caufe; as it has put the task into the lefs fufpicious hands of a neutral foreigner, and given a continental politician an opportunity of flating to the nations of Europe the real ftate and pretenfions of the two rival powers. M. Gentz is a native of Prussia, and a minister of the only great military power that has been for a confiderable time in amity with the French republic. His former publications, upon the origin and character of the late war,' and on the finances of Great Britain,' prove fufficiently with what a skilful and penetrating eye he had furveyed the proceedings of the belligerent powers, and with what fcrupulous exactnefs he had informed himself as to their refources. The prefent publication mult add to his reputation in all thofe particulars, and would of itself entitle him to a place among the firft political writers

*M, Hauterive, Chef des Relations exterieurs.

writers of the age. The book is written with a very fingular temperance of manner, in spite of the personal provocation which M. Hauterive has occafionally given; and feems to us as much fuperior to that of his antagonist, in candour and manliness of fentiment, as in hiftorical accuracy and correct reasoning. the fubject is in every respect extremely interefting and important, we fhall endeavour to lay before our readers a pretty fuli view of the treatment it has received from M. Gentz.

The fubftance of M. Hauterive's book, with which it is neceffary to begin, may fairly be itated in the few following propof

tions.

From the treaty of Weftphalia in 1648 down to the era of the French Revolution, the balance of power in Europe, and the authority of public law, had been gradually neglected and impaired, till fcarcely a trace of fyftematical policy was to be difcovered at the latter period.

The Revolution in France, and the defolating wars which it excited, were the neceflary and natural refults of this general derangement; and the iflue of them has enabled France to lay the foundation of a new federal system, better accommodated to the prefent condition of the European nations.

The power which the has thus acquired, fhe will exercise in acts of beneficence towards her allies, and of moderation towards her opponents, and will make ufe of all her influence to protect the continental states against the machinations of England, who has been the conftant inftigator of general hoftility, whofe commercial monopoly has extinguished their induftry, and whofe ambition ftill threatens their independence.

To qualify her for the difcharge of thefe importance duties, France poflefles, according to M. Hauterive, the most ample refources that have ever fallen to the lot of any nation. Her geographical pofition, the fertility of her foil, the number, genius, and valour of her inhabitants; her form of government, and the talents and virtues of thofe by whom it is administered; feem all combined to enfure her permanent pre-eminence, and to give ftability to thofe political benefits that Europe is to derive from her influence.

Thefe pofitions M. Gentz has undertaken to difprove, in the work that is now before us; and has applied himself to the talk, with a degree of zeal and alliduity that feemed to allure him of fuccefs. He admits, in a great degree, the power and the refources of France to be fuch as his antagonilt has reprefented them; and does not think proper to enter into any difquifition in this work, as to the excellence of her government, or the stability of her conftitution. The object of his book is merely to show, that the Revolution was neither produced nor juftified by any

real disorder in the general system of European politics, and that its confequences have been, to fubvert that ancient and falutary fyftem, without fubftituting any other in its ftead. In following out this object, he is naturally led to take a view of the political ftate and relations of the different Ruropean countries at the time when this revolution took place, and to compare the results of this survey with the condition in which these countries have been left by the confequences of that Revolution.

The method which M. Gentz has followed, in the first part of this difquifition, is fomewhat characteristic, we think, of the genius of his countrymen. Inftead of entering at once upon a delineation of the actual state of the leading nations of Europe at the moment of the French Revolution, he diftributes the subject into three feparate chapters, under the following titles: 1. How far the treaty of Weftphalia can be confidered as having established a public law, or federative fyftem, in Europe? 2. How far any intermediate events between that treaty and the late Revolution, can be confidered as having fubverted this fyftem? and, 3. Whether, at the commencement of that Revolution, there was really any fuch federative fyftem in force, or in existence, in Europe.

Now, to us it seems very evident, that it was only with the last of these questions that the author had properly any concern. We are by no means convinced, that M. Hauterive ever meant to affert, that the treaty of Weftphalia laid the firft foundation of the balancing fyftem in Europe, or that this fyftem must neceffarily have been deftroyed by the first violation of that treaty. But though he had made fuch an affertion, and, in making it, had committed as grofs an error as it certainly feems to imply, ftill we conceive, that it was an affertion which M. Gentz was not called upon to expofe, and that any controversy upon this subject was utterly foreign to the general defign of his argument. If Europe was actually united and protected at the æra of the French Revolution, by the authority of a great federative and balancing fyftem, and if that fyftem was deftroyed in the contentions with which the Revolution was attended, it is certainly of no confequence, whether it was a fyftem established by the peace of Weftphalia, and modified by fucceeding occurrences, or whether it had its origin in a more remote antiquity, and had been uniformly progreffive in vigour and authority, till the moment of its fubverfion. M. Hauterive maintains, that there was no fuch fyftem in exist ence at the time of the Revolution; and that it was the want of it that occafioned all the diftractions which enfued. M. Gentz alJeges, that there was fuch a fyftem at this time, in a state of the greatest vigour and improvement; and, to us, it does not seem neceffary that he should have alleged any thing more. Of the

reafonings

reafonings contained in the two firft chapters, therefore, we should not have thought it neceffary to prefent our readers with any analyfis, if the author had himself adhere dftrictly to the subjects he had announced. In the courfe of difcuffion, however, he feems to have infenfibly widened the bafis of his argument, and to have paffed from the confideration of the treaty of Weftphalia, with its history and refult, to the general and permanent effects of the events by which it is faid to have been infringed. Thus, while he feems only to be contending, that the ftipulations of that treaty were not materially affected by the various occurrences which M. Hauterive had enumerated, we are furprised to find him admitting that the elevation of Pruffia did alter the very ground-work of its regulations; and contending, that this alteration was, notwithstanding, of the greatest advantage to Europe. As the argument in these two chapters, therefore, eoes in reality graduate, by a kind of anticipation, into that general and more important argument which is nominally referved for the fucceeding one, we shall give a very short and general sketch of the obfervations they appear to contain.

After obferving, that the treaty of Weftphalia only adjusted the pretensions of France, Sweden, and the different states of the empire, and, confequently, was utterly incapable of fettling the general balance of Europe, he proceeds to make fome remarks upon the three great events by which M. Hauterive has contended that the treaty was abrogated, and the balance overthrown. These three events are, 1. The civilization of Ruffia, and its adoption into the fyftem of European politics; 2. The elevation of Pruffia to the rank of a power of the first order; and, 3. The prodigious extenfion of the commercial and colonial system.

With regard to the first of thefe, M. Gentz obferves, that the formation of the Ruffian empire has extended the fphere of commercial enterprise and civil intercourse, more than any other event fince the difcovery of America; that it has fecured Europe for ever against the irruption of the northern barbarians, and that its political influence has been confined almost entirely to the northern kingdoms, to Poland and Turkey. Of its partitioning lyftem he fpeaks with decided difapprobation; but concludes, that the middle ftates of Europe, and France in particular, had no reason to complain of any disturbance or change of their relations from this quarter of the globe.

The aggrandifement of Pruffia, he admits, however, touches them more nearly. It deranged a great part of the old fyftem of Germanic policy, but tended to maintain and fecure the peace and the independence of all the neighbouring communities. The struggles by which its elevation was effected, did, indeed, for a time, difturb the tranquillity of the empire, but its eitab

fhment infared its repofe. By affording an internal counterpoife to the power of Austria, it did indeed diminish the influence of France in the other parts of the Germanic body; but this was most evidently a benefit to Europe at large, and left France the choice of either Auftria or Pruffia for its ally. It is very remarkable, accordingly, that as foon as Pruffia had become the implacable and formid ble opponent of Auftria in Germany, France immediately entered into a clofe alliance with her ancient enemy, and transferred into the Auftrian scale the whole weight of that influence, that could not poflibly be diminished, from having become the fubject of jealoufy and contention between the two rival powers. As to M. Hauterive's paradoxical affertion, that the Proteftant intereft was ruined by the elevation of Pruflia, itself a Proteftant government, M. Gentz judiciously remarks, that religious distinctions have now lost all their ancient authority; that an univerfal change of character has taken away, as it were, by a great focial revolution, one ancient bond of union and fource of diffention; and that the flightest political confideration will now have more influence on the conduct of nations, than all the creeds in the univerfe. Finally, M. Hauterive has infinuated, that it was Pruffia that first set the example of vast standing armies and ruinous impofts in Europe; and that fear and ambition propagated the practice fo fuccefsfully, that every nation, before the Revolution, had a difproportionate part of its population engaged in the unprofitable Occupation of war, and was vainly draining its refources to fupply the expence of its eftablishments. M. Gentz does not admit, by any means, that this was really the fituation of Europe; but, even upon that hypothefis, he denies that it was in Pruffia that the practice originated. It began, unquestionably, he says, in France under Louis XIV., and has ever fince prevailed, in that country, to a greater extent than any where elfe. We may add, that it seems strange in the minifter of a military government, to declaim upon the difaftrous confequences of maintaining a standing army; and that if Europe was ruined under her old fyltem, by the exceflive number of her hired forces, it is not very eafy to fee how France is to regenerate her prosperity, by fetting the example of a peace-eltablishment of 500,000

men.

M. Hauterive's third reafon for the deftruction of all order and profperity in Europe, is found in the vatt increase of commerce and colonies in the courfe of the last century. M. Gentz treats this with great contempt. The increase of commerce is a neceffary confequence, he says, of that falutary developement of national wealth and profperity, to which human fociety naturally tends under any fyftem of juft adminiftration; it is beneficial to the

country