"That he looks upon the English, among the several nations of men, as he does upon wolves among the several species of beasts.' A British writer would be very justly charged with want of politeness, who, in return to his civility, should look upon the French as that part of mankind which answers to a species in the brute creation, whom we call in English by the name of monkey.

If the French load us with these indignities, we may observe, for our comfort, that they give the rest of their borderers no better quarter. If we are a dull, heavy, phlegmatic people, we are, it seems, no worse than our neighbours. As an instance, I shall set down at large a remarkable passage in a famous book, entitled Chevræana, written many years ago by the celebrated Monsieur Chevreau; after having advertised my reader, that the Duchess of Hanover, and the Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia, who are mentioned in it, were the late excellent Princess Sophia and her sister.

Tilenus pour un Allemand, parle et ecrit bien Frangois, dit Scaliger: Gretzer a bien de l'esprit pour un Allemand, dit le Cardinal du Perron: et le P. Bouhours met en question, si un Allemand peut-être bel esprit? On ne doit juger ni bien ni mal d'une nation par un particulier, ni d'un particulier par sa nation." Il y a des Allemands, comme des François, qui n'ont point d'esprit des Allemands, qui on sceû plus d'Hebreu, plus de Grec, que Scaliger et le Cardinal du Perron. J'honore fort le P. Bouhours, qui a du me-` rite; mais j'ose dire, que la France n'a point de plus bel esprit que Madame la Duchesse de Hanovre d'aujourd'hui, ni de personne plus solidement savante en fhilosophie que l'étoit Madame la Princesse Elizabeth de Boheme, sa sœur : et je ne crois pas que l'on refuse

le même titre à beaucoup d'academiciens d'Allemagne, dont les ouvrages meriteroient bien d'etre traduits. Il y a d'autres princesses en Allemagne, qui ont infiniment de l'esprit. Les François disent c'est un Allemand, pour exprimer un homme pesant, brutal: et les Allemands, comme les Italiens, c'est un François, pour dire un fou et un etourdi. C'est aller trop loin: comme le Prince de Salé dit de Ruyter, il est honnéte homme, c'est bien dommage qu'il soit Chrétien? Che vræana, tom. I.

"Tilenus, says Scaliger, speaks and writes well for a German. Gretzer has a great deal of wit for a German, says Cardinal Perron. And Father Bouhours makes it a question, whether a German can be a wit? One ought not to judge well or ill of a nation from a particular person, nor of a particular person from his nation. There are Germans, as there are French, who have no wit; and Germans who are better skilled in Greek and Hebrew than either Scaliger or the Cardinal du Perron. I have a great honour for Father Bouhours, who is a man of merit; but, will be bold to say, that there is not in all France, a person of more wit than the present Duchess of Hanover; nor more thoroughly knowing in philosophy, than was the late Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia, her sister; and I believe none can refuse the same title to many academicians in Germany, whose works very well deserve to be translated into our tongue. There are other princesses in Germany, who have also an infinite deal of wit. The French say of a man, that he is a German, when they would signify that he is dull and heavy; and the Germans, as well as the Italians, when they would call a man a hair-brained coxcomb, say, he is a Frenchman. This is going too far, and is like the Governor of Sallee's saying of De Ruy

ter, the Dutch admiral, "He is an honest man, 'tis a great pity he is a Christian."

Having already run my paper out to its usual length, I have not room for many reflections on that which is the subject of it. The last cited author has been beforehand with me in its proper moral. I shall only add to it, that there has been an unaccountable disposition among the English of late years, to fetch the fashion from the French, not only in their dress and behaviour, but even in their judgments and opinions of mankind. It would however be reasonable for us, if we concur with them in their contempt of other neighbouring nations, that we should likewise regard ourselves under the same view in which they are wont to place us. The representations they make of us, are as of a nation the least favoured by them; and, as these are agreeable to the natural aversion they have for us, are more disadvantageous than the pictures they have drawn of any other people in Europe.

No. 31.-FRIDAY, APRIL 6.

Omnes homines, P. C. qui de rebus dubiis consultant, ab odio, amicitia, ira, atque misericordia vacuos esse decct.

CESAR APUD SALLUST.

HAVE purposely avoided, during the whole course of this paper, to speak any thing concerning the treatment which is due to such persons as have been concerned in the late rebellion, because I would not seem to irritate justice against those who are under the prosecution of the law, nor incense any of my readers against unhappy though guilty men. But when we find the

proceedings of our government, in this particular, traduced and misrepresented, it is the duty of every good subject to set them in their proper light.

I am the more prompted to this undertaking by a pamphlet, entitled, An argument to prove the affections of the people of England to be the best security of the government; humbly offered to the consideration of the patrons of severity, and applied to the present juncture of affairs.' Had the whole scope of the author been answerable to his title, he would have only undertak en to prove what every man in his wits is already convinced of. But the drift of the pamphlet is to stir up our compassion towards the rebels, and our indignation against the government. The author, who knew that such a design as this could not be carried on without a great deal of artifice and sophistry, has puzzled and perplexed his cause, by throwing his thoughts together in such a studied confusion, that upon this account, if any, his pamphlet is, as the party have represented it, unanswerable.

The famous Monsieur Bayle compares the answer, ing of an immethodical author to the hunting of a duck; when you have him full in your sight, and fancy yourself within reach of him, he gives you the slip, and becomes invisible. His argument is lost in such a va riety of matter, that you must catch it where you can, as it rises and disappears in the several parts of his discourse.

The writer of this pamphlet could, doubtless, have ranged his thoughts in much better order, if he had pleased; but he knew very well, that error is not to be advanced by perspicuity, In order, therefore, to answer this pamphlet, I must reduce the substance, of it under proper heads; and disembroil the thoughts of the author, since he did not think fit to do it himself.

In the first place I shall observe, that the terms which the author makes use of are loose, general, and undefined, as will be shown in the sequel of this paper; and, what less becomes a fair reasoner, he puts wrong and invidious names on every thing, to colour a false way of arguing. He allows that the rebels indisputably merit to be severely chastised; that they deserve it according to law; and that if they are punished, they have none to thank but themselves.' (p. 7.) How can a man, after such a concession, make use sometimes of the word cruelty, but generally of revenge, when he pleads against the exercise of what, according to his own notion, is at the most but rigid justice? Or why are such executions, which according to his own opinion, are legal, so often to be called violences and slaughters? Not to mention the appellations given to those who do not agree with him in his opinion for clemency, as the blood-thirsty, the political butchers, state chirurgeons, and the like.

But I shall now speak of that point, which is the great and reigning fallacy of the pamphlet, and runs more or less through every paragraph. His whole argument turns upon this single consideration; Whether the king should exert mercy or justice towards those who have openly appeared in the present rebellion? By mercy he means a general pardon, by justice a general punishment: so that he supposes no other method practicable in this juncture, than either the forgiving all, or the executing all. Thus he puts the question, Whether it be the interest of the prince to destroy the rebels by fire, sword, or gibbet?? (p. 4.) And, speaking of the zealots for the govern ment, he tells us, They think no remedy so good, as to make clear work; and that they declare for the utter extirpation of all who are its enemies in the