butary to that Empire, there will no longer be any balance between France and all, the other independent powers of Europe together, if France be permitted to hold her controul over all those countries." In the summary of the Counties of England and Wales, the author states the total of their Population at 9,343,578, that of Ireland at 4,500,000, and that of Scotland at 2,500,000, making a grand total for the United Kingdom of 16,343,578. London is stated to contain 864,845 persons 73,670 352,150 Leeds On the authority of private information, the Chevalier stated the population of Ireland and Scotland as above: but, in the Advertisement, he acknowleges himself to have been incorrect, and gives the numbers according to the official returns; making the first to be somewhat more than 4,000,000, and the second somewhat more than 1,607,760. If, however, the summary gave the population of Ireland and Scotland in numbers surpassing the truth, it omitted that of Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, Sark, the Scilly Islands, and the Isle of Man, the inhabitants of which are reckoned at above 80,000; so that the total amount of the Population of the United Kingdom is 15,031,338 persons, viz. about three-sevenths of the popula tion of France. This may appear a discouraging statement: but, continues the author, If we include the population of her extensive American Colonies, and her vast and very populous dominions in the East-Indies, the difference will entirely disappear. If at the same time we reflect, that the population of the Mother Country is concentrated in a compact territory, whieh, thanks to her insular situation and her formidable marine, is in reality a fortress; that the Colonies are inaccessible to the impotent rage of our enemy; that both of them carry on, together, a commerce of manufactured and territorial products, equal, or even superior, to that of the combined Nations of Europe; that throughout the Colonies, as well as in the Mother Country, there reigns an universal spirit of attachment to a Government which diffuses prosperity, happiness, and liberty, into every corner of its vast empire; we cannot entertain the smallest doubt respecting the powerful means this Country possesses, of overturning the destructive projects entertained by an abandoned miscreant, against a Nation that will ever scorn his principles, and be able to baffle completely all his wicked attempts.' The vast increase of France by the late war is an event which all Europe has reason to deplore: but, if France could resist all Europe leagued against her, how much more is Britain enabled, by the mere circumstance of her position, to repel the X 4 force force which a single state can bring against her? France, from recent experience, has no right to count on superior bravery. She can only attack us on our shores by detachments, which must, in part at least, be discomfited by our fleets; and we must be greatly changed, if, when called to fight pro aris et focis, successive armies will not be ready to dispute every inch of ground with the invading foe. It is lamentable, however, that the population of states should he considered only in reference to war. When will the time arrive, in which nations will consult, not how they may annoy, but how they may most advantageously interchange the bounties of Nature, and the blessings of Industry! Moy. ART. XII. A Refutation of the Libel on the Memory of the late King N Such being our expectations, we have now to state that we have been grievously disappointed; since, instead of a model of e'egant reproof, and of refined chastisement, we meet with abuse of the most gross and vulgar kind, more suitable to the meridian of a certain well-known place in this metropolis, than becoming a man who had breathed the air of the French court. Our mistaken countrywoman might deserve little quarter; yet it may be thought that there were considerations which the ci-devant minister owed to himself, and which ought to have secured her *See Review for March last, p. 225. from 1 from such harsh treatment. He gallantly thanks the lady for her abuse of him: but his acknowlegements might have been omitted, since he has more than repaid her in quantity, and in kind. Indeed the scurrility, into which he descends, ill agrees with the contempt which he professes to entertain for his fair opponent, and indicates that in this vaunt there is more of bravado than of truth. The minister of state deigns to ransack all her numerous volumes on the French Revolution, and to cull from them the most unwarrantable passages. Few writers could submit unhurt to this ordeal, applied to works sent into the world at very different periods, and relating to an event which has assumed such divers aspects, and which has exhibited, in successive changes, such varying features. We are aware that this apology does not afford a sufficient shelter for the lady, and we do not profess to exculpate her: we solely animadvert on the sort of treatment which she has experienced in the present instance.-As the greater part of this tract is personal, we have been imperceptibly led to descant thus long on personality: but we shall now advert to its more material contents. The author conjectures, with great probability, that the letters to the King of Prussia, and to the Baron de Breteuil, were furnished to Miss Williams by the latter; and we are told that the poor old Baron is so much hurt at the use which has been made of them, that he has fretted himself into a fit of illness. The letter to the King of Prussia is that on which Miss W. principally relied, in order to establish the insincerity of Louis XVI. to the extent for which she contended. The effect of this document entirely depends on its date; that which it bears in the published work is 3d December 1791: but M. Bertrand maintains that this is not the true date, and that the original one was 1790. The reasons which he adduces in favour of this proposition appear to us very strong; and this point being established, he alleges that there is nothing in the letter which invalidates his assertion that the king remained unchangeably faithful to his engagements, after his second acceptance of the constitution. By this expression, however, he can mean only a naked literal conformity to them; not an ex-animo acceptance of that instrument, and a bona fide observance of it. The memoirs of this writer himself, as Miss Williams observes, in every page contradict a different supposition; while the very appointment of the author to the ministry of the marine, and the confidence with which he tells us he was honoured, incontestibly prove this to have been the extent of the Monarch's fidelity. With regard to the authenticity of the Royal letters as published by Miss Williams, it will be recollected that, while we declined all elaborate investigation of the matter, professing to leave it to persons more competent, and whose opportunities more favoured a successful examination, we stated the inclination of our minds to be in favour of their genuineness. We are glad to find ourselves sanctioned, with respect to the grounds on which we went, by the authority of this writer; who admits that these letters, though he treats most of them as fabrications, contain the opinions and real sentiments of Louis XVI. Seven only however, out of the seventy-two, of which number they consist, will he allow to have been the productions.of his royal master; and he points out various minute circumstances, and alleges several reasons, which induce him to consider the other sixty-five as spurious. Selecting seven out of the sixty-five, he deduces from their contents strong grounds for questioning their authenticity; and he professes to be able to exhibit similar proofs of the forgery of the rest: but he declines the attempt. We are sorry that he has stopped thus short. Had he pursued this task, he would, in our opinion, have better consulted the respect due to the memory of the murdered Prince, and better served the cause to which he is devoted, than by mis-spending time in collecting together objectionable paragraphs from the now almost forgotten revolutionary works of his fair antagonist. Miss W. having in one of her letters represented the people of England as approving the proceedings on the 10th of August, we feel obliged to Mr. Bertrand for vindicating the nation from so foul a charge: On what ground (asks he) has Miss Williams the assurance thus to implicate her countrymen in her regicide sentiments? What a juncture has she selected to do them such injustice? It was when England was receiving, with a most exalted hospitality, Frenchmen of every class, compelled by their attachment to religion and their King to fly their country; it was when the House of Commons, on a motion made by Mr. Fox and seconded by Mr. Sheridan, (December 20th, 1792,) voted an address to the King, to express to him the indignation and horror of the whole nation on the situation of the King of France, and on the injustice and barbarity of the fate to which he was doomed." M. Bertrand observes, with respect to the style of the late king, that It was simple and clear, but always careless, and frequently incorrect. I know no lettèr, no writing of his, and I am not afraid to assert that there is not a single one existing, in which some negligence of style or grammatical error is not to be found; even his Will is not entirely entirely free from those little blemishes; and they are the more valuable, as, without injuring the beauty of that immortal act, they confirm its authenticity. All these letters therefore, so correctly and elegantly written, which Miss Williams publishes as originals, must be considered as not authentic; they can no more be attributed to Louis XVI. than to Henry IV. His opinions, indeed, and sentiments may be found in them; but those lofty expressions, that style so pure, so academic, were never his language.' Both M. Bertrand and Miss Williams are too much of partisans to appreciate properly the events of the French Revolution but their differences, had the former been less personal, might have led to the elucidation of certain important parts of its history. ART. XIII. An Answer to Mr Pitt's Attack upon Earl St. Vincent and the Admiralty, in his Motion for an inquiry into the State of the Naval Defence of the Country, on the 15th of March 1804. 8vo. Is. 6d. Ebers. THE HE late Board of Admiralty, and the noble Earl who presided at it, have found in this writer a spirited and able advocate. He reduces the accusation into these three heads: Jo. First-"That the Admiralty had not augmented that species of force which was most particularly adapted to the peculiar circumstances of the empire." Secondly-"That in several years of the late war, greater exertions than on the present occasion were made, both absolutely and relatively, with respect to the force of the enemy, as well in equipping ships as in raising men." Thirdly-" That a sufficient number of contracts, for the building of ships of war, have not been made by the present Board of Admiralty, either for the service of the present moment, or for the future preservation of the British Navy." Under the first head, he observes that the Rt. Honorable accuser ought to have proved the superior excellence of the gunboat system, before he ventured to censure any other; and he maintains the total ineligibility of such a plan, as requiring nearly twice the number of men that are wanted according to the present mode. He says that, if it were adopted, one half of our sailors would not be more than sufficient to mask the single port of Boulogne; that one ship of war is a match for almost any number of gun-boats; that, for certain purposes, the late Board held this sort of force to be useful, and had set it on a footing much more respectable than that on which it was under Mr. Pitt's administration; that there is at present in commission a flotilla of this kind, which carries 1311 guns, |