means of representation; and the natural representative is the individual whose example and authority can influence the opinions of the greater part of those in whose behalf he is delegated. This is the natural aristocracy of a civilized nation; and its legislature is then best modelled, when it is in the hands of those who answer to that description. The whole people are govern ed by the laws, exactly as each clan or district would have been by the patriarchal authority of an elective and unarmed chieftain; and the lawgivers are not only secure of their places while they can maintain their influence over the people, but are withheld from any rash or injurious measure, by the consciousness and feelings of their dependence on this voluntary deference and submission. If this be a just representation of the conditions upon which the power and security of a representative legislature must always depend, it will not be difficult to explain how the experiment miscarried so completely with the French constituent assembly. That assembly, which the enthusiasm of the public, and the misconduct of the privileged orders soon enabled to engross the whole power of the country, consisted almost entirely of persons without name or individual influence, who owed the whole of their consequence to the situation to which they had been raised, and were not able, as individuals, to have influenced the opinions of one fiftieth part of their countrymen. There was then in France no legitimate, wholesome, or real aristocracy. The noblesse, who were persecuted for bearing that name, were quite disconnected from the people. Their habits of perpetual residence in the capital, and their total independence of the good opinion of their vassals, had deprived them of any influeuce over the minds of the lower orders; and the organization of society had not yet enabled the rich manufacturers or proprietors to assume such an influence. The persons sent as deputies to the statesgeneral, therefore, were those chiefly who, by intrigue and boldness, and by professions of uncommon zeal for what were then the great objects of popular pursuit, had been enabled to carry the votes of the electors. A notion of talent, and an opinion that they would be loud and vehement in supporting those requests on which the people had already come to a decision, were their passports into that assembly. They were sent there to express the particular spirit of the people, and not to give a general pledge of their acquiescence in what might there be enacted. They were not the hereditary patrons of the people, but their hired advocates for a particu lar pleading. They had no general trust or authority over them, but were chosen as their special messengers, out of a multitude whose influence and pretensions were equally powerful. When these men found themselves, by a sort of accident, in possession of the whole power of the state, and invested with the absolute government of the greatest nation that has existed in modern times, it is not to be wondered at if they forgot the slender ties by which they were bound to their constituents. The powers to which they had succeeded were so infinitely beyond any thing that they had enjoyed in their individual capacity, that it is not surprising if they never thought of exerting them with the same consideration and caution. Instead of the great bases of rank and property, which cannot be transferred by the clamours of the factious, or the caprice of the inconstant, and which serve to ballast and steady the vessel of the state in all its wanderings and disasters, the assembly possessed only the basis of talents or reputation; qualities which depend on opinion and opportunity, and which may be attributed in the same proportion to an inconvenient multitude at once. The whole legislature may be considered, therefore, as composed of adventurers, who had already at tained a situation far above their original pretensions, and were now tempted to push their fortune by every means that held out the promise of immediate success. They had nothing, comparatively speaking, to lose, but their places in the assembly, or the influence which they possessed within its walls; and as the authority of the assembly itself depended altogether on the popularity of its measures, and not on the intrinsic authority of its members, so it was only to be maintained by a succession of brilliant resolutions, and by satisfying or outdoing the extravagant wishes and expectations of the most extravagant and sanguine populace that ever existed. For a man to get a lead in such an assembly, it was by no means necessary that he should have previously possessed any influence or authority in the community; that he should be connected with powerful families, or supported by opulent and extensive associations If he could dazzle and overawe in debate, if he could obtain the acclamations of the mob of Versailles, and make himself familiar to the eyes and the ears of the assembly and its galleries, he was in a fair train for having a great share in the direction of an assembly, exercising absolute sovereignty over thirty millions of men. The prize was too tempting not to attract a multitude of competitors; and the assembly for many months was governed by those who outvied their associates in the impracticable extravagance of their patriotism, and sacrificed most profusely the real interests of the people at the shrine of a precarious popularity. In this way, the assembly, from the inherent vices of its constitution, ceased to be respectable or useful. The same causes speedily put an end to its security, and converted it into an instrument of destruction. Mere popularity was at first the instrument by which this unsteady legislature was governed; but when it became apparent, that whoever could obtain the direction or command of it, must possess the whole authority of the state, parties became less scrupulous about the means they employed for that purpose, and soon found out that violence and terror were infinitely more effectual and expeditious than persuasion and eloquence. The people at large, who had no attachment to any families or individuals among their delegates, and who contented themselves with idolizing the assembly in general, so long as it passed decrees to their liking, were passive and indifferent spectators of the transfer of power effected by the pikes of the Parisian multitude, and looked with equal affection upon every successive junto which assumed the management of its deliberations. Having no natural representatives, they felt themselves equally connected with all who exercised the legislative function; and, being des titute of a real aristocracy, were without the means of giving effectual support even to those who might appear to deserve it. Encouraged by this situation of affairs, the most daring, unprinci. pled, and profligate, proceeded to seize on the defenceless legislature, and, driving all their antagonists before them by violence or threats, entered without opposition on the supreme functions of government. The arms, however, by which they had been victorious, were capable of being turned against themselves; and those who were envious of their success, or ambitious of their distinction, easily found means to excite discontent among the multitude, now inured to insurrection, and to employ them in pulling down those very individuals whom they had so recently exalted. The disposal of the legislature thus became a prize to be fought for in the clubs, and conspiracies, and insurrections of a corrupt metropolis; and the institution of a national representative had no other effect, than that of laying the government open to lawless force and flagitious audacity. It is in this manner, that from the want of a natural and efficient aristocracy to exercise the func tions of representative legislators, the national assembly of France was betrayed into extravagance, and fell a prey to faction; that the institution itself became a source of public misery and disorder, and converted a civilized monarchy first into a sanguinary democracy, and then into a military despotism. It would be the excess of injustice to impute these disastrous consequences to the moderate and virtuous individuals who sat in the constituent assembly; but if it be admitted that they might have been easily foreseen, it will not be easy to exculpate them from the charge of very blamable imprudence. It would be still more difficult indeed to point out any course of conduct by which those dangers might have been entirely avoided; but they would undoubtedly have been less formidable, if the enlightened members of the third estate had endeayoured to form a party with the more liberal and popular among the nobility; if they had associated to themselves a greater number of those to whose persons a certain degree of influence was attached, from their fortune, their age, or their official situation; if, instead of grasp ing presumptuously at the exclusive direction of the national councils, and arrogating every thing on the credit of their zealous patriotism and inexperienced abilities, they had sought to strengthen themselves by an alliance with what was respectable in the existing establishments, and attached themselves at first as disciples to those whom they expected speedily to outgrow and eclipse. On a review of the whole matter, it seems impossible to acquit those of the revolutionary patriots, whose intentions are admitted to be pure, of great precipitation, presumption, and imprudence. Apologies may be found for them, perhaps, in the inexperience which was incident to their situation; in their constant apprehension of being separated before their task was accomplished; in the exasperation which was excited by the injudicious proceedings of the cabinet; and in the intoxication which naturally resulted from the magnitude of their early triumph, and the noise and resounding of their popularity. But the errors into which they fell were inexcusable in politicians of the eighteenth century; and while we pity their sufferings, and admire their genius, we cannot feel any respect for their wisdom, or any surprize at their miscar riage. For the Literary Magazine. LAWYERS DEFENDED. NOTHING is more common than the abuse of lawyers. With the mass of mankind, a lawyer and a knave are almost synonymous terms; and the outcry against their avarice and extortion is particularly unanimous and loud. A lawyer's demands are always paid grudgingly, and inevitably considered as exceeding his dues. A man will pay his carpenter, his taylor, his dancing-master with little or no hesitation, but his lawyer's claims are always listened to with suspicion and jealousy, and his wages, however moderate, paid from a sense, not of gratitude or justice, but necessity. Most persons who deal in this sort of general calumny must themselves be either knaves or fools: those of the former class, who, through improper conduct, have been brought under the lash of the law, seek for revenge by endeavouring to stigmatize its professors; and the latter, from inexperience and vulgar prejudice, throw out their impotent slander without having inquired whether there be any foundation for it or not. It cannot, indeed, be denied, that among the inferior practitioners in the law, there are men of the vilest characters; but they are in general so well known, that none but bad or incautious people would employ, or be deceived by them. The general body of the law is composed of men of the highest honour and integrity; men in whom the utmost confidence is justly placed by the community, and to whose abilities and assistance many persons owe much of their security and happiness. It is certainly true, that the profession of the law, and the law itself (which is finely called by Aristotle mind without passion), has been always the subject of abuse, and it may be accounted for without difficulty. Almost every man who enters into a law suit (which is often contrary to his attorney's advice, and with a case favourably stated by himself) is sanguine of success. Warmed by passion, and a determination to overwhelm his adversary, he proceeds with blind fury, regardless of con sequences. On the day of trial, however, new tacts appear, and his suit is determined against him: he never reflects that his cause was bad, or that he had deceived his attorney, but he takes care to let the world know that his attorney was a knave, that he was bribed by his opponent, or was inattentive to his duty; or he will perhaps go a step farther, and assume prejudice in the judge and jury. If he succeeds in his suit, his adversary thinks himself entitled to be equally censorious, and thus the lawyers, on one side or the other, are sure to be calumniated. This, at least, is very frequently the practice, and it is therefore not extraordinary, though it is to be regretted, that attornies of the fairest characters are generally averse to the conduct of law suits. Exclusive of persons who thus lose their cau. ses, the profligate and dishonest part of the community, who are sued for debts which they refuse to pay, join in trite reflections on the profession; and others, who employ what they call sharp lawyers, without any regard to their honesty, make grievous complaints, because the men whom they intended should take in others, have taken in themselves. Another and a principal ground of complaint arises from what practitioners can seldom prevent, the heavy expence, and often the long duration of suits. This is undoubtedly a dreadful hardship on suitors, but it is imputable to a variety of causes, which it would require much time and labour to explain, and be difficult to remove. For the Literary Magazine. THE ADVERSARIA, Or Winter Evening Amusements. NO. XIX. Thus in delight my winter evenings roll. POPE had as little of the poet in his feelings as any man that ever drank from the Pierian stream.— He was too wise, too cautious, too worldly in his notions. The characteristics of a genuine poet are as opposite to this prudence, this spirit of calculation, as the splendour of noonday is to the dulness of midnight. He is distinguished by a total disregard of the morrow, and does not vex his mind by curious doubts of what it may produce, but, as an ancient expresses it, lives as if each day was to be his last. Such men as Savage, Chatterton, Dermody, &c., such a mind as Pope possessed, the were the true sons of song. But on advice of his friend Hughes was not lost. This exactly suited the accumulative spirit of the poet; he published Homer by subscription, and his translation gave him ease and afflu ence. Since I have introduced the name of Hughes, I will indulge my rambling manner, and add a few remarks concerning him, as I conceive the name of one of the correspondents of the Spectator to be not altogether uninteresting to literary students. John Hughes was born in 1677. Under the care of Mr. Thomas Rowe, a dissenting minister, the same who taught the celebrated Dr. Watts, he was early initiated in the principles of classical learning, and he discovered that predilection for the pleasures of poetry, which in a short time placed him in a respectable rank with the most eminent wits of the day. In his nineteenth year he formed the plan of a regular tragedy, which, however, he never executed; but his paraphrases of some of the best parts of Horace, and his poem on the Peace of Ryswic, published in 1697, exhibit no mean talents for poetry. But unfortunately his taste and his ambition led him to soar in a region in which his genius could not support him. Horace had foretold the fate of him who should venture too far, and his prediction was verified by the attempts of Hughes. Pindarum quisque studet æmulari, I— · Nomina ponto. He had not that brilliancy of imagination, that fertility of versification, which lyric poetry requires; and hence his odes To the Creator of the World, in Praise of Women, and The House of Nassau, miserably fail in exciting any more than admiration of the harmony of his lines, They are flat, stale, and, I had almost added, unprofitable. The poetry of Hughes possessed an extrinsic advantage, which contributed very essentially to its temporary popularity. He had himself some skill in music, but being aided by the talents of Pepusch and Handel, his strains were warbled by many an admiring enthusiast. But his title to a rank among English poets must rest chiefly upon his Siege of Damascus. This drama contains principles of morality which might please the most rigid judge; but although the style of it is harmonious, and the imagery often felicitous, it yet wants that power of touching the feelings, without which no play can long be a favourite upon the stage. He was more successful as a translator than as an original poet. His version of the Pyramus and Thisbe of Ovid, is one of the most faithful exhibitions we have of the elegance of Roman genius. He was employed by Jacob Tonson, in 1712, in conjunction with others, to translate Lucan's Pharsalia, and the part which he selected was promptly and elegantly finished, but the indolence or the incapacity of his coadjutors prevented the completion of the plan. His little fragments from Orpheus, Pindar, Euripides, and Anacreon, evince an accurate knowledge of the Grecian idiom. From the French language he gave us Fontenelle's Dialogues of the Dead, his Discourse concerning the Ancients and the Moderns, the Letters of Abelard and Heloise, the Misanthrope of Moliere, and the abbe Vertot's History of the Revolution of Portugal. To the friendship of lord Cowper he was indebted for the very profitable place of secretary to the commission of peace, upon the accession of George the first. Upon the authority of various editors and commentators we may assign to his pen the following letters in the Tatler : Josiah Couplet, No. 64; Will Trusty, No. 73; Philanthropos, No. 66; September 15, No. 70; Letter No. 76 and No. 194, containing an allegory from Spenser; and No. 113, including a strange inventory of a beau. In the Spectator, No. 252, he gives us a very humourous letter on the artful eloquence of tears and fainting fits, which females so successfully |