and mortification undoubtedly they feel; but to them repentance is a thing impossible.  They are atheists.  This wretched opinion, by which they are possessed even to the height of fanaticism, leading them to exclude from their ideas of a commonwealth the vital principle of the physical, the moral, and the political world engages them in a thousand absurd contrivances to fill up this dreadful void.  Incapable of innoxious repose or honorable action or wise speculation in the lurking-holes of a foreign land, into which (in a common ruin) they are driven to hide their heads amongst the innocent victims of their madness, they are at this very hour as busy in the confection of the dirt-pies of their imaginary constitutions as if they had not been quite fresh from destroying, by their impious and desperate vagaries, the finest country upon earth.

It is, however, out of these, or of such as these, guilty and impenitent, despising the experience of others, and their own, that some people talk of choosing their negotiators with those Jacobins who they suppose may be recovered to a sounder mind.  They flatter themselves, it seems, that the friendly habits formed during their original partnership of iniquity, a similarity of character, and a conformity in the groundwork of their principles, might facilitate their conversion, and gain them over to some recognition of royalty.  But surely this is to read human nature very ill.  The several sectaries in this schism of the Jacobins are the very last men in the world to trust each other.  Fellowship in treason is a bad ground of confidence.  The last quarrels are the sorest; and the injuries received or offered by your own associates are ever the most bitterly resented.  The people of France, of every name and description, would a thousand times sooner listen to the Prince de Conde, or to the Archbishop of Aix, or the Bishop of St. Pol, or to Monsieur de Cazales, then to La Fayette, or Dumouriez, or the Vicomte de Noailles, or the Bishop of Autun, or Necker, or his disciple Lally Tollendal.  Against the first description they have not the smallest animosity, beyond that of a merely political dissension.  The others they regard as traitors.

The first description is that of the Christian Royalists, men who as earnestly wished for reformation, as they opposed innovation in the fundamental parts of their Church and State. Their part has been very decided.  Accordingly, they are to be set aside in the restoration of Church and State.  It is an odd kind of disqualification, where the restoration of religion and monarchy is the question.  If England should (God forbid it should!) fall into the same misfortune with France, and that the court of Vienna should undertake the restoration of our monarchy, I think it would be extraordinary to object to the admission of Mr. Pitt or Lord Grenville or Mr. Dundas into any share in the management of that business, because in a day of trial they have stood up firmly