citizens.  It was the impolitic abolition of their discipline, which exposed them to the wild opinions and conduct that have prevailed amongst the Huguenots.  The toleration in 1787 was owing to the good disposition of the late king; but it was modified by the profligate folly of his atheistic minister, the Cardinal de Lomenie.  This mischievous minister did not follow, in the edict of toleration, the wisdom of the Edict of Nantes.  But his toleration was granted to non-Catholics,—­a dangerous word, which might signify anything, and was but too expressive of a fatal indifference with regard to all piety.  I speak for myself:  I do not wish any man to be converted from his sect.  The distinctions which we have reformed from animosity to emulation may be even useful to the cause of religion.  By some moderate contention they keep alive zeal.  Whereas people who change, except under strong conviction, (a thing now rather rare,) the religion of their early prejudices, especially if the conversion is brought about by any political machine, are very apt to degenerate into indifference, laxity, and often downright atheism.

Another political question arises about the mode of government which ought to be established.  I think the proclamation (which I read before I had proceeded far in this memorial) puts it on the best footing, by postponing that arrangement to a time of peace.

When our politics lead us to enterprise a great and almost total political revolution in Europe, we ought to look seriously into the consequences of what we are about to do.  Some eminent persons discover an apprehension that the monarchy, if restored in France, may be restored in too great strength for the liberty and happiness of the natives, and for the tranquillity of other states.  They are therefore of opinion that terms ought to be made for the modification of that monarchy.  They are persons too considerable, from the powers of their mind, and from their situation, as well as from the real respect I have for them, who seem to entertain these apprehensions, to let me pass them by unnoticed.

As to the power of France as a state, and in its exterior relations, I confess my fears are on the part of its extreme reduction.  There is undoubtedly something in the vicinity of France, which makes it naturally and properly an object of our watchfulness and jealousy, whatever form its government may take.  But the difference is great between a plan for our own security and a scheme for the utter destruction of France.  If there were no other countries in the political map but these two, I admit that policy might justify a wish to lower our neighbor to a standard which would even render her in some measure, if not wholly, our dependant.  But the system of Europe is extensive and extremely complex.  However formidable to us, as taken in this one relation, France is not equally dreadful to all other states.  On the contrary, my clear opinion is, that the liberties of Europe cannot