the party he has high respect.  Upon a view, indeed, of the composition of all parties, he finds great satisfaction.  It is, that, in leaving the service of his country, he leaves Parliament without all comparison richer in abilities than he found it.  Very solid and very brilliant talents distinguish the ministerial benches.  The opposite rows are a sort of seminary of genius, and have brought forth such and so great talents as never before (amongst us at least) have appeared together.  If their owners are disposed to serve their country, (he trusts they are,) they are in a condition to render it services of the highest importance.  If, through mistake or passion, they are led to contribute to its ruin, we shall at least have a consolation denied to the ruined country that adjoins us:  we shall not be destroyed by men of mean or secondary capacities.

All these considerations of party attachment, of personal regard, and of personal admiration rendered the author of the Reflections extremely cautious, lest the slightest suspicion should arise of his having undertaken to express the sentiments even of a single man of that description.  His words at the outset of his Reflections are these:—­

“In the first letter I had the honor to write to you, and which at length I send, I wrote neither for nor from any description of men; nor shall I in this.  My errors, if any, are my own.  My reputation alone is to answer for them.”  In another place he says, (p. 126,[7]) “I have no man’s proxy.  I speak only from myself, when I disclaim, as I do with all possible earnestness, all communion with the actors in that triumph, or with the admirers of it.  When I assert anything else, as concerning the people of England, I speak from observation, not from authority.”

To say, then, that the book did not contain the sentiments of their party is not to contradict the author or to clear themselves.  If the party had denied his doctrines to be the current opinions of the majority in the nation, they would have put the question on its true issue.  There, I hope and believe, his censurers will find, on the trial, that the author is as faithful a representative of the general sentiment of the people of England, as any person amongst them can be of the ideas of his own party.

The French Revolution can have no connection with the objects of any parties in England formed before the period of that event, unless they choose to imitate any of its acts, or to consolidate any principles of that Revolution with their own opinions.  The French Revolution is no part of their original contract.  The matter, standing by itself, is an open subject of political discussion, like all the other revolutions (and there are many) which have been attempted or accomplished in our age.  But if any considerable number of British subjects, taking a factious interest in the proceedings of France, begin publicly to incorporate