to the world, they declare this creed, bought by so much blood, to be an imposture and a chimera.  I have no doubt that they always thought it to be so, when they were destroying everything at home and abroad for its establishment.  It is no strange thing, to those who look into the nature of corrupted man, to find a violent persecutor a perfect unbeliever of his own creed.  But this is the very first time that any man or set of men were hardy enough to attempt to lay the ground of confidence in them by an acknowledgment of their own falsehood, fraud, hypocrisy, treachery, heterodox doctrine, persecution, and cruelty.  Everything we hear from them is new, and, to use a phrase of their own, revolutionary; everything supposes a total revolution in all the principles of reason, prudence, and moral feeling.  If possible, this their recantation of the chief parts in the canon of the Rights of Man is more infamous and causes greater horror than their originally promulgating and forcing down the throats of mankind that symbol of all evil.  It is raking too much into the dirt and ordure of human nature to say more of it.

I hear it said, too, that they have lately declared in favor of property.  This is exactly of the same sort with the former.  What need had they to make this declaration, if they did not know that by their doctrines and practices they had totally subverted all property?  What government of Europe, either in its origin or its continuance, has thought it necessary to declare itself in favor of property?  The more recent ones were formed for its protection against former violations; the old consider the inviolability of property and their own existence as one and the same thing, and that a proclamation for its safety would be sounding an alarm on its danger.  But the Regicide banditti knew that this was not the first time they have been obliged to give such assurances, and had as often falsified them.  They knew, that, after butchering hundreds of men, women, and children, for no other cause than to lay hold on their property, such a declaration might have a chance of encouraging other nations to run the risk of establishing a commercial house amongst them.  It is notorious, that these very Jacobins, upon an alarm of the shopkeeper of Paris, made this declaration in favor of property.  These brave fellows received the apprehensions expressed on that head with indignation, and said that property could be in no danger, because all the world knew it was under the protection of the sans-culottes.  At what period did they not give this assurance?  Did they not give it; when they fabricated their first Constitution?  Did they not then solemnly declare it one of the rights of a citizen (a right, of course, only declared, and not then fabricated) to depart from his country, and choose another domicilium, without detriment to his property?  Did they not declare that no property should be confiscated from the children for the crime of the parent?  Can