Reasoning on the event (which feems now almoft certain) of America being driven to the alternative of going to war with France, or facrificing both her honour and intereft, Mr. Harper expreffes himself in the following fpirited terms: which we think no lefs applicable to our own country.

"Should y afk, what are the facrifices we muft incur by a war, and what are our means of becoming formidable to France? I would answer, that, as to facrifices, the greatest we can make, is that of our rights and independence; that war is an evil always to be avoided, but infinitely less than national degradation, and fubmiffion to the will of a foreign power; that every poffible lofs of property and lives may be repaired by time and induftry, if we preferve our honour and Our government; but that thefe, once loft, can never be restored: in fine, that a nation which weighs its purse against its rights, never fails in the end to lose both the one and the other." P. 159.

He concludes with fhowing by what means America may effectually carry on a war against France, in cafe the should be compelled to it.

We now take our leave of one of the most interefting, important, and feasonable political treatifes, that has come within our obfervation The conduct of France towards neutral nations, and especially towards the States of America, has never been, to our knowledge, fo fully and ably difcuffed; nor that of Great-Britain, and her allies, in commencing the present war, more clearly vindicated. The author appears to have grounded most of his reafonings upon authentic documents, and incontrovertible facts. He is alfo, as we before observed, intitled to peculiar credit, as a Republican in principle and habits, originally partial to the French Revolution, and confequently Tittle inclined to favour the government or caufe of GreatBritain. Yet he bears ample teftimony to our moderation, and to the inordinate ambition and flagrant injuftice of our enemy. The ftyle is, in general, fuitable to the fubject; being plain, pure, and perfpicuous, but rifing occafionally to energy and eloquence.

We cannot difmifs this article without expreffing our earnest hope, that the unjuft treatment which America has experienced from France (and which this tract fo ably details) may have one good effect, that of reconciling the American States more completely with the Parent Country, and cementing their mutual interefts, by that cordial co-operation and firm alliance, which would (we are perfuaded) be, in its confequences, highly beneficial to both.

ART.

ART. XII. A View of the Conduct of the Executive in the Foreign Affairs of the United States, as connected with the Million to the French Republic, during the Years 1794, 5, and 6. By James Monroe, late Minifier Plenipotentiary to the faid Republic. Illuftrated by his Inftructions and Correfpondence, and other authentic Documents. 8vo. 117 pp. 2s. 6d. Philadelphia printed; reprinted by Ridgway, London. 1798.

WE

E had very carefully read and confidered Mr. Harper's pamphlet, and committed our thoughts upon it to paper, when we were told of this tract, written by another American, as containing a complete refutation of it. As the former tract confifts of plain facts, illuftrated by the most manly and conclufive reafenings, it was not very cafy to conceive how it could be fully anfwered. Still we regarded it as an indifpenfable duty to obtain this fecond publication without delay; that, if it fhould require any abatement to be made in the force of what we had ftated from the former, we might at once do all that justice could require. We had not, however, proceeded far in the editor's preface to this tract, before we learned that it was not written in anfwer to Mr. Harper, “but merely in juftification of his (Mr. Monroe's) public conduct as minifter to the French Republic," and, in fact, with refpect to fome material points, it confirms, inftead of contradicting, the flatements of the former gentleman. Thus Mr. Monroe tells us, that the Directoire, that is, the French Diregory, "confidered the alliance between France and America as ceafing to exist, from the moment that the treaty of the latter with England was ratified" (p. 85) than which nothing could poffibly be more unjust and tyrannical; fince it is ca pable of the cleareft demonitration, that nothing was ftipulated by that treaty which France could with any juftice refent in fuch a manner; and, fince it is quite a new doctrine in the Jaw of nations, that a treaty made with one power shail annul an exifting treaty with another, when, in fact, they have no interference as to principle.

The whole bufinefs of Mr. Monroe's pamphlet is, to justify his own conduct in France, and to criminate the administration in America, as having acted with duplicity towards him; in giving him a wrong impreflion of the object of Mr. Jay's miflion to England, and fuffering him to remain too long uninformed of the iffue of that miffion when it was finifhed. He allerts, indeed, a trong difpofition in the French government

to

to be on friendly terms with America; but he makes no difcrimination between the governments of that country, from Robefpierre to the time of his own recall, in 1796; and he shows very diftinctly that this difpofition depended always upon the prefumption, that America was to be guided altogether by the will of France. As far as he is perfonally concerned, Mr. Monroe, like other perfons who tell their own ftory, certainly makes his narrative fufficiently fair; but thofe only who are inclined to think all regular governments always in the wrong, will believe, on the credit of his affertions, that the American administration cannot defend itself completely against every thing which he alledges.

The perfon who is really violent against Mr. Harper, is the English editor of this tract, whoever he may be. He talks of "the pernicious mifreprefentations of Mr. Harper," which yet, he allows," may very well anfwer the purpofe of those who wish to draw the United States into a clofer connexion with Great Britain." He talks of " diffipating the errors, and correcting the poifon, which it is fo evidently the purpose of Mr. Harper to infufe." He accufes him of "mil-ftating facts, affuming falfe grounds, going out of his way to pick up dirty abufe to befpatter the French caufe." Amiable caufe; amiable admirer of it! We may learn, he fays, " from many interesting parts of the following papers, the affection which France nourished for her fifter republic, her continual endeavours to evince it, her wish that America fhould remain in a fate of perfect neutrality." Even if the two former of thefe points fhould be allowed, the third by no means appears; fince no unwillingness to embroil America with England is any where expreffed or implied: but rather the contrary may be very fairly inferred. In the Conclufion of this completely French Preface, the anonymous writer takes upon him to deny peremptorily, that Genet ever declared that he would appeal from the decifion of the Prefident of America to the people.

"The reader," he fays, "fhould be informed, that this fuppofed declaration, which Mr. Harper makes fuch great ufe of in his book, was formally and explicitly denied ever to have been made, by. the Prefident's Secretary, Mr. Dallas, in whofe prefence it is faid to have been used. As nearly as can be recollected, Mr. Dallas, in his letter, declared that Mr. Genet did not make use of fuch words as were afcribed to him, nor of any words that he could conftrue into fuch a meaning."

If recollection may be balanced against recollection, it feems to be quite prefent to our minds, that Genet did not confine himself to mere words; but be this as it may, words confidered as of public certainty and notoriety in the country where they were faid to be uttered, cannot be fet afide by a

recul

recollection of this kind; and, as Mr. Harper obferves*, Genet's threat of an appeal was afterwards carried into execution in the French Manifefto. The pamphlet of Mr. Monroe then does not refute the affertions or reafonings of Mr. Harper; and the fuggeftions of the English editor fhow rather the bitternefs of his anger against any perfon who prefumes to oppose the French government, than that he has any valid ground for making objections to that author's pamphlet.

ART. XIII. A practical Inquiry on difordered Refpiration; diftinguishing Convulfive Afthma, its specific Caufes, and proper Indications of Cure. By Robert Bree, M. D. late of Univerfity-College, Oxford, &c. 8vo. 420 pp. 6s. Robinfons. 1798.

ASTHMA has been confidered as continued, periodical, or

The firft fpecies takes its rife from any cause ftraitening the cavity of the thorax, and thence impeding the motion of the lungs, as pus or water in the cheft, aneurism of the aorta, mal-conformation of the fpine, &c. This kind of afthma is alfo called fymptomatic, as depending upon another difeafe, which being cured, the asthma ccafes. The fecond fpecies, fpafmodic, convulfive or periodic afthma, which is the more immediate fubject of this inquiry, and of most usual occurrence, has been thought to take its rife from ftri&ture of the bronchia, or of the air veficles in which they terminate. The third, or humoral afthma, from mucus obftructing the bronchia and veficles. This author does not acknowledge the exiftance of fpafmodic afthma, in the fenfe here given, but thinks it the fame as the humoral afthma. The fymptoms are the fame in both fpecies; and the folution of the fit in both of them, is attended with a greater or lefs difcharge of mucus. The term convulfive, is only proper, according to him, as descriptive of the violent exertions of the mufcles concerned in expiration, which are excited to inordinate contractions, to expel the offending matter. This term is, therefore, equally applicable to the continued asthma; but as the cause is there extraneous to the lungs, a difcharge of mucus does not prove a folution of the fit, as in the periodic, which probably obtained its name from that circumstance.

* P. 109.

In fupport of his pofition, Dr. Bree adduces a variety of teftimonies from Willis, Hoffman, and other authors, who have written profeffedly on the difeafe, and obferves, that although they confidered the fpafmodic and humoral afthmas as diftinct fpecies, yet, from their defcriptions of the complaints, they are evidently the fame, differing only in the greater or less quantity of mucus difcharged on the termination of the fit.

"Sir John Floyer," he obferves, p. 85, "defcribes the periodic asthma, in a manner, which leaves no doubt of all the powers fubfervient to refpiration, having been employed with excefs of energy in that, as well as in the continued fpecies. The diaphragm is not without much difficulty," he fays, "moved downward, but for enlarging the breast in inspiration, the intercoftal mufcles, ftrive and labour more vehemently; and the fcapular and lumbar mufcles, join all their force, and ftrain themfelves to lift up the breaft, that the lungs may have a place fufficient for their expanfion. Here is fufficient evidence," the author adds, " of diftrefs in labouring to accomplish fome object; but Floyer, who had perfonal experience of the difeafe for thirty years, had not begun to confider the effort, as the energy of nature, in endea vouring to remove a material, offending the pulmonary organs."

But as the fame efforts would be used to remove spasm on the bronchia, to which Floyer, in part, attributed his asthma, as to discharge mucus obftructing the paffage to the air, this argument cannot be omitted as conclufive against the existence of ftricture; any more than what the author had before noticed, that a discharge of mucus generally accompanies the folution of a fit of convulfive asthma; as the mucus might be, and most likely would be, generated during the fit, by the increased action of the veffels of the lungs. This mode of reafoning is agreeable to what is obferved in afthma, arifing from irritating matter infpired into the lungs, as metallic fumes, &c. In this fpecies, nature ufually effects the cure. The exertions used by the conftitution, to get rid of the offending matter, excite a flux of mucus in the lungs, which, theathing the acrid particles, renders them innoxious, until they are difcharged by coughing.

"Whatever claims may be made." Dr. B. fays, p. 397, "to the honour of curing paroxyfms of this fpecies, nature is often the patient's only friend. The irritating offence will increase the action of the bronchial veffels, their lubricating lymph will be fecreted, to fheathe the paffages from farther injury, and this event takes place, without any thanks being due to art."-"Afthma may alfo arife," he further obferves, p. 349, "from abdominal irritation in the ftomach, uterus, or other vifcera, or from affociation or habit, after irritation is removed from the thoracic or abdominal vifcrea."

In the cure, reference is to be had to the cause, when that can be ascertained. As the moft ufual fpecies is the convul