with the other great nations of Europe; and indeed it was not till the reign of Henry the Great, that she rose even to an equality with the German empire, and the kingdom of Spain.

Unfortunately for mankind the French, who are the most turbulent, the most ambitious, and most active and restless people in the world, have gradually increased in power, during the two last centuries, and that power has of late been directed to the enslaving of other nations in a manner heretofore without example.

The former French government, though ambitious, was guided by principles of honour, and the people were humane and civilized; but the late revolution has completely obliterated every vestige. of honour and humanity from amongst them; and, to use the words of the Abbé Raynal, has, "by a species of infernal magic, converted the finest kingdom in the world, into a den of thieves, robbers, and murderers."

It has now become a matter of the most urgent necessity to guard against the injustice of French ambition, supported, as it is, by great physical means, and uncontrouled by any moral principle; and there seems to be no permanent security, except in depriving her of the means by which she rose to

her present superiority, for superior power must be admitted where the resistance of single nations was unavailing, and where the coalesced powers of Europe find a great difficulty in reducing her to a situation such as may be necessary for their future safety.

Much may be done by combined efforts, whilst under a sense of general danger, and smarting under the feeling of recent injury. It would, however, be betraying great ignorance of the history of the world, and total unacquaintance with the power of French intrigue, to trust to such a combination for permanent tranquillity or lasting security.

The extent, population, genius, and disposition of the French people are unalterable; other nations should then do with France as the Romans (the greatest warriors and most profound politicians in the world) did with their enemies, when they found them superior in any of their modes of fighting.

That great people applied themselves immediately and incessantly to discovering in what the superiority of the enemy consisted, and they either endeavoured to obtain the same advantage that the enemy possessed, or to deprive the enemy of that advantage.

Proceeding, then, on the Roman plan, it will be

found that the preponderating power of France takes its date from the introduction of fire-arms, and the use of the musket; for besides what we have seen of late years, we have the authority of Montesquieu for saying, that the Swiss, and other mountaineers, lost their superiority when they adopted the use of the musket, and that they then became inferior in the field to the French; and what that able writer observes with respect to the French and Swiss is more or less true with regard to the Germans, Spaniards, English, and other nations, with whom the French have been used to go to war.

Gunpowder has not only the effect of putting the weak and little man on an equality with the strong and bulky; but so far as the musket is in use, it gives to the smaller man a superiority, as he has the advantage of opposing a smaller vulnerable surface.

In addition to this advantage enjoyed by all men of a lesser size, the French are uncommonly active and adroit. They move their limbs, and particularly their fingers, with a facility that no other people possess, so that their recruits are almost immediately fit for actual service.

As, previous to the revolution, France had always

large and well disciplined armies, this peculiar advantage was not perceived; but when, in 1792, the regular army was disorganized, and greatly reduced in numbers, it became evident. The victory at Jemappe was one of the first consequences of the facility of training; but it was not till after the total destruction of the most formidable army ever led into the field, in the attack on Russia, that Europe saw the full extent of this engine of power.

In less than five months an army of three hundred thousand raw recruits was led into the field, and, when disciplined by a few veterans, made a formidable stand against the combined powers of Russia, Prussia, and Sweden, and finally of Austria also. It is thus that armies composed chiefly of boys, of 16 or 17 years of age, are able to stand against stout men of riper years.

In order, however, to be sure in establishing the important fact, let us consult history.

It was about the time of Henry IV. of France, and Elizabeth of England, (towards the end of the 16th century), that the lance and bow and arrow began to give way to the use of the musket, and from that period France began to increase in importance, and her progress in power' kept pace exactly with the adoption of fire arms, which took

place not all at once, but gradually, till the end of the sixteenth century. The use of the musquet was only partial and incomplete, till the invention of the bayonet; for the musqueteer and fusileer as they were termed, though they had an advantage over lancers, when at a distance and advancing, found themselves totally unequal to the contest when they approached, and came to close quar

ters.

This state of things occasioned one half of each regiment to be armed with pikes, and the other half with muskets, which in reality reduced armies to about half their numerical strength, for at a distance only half the numbers were engaged, and at close quarters the other half. This continued to be the mode of arming and fighting till 1695, when the bayonet was invented at Bayonne, by the French.

The first bayonets were merely daggers with wooden handles stuck into the muzzle of the musket; and though this enabled the musqueteers to assist when they came to close quarters, yet they could no longer load and fire. A great victory over the troops of Spain and Savoy was the first result of this invention.

The present form of the bayonet was soon after this invented, and by degrees lances were entirely