admits, that, "for the _present_, at least, it is subversive of the
balance of power." This, I confess, is not a direct contradiction,
because the benefits which he promises himself from it, according to his
hypothesis, are future and more remote.

So disposed is this author to peace, that, having laid a comfortable
foundation for our security in the greatness of her empire, he has
another in reserve, if that should fail, upon quite a contrary ground:
that is, a speculation of her crumbling to pieces, and being thrown into
a number of little separate republics. After paying the tribute of
humanity to those who will be ruined by all these changes, on the whole
he is of opinion that "the change might be compatible with general
tranquillity, and with the establishment of a peaceful and prosperous
commerce among nations." Whether France be great or small, firm and
entire or dissipated and divided, all is well, provided we can have
peace with her.

But without entering into speculations about her dismemberment, whilst
she is adding great nations to her empire, is it, then, quite so certain
that the dissipation of France into such a cluster of petty republics
would be so very favorable to the true balance of power in Europe as
this author imagines it would be, and to the commerce of nations? I
greatly differ from him. I perhaps shall prove in a future letter, with
the political map of Europe before my eye, that the general liberty and
independence of the great Christian commonwealth could not exist with
such a dismemberment, unless it were followed (as probably enough it
would) by the dismemberment of every other considerable country in
Europe: and what convulsions would arise in the constitution of every
state in Europe it is not easy to conjecture in the mode, impossible not
to foresee in the mass. Speculate on, good my Lord! provided you ground