LETTER, &c.

APPROACHING towards the cloſe of a long period of public ſervices, it is natural I ſhould be deſirous to ſtand well (I hope I do ſtand tolerably well) with that public, which, with whatever fortune, I have endeavoured faith⯑fully and zealouſly to ſerve.

I am alſo not a little anxious for ſome place in the eſtimation of the two perſons to whom I addreſs this paper. I have always acted with them, and with thoſe whom they repreſent. To my knowledge I have not deviated, no not in the minuteſt point, from their opinions and prin⯑ciples. Of late, without any alteration in their ſentiments, or in mine, a difference of a very unuſual nature, and which, under the circum⯑ſtances, it is not eaſy to deſcribe, has ariſen be⯑tween us.

[4]In my journey with them through life, I met Mr. Fox in my road; and I travelled with him very chearfully as long as he appeared to me to purſue the ſame direction with thoſe in whoſe company I ſet out. In the latter ſtage of our progreſs, a new ſcheme of liberty and equality was produced in the world; which either daz⯑zled his imagination, or was ſuited to ſome new walks of ambition, which were then opened to his view. The whole frame and faſhion of his politics appear to have ſuffered about that time a very material alteration. It is about three years ſince, [1790] in conſequence of that extraordinary change, that, after a pretty long preceding pe⯑riod of diſtance, coolneſs, and want of confi⯑dence, if not total alienation, on his part, a complete public ſeparation has been made be⯑tween that Gentleman and me. Until lately the breach between us appeared reparable. I truſt⯑ed that time and reflection, and the deciſive ex⯑perience of the miſchiefs which have flowed from the proceedings and the ſyſtem of France, on which our difference had ariſen, as well as the known ſentiments of the beſt and wiſeſt of our common friends upon that ſubject, would have brought him to a ſafer way of thinking. Several of his friends ſaw no ſecurity for keeping things in a proper train after this excurſion of his, but in the re-union of the party on its old grounds, under the Duke of Portland. Mr. Fox, if he pleaſed, might have been comprehended in that ſyſtem, with the rank and conſideration to which [5] his great talents entitle him, and indeed ſecure to him in any party arrangement that could be made. The Duke of Portland knows how much I wiſhed for, and how earneſtly I laboured that re-union, and upon terms that might every way be honourable and advantageous to Mr. Fox.—His conduct in the laſt ſeſſion has extinguiſhed theſe hopes for ever.

Mr. Fox has lately publiſhed in print, a de⯑fence of his conduct. On taking into conſidera⯑tion that defence, a ſociety of gentlemen, called the Whig Club, thought proper to come to the following reſolution:—‘"That their confidence in Mr. Fox is confirmed, ſtrengthened, and en⯑creaſed, by the calumnies againſt him."’

To that reſolution my two noble friends, the Duke of Portland and Lord Fitzwilliam, have given their concurrence.

The calumnies ſuppoſed in that reſolution, can be nothing elſe than the objections taken to Mr. Fox's conduct in this ſeſſion of parliament; for to them, and to them alone, the reſolution refers. I am one of thoſe who have publicly and ſtrongly urged thoſe objections. I hope I ſhall be thought only to do what is neceſſary to my juſtification, thus publicly, ſolemnly, and heavi⯑ly cenſured by thoſe whom I moſt value and eſteem, when I firmly contend, that the objec⯑tions which I, with many other of the friends to [6] the Duke of Portland, have made to Mr. Fox's conduct, are not calumnies, but founded on truth; that they are not few, but many; and that they are not light and trivial, but in a very high degree, ſerious and important.

That I may avoid the imputation of throwing out, even privately, any looſe random imputa⯑tions againſt the public conduct of a Gentleman, for whom I once entertained a very warm affec⯑tion, and whoſe abilities I regard with the great⯑eſt admiration, I will put down diſtinctly and articulately, ſome of the matters of objection which I feel to his late doctrines and proceed⯑ings, truſting that I ſhall be able to demonſtrate to the friends whoſe good opinion I would ſtill cultivate, that not levity, nor caprice, nor leſs defenſible motives, but that very grave reaſons influence my judgment. I think that the ſpirit of his late proceedings is wholly alien to our national policy, and to the peace, to the proſpe⯑rity, and to the legal liberties of this nation, according to our ancient domeſtic and appropriat⯑ed mode of holding them.

Viewing things in that light, my confidence in him is not encreaſed, but totally deſtroyed by thoſe proceedings. I cannot conceive it a mat⯑ter of honour or duty (but the direct contrary) in any member of parliament, to continue a ſyſtematic oppoſition for the purpoſe of putting Government under difficulties, until Mr. Fox [7] (with all his preſent ideas) ſhall have the prin⯑cipal direction of affairs placed in his hands; and until the preſent body of adminiſtration (with their ideas and meaſures) is of courſe overturned and diſſolved.

To come to particulars:

1. The laws and conſtitution of the kingdom, entruſt the ſole and excluſive right of treating with foreign potentates, to the King. This is an undiſputed part of the legal prerogative of the Crown. However, notwithſtanding this, Mr. Fox, without the knowledge or participa⯑tion of any one perſon in the Houſe of Com⯑mons, with whom he was bound by every par⯑ty principle, in matters of delicacy and impor⯑tance, confidentially to communicate, thought proper to ſend Mr. Adair as his repreſentative, and with his cypher, to St. Peterſburgh, there to fruſtrate the objects for which the Miniſter of the Crown was authorized to treat:—He ſuc⯑ceeded in this his deſign, and did actually fruſ⯑trate the King's Miniſter in ſome of the objects of his negociation.

This proceeding of Mr. Fox does not (as I conceive) amount to abſolute high treaſon; Ruſ⯑ſia, though on bad terms, not having been then declaredly at war with this kingdom. But ſuch a proceeding is, in law, not very remote from that offence, and is undoubtedly a moſt uncon⯑ſtitutional [8] act and an high treaſonable miſde⯑meanour.

The ligitimate and ſure mode of communica⯑tion between this nation and foreign powers, is rendered uncertain, precarious, and treache⯑rous, by being divided into two channels, one with a Government, one with the head of a party in oppoſition to that Government; by which means the foreign powers can never be aſſured of the real authority or validity of any public tranſaction whatſoever.

On the other hand, the advantage taken of the diſcontent which at that time prevailed in parliament and in the nation, to give to an in⯑dividual an influence directly againſt the go⯑vernment of his country, in a foreign Court, has made a highway into England for the intrigues of foreign Courts in our affairs. This is a ſore evil; an evil from which, before this time, Eng⯑land was more free than any other nation. No⯑thing can preſerve us from that evil—which connects cabinet factions with popular factions here and abroad—but the keeping ſacred the Crown, as the only channel of communication with every other nation.

This proceeding of Mr. Fox has given a ſtrong countenance and an encouraging example to the doctrines and practices of the Revolution and Conſtitutional ſocieties, and of other miſchievous [9] ſocieties of that deſcription, who, without any legal authority, and even without any corporate capacity are in the habit of propoſing, and to the beſt of their power, of forming leagues and alli⯑ances with France. This proceeding, which ought to be reprobated on all the general princi⯑ples of Government is, in a more narrow view of things not leſs reprehenſible; it tends to the pre⯑judice of the whole of the Duke of Portland's late party, by diſcrediting the principles upon which they ſupported Mr. Fox in the Ruſſian buſineſs, as if they of that party alſo had proceeded in their Parliamentary oppoſition on the ſame miſ⯑chievous principles which actuated Mr. Fox in ſending Mr. Adair on his embaſſy.

2. Very ſoon after his ſending this embaſſy to Ruſſia, that is in ſpring of 1792, a Covenanting Club or Aſſociation calling itſelf by the ambitious and invidious title of ‘"The Friends of the Peo⯑ple,"’ it was compoſed of many of Mr. Fox's own moſt intimate, perſonal and party friends, joined to a very conſiderable part of the members of thoſe miſchievous aſſociations called the Revolu⯑tion Society and the Conſtitutional Society. Mr. Fox muſt have been well apprized of the progreſs of that Society in every one of its ſteps, if not of the very origin of it, I certainly was informed of both, who had no connection with the deſign directly or indirectly. His influence over the perſons who compoſed the leading part of that Aſſociation was, and is unbounded; I hear that [10] he expreſſed ſome diſapprobation of this Club in one caſe (that of Mr. St. John) when his conſent was formerly aſked. Yet he never attempted ſeri⯑ouſly to put a ſtop to the Aſſociation, or to diſavow it, or controul, check or modify it in any way whatſoever; if he had pleaſed, without difficulty he might have ſuppreſſed it in its beginning, but he encouraged it in every part of its progreſs at that particular time when Jacobin Clubs (under the very ſame or ſimilar titles) were making ſuch dreadful havock in a country not thirty miles from the court of England, and when every mo⯑tive of moral prudence called for the diſcourage⯑ment of Societies formed for the encreaſe of po⯑pular pretenſions to power and direction.

3. When the proceedings of this Society of the Friends of the People, as well as others act⯑ing in the ſame ſpirit, had cauſed a very ſerious alarm in the mind of the Duke of Portland and of many good patriots, he publicly in the Houſe of Commons, treated their apprehenſions and conduct with the greateſt aſperity and ridicule. He condemned and vilifyed, in the moſt inſult⯑ing and outrageous terms, the Proclamation iſſued by Government on that occaſion—though he well knew, that it had paſſed through the Duke of Port⯑land's hands, that it had received his fulleſt ap⯑probation, and that it was the reſult of an actual interview between that noble Duke and Mr. Pitt. During the diſcuſſion of its merits in the Houſe of Commons, Mr. Fox countenanced and juſtifyed [11] the chief promoters of that Aſſociation; and he received in return, a public aſſurance from them of an inviolable adherence to him, ſingly and per⯑ſonally. On account of this proceeding, a very great number (I preſume to ſay, not the leaſt grave and wiſe part) of the Duke of Portland's friends in Parliament, and many out of Parliament, who are of the ſame deſcription, have become ſeparated from that time to this, from Mr. Fox's particular cabal; very few of which cabal are, or ever have, ſo much as pretended to be attached to the Duke of Portland, or to pay any reſpect to him or to his opinions.

4. At the beginning of this ſeſſion, when the ſober part of the nation were a ſecond time gene⯑rally and juſtly alarmed at the progreſs of the French arms on the Continent, and at the ſpread⯑ing of their horrid principles and cabals in Eng⯑land, Mr. Fox did not (as had been uſual in caſes of far leſs moment) call together any meeting of the Duke of Portland's, friends in the Houſe of Commons, for the purpoſe of taking their opi⯑nion on the conduct to be purſued in Parliament at that critical juncture. He concerted his mea⯑ſures (if with any perſons at all) with the friends of Lord Lanſdown, and thoſe calling themſelves friends of the people, and others not in the ſmall⯑eſt degree attached to the Duke of Portland; by which conduct he willfully gave up (in my opi⯑nion) all pretenſions to be conſidered of that par⯑ty, and much more of being conſidered as the [12] leader and the mouth of it in the Houſe of Com⯑mons. This could not give much encouragement to thoſe who had been ſeparated from Mr. Fox, on account of his conduct on the firſt proclama⯑tion, to re-join that party.

5. Not having conſulted any of his party in the Houſe of Commons; and not having conſult⯑ed them becauſe he had reaſon to know that the courſe he had reſolved to purſue would be highly diſagreeable to them, he repreſented the alarm, which was a ſecond time given and taken, in ſtill more invidious colours than thoſe in which he painted the alarm of the former year. He de⯑ſcribed thoſe alarms in this manner, altho' the cauſe of them was then grown far leſs equivocal, and far more urgent. He even went ſo far as to treat the ſuppoſition of the growth of a Jacobin ſpirit in England as a libel on the nation. As to the danger from abroad, on the firſt day of the ſeſſion, he ſaid little or nothing on that ſubject. He contented himſelf with defending the ruling factions in France, and with accuſing the public councils of this kingdom of every ſort of evil de⯑ſign on the liberties of the people, declaring diſ⯑tinctly, ſtrongly and preciſely, that the whole danger of the nation was from the growth of the power of the crown. The policy of this decla⯑ration was obvious. It was in ſubſervience to the general plan of diſabling us to take any ſteps againſt France. To counteract the alarm given by the progreſs of Jacobin arms and principles, [13] he endeavoured to excite an oppoſite alarm con⯑cerning the growth of the power of the crown. If the alarm ſhould prevail, he knew that the na⯑tion never would be brought by arms to oppoſe the growth of the Jacobin empire; becauſe it is obvious that war does, in its very nature, neceſ⯑ſitate the Commons conſiderably to ſtrengthen the hands of government; and if that ſtrength ſhould itſelf be the object of terror, we could have no war.

6. In the extraordinary and violent ſpeeches of that day, he attributed all the evils which the public had ſuffered to the proclamation of the preceding ſummer, though he had ſpoke in the preſence of the Duke of Portland's own ſon, the Marquis of Litchfield, who ſeconded the addreſs on that proclamation; and in the pre⯑ſence of the Duke of Portland's brother, Lord Edward Bentinck, and ſeveral others of his beſt friends and neareſt relations.

7. On that day, that is, on the 13th of Decem⯑ber 1792, he propoſed an amendment to the ad⯑dreſs, which ſtands on the journals of the Houſe, and which is, perhaps, the moſt extraordinary record which ever did ſtand upon them. To in⯑troduce this amendment, he not only ſtruck out part of the propoſed addreſs which alluded to in⯑ſurrection, upon the ground of the objections which he took to the legality of the calling toge⯑ther Parliament, (objections which I muſt ever [14] think litigious and ſophiſtical) but he likewiſe ſtruck out that part which related to the cabals and conſpiracies of the French faction in England, altho' their practices and correſpondences were of pub⯑lic notoriety. Mr. Cooper and Mr. Watt had been deputed from Mancheſter to the Jacobins. Theſe ambaſſadors were received by them as Bri⯑tiſh repreſentatives; other deputations of Engliſh had been received at the bar of the National Aſ⯑ſembly; they had gone the length of giving ſup⯑plies to the Jacobin armies, and they, in return, had received promiſes of military aſſiſtance to forward their deſigns in England; a regular cor⯑reſpondence for fraternizing the two nations had alſo been carried on by ſocieties in London, with a great number of the Jacobin ſocieties in France; this correſpondence had alſo for its object the pre⯑tended improvements of the Britiſh conſtitution. What is the moſt remarkable and by much the more miſchievous part of his proceedings that day, Mr. Fox likewiſe ſtruck out every thing in the addreſs which related to the tokens of ambition given by France, her aggreſſions upon our allies, and the ſudden and dangerous growth of her power upon every ſide; and inſtead of all thoſe weighty, and at that time, neceſſary matters, by which the Houſe of Commons was (in a criſis, ſuch as per⯑haps Europe never ſtood) to give aſſurances to our allies, ſtrength to our government, and a check to the common enemy of Europe, he ſubſtituted nothing but a criminal charge on the conduct of the Britiſh government for calling Parliament toge⯑ther, [15] and an engagement to enquire into that conduct.

8. If it had pleaſed God to ſuffer him to pro⯑ceed in this his project, for the amendment to the addreſs, he would for ever have ruined this na⯑tion, along with the reſt of Europe. At home all the Jacobin ſocieties, formed for the utter deſtruc⯑tion of our Conſtitution, would have lifted up their heads, which had been beaten down by the two proclamations. Theſe ſocieties would have been infinitely ſtrengthened and multiplied in every quarter; their dangerous foreign communi⯑cations would have been left abroad and open; the crown would not have been authoriſed to take any meaſure whatever for our immediate defence by ſea or land. The cloſeſt, the moſt natural, from many internal as well as external circumſtances, the weakeſt of our allies, Holland, would have been given up, bound hand and foot, to France, juſt on the point of invading that republic. A ge⯑neral conſternation would have ſeized upon all Europe; and all alliance with every other power except France, would have been for ever ren⯑dered impracticable to us. I think it impoſſible for any man, who regards the dignity and ſafety of his country, or indeed the common ſafety of mankind, ever to forget Mr. Fox's proceedings in that tremendous criſis of all human affairs.

9. Mr. Fox very ſoon had reaſon to be apprized of the general diſlike of the Duke of Portland's [16] friends to his conduct. Some of thoſe who had even voted with him, the day after their vote ex⯑preſſed their abhorrence of his amendment, their ſenſe of its inevitable tendency, and their total alienation from the principles and maxims upon which it was made; yet, the very next day, that is, on Friday, the 14th of December, he brought on what in effect was the very ſame buſineſs, and on the ſame principles a ſecond time.

10. Although the Houſe does not uſually fit on Saturday, he a third time brought on another pro⯑poſition, in the ſame ſpirit, and purſued it with ſo much heat and perſeverance as to fit into Sunday; a thing not known in Parliament for many years.

11. In all theſe motions and debates he wholly departed from all the political principles relative to France, (conſidered merely as a ſtate, and in⯑dependent of its Jacobin form of government) which had hitherto been held fundamental in this country, and which he had himſelf held more ſtrongly than any man in Parliament. He at that time ſtudiouſly ſeparated himſelf from thoſe to whoſe ſentiments he uſed to profeſs no ſmall re⯑gard, altho' thoſe ſentiments were publicly de⯑clared. I had then no concern in the party, having been for ſome time, with all outrage, excluded from it; but on general principles I muſt ſay, that a perſon who aſſumes to be leader of a party com⯑poſed of freemen and of gentlemen, ought to pay ſome degree of deference to their feelings, and [17] even to their prejudices. He ought to have ſome degree of management for their credit and in⯑fluence in their country. He ſhewed ſo very lit⯑tle of this delicacy, that he compared the alarm raiſed in the minds of the Duke of Portland's party, (which was his own) an alarm in which they ſympathized with the greater part of the na⯑tion, to the panic produced by the popiſh plot in the reign of Charles the ſecond—deſcribing it to be, as that was, a contrivance of knaves, and believed only by well meaning dupes and madmen.

12. The Monday following (the 17th of De⯑cember) he purſued the ſame conduct.—The means uſed in England to co-operate with the Jacobin army in politics agreed; that is, the miſchievous writings circulated with much in⯑duſtry and ſucceſs, as well as the ſeditious clubs at that time, added not a little to the alarm taken by obſerving and well-informed men. The writ⯑ings and the clubs were two evils which marched together. Mr. Fox diſcovered the greateſt poſſi⯑ble diſpoſition to countenance the one as well as the other of theſe two grand inſtruments of the French ſyſtem. He would hardly conſider any writing whatſoever, as a libel, or as a fit object of proſecution. At a time in which the preſs has been the grand inſtrument of the ſubverſion of order, of morals, of religion, and I may ſay of human ſociety itſelf, to carry the doctrines of its [18] liberty higher than ever it has been known by in moſt extravagant aſſerters in France, gave occa⯑ſion to very ſerious reflections. Mr. Fox treated the aſſociation for proſecuting thoſe libels, as tending to prevent the improvements of the hu⯑man mind, and as a mobbiſh tyranny. He thought proper to compare them with the riotous aſſem⯑blies of Lord George Gordon in 1780, declaring that he had adviſed his friends in Weſtminſter, to ſign the aſſociation whether they agreed to them or not, in order that they might avoid deſtruction to their perſons or their houſes, or a deſertion of their ſhops. This inſidious advice tended to con⯑found thoſe who wiſhed well to the object of the aſſociation with the ſeditious, againſt whom the aſſociation was directed. By this ſtratagem, the confederacy intended for preſerving the Britiſh conſtitution, and the public peace, would be wholly defeated. The Magiſtrates utterly inca⯑pable of diſtinguiſhing the friends from the ene⯑mies of order, would in vain look for ſupport when they ſtood in the greateſt need of it.

13. Mr. Fox's whole conduct on this occaſion was without example. The very morning after theſe violent declamations in the Houſe of Com⯑mons againſt the aſſociation, (that is on Tueſday the 18th) he went himſelf to a meeting of St. George's Pariſh, and there ſigned an aſſociation of the nature and tendency of thoſe he had the night before ſo vehemently condemned; and [19] ſeveral of his particular and moſt intimate friends, inhabitants of that pariſh, attended and ſigned along with him.

14. Immediately after this extraordinary ſtep, and in order perfectly to defeat the ends of that aſſociation againſt Jacobin publications, (which, contrary to his opinions, he had promoted and ſigned) a miſchievous ſociety was formed under his auſpices, called, the Friends of the Liberty of the Preſs. Their title groundleſsly inſinuated, that the freedom of the Preſs had lately ſuffered, or was now threatened with ſome violation. This Society was only, in reality, another modification of a Society calling itſelf the Friends of the People, which, in the preceding ſummer had cauſed ſo much uneaſineſs in the Duke of Portland's mind, and in the minds of ſeveral of his friends. This new Society was compoſed of many, if not moſt of the Members of the Club of the Friends of the People, with the addition of a vaſt multitude of others (ſuch as Mr. Horne Tooke) of the worſt and moſt ſeditious diſpoſitions that could be ſound in the whole kingdom. In the firſt meeting of this Club Mr. Erſkine took the lead, and directly (without any diſavowal ever ſince on Mr. Fox's part) made uſe of his name and authority in favour of its formation and purpoſes. In the ſame meet⯑ing Mr. Erſkine had thanks for his defence of Paine, which amounted to a complete avowal of that Jacobin incendiary; elſe it is impoſſible how [20] Mr. Erſkine ſhould have deſerved ſuch marked applauſes for acting merely as a Lawyer for his fee, in the ordinary courſe of his profeſſion.

15. Indeed Mr. Fox appeared the general pa⯑tron of all ſuch perſons and proceedings. When Lord Edward Fitzgerald, and other perſons, for practices of the moſt dangerous kind, in Paris and in London, were removed from the King's Guards, Mr. Fox took occaſion in the Houſe of Commons, heavily to cenſure that act as unjuſt and oppreſſive, and tending to make officers bad citizens. There were few, however, who did not call for ſome ſuch meaſures on the part of Go⯑vernment, as of abſolute neceſſity for the King's perſonal ſafety, as well as that of the public; and nothing but the miſtaken lenity (with which ſuch practices were rather diſcountenanced than pu⯑niſhed) could poſſibly deſerve reprehenſion in what was done with regard to thoſe gentlemen.

16. Mr. Fox regularly and ſyſtematically, and with a diligence long unuſual to him, did every thing he could to countenance the ſame princi⯑ple of fraternity and connection with the Jaco⯑bins abroad, and the National Convention of France, for which thoſe officers had been remov⯑ed from the Guards. For when a Bill (feeble and lax indeed and far ſhort of the vigour requir⯑ed by the conjuncture) was brought in for re⯑moving out of the kingdom the emiſſaries of [21] France, Mr. Fox oppoſed it with all his might. He purſued a vehement and detailed oppoſition to it through all its ſtages, deſcribing it as a mea⯑ſure contrary to the exiſting treaties between Great Britain and France, as a violation of the law of Nations, and as an outrage on the Great Charter itſelf.

17. In the ſame manner, and with the ſame heat, he oppoſed a bill, which, (though aukward and artful in its conſtruction) was right and wiſe in its principle, and was precedented in the beſt times, and abſolutely neceſſary at that juncture, I mean the Traiterous Correſpondence bill. By theſe means the enemy, rendered infinitely dangerous by the links of real faction and pretended com⯑merce, would have been (had Mr. Fox ſucceeded) enabled to carry on the war againſt us by our own reſources. For this purpoſe that enemy would have its agents and traitors in the midſt of us.

18. When at length war was actually declared, by the uſurpers in France, againſt this kingdom, and declared whilſt they were pretending a nego⯑ciation through Dumourier with Lord Auckland, Mr. Fox continued through the whole of the pro⯑ceeding, to diſcredit the national honour and juſ⯑tice, and to throw the entire blame of the war on Parliament and on his own country, as acting with violence, haughtineſs, and want of equity. He frequently aſſerted, both at the time and ever [22] ſince, that the war, though declared by France, was provoked by us, and that it was wholly un⯑neceſſary and fundamentally unjuſt. He has loſt no opportunity of railing, in the moſt virulent manner, and in the moſt unmeaſured language, againſt every foreign power with whom we could now, or at any time, contract any uſeful or effectual alliance againſt France; declaring that he hoped that no alliance with theſe powers was made, or was in a train of being made^*. He always ex⯑preſſed himſelf with the utmoſt horror con⯑cerning ſuch alliances, ſo did all his phalanx. Mr. Sheridan, in particular, after one of his invec⯑tives againſt thofe powers, ſitting by him, ſaid, with manifeſt marks of his approbation, that if we muſt go to war, he would rather go to war alone than with ſuch allies.

20. Immediately after the French declaration of war againſt us, Parliament addreſſed the king in ſupport of the war againſt them, as juſt and ne⯑ceſſary, and provoked as well as formally declar⯑ed, againſt Great Britain. He did not divide the Houſe upon this meaſure; yet he immediately followed this our ſolemn Parliamentary engage⯑ment to the king, with a motion propoſing a ſet of reſolutions, the effect of which was, that the [23] two Houſes were to load themſelves with every kind of reproach for having made the addreſs, which they had juſt carried to the throne. He commenced this long ſtring of criminatory reſo⯑lutions againſt his country (if King, Lords and Commons of Great Britain, and a decided majo⯑rity without doors, are his country) with a declara⯑tion againſt intermeddling in the interior concerns of France. The purport of this reſolution of non-interference, is a thing unexampled in the hiſtory of the world, when one nation has been actually at war with another. The beſt writers on the law of nations give no ſort of countenance to this doctrine of non-interference in the extent and manner in which he uſed it, even when there is no war. When the war exiſts, not one authority is againſt it in all its latitude. His doctrine is equal⯑ly contrary to the enemy's uniform practice, who, whether in peace or in war, makes it her great aim, not only to change the Government, but to make an entire revolution in the whole of the ſocial order in every country.

The object of the laſt of this extraordinary ſtring of reſolutions moved by Mr. Fox, was to adviſe the Crown not to enter into ſuch an en⯑gagement with any foreign power, ſo as to hin⯑der us from making a ſeparate peace with France, or which might tend to enable any of thoſe powers to introduce in that country, a Govern⯑ment, other than ſuch as thoſe perſons, whom [24] he calls The People of France, ſhould chooſe to eſtabliſh. In ſhort, the whole of theſe reſolu⯑tions appeared to have but one drift—namely, the ſacrifice of our own domeſtic dignity and ſafety, and the independency of Europe, to the ſupport of this ſtrange mixture of anarchy and tyranny which prevails in France, and which Mr. Fox and his party were pleaſed to call a Government. The immediate conſequences of theſe meaſures was (by an example, the ill ef⯑fects of which, on the whole world, are not to be calculated) to ſecure the robbers of the inno⯑cent nobility, gentry, and eccleſiaſtics of France, the enjoyment of the ſpoil they have made of the eſtates, houſes, and goods of their fellow-citizens.

21. Not ſatisfied with moving theſe reſolu⯑tions, tending to confirm this horrible tyranny and robbery, and with actually dividing the Houſe on the firſt of the long ſtring which they compoſed, in a few days afterwards he encou⯑raged and ſupported Mr. Grey in producing the very ſame ſtrings in a new form, and in mov⯑ing under the ſhape of an addreſs of Parliament to the Crown, another virulent libel on all its own proceedings in this ſeſſion; in which not only all the ground of the reſolutions was again travelled over, but much new inflammatory mat⯑ter was introduced. In particular, a charge was made, that Great Britain had not interpoſed to [25] prevent the laſt partition of Poland. On this head the party dwelt very largely, and very vehemently. Mr. Fox's intention, in the choice of this extraordinary topic, was evident enough. He well knows two things; firſt, that no wiſe or honeſt man can approve of that partition, and without prognoſticating great miſchief from it to all countries at ſome future time. Second⯑ly, he knows quite as well, that, let our opi⯑nions on that partition be what they will, Eng⯑land, by itſelf, is not in a ſituation to afford to Poland any aſſiſtance whatſoever. The purpoſe of the introduction of Poliſh politics into this diſcuſſion was not for the ſake of Poland, it was to throw an odium upon thoſe who are obliged to decline the cauſe of juſtice, from their im⯑poſſibility of ſupporting a cauſe which they ap⯑prove, as if we, who think more ſtrongly on this ſubject than he does, were of a party againſt Poland, becauſe we are obliged to act with ſome of the authors of that injuſtice, againſt our com⯑mon enemy, France. But the great and lead⯑ing purpoſe of this introduction of Poland into the debates on the French war, was to direct the public attention from what was in our power, that is, from a ſteady co-operation againſt France, to a quarrel with the allies for the ſake of a Poliſh war, which, for any uſeful purpoſe to Po⯑land, he knew it was out of our power to make. If England can touch Poland ever ſo remotely, it muſt be through the medium of alliances. [26] But by attacking all the combined powers toge⯑ther for their ſuppoſed unjuſt aggreſſion upon France, he bound them by a new common in⯑tereſt, not ſeperately to join England for the reſ⯑cue of Poland. The propoſition could only mean to do what all the papers of his party in the Morning Chronicle have aimed at perſuading the public to, through the whole of the laſt autumn and winter, and to this hour, that is, to an alliance with the Jacobins of France, for the pretended purpoſe of ſuccouring Poland.—This curious project would leave to Great Bri⯑tain no other ally in all Europe, except its old enemy France.

22. Mr. Fox, after the firſt day's diſcuſſion on the queſtion for the addreſs, was at length driven to admit (to admit rather than to urge, and that very faintly) that France had diſcover⯑ed ambitions views, which, none of his partizans, that I recollect, (Mr. Sheridan excepted) did, however, either urge or admit. What is remark⯑able enough, all the points admitted againſt the Jacobins, was brought to bear in their favour as much as thoſe in which they were defended. But when Mr. Fox admitted that the conduct of the Jacobins did diſcover ambition, he al⯑ways ended his admiſſion of their ambitious views by an apology for them, inſiſting, that the uni⯑verſally hoſtile diſpoſition ſhewn to them, ren⯑dered their ambition a ſort of defenſive policy. [27] Thus whatever road he travelled, they all ter⯑minated in recommending a recognition of their pretended Republic, and in the plan of ſending an ambaſſador to it. This was the burden of all his ſong, ‘"Every thing that he could rea⯑ſonably hope from war, would be obtained from treaty."’ It is to be obſerved, however, that in all theſe debates, Mr. Fox never once ſtated to the Houſe, upon what ground it was he con⯑ceived that all the objects of the French ſyſtem of united fanaticiſm and ambition, would in⯑ſtantly be given up whenever England ſhould think fit to propoſe a treaty. On propoſing ſo ſtrange a recognition and ſo humiliating an em⯑baſſy as he moved, he was bound to produce his authority, if any authority he had. He ought to have done this the rather, becauſe Le Brun, in his firſt proportions, and in his an⯑ſwers to Lord Grenville, defended, on principle, not on temporary convenience, every thing which was objected to France, and ſhewed not the ſmalleſt diſpoſition to give up any one of the points to diſcuſſion. Mr. Fox muſt alſo have known, that the Convention had paſſed to the order of the day, on a propoſition to give ſome ſort of explanation or modification to the hoſtile decree of the 19th of November, for exciting inſurrection in all countries; a decree known to be peculiarly pointed at Great Britain. The whole proceeding of the French Adminiſtration was the moſt remote that could be imagined [28] from furniſhing any indication of a pacific diſ⯑poſition, for at the very time in which it was pre⯑tended that the Jacobins entertained thoſe boaſt⯑ed pacific diſpoſitions, at the very time in which Mr. Fox was urging a treaty with them, not con⯑tent with refuſing a modification of the decree for inſurrections, they publiſhed their ever-me⯑morable decree of the 15th of December, 1792, for diſorganizing every country in Europe into which they ſhould, on any occaſion, ſet their foot; and on the 25th and 30th of the ſame month, they ſolemnly, and on the laſt of theſe days, practically confirmed that decree.

23. But Mr. Fox had himſelf taken good care in the negociation he propoſed, that France ſhould not be obliged to make any very great conceſſion to her preſumed moderation—for he laid down one general comprehenſive rule, with him (as he ſaid) conſtant and inviolable. This rule, in fact, would not only have left to the faction in France, all the property and power they had uſurped at home, but moſt, if not all, of the conqueſts which by their attrocious perfidy and violence they had made abroad. The principle laid down by Mr. Fox, is this, ‘"That every State in the concluſion of a war, has a right to avail itſelf of its conqueſts towards an indemnification."’ This principle (true or falſe) is totally contrary to the policy which this country has purſued with France, at various periods, particularly at the treaty of Ryſ⯑wick, [29] in the laſt century, and at the treaty of Aix⯑la-chapelle, in this: whatever the merits of this rule may be, in the eyes of neutral judges, it is a rule, which no Stateſmen before him ever laid down in favour of the adverſe power with whom he was to negociate. The adverſe party himſelf, may be ſafely truſted to take care of his own aggrandize⯑ment. But (as if the black boxes of the ſeveral parties had been exchanged) Mr. Fox's Engliſh ambaſſador, by ſome odd miſtake, would find him⯑ſelf charged with the concerns of France. If we were to leave France as ſhe ſtood at the time when Mr. Fox propoſed to treat with her, that formida⯑ble power muſt have been infinitely ſtrengthened, and almoſt every power in Europe as much weak⯑ened, by the extraordinary baſis which he laid for a treaty. For Avignon muſt go from the Pope; Savoy (at leaſt) from the King of Sardinia, if not Nice. Liege, Mark, Salm, Deux-Ponts and Bale, muſt be ſeparated from Germany. On this ſide of the Rhine, Liege, at leaſt, muſt be loſt to the empire, and added to France. Mr. Fox's gene⯑ral principle covered all this. How much of theſe territories came within his rule, he never attempt⯑ed to define. He kept a profound ſilence as to Germany. As to the Netherlands, he was ſome⯑thing more explicit. He ſaid, (if I recollect right) that France, on that ſide, might expect ſomething towards ſtrengthening her frontier. As to the remaining parts of the Netherlands, which he ſuppoſed France might conſent to ſurrender, he [28] [...] [29] [...] [30] declared, went ſo far as that England ought not to permit the Emperor to be repoſſeſſed of the remainder of the ten Provinces, but that the Peo⯑ple ſhould chooſe ſuch a form of independent Government as they liked. This propoſition of Mr. Fox was juſt the arrangement which the uſur⯑pation in France had all along propoſed to make. As the circumſtances were at that time, and have been ever fince, his propoſition fully indicated what Government the Flemings muſt have in the ſtated extent of what was left to them. A Go⯑vernment ſo ſet up in the Netherlands, whether compulſory, or by the choice of the Sans-Culottes, (who he well knew were to be the real electors, and the ſole electors) in whatever name it was to exiſt, moſt evidently depend for its exiſtence, as it has done for its original formation, on France. In reality, it muſt have ended in that point, to which, piece by piece, the French were then ac⯑tually bringing all the Netherlands; that is, an incorporation with France, as a body of new de⯑partments, juſt as Savoy and Liege, and the reſt of their pretended independent popular ſove⯑reignties, have been united to their republic. Such an arrangement muſt have deſtroyed Auſ⯑ria; it muſt have left Holland always at the mercy of France; it muſt totally and for ever cut off all political communication between England and the Continent. Such muſt have been the ſituation of Europe according to Mr. Fox's ſyſtem of poli⯑tics, however laudable his perſonal motives may [31] have been in propoſing ſo completea change in the whole ſyſtem of Great Britain, with regard to all the continental powers.

24. After it had been generally ſuppoſed that all publick buſineſs was over for the ſeſſion, and that Mr. Fox had exhauſted all the modes of preſſing the French ſcheme, he thought proper to take a ſtep beyond every expectation, and which demonſtrated his wonderful eagerneſs and perſeverance in his cauſe, as well as the nature and true character of the cauſe itſelf. This ſtep was taken by Mr. Fox immediately after his giv⯑ing his aſſent to the grant of ſupply voted to him by Mr. Serjeant Adair and a committee of gen⯑tlemen who aſſumed to themſelves to act in the name of the public. In the inſtrument of his acceptance of this grant, Mr. Fox took occaſion to aſſure them, that he would always perſevere in the ſame conduct which had procured to him ſo honourable a mark of the public approbation. He was as good as his word.

25. It was not long before an opportunity was found, or made, for proving the ſincerity of his profeſſions, and demonſtrating his gratitude to thoſe who had given public and unequivocal marks of approbation of his late conduct. One of the moſt virulent of the Jacobin faction, Mr. Gurney, a banker at Norwich, had all along diſtinguiſhed himſelf by his French politics. By [32] the means of this gentleman, and of his aſſoci⯑ates of the ſame deſcription, one of the moſt in⯑ſiduous and dangerous hand bills that ever was ſeen, had been circulated at Norwich againſt the war, drawn up in an hypocritical tone of compaſſi⯑on for the poor. This addreſs to the populace of Norwich was to play in concert with an ad⯑dreſs to Mr. Fox, was ſigned by Mr. Gurney and the higher order of the French fraternity in that town. In this paper Mr. Fox is applauded for his conduct throughout the ſeſſion, and requeſted before the prorogation, to make a motion for an immediate peace with France.

26. Mr. Fox did not revoke to this ſuit; he readily and thankfully undertook the taſk aſſign⯑ed to him. Not content, however, with merely falling in with their wiſhes, he propoſed a taſk on his part to the gentlemen of Norwich which was, that they ſhould move the people without doors to petition againſt the war. He ſaid that without ſuch aſſiſtance, little good could be expected from any thing he might attempt within the walls of the Houſe of Commons. In the mean time to animate his Norwich friends in their endeavours to beſiege Parliament, he ſnatched the firſt op⯑portunity to give notice of a motion, which he very ſoon after made; namely, to addreſs the Crown to make peace with France. The addreſs was ſo worded as to co-operate with the hand bill in bringing forward matter calculated to inflame the manufacturers throughout the kingdom.

[33]27. In ſupport of his motion he declaimed in the moſt virulent ſtrain, even beyond any of his former invectives, againſt every power with whom we were then, and are now, acting againſt France. In the moral forum, ſome of theſe powers certainly deſerve all the ill he ſaid of them; but the political effect aimed at, evidently was to turn our indignation from France, with whom we were at war, upon Ruſſia, or Pruſſia, or Auſtria, or Sardinia, or all of them together. In conſequece of his knowledge that we could not effectually do without them, and his reſolu⯑tion that we ſhould not act with them, he there⯑fore propoſed, that having, as he aſſerted, ‘"ob⯑tained the only avowed object of the war (the evacuation of Holland) we ought to conclude an inſtant peace."’

28. Mr. Fox could not be ignorant of the miſ⯑taken baſis upon which his motion was grounded. He was not ignorant that the attempt of Dumou⯑rier on Holland (ſo very near ſucceeding) and the navigation of the Scheld (a part of the ſame piece), even among the immediate cauſes, they were by no means the only cauſes alledged for Parliament's taking that offence at the proceedings of France, for which the Jacobins were ſo prompt in declaring war upon this kingdom. Other full as weighty cauſes had been alledged: They were, 1. The general overbearing and deſperate ambition of that faction. 2. Their actual attacks on every nation in Europe. 3. Their uſurpation of territories in the empire with the Governments of which they had no pretence of quarrel. 4. Their perpetual and irrevocable conſolidation with their own domini⯑ons of every territory of the Netherlands, of Germany, and of Italy, of which they got a [34] temporary poſſeſſion. 5. The miſchief attend⯑ing the prevalence of their ſyſtem, which would make the ſucceſs of their ambitious deſigns a new and peculiar ſpecies of calamity in the world. 6. Their formal public decrees; particularly thoſe of the 19th of November and the 15th and 25th of December. 7. Their notorious at⯑tempts to undermine the conſtitution of this country. 8. Their public reception of deputa⯑tions of traitors for that direct purpoſe. 9. Their murder of their ſovereign declared by moſt of the members of the Convention, who ſpoke with their vote (without a diſavowal from any) to be perpetrated, as an example to all kings and a precedent for all ſubjects to follow. All theſe and not the Scheld alone or the invaſion of Holland were urged by the Miniſter, and by Mr. Wyndham, by myſelf, and by others who ſpoke in thoſe debates, as cauſes for bringing France to a ſenſe of her wrong in the war which ſhe declared againſt us. Mr. Fox well knew that not one man argued for the neceſſity of a vigorous reſiſtance to France, who did not ſtate the war as being for the very exiſtence of the ſocial order here, and every part of Europe; who did not ſtate his opinion, that this war was not at all a foreign war of Empire, but as much for our liberties, properties, laws, and religion; and even more ſo than any we had ever been engaged in. This was the war, which, according to Mr. Fox and Mr. Gurney, we were to abandon, be⯑fore the enemy had felt, in the ſlighteſt degree, the impreſſion of our arms.

29. Had Mr. Fox's diſgraceful propoſal been complied with, this kingdom would have been ſtained with a blot of perfidy hitherto without an example in our hiſtory, and with far leſs excuſe [35] than any act of perfidy which we find in the hiſ⯑tory of any nation. The moment when by the incredible exertions of Auſtria (very little through ours) the temporary deliverance of Holland (in effect our own deliverance) had been atchieved, he adviſed the Houſe inſtantly to abandon her to that very enemy, from whoſe arms ſhe had freed ourſelves, and the cloſeſt of our allies.

30. But we are not to be impoſed on by forms of language. We muſt act on the ſubſtance of things. To abandon Auſtria in this manner, was to abandon Holland itſelf. For ſuppoſe France, encouraged and ſtrengthened as ſhe muſt have been, by our treacherous deſertion; ſuppoſe France, I ſay, to ſucceed againſt Auſtria, (as ſhe had ſucceeded the very year before) England would after its diſarmament, have nothing in the world but the inviolable faith of Jacobiniſm, and the ſteady politics of anarchy to depend upon, againſt France's renewing the very ſame attempts upon Holland, and renewing them (conſidering what Holland was and is) with much better proſ⯑pects of ſucceſs, Mr. Fox muſt have been well aware, that were we to break with the greater Continental Powers, and particularly to come to a rupture with them, in the violent and intempe⯑rate mode in which he would have made the breach, the defence of Holland againſt a foreign enemy, and a ſtrong domeſtic faction, muſt here⯑after reſt ſolely upon England, without the chance of a ſingle ally, either on that or on any other oc⯑caſion. So far as to the pretended ſole object of the war, which Mr. Fox ſuppoſed to be ſo com⯑pletely obtained, but which then was not at all, and at this day is not completely obtained, as to leave us nothing elſe to do, than to cultivate a peaceful quiet correſpondence with thoſe quiet, [36] peaceable and moderate people, the Jacobins of France.

31. To induce us to this, Mr. Fox laboured hard to make it appear, that the powers with whom we acted, were full as ambitious and as perfidious as the French. This might be true as to other nations. They had not, however, been ſo to Us or to Holland. He produced no proof of active ambition and ill faith againſt Auſtria. But ſuppoſing the combined powers had been all thus faithleſs, and had been all alike ſo, there was one circumſtance which made an eſſential diffe⯑rence between them and France. I need not be at the trouble of conteſting this point, (which, however, in this latitude, and as at all affecting Great Britain and Holland, I deny utterly.) Be it ſo. But the great monarchies have it in their power to keep their faith if they pleaſe, becauſe they are governments of eſtabliſhed and recog⯑nized authority at home and abroad. France had in reality, no government. The very factions who exerciſed power, had no ſtability. The French Convention had no power of peace or war. Suppoſing the Convention to be free (moſt aſſuredly it was not) they had ſhewn no diſpoſi⯑tion to abandon their projects.—Though long dri⯑ven out of Leige, it was not many days before Mr. Fox's motion, that they ſtill continued to claim it as a country, which their principles of fraternity bound them to protect, that is, to ſubdue and to regulate at their pleaſure. That party which Mr. Fox inclined moſt to favour and truſt, and from which he muſt have received his aſſurances (if any he did receive) that is the Briſſotins, were then either priſoners or fugitives. The party which prevailed over them (that of Danton and Marat) was itſelf in a tottering condition, and was diſ⯑owned by a very great part of France. To ſay [37] nothing of the Royal party who were powerful and growing, and who had full as good a right to claim to be the legitimate Government as any of the Pariſian factions with whom he propoſed to treat—or rather (as it ſeemed to me) to ſurrender at diſcretion.

32. But when Mr. Fox began to come from his general hopes of the moderation of the Jacobins to particulars, he put the caſe, that they might not perhaps be willing to ſurrender Savoy. He cer⯑tainly was not willing to conteſt that point with them; but plainly and explicitly (as I underſtood him) propoſed to let them keep it; though he knew (or he was much worſe informed than he would be thought) that England had at the very time, agreed on the terms of a treaty with the King of Sardinia, of which the recovery of Savoy was the Caſus Federis. In the teeth of this treaty Mr. Fox propoſed a direct and moſt ſcandalous breach of our faith, formally and recently given. But to ſurrender Savoy, was to ſurrender a great deal more than ſo many ſquare acres of land, or ſo much revenue. In its conſequences the ſurrender of Savoy, was to make a ſurrender to France of Switzerland and Italy, of both which countries, Savoy is the key—as it is known to ordinary ſpeculators in politics, though it may not be known to the weavers of Norwich, who, it ſeems are, by Mr. Fox, called to be the judges in this matter.

33. A ſure way indeed, to encourage France not to make a ſurrender of this key of Italy and Switzerland, or of Mayence, the key of Germany, or of any other object whatſoever which ſhe holds, is to let her ſee, that the people of England raiſe a clamour againſt the war before terms are ſo much as propoſed on any ſide. From that moment, the Ja⯑cobins [38] would be maſters of the terms.—They would know, that Parliament, at all hazards, would force the King to a ſeparate peace. The crown could not, in that caſe, have any uſe of its judgment. Parliament could not poſſeſs more judgment than the crown, when beſieged (as Mr. Fox propoſed to Mr. Gurney) by the cries of the manufacturers. This deſcription of men, Mr. Fox endeavoured in his ſpeech, by every method, to irritate and inflame. In effect his two ſpeeches were, through the whole, nothing more than an amplification of the Norwich hand-bill. He reſted the greateſt part of his argument on the diſtreſs of trade, which he attributed to the war, though it was obvious, to any tolerably good obſervation, and much more muſt have been clear to ſuch an obſervation as his, that the then difficulties of the trade and manufactures would have no ſort of con⯑nection with our ſhare in it. The war had hardly begun. We had ſuffered neither by ſpoil, nor by defeat, nor by diſgrace of any kind. Public cre⯑dit was ſo little impaired, that inſtead of being ſupported by any extraordinary aids from indivi⯑duals, it advanced a credit to individuals to the amount of five millions, for the ſupport of trade and manufactures, under their temporary difficul⯑ties; a thing before never heard of;—a thing of which I do not commend the policy—but only ſtate it, to ſhew, that Mr. Fox's ideas of the effects of war were without any trace of foundation.

33. It is impoſſible not to connect the argu⯑ments and proceedings of a party with that of its leader—eſpecially when not diſavowed or con⯑trolled by him. Mr. Fox's partizans declaim againſt all the powers of Europe, except the Jacobins, juſt as he does; but not having the ſame reaſons for management and caution which [39] he has, they ſpeak out. He ſatisfies himſelf merely with making his invectives, and leaves others to draw the concluſion. But they pro⯑duce their Poliſh interpoſition, for the expreſs purpoſe of leading to a French alliance. They urge their French peace, in order to make a junction with the Jacobins to oppoſe the powers, whom, in their language, they call deſpots, and their leagues, a combination of deſpots. In⯑deed, no man can look on the preſent poſture of Europe with the leaſt degree of diſcernment, who will not be thoroughly convinced, that Eng⯑land muſt be the faſt friend or the determined enemy of France. There is no medium; and I do not think Mr. Fox to be ſo dull as not to obſerve this. His peace would involve us inſtantly in the moſt extenſive and moſt ruinous wars; at the ſame time that it would not have made a broad highway (acroſs which no human wiſdom could put an effectual barrier) for a mu⯑tual intercourſe with the fraternizing Jacobins on both ſides. The conſequences of which, thoſe will certainly not provide againſt, who do not dread or diſlike them.

34. It is not amiſs in this place to enter a lit⯑tle more fully into the ſpirit of the principal ar⯑guments on which Mr. Fox thought proper to reſt this his grand and concluding motion, particular⯑ly ſuch as were drawn from the internal ſtate of our affairs. Under a ſpecious appearance (not uncommonly put on by men of unſcrupulous am⯑bition) that of tenderneſs and compaſſion to the poor; he did his beſt to appeal to the judgments of the meaneſt and moſt ignorant of the people on the merits of the war. He had before done ſomething of the ſame dangerous kind in his printed letter. The ground of a political war is [40] of all things that which the poor labourer and manufacturer are the leaſt capable of conceiving. This ſort of people know in general that they muſt ſuffer by war. It is a matter to which they are ſufficiently competent, becauſe it is a matter of feeling. The cauſes of a war are not matters of feeling, but of reaſon and foreſight, and often of remote conſiderations, and of a very great combi⯑nation of circumſtances, which they are utterly in⯑capable of comprehending; and, indeed, it is not every man in the higheſt claſſes who is altogether equal to it. Nothing, in a general ſenſe, appears to me leſs fair and juſtifiable (even if no attempt were made to inflame the paſſions) than to ſubmit a mat⯑ter on diſcuſſion to a tribunal incapable of judg⯑ing of more than one ſide of the queſtion. It is at leaſt as unjuſtifiable to inflame the paſſions of ſuch judges againſt that ſide, in favour of which they cannot ſo much as comprehend the arguments. Before the prevalence of the French ſyſtem (which as far as it has gone has extinguiſhed the ſaluta⯑ry prejudice called our country) nobody was more ſenſible of this important truth than Mr. Fox; and nothing was more proper and pertinent, or was more felt at the time, than his reprimand to Mr. Wilberforce for an inconſiderate expreſſion which tended to call in the judgment of the poor, to eſtimate the policy of war upon the ſtandard of the taxes they may be obliged to pay towards its ſupport.

35. It is fatally known, that the great object of the Jacobin ſyſtem is to excite the loweſt deſcrip⯑tion of the people to range themſelves under am⯑bitious men, for the pillage and deſtruction of the more eminent orders and claſſes of the communi⯑ty. The thing, therefore, that a man not fanati⯑cally attached to that dreadful project would moſt [41] ſtudiouſly avoid, is, to act a part with the French Propagandiſts, in attributing (as they conſtantly do) all wars, and all the conſequences of wars, to the pride of thoſe orders, and to their contempt of the weak and indigent part of the ſociety. The ruling Jacobins inſiſt upon it, that even the wars which they carry on with ſo much obſtinacy againſt all nations, are made to prevent the poor from any longer being the inſtruments and victims of kings, nobles, and the ariſtocracy of burghers and rich men. They pretend that the deſtruction of kings, nobles, and the ariſtocracy of burghers and rich men, is the only means of eſtabliſhing an univerſal and perpetual peace. This is the great drift of all their writings from the meeting of the ſtates of France, in 1789, to the publication of the laſt Morning Chronicle. They inſiſt that even the war, which with ſo much boldneſs they have declared againſt all nations, is to prevent the poor from becoming the inſtruments and victims of theſe perſons and deſcriptions. It is but too eaſy, if you once teach poor labourers and mechanics to defy their prejudices, and as this has been done with an induſtry ſcarcely credible, to ſubſtitute the principles of fraternity in the room of that ſaluta⯑ry prejudice called our Country, it is, I ſay, but too eaſy to perſuade them, agreeably to what Mr. Fox hints in his public letter, that this war is, and that the other wars have been, the wars of Kings; it is eaſy to perſuade them, that the terrors even of a foreign conqueſt are not terrors for them.—It is eaſy to perſuade them that, for their part, they have nothing to loſe; and that their condi⯑tion is not likely to be altered for the worſe, whatever party many happen to prevail in the war. Under any circumſtances this doctrine is highly dangerous, as it tends to make ſeparate parties of the higher and lower orders, and to put their in⯑tereſts [42] on a different bottom. But if the enemy you have to deal with ſhould appear, as France now appears, under the very name and title of the deliverer of the poor, and the chaſtiſer of the rich, the former claſs would readily become, not an in⯑different ſpectator of the war, but would be ready to enliſt in the faction of the enemy; which they would conſider, though under a foreign name, to be more connected with them than an adverſe de⯑ſcription in the ſame land. All the props of ſo⯑ciety would be drawn from us by theſe doctrines, and the very foundations of the public defence would give way in an inſtant.

36. There is no point which the faction of fra⯑ternity in England have laboured more, than to ex⯑cite in the poor the horror of any war with France upon any occaſion.—When they found that their open attacks upon our conſtitution in favour of a French Republic were for the preſent repelled—they put that matter out of ſight, and have taken the more plauſible and popular ground of general peace, upon merely general principles, although theſe very men in the correſpondence of their Clubs with thoſe of France, had reprobated the neutrality which now they ſo earneſtly preſs. But, in reality, their maxim was and is, ‘"Peace and alliance with France, and war with the reſt of the world."’

37. This laſt motion of Mr. Fox bound up the whole of his politics during the ſeſſions. This mo⯑tion had many circumſtances, particularly in the Norwich correſpondence, by which the miſchief of all the others, was aggravated beyond meaſure. Yet, this laſt motion, for the worſt of Mr. Fox's proceedings was the beſt ſupported of any of them, except his amendment to the addreſs. The [43] Duke of Portland had directly engaged to ſupport the war.—Here was a motion as directly made to force the crown to put an end to it before a blow had been ſtruck. The efforts of the faction have ſo far prevailed that ſome of his Grace's neareſt friends have actually voted for that motion: ſome, after ſhewing themſelves, went away—others did not appear at all. So it muſt be where a man is for any time ſupported from perſonal conſiderations, without reference to his public conduct. Through the whole of this buſineſs, the ſpirit of fraternity appears to me to have been the governing principle. It might be ſhameful for any man, above the vul⯑gar, to ſhew ſo blind a partiality even to his own country, as Mr. Fox appears, on all occaſions, this ſeſſion, to have ſhewn to France. Had Mr. Fox been a Miniſter, and proceeded on the principles laid down by him, I believe there is little doubt he would have been conſidered as the moſt criminal ſtateſman that ever lived in this country. I do not know why a ſtateſman out of place is not to be judged in the ſame manner, unleſs we can excuſe him by pleading in his favour a total indifference to principle; and that he would act and think in quite a different way if he were in office. This I will not ſuppoſe. One may think better of him; and that in caſe of his power he might change his mind. But ſuppoſing, from better or from worſe motives, he might change his mind on his acquiſi⯑tion of the favour of the crown, I ſeriouſly fear that if the king ſhould to-morrow put power into his hands, and that his good genius would inſpire him with maxims very different from thoſe he has promulgated, he would not be able to get the bet⯑ter of the ill temper, and the ill doctrines he has been the means of exciting and propagating throughout the kingdom. From the very begin⯑ning of their inhuman and unprovoked rebellion [44] and tyrannic uſurpation, he has covered the pre⯑dominant faction in France, and their adherents here, with the moſt exaggerated panegyrics; nei⯑ther has he miſſed a ſingle opportunity of abuſing and villifying thoſe, who in uniform concurrence with the Duke of Portland's and Lord Fitzwilliam's opinion, have maintained the true grounds of the Revolution ſettlement in 1688. He lamented all the defeats of the French; he rejoiced in all their victories; even when thoſe victories threatened to overwhelm the Continent of Europe, and by facilitating their means of penetrating Holland, to bring this moſt dreadful of all evils with irreſiſtible force to the very doors, if not into the very heart of our country. To this hour he always ſpeaks of every thought of overturning the French Jaco⯑biniſm by force, on the part of any power what⯑ſoever, as an attempt unjuſt and cruel; and which he reprobates with horror. If any of the French Jacobin leaders be ſpoken of with hatred or ſcorn, he falls upon thoſe that take that liberty, with all the zeal and warmth with which men of honour defend their particular and boſom friends, when attacked. He always repreſents their cauſe as a cauſe of liberty, and all who oppoſe it as partizans of deſpotiſm. He obſtinately continues to conſider the great and growing vices, crimes and diſorders of that country as only evils of paſſage, which are to produce a permanently happy ſtate of order and freedom. He repreſents theſe diſorders exactly in the ſame way, and with the ſame limitations which are uſed by one of the two great Jacobin factions, I mean that of PETION and BRISSOT. Like them he ſtudiouſly confines his horror and reprobation only to the maſſacres of the ſecond of September, and paſſes by thoſe of the 10th of Auguſt, as well as the impriſonment and depoſition of the king, which were the conſequences of that day, as [45] indeed were the maſſacres themſelves to which he confines his cenſure, though they were not actually perpetrated till early in September. Like that faction, he condemns, not the depoſition, or the propoſed exile, or perpetual impriſonment, but only the murder of the king. Mr. SHERIDAN on every occaſion, palliates all their maſſacres commit⯑ted in every part of France, as the effects of a natural indignation at the exorbitances of deſpo⯑tiſm, and of the dread of the people of returning under that yoke.—He has thus taken occaſion to load, not the actors in this wickedneſs, but the Government of a mild, merciful, beneficent and patriotic Prince, and his ſuffering faithful ſubjects, with all the crimes of the new anarchical tyranny, under which the new one has been murdered, and the others are oppreſſed. Thoſe continual either praiſes or palliating apologies of every thing done in France, and thoſe invectives as uniformly vo⯑mitted out upon all thoſe who ventured to expreſs their diſapprobation of ſuch proceedings, coming from a man of Mr. Fox's fame and authority, and one who is conſidered as the perſon to whom a great party of the wealthieſt men in the kingdom look up, has been the cauſe why the principle of the French fraternity formerly gained the ground which it had obtained. It will infallibly recover itſelf again, and in ten times a greater degree, if the kind of peace, in the manner which he preaches, ever ſhall be eſtabliſhed with the reigning faction in France.

38. So far as the French practices with regard to France and the other powers of Europe—as to their principles and doctrines, with regard to the conſtituton of ſtates, Mr. Fox ſtudiouſly, on all oc⯑caſions, and indeed when no occaſion calls for it, (as on the Debate of the petition for Reform) brings [46] forward and aſſerts their fundamental and fatal principle, pregnant with every miſchief and every crime, namely, that ‘"in every country the people is the legitimate ſovereign,"’ exactly conformable to the Declaration of the French Clubs and Legiſla⯑tors. ‘"La Souveraineté eſt une, indiviſible, inali⯑enable, et impreſcriptible. Elle appertient a la nation. Aucune Section du-peuple, ni aucun Individu ne peut ſ'en attribuer l'exerciſe."’ It conſounds, in a manner equally miſchievous and ſtupid, the origin of a government from the people with its continuance in their hands. I believe, that no ſuch doctrine has ever been heard of in any pub⯑lic act of any government whatſoever, until it was adopted (I think from the writings of Rouſſeau) by the French aſſemblies, who have made it the baſis of their conſtitution at home, and of the matter of their apoſtate in every country. Theſe and other wild declarations of abſtract principle, Mr. Fox ſays, are in themſelves perfectly right and true; tho' in ſome caſes he allows the French draw abſurd conſequences from them. But I conceive he is miſtaken. The conſequences are moſt logically, tho' moſt miſchievouſly drawn from the premiſes and principles by that wicked and ungracious, fac⯑tion. The fault is in the foundation.

39. Before ſociety, in a multitude of men, it is obvious, that ſovereignty and ſubjection are ideas which cannot exiſt. It is the compact on which ſociety is formed that makes both. But to ſuppoſe the people, contrary to their compacts, both to give away and retain the ſame thing, is altogether abſurd. It is worſe, for it ſuppoſes in ſome things combination of men a power and right of always diſſolving the ſocial union; which power, however, if it exiſts, renders them again as little ſovereigns as ſubjects, but a mere unconnected multitude. It [47] is not eaſy to ſtate for what good end, at a time like this, when the foundations of all antient and pre⯑ſumptive governments ſuch as ours (to which peo⯑ple ſubmit, not becauſe they have choſen them, but but becauſe they are born to them) are undermined by perilous theories, that Mr. Fox ſhould be ſo fond of referring to thoſe theories, upon all occa⯑ſions, even tho' ſpeculatively they might be true, which God forbid they ſhould! Particularly I do not ſee the reaſon why he ſhould be ſo fond of de⯑claring, that the principles of the Revolution have made the Crown of Great Britain elective; why he thinks it ſeaſonable to preach up with ſo much ear⯑neſtneſs, for now three years together, the doctrine of reſiſtance and Revolution at all; or to aſſert that our laſt Revolution of 1688 ſtands on the ſame and ſimilar principles with that of France. We are not called upon to bring forward theſe doctrines, which are hardly ever reſorted to but in caſes of extremi⯑ty, and where they are followed by correſpondent actions. We are not called upon by any circum⯑ſtance, that I know of, which can juſtify a revolt, or which demands a Revolution, or can make an election of a ſucceſſor to the Crown neceſſary, what⯑ever latent right may be ſuppoſed to exiſt for effec⯑tuating any of theſe purpoſes.

40. Not the leaſt alarming of the proceedings of Mr. Fox and his friends in this ſeſſion, eſpecially taken in concurrence with their whole proceedings, with regard to France and its principles, is their eagerneſs at this ſeaſon, under pretence of Parlia⯑mentary Reform (a project which had been for ſome time rather dormant) to diſcredit and diſgrace the Houſe of Commons. For this purpoſe theſe Gen⯑tlemen have found a way to inſult the Houſe by ſe⯑veral atrocious libels in the form of petitions. In particular they brought up a libel, or rather a com⯑plete [48] digeſt of libellous matter, from the Club called the Friends of the people. It is indeed at once the moſt audacious and the moſt inſidious of all the performances of that kind which have yet appeared, It is ſaid to be the penmanſhip of Mr. Tierney, to bring whom into Parliament the Duke of Portland formerly had taken a good deal of pains, and ex⯑pended, as I hear, a conſiderable ſum of money.

41. Among the circumſtances of danger from that piece and from its precedent, it is obſervable, that this is the firſt petition (if I remember right) coming from a Club or aſſociation, ſigned by individuals, de⯑noting neither local reſidence, nor corporate capacity. This mode of petition not being ſtrictly illegal or informal, tho' in its ſpirit in the higheſt degree miſ⯑chievous, may and will lead to other things of that nature, tending to bring theſe Clubs and Aſſocia⯑tions to the French model, and to make them in the end anſwer French purpoſes: I mean, that without legal names, theſe Clubs will be lead to aſſume po⯑litical capacities; that they may debate the forms of Conſtitution; and that from their meetings they may inſolently dictate their will to the regular autho⯑rities of the kingdom, in the manner in which the Jacobin Clubs iſſue their mandates to the National Aſſembly or the National Convention. The auda⯑cious remonſtrance, which I obſerve is ſigned by all of that Aſſociation (the Friends of the People) who are not in Parliament, and it was ſupported moſt ſtrenuouſly by all aſſociations who are members, with Mr. Fox at their head. He and they contended for referring this libel to a Committee. Upon the queſtion of that reference, they grounded all their debate for a change in the conſtitution of Parliament. The pretended Petition is, in fact, a regular charge or impeachment of the Houſe of Commons, digeſt⯑ed into a number of articles. This plan of Reform [49] is not a criminal impeachment, but a matter of prudence, to be ſubmitted to the public wiſdom, which muſt be as well apprized of the facts as peti⯑tioners can be. But thoſe acceſſors of the Houſe of Commons have proceeded upon the principles of a criminal proceſs; and have had the effrontery to offer proof on each article.

42. This charge, the party of Mr. Fox main⯑tained article by article, beginning with the firſt, namely, the interference of Peers at elections, and their nominating in effect ſeveral Members of the Houſe of Commons. In the printed liſt of grievan⯑ces which they made out on the occaſion, and in ſupport of their charge, is found in the borough, which under Lord Fitzwilliam's influence, I now ſit. By this remonſtrance and its object, they hope to defeat the operation of property in electi⯑ons, and in reality to diſſolve the connection and communication of intereſts which makes the Houſes of Parliament a mutual ſupport to each other. Mr. Fox and the friends of the people are not ſo igno⯑rant as not to know, that Peers do not interfere in elections as Peers, but as men of property. They well know that the Houſe of Lords is by itſelf the feebleſt part of the conſtitution; they know that the Houſe of Lords is ſupported only by its connecti⯑ons with the crown and the Houſe of Commons; and that without this double connection the Lords could not exiſt a ſingle year. They know, that all theſe parts of our conſtitution, whilſt they are ba⯑lanced as oppoſing intereſts, are alſo connected as friends; otherwiſe nothing but confuſion could be the reſult of a complex conſtitution. It is natu⯑ral, therefore, that they who wiſh the com⯑mon deſtruction of the whole and of all its parts, ſhould contend for their total ſeparation. But as the Houſe of Commons is that link which connects [50] both the other parts of the conſtitution (the Crown and the Lords) with the maſs of the people, it is to that link (as it is natural enough) that their inceſſant attacks are directed. That artificial repreſentation of the people being once diſcredited and overturn⯑ed, all goes to pieces, and nothing but a plain French democracy or arbitrary monarchs can poſſibly exiſt.

43. Some of theſe gentlemen who have attacked the Houſe of Commons, lean to a repreſentation of the people by the head, that is, to individual repre⯑ſentation. None of them that I recollect, except Mr. Fox, directly rejected it. It is remarkable, however, that he only rejected it by ſimply declar⯑ing an opinion. He let all the argument go againſt his opinion. All the proceedings and arguments of his reforming friends lead to individual repre⯑ſentation and to nothing elſe. It deſerves to be at⯑tentively obſerved, that his individual repreſentation is the only plan of their reform, which has been expli⯑citly propoſed. In the mean time, the conduct of Mr. Fox appears to be far more inexplicable, on any good ground, than theirs, who propoſe the individual repreſentation; for he neither propoſes any thing, nor even ſuggeſts that he has any thing to propoſe, in lieu of the preſent mode of conſti⯑tuting the Houſe of Commons.—On the contrary, he declares againſt all the plans which have yet been ſuggeſted, either from himſelf or others: yet, thus unprovided with any plan whatſoever, he preſſed forward this unknown reform with all poſſible warmth; and for that purpoſe, in a ſpeech of ſeve⯑ral hours, he urged the referring to a committee, the libellous impeachment of the Houſe of Com⯑mons by the aſſociation of the friends of the peo⯑ple. But for Mr. Fox to diſcredit Parliament as it ſtands,—to countenance leagues, covenants, and [51] aſſociations for its further diſcredit,—to render it perfectly odious and contemptible,—and at the ſame time to propoſe nothing at all in place of what he diſgraces, (is worſe if poſſible) than to contend for perſonal individual repreſentation, and is little leſs than demanding, in plain terms, to bring on plain anarchy.

44. Mr. Fox and theſe gentlemen have, for the preſent, been defeated; but they are neither con⯑verted nor diſheartened. They have ſo ſolemnly de⯑clared, that they will perſevere until they have ob⯑tained their ends; perſiſting to aſſert, that the Houſe of Commons not only is not a true repreſen⯑tative of the people, but that it does not anſwer the purpoſe of ſuch repreſentation; moſt of them inſiſt that all the debts, the taxes, and the burthens of all kinds on the people, with every other evil and in⯑convenience, which we have ſuffered ſince the re⯑volution, have been owing ſolely to the Houſe of Commons which does not ſpeak the ſenſe of the people.

45. It is alſo not to be forgotten, that Mr. Fox, and all who hold with him, on this, as on all other occaſions of pretended Reform, moſt bitterly re⯑proached Mr. Pitt with treachery, in declining to ſupport the ſcandalous charges and indefinite pro⯑jects of this infamous libel from the friends of the people. By the animoſity with which they perſe⯑cute all thoſe who grow cold in this cauſe of pre⯑tended Reform, they hope, that if through levity, inexperience, or ambition, any young perſon (like Mr. Pitt, for inſtance) happens to be once em⯑barked in their deſign, they ſhall, by a falſe ſhame, keep him faſt in it for ever. Many they have ſo hampered.

[52]46. I know it is uſual, when the peril and alarm of the hour appears to be a little overblown; to think no more of the matter.—But for my part, I look back with horror on what we have eſcaped; and am full of anxiety with regard to the dangers, that, in my opinion, are ſtill to be ap⯑prehended both at home and abroad; this buſineſs has caſt deep roots. Whether it is neceſſarily connected in theory with Jacobiniſm is not worth a diſpute. The two things are connected in fact. The partizans of the one are the partizans of the other. I know it is common with thoſe who are favourable to the gentlemen of Mr. Fox's party, and to their leader, though not at all devoted to all their reforming projects, or their Gallican po⯑litics, to argue in palliation of their conduct, that it is not in their power to do all the harm their actions evidently tend to. It is ſaid, that as the people will not ſupport them, they may ſafely be indulged in thoſe eccentric fancies of Reform, and thoſe theories which lead to nothing. This apo⯑logy is not very much to the honour of thoſe po⯑liticians, whoſe intereſts are to be adhered to in defiance of their conduct. I cannot flatter myſelf that theſe inceſſant attacks on the conſtitution of of Parliament are ſafe. It is not in my power to deſpiſe the unceaſing efforts of a confederacy of about fifty perſons of eminence; men of the far greater part, of very ample fortunes either in poſ⯑ſeſſion or in expectancy; men of decided characters and vehement paſſions—men of very great talents of all kinds; of much boldneſs, and of the greateſt poſſible ſpirit of artifice, intrigue, adventure and enterprize, all operating with unwearied activity and perſeverence. Theſe gentlemen, are much ſtronger too without doors than ſome calculate. They have the more active part of the Diſſenters with them; and the whole clan of ſpeculators of all denomina⯑tions [53] —a large and growing ſpecies. They have that floating multitude which goes with events and which ſuffer the loſs or gain of a battle, to decide their opi⯑nions of right and wrong. As long as by every art this party keeps alive a ſpirit of diſaffection againſt the very Conſtitution of the kingdom, and attri⯑butes, as lately it has been in the habit of doing, all the public misfortunes to that Conſtitution it is ab⯑ſolutely impoſſible, but that ſome moment muſt arrive, in which they will be enabled to produce a pretended Reform and a real Revolution. If ever the body of this compound Conſtitution of ours is ſubverted either in favour of unlimited Monarchy, or of wild Democracy, that ruin will moſt certainly be the reſult of this very ſort of machinations againſt the Houſe of Commons. It is not from a confidence in the views or intentions of any ſtateſman that I think he is to be indulged in theſe perilous amuſe⯑ments.

47. Before it is made the great object of any man's political life to raiſe another to power, it is right to conſider what are the real diſpoſitions of the perſon to be ſo elevated. We are not to form our judgment on theſe diſpoſitions from the rules and principles of a court of Juſtice, but from thoſe of private diſcretion; not looking for what would ſerve to criminate another, but what is ſuf⯑ficient to direct ourſelves.—By a compariſon of a ſeries of the diſcourſes and actions of certain men, for a reaſonable length of time, it is im⯑poſſible not to obtain ſufficient indication of the general tendency of their views and principles. There is no other rational mode of proceeding. It is true, that in ſome one or two, perhaps not well weighed expreſſions, or ſome one or two un⯑connected and doubtful affairs, we may and ought to judge of the actions or words by our previous [54] good or ill opinion of the man. But this allow⯑ance has its bounds. It does not extend to any regular courſe of ſyſtematic action, or of conſtant and repeated diſcourſe. It is againſt every prin⯑ciple of common ſenſe and of juſtice to myſelf, and to the public, to judge of a ſeries of ſpeeches and actions from the man, and not of the man from the whole tenor of his language and con⯑duct. Had Mr. Fox been a miniſter, and pro⯑ceeded in that capacity on the principles and in the manner in which he has acted during the whole of the laſt Seſſion, I believe he would be conſidered as the moſt criminal ſtateſman that ever exiſted in this country. I do not ſee why a ſtateſman out of place is not to be judged of in the ſame manner, unleſs we excuſe him by plead⯑ing in his favor a total indifference to moral prin⯑ciple, and that he would ſpeak and act in quite a different way, if he were in office. I have ſtated the above matters, not as infering a criminal charge of evil intention. If I had meant to do ſo, perhaps they are ſtated with tolerable exact⯑neſs—But I have no ſuch view. The intentions of theſe Gentlemen may be very pure. I do not diſpute it. But I think they are in ſome great error. If theſe things are done by Mr. Fox and his friends, with good intentions, they are not done leſs dangerouſly; for it ſhews theſe good in⯑tentions are not under the direction of ſafe max⯑ims and principles.

48. Mr. Fox, Mr. Sheridan, and the Gentle⯑men who call themſelves the phalanx, have not been ſo very indulgent to others. They have thought proper to aſcribe to thoſe Members of the Houſe of Commons, who, in exact agreement with the Duke of Portland, and Lord Fitzwilliam, abhor and oppoſe the French ſyſtem, the baſeſt [55] and moſt unworthy motives for their conduct;—as if none could oppoſe that atheiſtic, immoral and impolitic project ſet up in France, ſo diſ⯑graceful and deſtructive, as I conceive, to human nature itſelf, but with ſome ſiniſter intentions. They treat thoſe Members on all occaſions with a ſort of lordly inſolence, though they are perſons that (whatever homage they may pay to the elo⯑quence of the Gentlemen who chooſe to look down upon them with ſcorn,) are not their in⯑feriors in any particular which calls for and ob⯑tains juſt conſideration from the public—not their inferiors on knowledge of public law, or of the Conſtitution of the kingdom—not their inferiors in their acquaintance with its foreign and domeſtic intereſts—not their inferiors in experience or practice of buſineſs—not their inferiors in moral character—nor their inferiors in the proofs they have given of zeal and induſtry in the ſervice of their country. Without denying to theſe Gentle⯑men, the reſpect and conſideration which, it is allowed, juſtly belongs to them, we ſee no reaſon why they ſhould not as well be obliged to concede ſomething to our opinions, as that we ſhould be bound blindly and ſervilely to follow thoſe of Mr. Fox, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Grey, Mr. Court⯑ney, Mr. Lambton, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Francis, Mr. Taylor, and others. We are Members of Parliament and their equals. We never conſider ourſelves as their followers. Theſe Gentlemen (ſome of them hardly born, when ſome of us came into Parliament) have thought proper to treat us as deſerters, as if we had been liſted into their phalanx like ſoldiers, and had ſworn to live and die in their French principles. This inſolent claim of ſuperiority on their part, and of a ſort of vaſ⯑ſalage to them on that of other Members, is what no liberal mind will ſubmit to.

[56]49. The Society of the Liberty of the Preſs, the Whig Club, and the Society for Conſtitutional Information, and (I believe) the Friends of the People, as well as ſome Clubs in Scotland, have indeed declared, ‘"That their confidence in and attachment to Mr. Fox, has lately been con⯑firmed, ſtrengthened, and encreaſed by the ca⯑lumnies (as they are called) againſt him."’ It is true, Mr. Fox and his friends have thoſe teſti⯑monies in their favour, againſt certain old friends of the Duke of Portland. Yet on a full, ſerious, and I think diſpaſſionate conſideration of the whole of what Mr. Fox and Mr. Sheridan and their friends have acted, ſaid and written, in this Seſſion, inſtead of doing any thing which might tend to procure power, or any ſhare of it what⯑ſoever, to them or to their phalanx (as they call it) or to encreaſe their credit, influence, or popu⯑larity in the nation, I think it one of my moſt ſerious and important public duties, in whatſoever ſtation I may be placed for the ſhort time I have to live, effectually to employ my beſt endeavours, by every prudent and every lawful means, to tra⯑verſe all their deſigns. I have only to lament, that my abilities are not greater, and that my proba⯑bility of life is not better, for the more effectual purſuit of that object. But I truſt, that neither the principles nor exertions will die with me. I am the rather confirmed in this my reſolution, and in this my wiſh of tranſmitting it, becauſe every ray of hope concerning a poſſible control or mitigation of the enormous miſchiefs which the principles of theſe Gentlemen, and which their connections full as dangerous as their prin⯑ciples, might receive from the influence of the Duke of Portland and Lord Fitzwilliam, on be⯑coming their colleagues in office, is now entirely baniſhed from the mind of every man living.— [57] It is apparent, even to the world at large, that ſo far from having a power to direct or to guide Mr. Fox, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Grey, &c. &c. &c. in any important matter, they have not, through this Seſſion, been able to prevail on them to forbear or to delay, or mitigate, or ſoften any one act, or any one expreſſion upon ſubjects on which they eſſentially differed.

50. Even if this hope of a poſſible control did exiſt, yet the declared opinions and the uniform line of conduct conformable to thoſe opinions, purſued by Mr. Fox, muſt become a matter of ſerious alarm if he ſhould obtain a power either at Court or in Parliament, or in the Nation at large; and for this plain reaſon—He muſt be the moſt active and efficient member in any Ad⯑miniſtration of which he ſhall form a part. That a man, or ſet of men, are guided by ſuch not du⯑bious, but delivered and avowed principles and maxims of policy as to need a watch and check on them, in the exerciſe of the higheſt power, ought in my opinion, to make every man, who is not of the ſame principles, and guided by the ſame maxims, a little cautious how he makes him⯑ſelf one of the traverſers of a ladder, to help ſuch a man or ſuch a ſet of men, to climb up to the higheſt authority. A miniſter of this country is to be controlled by the Houſe of Commons. He is to be truſted, not controlled, by his col⯑leagues in office; if he were to be controlled, Government, which ought to be the ſource of order, would itſelf become a ſcene of anarchy. Beſides, Mr. Fox is a man of an aſpiring and commanding mind, made rather to control, than to be controlled, and he never will be, nor can be, in any Adminiſtration, in which he will be guided by any of thoſe whom I have been accuſ⯑tomed [58] to confide in. It is abſurd to think that he would or could. If his own opinions do not control him, nothing can. When we conſider of an adherence to a man which leads to his power, we muſt not only ſee what the man is, but how he ſtands related.

It is not to be forgotten that Mr. Fox acts in cloſe and inſeparable connection with another Gentleman of exactly the ſame deſcription as himſelf, and who, perhaps, of the two, is the leader. The reſt of the body are not a great deal more tractable; and over them if Mr. Fox and Mr. Sheridan have authority, moſt aſſuredly the Duke of Portland has not the ſmalleſt degree of influence.

51. One muſt take care, that a blind partiality to ſome perſons, and as blind an hatred to others, may not enter into our minds under a colour of inflexible public principle. We hear, as a reaſon for clinging to Mr. Fox at preſent, that nine years ago Mr. Pitt got into power by miſchievous in⯑trigues with the Court, with the Diſſenters, and with other factious people out of Parliament, to the diſcredit and weakening of the power of the Houſe of Commons. His conduct nine years ago I ſtill hold to be very culpable. There are, however, many things very culpable that I do not know how to puniſh. My opinion, on ſuch matters, I muſt ſubmit to the good of the State, as I have done on other occaſions; and particularly with regard to the authors and managers of the American war, with whom I have acted, both in office and in oppoſition, with great confidence and cordiality, though I thought many of their acts criminal and impeach⯑able. Whilſt the miſconduct of Mr. Pitt and his aſſociates was yet recent, it was not poſſible to get [59] Mr. Fox of himſelf to take a ſingle ſtep, or even to countenance others in taking any ſtep upon the ground of that miſconduct and falſe policy, though if the matters had been then taken up and purſued, ſuch a ſtep could not have appeared ſo evidently deſ⯑perate as now it is.—So far from purſuing Mr. Pitt, I know that then, and for ſome time after, ſome of Mr. Fox's friends were actually, and with no ſmall earneſtneſs, looking out to a coalition with that gen⯑tleman. For years I never heard this circumſtance of Mr. Pitt's miſconduct on that occaſion mentioned by Mr. Fox, either in public or in private, as a ground for oppoſition to that miniſter. All oppo⯑ſition, from that period to this very Seſſion, has pro⯑ceeded upon the ſeparate meaſures as they ſeparately aroſe, without any vindictive retroſpect to Mr. Pitt's conduct in 1784. My memory, however, may fail me. I muſt appeal to the printed debates, which (ſo far as Mr. Fox is concerned) are unuſually ac⯑curate.

52. Whatever might be in our power, at an early period, at this day I ſee no remedy for what was done in 1784. I had no great hopes even at that time, I was therefore very eager to record a remon⯑ſtrance on the journals of the Houſe of Commons, as a caution againſt ſuch a popular deluſion in times to come; and this I then feared, and now am cer⯑tain, is all that could be done. I know of no way of animadverting on the Crown. I know no mode of calling to account the Houſe of Lords, who threw out the India Bill, in a way not much to their credit.

As little, or rather leſs, am I able to coerce the people at large, who behaved very unwiſely and intemperately on that occaſion. Mr. Pitt was then accuſed, by me as well as others, of attempting to be miniſter, without enjoying the confidence of the [60] Houſe of Commons, though he did enjoy the confi⯑dence of the Crown. That Houſe of Commons, whoſe confidence he did not enjoy, unfortunately did not itſelf enjoy the confidence, (though we well deſerved it) either of the Crown or of the pub⯑lic. For want of that confidence, the then Houſe of Commons did not ſurvive the conteſt. Since that period Mr. Pitt has enjoyed the confidence of the Crown, and of the Lords, and of the Houſe of Commons through two ſucceſſive Parliaments; and I ſuſpect that he has ever ſince, and that he does ſtill, enjoy as large a portion, at leaſt, of the confi⯑dence of the people without doors, as his great rival. Before whom, then, is Mr. Pitt to be im⯑peached, and by whom? the more I conſider the matter, the more firmly I am convinced, that the idea of proſcribing Mr. Pitt indirectly, when you cannot directly puniſh him is a chimerical a pro⯑ject, and as unjuſtifiable, as it would be to have preſcribed Lord North. For ſuppoſing, that by indirect ways of oppoſition, by oppoſition upon meaſures which do not relate to the buſineſs of 1784, but which on other grounds might prove un⯑popular, you were to drive him from his ſeat, this would be no example whatever of puniſhment for the matters we charge as offences in 1784. On a cool and diſpaſſionate view of the affairs of this time and country, it appears obvious to me, that one or the other of theſe two great men, that is, Mr. Pitt or Mr. Fox, muſt be Miniſter. They are, I am ſorry for it, irreconcileable. Mr. Fox's con⯑duct in this Seſſion has rendered the idea of his power a matter of ſerious alarm to many people, who were very little pleaſed with the proceedings of Mr. Pitt in the beginning of his adminiſtration. They like neither the conduct of Mr. Pitt in 1784, nor that of Mr. Fox in 1793; but they eſtimate, which of the evils is moſt preſſing at the time, and [61] what is likely to be the conſequence of a change. If Mr. Fox be wedded, they muſt be ſenſible, that his opinions and principles, on the now exiſting ſtate of things at home and abroad, muſt be taken as his portion. In his train muſt alſo be taken the whole body of gentlemen, who are pledged to him and to each other, and to their common politics and principles.—I believe no King of Great Bri⯑tain ever will adopt for his confidential ſervants, that body of gentlemen, holding that body of prin⯑ciples. Even if the preſent King or his ſucceſſor ſhould think fit to take that ſtep, I apprehend a general diſcontent of thoſe, who wiſh that this na⯑tion and that Europe ſhould continue in their pre⯑ſent ſtate, would enſue; a diſcontent, which, com⯑bined with the principles and progreſs of the new men in power, would ſhake this kingdom to its foundations. I do not believe any one political conjecture can be more certain than this.

53. Without at all defending or palliating Mr. Pitt's conduct in 1784, I muſt obſerve, that the criſis of 1793, with regard to every thing at home and abroad, is full as important as that of 1784 ever was; and, if for no other reaſon, by being preſent, is much more important. It is not to nine years ago we are to look for the danger of Mr. Fox's and Mr. Sheridan's conduct, and that of the Gen⯑tlemen who act with them.

It is at this very time, and in this very ſeſſi⯑on, that, if they had not been ſtrenuouſly reſiſted, they would not only merely have diſcredited the Houſe of Commons (as Mr. Pitt did in 1784, when he perſuaded the King to reject their advice, and to appeal from them to the people,) but, in my opinion, would have been the means of wholly ſubverting the Houſe of Commons and the Houſe of Peers, and the whole Conſtitution actual and vertual, together with the ſafety and independence [62] of this nation, and of the peace and ſettlement of every ſtate in the now Chriſtian world. It is to our opinion of the nature of Jacobiniſm, and of the probability by corruption, faction, and force, of its gaining ground every where, that the queſti⯑on who and what are you to ſupport is to be deter⯑mined. For my part, without doubt or heſitation, I look upon Jacobiniſm as the moſt dreadful, and moſt ſhameful evil, which ever afflicted mankind, a ſting which goes beyond the power of all calcu⯑lation in its miſchief; and that if it is ſuffered to exiſt in France, we muſt in England, and ſpeedily too, fall into that calamity.

54. I figure to myſelf the purpoſe of theſe Gen⯑tlemen accompliſhed, and this Miniſtry deſtroyed. I ſee that the perſons who in that caſe muſt rule, can be no other than Mr. Fox, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Grey, the Marquis of Lanſdowne, Lord Thurlow, Lord Lauderdale, and the Duke of Norfolk, with the other Chiefs of the Friends of the People, the Parliamentary Reformers, and the admirers of the French Revolution. The principal of theſe are all formally pledged to their projects. If the Duke of Portland and Lord Fitzwilliam ſhould be admit⯑ted into that ſyſtem (as they might and probably would be) it is quite certain they could not have the ſmalleſt weight in it; leſs, indeed, than what they now profeſs, if leſs were poſſible: becauſe they would be leſs wanted than they now are; and be⯑cauſe all thoſe who wiſhed to join them, and to act under them, have been rejected by the Duke of Portland and Lord Fitzwilliam themſelves; and Mr. Fox, finding them thus by themſelves diſarm⯑ed, has built quite a new fabric, upon quite a new foundation. There is no trifling on this ſubject. We ſee very diſtinctly before us the Miniſtry that would be formed, and the plan that would be pur⯑ſued. If we like the plan, we muſt wiſh the pow⯑er [63] of thoſe who are to carry it into execution; but to purſue the political exaltation of thoſe whoſe political meaſures we diſapprove, and whoſe principles we diſſent from, is a ſpecies of modern politics not ea⯑ſily comprehenſible, and which muſt end in the ruin of the Country, if it ſhould continue and ſpread. Mr. Pitt may be the worſt of men, and Mr. Fox may be the beſt, but at preſent, the former is in the intereſt of his country, and of the order of things long eſtabliſhed in Europe: Mr. Fox is not. I have, for one, been born in this order of things, and would fain die in it. I am ſure it is ſufficient to make men as virtuous, as happy, and as know⯑ing as any thing which Mr. Fox and his friends abroad or at home, would ſubſtitute in its place; and I ſhould be ſorry that any ſet of politicians ſhould obtain power in England, whoſe principles, or ſchemes ſhould lead them to countenance perſons or factions whoſe object is to introduce ſome new deviſed order of things into England, or to ſupport that order where it is already introduced in France; a place, in which if it can be fixed, in my mind, it muſt have a certain and decided influence in and upon this kingdom. This is my account of my conduct to my private friends. I have already ſaid all I wiſh to ſay, or nearly ſo, to the public, I write this with pain, and with an heart full of grief!