I E|Sp-^^e **'/* Books f$r. th& founding &f w College JwiM^J^oJkitLyi #¦•: Gift of Prof. Thomas R. Lounsbury 1909* & • **-, MEMOIRS, &c: &c. MEMOIRS OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE LATE RIGHT HONOURABLE CHARLES JAMES FOX. JBr R. FELL. Carum essacivibus, bene de republica mereri, coli, laudari, diligi, est gloriosum. IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL, II. LONDON: ' fRlNTED BT D. N. SHURT, BERWICK-STREET, SOIIO | SOW J. F. HUSHES, WIGMORE-STREET, CAVENDISH-SQUARE, AND 15, PATERNOSTER-ROW. 1808. MEMOIRS, &c. 6?c. &JV. Jl ASSING by the events of the sessions of 1787 and .1788, as comparatively of little importance wit;h those which follow, and as most of the topics discussed in them, were subsequently gone into more largely, the next period of Mr.. Fox's public life to be noticed is his conduct qu the memorable occasion of the king's indisposition, the latter part of the year 1788, and the begin ning of 1780. The king's malady, it is too well known here to be repeated, was of a nature that utterly incapacitated him from attending to the functions of government ; " his faculties (to use an expression of Mr. Burke, who seldom was very choice or courtly ih his phrases, When his passions were roused) were eclipsed :-^it was not a partial eclipse, wanting some digits qf Completion, — but a total and entire eclipse,1" and therefore it became necessary at this extraordinary juncture ta provide vol* u. b a substitute a substitute for the exercise ofthe royal authority. Mr. Fox at this period was on an excursion to the continent ; but, an express being sent after him, returned to England vvith the greatest des patch. Parliament met on the 20th of November; and after the ministers had briefly explained his majesty's melancholy situation, both houses ad journed for a fortnight. At their next meeting a committee of twenty-one persons in each house was appointed to examine and report the senti ments of the royal physicians ; and a further ad journment to the 10th of December then took place. On that day the report of the committee was laid upon the table of the house of commons ; and after commenting upon it some time, Mr. Pitt moved, " That a committee be appointed to examine and report precedents of such proceed ings as may have been had, in ease ofthe personal exercise of the royal authority being prevented or interrupted, by infancy, sickness, infirmity, or otherwise,, with a view to provide -for the same." This ThiSi motion was wafmly deprecated by Mr. !Fox. He said it was undoubtedly their duty to Jose no time in proceeding to provide some mea sure for the exigency of the present moment, but that exigency was so pressing in point of time, that he, for one, must oppose the motion then made. — What, he asked, were they going to search for ? Not precedents upon their journals, not parliamentary precedents, but precedents in the history of England. He would be bold to say, nay they all knew, that the doing so would be a loss of time, for there existed no precedents whatever, that could bear upon the present case. There might have 'been an incompetency, there might have been an inability, in former monarchs to direct the reins of government ; but if such a misfortune had happened to the country, it had happened at a time, when there was not the alle viation of a natural substitute. The circumstance^- to be provided for did not depend upon their deliberation, it rested elsewhere. There was then a person in the kingdom, different from any other person that any existing precedents could refer to, an heir apparent of full age and capacity b 2 to to exercise the" regal power. It behoved them, therefore,- not to waste a moment unnecessarily, but to proceed with all becoming speed and all becoming diligence, to restore the sovereign power, and the exercise of the royal authority. When the unfortunate situation of his majesty was first made known to that house, by a presen tation of the mirjute of the privy council, some gentlemen had expressed a doubt whether the house could make such a paper a ground of par liamentary proceedings. Mr. Fox declared that he had gone farther ; that he thought the report of the privy council was not an authentic docu ment, nor such as that house could make the ground of its proceedings. The defect had now been remedied, and the house was, in conse quence of the ¦ regular examination his majesty's physicians had undergone before a committee of their own, in possession of the true state ofthe king's health. That being known to the house, and through them to the nation at large, he con tended that it was then, and then only, the pre cise point of time for the house to decide, and that not a moment ought to be lost. From what what he had read of history, from the ideas he had formed of the law, and, what was still more precious, of the spirit of the constitution, from every reasoning and analogy, drawn from those sources, he declared that he had not in his mind a doubt, and he should think himself culpable, if he did not take. the first opportunity of declar ing it, that in the present condition of his majesty, his royal highness the prince of Wales had as clear, as express a right to exercise the power of sove reignty, during the continuance and incapacity, with which il had pleased God to afflict his ma jesty, as in the case of his majesty's having under gone a natural demise. Mr. Fox said, that enter taining this opinion, he thought it candid to come forward fairly, and avow it at that instant. With this opinion, as short a time as possible ought to intervene between the prince of Wales possessing the sovereignty, and the present mo-r ment. If the prince did not instantly claim those powers, to which, from analogy, from history, and from the spirit of the constitution, he was clearly entitled ; if he acted in a manner more suited to his character and education ; that moderation B 3 should 0 should be their strongest incitement. He had been bred up in tho^e principles Which had placed his illustrious house upon the throne, and with a known reverence and regard for those principles, as- the true fundamental's of our glorious consti tution, in the, maintenance of which his family had flourished with so much prosperity and hap piness as sovereigns of the British empire. Hence it was, that his royal highness chose rather to wait the decision of parliament, with a patient and due deference to the constitution, than urge a, claim which, he trusted, a majority of that house and of the people at large admitted, and which he was persuaded, could not reasonably be disputed. But -ought he to wait unnecessarily ? Ought his- foyal highness to wait while iprecedents were searched for, when it was known that ndne bore upon the case, which so nearly concerned him, ¦existed ? In the 'deference and forbearance ofthe prince they were not to forget his right. In all their observations, they should remember that there wSs 'such a claim existing, and it ¦should serve to hasten their decisions, as far as was con sistent with the magnitude ofthe occasion. , After 2 After urging these remarks strongly, Mr. Fox thought it his duty to say, that it was incumbent on the house to lose no time in restoring the third .estate. His royal highness, he was convinced, must exercise the royal prerogative during, and only during, his majesty's illness. With regard to the examination of the physicians, he would not take up the time of the house with com menting on the particular answers and opinions of each. However the physicians might have de livered opinions, that might in the minds of some men impress one turri qf idea, and in the minds of others a very different turn of idea, three points, he thought, were undeniable inferences from the whole of their examinations, in which' he had.assisted. These three points formed the re sult, and must be the foundation on which that house must necessarily raise the superstructure, whatever it might be, which they should deem it expedient to erect. He took the three points to be these, 1. That his majesty was incapable of meeting his parliament, or proceeding to business. b 4 2. That 2. That there was a great and strong proba bility of his recovery. 3. But that with respect to the point of time, when that recovery would take place, they were left in absolute doubt and uncertainty. Mr. Fox said, he hoped the members of that house would agree with him, that these three points formed the true, fair, and uncoloured re sult of the examination of his majesty's physi cians. After repeating his willingness to accede to every proposition that was consistent with the due solemnity of their proceedings aipon so serious an occasion, Mr. Fox concluded with declaring, that he had thought it incumben^ on him to give his opinion on the subject freely and unre servedly, and that he did not impute to the ministry any design to create del^y, or unneces sarily avoid despatch. Mr. Pitt immediately commenced a very warm reply. The doctrine advanced by the right hon ourable gentleman, said he, was itself, if any ad ditional ditional reasons were necessary, the strongest and most unanswerable for appointing the committee he had moved for, that could possibly be given; — If a claim of right was intimated (even though not formally) on the part of the prince of Wales, to ¦ assume the government, it became of the utmost consequence to ascertain from precedent and history, whether this claim were founded; which if it was, precluded the house from the possibility of all deliberation on the subject. In the mean time, he maintained, that it would ap pear from every precedent, and from every page of our history, that to assert such a right in the prince of Wales, or any one else, independent qf the decision of the two houses of parliament, was little less than treason to the constitution ofthe country. He said he did not mean then to enter into the discussion of that great and important point, a fit i occasion for discussing it would soon afford both the right honourable gentleman and himself an ample opportunity of stating their sentiments upon it. In the mean time he pledged himself to, this assertion, that in the case ofthe interrup tion of- the personal exercise of the royal autho- , , rity, ]0 rky, without any previous lawful .provision having ¦ been made for carrying on the government, it belonged to the other branohes ,of the legislature, on the part of the nation at lairge, (the body they represented,) to provide according to their discre tion for the temporary exercise of 'the .royal au thority, in the name and on the behalf of the sovereign, th such manner as they should think requisite ; and -that, unless ,by their decision, -the prince of Wales had no j right (speaking of strict right) to assume the .government more than any other individual ;in thetcountry. Whatever might be the discretion *of parliament with respect to the .disposition .of those ;powers, their ,right to dispose -of them was undoubted;; and ithat, until •the sanctionof parliament w^s obtained, lice prince of Wales 'had no morewight to exercise theJ)owers oj government than .any other person in these realms. Mr. Fox, in reply to what had fallen -from the minister, declared ithat either the right honour able gentleman had misunderstood him, or that he.had rested himself on the use of an equivocal word. 11 word.' If it was meant that the sovereignty should be settled in all cases by parliament— meaning thereby the king, lords, and commons, he should readily agree to the principles which 'had been laid down ; and that a parliament of that consti tution, being full and complete, had it in its option and power to alter the succession to the throne, or in any other way alter the existing laws and constitution. But if the sariie was alleged of the two houses acting without the kingly .sanction, the reverse of those principles was the truth. They were in that state maimed 6{ their powers:; — 'they could pass no law, but' were to await the operation either of some provisional statute, or of the principles of the constitution, as they had been generally laid down. If they proceeded to regulate 6r to limit the bounds of the executive power, they acted contrary to the spirit and to the letter ofthe constitution. This was the law as laid down by the statutes of the realm,; and if he maintained the contrary of this doctrine, the attorney-general should, in duty, prosecute him for treason, and he must incur all the penalties pf a prcemunire. Jf this was ithe language deemed treasonable, 12 treasonable, he should repeat it in so many words, that the prince qf Wales, in his opinion, stood possessed of the sovereign power, by virtue of the civil demise, in the same manner as he would have done by the natural demise of his father, and as independently of any interference of parliament. — But, said he, when this last word was so often repeated, it should berecollected, that a question might be -put, whether they sat as a parliament or as a convention. If as the latter, they were of course no perfect parliament ;' and former conventions, whose meetings were justified by necessity, and to whom we owe every thing we hold dear^ were too wise either, to, take the name of pai'liament, or to- attempt any measures until they had restored that third branch of the con- sitution to which it owes its form and energy. \He declared he held it to be a clear point, that they were not at that time a perfect parliament. Whether there might be some in that house, who had a wish to nominate, appoint, and perhaps to limit a regent in the exercise of the sovereign authority, he could not say ; perhaps they might ¦ be 13. be driven, by a declaration of that house, to the necessity of electing a person to exercise the royal prerogative. He had ever heard that the crown was hereditary and not elective, and. that, because it was thought best for the happi ness and freedom of the people. He . had heard indeed of some old bigoted persons, who for merly contended for indefeasabje right and right divine, which no earthly power could annul ; bat all that abominable and pernicious doctrine had long since been reprobated and exploded. The crown was declared hereditary by known laws, grounded on other and wiser principles ; and did . not those laws that made the crown hereditary, make the executive government of the country hereditary likewise ? He would maintain the treasonable words he had been charged with, that during his majesty's illness, and only during his incapacity to discharge the duties of the high office his majesty was invested with, his royal highness the prince of Wales had an undoubted claim to exercise ihe sovereign authority in the name and on the behalf of his royal father. It was the duty. of the two bouses to restore the roval 14 *oyal authority, and that immediately ; and he defied the minister, acute as he was, to contro vert that assertion ; but, if the two houses of parliament took advantage ofthe present calami tous state of the country, to arrogate to them* selves a power to which they had no right, they acted contrary to the spirit of the constitution, and would be guilty of treason. The doctrines advanced by Mr. Fox upon this occasion, being severely commented on, both in the upper house of parliament and by the public at. large, and many misrepresentations having gone abroad on the subject, Mr. Fox took the first opportunity of the house meeting again, to rise in vindication of himself. No member, he said, was more indifferent to newspaper paragraphs, re^ , ports, and representations, than he was ; he scarcely ever looked into any of their accounts of what he said in the house, without finding s&me part of his speech misrepresented, but he had thought it beneath him to take any notice of it, trusting,' that if he had expressed himself clear ly, the candour of that house, and the recollec tion 15 tion of those who heard him, would do him justice. What he rose to complain of was a very different matter. There had, he said, been representations, or rather misrepresentations, not in newspapers, not in pamphlets, not in coffee-houses ; but there had been misreprentatiOns of what he had said in that house, made before a public and august as sembly, by a gi'ave person, in high authority, and of dignified rank, (lord Camden, president of the council.) He desired mankind to judge of him and his opinions, from the sense of those opin ions, and his meaning, as explained at the time. There were, he said, different sorts of misrepre sentations ; there might be some wilful and inten tional misrepresentations, others arising rather frbm levity, caprice, and wantonness, than mis chievous design ; and again, another description of misrepresentations arising from the miscon ception, of honest minds, made by persons, who were themselves mistaken, and acted upon that mistake. ' After several introductory Temarks of this ten dency, Mr. Fox said, the first thing he -must clear himself 16 himself from was, the supposition of having spoken from the authority of any person wb|t^ver, much less from the authority of his royaK high ness the prince of Wales. He had spoken merely of himself, and delivered his opinion as an indi vidual membm qf parliament. In that private capacity, and without the prince of Wales's au thority, he had freely delivered his opinion. , He would now state that opinion, as he had enter tained it then, and still entertained it, and to guard against misconstruction, more than he had yet done. His opinion was, That from the mo ment that the two houses of parliament declared the king unable to exercise the royal sovereignty, from that^wlmient, a right to exercise the royal authority , with all its functions, attached to the prince of Wales, for the time such incapacity might exist. — When this opinion was quoted in the upper house, a new term had been interpo lated, by which he was made to say, that the prince of Wales had a right to assume the royal authority upon the interruption of its personal exercise in consequence of the king's illness and incapacity. He must deny that the word assume or 17 or assumption had once occurred in his speech* The iidea which he meant to convey was -this, That the exercise of the royal authority was the right, under such circumstances, of the prince of Wales ; but he had spoken of it as a right and hot a possession. Before the prince could exercise that right, he must appeal to the court, compe tent to decide, whether it belonged to him or not, and' from the adjudication of that court re ceive the possession. With the lords and com mons of Great Britain rested the adjudication of* the prince of Wales's right ; and by them he was to be put into possession. But, irr consider ing it, they were not to exercise discretion, whe- ther he was, or was not, the proper person to exercise that right ; but whether or not he really had it; they were not then in the capacity to legislate, but only to judge, functions, which they all knew to be clearly distinct* The more clearly to understand this, it was necessary to explain the precise meaning of the word election, and to con trast it with the term adjudication. That house could legislate 'and provide such measures as it deemed adviseable for, the public interest. When vol. ii. c they 13 they individually gave their votes for such persons, whom they thought most fit to represent thern in parliament, they made their election of theiS! re presentative ; but when they sat in a committee above stairs, to try whether. A. or B. was entitled to a seat as representative for such or such a borough, they saf as judges, and their report was an adjudication of the right of A. or B. In this situation didthe house stand at present ; they had not a legislative power, for the invigorat ing principle, which gave life and action to that power which was wanting. As the monarchy was, on every principle of the constitution, here ditary, so, of consequence, vyas the exercise of the executive power ; and the house, in its deli beration, was not at liberty to exercise its discre tion, or to chuse a parliamentary regent ; they. were not to consider, whether they were about to make a. prudent election, but bound to pronounce a just judginent* He had, in terms the most explicit and unequi vocal,' asserted it as his opinion, that when that ^ and i9 and the other house of parliament declared his* majesty incapable of exercising the royal authority; VA ' ^P' ' that was the precise period vvhen the prince's right attached, and when that house Ought not to delay in restoring the royal authority. Had he not said, that the same principles which made the crown hereditary, made the executive power, and the government of the country, hereditary like wise ? Upon that ground it was, that he had argued as he had done, and that he conceived to be the nature of the prince of Wales's right; He could not) therefore^ be supposed to mean, that the prince would be justifiable, when th£ houses were sitting, in taking upon himself the powers and authority of regent, until they were adjudged to him by parliament. If there was no parliament either sitting or existing) then^ indeed^ it would have been the duty of the prince of Wales .to have called a convention of the lords and commons ; to whom the cause of their being so called might have been explained, and by whom his right, and the circumstances on which it ori ginated) might be recognized ; and that then. being met by him, as exercising the delegated c 2 functions 20 functions of the royal power, they would become a legal parliament. Having thus, as he hoped, clearly explained his meaning, he was free to acknowledge, that more difference of opinion prevailed respecting the right of the prince of Wales to exercise the royal au thority, under the circumstances so often stated, than he could have expected ; but much of the difference of that opinion, he found, arose from some nice, logical, and legal distinctions, taken between the terms right and claim ; distinctions more equivocal, in his mind, than solid and sub stantial, and which wrere rested on arguments, that, he confessed, his understanding was too dull to comprehend. One idea he had learnt was) that it was allowed by some, that the prince of Wales had an irresistible claim, which the parlia ment could not1 reject or refuse, whenever, it was made, without forfeiting their duty to the consti tution. To that idea, he, for one, had no objec tion ; because he knew no difference between an irresistible claim, and an inherent right. In ano ther place the right of the prince of Wales had been 21 been gone into deeply, and that by persons every way qualified to discuss it, who gave all their sanction and authority to his opinion. i|f|p-' If the prince of Wales had done him the honour to have asked his advice how to proceed, he should have told him, as parliament was sitting, that he thought his royal highness might have sent a message to either house, or to both houses of parliament, stating his claijn, and calling upon them to decide upon it, But, as he had said on a former day, his royal highness's forbearance was such, that he would send his claim to neither house of parliament ; but would wait patiently, and with due deference, being conscious, that the two houses ought to find that claim, and restore the royal authority. Mr. Fox said, he could not help thinking, that the conduct of his ~rpyal highness deserved the commendation he had bestowed on it, and was entitled to universal ap plause. He declared, he had sanguine hopes, that in the adjustment of a business of so very delicate and important a nature, men, of every descrip- $ipn, would have concurred in one leading and c 3 essential 22 essential circumstance, viz. that let there exist what doubt there might of the prince of Wales's right tq exercise the royal authority, under the present circumstances of the country," there could* be none of the propriety of investing him with the sole administration of government, and with f;he exercise of all the regal functions, powers, and prerogatives.-— His opiniqn- therefore was, tq declare his royal highness regent, for the purpose qf exercising all the regal powers, in the same manner, and to the same extent ? as' they might have been exercised by his majesty, had his health been such as to render him- capable cf continuing to exercise the royal authority. Mr. Pitt maintained his former-opinion; insist ed that the prince of Wales had no abstract right to assume the functions of royalty, without the previous consent of both houses of parliament ; and declared' that it was the duty of the house in the first instance to decide, whether there was any - right in the': prince of Wales to claim the exercise, of the regal power, under any circumstances of the 23 the country, independent of the actual demise of the crown. ^ Mr. Fox, in explanation, observed, that when he stated that the prince of Wales had a right to exercise the royal authority, he must undoubtedly have meant, to exercise it as a trust from the people, which parliament might resume, alter, and modify, just as parliament thought proper. If that trust was abused essentially, the people of England might resume it, as had been done in the case of the revolution. In all cases of ne cessity, forms, which were meant only for the protection of their liberties, must give way to what they were intended, not to oppose but, to guard. The regency was a trust, in behalf of the people, for which the prince was responsible, in like mann^ as his majesty, and every, monarch that ever sat upon the throne, were responsible for the due execution of their high office. — He professed that he saw no sort of necessity for coming to a division on an abstract^propositiori, when they had measures of -so much solidity and gubstance to take ; and thought it better for both C 4 houses 24 houses ,to convince men by their acts, aud not ,by# abstract resolutions; A A variety of circumstances concurred to render the agitation of the prince's right extremely illi timed for the party with whom Mr. Fox acted, All public bodies are fond of power ; and the par-: liament of Great Britain, being told by grave authority that they had a sceptre to bestow, .with feelings very natural for a public body in such a predicament, were unwilling to wave so important a privilege. Another consideration was, the un popularity of the prince qf Wales. His debts had been paid the preceding year to a large amount, and the minister had dexterously contrived that all the odium qf that measure should rest with the confidential friends ofthe prince. But what per haps operated most to the disadvantage of the heir apparent, was a ridipulous report which prevailed at this time, and was credulously be lieved by many, whose stations in life should haye rendered them superior to so gross a ca lumny, that his royal highness had contracted a marriage, according to the rites of the Romish church, 25 church, with a catholic lady. It was in vain that the friends of the prince declared, that the fact not only never could have happened legally in consequence of the restrictions of the royal mar riage act, but never did happen in any way, and had from the beginning been a vile and malig nant falsehood. Notwithstanding an explicit de claration to this effect was made in the house qf commons, by Mr. Fox, at the time when the prince of Wales's debts were under considera tion!, it was very far from removing suspicion ; and many honest and well-meaning members of parliament, who otherwise probably would have yoted for the prince of Wales's absolute right to the regency, under a strong jealousy of this connection, supported the proposition of the mi nister. Above all, the peculiar circumstances of popular delusion under which the house of com mons was convened, and which gave the minister so powerful an influence in that house, still existed ;n considerable force, and therefore any proposi tion proceeding from the distinguished leader of the opposition was certain to be received with the utmost circumspection and reserve. In 26 In a committee on the state of the nation, December 16, the prince's claim to the regency was fully discussed, and a resolution passed, deT daring, that it was the right and duty of the lords and commons to provide the means of supplying the defect of the personal exercise of the royal authority, arising from his majesty's in disposition. Mr. Pitt, . who took the lead in this important debate, observed, that as a doubt had been thrown on the existence of what he had ever conceived as the most sacred and important right of the two houses of parliament, it became absolutely necessary for them to decide that doubt, and by such decision ascertain whether they had a right to deliberate, or whether their deliberations must be exceedingly short, and they should only have to adjudge, that such a right as had been mentioned was legally vested in his royal highness the prince of Wales. In his opinion, no such right or claim vested in the prince qf Wales, as heir apparent, tq exercise the royal authority during the incapacity of the sovereign, could be proved either from precedents drawn from his tory, from law, or from the spirty of the consti tution. 27 tution. He contended, that all precedents* of inr .capacity in the sovereign, whether from illness* infancy, or absence, were precedents in principle, and applicable by clear analogy and logical in ference ; and he called on Mr. Fox to point out a single case of the infancy, infirmity, or illness pf a sovereign, in- which the full powers of sove reignty were executed by any one person what ever. The precedents quoted by Mr. Pitt were those of Edward the Third, Richard the Second, and Henry the Sixth, in all which instances it appeared that the royal authority had been con ferred, by the grant of the two houses of parlia ment. Mr. Fox attacked these precedents with ad mirable ingenuity of argument. Was the practice pf the present times, said he, times so enlightened, and ip which the principles of the constitution were so well understood, to be grounded on pre cedents drawn frprn so dark, and barbarqus a period pf our history as the reign of Henry the Vlth ? Were the rights of the house of commons, and its proceedings in one of the most difficult moments (¦'¦'¦.-- ¦ that 28 that had ever occurred, to be maintained and vindicated by the example of the house of lords ; at a time when that house of lords had the com plete dominion of the executive government, which they exercised with no unsparing hand; at a time when the rights of the commons house of parliament were so ill understood, or so weakly sustained, that its speaker was actually in prison, on commitment of the house of lords ; in prison upon a judgment in favour of that duke of York, whose measures administration had avowed it to be their intention to imitate ? Let the committee reflect a moment on the period, the infamous transactions of which were chosen to be made the model of the proceedings of that day ; that period which led immediately to the wars between the houses of York and Lancaster, and was that melancholy aera, at which all the dismal scenes of anarchy, confusion, civil warfare, and blood shed, that so long desolated the kingdom, apd reduced it to a state qf unparalleled disgrace and distress,' commenced. Were the committee to select their precedents from such times, and to govern their conduct. by such examples ? From 1 a time 29 a time too when the house of commons was prostrate at the feet of the house of lords, when the third estate had lost all energy and vigour, and when all the power lay wholly in the hands of the barons. Precedents drawn from such times could not be resorted to with safety, because there was no analogy between the constitution then, and the constitution as established at the revolution, and since practised. All precedents taken from periods preceding the revolution, must be pre cedents that bore no analogy to the present case ; because at no one period, before the revolution, was civil liberty clearly defined and "understood, the rights of the different branches ofthe legisla ture ascertained, and the free spirit of our con stitution felt and acknowledged. The early periods of our history were such as only shewed the changes of hands, into which power shifted, as the circumstances of the times ordained. In one reign, the power would He found to have been in the king, and then he was an absolute tyrant ; in others, the barons possessed it, and held both king and commons in the most slavish subjection ; sometimes the democracy prevailed, and all tlie oppressions so oppressions of a democratical government ih their fullest enormity. No precedent, therefore, drawn from times so variable, where right and wrong were so often confounded, ought to be relied om Amidst all the precedents, either in the history of Britain, or the records of parliament, he desired to know if they had found one of a prince of Wales, of full age and full capacity, who had been denied lh®exercise ofthe sovereignty, during the known ana declared incapacity qf the sove* reign .? Two assertions of positive right, he observed, had been made on both sides of the house. On his side, the assertion of the right of the prince of Wales, being heir apparent, and of full age and capacity, to exercise the sovereign authority during his majesty's infirmity. On that of the minister, the assertion that the prince had no more right to exercise the sovereign authority, under such circumstances, than any other indi vidual subject. Since the right honourable gen tleman was determined to make it a personal question between them, since he condescended ' to 31 to consider him as his rival, and chose to have recourse to his majority, why would he not try his opinion, and let the question be, " That it is the opinion of this committee, that his royal highness the prince of Wales, being.-h.eir apparent, and of full age and capacity, has rib more right' to ex- ercise the royal authority, during his majesty's incapacity, than any other individual subject." The minister well .knew, he durst not venture to subject such a question to debate. He well knew, that with all his majorities, he could not risque it ; he well knew, that if he could have so far lost sight of prudence, as to have hazarded such a question, notwithstanding his high character, and known influence within those walls, there would not have been twenty members who would. have supported him in it. In fact, he well knew, that the moment he let such an opinion escape his lips, it was execrated by all who heard it, and that it had since been execrated by all who had heard it out of doors. What had been the con sequence of this ? Conscious of his error, and conscious that so monstrous a doctrine as he had suffered himself, in an evil hour, to deliver, , had revolted 32 revolted the public mind, the right honourable gentleman had seized on the first moment that offered, to qualify what he had said, by unne cessarily coming forward with a declaration, that, though he would not admit the prince of Wales's right to exercise the sovereign authority, during the incapacity of his father, yet he confessed, that on grounds of expediency, and, . as a matter of discretion, the person to hold the (regency ought to be the prince of Wales, and no other; that it would be wrong to appoint any other person than the heir apparent to the regency ; but that tlie house had certainly no idea of possessing a right, which, if exercised, became a wrong. He had acknowledged that this right, which he had insisted belonged to the two houses of parliament, would be a breach of duty to their constituents ; yet he would not give up the right, but vindicated its propriety from his discretion in the use of it. This mode of argument, Mr. Fox said, remind ed him of what had passed in that house about thirteen years before, between an eminent crown lawyer (lord Thurlow) and himself. At the time to 33 to which he referred, the argument was the right of this country to tax America, when he contend ed, that Great Britain had an undoubted rig)it to tax her American colonies, but that the exercise of that right would be in the highest degree un justifiable on the part of Great Britain. In answer to this, that great lawyer, with a quaintness pe culiar to himself, said, "I should be glad to know what that right is, which, when attempted to be exercised, becomes a wrong?" In the present case, the right honourable gentleman had acted upon the converse of the great lawyer's maxim ; he had pronounced the right a wrong, and having done so, he had immediately proceeded to exercise it in the most effectual manner. It was the su preme legislature alone, Mr. Fox maintained, had power to do wrong. In one point of view only could he imagine the existence of a right, which, when exercised, might become a wrong, and that was this ; when the three branches/of the legislature, • consisting of king, lords, and com mons, had a right to authorise and act a moral evil. They might set aside the succession, and deprive the prince of Wales of his hereditary vol. ii. D right •4 right to succeed his present majesty ; but this enormity could not of right be practised by the two houses of parliament, independent of the con sent of his majesty, any more than the minister could set himself up in competition with the prince of Wales, and contest with him as a claim ant for the regency. Pie repeated his opinion that a right attached to the prince of Wales, as heir apparent, to exer cise the sovereign authority, upon the king's in capacity being declared by the two houses of parliament ; the prince's right, however, being all along considered as subject to the adjudication of the two houses of lords and commons. This opinion he had not changed, nor did he feel the smallest disposition to change it ; and indeed an ' honourable and learned gentleman (sir R. P. Ar den, the master of the rolls) seemed to be so much of his opinion, that he had, if he un derstood him rightly, expressly declared) that in case of the demise of the crown, nothing short of an act of exclusion could prevent the prince from, succeeding to the throne ; and that nothing short 3S short of such conduct as would deservedly warrant an act of exclusion, ought to set a prince of Wales, of full age, and full capacity, aside from the regency. The counter opinion to his was fraught with so mahy, and such enormous evils> that he was persuaded no moderate man, who considered the subject with the degree of atten tion that it most undoubtedly merited, would, for » a moment, maintain it, either on the ground of right, of expediency, or of discretion. But whatever his opinion was, why should that right be discussed, which had been neither claim ed, nor was intended to be claimed P^—That this was the precise state of the fact, was not to be doubted, since the declaration that had been so graciously communicated from the highest autho rity in another place *. Of the manner in which that * The question ofthe prince of Waies's right to the regent cy had been discussed in the house of lords the preceding evening, when the duke of York, in the name of the prince, assured their lordships, that tChis royal 'highness understood too well the nature of, and too religiously reverenced those n 2 sacred 36 that communication had been made, and the com mendation that was due to the exalted personage who made it, he would not say one word, because he would not run the risque of having what was due to merit, mistaken for fulsome adulation, and servile flattery. But the claim thus disavowed) how must the preamble of a bill run, truly to describe the case as it stood at present ? — " Whereas his royal highness the prince of Wales has never claimed a right to the regency, it be comes necessary for the lords spiritual and tem poral, and for the commons of England to de clare, that his royal highness has no right, and we, therefore, do declare his royal highness sole regent of these kingdoms." Mr. Fox reasoned on the absurdity of a bill so worded, and contended that it must be so worded, Sacred principles which seated the house of Brunswick on the throne of Great Britain, ever to assume or exercise any power, be his claim, what it might, that was not derived from the authority of their lordships, and from the will of the people, conveyed through their representatives, in parlia. ment assembled. >) . if 37 if they made a course of law the ground-work of the bill, unless they falsified the fact. All this difficulty and embarrassment, he observed, was created when there was not the smallest occasion for it, since it was the concurrent opinion of the whole nation, that the prince of Wales should be the regent. Why then should the right ho nourable gentleman thus agitate the matter, un less it were for the little purpose of personal triumph ? He condemned the boasting language that had been held on this occasion of gratitude to the sovereign, and the strong assertions that had been made use of, that such gratitude should be ex emplified by the conduct of those, who confessed themselves under personal obligations to the sove reign *. Personal attachment, he contended, was no * Mr. Fox probably glanced here at what had fallen from lord Thurlow in the upper house the preceding even ing, and occasioned much notice at the time. His lordship said, "his feelings were rendered more poignant, from hav- jpg been in habits of personally receiving various marks of i v 3 indulgence 38 no fit ground for public conduct ; and those who had declared they would take care of the rights of indulgence and kindness from the suffering sovereign. His debt of gratitude to his majesty was ample, for the many favours his majesty had graciously bestowed upon him, which, when he forgot, might God forget him." Mr. Burke, alluding to this celebrated speech, and another by the same noble person, in which he compared the king to the unfbr, tunate Darius, *' Deserted in his utmost need By those ~his former bounty fed," observed, with sarcastic ridicule, that l( the theatrical tears which were shed on those occasions, were not the tears of patriots for dying , laws, — but of lords for their expiring places. The iron tears that flowed down Pluto's cheek, rather resembled the bubbling of the Styx, than the gentle murmuring stream of Aganippe. In fact, they were tears for his majesty's bread ; yet those, who shed them, would stick by the king's loaf as long as a single cut pf it remain ed ; they would fasten to the hard crust, and gnaw it, while two crumbs of it held together ; and what was more ex traordinary, they would proudly declare at the time, that it was the honour of the service, and the dignity of their offices, 30. of the sovereign, because they had received fa vours af his hands, betrayed a little mind, and warranted a conclusion, that if they had not re- - ceived those favours, they, would have been less mindful of their duty, and have acted with less zeal for his interest. He owned himself indebted to the heir apparent, for having been for several years favoured with his confidence ; but neither had that flattering mark of distinction been made the subject of his speeches in that house, nor had „ he ever considered it as a proper motive for his public conduct. He was, and always had been, ready to avow his attachment ; and when he men tioned his regard for the princes of the house of Brunswick, it was not to superinduce obliquely his own praise, from the confidence which they placed in him. That was a narrow principle, which he should ever hold in disdain. Neither on the present occasion, nor at any time, if he thought the objects of his royal highness incompatible with offices, which they regarded ; and that, as to: the emolument, they did not value the money three skips of a louse. This was gratitude, a degree of gratitude which courtiers never failed to exhibit !" - » 4 the 40 the public interests, should he think he paid a compliment to the prince, any more than he should think he acted consistently with what was due to his own character, in suffering the con sideration of the terms on which he lived with his royal highness to bias him in the smallest degree, or induce him to act contrary to what he, in his conscience, thought most likely to pro mote the welfare of the public. Whereas the right honourable gentleman appeared to act on a very opposite principle, and repeatedly intro- , duced the name of the sovereign, though seldom for any other purpose than an ostentatious display of the confidence reposed in himself. He rarely mentioned the royal family, or the royal person, but it terminated in a pompous display of his own merits, in an indirect encomium on himself. To the house of Brunswick this country stood in an eminent, degree indebted ; indeed, few princes ever deserved the love of their subjects more than the princes of that house. Since their accession to the throne, their government had been such, as to render it highly improbable, that there should ever be ground for an act of exclusion to passi to 41 to set aside one of their heirs from the succes sion, or that such a circumstance should ever become a necessary subject of deliberation. If the princes ofthe house of Brunswick had at any time differed with their subjects, it had been only on collateral points, which had been easily adjust ed in parliament. No one of the princes of that house had ever made an attempt against the con stitution of the country, although, had such a mischievous design been meditated, there had, at most times, been a party existing, that would have been ready to abet them in any scheme, the blackest and most fatal that ever tyrant devised against the liberties, or the happiness of his sub jects. The love, therefore, of the people, was due to the illustrious family on the throne, in so peculiar and eminent a degree, that every thing that looked, as if it could, at any distance, endan ger the hereditary right ofthe house of Brunswick to the succession, ought to be guarded against with peculiar jealousy and peculiar caution. Exclusive of the public voice, not only the Spirit of the constitution pointed out the heir ap parent 42 parent as the fittest person to be regent, but the act of settlement might be defeated, if his royal highness were passed by, and the doctrine of the right honourable gentleman carried into effect- Let the committee consider the danger of making any other person regent besides the prince of Wales. If tlie two houses could choose a re gent, they might choose whom they pleasedN; they might choose a foreigner, a catholic, (for the law defines not the regent,) who, while he held the power of the third estate, might prevail on the other two branches of the legislature to con cur with him, alter, or set aside the succession,. and turn away the house of Brunswick, and put them in the situation of the house of Stuart. He saw this- doctrine was deemed extravagant, but he meant to put an extravagant case : he did not, however, put an impossible one ; and he had the same right with numbers on the opposite side, who, in all their reasonings, argued the danger, or the inconvenience they apprehended, on possi bilities only. Let them turn to the favourite period of our history, favourite at least with the ' pther side of the house, the reign pf Henry the Sixth, 43 Sixth, and they would find that Richard duke of York took advantage of his power as protector of the kingdom, actually disinherited the prince of Wales, and the whole line of Lancaster, though they were more nearly allied, and had much better pretensions to the crown than the house of York. The same dismal scene that had disgraced our annals, at that period, might be acted over again, if the two houses of parliament ever concurred to subvert the constitution, by assuming to them selves the exercise of the royal prerogative, and arrogating the right to legislate, and to make law, in the teeth ofthe statute of the 13th of Charles the Second, which not only declared that the two houses of parliament could not make laws without the consent and concurrence of the king, but also declared, that whoever should presume to affirm the contrary, should be guilty of high trea son, and incur the pains and penalties of a pr• fitter for colleges of dis putation, than a British house of commons, if a question that so deeply involved the existence of the constitution were to be thus discussed. He asked, where was that famous dictum to be founds that declared the crown to be guarded with so much sanctity, and left its powers at the mercy Of every assailant ? After exposing the absurdity of legal metaphy-. sics, and^calling upon the gownsmen to shew him the dictum that supported the opposite assertion, viz. that the prince of Wales had no more right to cise of the natural capacity might be supplied, to meet the exigencies of government." — Such were the ridiculous sub tleties to which a great lawyer had recourse in a case so plain, that any thing short of absolute perversion of mind, or the most infatuated self interest, could not have hesitated a moment to have pronounced a right judgment upon it. exercise 51 exercise the royal authority, during his majesty's incapacity, than any other individual subject." Mr. Fox proceeded to notice that part of the argument advanced against him, that he had deserted the cause which he had, heretofore, been supposed to claim the peculiar merit of standing forth, on all occasions, to defend ; the privileges of the house of commons, against the encroach ments ofthe prerogatives of the crown. His own resistance ofthe latter, he said, when he thought it had been increasing unconstitutionally, was well known ; the influence of the crown had been more than once checked in that house, and, he really believed, to the advantage of the people. Whenever the executive authority was urged be yond its reasonable extent, it ought to be resisted ; and he carried his ideas on that head so far, that he had not scrupled to declare, that the supplies ought to be stopped, if the royal assent were to be refused to a constitutional curtailment of any obnoxious and dangerous prerogative. Moderate men, he was, aware, thought this a dangerous doctrine ; but he had uniformly maintained it ; aad the public had derived advantage from its e 2 having 52 having been carried into effect. He desired to ask, however, if this were an occasion for exercis ing the constitutional power of resisting the pre rogative, or influence of the crown in that house ? He had ever made it his pride to combat vvith the crown in the plenitude of its powers and the fullness of its authority ; he did not wish to trample on its rights, while it lay ex tended at their feet, deprived of its functions, and incapable of resistance. Let the right ho nourable gentleman pride himself on a victory obtained against a defenceless foe ; let him boast of a triumph where no battle has been fought, where no glory could be obtained. Let him take advantage of the calamities of human nature ; let him, like an unfeeling lord of the manor, riot in the riches to be acquired by ' plundering ship wrecks, by rigorously asserting a right to the waifs, estrays, deodands, and all the accumulated produce of the various accidents that misfortune could throw; into his power. Let it not be my boast (exclaimed the orator) to have gained such vic tories, obtained such triumphs, or advantaged myself of wealth so acquired. Mr. 53 Mr. Fox concluded with forcibly calling upon ' every honest member of the house not to vote without perfectly understanding what the question went to, as well as the resolutions. With regard to the right honourable gentleman's motives, he knew not what they were ; but if there was an ambitious man in that house, who designed to drive the empire into confusion, his conduct, he conceived, would have been exactly that which the right honourable gentleman had pursued* The resolutions moved, he considered as insidi ously calculated to convey a censure on an opinion that he had delivered, while they served as an evasion of an assertion, ¦ highly revolting to the public mind, made by the chancellor of the ex chequer. This, he repeated, was a pitiful shift, totally irreconcileable with the confidence which the right honourable gentleman placed in the expectation of a majority. In majorities, he had no great trust. For more than eighteen years of his political life, he had been obliged to stem the torrent of political power, and sometimes he had enjoyed the satisfaction of finding' himself in a majority ofthe same parliament, of which, in the e 3 prosecution 54 prosecution of the same principles, and the de claration of the same designs, , he had only been supported by a minority before. Whether he was, therefore, in a majority or a minority, was the same thing to him. He would never, insidi ously, take advantage of the one to carry any measure, under the colour of another ; any more than to abandon or flinch', from any question, merely because he thought he should be abandon ed by the house. On a division of the house on this memorable occasion, the minister's resolutions were carried by a majority of 64— the numbers being for the resolutions 268 — against them 204. On the 22d of December, Mr. Pitt brought forward his third resolution, empowering the lord chancellor to affix the great seal td such bill of limitations as might be necessary to restrict the power of the future regent. This mode of pro cedure was opposed with great strength of argu ment by Mr. Burke, lord North, and Mr. Fox. The latter observed, that much stress had been laid 55 laid on the forms of law ; he had ever . regarded them merely as the guards of the substance ; and he thought that whenever they departed from a secondary office to a principal, they, were no longer entitled to his respect, but he must in stantly refer to the substance and essence of the constitution. In proceeding on this measure, Mr. Fox said, there were three courses which -might have been taken. The first of these was suggested by the forms pursued in the first year of Henry the Sixth, a precedent which had been often quoted. The mode, then pursued, was by granting a commis sion under the great seal, to the heir next of blood, empowering him to convene the parlia ment, with all the regal privileges annexed to that act, of proroguing, dissolving, &c. This was, in his opinion, infinitely a more eligible manner 6f attaining the royal assent than that now pro posed : in the one, the assent was obtained by a fair fiction, in the other by a low fraud. The consent to be given, naturally, implied its oppo site, and no consent could be alledged as fairly e 4 given, 56 given, when there was not, at the same time, an opportunity of dissent. — Two circumstances^ were always to be inferred from this and other precedents, of the same date,-^that the regency was ever conferred on the next of blood — and , that it was then given, with the power he had stated, in all its plenitude. Little could be drawn from the limitations afterwards laid on the duke of Gloucester, which sprung not from the reason of his situation but from the exigency of the moment. The whole of the transaction was worth some degree of contemplation. On the demise of Henry the Fifth the crown devolved to his son, an infant of only nine months old. The council, at that time in existence, repaired to the infant king, and the bishop of Durham, then chancellor, delivered the great seal, not, he sup posed, into the personal hands of Henry the Sixth, because he could hardly be capable of receiving it. The duke of Gloucester, the nearest of kin to the king, took the seals, and delivered them to the master of the rolls, directing him to put the great seal to a committee appointing him protector, in the name, and on the behalf, of the 5? the king ; also to a number of writs summoning the parliament to meet at Westminster. In that parliament, one of the first things done, was to pass an act of ratification and indemnity, for having summoned a parliament in that manner^ and to declare it a legal parliament. Here then was a regular legislature, which recognized the third estate in the person of the duke of Glou- pester, who, represented the crown, and had all the powers and prerogatives in their full extent, in like manner as if he had been the sovereign; and it was observable, that such was the respon sibility annexed to the duke of Gloucester's high office, that amidst all the acts of indemnity, passed by that parliament, the duke desired no indemnity for having thus employed the great seal.— This instance clearly made out in favour of his argu ment, for addressing the prince of Wales to take upon himself the regency. — They were called upon to set up a pageant, without the exercise of dis cretion, in giving either assent to a bill, or dissent from it ; a mere puppet,, a creature of the two houses of parliament, directed to obey them, and obliged, without any discretion, to give assent to such 58 such bill or bills as tney should think proper to pass. The other precedents in the reign of Henry the Sixth, were those of the 32d ahd 33d of Henry, when, through a temporary infirnfity of the king, the duke of York was appointed re gent. Mr. Fox commented on these two prece dents, and shewed, that in both there was an actual third estate, exercising all the discretion as to giving the royal assent or dissent, enjoying the power of dissolving, proroguing, and conven ing parliament. It was to be observed, however, that the transfer of the regal authority was, in those, days, made by the council, which was then an executive council, or by the house of peers, which, at that time, frequently acted in the same capacity. — The first time that it was done, auctoritate parliamenti, was in the instance of the duke of York, and immediately after the battle of St. Alban's, when the sound of arms had been heard> and when sober deliberation had, of course, been' put to flight. To 59 To avoid ambiguities in this discussion, it be came necessary, he said, to remark, that when- ever he spoke of the two houses acting of them selves, and without the concurrence of the third estate, he should speak of them as the two houses of parliament : whenever they had the sanction of the kingly power, he should mention them as the legislature.— This distinction, taken properly, would enable the house, puzzled as it had been in a maze of laboured difficulties, to distinguish fairly for themselves. Mr. Fox then proceeded to consider the revo lution, as a leading precedent in the present ir; stance, the circumstances of which he distin guished as applicable to the present case, or the contrary. The one was an occasion arising from the misconduct of an arbitrary monarch; the other, a circumstance springing from accident. The one was an occasion, where wise men, looking to the end, were indifferent about the means, made every form give way. They were afraid, lest a foreign invader might take advantage of their domestic discontents, and join an external to 60 to an intestine war. All the actions springing from such a fear were, of course, inapplicable at the present moment, when no such assault was to be dreaded. He should, therefore, wholly lay out of the case, as inapplicable in point of analogy, all the circumstances of alarm that prevailed, from the danger to the nation of losing its liberties, religion, and constitution ; on which account the convention set aside king James, and his son, the prince of Wales, and did not appoint his daughter Mary sovereign ; but declared William and Mary king and queen ; obviously, for the reason, that he was the only person fit for. them to choose, because he was the ,only person capable of de fending their liberties and religion, and preserving the nation from the imminent danger with which it was threatened. At the revolution the two houses proceeded to declare William and Mary, king and queen. They looked to the only sove reign whom they could elect, and they proceeded not by mockery and fiction, but by an immediate address to the object of their choice. The convention, continued Mr. Fox, knew thq 6l the distinction between the organs which the legislature can use, and those which the two houses of parliament are compelled to employ. The for mer proceeds by act or bill — the latter by address or declaration ; and thus it was in the case now mentioned. A part of their grievances was stated as being violations of existing laws ; another, as resulting from the inadequacy of the laws to afford protection to the subject. Between these a broad line of distinction was drawn — they declared the former as matter of fact ; and they reserved the latter to be guarded against by the prpvisions of a future statute. An attentive retrospect of these cases would serve to shew, that the former prece dents tended to sanction the mode which he had hinted at, of a commission granted to the prince pf Wales ; the latter cases went rather to justify - the address proposed by the amendment * — but ,' . the * The amendment proposed by Mr. Dempster was, to omit the latter part of Mr. Pitt's resolution after the words " determine on the means," and insert in their stead, " that an humble address should be presented to his royal highness the prince of Wales, praying that he would take care ofthe civil 62 the expedient contained in the resolution was completely condemned, by a comparative recur rence to either class of precedent. The statute ofthe 13th of Charles the Second was positive in its tenor, that any person mention ing the power of the two houses to legislate with out the concurrence of the sovereign, should in cur the penalties of a praemunire; yet in this instance, they were, in fact, to proceed to legislate without the king. But whom, he would ask, was the person, appointed by the commission, to consult or to obey ? Was he to apply to the sove reign in his present state ? No such thing could be mentioned. Was he to consult the council ? No ! there was no council at present. The two houses of parliament were, in fact, to legislate, and to perform between themselves the kingly functions. — The statute of the 13th of Charles the Second had been made for the purpose of condemning the long parliament, which had passed civil and military government of these realms during the continuance of his majesty's illness, and ho longer." SO 63 so many ordinances without the consent of the legal sovereign. But if the solicitqr-general *, said Mr. Fox, had then been in office, instead of sir Oliver St. John, the case would have been very different. The former would have certainly sug gested the easy expedient of putting a man of straw, by a commission, in the place of the king ; he would have issued every act in his name under the great seal, and who could then doubt their legality or propriety ? — And yet, added Mr. Fox, had this been so argued in the house of commons at that time, it is a matter of doubt whether the tyranny would have been looked on as more de plorable, or the sophistry more miserable. The first alarm to war, in the preceding unfor tunate reign, had been given by the notice that the king's messages were not to be received but through that house. This was again contradicted in the parliament of Charles the Second, by whom it was declared, that the king's authority should not be conveyed hut by himself or his * Sir John Scott, now lord Eldon. deputy. 64 deputy. This was a sufficient proof that the regal authority was by no means so communicable as had lately been supposed.— If the house did that which was dictated only by necessity, the exigency ofthe case would' be their justification; but if they went farther, the judges would certainly not pursue, nor be guided according to their acts. If they proceeded as a convention, their proceedings were constitutionally limited to a declaration or address ; but if they erected themselves into a le gislature, they would be controled by no powers on earth, but their own temperance and modera tion. Having fully argued upon the precedents of the revolution, and recommended it to the house, as a fit example for them to follow upon the pre sent occasion ; he said, it would, by him, be readily admitted, whichever way they proceeded, whether by address to the prince of Wales to take upon himself the regency, Or by adopting the method suggested by the minister, that the first act performed in such a case must be neces sarily informal ; but that they should hasten to recur 65 recur from the winding path of novelty, as sooti as possible, to the beaten road. — If the commis sion were given in the first instance to the prjnce^ then every part of the constitution would be restored to life and energy : — in the Other mode it would be totally incomplete in substance.-' — It, was also to be considered, that one step in their return to the constitutional path was preferable to many, and that the intermediate regent, now proposed, was, a being unknown to the constitU± tion. Mr. Fox concluded with some observations on the words of the resolution. He hjad, he said> in the course Pf this discussion, thrown out an opinion that a right attached to the heir apparent to exercise-the functions of royalty during the incapacity of the king, and that the two houses should recognise this right, and put hjm in pos session of it. In opposition to this opinion, the two houses came to a resolution that they alone possessed the right of nominating to the regency ; but at the same time declaring they thought the prince the most proper person to be appointed* vai,. ii. ' f Bowing 66 Bowing to their decision, he now wished them to go on, and to appoint the prince regent. Instead , of this, what was the language and spirit ofthe next resolution ? That they have no right, that they cannot appoint him. They must first, do. what was never done before in the history of this country, they must first form themselves into a legislature. Thus they first make a declaration of a right purely abstract ;, and having made it, they shrink from the exercise of the right they have arrogated^ He then warned the house against the adoption of specious pretexts, by' which, under the colour of original principles, they were to assume powers inconsistent with the constitution. There was no way so certain of bringing the the popular branch of the legislature into popular odium,' as by deviating from the pre cise path, marked out for it by the constitution,, and straying within the limits of the other two, whom it was their duty to. watch, but never to invade. Should they agree to the present resolu- : tion, they would facilitate the way to all the inroads of usurpation, and lend an aid to hasten the destruction of a fabric the most beautiful that 67 that human wisdom had ever reared, pr long ex* perience endeared to its delighted possessors. When the proposed limitations ofthe regent's powers came to be discussed, Mr. Fox opposed them with much force, as calculated to introduce weakness, disorder, and insecurity into every branch of political business ; to separate the court from the state ; and to establish a weak govern ment," and a strong opposition. He exposed, with great ability, the futility . of the doctrine advanced by the law officers, " that the king's political character wasj in the eye of the law, inseparable from his personal— that it remained entire and perfect — and would continue so to do until his natural demise." — This doctrine, which had been frequently urged, he had wished in vain to hear explained ; for how that person, said he, whose political faculties were confessedly suspended by a severe visitation of Providence, could still exist in the full enjoyment of his political character, was beyond his uqderstanding to comprehend* He well knew that human beings had been deifi-» ed, before a true and more rational religion was f 2 revealed; 68 revealed ; but it was done with the moral view1 of enforcing obedience to power, and making mankind happy. He knew also, that there were characters in this country, to which he affected not to lay claim, who were sometimes called, high churchmen, and sometimes tories, sometimes by one name, and sometimes by another, who had endeavoured to render majesty divine, in order to give vigour to authority. But what did we now ? We adopted the superstition of religion, and rejected its morality, which tended not to support government, but to enfeeble the arm of power. A learned gentleman had said, that his allegiance would continue during the life of the king, what ever might be the condition of his mind. This in some respects was true ; but if it was admitted as an argument for the limitations contended for, , and this allegiance was made to depend, not on the political capacity, but on the personal existence of the king, then all which they had heard, that these limitations were to be but temporary, and that the time would come when they must be revised, and, the full power be given to the regent, was false and absurd. For, whether the. king's ' malady 69 malady endured one year, or thirty years, it was precisely the same in the contemplation of this doctrine ; and the legislature could not vest the full powers of the crown in any other hands, while the person of the king remained. With respect to the creation of peers, if gen tlemen looked forward to a distant period, it would be found more dangerous than useful to restrict the prince's power of granting peerages. If he was not mistaken, which he could not suppose to be the case, the minister had conferred that rank upon no less than forty-two persons during the five years that he had been in office ; and he had not the pretext of saying that any cabal was formed to thwart his measures in the house of lords, which made such a promotion necessary, : 3nd if such were the means which he had been obliged to resort to, surrounded with all the power and influence of the crown, what must be the condition of those who should have to contend, in the crippled state to which they would be reduced, with an opposition armed with so large a portion of the usual patronage of government ? F 3 Mr, 70 . Mr. Fox contended strongly , against that part of the plan, which placed the whole disposal of the offices of the ' household in the hands of the queen. It was calculated to be productive of the most mischievous consequences. The minister exclaims, Who can imagine that a queen could combine against her son ? — -_at the same time, he asserts, that heirs apparent have joined against the interest of the crown. If such facts occur in political history, why may not a mother be equally supposed to combine against her son ? Have not Other queens been biassed by bad advisers, and was our queen less likely to be thus influenced, Mr. Fox said, that he knew enough of the human heart to be convinced, that a competition for power breaks and dissolves all the dearest ties of nature, kindred, tenderness, and affection ! The right honourable gentleman had asked, whether it could be supposed, that when he quitted his present office, he would head a factious opposi, tion ? That question he was not obliged to de termine, and did not think it proper to discuss, An opposition might be in earnest, but not fac tious, He had spent the greatest part pf his life in n in oppbsition, and though he might probably leave it for a time, he could not help feeling some hankering after opposition still. That love of former habits might; perhaps, arise fronvthe pro bability of his being sooner or later obliged to return to opposition again ; but from whatever cause' it originated, that love, that hankering re mained. — If the right honourable gentleman heads an opposition, let him not use unfair arms, or contrive any secret machinations. If any diminu tion of royal power be necessary, it is that of the crown, not that' of a regent; for a regent being naturally weaker than the government of a king, ought td be strengthened by every constitutional prerogative. If this country should be afflicted with the loss of the king, then let us watch his successor, and not grant him 'one atom of power beyond what is strictly necessary. — The right ho nourable gentleman having divested the regent of his just prerogatives, says, Do you wish for the purpose of giving away places, and offices^ and emoluments ? " My answer," continued Mr. Fox, " is, that I would not accept the gpvern- ment, without enjoying those powers and that f 4 ~ patronage patronage which are given me by the constitution. As for accepting such an office, for the mere sake of emolument, according to the low idea an nexed to the word, it is what I disdain. — And the right honourable, gentleman well knows, that if I sought an high office, merely on a principle of avarice, I must be the most ignqrant of mankind ! -Mr. Fox then asked, if the right honourable gentleman had not been said to have done eminent service to his country ; that he had served his country on the continent, he admitted, but Gould he have done it without the use of that patronage, and of those emoluments, now to be withheld from the regent ? Mr. Fox ridiculed the lords ofthe bed-chamber, and called them that praetorian band of household troops, who, though they had fought bravely under the banners of the right honourable gentleman, might, if placed in opposition, prove factious and •unsteady, and unable to endure the unproductive fatigues of an opposition campaign, might run over to the enemy. 'They were troops which the right hpnourable gentleman employed only on occasions occasions of danger. But let it be remembered that those servants of the crown might destroy the crown. The whole ground of the restrictions ofthe regency, was that of the probability of his raa» jesty 's recovery. He would not canvas that pro bability, but he must say, that the house went on most dangerous ground, when it changed the royal office rather than the royal person. To the period, said he, at which you conceive his ma jesty, if capable of being cured, is likely to recover, limit the restrictions, but do not limit the bill. The natural' consequence, in the time of Charles I. of the two houses legislating without the king, was, that they impaired the power ofthe crown, and ultimately ruined the constitution, which h:id not been their intention. Why do we, now attack the power of the crown ? Not for the generous purpose of diminishing its influence in favour of the people, but for the superabundant Jove of the king, and from a wish to secure his restoration. But how shall we secure it ? By mis trusting the regent, and placing an implicit power in ?4- in parliament > They had better distrust parlia ment than the prince of Wales, because the prince had the greater interest in the crown, which must devolve to him after the death of his father. It was said, will you suspect the power of giving away a few places can influence the queen ? He would not suspect it of influencing the queen, but a queen. He would suspect that the queen might be as capable of loving power, as the prince of Wales of wishing to preserve it ; and that she jhight be influenced by her advisers.. Mr. Fox approved the idea of committing his majesty's person into the hands of the queen, but lamented the circumstance of her having so much power 'placed in her hands as that of disposing of the offices of the household.— ^The question respect* iftg the household was plainly this : should the king have a pageantry, which he could not enjoy, to the detriment of the rights of the regent, and the principles of the constitution ? Before he sat down, Mr. Fox declared, that he should always consider his duty to his constituents as 75 as of the first importance, and prefer his duty in that house as a member of parliament, to that of being a servant to the crown. He should there-. fore be ready to oppose any inordinate power in the regent, as much as he used to do in the crown ; but he hoped and trusted the house would not give its authority to a measure, which tended to break all the strings of government, and to violate the constitution. This was the last time that Mr. Fox addressed the house on this singular occasion. His health had been impaired by the extreme rapidity of his journey from Italy, and he was now obliged to dis-, continue his parliamentary attendance, and repair to Bath. The king's recovery soon after super seded the necessity of any further proceedings in the business of a regency, and the government of the country quietly reverted into its old channel. On his, return to parliament, Mr. Fox, by the desire of his constituents, renewed a motion, which he had made before without success, for the repeal pf the shop tax. He began with remarking, that in 76 in the various debates which had taken place upon it, year after year, the enemies of the tax and its supporters met each other at length on this fair issue. The latter contended that it was not a tax which was ultimately to fall on the shopkeepers, but upon their customers ; while the latter main tained that it was actually a personal tax/ which could not possibly be drawn from the customers, and which must of course fall upon the shop-' keepers. Both sides admitted, that according to the principle on which the tax was imposed, the shopkeeper was to pay it in the first instance, but was afterwards to reimburse himself by charging it on the goods sold by him to his Customers. But both sides differed upon the matter of fatty, whe ther the shopkeeper could in reality reimburse himself at all : one side insisting that he could, the other as strenuously maintaining that he could not, Mr. Fox then said, that he considered the per severance of the shopkeepers , in praying for a repeal of it, as a strong presumption that the tax lav entirely upon them ; for men would not give themselves 77 themselves and parliament so much trouble, to seek relief from the burde(n of a tax, which it was in their power to throw upon the shoulders of others. The shopkeepers of London, West minster, and Southwark, were most liable to the Oppression of this tax, and consequently best en abled to judge whether they felt it to be oppres sive or not :' and they had unanimously, steadily, and unremittingly opposed the tax, on the ground that it was oppressive to an intolerable degree.— Among other objections to the tax, he stated that, after three years' experience, it did not ap pear to be a growing tax ; on the contrary, it was evident from the papers presented to the house, that the produce ofthe tax in Westminster alone, for the last year, fell four thousand pounds short of the produce of the tax in Westminster for the preceding year. Mr. Pitt, after moving an omission of that part of the preamble of the bill of repeal, by which the tax was pronounced " a partial and oppressive imposition, militating against the just principles of taxation,'' gave his consent to Mr. Fox's motion, which 78 which accordingly was carried, and, to the great satisfaction of the trading part of his constituents^ passed into a law. The last discussion of importance, during the remainder of the session, which drew forth the powers of Mr. Fox's mind, was the debate on the 8th of May, on Mr. Beaufoy's motion for the re peal of the corporation and test acts; The motion was supported by Mr. Fox in a most eloquent and animated speech. It was laid down by this great advocate of toleration, as a primary maxim 6( policy, " that no human government had juris diction over opinions as such, and more parti cularly over religious opinions. It had no right to presume that it knew them, and much less to act upon that presumption. When opinions were productive of acts injurious to society, the law knew how and where to apply the remedy. If the reverse of this doctrine were adopted, if the actions of men were to be prejudged from their opinions, it would sow the seeds of everlasting jealousy and distrust : it would give the most un limited scope to the malignant passions ; it would incite 1b incite each man to condemn the opinions of his neighbour, to deduce mischievous consequences from them, and then to prove that he ought to incur disabilities, to be fettered with restrictions,. to be harassed with penalties.'. " From this intolerant principle had flowed every species of party zeal, every system of poli tical persecution, every extravagance of religious hate. It was an irreverent and impious opinion to maintain, that the church must depend for support as an engine or ally of the state, and not on the evidence of its doctrines, and the excellency of their moral effects. Moderation and indul gence to other sects were equally conducive to the happiness of mankind, and to the safety ofthe church. " Since the sera of the revolution the church had flourished, because her imaginary fears had been dissipated. She had improved in knowledge and candour, because, instead of being enabled to impose silence on the. dissenters by the strong hand of power> she had been obliged to hear their arguments ; 2 80 arguments ; and the community at large had found the happy effects, which a collision of opinions in open and liberal discussion, among men living Under the same government^ never fails to produce. There were many men not of the establishment, to whose services their country had a claim. Surely a citizen of this description might be permitted without danger or absurdity to say, ' Though I dissent from the churchy I am a friend to the constitution ; and on religious sub jects I am entitled to think and act as I please.* Ought the country to be deprived of the benefit she might derive from the talents of such men, and his majesty be prevented from dispensing the favours of the crown except to one description of his subjects ?" Mr. Fox declared himself a friend to an esta blishment of religion in every country, framed agreeably to the sentiments of the majority of its inhabitants. But to invest that establishment with a monopoly of civil and religious privileges, was palpably unjust, and remote from the purpose of the establishment, which was no otherwise con-* nected SI nected with the state, than- as it tended to pro* mote morality and good order among the people. The test and corporation acts had subsisted, it was contended, for ro6re than a century. True ; but how had they subsisted ? By repeated sus pensions. For the indemnity bills were, literally speaking, annual acts. Where then would be the impropriety of suspending them for ever by an act of perpetual operation ? — Let not Great Britain be the last to avail herself of the general improve ment of the human understanding. Indulgence to other sects, a candid, respect for their opinions, and a desire to promote charity and good will, were the best proofs that any religion could give of its divine origin. To the church of England in particular he would, say, " Tu¦ and inactivity — whj£ should we dread her sudden "declaration of hos tilities ? But even if she were ' to .emerge from her misfortunes as suddenly as she was involved in them, he would recommend the argument of the secretary of state (Mr. Grenville) as a con solation — " The flourishing state ofthe finances." It was a wise "and happy preamble, Mr. Fox. said, .established by our ancestors in the mutiny bill, that it should assign as a reason for a stand ing army, the preservation- ofthe political balance of Europe. He lamented, that it was the nature of kings, ministers, generals, and those of a simi lar description, to oppose the reduction of the army. If a minister, the professed friend of man kind, should, however,, stand forward in ^favour of such a measure, " he must arm himself with points; he must arm himself with resolutions;, he " &7 '" he must be emboldened to proceed in his re forms." — On the whole, hes regretted that the ministry seized at every pretence for an augmen tation of the army, without weighing any for a reduction. It was playing with the feelings of the people, to come forward every year, and justify augmentations in the military forces. He hoped, therefore, that the house would call for an ample explanation of the system so warmly recom mended. '{ 'Mr. Burke rose to reply to Mr. Fox. He was of opinion that our present dangers from France arose from her example ; and he thought the very worst part ofthe example set was, in the' late assumption of citizen-ship by the army, and the whole of the arrangement, or rather disarrange- ment of their military. i r - i "He was very sorry that his right honqurable < * friend (Mr. Fox) had dropped even a word ex pressive of exultation on that circumstance ; or that he seemed of opinion that the objection from standing armies was at all lessened by it. He at- ¦j g 4 tributed tributed this opinion of Mr. Fox entirely to his known zeal for , the. best of all causes, liberty* That it was with a pain inexpressible he was obliged to have even a shadow of a difference with his friend, whose authority would always be great with him, and with all thinking people— Qua; maxima semper consetur nobis; et ekit qua max ima semper. His confidence jn Mr. Fox was such, and so ample, as to be almost implicit. He was not ashamed to avow that degree of docility. That when the choice is well made, it strengthens instead of oppressing our .intellect. That he who calls in the aid of an equal under standing, doubles his own. He who profits of a superior understanding, raises his powers to a level with the height of the superior understanding he unites with. He had found the benefit of such a junction, and would not lightly depart from it. He wished, almost on all occasions, that his sen timents were understood to be conveyed in Mr. Fox's words ; and that he wished, as amongst the greatest benefits he could wish the country, an eminent share of power to that right honoura ble gentleman ; because he knew that, to his great 80 great and masterly understanding, he had joined the greatest possible degree of that natural mo deration, which is the best corrective of power ; that he was of the most artless, candid, and bene volent disposition; disinterested in the extreme; of a temper mild and placable, even to a fault ; withput one drop of gall in his whole consti tution. *" ' Mr. Burke continued, " That the house must perceive, from his coming forward to mark an expression or two of his best friend, how anxious he was to keep the distemper of France from the least countenance in England, where he was sure some wicked persons had shewn a strong1 disposi tion to recommend an imitation ofthe French spirit of reform. He was so strongly opposed to any the least tendency towards the means of introducing a democraqy like theirs, as well as to the end itself, that much as it would afflict him, if * " Substance of a Speech on the Army Estimates, 1790." Worts of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, vol. III. such 90 such a thing could be attempted, and that any friend of his could concur in such measures, (he was far, very far, from believing they could ;) he would abandon his best friends, and join with his worst enemies to oppose either the means or the end ; and to resist all violent exertions of the spirit of innovation, so -distant from all principles of true and safe reformation ; a spirit well calcu- f lated to overturn states, but perfectly unfit to 1 i amend them." He was no enemy to reformation, Mr. Burke said. Almost every business in which he was much concerned, from the first day he sat in that. house to that hour, was a business of reformation ; and when he had not been em ployed in correcting, he had been employed, in resisting abuses. Some traces of this spirit in him now stand on their statute book. — He thought the French ¦ nation, very unwise. What they valued themselves on, was a disgrace to them. — Instead of redressing grievances, and improving the fabric of their state, - to which they were called by their monarch, and ' sent by their country, they were made to take a' , very 91 very different course. They first destroyed all the balances and counterpoises which serve to fix the state, and give it a steady direction; and which furnish sure correctives to any violent spirit which may prevail in any of the orders. These they rashly destroyed, and then they melted down the whole into one incongruous, ill-connected mass. When they had done this, they instantly, with the most atrocious perfidy and breach of faith among men, laid the axe to the root of all property, and consequently of all national pros perity, by the principles- they established, and the example they set, in confiscating aU the posses_ sions of the church. They made. and recorded a sort of institute and digest of anarchy, called the rights of men ; and they systematically, destroyed every hold of authority by opinion, religious or civil, on the minds of the people. ^ By this mad declaration of-rights they subverted the state ; and brought such calamities aS no country, with out a long war, had ever been known to suffer. Mr. Bmke declared, he felt as much as any man, how difficult - it was to accommodate a ' ' standing 92 standing army to a free constitution. An armed, disciplined body was, in its essence, dangerous to liberty ; undisciplined, it was ruinous to society. Its component parts were, in the latter case, nei ther good citizens nor good soldiers. The French had put their army under such a variety of principles of duty, that it was more likely to breed litigants, petty foggers, and mutineers, than soldiers*. He felt some concern that this strange thing called a revolution in France, should be compared with the glorious event, commonly called the revolution in England. With us we gOt rid of the man, and preserved the constituent parts of the state. In France they get rid of the constituent parts of the state, and keep the man* What we did was in truth and substance, and in a constitutional light, a revolution not made, but prevented. We took solid securities; we settled doubtful questions; we corrected anomalies in our law. In the stable fundamental parts of our constitution we made no revolution ; no, nor * The French soldiers, at this time, were sworn to obey the king, the nation, and the law, any 93 any alteration at all. We did not impair the mo narchy. The nation kept the same ranks, the same orders, the same privileges, the same fran chises, the same rules for property, the same sub ordinations, the same order in the law, revenue, and in the magistracy ; and the same lords^ the same commons, the same corporations, the same electors. Accordingly the state flourished. In stead of lying as dead, in a sort of trance, or exposed as some others, in an epileptic fit, to the pity or derision of the world, for her wild, ridi culous, convulsive movements, Great Britain rose above the standard, even of her former self. An era of a more improved domestic prosperity then commenced, and still continues, not only unim paired, but growing under the wasting hand of time. When Mr. Burke had concluded his speech, Mr. Fox, with evident agitation, declared, that he rose with a concern of mind, which it was almost impossibe to describe, at perceiving himself driven to the hard necessity of making at least a short answer to the latter part of a speech, to which 9* which he had listened with the greatest attention, and which, some observations and arguments excepted, he admired as one of the wisest and most brilliant flights of oratory ever delivered in the house of commons. He could declare, that such was his sense of the judgment of his right honourable friend, such -his knowledge of his principles,, and such the va lue he set upon them, and' the estimation in which he held his friendship, that if he were to put all the political information which he' had learnt from books, all which he had gained from science, and all which any knowledge of the world and its affairs had taught him, into one great scale, and the improvement which N he had derived from his right honourable friend's in struction, and conversation, were placed in the other, he should be at a loss to decide to which to give the preference. He had learnt more from Mr. Burke, than frpm all the men with whom he had ever conversed. His right honourable friend had grounded all that -he had said,,on that part of a speech, made by him on a former day, in which he 95 r he had stated " that if ever he could lopk at a . standing army with less constitutional jealousy than befpre, it wa.s now, since, during the late 'transactions in France, the army had manifested, that on becoming Soldiers, they did not cease io continue citizens, and would not act as the mere instruments of a despot." This opinion he still maintained ; but did such a declaration Warrant the idea that he affected a democracy ? * He de- . elared himself equally the enemy of all absolute forms of government ; whether an absolute mo- -narchy, an absolute aristocracy, or an absolute democracy. He was averse from all extremes, and a "friend only to, a mixed government like our own, in which, if the aristocracy, or indeed either ofthe three branches of the constitution:, were de stroyed, the good effect of the whole, and the happiness derived under it, would, in his mind, be at an end. -When he described himself as ex ulting over the success of some of the late at- \ tempts- in France, he certainly meant to pay a just tribute of applause to those, who, .. feelingly alive to a sense of the oppressions under which their : countrymen 06 Countrymen had groaned, disobeyed the despotic* commands of their leaders, and gallantly espoused the cause of their fellow citizens, in a struggle for the acquisition of that liberty, the felicities of which we all enjoyed. True liberty could only exist amidst the union and co-operation of the different powers which compose the legislative and executive government. Never should he lend himself to support any cabal or scheme, form ed in order to introduce any dangerous innova tion into our excellent constitution ; he would not, however, run the length of declaring, that ,he was an enemy to every species of innovation. That constitution, which we all revered, owed , its perfection to innovation ; for, however admi rable the theory, experience was the true test of its order and beauty. , * No man, he said, could have heard without lamenting, the scenes of bloodshed and cruelty which had been acted in France ; but still when the severe tyranny under which the people had so long groaned, was considered, the excesses which they 97 they had committed, in their endeavour^ to shake off the yoke of despotism, might, he thought, b& spoken of with some degree of compassion. What had given him the greatest uneasiness, in hearing the latter part of his right honourable friend's speech, was, lest from its being known that he had long considered it as the boast and happiness of his life to have lived on terms of the most perfect confidence and intimacy with his right honourable friendA an impression might be left on the minds of that house* or on the minds of the public, that there existed some grounds for suspicion, that he could so far forget himself> Upon the score either of principle, or duty, as at any moment to countenance, 6r rather not ve hemently to reprobate all doctrines and all mea* sures inimical to the constitution; Again; therefore; he would repeat, under the most solemn assurances to his right honourable friend, that he would never lend himself to any cabal, nor, on any occasion, act ih a manner incompatible with the principles which he rjad so repeatedly professed^ vol. ii. h and 98 and which he held in common with his right hd-> nourable friend. He differed, however, from Mr. Burke, in his opinion of the revolution in 1688. From that period we had, undoubtedly, to date the defini tion and confirmation of our liberties ; and the case was certainly more parallel to the revolution in France than his right honourable friend seemed willing to allow. The reason , why France had been SO' long in settling her constitution, and N why we had so soon adjusted ours in 1 688, was owing to. there being so much despotism to de stroy in France ; and so little which called for destruction when the revolution in our government took place ; a fact which of itself was * sufficient to convince his right honourable friend, that there was, no ground whatever for the apprehen sions which he had that day stated. He imputed. this warmth, and the extent to which Mr. Burke had pushed this argument, to a laudable^ but ex treme, anxiety, lest any man should be rash enough to hazard an attempt to render what had passed 99- passed-in France an object of imitatioh in this-: fcountry. In conclusion, Mr. Fox observed, that he was ready to embrace any future opportunity of entering more amply into a discussion respect ing the affairs of France, as far as they mightulti- mately operate either in favour of, or against this country, should the house consider it necessary to fix upon such a topic for their investigatiPn. On the 2nd of March, Mr. Fox brought forward a motion for the repeal of the corpora tion and test acts. He had been solicited to do so by the great body of the dissenters in general, ahd this mark of their confidence was the more flattering to him, as hitherto they had been for the most part inimical to his system of polities', and with a narrowness of mind, too frequent in sectaries; appeared to entertain suspicions of his personal character *. Mr. Fox alluding to these circum- * Dr. Price, in his celebrated Revolution Sermon preach ed on the 5th of November preceding, made use of the fol lowing expressions, which could scarcely fail, by some of his hearers, to be applied to the character of the illustrious H % subject 100 circumstances, said, that it was impossible for him not to feel a satisfaction, intermingled with a conscious triumph, at the discovering that those very persons from whom, • hitherto, he had re ceived no obligations, and who had declared themselves hostile to his politics, now deemed' it proper to make him. their advocate, and to re quire that, with the force of freedom and reason on his side, he should appear in their defence. Might he not, from these circumstances, pre-, sume to hope that they had, at length, regarded his conduct with approbation; that they looked subject of these pages. " Oh t that I could see in men who oppose tyranny in the state," said the preacher, " a disdain of the tyranny of low passions in themselves; or, at least, such a sense of shame, and regard to public order and de cency as would induce, them to Mde their irregularities, and to avoid insulting the virtuous part of the community by an open exhibition of vice ! I cannot reconcile myself to the idea of an immortal patriot, or to that separation of private from public virtue, which some think to be possible. Is it to .be expected that but I must forbear. I am afraid of applications, which many are too ready to make, and- for which I should be sorry to give any just occasion." «P 101 up to him as a disinterested friend ; and were in duced to turn to him under the 'impression of the most favourable sentiments ? They would not, he was persuaded, illiberally conceive, that on the present occasion, he had enlisted himself into their service, less from a zealous attachment to the broad principles of liberty and justice, than from a sordid anxiety to conciliate their esteem and to acquire their support. In attending to the requisition of the dissenters, he meant to con vince the public, that he had not relaxed from his determination, at every crisis, to espouse a cause the invaluable interests of which he had, upon all occasions within his reach, most warmly and sincerely endeavoured to defend. Proceeding to the subject immediately under the consideration of the house, Mr. Fox said, the ingenuity of the human mind would be ex tremely puzzled in the attempt to fix upon two points more ignorantly misunderstood, or more wilfully misrepresented, that the actual meaning, and. the avowed principles of toleration. The origin of religious toleration was of a recent date, h 3 * indeed ; 102 indeed ; and although it may have been theo-» retically adverted to, at an earlier period, not many years were, as yet, elapsed subsequently to its having been carried into pactice^ As erro-r neous was the -general manner of defining the word persecution. It behoved the house jiot to suffer, their understandings to be seduced away by vague expressions or by imaginary descriptions. If they advei'ted to the first ages of mankind when all was sunk in ignorance, barbarism, and cor ruption, instead of indiscriminately fixing upon fanciful conclusions, they would ascend to first principles ; and thence discover that persecution, and not toleration, was the grand excitement to the public commission of the most atrocious crimes. To this source might be traced the massacre, on the feast of Saint Bartholomew* at Paris; and the burning of -the pretended here-r tics, in Smithfield. The great a.nd horrible fun damentals of persecution were, that the tenets of religion and the modes of worship, which differr ed from our own, could not be otherwise than, wicked ; and, therefore, merited extirpation. Jnfepted by these sentiments, the Ropian cathq- hcs 103 lies of a former era were violently intent on per secution ; and arguments detestably abhorrent were maintained as apologies for the destruction of forty thousand innocent victims to, the sangui nary doctrines of bigoted enthusiasts. , . Were he to. give the opposers- of the repeal their first principle, and they should- argue that if, originally, the flourishing state of the church owed its continuance to persecution, a necessity might, still, exist for enforcing it, he would an swer that, upon false grounds, madness itself can act with consistency ; but that a wise and po lished nation should disdain to proceed funda mentally wrong, because either caprice or chance may have furnished them with the bare shadow of an argument in their behalf. — A most absurd, and, as a natural consequence of great absurd ity, an inextinguishable doctrine qf persecution, was, that one may entertain aless fallible opinion pf the mind of another than he can form himself. Yet, surely this idea could never taint the prolific humility and the exemplary virtues pf modern christians. Religion was even more h.4, than 104 thjin the peculiar medicine of our own minds s it was intended to be used by us in the admini stration of relief to our fellow creatures : but the system of intolerance perverted all the salutary ends of true' religion, and, instead of guiding men tq freedom and the felicities of life, qonT ducted them to imprisonment, ta torture, and to death. Of religion, (pure and lolerat ing re ligion !) the bright and striking contrast to the disgusting and false appearance of it, pne of the synonymous terms was charity. The oppqsgrs of the appeal were," certainly^ reduced to this alternative: either they must contend for persecution^ or reaspn in support of toleration- Why, therefore, did they scruple to declare a principle which, whether of an odious pr a conciliating cast, must inevitably apply to the nature of the present question j If they came forward as the unfeeling advocates for persecu tion, they met their own indelible disgrace ; but, Jf their arguments were hostile to its existence, it followed', qf necessity, that they must have spoken in favour . of toleration ; and such reasoning was consonant 105 consonant to the noblest principles of uncor- rupted nature, of genuine religion, and of highly cultivated philosophy !— He was ready to admit that persecution originated in a mistaken kind ness, and that the infatuated zealots by whom it was enforced, conceived that, without an abso lute belief in certain articles, neither the tem poral nor the eternal Interests of their fellow- creatures could possibly be secured. With this idea, they regarded even the most severely ex erted act of compelling others to embrace doc-* £rines which they detested, as a spiritual obliga tion. Granting that the motive presented itself in a laudable point of view to those ill-judging bigots, who were actuated by its nature, he should not consider himself as led away, in con-* sequence of this position, from his invincible Opinion, that every species of persecution, whether civil pr religious, was detestable. TJeeply impressed with this sentiment, Mr. Fox said, he could pot fear to proceed farther, and assert, that none ofthe fires which were kin dled in Smithfield, nor even one of the executions and ioG and depredations which, in the hour of frantic vengeance, were committed in France,, presented to us more strong or more alarming instances of persecution than the principle maintained, with active obstinacy, by some churchmen, that it was just and becoming to make particular bodies liable to penalties, and to keep them constantly subject to incapacities, for their religious opini ons. It was this kind ' of persecution, accompa nied by an ^bominable multitude of different op pressions, wbich had driven France to a spirited and successful resistance; to an entire re-investi gation, and to an ample and most decisive asser tion of the rights of human ,nature. Her pro ceedings, as much as they effected that part of her constitution in which religion was immediT, ately concerned, possessed indubitable claims to the applause and esteem of all her subjects, and of surrounding states ; they constituted a full and enlightened inquiry respecting first principles,; and they led rapidly, but not erroneously, to the extirpation of that spirit of intqlerance and per secution which had, for so many centuries, dis graced her government, Tq 107 To the recency of the origin of religious ' to leration, he had just alluded, and it might not be improper to add, that, although it came for ward in our own country, during the reign of king William, - yet its existence and its effect were so concealed and partial, that those only who subscribed to thirty-four out of the thirty- nine articles, felt the contracted blessings of its influence. The _ toleration act, on which the highest encomiums had been profusely lavished, was, at the best, a sufferance more agreeable to those individuals who granted it, than to the per sons by whom it was received. — All this fell infi nitely short of toleration, in the unsullied sense of the expression. The corner stone of toleration rested upon philosophy and reason ; and upon a just diffidence and doubt of the exclusive recti tude of our own opinions. Were the sincere friend of toleration actually to perceive evil conse-* quences attached to the religious sentiments of another, still he would, liberally, regard it as Sufficient to avoid the adoption of such sentiments, without imputing the baneful effects to those by whom they were entertained ; and who, per haps, 108 haps, might not foresee, orreven think of their pernicious tendency. Toleration did not inflame men with arrogance and pride ; but far from in culcating a jealous and unwarrantable distrust of others, encouraged its professors to attend to the charitable rule that, where they could not discern vice, it became them to give credit for the existence of virtue. Toleration judged man kind more by their actions than by their doctrines. Adhering to the sage and candid maxim in the scripture,, the advocates for toleration formed their ideas of the tree, in consequenee of an at tention to the nature of the fruit; persuaded that all other methods of decision were liable to continual error. It seemed natural to expect such men would prove, generally, in the right ; be? cause they were ready to confess their doubts, and even to acknowledge . ignorance-; nor could it be denied that this kind of language was more con ciliating and more just ; as reasoning a posteriori, from effects to their causes. Even the most discerning men ar'e apt to be misled, when, arguing a priori, they judge from causes to effects. Aw log An example, continued Mr. Fox, , might illus trate the truth of these positions. Some of the greatest and wisest men in this country have con sidered the opinions of the Roman catholics as apparently militating against all religion and all morality whatsoever ; and yetj whilst they la mented over the errors of this profession, they were perfectly aware that in an age of superior refinement, liberality, and understanding, the pa pists were not accustomed to commit, for con science sake, murder, treason, and all those crimes and enormities which cast a stain of infamy on their persuasion, at a former epoch. No friend to toleration would, at the present day, refuse to trust a Roman ^atholic for the sincerity of his good professions ; and much less would he attri bute to him, in consequence of the opinions which he migh£- entertain of the purport of his doctrines, an ungrateful and abandoned wish to overthrow the government in which he liyed, or the laws to which he stood indebted fop pro tection. From our knowledge of the actual state of those nations where this religion was pre dominant, it would be cruelly disingenuous to infer 1 110 infer that they were deficient in the practice* of1 the duties of morality ; or, even for a moment to imagine, that in whatsoever point of view we might have - examined their opinions, it was, now, possible for them to entertain an idea that they could lead to the revival of atrocities , like those which once were perpetrated. Suffi cient was the prospect of civil society throughout the world, to convince all, reasonable beings, that speculative doctrines, in religion, preserved only an inconsiderable influence over moral conduct, without which even religion itself could not sub sist, to any great and serviceable purpose. The same principle upon which the enemies of the^Roman catholic religion decried its tenets; as t holding it lawful to break all oaths with heretics, and to assassinate protestant princes, actuated the papists when they charged the reformed church with the subversion of revealed religion, which tended to the destruction of natural religion; but, it was the "merit, the glory, and the- happi ness of some of the best and wisest characters of the seventeenth century to- examine into this prin ciple j Ill ciple ; and having perceived that it was founded. Upon self conceit, and an overweening preposses sion in favour of private judgment, to seek for the establishment of universal toleration. Were we to act towards the dissenters, from a theoretic and not a practical knowledge of their opinions, we should violate one ofthe great duties of Christianity, and judge them not agreea bly to their deserts, but according to our own wishes. As for himself, Mr. Fox said, he must confess that he cordially subscribed to the liberal opinion of a celebrated commentator on the laws of England, (Sir William Blackstone,) that the most unexceptionable test to which a man could lay- claim was, the circumstance of his having proved a credit to his country, as a friend to the constitution, and as a serviceable member of the community. He should, however, give a wider scope to the opinion of the learned judge, and -declare, that, in his apprehension, all political and religious tests were absurd ; and the only test to be relied upon, was the test of human ac tions. Mr. m Mr, Fox desired, however, that whilst he utter-* ed these sentiments, the house would do him the justice to believe, that he had no intention of contending against the indispensible necessity of a test of allegiance. He • rather meant to throw a pointed ridicule over the imaginary cir cumstance of obliging a person to deliver in, upon oath, that statement of his political principles, which the law, certainly, did not yet require, al though the corporation and test acts continued to enjoy its sanction. From the annals of this country, it appeared that, at one moment, certain principles were in fashion, which, at length, decaying, became replaced by others of a different complexion : yet amongst these fanciful revolu-'- tions, no test was known to have started up for civil opinions, in any case whatever. Was not a test at least as requisite upon such occasions as in matters of religion ? Or rather, what had religious tests to do with civil affairs ? To those who should discover an inclination to argue, that if all sects were indiscriminately admitted into civil employments^ without having previously con firmed to the test laws, some indefensible religious opinion? 113 opinions might, circuitously, affect the interest of the church of England;, it would prove sufficient to answer, that equal danger seemed to threaten the constitution from civil opinions. No political test was directly required from a member of par liament. Indirectly, perhaps, it was demanded when he was called upon to declare his dissent from the doctrine of transubstantiation. But, who could seriously infer that the speculative opinions of a member of parliament were of any signification to his constituents ? Would they suppose themselves at all likely to acquire or to lose arty political advantages, if, in the first in stance, their representative believed, or, in the second, denied, the real presence P But, it was contended, that were a member of parliament to admit within his code of faith a tenet of so extra ordinary a nature, his political principles must, undoubtedly, prove hostile to his country. This was what he had already reprobated : a fallacious inference of morals from opinions. An indivi dual, not friendly to the constitution, might, in defiance of the test act, fill a responsible situation in the state ; the law not considering the opinions vol. n. i c* 114 •of any person as 'detrimental tothis constitution, untilthey appeared perniciously in action; and then fhe law -proved fully competent to the punishment of the offender.. But, in fact, so trifling were the apprehensions Which were in general entertained of the baneful effects of poli tical opinions, that a man wasinot incapacitated from presiding at the head of public affairs, al though his sentiments might, be inimical to the constitution, and favourable to the, views of ar bitrary governnierit ; although he might consider the abolition of the trial by jury as no violation of the liberty of an Englishman'; ahd the invasion of the freedom, of parliament, as no infringement of the rights and privileges of constituents and their representatives. — Mr. Fox reminded the house, that the test act, enforced soon after the, civil wars, was intended for thejexcluSion of all anti- monarchical men from the enjoyment Of public offices ; but, as the act operated under false- pre tences, he. felt it ¦ difficult to mention it, except in terms, of strong disapprobation. He should have preferred a monarchical test at once ; because the nugatory and ridiculous- imposition of that =in question 115 question went solely to the introduction of vague conjectures respecting the opinions of others ; and was likely, not only to receive into employ ments of great trust persons adverse to the most sound and unimpeachable sentiments, in relation to points materially interwoven with all the valua ble interests of the constitution^ but to exclude those who were among its zealous, useful, and incorruptible adherents. — It followed, therefore, that to exclude any description of men from the participation of the common rights which their fellow citizens enjoyed, was violently oppressive. Of what consequence Was it to the state whether a man was an unitarian or a trinitarian ; an ad vocate for infant baptism Or for adult baptism ? To; abandon general principles upon the ground of partiality was a procedure which could not be defended; and, with this idea, he should venture, without a dread of ! reasonable contradiction, to affirm that even the majority had no right to bind the minority. .» Mr. Fox then proceeded to vindicate the ge neral good character and loyalty of the dissenters ; I 2 , and 116 and contended that their conduct had rtot Only been unexceptionable, but highly meritorious. During the rebellions' of 1715 and 1745, they had chearfully exposed their persons, lives, and pro perty, in defence of their king and country ; and by their noble exertions Our enemies were de feated, our constitution preserved, and the Bruns wick family preserved in possession of the throne. They were then, as now, incapacitated from hold ing commissions, civil or military, in the service of their country. Did they plead their incapacity, and the penalties to which they were subject? No ! they freely drew their Swords ; they nobly transgressed the laws which proscribed them ; and successfully fought the battles of the consti tution. For this their Only reward was an act of indemnity— a pardon for doing their duty as good citizens, in rescuing their country in the hour of danger ahd distress !— But he hoped, at an era, when, as the natural result of Its successful pro gress, the human understanding was more and more accompanied by liberality and refinement^ it could not be deemed extraordinary if he in sisted upon his principle that, even if the de* merits 117 merits of the dissenters were numerous and glar ing, they had a claim to toleration. Under the circumstance that we could not, with propriety, be said to tolerate, what we did not fully ap- prove, it followed that the word toleration , meant an admission of what might welt be suffered, although^ in the eye of tolerating power, it did not appear perfectly right and justifiable. It was from this virtuous and highly cultivated improve ment in the reasoning faculties of the human mind to which he alluded, that he conceived the pleasing hope of drawing an advantage for the cause of the dissenters ; as he argued in favour of toleration, which numbers were most sincerely desirous of, and all pretended disposed to grant ; and as he pleaded against persecution, which every individual was prepared to disavow and to coiw demn. i The repeal of these impolitic and ungenerous restraining acts, said Mr. Fox, with a prophetic foresight • of what was to come, would stand marked by a peculiar propriety, in consequence of the complexion of the times, and the situation i 3 of 118 of5 ther country; From the pope and from iths pretendeio vie: could not: entertain the slightest apprehensions; but, as the possibility of our being engaged inoforeign wars was still existing, lit cer=- tainly: behOvead the government to relinquish the idea; of imposing disabilities on such a multitude of ¦¦ serviceable members of the state and of so ciety, 'andon so considerable a number of intrepid and experienced naval and military characters, who had been born and educated in the religion of the kirk of Scotland, to which they yet adhered. The length to which those disabilities proceeded was more unlimited* than many, perhaps, would ima* gine. It was not merely the individuals who entered upon the highest employments of the state that were indispensibly bound to conform to the ceremonies of the church of England. The same obligation extended itself to all -the subordinate officers of the army and navy ; and every collector of the customs was liable to a penalty of five hundred pounds, with disabilities beyond measure, if he did not confirm* by taking the sacramental test.— The idea of makino- a re- in Jigious rite the qualification for holding a ciwd t employment 119 empldyment was more, than absurd, and deserveci to be considered as the, profanation of a sacred institution. This idea, . nott •.originating, indeed, with him,: Mr. Fox acknowledged, but, with the lower house of convocation, (a house, at the pEJiiod to which, he alluded, more of the high church than the upper house itself,) he firmly entertained. The clergy in the lower house of convocation adiverted, during the year 1704,, in the language of complaint, to a case pf conscience in administering the sacrament to persons, of an infamous character. It was true that they were not bound to do this by the rubric, but had it at their option to decide upon such characters, in dependently of a jury, or any other legal deter mination, to fix that infamy. Yet when do such eases occur ? Never ; because the clergy qf the church of England well know that they would ground a just plea forthe repeal of the test act. ;^ A; The application, now made for the repeal pf the test act, had been erroneously, considered as ill timed, upon the false principle, first, that the affairs, of France rendered jt necessary not to i 4 make 120 make any alteration in the constitution of this country ; and, next, that if the revolution abroad had not taken place, the dissenters would have been less impetuously bent upon their determina tion again to state the nature of their imaginary grievance to parliament. That was not the fact. A motion, similar to his, had often before been submitted to the house, when no person could have predicted the singular events that had oc curred on the continent. Granting, however, that any circumstances had arisen, which might give greater strength to the propriety of the peti tions of the dissenters, it naturally followed that such events ought to be considered* in some de gree, as operating against the rejection of a claim, which, independent of extraneous occurrences, was founded upon justice and civil right. He felt himself warranted in not quitting this part of his subject, until he had declared that, in one respect, the example of France ought to excite our deepest and most serious attention. Her church was now suffering in consequence of a too long resistless and intolerant spirit of perse cution : her church presented to the world a dreadfully 121 dreadfully alarming proof (yet he trusted a salu tary lesson) of the veracity of the idea, that per secution may prevail even for a considerable length pf time, but that it ultimately produces the ruin of the persecutors. Yet, whatever satisfac tion he might have experienced at the emanci pation of so many millions of his fellow creatures from the galling yoke of arbitrary power, and however he might in general approve of that determined spirit, which, scarcely interrupted in the rapidity of its course, brought on so unexpect ed and extraordinary a revolution, he must con fess, he said, that there were some particular acts of the new government in applauding which he could not possibly concur. Such was the inflic tion upon the church of the undistinguished for feiture of her property : an act which might, nevertheless, be considered as the slow, but certain consequence of the impolitic revocation of the edict of Nantz. Previously to this intemperately lawless measure, the civil and ecclesiastical branches ofthe French constitution remained in violate, without the guardianship of test acts ! and protestants were intliscriminately admitted with 1212 with catholics, to the enjoyment of posts within* the different departments of the state. When that edict became revoked,: liberality and tolera tion were thrown away' with one hand, whilst,' ' with the other, arts and manufactures wefie cast out; to flourish, however, upon. I a: more genial! soil, and under a milder form, of government; Mr. Fox, adverting to the alarm attempted t» be excited by the high church party, that the church was in danger, treated it" as in the highest degree chimerical and absutid. , The uniform lead ing maxim of the high church party, he said, had been to pretend fear, whenever they meditated; persecution. To this practice had the implacable and unprincipled tyrants of all ages, invariably adhered. Tiberius, if his assertions deserved a grain of credit, passed every hour 'of his life in a state of terror ; and our Henry, the Eighth perpe tually raised the alarm of an attack upon the, royal prerogative, in the moment that he was concerting projects for the extension of fresh acts of tyranny against his miserable subjects. To-such ridiculous excesses had the high church party been known to , 123 to; carry their pretence of danger, having approach ed their yecyj gates, that to,support the fallaGyby appearance, they have raised, tumults ' for the purpose of inculcating passive obedience.. The church' never ^interfered in politics but for the sake of mischief. Unfortunate was it for the eountry when any religious sects ' rose in opposi tion) to each other ; but infinitely more alarming and disastrous was it when, in the- midst of these struggles, the church became a militating party. Mr. Fox then proceeded to shew, that no dan ger had occurred to the church establishment of ' Ireland, though eleven years had. elapsed since the repeal of the test act in that country; and in America, where the dissenters were most predominant, their conduct had been sullied by no acts of bigotry and intolerance. — He trusted that no observation had fallen from htm, which did not discover that he was a decided friend to an established religion. It was, only upon the opinions of the majority of the people that this establishment could be justly founded. It did not behove the parliament to enquire which religion 124 religion was the most rational and uncorrupted. Their business was to extend their peculiar pro tection to that which, more than any of the others, approached to universality, and to secure for it some ofthe chief emoluments of the state. The government, at the era of the union, were thoroughly convinced that this principle was at once political and liberal ; and, therefore, con sonantly to so enlightened an idea^ they established two religions, each equal as to the reputation of its doctrines : the hierarchy for England, and the kirk for Scotland. At a more recent period, a measure so laudable in its nature had been honourably extended and refined upon, in the case of granting, at least a partial establishment of the Roman catholic religion in Canada. To either the real or the pretended enemies of innovation, he shduld oppose the more than generally acknowledged opinion, that not only the established church, but the constitution itself, stands materially indebted for a great portion of its rectitude, its vigour, and its beauty, to rational innovation. The reformation imparted strength and 125 and durability to the ecclesiastical constitution ; and the civil constitution rose superior to the violence of attacks, and with redoubled force and purity, at the epoch of the revolution. These were brilliant and truly serviceable innovations. ' But what was the monstrous innovation which it was so difficult to contemplate without terror and abhorrence f It was a daring effort to accomplish the simple repeal of an act of Charles the Second, , which, during an overflow of loyalty, and at the conclusion of a civil war, the parliament had passed as a compliment to their restored monarch. A constitution, erected upon such a foundation, was, certainly, not worth preserving ; neither could he admit that any specific form, in the mode of administering the Lord's supper, ought to be considered as the corner stone of the ecclesias tical establishment. Of the controversial writings of the different sectaries, Mr. Fox frankly acknowledged that he was ignorant : but, he had perpetually understood that tolerating benevolence was one of the most striking characteristics of pure religion. When he n6 he-.discOveKed churchmen betraying a spirit direot- ly repugnant to that faith which 4hey professed, he could not help' considering them as ambitious of maintaining' a monopoly of power, at the veny moment when they affected to tremble at ima ginary danger ; and he wished them to remember that their religion was neither .originally taught to> kings and senators, nor necessarily connected with the politics df a government. — The admirers of the- test act had contended, as feebly as in their use of other arguments, that the church and state were so inseparably interwoven, that any changes in the one must,; immediately, be fol lowed by innovations in the other. A most1 ec centric, yet certainly a . learned, and, in some respects, an able 'and conclusive writer, (Dr. Warburtony) drew-forth the whole powers of his reasoning in defence of this incongruous principle. According to this new fangled and absurd opinion, the church waknot to rely solely, upon her own merits, neither was religion, to be established simply upon the truth of her own evidence : but, both were to receive their props and bolster- i'ngs from the assistance of the civil power; Was ¦ : - this 127 this the principle which introduced -the first esta blishment of Christianity ? Did it, during a state of infancy, when under the necessity not alone of working its way against the narrow and infatuated prejudices of mankind, but of subduing their vio> lence by the innate purity of its spirit, and the • winning aspect of its doctrines,, receive assistance either from the Roman emperor, or from > the Roman senate ? Shameful it was that any chris tian prelate should have -inculcated such an idea. What ! appeal from the truth ofthe sacred writ ings to the authority of the civil power ! Reli gion should 'remain distinct from the political constitution rof a state. Intermingled with it, what purpose could it. serve, except the baneful purpose of communicating and of receiving con tamination ? Under such an alliance, corruption must alight upon the one, and bravery overwhelm the other.. The christian religion was neither dictated by politicians, nor addressed to politicians, nor cherished by politicians. The noblest object, to which religion could be directed in a state, and theohject for which it was .primarily intended, was to influence and porrect the morals of -the people. 128 people. Thus far religion must prove eminently beneficial to a state ; but the corporation and the test acts might be said to militate against religion, because they were likely to render the professors of it hypocrites. Alluding to the celebrated sermon preached by. Dr. Price, at the meeting-house in the Old Jewry, on the 5th of November preceding. Mr. Fox said, it appeared that considerable offence had been taken at it. — That reverend gentleman had rejoiced over the establishment of a new empire in America. If this were heinous, he should put in his claim for condemnation, and plead guilty with so celebrated an offender ! He had always condemned the object of the American war; and if subjugation and unconditional submission were the objects, every Englishman, who foresaw the effect which such an event must have had upon the constitution of Great Britain, would say, with him, that it was a fortunate circumstance for both countries that they were separated. And where was the crime of such an expression ? Who could gravely assert that every part of the constitution, 120 Constitution, in church and state, had ascended so nearly to the summit of perfection, that no change could, possibly, be introduced for the better ? But4 the reverend gentleman had carried the intermixture of his religious and political opinions into remarks concerning the revolution ' in France ; and were these fit parts of what should have been a strictly appropriated, grave, and solemn congregational discourse ? In several of his sentiments he perfectly agreed with the reverend gentleman ; but, he conceived that he had not chosen the most unexceptionable time and place for their delivery. They would have appeared ih a more becoming province, had they formed the arguments of a speech uttered in a house oi parliament : and, surely, the church, the pulpit, the altar, and the sacramental table, ought to be preserved inviolably pure and holy, for the fcc4e great purpose of inculcating religion and morality. He should always reprobate, whether it came from the lips of a churchman or of a dissenter, the delivery of that sermon which any preacher might presume to make the 'vehicle of politics; and with still greater indignation, should VOL. ii. K h* 130 he listen to it, were the language of personal libel brought forward as a digression from the chief and more important subject of his arguments/ He: could not, however, in justice, drop the mention of these points, without- observing that many passages ip the discourse to which he had alluded, breathed all the spirit of benevolent and truly cultivated philosophy ; of those feelings which rise superior to the selfishness of local at tachments, and induce a citizen of the world to glory in the freedom and the happiness- of the human race. In cohclusionj Mr. Fox said, that he flattered himself the house would believe, that the system which he aimed to support, was not merely thd system of general toleration, but, that system* .the object of which was the security . of tbe universal rights of human nature. Whilst- he contended for the latter, he trusted th^t he fill* filled one part of his duty, as a member of the established church of England : a church which he admired, under a conviction that she steered the happiest course between the two extremes; rejecting 131 rejecting! whatsoever was superstitious, but, retain ing whatsoever was good in the church of Rome, and decent in the performance qf divine service. Thus Venerable did she appear to him when he reflected -upon her doctrine and her liturgy. But, this appearance vanished, or, at least underwent a transient concealment* when, becoming a politic cal party iii the state, she suffered herself to be borrowed foe purposes incompatible with her dig nity and the; sanctity- of her principles. Thafc all her, members might fully merit a participation in the just freedom which she enjoyed, he would advise them to yield chearfully to the extension of the principles of toleration to those who were not of their own persuasion : and he would beg leave to assure them, that should any attempt be made to infringe either upon their liberty, or their just privileges and claims, and they 'did him the honour to choose him for their advocate* he would stand forward,- not less willingly the cham pion of that liberty, those privileges* and those claims, than, at the present jurfcture, he had addressed fhe house in favour of the dissenters. k 2 The 132 The motion was opposed by Mr. Pitt, Mr. Powis, sir William Dolben, and Mr. Burke. In reply to a most virulent speech of the latter against the dissenters, Mr. Fox said, that, in answering what he had heard with grief and shame, he must relinquish one of the most pleas ing enjoyments for one of the most painful of all predicaments. He was reduced to the painful necessity of resisting the arguments of that right honourable friend, (Mr. Burke,) whose political sentiments had, until lately, so perfectly coincided with his own, that he could not have conceived it within the power of events to have rendered them divisible. From him, he had acquired the best part of his political knowledge : by him he had been instructed in the formation of his politi cal principles : andit was some little consolation* under this afflicting disunion of opinions, to know that there was not a single . fundamental outline which he had laid down, that his right honoura ble friend had not formally avowed. The only proof which could be deduced from the declara tion of his right honourable friend that, ten years ago, he would have voted in favour, was, that 133 he had retained his opinion on the subject ten years longer than his right honourable friend. — On a division of the house, Mr. Fox's motion was lost by a majority of I89— ^the numbers for it being 105 — against it 294. On the J Oth of June the parliament was dis solved, and Mr. Fox was again returned for Westminster, but not without a slight contest, Jbrd Hood and Mr. Home Tooke being candi dates with him on the occasion. At the close of the poll the numbers were For Mr. Fox 35 16 ' Lord Hood 3217 Mr. Home Tooke 1679 The new parliament met on the 25th of No vember ; and the first business of moment that engaged the attention of the house of commons, was the convention with Spain relative to Nootka Sound. The opposition moved for papers that were wanting to throw light upon the negocia tion, but their production was opposed by the minister, on the grounds of public inexpediency, k 3 the 134 tlje danger of disclosing secrets of state, policy,1 and the necessity of reposing., a considerable share of confidence in the servants of the crown. Mr. Fox, in reply to this doctrine* said, that the old English parliamentary term jealousy was a much ' better phrase to express the duty of the commons,' than the m.odern substitute confidence, which had of late been adopted. In former times,' ha said, the first great duty of every member of the house of commons was, that he should regard every act. of the servants ofthe crown with jealousy, and watch their conduct with the utmost vigilance and attention. Now, blind'' confidence was re commended as the grand function of that house, and they were desired to extend the degree of credit which they gave that minister to such an extravagant' length, as to yote away millions of their constituents' money, "without expecting to know in what manner it had been expended. In fact their duty was not only to judge whether the minister was an honest inmister, but they , had also a right to expect, a bold, an able, a prudent, and a wise minister. The way to have a bold,, an able, a prudent, and a wise' minister, was '¦'¦ ''' - ^ to 135 to let him know that he was to be responsible to that house for all his measures, arid that his con^ duct was to be from time to time enquired into. An _ ingenuous mind, Mr. Fox said, would court enquiry, and be proud to have every public mea sure brought forward, and scrupulously investi gated. The moment, therefore, the house of commons .abandoned that part of its duty, from that instant the conduct of administration becaipe dangerous and delusive, because a minister, whp knew -his conduct would not be enquired into, might be tempted to pursue bad measures, till at last he involved his country in irretrievable ruin. About this period a constitutional question, of the greatest importance, came under the consi deration of the house of Commons. The ques tion was, Whether the impeachment brought against Mr. Hastings by a former house of com mons, did not remain in statu quo, notwithstand^. ing the intervention of a dissolution of parliament ? It was" contended by the lawyers in thex house, with scarc'ely an exception, that the impeachment had abated in consequence of the dissolution, and K. 4 tha^ 136 that the commons could proceed no farther with the prosecution. This doctrine was reprobated by Mr. Fox as unconstitutional in the highest degree. Having always been zealous, he said, in supporting the privileges of the commons,' he thought it his duty to give something more than a silent vote in support of a question, in the fate of which all their privileges were involved.' The question was no less than whether the constitution of the country was a free constitution, under which every act of government was subjept to en quiry, and accompanied with responsibility ; or, whether power might be exercised without con? trol, and without any national inquest to take cognizance of its abuse. In settling every contested point of law, Mr-. Fox said, he Would first look to usage and then to reason. There was a great distinction between the ordinary la\y in the common courts of justice and the constitutional law. For the former he would look to usage, where that could direct him; but fpr the latter he would look to reason in preference to usage, and for this reason : in ordi nary ' 137 nary cases certainty was of more value thari sound ness of principle, hut in constitutional law sound ness of principle >"is e ery thing. The law of impeachment was not t^ be collected from the usage o * the court of iustice — 'for whom was it meant *.o control i He should be told, men in high - tic as, who mi| ht commit crimes which the com , a law couid r it reach : but he should answer, fi: t and princip Uy, the courts of justice themselves. L> th'j power of impeachment be rendered n - -*atory, und what security was there for the integrity of the judges, and the pure administration of justice ? Quis custodial ipsos custodes ? Were it to be governed by absurd or iniquitous rules of practice, what abuse could it correct ? He did not wish to imagine extraordi nary cases of enormity in judges, although their responsibility by impeachment was the surest pledge for their integrity. But suppose them, as in the reign of Charles the Second, so pliant to the prevailing party of the day, 'as to hang whig§ one day and tories another, under form and co lour of law, what remedy was left if that of im peachment did not apply ? Were a judge even to 138 to attain to that ertormous pitch of arbitrary wickedness, as to order a man to - punishnient who had been acquitted by a jury, there was no mode of proceeding against him but by impeach ment. When he considered all this, he could not but lament to see the gentlemen of the profession- of the law in that house, acting as it were under 3n esprit du corps, forming themselves into a sort of phalanx to set-up the law ofthe ordinary courts of justice, as paramount to the law pf parliament. . With regard , to the force of precedents . on constitutional points, had the dispensing power.; claimed by the Stuarts been decided by precedent, it might, perhaps, have been found to be good. But would any man regard a precedent in such a case ? — Must he nqt perceive that a legislature^ and a dispensing power in the crown, were things incompatible ; and that whereever any usage, ap peared subversive of the constitution,,, if it lasted for one, or for two hundred years, it was not a precedent, .but an usurpation ? — They, were told, that if a rninister advised the crown to dissolve- the parliament, tp get rid, qf an impeachment,, they 139 they might impeach again. By the same rule the minister might advise to dissolve them again; and so .they might go on alternately dissolving and . impeaching, wjth no other effect than a mockery of justice. A learned gentleman (sir John Scott) had said, that the king, if he should be of opinion that a person impeached yras a fit object of;cle-r mency, might, by dissolving the parliament, take the sense of the people at large, whether the impeachment ought to be renewed, and with their acquiescence, produce all the effects of a- pardon. If this was the learned gentleman's meaning, the true mode of carrying it into effect jyas on the principle that an impeachment did not abate by a dissolution. The king; by dissolv ing the parliament, might suspend an impeach-: ment; ahd, if the hew representatives chosen by the people should be of opinion that it ought not to proceed, there must be an end, and the object of an appeal to the people would be completely obtained. But were it established that an im- peachment after every dissolution of pariiament must begin de novo, the people, however, zealous jn the prpsecutipn, could never have the means of bringing 140 bringing it to judgment, without the concurrence of the crown ; and to dissolve the parliament would not be to take the sense of the people, but to foil them in the exercise of their most impor tant privilege. Another learned gentleman (Mr. Hardinge) had said, that the points on which the law of parlia ment turned were of such nicety, that none but a lawyer could understand them. The supposed nicety proved the falsity of the argument Were the case so, how could the law of parliament be ever understood by men of common education and plain understanding, such as composed the great majority of it ? Much more, how could it have been established by men of still more ordi nary education, who composed the majority of the house of commons, when the theory ofthe constitution was developed and explained ? The next objection was the want of evidence. They had, it seemed, no knowledge of the pro ceedings on the impeachment during the late parliament, and there was no evidence on which they 141 they could Judge whether any thing had been proved by the managers appointed by the late house of commons. It was somewhat strange that professional men should be so profoundly ignorant of what was known to all the world beside. But they could listen only to oral evi dence ; the minutes of the evidence taken down and printed by the direction of the lords for their own information were to lawyers of no use what ever ; and the learned gentleman (sir John Scott) who spoke immediately before him, who unfor tunately had not attended the trial, who had not heard the evidence, who had no materials on which to form his judgment, who could hot suffer him self to read written minutes of written evidence, . such as composed the greater part of the evidence on the trial, and who was so conscientious that he would not, as an accuser, pray for judgment against a man who, for any thing he knew, might be innocent, had asked how he, as a member pf the house of commons, could go to the bar of the house of lords, and demand judgment against Mr. Hastings, supposing him to be found guilty. When the learned gentleman came to be attorney- general, 142 general, he would, without any scruple of corf-* science, move the court of king's bench for judg-' ment against all persons convicted on informations or indictments by his predecessor in. office; and that on much weaker evidence than the minutes of the impeachment, which he Was resolved td consider as no evidence at all ; on no other evi dence than a copy of the record : and when he came to be a judge, he would even pronounce judgment on what he must consider as still weaker evidence,- namely, the notes of a brother judge.- It! was well known that -nine tenths of misde meanors were tried at sittings,, artd the record being returned to the court from which it issued* sentence was there pronounced by judges who had heard no part of the. oral evidence* who had seen ' nothing of the demeanor of the prisoner or witnesses, and who had no knowledge whatever of the case or its circumstances, but what they had derived from the notes of the judge who tried it. Nor was this all : affidavits,- both in extenua tion and aggravation, might be, and frequently Were* produced and read; and on this sort of evidence, which W^s thus gravely represented by professional 143 professional men. as no evidence at all ; oh the written evidence of a miserable note book, render ed still more informal* worthless*- and suspected^ by the addition of written affidavits ; on evidence Pf such Contemptible authority, that if those whose business it was to understand it best were, to be believed, it ought not to be of force to pluck a feather from a sparrow's wing, would the learned gentleman, when "advanced to that bench on which he. should -rejoice to see him, decide whether a fellow subject should be fined a shilling or ten thousand pounds,- whether he should be imprisonetTin the King's Bench for a week, or in Newgate for three years* What could he say on such attempts by men learned in the law to impose upon the plain sense and unlearned understanding of the house, but with his right honourable friend^ (Mn Burke **) that the gentlemen of the long robe * Mr.' Burke, ih allusion to tne strehuous opposition of the gentlemen ofthe long robe* said, they did not feel them-. selves at home in the house of common*. - They were only sojourners there ; they only perched in their flight to a higher region. . It was only the seat of their pilgrimage ; they 144 rpbe being accustomed to find the reward of their talents elsewhere, thought the Waste and offals of their learning good enough for the house of commons ? It was asked, if all their proceedings did not cease with a dissolution ? Precisely those* he would answer, that ceased with a prorogation. On a prorogation, all votes of money, and all bills depending, fell to the ground : but by a proroga tion an impeachment was not affected. No more was it affected by a dissolutipn.- During the in terval occasioned by either, the high court of parliament could not sit, any more than the courts of common law in the interval between term and term. When parliament met, after either, judicial proceedings Were taken up in statu quo, just as in the courts below after a vacation. In this manner had the proceedings on the im peachment been suspended by every prorogation they had in view a better country, for which they had reserved the full display of their knowledge and talents; All they could afford to grre the commons was a sort of quarter session law, a law minor um gentium. of 145 bf parliament, and- the committee of managers dissolved. After the ' prorogation, the committee had been re-appointed, and the proceedings on trial re-assumed.. There was no difference be tween the present situation of the house, and its situation aftei* any of the prorogations that had taken place since the trial pommenced, except that having been sent back to their constituents, they might more properly review their former proceedings, to see what they would abide by, ahd what they would abandon. Were a minister, it had been said, to advise a dissolution for the purpose bf putting an end to an impeachment, he would be guilty of a high crime. Were a minis ter to advise a dissolution pending an impeach ment, knowing that it Would put an end to the impeachment, he would deserve to be impeached himself. He .did not mean to insinuate any re- flexion on the chancellor of the exchequer. He had advised his majesty to dissolve the parliament at a time that he thought most convenient for the public service, and he had given substantial proofs that he did not believe it would affect the state of the impeachment. ' But if there were vol. ii. l any 146 any' persons in his majesty's councils who believed, and who meant to maintain, that a dissolution of parliament necessarily put- an end . to, an im peachment, they were highly culpable, and ought to answer to their country for advising a measure, perhaps good in itself, but which they knew must defeat the eqds of public justice. It had been observed, Mr. Fox said, that as the dissolution of parliament was generally expected, those who- conducted the impeachment, and were anxious that public justice should not be defeated, ought to have brought in a bill to continue the impeachment over th^ dissolution, when they saw that the trial could not be concluded without it : this' was not the opinion of the managers, and all that depended upon them had been done. They had moved a resolution in the last session of the late parliament, that the commons would persevere in the impeachment, till the ends of public justice were obtained', and the resolution had been adopt ed by the house. What was the conduct of those who thought that a, dissolution would put an end to the impeachment r Did they apprise the house of 2 147 of it ? — No ! When they saw the house voting that they would persevere in the impeachment, When they knew that a dissolution was approach ing, which, in their opinion, must necessarily be fatal to it, instead of bringing forward their con stitutional law for the information of the house, When such information might have been useful, they carefully concealed it as a snare, as a poison which lay lurking in their minds, and which was now insidiously brought into motion to destroy at once both the law of parliament and the constitu tion. They had been" advised to inspect the lords* journals* and to consider their own as of no au thority, His honourable and learned friend (Mr. Erskine) had been the author of this advice. -Primum Graius homo mortales tollere eontr* Est oculos ausus. It was, he believed, the first time that a member of that house had advised them to consult the journals of the other for the privileges of the commons, in preference of their own. If their i 2 own 148 own journals could aferd them no. information, then, indeed, they might consult the journals of the other house ; or they might appeal to the lords' journals as corroborating the authority of their own ; but to search the lords' journals for precedents to controvert the authority of their own, and to make out a case against themselves, was what he never expected to hear proposed. They had on their own journals an express de claration that an impeachment does not abate by a dissolution of parliament; a declaration ac quiesced in by the lords, repeatedly acted upon by the commons; and never once contradicted by a subsequent declaration : and it was strange indeed to hear the same learned gentleman, who had laid it down as' a principle, that an order of any competent court, acquiesced in for a series of years,- and never afterwards annulled, made - law, advising the house of commons to consult the journals ofthe lords for the purpose of turning aside the clear and uniform stream ofthe law of parliament ms appeared for more than a century. Next to the independent end free born spirit of 149 ofthe people, Mr. Fox said, the law of impeach ment was. their best security for the undisturbed enjoyment of their lives and liberties. It was their only peaceable security against the vices and cor ruptions of the government ; and therefore, he hoped, that no man, by weakening or annihilating that, would reduce them to the necessity of hav ing recourse to any other. To declare that an impeachment did not abate by a dissolution of parliament, with a view to prevfent the improper interference of the crown, had been called 'muz zling ihe lion with a cobweb. No human form of government was ever yet so perfect as to guard against every possible abuse of power, and the subjects of every government must submit to the lot of /men, and bear with some evils. But when abuses became so frequent or enormous as to be oppressive and intolerable, then, it was that the > last remedy must be applied,; that the free spirit of the people must put into action their natural power to redress those grievances for which they had no peaceable means of redress, and to assert their indefeasible right to a just and equitable , government. No man would deny that cases L 3 • ' might 150 might occur in which a people could have no choice but slavery or resistance ; no man would hesitate to say what their choice ought to be ; and it was the best wisdom of every government not to create a necessity for resistance by depriving the people of legal means of redress. He felt' it his duty to state, in plain terms, to what the" abuse must lead, if the remedy was essentially weakened or wholly taken away. The alternative he had mentioned, every good man must deprecate as too dreadful in its probable consequences ; and when ever sad necessity should urge it on, every indi vidual who had a heart to feel for the calamities , of his country, must deplore the exigency of the times. Nevertheless they were to watch possi bilities in that house with an eye of caution and jealousy : and should tyranny ever be enforced, he had no doubt but the gentlemen of the long Vbbe, whose opinions he had felt himself obliged to reprobate, would contradict the sentiments they had chosen to deliver, by their actions, and shew by their zeal and. activity that they were as ready to lay down their lives in defence of their free dom, as any description of men whatever. - Mr. \ ' 151 ' Mr. Fox concluded with a short review of precedents; contending with irresistible clearness arid force, that all, except one, made against the ' ' abatement of an impeachment by a dissolution, and had been so understood by the courts of jus tice, and by the rnost eminent law authorities. But it was not on precedent, he said, but on prin ciple that he stood. The right of impeachment, proceeding without abatement from- session to session, and from parliament to parliament, was the vital, the defensive principle of the constitu tion ; that which preserved it from internal de cay ; that which protected it from external in jury ; without which, every office Of executive power, every function of judicial authority, might be exercised or abused at the caprice of him who held it, or Of him who had the right of appointing to it. — -The question was carried in favour of the impeachment by 143 to 30 votes. In the course of the session a bill was brought into the house for the relief of certain descriptions of Roman catholics, which afforded Mr. Fox a fresh opportunity of asserting the principles of • - j. 4 toleration. ,152 toleration. He repeated his former ideas on the subject that the state had no" right to enquire into the opinions of people either political or religious; it had a right only to take cognizance of their actions. He contended that all the different christian -religions that were tolerated in other countries of Europe, ought to have the same con venient toleration in England. Adverting to the present state of toleration in different countries of Europe, and the advantages^ resulting to each from that salutary regulation, he said, in the king of Prussia's dominions all religions were tolerate ed '; in the United Provinces all religions were tolerated ; and in France and America it was the same. What could be the reason of this ? Would it be said that Prussia was' too little monarchical for a monarchy ? or that Holland was too little aristocratical for an aristocracy ? or that liberty was not sufficiently extended to satisfy the friends of freedom in France or in America ? And yet, though toleration was given full scope to in a monarchical, an aristocratical government, and two democracies, under our constitution, hoasting of its superior excellence, on account of its 153 its possessing and blending all the excellence of each of the three forms of government, toleration was to be narrowed and confined in shackles disgraceful to humanity. He thought he had thus given a contrasted variety of governments, and every one of them, he contended, had been manifestly and essentially improved by the princi ples of tpleration. When it was thus found (and he believed the statement he had given was in controvertible) that, universal toleration, without any exception, was a wise and salutary measure in every different government, certainly it was particularly calculated and well adapted to the constitution of this country, one of the prin cipal beauties of which had always been, and he trusted would ever remain to be, a mixed govern ment, composed of parts from every species of government, happily blended to form a constitu tion and government so near to perfection, as to beat once the admiration and example of sur rounding nations, as well as the glory and boast of every British subject that lived under its benign influence, When 154 When the bill was in its progress through the house, Mr. Fox expressed bis desire that its prin- ' ciple might be extended to all classes of Roman catholics. He could not agree with^ some per sons, that policy had ever been a just cause for the severe laws that had been enacted against the papists. It Was hot policy ever to oppress. By Oppression, resistance was excited ; and the inflexible mind of man was more readily provoked to obstinacy, than subdued to submission, by such measure's. The true motive of fhe severe laws which were enacted in the reign of Eliza beth, might be derived from a baser source ; it was fear and not policy which suggested them. At that time the great number of persons attached to the communion of Rome, rendered that party formidable, and provoked the severity of a fearful government. Their multiplication was owing to the same cause in the reign of king James. Afterwards, in the reigh of Charles II. the same apprehension of popery remained, though, perhaps, from a cause not entirely similar. The arbitrary measures ofthe court, the tendency which prevail ed even then to the communion of Rome, and the s certainty ' ' 155 certainty of a popish successor, connected as these things were, not by necessity, but by fortune, gave a bias to the opinions of the people, and made them ascribe those dangers to religion, which were the result of ambition, and, the spirit of domination. Happy if the people had then been able to exercise this discernment, and to vindicate the proceedings which were afterwards successfully terminated in the revolution, not upon religious differences, not upon the dogmas of theology, but upon the just, solid, and unanswerable principles of liberty, But whatever reasons there might have been for those fears of popery in former times, surely no grounds for alarm existed at the present moment. We had nothing to fear from a pope, from a popish king, or from a pretender. — When all these reasons were vanished, was it fit for the house anylonger to maintain on its statute books, acts, which could not even be stated without being universally reprobated ? He regarded the statutes against toleration as impious ; for1 who gave the house a right to decide upon the religious opinions pf 156 of any man ? He hoped the time was not far distant when religious liberty would be held as' essential as civil liberty, and be enjoyed with safety in all governments. After going over a variety of ground, Mr. Fox concluded with appealing, in favour Of his propo sition for a more ample toleration, both to the justice and mercy of the house. It was a maxim in politics, he stated, that the power of the many was more difficult to remove, when improperly exercised, than the power ofthe few. The power of the tyrant was the power of a single indivi dual ; and though his reign might be prolonged' by many causes, yet his support was artificial, and rebellious nature, enlightened by reason, would most certainly succeed in crushing the usurpation, and asserting its dignity. 'But the power of more than a single tyrant which had the support of nature, in proportion to its physical diffusions and solidity ; and every attempt to relieve from such an oppression, would be attended with more diffi^ culty than in the former case, on which account it required greater temperance and moderation in its 157 its exercise. But worst of all, and quite desperate of relief, was the case where almost the whole body of a community differed from a very small part of that community, and, in differing, oppres sed it. In this case, not only temperance and moderation were necessary virtues, but indulgence and mercy should prevail over every other senti ment, and we should distrust our very strength, because we know how often strength is perverted. He had- always been of opinion that the old proverb, though homely, had great good sense in it, " As you are stout be merciful." In pro portion to superiority of strength, every. person was, bound not to tyrannize over the few, nor to trample on the weak ; but to act as he hoped that house would do by the Roman catholics, carefully squaring their conduct by the strictest rules of justice, and humanity. The question of the African slave trade occu pied, at this time, much ofthe attention of parlia ment and the nation ; and the horrid cruelties proved to have been exercised in the prosecution of that detestable traffic, excited mingled sensa tions 158 tions of commiseration and indignation in the breast of every person of humanity. On the .18th of April, Mr. Wilberforee, whose noble exertions in the behalf of the oppressed natives of Africa will ever be remembered with applause, brought forward a motion for the abolition of the slave trade. On such an occasion, it was im possible for a man abounding in the milk of human kindness like Mr. Fox, to give a silent vote. In one of the most pathetic and masterly orations ever delivered within the Walls of the house of commons, he gave a full vent to the unbounded philanthropy of his heart, which, had the zeal of his contemporaries preserved rfo other memorials of his matchless powers, must have left posterity divided, whether most to admire, the transcendent genius of the orator, or the benefi cent heart of the man, tremblingly alive to all the claims of humanity, and bleeding for the sufferings of his fellow beings. Mr. Fox commenced his speech by observing, that it having been said, that parliament had long permitted the slave trade, it was obvious that there 159 there was a wide difference between neglecting to put a stop to cruelty and injustice, when the objects were not immediately under their consi deration, and their giving their solemn sanction to such a system, after long investigation and debate, and with all the proofs of its enormity full in their view. If the decision of the house should be in favour of the trade, they would incur more guilt in the eyes of God and the world, than their predecessors, by all they had authorised and permitted. No man would suspect him of prizing political liberty too lightly : it was a great and inestimable blessing which no man could be too anxious to preserve or to ob tain ; but when compared with personal liberty, without which one man became the slave of the interest or caprice of another, it appeared of no account. — How the Africans were treated, and how the trade was conducted, it required only , that they should peruse the evidence on the table to know — and after reading that evidence, per sons who could stand up in that house, and give a vote for its continuance, must have nerves of which he had no conception! Human sacrifices, he i6o he knew, had been made in all ages of man ; and* ancient history produced instances of sacrifices, where all the natural ties of the heart were broken ; but, in sUch instances, a Brutus justified the act by self reasoning. He filled his mind with an heroic sentiment of love for his country. But all these instances of sacrifices fell and dimin ished to nothing, in comparison of this wholesale .sacrifice of a whole order and race of our fellow creatures. What was this African trade ? A traffic for human beings to be torn from t'heir country by force, in order to be subjected to the caprice and tyranny of other human beings, for their natural lives, and their posterity for ever. Such was the trade ! Mr. Fox then proceeded to adduce some in stances of the cruelty with which the slaves were treated in the islands. It had been stated, he said, in the evidence of a gentleman of unimpeached integrity, that in one of the French islands, a planter had a slave who had run away from him, and who he feared might commit the abominable crime of running away again ; to prevent this, he sent 161 sent for a surgeon, and directed him to cut off one of his legs : the surgeon remonstrated strong ly against the detestable cruelty of the act, and positively refused to comply with so execrable and inhuman a request. The planter said he would ' make it the duty ofthe surgeon to comply, and saying this, he actually broke the man's leg — broke and lacerated it by the application of force! and then turning to the surgeon, said, " Now, sir, do your duty, and cut off that mangled limp to save the fellow's life," — The other instance was not- in a French island. > A gentleman heard the screams of a female negro from the inside of a hedge. He looked through the hedge and saw a woman suspended by the two arms to a tree, and swinging to and fro ; but her screams were so horrible and heart-piercing, that he could not j conceive that they proceeded entirely from this torture. He made his way through the fence, and found the author of her .torture standing with a lighted torch, which, as he swung his helpless victim from side to side, he applied to every part of her body by turns- — to torture, but. not to kill her-^-to keep . her in agony that made, vol. n. m the 162 the blood curdle Jbut to imagine. — " I know not," exclaimed Mr. Fox, " what might have- been the crime of the poor sufferer ; but grant that it was the worst possible crime that the human, heart could conceive, such punishmentwas base, horrid, and unpardonable.'' — :" I see," continued this great advocate of the human race, l< that your hearts are unable to bear these tortures ; and yet you will sanctify them by law. Humanity, sir, does not consist in a squeamish ear. It be* longs to the mind as well as to the nerves, and, leads a man to take measures for the prevention of cruelty, which the hypocritical cant of hu manity contents itself with deploring.^rWhat do we do ? In our indignation of justice, we cpridem unto death a low pilferer — a pickpocket or a high wayman — and the same legislature that makes such crimes (which, comparatively, may be called innocence itself) sanctifies the pillage, robberies* and murders- of this horrid trade. What is the consequence q( this compromise ? That it un settles the principles of justice in the minds of men— that it takes from the legislature the strong hold which it ought to have in its character, and the 163 the influence which it would derive from integrity and consistence. It is as necessary in sound po licy, as it is in justice and honour, to abolish a trade which militates against our own morals and police at home, as well as against our national character abroad." The first answer that had been made to those who desired the abolition of this-detestable traffic, said Mr. Fox, was, that the Africans were misera ble in their own country, and therefore there was ho harrn^ in taking them away. If they were unhappy, it was their own misfortune ; but was not ours a very unaccountable mode of bettering their condition ? What right had we to force upon them a new condition ? v " If we are un happy," they might say, " leave us at least the comforts we have— rthe liberty of our native though naked plains — the social relations of life —the natural exercise of the functions with which we are endowed : they belong inherently to us, and you have .no right to change, even to better, our condition." But it was ridiculous to say that their condition was bettered; when they were M 2 forcibly . 104 ' forcibly divided from evefy thing that Was dear to them in life, and sunk'/ and degraded into the state of personal slaves to fellow-creatures — to creatures perhaps much more feeble in mind and body than themselves. — The second argument he had heard vyas from an honourable alderman (Watson) ; and though the subject was too serious to countenance any thing facetious, he could not help saying that the argument was, irresistibly ludicrous. "The utility of the African trade," said the alderman, " was manifested in the support which it gave to our nursery of seamen ; for the slaves eat the refuse of the fish taken at New foundland, and which is too bad, for any other market." This argument, said Mr. Fox, seriously advanced, was curious. The trade was to be sup ported, because the slaves eat fish so bad that- no other persons' would' eat them, and thereby sup ported the. nursery for seamen! Was this 'also' a proof that , we bettered their condition, by carrying them to our islands ? — The third argument against, the abolition* con- t inue'd Mr. Fox, and the argument of most weight,, was, 165 was, that though the English might be ready to give up this trade, other nations were not ; and: it was asked, if we were ready to sacrifice so much of our trade to France, Spain, Holland, &c. ? This argument of gain, however it might be addressed to gentlemen, certainly deserved little weight seriously considered ; for what did it amount to ? — That we enjoyed a gainful trade which -we confessed we were ashamed of — But what signifies our giving it up ? The poor African will be no better. The French, Spaniards, and Dutch, will oppress them in the same way, and we shall only lose the profits. Such vvas the train of reasoning, Just in the same way might a com mon robber arguej when exhorted to relinquish his vices, and amend his life. " It is true," he might say, " I am sensible of my crimes, but what will the world gain by my repentance ? if I d® not take your purse at this corner, I know to a certainty that some more of the gang will stop you a mile farther — you will certainly lose your purse, and I shall lose it too." Away with such reasoning ! It was time for men to think that there were other objects in good government m 3 than 166 than mere gain. They were not indeed legislators for the universe, nor could they dictate to other nations what line of conduct to pursue; but let them set a good and , wholesome example-— let them be the first to act right, and there was no doubt but there would soon be followers of their example. No man, he was persuaded, could view Ihe question in its- true aspect, and suffer his under standing to be bewildered by these arguments. Equally false and irrational was the monstrous proposition, that through all the various nations of Africa from which this deplorable traffic was supplied, their fellow creatures were in a lower state of intelligence than themselves, and that they were born to subjection. In all countries* and ambng all classes of men, there were instances of enlightened spirits, of superior endowments, of hearts as pregnant with honour, and of minds as truly illuminated by genius, as they could boast in the polished climate of England. And, he had no doubt, but in the indiscriminate career. of this trade, we frequently trampled on men of souls as 167 high and sensible as any that Europe could boast* They had," in evidence on the table, a memprable instance in point. In a slave ship, during, the passage, a gentlernan heard an unusual clang of the chains, and a murmur of mental agony. A slave, who perhaps hail been taken captive in battle, had dreamt, it seems, that he was again in his own country — again restored to the free func tions of life — again high in command*- again lead ing faithful followers to battle— and from this joyous scene of a disturbed but high imagination, he awakened to find himself,, stretched and chain ed, surrounded by hundreds pf his supine com panions. The horror of the contrast from dream ing delusion to waking certainty, threw him into a paroxysm that filled the ship with horror. Mr. Fox then called on the house to make the case their own. To suppose what might happen — that by some turn of human affairs, England should be over- run by a tribe as savage as Englishmen were on the coast of Africa — and that they carried into slavety a number of the people of England. From what class of English- m 4 ' men. ids ¦ men, however low and uneducated, could they find men so generally dull and senseless as to have no feeling to the wretchedness of personal slavery ? What arrogance and blasphemy was it then to suppose, that Providence had not endowed men with equal feelings in other countries ! Let them look to the words of our Saviour ; let them weigh deeply one of the most splendid doctrines of the christian dispensation — a doctrine which, more perhaps than any other, served to illustrate the unparalleled beauty and grandeur of that most amiable and excellent of all religions — a doctrine before which slavery vvas forced to fly ; and to which doctrine he attributed the memorable and glorious fact, that, soon after the establishment of Christianity in Europe, human slavery was abolished. The doctrine to which he alluded was, "High and low, rich and poor, are equal in the sight of God." — Here was a doctrine which •only required to be duly impressed on the heart of man to extinguish the term of slave; and ac cordingly, what all the ancient systems of philo sophy had failed to do, Christianity had accom plished ;¦ and yet, in the ancient philosophers, we < i found 169 , - found a liberality of sentiment, and a view of human rights, as perfect as in any of the theories of the present day. It would be idle in him to pay so false a compliment to any of the great names that adorned the present day, as to say that there were men now alive more capable of deliver ing the truths of an enlightened philosophy and a Commanding eloquence, than Demosthenes and' Cicero — that there were historians and writers more capable of asserting the rights of men, or the dignity of human nature, than Thucydides and Tacitus — and yet these men were contented to live in states where men were slaves. It was, in his mind, to the pure light which this doctrine of our Saviour gave' to the heart of man, that the abolition of slavery was to be ascribed. He knew that there were men who ascribed every improve ment in the condition of the human race to the enlightened philosophy of modern times. He was willing to allow much to its happy and pro- , gressive influence. — Then why, exclaimed Mr. Fox, not proceed on this philosophy, if they denied it to the power of* religion ? Let each party .190 party ascribe it to the influence that he favoured} but as both the philosopher and the christian pursued the same end* though by different means, why not pursue it with the temper and meekness which the moving powerp were calculated to inspire? If the motion should, unfortunately be rejected, he pledged himself, in whatever situa tion he might be in that house, to give the pro position his whole attention and influence as often as it should come on : and he trusted it would be regularly brought forward, until the wisdom of parliament should deliver the nation and the age from the ignominy of so disgraceful a traffic.— It had been too much considered as a matter o» gain. Gain, he must repeat, was not the first purpose of a well regulated government— nor even the second purpose. Honour was greatly above gain — and justice was greatly above honour.' He trusted they would convince the world, that they were not so devoted to gain, as to sacrifice the principles of general justice— of that justice which : it became them to extend to all the world, and which they could not refuse without a breach of national m national honour. This they would do, if they did not cordially agree in the abolition of that detestable traffic. Mr. Fox said* if it were asked, whether it were meant to abolish slavery in the West Indies also^ he would candidly answer, he was sorry that he could not go so far. It was possible for men to be slaves so long, as to make it dangerous all at once to give them their liberty— -as a man might be blind so long as to make it delicate for a surgeon to open his eyes all at once. Besides he did not think the condition of men born and brought up in slavery, so deplorable as Was his^ who, born and brought up to man's estate iri freedom, had been snatched by violence from his* home, and reduced to subjection. Mr. Fox illus trated this difference with great felicity of argu ment, and concluded his animated appeal in behalf of the oppressed sons and daughters, of Africa, with repeating his pledge of continuing, in all situations, to exert himself for the accomplishment of this object* How nobly this pledge Was afterwards ' 172 afterwards redeemed, it is not the place here to descant upon. Among the many advantages of the British constitution, none is more justly prized by the .people than the t rial by jury. It is one of those rights of which the daily and familiar exercise is equally a bulwark of their freedom, and a sign of their dignity. In the trial of crimes by this mode, the person , to be tried feels the protection of his country against any oppressive accusation, and the jurors exercise -a power which accustoms them to consider themselves as the protectors' of innocence, and at the same time the guardians, of justice. But it had long been a matter of complaint, that in the case oi libels the rights of juries were in an indefinite and indeterminate state. A doctrine, supported by the high authority of lord Mansfield, had prevailed for a considerable time in the courts of law,, that on the trial of a person accused of a libel, the only questions left with the jury, were ¦the fact of the publication; and if there. were what are called innuendoes in the libel, (that is blanks or ambiguous expressions, meaning certain persons 173 persons or things,) whether the indictment charg ed their meaning or import fairly. The intention of the writer and tendency of the writing were held to be questions of law, on which it was the province of the judge to decide. On a general view of the subject it could not well fail to strike the observer, that criminality was to be measured by something else than the mere publishing of a paper ; and that the essence of that criminality must consist in the intention and tendency of the publication. That if this intention and tendency were not to be tried by the jury, their function was of little importance, and could not afford that protection to their fellow subjects which the trial by his peers was meant to secure to him. The stream of decisions, how ever, had run so long in this channel, as was held to amount to a fixed and invariable rule of law, and it was supposed necessary to resort, to the legislature to establish a new rule for the future ; ' and to give to the jury in the trial of libel that power of decision, which should be more analo gous to their jurisdiction in other criminal matters, and 174 and more congenial to the spirit of the British constitution. In the course of this session Mr. Fox made a motion for a grand committee on courts of justice, to enquire into some late decisions of the courts in cases of libel. He prefaced his arguments by saying, that he hoped he should not by this motion be thought inclined to lead the house. to any measure foreign to their jurisdiction or their duty ; nor when he urged the necessity of the house watching Over this, as over every other branch of the executive government, he should he supposed to insinuate any thing particularly defective or blameable in the execution of justice at the present moment. If such a supposition were admitted, that house must either abandon one of its most important functions, or have the mortification to think itself the cause of -alarms in the country, by exciting suspicions derogatory to that obedience to the law, and to that respect for its interpreters, so essential to the safety and welfare of the state, It was only his intention to complain of defects which had crept into the courts, I 175 courts, and which required the interference of that house tp prevent their taking root. Who ever made an observation on the improvement of the world, and on the general spread of science, must acknowledge that it was owing to the diffusion of the liberty of the press. He would not, he said, declaim on the various advantages of the liberty of the press, though he hoped he might assert those advantages without being thought a defender of its licentiousness. Pre vious restraints on the press, he thought, had, in all countries, and at all times, had the effect of restraining the just liberty of the people, without being able to prevent the mischiefs arising from its licentiousness ; and he believed ff there was any danger of a perversion of the press, or of taking from the just and natural abhorrence of its licentiousness, it was by a series of severe judgments, and of severe punishments on free writings. .He acknowledged the abuses ofthe press ; but if persons were to argue, from the circumstance of there being so much licence, that there was liberty enough, in his apprehension they would argue very inconclusively. There was no 176 no difficulty in this country for any man to libel another; but no man ought to libel with impunity,. and public characters had as .'much a right to be defended as those who were never engaged in public affairs. Any man could indeed libel with impunity any character public or private : but, as the law now stood, he much doubted whether any; man could really discuss the actions of govern* ment, in the way in which it was the right of every man to discuss them, without running a greater risk to his person and. property than pru dent men would choose to hazard. In this view Mr. Fox stated the case oiLuxford, printer of the Morning Herald, prosecuted for a libel published in that paper with regard to the armament in our dispute with Spain. The subject was certainly ih this free country a matter of fair discussion ; and all that the author of the para- ' graph had said was, " that the ostensible purpose of the armament might possibly novt be the real, one ; that the object of Nootka Sound was too trifling to justify so great a hazard; and therefore it might be. connected in some way with our . Prussian / 177 Prussian alliance." This political opinion or hy* pothesis he could not conceive to be a libel at all ; and had the information been drawn in a way which would have brought this point fairly to a decision, he had not a doubt that judgment might have been arrested on it. He mentioned the case to shew the mischiefs to which the present doc trine of the law of lihets might lead. By that doctrine it is held that the filling up the innuen does is the province of the jury ; and the tendency of the whole writing, after these are filled up, the province of tbe judge. An innuendo in its fair sense he took tp be a mere explanation ; it was like the Latin words scilicet^ or id est, or the English word importing. But on the trial in > question the innuendo took the shape of an in- ference ; it did not merely explain the import of a word, but declared the tendency of the who'e passage, " to alarm the king, the national asseih- bly, and the people of France, and 'to induce* them to enter into hostilities against this country." In this case, therefore, if the defendant applied himself to the jury, he might be told that the tendency of the word was a legal inference of vol. ir. n which . Which- the court was to judge; if he applied, tP the court, they might tell him that this was not a legal inference, but an /innuendo* or inference in fact which the jury had found, and must be taken as it appeared on the record. There were .indeed other counts in the infor mation against Luxford, charging him with a libel against the king's ministers, whose conduct the author in question had censured in strong terms ; and as ' far as accusing them- of acting; without policy, prudence, or spirit, was libellous,.;, he was certainly guilty of a libel against them ; but not a libel of such atrocity as deserved to be punished, not such, he believed, as they would wish to have punished, by standing in the pillory? and a twelvemonth's imprisonment, which was the sentence of the court in this ease. He felt the delicacy of bringing any thing forward like a complaint against the court; yet he eould not reconcile to his feelings to stand by uncoacerned, and see an innocent man suffer, or what was* ' nearly the same thing, a guilty man punished fliuch, beyond the measure of his offence. - From* 179 " / Frbm the examination of this particular -case he was led to consider the law of libels in general and the question who were to be the judges of innuendo and of inference. If the jury, as was- confessed, were judges of the first, he, for his part, could see no reason why they should not be judges of the latter. If it was maintained that such a writing, as in the case he had speci fied, tended to excite the French to hostilities against this country, surely that was an inference of one fact from another, which a man of plain good sense might draw from his own judgment, but which all the law volumes in the world could never assist him to form. The point to. be considered was, whether when law and fact were mixed, the jury were competent to decide upon both. After complimenting Mr. Erskine for his speech on this subject in the trial of the dean of St. Asaph, Mr. Fox proceeded to the consideration of the law authorities on the subject. For authorities in law he professed the highest respect ; but when authority was not consonant to reason, it had the pernicious effect N 2 of 180 pf destroying that reveVence for authority On which the pillars of public confidence and security jested. In the -opinion of some lawyers of high rank and eminence, the jury, in cases of libel, were to find the publication and the innuendoes, and the questiqn of intention was afterwards left completely to the court. On the contrary, he was of opinion that many of the things stated were not matters of law, but matters of fact : and whether they were matters of law or of fact, where the general issue was joined, the jury was to consider such general issue, and give a verdict compounded of fact and of law. This opinion, he said, was not of modern date, but as old as the time of fhe celebrated John Lilburn, whose prin ciples were just, though his phrase was homely arid coarse. He was tried for a libel in the time of Cromwell, and acquitted in spite of all the influence of the protector and the anger of the judges. With regard to his acquittal or con demnation, Lilburn declared the jury were every thing, and the judges mere cyphers : the reply of judge Jermyn, who presided on the occasion, w££ a curious specimen of the temper and man ners. 181 ners of those times. — He said, " it was a damna ble and blasphemous heresy to call the judges cyphers." Yet Lilburn was acquitted. For a considerable time after, the subject had been considered, in a different view, for which he would hazard, a conjectural reason, that from the re- storation, till some years after the revolution, the press being subject to a licence, the only thing necessary for the jury to consider was, whether such a thing was published without a licence, the want of licence alone constituting the crime. It was in latter times that the doctrine was first promulgated, that the jury were not at liberty to -consider the matter of a libel generally ; that they were to determine only the fact of the publication, not its tendency, nor the intention ofthe publisher. It was not easy toimagine that the law oi England, with all its justice and liber ality, could pronounce a man guilty, before any enquiry into his guilt ; yet this must happen if all that the jury have to determine is- the mere fact of publication. In every other branch of the criminal law, gu ill was to be proved before it was inferred ; bu in this, guilt was inferred if ,3 ¦ " against 1&2 against the defendant before it was determined. whether his publication was culpable, or innocent; or even a meritorious one. Lord Mansfi&ld's opinion, which,. Mr. Fox said, he had considered with all the deference and respect due to so able a magistrate, seemed to resolve into this, that the verdict of a jury in the case of a libel was in the nature of a special verdict, that is, finding certain facts, and leaving the application of the law to the , court* In the first place then, the jury in the case of libel were constrained to find a special verdict, which ought to be, and in every other case was, a matter of choice. But in the second place there was a rhost material difference between this special ver dict in the case of libel, and special verdicts in every other case; that irt other cases the court must consider the law before judgment can be pronounced; in this, if there was no motion in arrest of judgment, judgment immediately folldw- ed without any such consideration. The jury find the publication ; no matter how innocent or eyen useful the publication is— judgment follows of 183 of course, and the publisher is punished as 'a libeller. Was it agreeable to the spirit of the law of England that the onus should lie on the person accused to prove his innocence, and not on the accuser to prove his guilt ? With respect to the general principle of the lawyers, that " ad questionem facti non respondent judices ; ad questionem legis non respondent jura- tores,'' Mr. Fox observed, that when a man was accused of murder, a crime consisting both of law jand fact, the jury every day found a verdict of guilty, and this was also the case in felony, high treason, and every other criminal indictment. Libels were the only exception, the single ano maly. He contended that if the jury had no jurisdiction over libels, the office of counsel in such causes was unnecessary. When a jury was in a court of justice, and they did not enquire into the criminality at all, but only into the fact ofthe publication, the counsel addressing them was a sarcasm on the proceedings. There was another part of the doctrine of libels which ap peared unaccountable. — It was admitted that if N 4 ' part 184 part ofthe writing were libellous, and another part not libellous, they had a right to bring the whole before the jury in evidence. Mr. Fox asked, on 'what principle were the jury to look at the whole, but 'that they might know whether the paper was .ibellous or not? In 1731, in the time of lord Raymond, the present doctrine of libels was in troduced ; but he hoped that no man would contend that it ought to be law. .. It was a prin-.. ciple of law so absurd, so vicious, so untenable, that in the practice of this reign, and even of lord Mansfield himself, it was not invariably: adhered to. In the case of the King against Home, lord Mansfield said, " that intention was a matter for the judgment of the jury, and that they were to decide upon the criminality." But this doctrine was completely denied in the case' of the King against Shipley, and oa that account he Wished the house to come to a decision on the subject. Mr. Fox said, he had hitherto considered the subject as relating to libels, and to libels only. fle niefint to state it with regard to a matter . Pf 18J ^ of still higher importance, with regard to high treason. He believed it was admitted on all hands, that a writing might be an overt act of treason. In this ca»e if the court h^d a right to say to the jury, "consider only whether the criminal published the paper; dp not consider whether it was treasonable or not :" would En^ glishmen endure that this should be the case? Could men permit death to be inflicted without a jury having had an opportunity of delivering their sentiments or verdict, whether the indivi dual was or was not guilty ? If this doctrine were true, and it could be brought home to the person who wrote the paper, that he pub lished it, he would not have a word to say in his defence. And he must be found guilty, not of a, misdemeanour, but of, high treason. His liberty and life would not depend on the verdict > oi twelve persons, but on four lawyers. He did not mean, Mr. Fox said, to speak with disrespect of the judges ; but a verdict, in such a case, would certainly depend on four men who drew their deductions from books, not from facts, and the circumstances of the times. A m^n might thus be 186 be in a situation to lose his life without the judgment of his peers. This point was stronger in case of high treason than in that of libels; but it was only 'stronger, inasmuch as to a man death was of more importance than temporary confinement. Having shewn that the modern doctrine of the law of libels was contrary to the original principles of law, and, dangerous to the constitution, Mr.' F'ox said, he found himself incapable of suggesting a remedy for these eyijs without the assistance of the house. If the committee were clear as to the law on the subject, their wisest and most pro» per measure would be, to enact a declaratory lavy respecting it ; but if they were of opinion that the high authorities on the other side of the question made the law doubtful, they plight settle the law in future, without any reference to whal it had been in times past. Mr. Fox having finished the subject of libels,1 called the attention ofthe house to another point of great importance. By a statute of queen Anne, is; Anne, for regulating proceedings by quo war-* ranto, every -corporator might inform himself of the corporate situation of any burgess of the same borough. Any private man might make his ap plication ; and, according to a late opinion, the court had a discretionary po\ver of granting or refusing it. According to another opinion, the court had no such discretion. The former opin-r ion, however, was the best. The, court of king's bench had endeavoured to lay down a rule to guide their discretion, and lord Mansfield had held twenty years as the space of time after which no application should be made to disturb men in their franchises ; but recently the court had greatly shortehed the period within which people might apply for such informations. They had determined, if a man had enjoyed his franchises, without interruption, for six years, he should never be called upon after that period. This Mf. Fox thought an improper regulation. There was another point of view in which the matter might be taken into consideration. The attorney-general could of his own authority move for informations ; and though private persons were limited to six years., 188 years, he was subjected to no such inconvenience*; being wholly unlimited in- point of time. It al ways happened that ihe king's ministers were' more or less concerned in elections ; and con sequently the attorney-general might move for a great many informations against those who were not friendly to him or his colleagues. Corpora-. tors, after six years, were safe against every man but the king ; but if they were to exercise their privileges contrary to the interests of the crown, the king's attorney-general might come and take their franchises from them. ,This, he said, was an immense additional weight to the prerogative. of the crown, and might prove extremely dan gerous to the liberty of the people. He thought there ought to be a statute regulating the con duct of the king's bench, with regard to the granting of such informations, and giving double costs in cases of frivolojus applications : and he thought also, that with respect to limitation of time, the crown and the subject ought to stand precisely^on the same level. Reverting to the subject of libels, Mr. Fox said, isg said* there was one great and popular topic which he had purposely omitted— viz. the doctrine, that " truth was not only not a justification, but a libel was more a libel because it was true." — -To say that truth was not sometimes a justification, would be very extraordinary indeed ; yet there certainly were cases in which truth would not be a justifi cation, but an aggravation. Suppose, for instance, m man had any personal defect or misfortune, any thing disagreeable about his body, or was unfor* tunate in any of his relations, and that persons went about exposing him on those accounts, for the purpose of malice, and that all these evils Were, day after day* brought forward to make a man's life, unhappy to himself, and tending to hold him out as the object of undeserved contempt and • ridicule to the world — would any man say that in cases of this sort truth wa* not rather an aggravation ? On the other hand, in questions relating to public men, verity, in respect to pub lic measures, ought to be regarded as a complete justification of a libel* if a libel it could be called in that situation. He conceived, therefore, that the best way would be to permit every defendant to 196 to pfove the truth of a libel, if he thought proper*- and then to consider what effect it ought to have* whether it amounted to a justification or otheri wise, and to let it affect the judgment either way in proportion.; They ought to consider* Mr. Fox said} the main springs upon which the consti tution turned. The two most important springs were, the representation qf the people through the medium of thai house, and the juridical power of the people thfoUgh the medium, of juries : and it appeared to him that if even the other parts of the system fell into disorder, yet, if these main springs were preserved in full vigour, the rest might be repaired ; but if these two springs gave way, all the rest must fall completely to destruc-; tion. The right ofthe trial by jury could not be! complete, unless in every criminal case, where the law and fact were mixed, the jury were the judges; unless the intention was to be decided by the jury, and not by men who could not judge but by means of books, and many subtilties and , distinctions, /but could never find out the heart of, man,, and distinguish, between his actions. ) Mr. i9i Mr. Fox's motion being assented to by thei minister, with some slight modifications, two bills were brought forward, the one, " to remove all doubts respecting the rights and functions of juries in criminal cases ;" the other " to explain and amend an act made in the ninth of queen Anne, for rendering proceedirigs upon writs of mandamus, and informations in the nature of quo warranto, more speedy and effectual." These bills passed the house of commons, though not without considerable opposition from the crown lawyers. In the lords they were strenuously opposed by the lord chancellor, (Thurlow,) and, at the second reading, postponed. The public rupture between Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke, so memorable in its consequences, occur red in the course of this session. Previous to the meeting of parliament Mr. Burke had publish ed his celebrated Reflexions on the French Revo lution, and as his sentiments on that event differed widely from those of Mr. Fox, some degree- of alienation took place between them, but no public discussion of their opinions occurred till • the de bates ]|2 bates on the bill for settling the constitution^ of the province of Quebec* In its first stages through the" house, the bill excited very slight attention ; but on considering the report on the Sth of April, Mr. Fox stated a number of forci ble objections. The division of the province, he Said, which was the most important and striking part of the bill, appeared to him not -only un necessary but impolitic. It had been recom mended as dividing the Canadian from 'the Bri tish inhabitants, and affording the means of providing for their separate interets ; but was. this an object to be desired ? Was it not much more desirable that those two classes of inhabitants should unite and coalesce, and that all such na tional distinctions should be henceforth extin guished and forgotten ? He objected to the number of the representative body, which in the bill was limited, to sixteen in Upper and thirty in Lower Canada, as too small ; and its duration* which was fixed like that ofthe British parliament for seven years, as too long. On the same prin ciple, he thought the proposed qualification of the electors (5l. per annum) too high. All these, provisions. 193 provisions, he contended, were contrary tp the principle, which, in forming this part of a new constitution, ought to be the leading one, namely, that of a full and free representation of the people. This limitation of numbers in their representatives he contrasted with the number of the legislative council, which might be deemed the aristocratica part of the proposed constitution. They might amount to any number at the will ofthe governor. The manner in which this council was to be formed ' he considered as equally objectionable : instead of its members being elective, as was the case in some of the colonies ofthe West Indies, - or appointed by the crown for life, it was to be partly composed of counsellors appointed in the latter mode, and of hereditary counsellors in virtue of certain honours granted by the crown. With regard to hereditary honours, or hereditary power, as a general proposition, . Mr. Fox declared, it was not easy to decide whether they were good or not. But he saw nothing so good in hereditary honours or power as to introduce them into coun tries where they were unknown before ; and in this , respect Canada would differ from all the vol. u. o colonies ib* colonies in the West Indies. Where those hon ours made a part of the constitution, Mr. Fox said, he did not think it wike to destroy them, but to give existence to them in countries where they did not exist before, appeared to him exceedingly Unwise ; nor could he account for it, unless it Was, that as Canada had been a French province, and all titles were now lost in France, there might be ah' opportunity of reviving titles in Quebec. Are those titles, said he, Which some persons haye iso much lamented the abolition of, to be revived in America ? Are those red and blue ribbons, Which have lost their lustre in the old world, to Miine forth again in the new ? Mr. Fox hoped, that in promulgating the "scheme of a new constitution, the house would keep in their view those enlightened principles of freedom, Which had already made a rapid progress over a considerable portion of the globe, and were becoming' every day more and more universal. But so far from keeping pace with the progress of liberty, the proposed constitution of Canada fell short of the freedom of this country, and 1 appeared 1Q5 appeared to him* in many respects, to be contrary to the constitution of England. The situation of Canada, he observed, was particular. It did not consist, like the West India ' islands, of a few white people and a number of slaves ; it was a country of great growing population, and was as capable of enjoying political freedom in its utmost extent, as any other country on the face of the globe. In a country, where the general diffusion of literature and knowledge were daily increasing, they should have a government as agreeable to the true principles of freedom, as was consistent with the nature of things. He was sure, he said, that the,bill could never give them such a government. He wished them to have an elective council ; that sort of council he thought best ; but if not, to be held during life, to be appointed by the king, to consist of a limited number, and to have no hereditary honours. These honours, he said, were very proper -where they existed by long custom, but in his opinion ought not to be introduced where they might be locked at with odium, or regarded with envy, He declared, he wished a permanent provision to be established for the O 2 clergy, 1&6 clergy, but he would not agree to make a provi* sion so considerable as was unknown in any other country where the same religion prevailed. : - Mr. Burke was not in the house when these observations, some of which so strongly applied to his recent publication, were made ; but .on the recommitment of the bill, May the 6th, he attended in his place, and immediately on the question being put, rose to deliver his sentiments on the bill. What they were then going to do, he. said, required an enlarged view of things. They were going to exercise the most ample and extensive powers which one man or a community could exercise upon another. They were nqt going to make laws, but they were going to make and organize a body which should make law. At a time when every thing was disputed,-„they ought to be sure that they had a right to finish such an act as that before "they entered upon it. The question of competency, therefore, came first tobe considered. Whence, he asked, did they derive their power ? They had lately heard' of the rights of ¦mn. These rights were, that all men 197 men being by nature free and equal, and con tinuing so, no man could exercise any power over any number of men but by calling all the people 'together, and demanding the vote Of every man by number, and asking him in what Way he wished to be governed. This code he abhorred. It had spread mischief wherever it had been preached. He would legislate for Canada, .not from novelties that had been lately raised in the world, but on the law of nations. — The^next ques tion then was, what model was to be followed jn giving a constitution to Canada? There were, he said, three authorities in the modern world,, which, he conceived would be of great weight. The constitutions of America, of France, and Of Great Britain. Mr. Burke dwelt chiefly on the French constitution, which he condemned in the most pointed terms. Its practical effects had been seen at St. Domingo, Guadaloupe, and the other French colonies. They were happy and flourishing until they heard ofthe rights of men. From that moment it seemed as if Pandora's box was openedj and that hell had vomited out its fiends of outrage, fury, distraction, discord, vio-r o 3 Jence* 198 lence, civil war, and mutual assassination. Ought this example to induce us to send out to our colonies a cargo of the rights of men ? As soon would he send them a bale of infected cotton from Marseilles. Mr. Burke continuing to de claim with great violence against the French re volution, he was . repeatedly and loudly called to order, and at length compelled to sit down. After some irregular and warm debate on the question pf order, Mr. Burke pointedly declared • that there was a faction out of doors, disaffected to the constitution, and who wished to alienate the country from it, by endeavouring, to fill them wjth admiration for another. He thought it his duty not to give any countenance to certain doc trines which were supposed , to exist in this coun try, and that were intended fundamentally to subvert the constitution. Here Mr, Burke was again loudly called to order, and lord Sheflield moved, " that dissertations on the French con stitution are not regular and orderly whenv the question, is, that the clauses oi the Quebec, bill be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph." Mr, 199 Mr. Fox seconded the motion . No occurrence, he said, throughout the whole course of his life, had ever taken place, which so severely attacked both his feelings and his principles, as the charges which were directly and indirectly, by innuendo and by implication, made against him by the right honourable gentleman. He particularly felt them at this crisis, and he peculiarly felt them in com ing from the man whom he had ever flattered his understanding and his pride with believing to be the friend and patron of his knowledge, actions, sentiments, opinions, and principles. — It was a matter of the utmost concern to him. to find, that the space of twenty five years had been so ill employed, as at the conclusion of it to be obliged to acknowledge, that the only poignan,t pain of mind he had endured was, that which he suffered. from the man who first and best taught him what it was to feel.- — He said, die' was sorry to feel him self bound to support the motion, and much more so, that his right honourable friend had. made it necessary, by bringing on an extraneous discussion, , in a manner which was-not only unfair, but which he could not but think a direct injustice to him- o 4 self. 200 self. If the v right honourable gentleman's object had been to debate the Quebec bill, he would have debated it clause by clause, according to the established rule and practice of the house. If his object had been to prevent dangers appreT hended to the British constitution, from the opinions of any man or set of men, he would have given notice of a particular day for that particular purpose, or taken any other occasion of doing it rather than that on which his nearest and dearest friend had been grossly misrepresented and tra duced. The course which his right honourable friend had chosen to take, was that which seemed to confirni the charge brought against him, of having -maintained republican principles as appli cable to the British constitution, in a former debate on the bill. No such argument had ever been urged by him, nor any from which the inference was fairly deducible. On the French revolution he did indeed differ from his right honourable friend. Their opinions, he had no scruple to say, were wide as the poles asunder: but what had a difference on that, which to us was only matter of theoretical contemplation, to do , 201 do with the discussion of any practical point, on which no such difference existed ? On that revo lution, he would not retract a syllable of what he had said. He did think it, on the whole, one qf the greatest events in the history of mankind. But when he mentioned France, he mentioned the revolution only, and not the constitution. That remained to he improved by experience, and ac commodated to circumstances. The arbitrary system of the old government was done away ; the new had the good ofthe people for its object, and this was the point on which he rested. But when he said this, did it follow, as he had seen inferred and attributed to him, that all who ad mired wished to imitate ? Were he to differ from his right honourable friend on any point Of history, was it neeessary that this difference should be discussed in the house of commons' ? Were he to praise the conduct ofthe elder Brutus, and to say, that the expulsion of the Tarquins was a, noble and patriotic act, would it thence be fair to argue that he meditated the establishment of a consular government in this country ? Were he to repeat the eloquent encomiums of Cicero on the 202 the taking off of Caesar, would it thence be de- ducible, that he went about with a kn}fe in his pocket for the purpose of killing some great man? Let those' who said, that to admire was to wish to imitate, shew that there was some similarity of circumstances. Let them shew that this comk try was in the circumstances of France, ruined in its finances, deprived of civil liberty, and bowed down to the earth by the extravagance and cor ruption of its government; and with all the obloquy that might be heaped on the declaration, he should be ready to declare, that the French revolution was an qbject for imitation for this country. But instead, of seeking for difference of opinion on topics, happily for this country, Only topics of speculation, let them come to matter of fact, and of practical, application. ; let them come tp the discussion of the bill before them, and see whether his objections to it were republican, and in what he should differ from his right honpurab]e> friend. This was then the gre&t topic upon which they differed ; but it was really hard, that a difference upon 203 upon a public topic, and that too which had already produced among various men; various sentiments, should be the cause of sowing such divisions between them. In the course pf their political lives many subjects Occurred whereon they differed, but before this, there never did happen one which was productive of such a con sequence; he had therefore to impute it only to schismatic machinations, studiously contrived to sow the seeds of dissention between them. For it could never have happened that his master (for so he must ever call his right honourable iriend) could so far forego or forget the principles which he himself inculcated in him in his earliest day, namely, that a " difference of sentiment upon a public matter, which was one part of the rights of man, should never be a cause for the dismem berment of private friendship among individuals," Proud of that sentiment, he considered himself ' shielded by it in even differing from that right honourable gentleman himself ; and in doing so again, applied to him his own instructions. Mr, Fox said* he must again repeat what he had men tioned on a former occasion, t( that all he ever knew 204 knew of men, that all he eVer read in books, that all his reasoning faculties informed him of, or his fancy suggested to him, did not give him that exalted knowledge, that superior information whifch he derived from the instruction, and learned from the conversation of his right honourable friend ;" to him he owed all his fame, if fame he had any ; and if upon the subject matter then in contention he advanced such arguments as prevailed over those of that right honourable gentleman, he could acknowledge his gratitude for the capability and pride of the conquest in telling him, Hoc ipsum quod vincit id est tuum. Mr. Fox then proceeded to state some occa sions on which they , differed, but. without any abatement of attachment. He reminded his right honourable friend that when Washington gained a victory, they mutually rejoiced ; when Mont gomery fell, they mutually wept.— When they agreed, they agreed like men;, when they differed, they differed like philosophers ; nor did they ever differ till an occurrence happened, which, both as 205 as men and philosophers, should have made them reciprocally happy, and he was firmly persuaded would have done so, had not the demon of discord interfered, and slyly disseminated- the contentious seeds between them in an unlucky moment. — When the general discussion came properly be fore them, he should be ready to maintain the principles he had asserted, even against the su perior eloquence of his right honourable friend : against him he should be ready to maintain, that the rights of man, which had been ridiculed- as vague and visionary, were the foundation of every rational constitution, and the foundation pf the British constitution itself. What, said Mr. FPx, was a declaration of rights, but a reference to those original and inherent rights which no prescription can supersede, no accident take away* the rights of man ? If these were principles dangerous1 to the constitution, from his right honourable friend he had learned them. And also* " that the gene~ ral revolt of the whole people could , never be encouraged, but must be provoked." Such was in former times the doctrine of his right honoura ble friend, who had emphatically said, that . he could 206 could not draw up a bill of indictment against a nation ; and that a whole people never rose against their government but by its own abuse. His- right honourable friend had since learned to draw a bill of indictment against a whole nation, and to season it with all the technical ingredients of malicious, wicktd, and by the instigation qf the devil. But, Continued Mr. Fox, he had first taught him to feel and to love the principles of freedom, and not only that, but to revere and cherish them. Having given his mind this bias, having made familiar to his understanding, and impressed on his heart, principles which he was now too old to change, he must rejoice in seeing tyranny des troyed, arid a constitution established on the rights of men, on that which was the foundation of the British constitution, for to say that it had any other foundation was to libel it ; and not all the right honourable gentleman could say, not all that he could write, would induce him to alter his opinion. In defence of those principles, he was ready to contend with his right honourable friend, whenever the discussion was regular or necessary, without 207 without any apprehension of their being found repugnant to the true and admitted principles of the constitution, ahd he had no objection to come to issue on the subject at the present moment. Before he concluded, Mr. Fox said, there was one circumstance which particularly demanded his attention, and which he wished to guard his right honourable friend against. He had, in general terms, talked of factions, endangering the con stitution ; but he had not corroborated his asser tions by any statement of facts : he therefore wished, both for the sake of" all those gentlemen with whom he had the honour to act, as well ' as for the sake of having the pleasing opportunity of vindicating himself, that whatever his gunpowder plot was he would divulge it ; because, from the manner in which he had communicated the system of it, mankind must accuse of the horrid design, not only himself, but all his friends in and out of that house. When Mr. Fox had finished, Mr. Burke rose, and 208 and began with complaining, that his conduct and his words, had been misrepresented, and that a personal attack had been made on him from a quarter where he least could have expected it, after a friendship and an intimacy of more than twenty- two years. He had been charged with incon sistency, and that he had abandoned all his former sentiments, opinions, and principles. — He could not help thinking, Mr. Burke said, that on the .subject of the French revolution he had been treated, unfairly. However, when and as often as the subject came to be discussed fairly, and the facts he was possessed of were allowed to be brought forward, he was ready to meet the right honourable gentleman hand to hand and foot to foot upon it. Mr.' Burke insisted that the discussion of the Quebec bill was a proper occasion to put the, ; country on its guard against the dangerous doc- . trines ' that had been promulgated in France, "; There were people in this country, he said, avow edly endeavouring to overturn the government. The practice was, upon all occasions, to praise the £0Q the French constitution in the highest style of panegyric. Some, indeed* qualified their argu-~ ment so far, as to praise only the French revolu tion ; but in that he could see no difference, as the constitution, if they had any, was the effect of that revolution; These doctrines received ad- - ditional weight from the sanction of the right honourable gentleman, so powerful in the support of whatever measures or opinions he countenanc ed;— -He recapitulated the political questions upon which on former occasions he had differed with Mr. Fox, but said, in all these no one difference of political opinion had ever for a moment inter rupted or affected their friendship till now. It would certainly be indiscretion at any period, but much greater at his time of life, to provoke ene mies, or give his friends cause to desert him ; yet if that was to be the case, by adhering to the British constitution, he would risk all, and as public duty and public. prudence taugt him, with his last breath exclaim, "Fly from the French constitution'' Mr. Fox here whispered "there was no loss of friendship." vol. ii. p Mr. 210 Mr. Burke replied, "There was." , He had dis charged his duty at the risk of displeasing' his friends, and he would spend his last breath in that hquse in Warning them to fly from the French revolution as from a pestilence, and to cherish and support the English constitution. He had made a great sacrifice : he had done his duty, though he had lost his friend. He had been told, Mr. Burke said, that it was much better to defend the English constitution, by praising its own excellence, than by abusing other constitutions, and certainly the task of prais ing was much more pleasing than that Of abusing: but he contended, that the only fairway of argu- ing the merits of any constitution Was, by com paring it with others, and he could not speak with propriety of the excellence ofthe English, without comparing it with the deformity and injustice of the French, which was the shade that brought its colours forward in the brightest point of view ; and omitting to do it, wouldbe like presenting a picture without a shade. In the course of his' ¦speech; he accused Mr. Fox of having, for the 1 ' , last 211 last five years, omitted to give him so much of his company as he used to enjoy, and from thence inferred an abatement of his former kindness. — In conclusion, he addressed Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt as the two great rivals for power, and warned them, whether they should for the future move in the political hemisphere as two flaming meteors, or walk together like brethren .hand in hand, to preserve and cherish the British constitution ; to guard it against innovation, and to save it from the danger ofthe new theories. In a rapturous apos trophe to the infinite and unspeakable power of the Deity, who, with his arm, hurled a comet like a projectile out of its course, who enabled it toendure the sun's heat, and the (pitchy darkness of the chilly night ; he said, that to the Deity must be left the task of infinite perfection, while to us poor weak and incapable mortals, there was no rule of conduct so safe as experience. Mr. Fox rose under evident emotion to reply to Mr. Burke, but his heart and mind were so affected by the .circumstances of the debate, that it was some moments before he could proceed. ,.tI p 2 Tears 212 Tears rolled down his cheek, and he strove in vain to give utterance to feelings that dignified and exalted his- nature. The members sympa thised in the sufferings of their distinguished colleague, and a reverential silence pervaded the house. — Mr. Fox at length proceeded, and- in a strain of pathos and sublime eloquence, which did equal honour to the strength of his head and the tenderness of his heart, conjured Mr. Burke to remember their past lives, to reflect upon the many occurrences of them, to recollect their union, their unalterable attachments, their un alienable friendships, and their reciprocal affec tions, to believe that there existed between them the ties of nature, as near and dear as the relative situation of father and son could be ; that they improved them by social love, each still flattering the other that his intrinsic worth was the magnet ' of attraction, and each still enjoying the substan tial idea in ecstacy of happiness : he conjured him again not to renounce in a < moment, and for a trifle too, the opinion mutually established for. years: not to reject the fabric of many years' construction, for the visionary shade of an ideal habitation, . 213 habitation, and break through all those bonds which alone can make life happy, to enjoy a li berty of thought which could only tend to make it miserable, and thus violently sever him for ever from his regard. He said, that notwithstanding all that had been said by his right honourable friend, he must still call him by that endearing appellation, for his friendship was not of a nature to be affected by the circumstances of one day's debate ; it was planted in his heart when a child* it had grown and ripened with his knowledge. It was a friendship improved and rivetted by the intimate connexion and intercourse of three-and- twenty years ; it could not be weakened, much less extinguished in his bosom, by the heat or the intemperance of a day. Difference of opinion they had not unfrequently had the misfortune to maintain, but those differences had never inter rupted their friendship, nay, even their difference on the French revolution was well known to each other. When the right honourable gentleman published his pamphlet on the French revolution, he had publicly expressed his opinion, that he had differed from him in almost every principle he had p 3 advanced; 214 advanced ; and this was not unknown to the right honourable gentleman, but it had made no dif ference in their cordial friendship, t It was not until now, that the affairs of France had so forcibly seized on the imagination of his ' right honourable friend, that every difference of opinion with him was to produce consequences so harsh and unprovoked. Republican principles had been falsely imputed to him *, and the libel thrown * In order to understand this and some other allusions in Mr. Fox's speech, it is proper to mention, that at this period there was a considerable probability of his speedily coming into offijce. His arguments on the Spanish, but more particu- larly on the Russian, armament, which remains to be noticed, had established his Character throughout all Europe, without a shadow of competition, as the first statesman in the British empire; and the prejudices pf the li ing, which had arisen from circumstances that it would be fruitless to investigate, had so far yielded to the general sense of the nation, that he had been heard to say, " he was not so wedded tp Mr. Pitt, as not to be very willing to give his confidence tp Mr. Fox, if the latter should be able, in a crisis Jike the present, to conduct the government of the country with greater advantage to the public.'' 215 thrown out with a view of fixing' a stain on his character ; and this was to be done, because he was public." This declaration alarmed the wretched faction, so long the bane of this reign, which brought Mr. Pitt into power, and eyery engine was set at work to prevent the sovereign's gracious intentions regarding Mr. Fox from being carried into effect. It was artfully insinuated to his majesty, " that Mr. Fox was the last man in England to be trusted by a king, because he was by principle a republican, and con sequently an enemy to monarchy." A confidential friend of Mr. Fox, who from his station in life had ample opportuni ties of gaining information, speaking on this subject in a " Letter to Mr. Fox," says, ", I believe myself sufficiently impartial to haye weighed, to a very scruple, the case as it stood between Mr. Burke and you. Indeed you were se- - verely used. Forced into discussions on the subject of a revolution which then was but an experiment making by France on her own body; delivering yourself, when so forced, vehemently, it is true, and boldly, in favour of the general rights of mankind, but cautiously and prudently with regard to the operation of their principles in this coun- .try. I heard you, and your friends, and your views, and the public cause you had embraced, assimilatedwith all that was hateful, deformed, bloody, and ferocious in the antici pated French democracy. No distinction ! no toleration ! p 4 no 216 was not such a bigot to the principles of monar chy, as to believe that every government which had no memory of past services ! but day after day you was brought down to the house of commons, in the face of an ungenerous adversary, and as a spectacle and sport for them, to be put on your defence, not as a criminal of an hour's. detection, but as one whose life had been a series of per, juries and treasons, which the troubled conscience of one of his accomplices had engaged him to discover. — Speeches were made and circulated in your name, applauding what the framers of them knew you neither had approved, nor even read, the French constitution ; which they accused you at the same time of wishing to introduce instead of our own. -r-Their argument was worthy of their cause — ee. He who praises any change," it was said, " must approve, of all the ¦ consequences to wjiich that change, may lead ; and he who approves of those consequences, must mean to imitate them." By these pestilent sophistries,- the high principle of your whole life was attacked. Your fame was undermined. The figure you had just made in the questions connected with our famous dispute with Russia, had finally set at rest all idea of rivalry with regard to "powers (if indeed any such , - rivalry had ever exi&ted) between you and your opponents. What in foreign courts had long been acknowledged, was at length listened to in this, and received universally by your 217 had not that basis was wicked and mischievous. An attempt had been made to fix a jealousy on him as to his opinions on republicanism. Minis ters feeling themselves at a loss to support their own conduct, and perhaps rightly thinking that it was a good military manoeuvre, when pressed themselves^ to carry the war into the enemy's country, seized on what- he had said cursorily on the French revolution, and, by an apt misrepre sentation, strove to make it a topic of popular your countrymen. At the close of that dispute, you stood beyond compare our first and foremost man, I will venture to say, that from the date of that business, no person dreamt of pledging this country to foreign objects of any kind, much less to a war, without not only your full concurrence, but your efficient co-operation. AH perishable ! In little more than one-short twelvemonth afterwards, with the in tervention of no circumstance questionable either to your wisdom or your honour, these miserable arts Jiad prevailed ; the loud vehemence of anger joined itself to the " vermin whispers" of malignity ; and he whose " word" but on the yesterday might have " stood against the world," was reviled, tumbled down, and trod upon — and none were found so poor to do him reverence." Part of for thinking or for saying, that the British constitution was not so good as it might be made. But less would he think of arraigning any man, who seeing in the system of another nation, ideas that might be beneficial to this, suggested their incorporation. Every constitution was good in proportion as it was adapted to the circumstances and situation of the people for whom it was formed ; and to say, that in every instance, and for every people, a constitution was good as it approached to, or departed from, the British frame, was an idea* he thpught, which no man could entertain. For instance, if it should be thought wise, on the expiration of the charter of the East India com pany, that government should take into their ovyn hands the territories in Asia, would it be conceiv ed 224 . ed by any rational! man, however he might admire the principles of the British constitution, that that constitution could be adapted to the genius, to the wants, or to the feelings, of the Hindu nation, s Every constitution, to be good, must be adapted ; and it was in his mind a presumption too much for man to say, that whenever a- whole people differed from him in their ideas of what was best for their own bomfort, their ideas must proceed from folly, and not from wisdom, from vice, and not from virtue. It was, said this undaunted as- sertor of human liberty, a new principle of bigotry and intolerance, which could not be equalled even by those who imposed religious tenets on the human mind, to deny to every people upon earth the right of thinking for themselves, to deny to them the exercise of that judgment, of which we ourselves claimed the free use, and to say, that if they dared to think and act for themselves, other- ways than as we had set them the example, proved their folly and their vice ! In the year 1780, it had been the opinion of that house, that " the influence of the crown had increased, was increas ing, and ought to be diminished." The right honourable 225 honourable gentleman agreed to that resolution, and thus declared, that the constitution was not perfect without such reduction. Would he hot grant to the French the same right that we had exercised ? If the influence ofthe British crown, which consisted in the civil list,- in the army, navy, and the power of giving places and ho- nours, was so great as to be thought dangerous, what, in the eyes of reflecting Frenchmen, must have been the overweening influence of the crown of France ? With a civil list ten times the amount of ours, with a navy almost as large, with an army tenfold, with a church more than tenfold, must they not, acting -on the rights which we had exercised, pursue the course bf diminishing its power ? When, in addition to this, they had to deplore the horrid state of corruption and despotism into which the whole of their govern ment had fallen, was it not right that they should strive to meliorate their condition, and to extricate thernselves from slavery and wretchedness ? In reply to Mr. Burke*s severe invectives against the righty of man, Mr. Fox contended that there vol. ii.. a were 226 were rights inherent in man, and coeval with his being, rights which no conquest could take from him, which no sophistry could with-hold, which no tyranny could extinguish, though it might stifle, and which the mind of man, that could not be enthralled even when the body was in fet ters, would proudly maintain. These rights the French nation had exercised .; but in their exer cise of this inherent right, they had not, it seems, - displayed perfect intelligence. He defied the col lected wisdom' of the human race to sit down and make a good government by choice. What was a good government? That which secured to every individual of a nation the greatest possible happiness'; and how was this possible to the finite, narrow wisdom of man ? How, but by a constant vigilance, by which they might gradually discover and provide the means of securing to him, his happiness ? , Was our constitution a fabric erected in one happy moment of wisdom, by the choice of the people ? No such thing. We had im proved, it gradually. We. had not arrogated to ourselves that knowledge, which, as his right honourable friend had said, alone belonged fo the 227 the Deity ; but, watching over the charge, we had improved as we had found out our insuffici ency, and we would still improve, as we should still further see cause. Mr. Fox reminded Mr. Burke, that his sen timents had not always been so favourable to monarchy as they then appeared. In the yeai* 1783, when his majesty, on the loss of America, lamented in his speech the fate of the provinces, in being deprived of the advantages resulting from monarchyj his right honourable friend ridi culed the idea, and compared it to a man's open ing the door, after he had left the room, and saying, " At our parting, pray let me recommend a monarchy to you." — Was there a man, Mr. Fox asked,- so narrow minded, as to wish that human freedom, and consequently human happi ness, should be confined to the soil of Britain ? He hoped he had not such a fellow-creature ! Why then talk of the French revolution ih such degrading terms ? Why talk of it as a shade to the splendor of Britain ? If the right honourable gentleinan really wished to set up a shade to the o 2 constitution 228 >';t' ¦. i , constitution of England, he would find it in the despotism of France which they, had destroyed, instead of detailing the errors which their appre hensions of that despotism might have unnecess arily led' them to. They who knew the extent of that horrid despotism dreaded its revival. " I fear this gunpowder Percy, even in death," seemed to be the language of the French. He confessed he thought unnecessarily ; for it was overthrown, and all the pens, and all the swords of its defend ers, could not revive it.. But because,' in a gene rous and manly consistency with our own free system, we rejoiced in the accession of a new stock of liberty, did that imply that we preferred their constitution to our own ? ie No, sir," exclaimed Mr- Fox, " the gentlemen with whom I act love the constitution of our country on grounds which are independent of external circumstances. We love it for the experience of the felicity and dig nity which it confers on our species, and we will maintain it. It is impossible that we should ever be reduced to the extremity of the course which the French have been obliged to take. Mr / 229 Mr. Fox repeated, that he had been unjustly and unfairly treated in the business ; but he would not suffer it to step in between him and his friend. He would keep but of '.the way, he said, of his right honourable friend, until his temper, so easily warmed, might have leisure for reflection ; and „ then, he trusted, they had some common friends, who loved them both, and who would eagerly exert their best offices to bring them back to the same cordiality which had been a source of so much happiness to him. He trusted that the quickness of temper, which led to momentary heat and exasperation, would be equally manifest in leading him back to dispositions more congenial with his nature. He had long known that there was in the nature of his friend, a zeal and en thusiasm, on every subject which engaged his faculties, and, often led him to the confines of imprudence. It was a quality of blood which he had often secretly lamented, and which had some times induced him to yield points to him ; but he found in the gentleness of his acknowledge ments of error, an ample recompenseYor present distemper. He trusted that, in viewing the cause Q 3 Of 230 of the present dispute, he would recollect ( that they had been engaged in a systematic opposition to his majesty's ministers since the year 1784, Why ? From a firm and sincere conviction that an act had been committed at that time, which had violated the constitution ; and which must be done away before, on their principles, they could . think the people in safety. A paper, said Mr. Fox, which would .make the fame of some other men, but which, in the variety of his right honourable friend's produc- ¦ tions, he might have forgotten, was on the jour nals of that house ; his representation to the prown in 1784, in which he solemnly declared, that the act by which his majesty's present minis ters had trampled on the country was dangerous, to i the people. Connept this wish the clear and settled principles of the great and distinguished' body to which they belonged, the whigs of Eng land. It was the principles of that party to assert,' and strictly to apt by, the principles of the revo lution, which, under the two first princes of the home pf-Brunswick, had carried the dignity and i happiness 231 happiness of Englishmen to a pitch unrivalled in the annals of human kind. That party saw, in the commencement of the present reign, a dispo sition to depart from the conduct which made the two former reigns so glorious, and to make a greater use of the prerogative than had been attempted in the former periodt But it was not until the year 1784 that they came openly to issue on the great constitutional point. At that me-. morable period, when the representatives of the people of England declared that they had not confidence in his majesty's ministers, the crown was advised to reply, that it was his prerogative ; and this stretch of the prerogative was practised successfully. By the fundamental principles, then, of the whigs of England, this displayed a power inconsistent with the well-being of the people, which required reform. Such, Mr. Fox appealed to Mr. Burke, were their mutual sentiments, and upon these they had acted. Were they consistent with the doctrine that the theory and practice of the constitution were perfect ? Mr. Fox conclud ed with making a beautiful application to a pas sage which, he said, he recollected, and which ©, 4 might 232 might be an affectation in the writer, but to his ' -,!'1; , '".'::¦. , in ¦;.. ' heart it was real.- " One might bear to be ill- psed and to be abused, by those on whom we had conferred favours,, ana who owed every thing 'to our kindness. It was a calamity which the mind might . endure. The injustice and ingratir tude of the world were old topics of reflection. But to beAll-used and abused by one who' had previously won and engaged the soul by kindness^ was an affliction for which a grateful heart had no balm." Mr. Burke, unmollified by the concessions and tenderness of his friend, repeated his declaration that their friendship was at an end ; and, in spite of all fhe endeavours that were subsequently used to bring about a reconciliation, persisted in his ' declaration tp the last moments of his life. On the 1 1 th of May, the debate on the Quebea bill was resumed, and Mr. Fox took the oppor tunity of further explaining: his sentimerits res pecting government.' He had always beeh of opinion, he said, that there could be no good or complete 2 233 complete system of government, without a proper mixture of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. They entirely misunderstood him who supposed he was an enemy to aristocracy. The contrary was the fact, for there was no man who considered a proper and well regulated aristocracy, such as ' formed a part of the British constitution, more ' essential to the formation of a good government than he did ; a certain degree of aristocracy was absolutely necessary, as a poise between the prero gative of the crown, acting against the rights, of the people, and the influenqe and liberty of the people, acting against the monarchical power ; therefore a mixture so constituted, that each was a check upon the others he conceived to be the best constitution in the world... Having described what was the real and proper "aristocracy that formed part of the British con- "stitution, Mr. Fox proceeded to state, that no sueh aristocracy would be obtained in the pro posed constitution for Canada ; for where were there any who, from services, could claim the distinction of nobility in that province ? He be, ljeved "" 234 lieved none, and therefore the institution of an aristocratical power in that country must be the work oftime. A legislature might certainly create nobility, but no legislative power could command the respect, the prejudices, and the opinions of mankind, which attend, and ought ever to attend, a necessary aristocracy. The public gave respect to the actions of great men even after their death ; and the reflection that the same virtue .outlived the man, whose conduct was dedicated . to its pursuit while in being, was a stimulus, to his survivor, and created a laudable endeavour for its imitation. It was an honest advantage to be ' taken of the prejudices* Pf mankind. This was,, and he hoped would always be, the case in this country ; but how could the aristocracy of Canada be of that description ? Aristocracy should be connected to property, and consist of a nobility who, besides other respect and distinction that they possessed, should be. independent of, the monarch, being, in their best situation, a poise between the power of monarchy, and the excess®. pf democracy. Thei 235 The minister, he said, affirmed that distinctions in society operated more powerfully on man than any lucrative acquisition. It was the medicine of the mind, which cured the evils -resulting from the boldest enterprise, and gratified the anxieties oi ambition. How the right honourable gentle man (Mr. Pitt) could infuse these transcendent qualities into the breasts of his upstart nobility of Canada, remained for him to determine. All the affected omnipotence of an act of parliament could not ennoble the men alluded to, nor, when de corated with their paltry insignia, call forth their exertions to acts beyond mediocrity. This coun try might say, " You shall have a respectable nobility," but how the respectability was to be realised, he was utterly at a loss to conceive, From what had fallen from him in a former debate, he had been accused, he said, of avowing, and wishing to inculcate, republican doctrines ; but if it was supposed that he had ever, in speak ing ofthe formation of this, or any other govern^ ment, said, any thing that could lead people to- suppose, that. he was an enemy to the proper mixture 236 mixture of monarchy, aristocracy, ahd democracy, which he thought so requisite, * as fundamental principles of solid and substantial good govern ment, he hoped, he had now given his opinion, in a manner that would satisfy the house, and the country, what his real sentiments were on that subject. In the course of this session, Mr. Fox added greatly to his high reputation -for political saga city, both at home and abroad, by his successful opposition to the frantic measures of the minister, which had so nearly involved the country in a war with Russia. On the 2gth of March 179.1,3, message was .delivered from his majesty to both houses of parliament, acquainting them, "that the endeavours which he had used in conjunction with his allies to effect a pacification between. ( Russia .and the Porte, having hitherto been un successful, his majesty judged it requisite, in. order tp. add weight to his representations, to make some further augmentation of his naval, force. When Mr- Pitt had moved an address,! Mr. Fox rose,, jind declared, that when he first; heard; 237 heard of the armament he could not believe it, so extravagant, as well as pernicious, did it seem. He had heard nothing to account for measures, which "to him appeared so inexplicable. When ;' gentlemen talked of the balance of power being a motive for arming, it should be shewn how that balance was endangered. When they called for armaments to prevent the aggrandizement of Russia (new as such a cause of alarm was to this country) they should shew whom she meant to attack. If any of the powers with whom we had defensive alliances were threatened, he would allow our interference to be proper ; but ndt a syllable concerning the probability of such an attack. The former policy of this country towards Russia, it was scarcely necessary for him to state, as it was fresh in every one's recollection. Dur ing the former war between her and the Porte, we spded her in sending a fleet into the Mediter ranean, and gave her the first opportunity of ap- ' pearing as a naval power, in that quarter of the globe, and of establishing herself on the Black Sea. When she took possession of Cuban and the Crimea, in 1782, we conceived no alarm, and afterwards 238 afterwards refused to accede to the proposition of France and Spain, to join them in preventing this addition : to her dominions. — But our policy was now of a different nature, indeed. Rumour held us out as the instigators of the war ; but if even that were unfounded, it would at least be granted that we had taken no steps to prevent it ; and now, when Russia wished to make a just and reasonable use of her successes in this war, to indemnify her past expense, and to secure herself from future attack, we oppose these moderate claims,, and insist on her making peace on the Unreasonable terms of her restoring all her con quests. It might perhaps be said, that the con duct of former ministers of this court towards. Russia was impolitic and Wrong ; and that the present conduct towards her was politic and right. But was she not entitled to act on the faith of that former conduct, ignorant as she was of party predilections, and judging only of the great and leading policy of the nation ? How much must she now be surprised, to hear that Britain, who had assisted her in sending her fleets to the Mediterranean, in establishing herself in the Black Sea, 239 Sea, and who refused to oppose her possessing herself of the Crimea, was now jealous of that power she had helped to rear ! " If you were jealous' of my conquests," she might Observe, "you ought to have prevented their being attack ed." The house could not now be so unreason able as to complain of her taking advantage of conquests, which were the consequence of her being attacked. " In all interferencewith foreign nations," said this great statesman, "justice is the best foundation qf policy, and moderation is the surest pledge qf peace." But, continued, Mr. Fox, neither in the policy of negociation, nor in the application of our power, have ministers acted with skill, or with effect. The defensive system which they say they adopted,, they did not follow with consist ency, otherwise'' it might have been easy, when they found the emperor, in the negociation of Keichenbach, disposed to peace; they had ne glected the Opportunity of securing the empress by the same means, and by the same arguments, which might then have been easily effected. Mr. Fox 240 Fox concluded with affirming, that an alliance. with Russia appeared to him,, the most natural and the, most* advantageous that fhis.conntry could possibly form. The question concerning the. policy, and, expe diency of the armament agpin.st Russia, was argued for the last tijne in the house of commons, May the 25th, in a debate, on the state of the nation with respect to foreign powers. The purport of the armament was, in Mr. F°x's, opinion, to .s^ye, the honour of the minister ; but, hehopeda while the minister consulted his honour,' the house of commons would . consider the honour and the interest of the country. The minister was arming that he might recede from his propositions with more dignity, — as he thought, with greater shame. Ministers, after proving themselves bullies, had relinquished objects which tbey might have com- s manded, and lost opportunities which they rnig&f have improved. They ought not, he said, to con tinue the expenses of an armament, when every object of it was dead and gone. If ministers had persevered in their original intention, they ought, before 241 before now, to have acted upon it. If they saw the necessity of abandoning that intention, it would have been much more dignified to own their error, to acknowledge that they had formed an erroneous opinion of the interests of the coun try, and to avow to parliament, that they had changed their measures. But they would neither pursue their original intention, nor acknowledge that they had relinquished it. They were forced, by~ public opinion, to give up the purport of the armament ; why not then relieve the country from the expense ? The house, Mr. Fox said, had been told, that, if ministers involved the country in an unjust and impolitic war, they might refuse to vote the money to support it. When might they do this ? Sup pose that the consequence of their measures should be an attack by Russia, (for an attack when a nation was menaced, was as justifiable a mode of attack as any other,) the country would be in volved in a war on provocation given, and pne campaign, at least, must pass, before parliament would have an opportunity of interposing. What vol. n.1 b then 242 then could they do ? Finding a war commenced, could they refuse their aid to defend the country? Could they undo what the misconduct of ministers had already done ? In that case they would be told that ministers were responsible. No doubt they were ; and no doubt it would be wise to impeach and punish them as they deserved ; but the punishment of a minister would be a poor compensation for the mischiefs of an impolitic and unnecessary war, however it might operate as an example to his successors. It was, therefore, not only the right, but the duty of the house, to interpose with their preventive wisdom, and to advise his majesty of the impending evil. Did they not know that if parliament had not been sitting in March, when his majesty's message was brought down to the house, the nation would have been at that moment involved in war ? Was it not notorious, that the strong opposition of the minority of that house had been the means of preventing it? — They were now going to se parate for the season. What security had they that the war would not be commenced before they met again ? Ministers, he should be told, 2 • had 243 had changed their opinion ! How had they Changed it ? Not on any reasoning or knowledge of their own ; and when they were free from the restraint which compelled them to change itj how did the house know but that they would change again ? What accounts were gentlemen to give their constituents of the armament ? Were they to tell them that we had armed to enable Prusia to take possession of Dantzic, a city of which Great Britain was a guarantee ? They could not say that they had authorised an armament for so base a purpose; Were they to say that we had armed to give Oczakow to the Turks ? Oczakow would not be restored ; and they should have the shame of arming for a purpose which they could not effect. It is scarcely to be doubted but that the minister would have involved the nation in a war with Russia, but for the strong Opposition made to that measure in the house of commons, and the re luctance to it that wa6 manifested by the people at large. Parliament met on the 31st of January 1792, and it appeared by the speech from the R 2 throne, 244 throne, that preliminaries of peace were agreed upon between thp Porte and Russia, and that the former had consented to <.ede Oczakow. Mr. Fox, in reply to the arguments of those who moved and seconded the address, observed, that he was too dull to comprehend, how either the new or old line of demarcation between Russia and the Ottoman Porte could be of the least importance to this country ; aud neither for the new nor '.the old would he have hazarded the hundredth part of a British life, or the hundredth part of a British pound. It had been intimated, that new circumstances arising, had induced the minister to recede from his original proposition/ None, however, of these circumstances had been pointed out, though the discussions of the preced ing session had been obviously - alluded to. This Mr.. Fox considered as the highest compliment that could be paid to the exertions of opposition, and as tending to secure to them the approbation and confidence of their constituents and their country. But it had been said that these dis-r' cussions provoked the contest, and that but for them Russia would have yielded. That it would not 245 not have been the interest of Russia to contend at the hazard of a war, he was ready to admit; but that a government like that of Russia, not immediately under the control of public opinion, might have been impelled by resentment or ob stinacy to resist, was no improbable supposition. In that case, what must have been the conse quence, had not the minority in parliament, and the sense of the people interposed ?^It required no moderate share of assurance for ministers to say< to gentlemen who had supported their mea sures as wise and necessary, " That which you last session contended for as of the utmost im portance, we have now abandoned as of none ; will you have the goodness to move an address, approving of what we have done ?" With regard to the state of affairs in France, Mr. Fox said, he adhered to his former opinion, namely, " that the constitution, of France was essentially bad, and therefore every thing was to be risked to destroy it ; the constitution of Eng land was essentially good ; and therefore every thing was to be risked to preserve it." It was K 3 ridiculous 246 ridiculous to say that they who rejoiced in the destruction of the one, must wish for the ruin of the other. There was no similarity between them. They were as radically different as good and evil, as freedom and slavery, and never to be mentioned in. the same terms, or any inference made from the one to the other, Mr. Fox then . adverted to the disgraceful riots which had occurred at Brimingham in the course ofthe summer, and expressed his surprise that no notice had been taken of them in the speech. It was impossible, he said, not to lament, that towards the close of the eighteenth century, men, instead of following tbe progress of knowledge and liberality, had revived the spirit and practice of the darkest ¦ ages. A lawless mob reigned triumphant for near a week in. a rich and po- pplous part of the country, and those, whose duty it was to have denounced the rigour of the law, addressed them rather in terms of approbation than rebuke, it would have been more honoura ble to ministers if they had advised his majesty to have spoken of such riots in the terms they merit ed* 247 ed, and of every attempt to suppress them with approbation. — They were not riots for bread, such as every feeling heart must pity while it con demned. Neither were they riots in the cause of liberty, which, though highly blameable,' and highly to be reprobated by every good man, and every true friend to liberty, had yet some excuse in their principle. They were riots of men neither aggrieved nor complaining ; but of men, who, assuming to themselves the office of the executive government, set on foot an indiscriminate perse cution of an entire description of their fellow citizens, including persons as eminent for their ability, as blameless in their conduct, and as faith ful in their allegiance, as this or any other country could boast of. On the 27th of February, Mr. Whitbread moved a resolution of censure on the ministers for their conduct relative to the Russian arma ment. On this occasion Mr. Fox dwelt with much energy and effect on the folly and incon sistency of making Oczakow the very first object M of 248 of negociation, and the disgrace of its subsequent abandonment. " Oczakow," said he, " was every thing by itself; but' when ministers added to Oczakow the honour of England, it became no thing. Oczakow and honour weighed nothing in the scale. In the political arithmetic of ministers, honour is a minus quantity to be subtracted from the value of Oczakow." In speaking of the causes of the armament, " What," said Mr. Fox, " was the right claimed by the minister to ' enter upon this dispute ? I will answer, the right of a proud man to play a lofty part. France had gone off the stage, and now he resolved to, boast and vapour, and play his antic tricks and gestures on the same theatre." After enumerating the evils of frequent arma ments, Mr. Fox dwelt with peculiar pathos on the cruelty of impressing seamen. " I must la ment," said he, " in common with every feeling mind, that unnecessary barbarity, which dragged men from their houses, deprived them of their liberty, and tore them from the industrious exer cise' 249 cise of those modes of life by which they earned support for their families, wantonly, cruelly, and without pretext." (< Half a million of money," continued Mr. Fox, "Js spent, the people alarmed and inter rupted in their proper pursuits by the apprehen sion of a war, and for what ? For the restoration of Oczakow ? No : Oczakow is not restored. To save the Turks from being too much hum bled ? No ; they are now in a much worse situation than -they would have been had we never armed at all. If Russia had persevered in that system of encroachment of which she is accused, we could then have assisted them unembarrassed. Now we are tied down by treaties, and fettered by stipulations : we have even guaranteed to Russia what we before said it would be unsafe for the Turks to yield, and dangerous to the peace dt Europe for Russia to possess. This Ts what the public have got by the armament ; what then was the private motive ? Scilicet, 250 Scilicet, ut Turno contingat regia conjux, ' t Nos, arrimte viles, inhuniata, infletayue turbet, Sternamur campis. " The minister gained, or thought he was to gain, an excuse for his misconduct ; and to purchase this -excuse, was the public money and the public quiet wantonly sacrificed. There are some effects, which, to combine with their causes, are almost sufficient to drive men mad, That the pride, the folly, the presumption of a single person, shall be able to involve a whole people in wretchedness and disgrace, is more than philosophy can teach mortal patience to endure. Here are the true weapons of the enemies of our constitution! Here we may search for the source of those seditious writings, meant either to weaken our attachment to the constitution, by depreciating its value, or |[iat loudly tells us we have no constitution at all. We may blame, we may reprobate such doc trines ; but while we furnish those who circulate them with arguments such as these ; while the example of the times shews us to what degree the fact 251 fact is true, we must not wonder if the purposes they are meant to answer be but too successful. " They argue, that a constitution cannot be right where such things are possible, much less so when they are practised without punishment. This, sir, is a serious reflexion to every man who loves the constitution of England. Against the vain theories of men, who project fundamental alterations upon grounds of mere speculative ob^ jection, I can easily defend it ; but when they recur to facts, and shew me how we may be doomed to all the horrors of war, by the caprice of an individual} who will not even condescend to explain his reasons, I can only fly to this house, and exhort you to rouse from your lethar gy of confidence, into the active mistrust and vigilant control which is your duty and. your office." In the course of the session the subject of the slave trade was ' again brought before the house, and an insidious proposition was made by Mr. Dundas for its gradual abolition. This was strenur ously 252 ously opposed by Mr. Fox, who declared that he could not hear, without infinite uneasiness, any thing which indicated a tegular plan . for con tinuing and even authorising that detestable traffic "for at least a series of years, perhaps for ever. He deprecated, in strong terms, every deception and delusion on the country. Some gentlemen, in the course of the debate, had styled themselves moderate men ; but for his part, Mr. Fox said, he neither felt nor wished to feel any thing like moderation on the subject. The question for the consideration of the house, was simply this, whe ther they should authorize by law (respecting Africa) the commission of crimes which in this country \tfOuld incur the severest penalties, and , even the forfeiture of life in the most ignominious manner. Regulations, in this case, would be as disgraceful as they would be nugatory. One of the moderate gentlemen had proposed a premium for the transportation of females. — Was the kid napper, asked the indignant orator, to be en couraged to lay a snare for the harmless maid, to snatch her from the arms of her lover or her parents ; or to separate the wife from her husband i and 253 and children ? He should like to see the clause; by which this inhuman measure was to be pre- sented to the parliament of England ; he should like to see the man capable of conceiving words to frame such a clause-^ Was there a gentleman in the house bold enough to support it ? , With respect to the probability, of other nations supplying the islands with slaves, a point which had been strongly urged by the enemies of the abolition, Mr. Fox said, he was decidedly of opinion, that the traffic had better be carried on by any nation than England. It had been object ed that those parts of the evidence which bore most strongly against the slave trade, had been given by poor people : he was yet to learn that poverty and truth were incompatible. The names of lords Rodney and Macartney, and other persons of rank, had been mentioned, as favourable to the slave trade ; but it was to be observed that they had spoken of the West Indies only ; and had no knowledge of the enormities committed on the coast of Africa, or the horrors of the middle passage. All that they had said was purely ne gative ; 254 gative; whereas the evidence of the other persons, less affluent perhaps, and less dignified, was posi tive and uncontradicted. As to the mode of procuring slaves, no gentle man had said that there was any thing like fairness in it, or had ventured to offer a single word in its > vindication. The least disreputable mode of ac counting for the supply would be to represent them as legally convicted of crimes; but when the num bers were considered, this pretence must fall to the ground. The whole number annually import ed was stated to be about 80,000. Could such a number be supposed to be convicts ? " Last ses sion," said Mr. Fox, "we were cajoled, and taught to believe that something Would be early brought forward. Have we not passed a yeai1? and nothing has been done ? Are we still to be deluded and betrayed ? Why was not the system of moderation proposed then ? Why were we not then entertained by the proposition for a gradual abolition ?" Mr. Fox then proceeded to a statement of facts : 255 facts : a black trader, he said, brought a girl to a slave ship for sale ; some per sons, afterwards went on board and discovered who the trader was that sold her, and went and brought him to the ship, and sold him for a slave. " What (said the trader) do you buy me, grand trader ?" "Yes, (replied the captain) I will buy you, or any one else if they will sell you." On the first view of this fact it appears a piece of barefaced villainy ; but on examining the subject it is evidently a necessary consequence, flowing from the very na ture of the trade. How could the captain know or decide who was the real owner of the girl? He had only given in that instance the same an swer that he must give in every other. " I know not who has a right to sell, it is no affair of mine ; if any one offers me a slave, my rule is to buy and ask no questions." — Mr. Fox concluded with saying, that were the objects of the trade brute animals, no man ought to expose them to be treated with such wanton cruelty as was the case wjth the slaves ; and were they wholly inanimate, no honest man would engage in a traffic founded manifestly on principles of injustice... On 256 On the 30th. of April, Mr. Grey gave notice of a motion, which he proposed to submit to the consideration of the house in the course of * the next session, the object of which was, a reform in the representation of the people. Many ofthe greatest and most respectable characters in the country, he said, were declared advocates for a reform in the representation. Some of them, (alluding to Mr. Pitt,) indeed, had not of late come forward on the subject, but he hoped that was more owing to an apprehension of not suc ceeding in the project, than to any change of sentiments. He wras of opinion that the necessity' of such a measure existed now more than ever,, that the general opinion was more in favour of it ; and he thought also, that by a timely adoption of so salutary an expedient, many serious conse quences might be avoided. — When Mr. Grey had concluded, Mr. Pitt rose with unusual vehemence, J and declared his strong disapprobation] of any agitation of the question of parliamentary reform at such a period. The times, he said, were ma terially different when he suggested a reform ; a general opinion had then gone through the king dom, 25f , , , , „ dom> that the country was reduced to pov&rty and distress — real grievances had existed — the opinion of the people was one way, and the opi nion of parliament was another. The mischiefs complained of, and the ill opinion of the public,, had since been removed ; he could not therefore think, should he bring forward a similar motion for reform, especially when a dreadful lessort of revolution had just passed, that he should be more successful, or that moderate men, who had before held back, should now support such a proposition. — He knew that there were certain men out of the hp'use who were desirous to attack the constitution, but their numbers he did not believe to be great, and he was convinced that their force would be found trivial, whenever it should be opposed to the sound part ofthe con stitution and its defenders. These new allies for reform, said the minister, betrayed themselves in .their pamphlets, in which the revolution had been condemned, hereditary monarchy ridiculed — sub ordination and rank laughed at, and an endeavour made to impress on the minds of the public a wish to substitute ^for the happy constitution, a vol. ii. s plan J258 plan founded on what was absurdly called the rights of man ; a plan which never existed in any part of the habitable globe, and which, if it should exist in the morning, must perish before night. To his last hour he would resist every attempt of this nature ; and if be was called upon either to hazard this, or for ever to abandon all hopes of reform, he would say he had no hesitation in pre ferring the latter alternative, Mr. Fox commenced an admirable reply to the. minister by reminding the house, that- he had never professed to be so sanguine on the subject of parliamentary reform as the right honourable gentleman ; but, though less sanguine, he was more consistent. He had, early in his public life, formed an opinion of the necessity of a parliamentary reform, and remained to this hour convinced of that necessity ; and the obvious reason vtas, that the proceedings of the house were sometimes at variance with the opinion of the public. In proof of the truth and justice of this sentiment, Mr. Fox said, it -was only neces sary to recur to a recent instance, the Russian armament 259" armament. The declaration of the house of com mons was, that we should proceed to hostilities i the declaration of the people was, that we should not ; and so strong was that declaration, that it ' ' ' silenced and overawed the minister, notwithstand ing his triumphant majority. What was the con sequence ? that the people of England were paying the expence of an armament for which they never gave their consent, because their Sentiments were not spoken within the walls of that house. It was the doctrine of implicit confidence in the minister that disgusted tbe people, a confidence not given to him from the experience, of his probity and talents, but merely because he was minister .¦ — The doctrine was, that the agent of the executive power, be he who he may, is entitled to confU dence; and if he afterwards commits what is , , ,called a blunder, rto enquiry shall be had into his conduct, With regard to the other part of the minister's speech which related to the new allies for reform of his honourable friend, (Mr. Grey,) Mr. Fox said, he thought he might answer it completely . s 2 by. 200 by asking the right honourable gentleman, " WhP will you have for, your's ? On our part there are ¦ infuriated republicans ; on your's there are the slaves of despotism : both of them unfriendly perhaps to the constitution ; but there was no comparison between them in point of real hostility - to the spirit of freedom. The one, by having, too ardent a zeal for liberty, lost sight of the true medium by which it was to be preserved ; the other detested the thing itself, and are pleased with nothing but tyranny and despotism* Upon the word innovation, Mr. Fox said, about which so much had been heard, he' would repeat an observation he had uttered almost ,the first time he had addressed that house, namely — " That the greatest innovation that could be introduced in the constitution of England, was to come to a vote that there should be no innovation in it In his opinion the greatest beauty of the English ' constitution was, that in its very principle it ad mitted of perpetual improvement." — Had his ho nourable friend consulted him, he should have hesitated in recommending the part he had taken j n but 261 but having taken it, he could not see why the period was improper for the discussion. He pro fessed, in strong terms, his admiration of the British constitution, but thought that Mr. Pitt asserted too much, when he held forth this coun try as the only, state exempted from anarchy and despotism. In reply to this observation, Mr. Fox noticed America, and spoke in terms of approba tion of the new constitution of Polancl. At this period an universal fermentation pre vailed throughout the kingdom. The French revolution had heated the public mind to an in conceivable degree ; and associations were every where . formed for the purpose of procuring a re formation of the abuses that had crept into our own system of government. Never was political investigation pursued with so much boldness — • with so much activity. The press 'teemed with publications in which the principles of government were freely examined, and the theoretical defects of certain parts of our own constitution severely exposed. These were either circulated gratis, or published at a low price so as to be accessible to s 3 the; 26a the lower orders of the community ; and as they were circulated throughout the country with great industry, so they were read with avidity, and made many converts to their doctrines. Some of these publications it must be confessed vyere extremely imprudent; but by far the greater part of them were not only innocent i,n their nature, but highly laudable in their tendency. They were, however; indiscriminately viewed with the utmost jealousy and alarm by the court, which, not content with secretly encouraging counter-associations, and publications of a far more dangerous tendency than any of the worst libels circulated by the friends qf reform, publications in which the bias? phemous doctrine of divine hereditary right^ and Other equally absurd and pernicious tenets of the same stamp were maintained, issued a strong proclamation against seditious meetings and pub-r lications. This proclamation, which was understood to be chiefly directed against the popular pamphlet entitled the " Rights of Man," and the society known by the denomination pf the " Friends of - the 263 the People," was taken into consideration in the house of commons on the 25th of May, and an i address of approbation and support was moved by the friends of the minister. In opposition to the address, it was said that if any writings had ap peared, which ought not to have been published, his majesty's ministers ought to have prosecuted the authors, writers, or printers. That, in a general point of view, there ought to be a free circulation of opinions upon public affairs ; but if there was any thing that involved 'the public safety, or threatened evil to the state, it was the duty of those who presided over the government to take notice of it, and it would then become a consideration of prudence, whether it was expedi ent to prosecute or not. Upwards of twelve months had elapsed since the publications now complained of made their appearance. "What could the public think of the conduct of ministers, who had suffered these publications, which were said to be the bane of the public tranquillity, to poison the public mind for a whole year ? What could be the motives that brought forward this sudden ardour to subdue disorder ? Had it always s 4 . manifested 264 manifested itself in the Conduct of ministers ? Was there any remarkable activity ' displayed in preserving order in the affairs of Brimingham, where there had been actual outrage and violence to the laws;, to liberty, and to order ? It was remarked, as one of the objects of the proclamation, that the sheriffs, justices of the peace, and all other officers of the police, were to make diligent enquiry in order to discover the authors and publishers of wicked and seditious writings. — In other words, a systeni of espionage was to take place, by order of the crown, ,The. very idea was surprising as well as odious, that , such a proclamation should issue from the sove reign of a free people, commanding such a system to be supported by spies and informers. An amendment to the address was moved, the object of which was to remove the alarm which the . proclamation might create in the minds of his majesty's subjects, and to throw the blame upon ministers, if seditious writings were dispersed with Impunity. Mr. 265 Mr. Fox said, from deljcacy to friends, he would' have wished he had not been obliged to deliver his sentiments on the occasion ; but, lest improper ideas might go forth to the country with respect to his opinion, he thought himself bound to declare his disapprobation of a measure, which he termed impolitic, unwise, and alarming. He disapproved of it, because it was insidious and ambiguous. Was it directed against Mr. Paine/s book, the author and publisher of which were well known ? Why then desire to discover the author and publisher ? If it had a direct pur pose, why not directly and unequivocally state it ?/. Why, but because it was the insidious intentipn to throw out such vague and unnecessary alarms^ that they mighc make it speak a language different in the country from what they explained in the house of commons, ' Mr. Fox next commented on the Versatility of Mr. Pitt's conduct, in appearing at one time the great advocate for reform, and afterwards sternly discountenancing it. In preparing an expensive armament to obtain Oczakow, and afterwards relinquishing 266 relinquishing that object. There was a passage, he said, which particularly struck him. The proclamation said, " that the prosperity of the country depends on a just confidence in the integrity and wisdom.of parliament." What must reasonable men think of such an expression, coin ing from a ministry who had begun their career by declaring to the country, that they ought not to have any confidence in the wisdom and integri ty of parliament ? To give a true and consistent meaning to these words, there should be added, " as long as parliament shall act agreeably to the executive government." Mr. Fox concluded with lamenting the riots at Brimingham, and the un happy divisions which pervaded the country upon trifling and speculative opinions, and which, he hinted, were fomented by the intolerant and uncharitable spirit of those who pretended to be the friends of government. The libel bill introduced by Mr. Fox in the last session, the arguments on which were com pletely detailed in a former place, was again intro duced by him in the course of the session, and passed 267 passed into a law, notwithstanding the pertinacious opposition of some of the law lords. Considering the spirit of the times which ensued, and the disposition of ministers to construe into libel whatever reflected on their measures, the cause of liberty received no small aid by this seasonable exertion of Mr. Fox in its behalf.-— No other discussions of importance took place in the course of this session, which closed on the 1 5th of June, with a speech from the throne, in which his majesty- expressed to the two houses t{ his great concern at the actual commencement of hostilities in different parts of Europe, assuring them that his principal care would be to preserve to, his people the uninterrupted blessings of peace." However pacific the sentiments of ministers might have been at this period, they do not ap, pe#r.-to have retained them long, for in the month pf August the British ambassador was recalled from Paris; and on the 13th of December 1792, parliament was hastily convened, under an influ-r ence certaiiily very far from pacific. The king, in a speech from the throne, acquainted the two, houses, 268 houses, that "he had judged it necessary to em body a part of the militia of the kingdom ; that seditious practices prevailed in many parts, and a spirit of tumult and disorder (the natural conse quences of such practices) had shewn itself in acts of riot and insurrection, which required the in terposition of a military force in support of the civil magistrate.^-" I have carefully observed," said the king, " a strict neutrality in the present war on the continent, and have uniformly ab stained from any interference with respect to the internal affairs of France ; but it is impossible for me to see, without the most serious uneasiness, the strong and increasing indications which have appeared there of an intention to excite disturhr ances in other countries, to disregard the rights of neutral nations, and' to pursue views of conquest and aggrandisement, as well as to adopt towards my allies the States General measures which are neither conformable to the laws of nations, nor to the positive stipulations of existing treaties. Un der all these circumstances, I have felt it my indispensable duty to have recourse to those means of prevention and internal defence, with which I am 26g am entrusted by law ; and I have also thought it right to take steps for some augmentation of my naval and military force." . In the memorable debate which ensued on moving the address in answer to this speech, Mr. Fox exerted all the powers of his eloquence to dispel the infatuation which unhappily at this period had seized large majorities of both houses of parliament, and, there is reason to believe, the greater part of the community out of doors. Al luding to the portentous aspect of the times, and the circumstances under which parliament was assembled, "this," said Mr. Fox, "I consider not only as the most momentous crisis that I ever knew in the fate of this country, but that I ever read of in the history of this country : — a crisis not merely interesting to ourselves, and to our own condition, but to all nations and to all men : that upon the conduct of parliament at this crisis, depends not merely the fate of the British consti tution, but of doctrines which go to the happiness and well being of the whole human race. His majesty's speech is full of a variety of assertions; or 2?0^ pr perhaps I should not make use of the word assertions, without adding, that it has also a varie ty of insinuations conveyed in the shape of asser tions, which must impress every man with the most imminent apprehension for the safety of every thing that is justly dear to Englishmen. It is our first duty to enquire into the truth of these assertions and insinuations so conveyed from the throne. I am sure I need not recur to the old parliamentary usage of desiring, that when I speak by name of the king's speech, I mean- to ' be considered as speaking of the speech of the minister, since no one will impute to me the want of the most true and sincere respect for his majesty. It is to the speech which his majesty has been advised by his confidential servants to deliver from the throne, that I refer to. They are responsible for every letter of it, and to thenT, f- a'nd them only, every observation is addressed. I state it therefore to be my firm opinion and belief, that there is not one fact asserted in his majesty's speech which is not false'— not one assertion or insinuate n which is well founded. Nay, I cannot be so uUcahdid as to believe, that eyen the minis ters 271 ters themselves think them true. This charge upon his majesty's ministers is of so serious a kind, that I do not pronounce it lightly, and I desire that gentlemen will go fairly into the con sideration ofthe subject, and manifest the proper spirit of the representatives of the people in such a moment. The great prominent feature of the speech is, that it is an intolerable calumny on the people of Great Britain, an insinuation of so gross and black a nature, that it demands the most rigorous enquiry, and the most severe punishment. The next assertion is, that there exists at this- moment an insurrection in this kingdom. An insurrection ! Where is it ? Where has it rear ed its head ? Good God ! an insurrection in Great Britain ! No wonder that the militia were called ont, and parliament assembled in the ex traordinary way in which they have been ; but where is it ? Two gentlemen * have spoken in commendation and illustration ofthe speech ; but * Sir James Sanderson, lord-mayor of the city of London, who moved the address, and Mr. Wallace, who seconded the motion. i yet, 27% yet, though the insurrection has existed for four> teen days, they have given us no light whatever—*; no clue, no information where to find it. The right honourable magistrate tells us, that in his high municipal situation he has received certain information which he does not think proper to communicate to us. This is really ' carrying the. doctrine of confidence to a length indeed. — Not, content with ministers leading the house of coin- mons into the most extravagant and embarrassing, situations, under the blind cover of confidence^ we are now told that a municipal officer has information of an insurrection which he does not v choose to lay before the commons of England, but which he assures us is sufficient to justify the alarm that has spread over the whole country. The honourable gentleman who seconded the motion tells us, that the " insurrections are too notorious to be described," I will take upon me to say,- that it is not the notoriety of the insur rections which prevents them from communicating to us the particulars, but their non-existence. The speech goes on in the same strain of calumny and falsehood, and says,— ¦-" the industry employed to 275 to excite discontents on various pretexts, and iri different parts of the kingdom, has appeared to proceed from a design to attempt the destruction^ . of our happy constitution^ and the subversion of all order and government." T desire gentlemen to consider these words, and I demand of their honour and truth, whether they believe this asser tion to be founded in fact. There have been, as I understand, and as every one must have heard, some slight riots in different parts, but I askthem^ Were not the various pretexts of these different tumults false, and used Only to cover an attempt to destroy our happy constitution ? I have heard of a tumult at Shields ; of another at Leith ; of some riot at Yarmouth, and of something of the Same nature at Perth and Dundee. But I ask gentlemen if they believe that in each of these places the avowed object of the complaint of the people was not the real one — that the sailors of Shields, Yarmouth^ &c. did not really want some increase of their wages, but were actuated by a design of overthrowing the constitution. Is there a rcnui in England who believes this insinuation to be true ? And in like manner of every other vol. ii. T meeting, 274 meeting, to which, in the present spirit, men may give the name of tumultuously assembling. I desire to know if there has been discovered any secret motive other than their open and avowed one. And yet, with this conviction in our minds, we are called upon to declare directly our behef that such things are so — we are called upon to join in the libel upon our constituents. The answer to the speech says, that we know of the tumult and disorder, but as to the. actual insur rection, it more modestly makes us say, that " we are sorry to hear there is an insurrection." " With respect to the affairs of France, which make the next prominent passage in his majesty's speech, I do not desire to enter at much length into them, but. I cannot conceal my sentiments on certain doctrines. It has been advanced as a proof thaj: there exists a dangerous spirit in this country, that it was manifested " by the drooping and dejected aspect of many persons when the tidings of Dumourier's surrender arrived in Eng land." Is this to be considered as a sign of dis content, and of a preference to republican doc- 1 trine* 275 trines — that men should droop and be dejected in their spirits, when they heard that the armies of despotism had triumphed over an army fighting for liberty ? — If such dejection be a proof that men are discontented with the constitution of . England, and leagued with foreigners in an at tempt to destroy it, I give myself up to my country as a guilty man ; for I freely confess that when I heard of the surrender or retreat of Dumourier, and that there was a probability of the triumph of the armies of Austria and Prussia over the liberties of France, my spirits drooped, and I was much dejected. Could any man who loves the constitution of England, who feels its principles in his heart, wish success to the dftke of Bruns wick, after reading a manifesto which violated every doctrine that Englishmen held sacred, which trampled under foot every principle of justice, humanity^ freedom, and true govern ment *, and upon which the combined armies entered •* Some idea may be formed of the spirit of thjs celebrated proclamation from the following passages. — " The inhabi- t 2 tants 276 entered France, with the internal concerns of which kingdom they had no right to interfere ? When he heard, or thought that he saw a pro bability of their success, could any man of true tants of towns, bourgs, and villages, who shall dare to defend themselves against the. troops of their imperial and royal ma jesties, and to fire upon them, either in open country, or through half doors or windows of their houses, shall be pu nished instantly, according to the rigorous rules of war, or their houses shall be.demolished or burned," — f< The eity of Paris, and all its inhabitants, without distinction, shall be called upon to submit instantly and without delay to the king, and to set that prince at full liberty, &c. on pain of losing their heads, pursuant to military trial, without hopes of pardon, all members of the national assembly, of the de partment, of the district, ofthe municipality, Of the national guards of Paris, justices, of the peace, and others whom it may concern."-* If the palace of. the Thuilleries be forced, or the least outrage done t& the king, queen, and the roya family, " they will inflict on those who shall deserve it, the .most .exemplary and ever memorable avenging punishments, by; giving up the city of Paris to military execution, and exposing it to total destruction. "—Some of the descendant* of the duke of Brunswick feel the effects of this infuriated state paper at the present hour. British 277 British feelings be other than dejected ? I ho nestly confess that I never felt more sincere gloom and dejection in my life, for I saw in the triumph of that conspiracy not merely the ruin of liberty in France, but the ruin of liberty in England, the ruin of the liberty of man. But am I to be told that my sorrow was an evident proof of my being connected with the French nation, or with any person in that nation, for the purpose of aiding them in creating discontents in England, or in making any attempt to destroy the British con stitution ? If such conclusions were to.be drawn from the dejection of those who are hostile to the maxims of tyranny, upon which the invasion of France was founded, what must we say of those men who acknowledge that they are' sorry the invasion did not prosper ? Am I to believe that all whoiconfess their sorrow atthe failure ofthe arms of Prussia and Austria, were connected with those courts, and that a considerable body of persons in this country were actually in the horrid league formed against human liberty ? Are we taught to bring this heavy charge against all men whose spirits drooped on the reverse ofthe news, t 3 and 278 and when it turned out that it was not Dumourier, but the duke of Brunswick who had retreated ? No; he would not charge them with being con federates with the invaders of France ; nor did they believe, nor durst they believe, that the really constitutional men of England, who rejoiced on the overthrow of that horrid and profligate scheme, wished to draw therefrom any thing hostile to the established government of England. " What are the doctrines that are desired to be set up by this insinuation of gloom and dejection ? That Englishmen are not to dare to have any feelings of their own— that they must not rejoice but by rule — that they must not think but by order — that no man shall dare to exercise his faculties in contemplating the objects that sur* round him, nor give way to the indulgence of his joy or his grief in the emotions that they excite, but according to the instructions which he shall receive — that, in observing the events which happen to surrounding and neutral nations, he shall not dare to think whether they are favourable to the principles that contribute to the happiness. 27g of man, or the contrary ; and that he must take not merely his opinions, but his sensations, from his majesty's ministers and their satellites for the time being." In an eloquent apostrophe to the speaker, he exclaimed — " Whenever, sir, the time shall eome, that the character and spirits of Englishmen are so subdued ; when they shall consent to believe that every thing which happens around is in^- different both to their understandings and to their hearts ; and when they shall be brought to rejoice and grieve, just as shall suit the taste, the caprice, or the ends of ministers, then I pronounce the constitution of this country to be extinct. We have read of religious persecutions — ofthe impla cable oppressions of the Roman see — of the hor rors ofthe inquisition of Spain ; but so obstinate, .so hard, so intolerable a scheme of cruelty was never engendered in the mind, much less practised by any tyrant, spiritual or temporal, For see to what lengths they carry this intellectual oppres sion.— Under various pretexts there have been tumults and disorders, but the true design was to t "4 overturn 28.0 overturn the constitution — so says the speech,— * and mark the illustration of the right honourable magistrate.— Af There have been various societies established in the city of London, for' the plausible purpose of merely discussing constitutional ques tions, but which were really designed to propagate _ seditious doctrines." So then, by this new scheme of tyranny, we are not to judge of the conduct ! of men by their overt acts, but to arrogate to ourselves at once the province and the power of the Divinity — we are to arraign a man for his secret thoughts, and to punish him because we choose to believe him guilty ! — " You tell me, indeed," says one of these municipal inquisitors^ *' that_you meet for an honest purpose,' but I know better — your plausible pretext shall not impose upon me — I know your seditious purpose, and I will brand you for a traitor by my own proper authority."— What innocence can be safe against such a power } What inquisitor of Spain, of ancient or modern tyranny, can hold so lofty a tone r^ — There are doubtless speculative people in this country, who disapprove of the system of our government, and there must be such men as 281 ias long as the land is free, for it is the very essence of freedom for men to differ upon speculative points. — Is it possible to conceive, that it should enter into the imaginations of freemen to doubt of this truth ? The instant that the general sense ofthe people shall question this truth, and main tain that opinion should be held dependent on the will of ministers and magistrates, from that moment shall I date the extinction of our liberties as a people.- — Our constitution was not made, thank God, in a day— *it is the result of progres sive wisdom^.t has grown up in a series of ages, and never, never has the guardian protecting genius of England been either asleep or satisfiedr-™. -. O, but man, proud man, Drest in a little brief authority, Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven As makes the angels weep, — — f Now it seems the constitution is complete— now we are to stand still — we are to deride the wisdom and the practice of our forefathers — we are to elevate ourselves with1 the constitution in our 282 our hands, and to hold it forth to a wondering world as a, model of human perfection. — " Away with all further improvement, for it is impossible < — away with all further melioration of the state of man in society, for it is needless. — Let no man touch this work of man, it is like the work of Heaven, perfect in all its parts, and unlike any other work of man ; it is -neither capable of per- version, nor subject to decay." — Such is the pre-' sumptuous language that we hear ; and not con tent with this haughty tobe, they imitate the celebratd anathema of Lord Peter, in the Tale , of a Tub, and exclaim, " G — d confound you to all eternity if you believe otherwise." Alluding to the diminution which his popularity might sustain in consequence of his opposition to the measures of government, and to the extreme virulence with which his opinions were treated by those who were now generally known by the popular term of alarmists, and had associated in great numbers for the purpose of distributing pamphlets written on high monarchical principles, Mr. Fox said—" I may be abused and libelled^ I may 283 may be branded with epithets of disgrace ; but . though 1 love popularity, and fairly own that there is no external reward so dear to me as the good opinion and confidence of my fellow citizens ; yet no temptation of such a nature shall ever induce me to join any association that has for its object a change in -the basis of our constitution, or an extension of any of these bases beyond their just proportion. — I will stand in the gap, and oppose myself to all the wild projects of a new-fangled theory, as much as against the monstrous iniquity of exploded doctrines. I think the latter is more our present danger than the former. I see not merely in the panic of the timorous, hut in the acts of the designing, cause for alarm against the most abhorrent doctrines. The new associations have acted with little disguise. One of them, J. must applaud forthe sincerity of its practice; Mr, chairman Reeves says, " that they will not only prosecute, but they will convince men," and they recommend, amongst other publications, a hand-bill entitled ffA Pennyworth of Wit," in which among other odd things it is said, " Have you. not read the bible f Do you not know that it is. 284 is there written that the king, is the Lord's anoint ed P—But did you ever hear of his having anointed a republic f". ; In another part of his speech, alluding to this wretched effusion of loyalty, and to the miscon duct of his majesty's ministers in recalling- the British ambassador from Paris, he asked, "'Why not have attempted to negociate with France ?" And in a tone of triumphant ridicule proceeded, " Because, forsooth, France is an unanointed re- . public ! Oh miserable, infatuated Frenchmen Jf| Oh lame and inconsiderate politicians ! WhyJ instead of breaking the holy vial of Rheims, why- did you not pour some-of the sacred oil on the heads of your executive council, that the pride of states might not he forced to plunge themselves and you into the horrors of war, rather than be. contaminated by your acquaintance? How short sighted were you to believe, that the prejudices,. of infants" had departed with the gloom of ig norance, and that states were grown up to A condition of manhood and reason !" i ! Adverting ' 285 Adverting to the agitated state of the public mind, Mr. Fox said, "It may be asked, what I would propose to do in hours of agitation like the present ? I will answer openly ^ If there is a tendency in the dissenters to discontent, because they conceive themselves unjustly suspected and cruelly calumniated, what should I do ? I would instantly repeal the corporation and test acts, and take from them thereby all cause pf complaint. If there were any persons tinctured with a repub lican spirit, because they thought that the repre sentative government was more perfect in a re public, I would endeavour to amend the represen tation of the commons, and to prove that the house of commons, though not chosen by all, should have np other interest than to prove itself the representative of all. If men were dissatisfied in Scotland, or Ireland, or elsewhere, on account of disabilities or exemptions, of unjust prejudices, and of cruel restrictions, I would repeal the penal statutes, which are a disgrace to our law-books. If there were other complaints of grievance, I would redress them where they were really prov ed ; but above all, I would constantly, chearfully, patiently 2&a patiently listen. — I would make it known, that if any man felt, or thought he felt a grievance, he might come freely to the bar of this housej and • bring his proofs. And it should be made manifest to all the world, that, where they_did exist, they should be redressed ; where not, it should be* • made manifest. If I were to issue a proclaim-' tion, this should be my proclamation : " If any man has a grievance, let him bring it to the bat of the commons house of parliament, with' the firm persuasion of having it honestly investigated.'1 These are the subsidies I would grant to govern ment." Mr. Fox professed the strongest attachment | to the British constitution.-—" I love the consti tution," said he, " as it is established ; it has1 grown up with me as a prejudice, and as a habit, as Well as from , conviction. I know that it is calculated for the happiness of mari, and that its constituent branches of king, lords, and commons, could not be altered or impaired without entailing! on the country the most dreadful miseries/ At the same time I do not think so highly of any 287 any institution, as to believe that it is incapable of being perverted. I think that we may be lulled asleep to our real danger by these perpetual alarms to loyalty, and that the great dread of increasing the power ofthe crown seems to be stifled, while we are insensibly degrading the power of the commons." In the conclusion of this speech, Mr. Fox, solemnly conjured the house not to involve the nation in so dreadful a calamity as war, without deep and serious enquiry, and moved an amend ment to the address, declaring that "the house would immediately institute an enquiry into the causes which had occasioned them to be assembled in so alarming a manner." — After a debate of many hours, Mr. Fox's amendment unhappily was rejected by a large majority, 2QO members voting with the minister against 50 who supported Mr. Fox. Undismayed by this formidable majority, and in despite of the secession of his friends, and the diminu tion of his popularity, by alarms artfully fomented, , 2'8S fomented, Mr. Fox, on the report of the address being brought up, again earnestly besought the house to pause before they plunged the natioa into hostilities, and with a prophetic spirit pointed out the evil consequences that were likely to ensue from a war with FranGe. He blamed ministers^ for not having interposed to prevent the Austrian and Prussian armies from entering France^ and argued that by a prudent negociation with those powers, we might have prevented the horrid scenes which were afterwards exhibited, and gained suchj an ascendancy in the councils of France, aswouId| most probably have prevented any attack upon Holland. — If Holland was to be the ostensible. cause of the war, he said,, it was fit we should^ consider in what degree she wOuld have it in her power to contribute to the support of it. Mr* Fox represented the disunited state of parties in Holland, and the odium of the stadtholder's go vernment, as invincible obstacles to the .vigorous, prosecution of a war. Proceeding next to the consideration of ;onr domestic situation, "If/' said Mr. Fox, " there exists 28g exists a discontented or djsaffected party at home", what can add so much to their numbers, or their influence, as a war, by increasing the public burthens till they become intolerable ? — He wished that war, if* possible, should be avoided ; that negociation should precede hostility; and therefore he would move, the next day, an address to the king, praying that he would acknowledge the new government of France, send a minister to it, and receive one from it. A right honourable gentleman (Mr. Burke) had said, " Are we to ' receive an ambassador reeking with the blood of innocent men, and perhaps even that of the king of France ?" In answer to this he should say^ was not the republic of this country readily ac knowledged ih the time of Cromwell ? Did not foreign courts vie in their civilities to our new government after the execution of Charles ? an execution, whatever difference of opinion therei might be entertained about it, which had infinitely less injustice in it, than that which might perhaps be inflicted on the unhappy sovereign of France ; but he hoped so foul a deed would not be per petrated. He would consider it as an act- that vol. ii. u would 2go woiild for ever be a disgrace to their nation, and which every man must deplore ; but still he could not think that we were never to have any con* nection with France. If ministers were resolved never to receive an ambassador from the French republic, he wished they would say so. He : wished, if their objections to receive one at pre sent were, that they knew not how to introduce a French minister into the king's drawing-room, they would fairly avow it> in order that the people of England might see that their blood and trea* sure were to be sacrificed to a mere punctilio^- He called upon gentlemen to recollect, that though it was once the courtly style to talk of a vagrant congress, of one Adams, oi Hancock and his crewt the folly of such language was demonstrated, and Great Britain, in the1 end, had been obliged to acknowledge the sovereignty and independence of the United States of America.- The same thing might happen with respect to the French republic, and therefore he thought it belter that we should immediately send a minister to France, than perhaps after that event should' have taken place, which he most earnestly depre cated, 201 coated, and which he should most heartily deplore (the execution of the king.) Mr. Fox concluded with moving that the following Words be inserted in the address, " trusting that your majesty will employ every means of negociation, consistent with the honour and safety of this country, to avert the calamities of war */' Unfortunately * Mr. Fox, in his admirable Letter to the Electors of Westminster, published soon afterwards, speaking of this motion, says — " My motive in this instance is too obvious to require explanation ; and I think it the less necessary to dwell much on this subject, .because with respect to the desirableness of peace at all times, and more particularly in the present, I have reason to believe that your sentiments do not differ from mine. If we looked to the country where the cause of. war was said principally to originate, the situation of the Unit* ed Provinces appeared to me to furnish abundance of pru dential arguments in favour of peace. If we looked to Ireland, I saw nothing there that would not discourage a wise statesman from putting the connection between the two kingdoms to any unnecessary hazard. At home, if it be true i- 3 ... . that 202 Unfortunately the torrent of exaggerated alarm bore down the strength of Mr. Fox's arguments/ and his motion was rejected. What the convic tions of the majority on that occasion were, it is now useless to enquire, but of the sagacity and foresight of Mr. Fox's opponents some judgment may be formed from the bold prognostic of Mr. Dundas, who (in the absence of Mr. Pitt, who had vacated his seat in consequence of his being appointed lord warden of the Cinque Ports) might be considered as the organ of the. cabinet in the house of commons, predicted (prescient states man !) such was the dilapidated state of the ^finances of France compared with those of this kingdom, that, " if we were forced into a warf it must prove successful and glorious /" On the following day (December 15> 1792) • .' \ .-'¦' that there are seeds of discontent, war is the hot-bed in which these seeds will soonest vegetate ; and of all wars, in this point of view, that war is most to be dreaded, in the eause pf which kings may be supposed to be more concerned than their subjects." Mr. 20,3 Mr. Fox moved ie that an humble address be presented to his majesty, that his majesty will be graciously pleased to give directions, that a minis ter may be sent to Paris, to treat with those per sons who exercise provisionally the functions of executive government in France, touching such points as may be in discussion between his majesty and his allies, and the French nation." Mr. Fox has left his own observations on this motion, and sad experience has proved their truth ; it would therefore he as presumptuous in me to offer, any of ray own, as it would be' superfluous for me to point out how fatally the apprehensions of this great statesman have been verified *. In * In his Letter to his constituents, Mr. Fox, after re. marking that this motion, if he had been rightly informed, was that which had been most generally approved, says— " It was made upon mature consideration, after much deliberation with myself, and much consultation with others; and notwithstanding the. various misrepresentations of iny jnotives in making it, and the misconceptions of its ten- c 3 dency, 294. In the course of the debate on Mr. Fox's mo tion, it was asked what gentleman would submit to dency, which have prepossessed many against it, I cannot repent of an act, which, if 1 had omitted, I should think myself deficient in that duty which I owe to you, and to my country at large. " The motives that Urged me to make it were, the tame desire Of peace which actuated me in the former motion, if ' it could be preserved on honourable and safe terms^ and if this were impossible, an anxious wish that the grounds of war might be just, clear, and intelligible. •*'Ifwe or our ally have suffered injury or insult, or if the independence of Europe be menaced by inordinale and successful ambition, 1 know no means of preserving peace .but 'by obtaining reparation for the injury, satisfaction for the insult, or security against the design which we appre. bend ; and I know no means of obtaining any of these ob jects, but by addressing ourselves to the power of whom we complain. " If the exclusive navigation of the Scheld, or any other right belonging .to the States General, has been invaded, the F rench executive council are the invaders, and of them we 295 to be ambassador to Paris — would he condescend to accept the post ? In reply to this Mr. Sheri dan we must ask redress. If the rights of neutral nations have been attacked by the decree of the 19th of November, the national convention of France have attacked them, and from that convention, through the organ by which they speak to foreign courts and nations, their minister for fo. reign affairs, w"e must demand explanation, avowal, or such other satisfaction as the case may require. If the manner in which the same convention have received and answered some of our countrymen, who had addressed them, be thought worthy notice, precisely of the same persons, and in the same manner, must we demand satisfaction on that head also. If the security of Europe, by any conquests made or apprehended, be endangered to such a degree, as to warrant us, on the principles as well of justice as of policy, to enforce by arms a restitution of conquests already made, or a renunciation of such as may have been projected, from, the executive government of France, in this instance again, we must ask suck restitution, or such renunciation. How all, or any of these objects could be attained, but by ne gotiations, carried on by authorised ministers, I could not conceive. I knew indeed that there were some persons, whose notions of dignity were far different from mine, and who, in that point of view, would have preferred a clandes- u 4 tine, 296 dan observed, that from the commencement of the revolution he had been pf opinion, that if there had tine, to an avowed negociation j but I confess I thought this mode of proceeding neither honqurable nor safe ; and^ with regard to some of our complaints, wholly impracticable. ~ Not honourable, because, tq seek private and circuitous channels of communication, seems to suit the conduct, rather of such as sue for a favour, than of a great nation, which demands satisfaction. Not safe, because neither a declara tion from an unauthorised agent, nor a mere gratuitous repeal of the decrees complained of, (and what more could^ Such a negociation aim at ?) would afford us any security against the revival of the claims which we oppose.; and lastly, impracticable with respect to that part of the ques tion, which regards the security of Europe, because such security could not be provided for by the repeal of a decree,' or any thing that might be the result of private negociation,. but could only be obtained by a formal treaty, to which the existing French government must of necessity be a party; and I know of no.means by which it can become a party to such a treaty, or to any treaty at all, but by a minister publicly authorised, and publicly received. Upon these grounds, and. with these views, as a. sincere friend to peaoe, I thought it my duty to suggest, what appeared to me, on every supposition, the mqst eligible, and if certain points 1 < were 297 liad been a statesman-like administration, they! would have considered the post of minister at Paris were to be insisted upon, the only means of preserving that invaluable blessing. ' " But T. had 6till a further motive ; and if peace could not be preserved, I considered the measure which I recommended as highly useful in another point of view. To declare war, is, by the constitution, the prerogative of the king ; but to grant or withhold thp means of carrying it on, is (by the same constitution) the privilege of the people, through their representatives ; and upon the people at large, by a law paramount to all constitutions— the law of nature and ne. cessity, must fall the burdens and sufferings, which are the too sure attendants upon that calamity. It seems therefore reasonable that they, who are to pay, and to suffer, should be distinctly inforined pf the pbject for which war is made, and I conceived nothing would tend to this information so much as an avowed negociation ; because from the result of such a negotiation, and by no other means, could we, with ¦ any degree of certainty, learn, how far the French were willing to satisfy us in all, or in any of the points^ which have been publicly held forth as the grounds of complaint against them. — If in none of these any satisfac tory explanation were given, we should all admit, provided our 298 Paris as the situation which demanded the first and ablest talents in the country. Happy he be lieved our original grounds of complaint were just, that the war would be so too : — if in some, we should know the specific subjects upon which satisfaction was refused, and have an opportunity of judging whether or not they were a rational ground of dispute : — if in all— and a rupture were never theless to take place, we should know that the public pre tences were not the real causes of the war. " " In the last case which I have put, I should hope that there is too much spirit in the people of Great Britain, to submit to take a part in a proceeding founded on deceit ; and in either of the others, whether our cause were weak or strong, we should at all events escape that last of infamies, the suspicion of being a party to the duke of Brunswick's manifestos. But this is not all. Having ascertained the pre. cise cause of war, we should learn the true road to peace ; and if the cause so ascertained appeared adequate, that we should look to peace through war, by vigorous exertions and liberal supplies : i( inadequate, the constitution would fur nish us abundance of means, as well, through our represen tatives, as by our undoubted right to petition king and parliament, of impressing his majesty's ministers with senti. ments similar to our own, and of engaging them to com-. promise, 299 lieved it would have been for both countries, and for human nature itself, if such had been the opinion promise, or,. if necessary, to relinquish an object, in which we did not feel interest sufficient to compensate us for the calamities and hazard of a war. " To these reasonings it appeared to me, that they only could object with consistency, who would go to war with France on account of her internal concerns; and who would consider the re-establishment of the old, or at least some other form of government, as the fair object of the contest. Such persons might reasonably enough argue, that with those whom they are determined to destroy, it is useless to treat. " To arguments of this nature, however, I paid little attention ; because the eccentric opinion upon which they are founded was expressly disavowed both in the king's speech and in the addresses of the two houses of parliament : and it was an additional motive for making my motion, that, if fairly debated, it might be the occasion of bringing into free discussion that opinion, and separating more distinctly those who maintained and acted upon it from others, who from different motives (whatever they might be)" were dis inclined to my proposal. " But 300 opinion of government in this country, and highly as he valued Mr.: Fox, unparalleled as he thought his "But if the objections of the violent party appeared to me extravagant, those of the more moderate seemed wholly unintelligible. Would ,they make and continue war, till they can force France to a counter revolution ? No ; this they disclaim, What then is to be the termination of the war. to which they would excite us? I answer confidently, that it can he no other than a negociation, upon the same principles and with the same men as that which I recom mend. I say the same principles, because after war peace cannot be obtained but hy treaty, and treaty necessarily Implies the independency of th)e contracting parties. I say the same men, because though they maybe changed before the happy hour of reconciliation arrives, yet that ehangej upon the principles above stated, would be merely acci dental, and in no wise a necessary preliminary to peace: for I cannot suppose that those who disclaim making war for a change, would yet think it right to continue.it till a phange ; or, in other words, that the blood and treasure of ; this country, should be expended in a hope that — not our' ' efforts — but time and chance may, produce a new govern. ment in France, w^th which it would be mpre agreeable tp our ministers to negotiate with than, the present. And it is further to J>e poserved, that the necessity of such a nego. ciatia 301 his talents were, he should not have hesitated to have declared, that as minister at Paris there was scope elation will not in any degree depend upon the success of our arms, since the reciprocal recognition of the indepen dency of contracting parties is equally necessary to those who exact and those who offer sacrifices for the purpose of peace. I forbear to put the case of ill-success, because ta contemplate the -situation to 'which we, and especially our ally, might in such an event be placed, is a task too painful to be undertaken but in a case of the last necessity. Let us suppose therefore the skill and gallantry of our sailors and soldiers to be crowned with a series of uninterrupted vic tories to lead us to the legitimate object of a just war, a Safe and honourable, peace. The terms of such a peace (I am supposing that Great Britain is to dictate them) may consist in satisfaction, restitution, or even by way of indem nity to us or to others^ in cession of territory on the part of France. Now that such satisfaction may be honourable, it must be made by an independent power, competent to make them. And thus our very successes and victories will ne cessarily lead us to that measure of negociation and recogni tion, which, from the distorted shape in which passion and prejudice represent objects to the mind of man, has by some been considered as an act of humiliation and abasement. ** I have' 302 scope and interest for the greatest mind that ever warmed a human bosom. ,^ The French had been uniformly (i I have reason to believe there are some who think my motion unexceptionable enough in itself, but ill-timed. The time was not in my choice. I had no opportunity of making it sooner ; and, with a view to its operation respecting peace, I could not delay it. To me, who think that public inter. course with France, except during actual war, ought always to subsist, the first occasion that presented itself, after the interruption of that intercourse, seemed of course-the-pro» per moment for pressing its renewal. Bnt let us examine the objections upon this head of time in detail. They appeared to me to be principally four— " 1st. That by sending a minister to Paris at that pe riod, we should give some countenance to a proceeding (the trial of Louis XVI,) most unanimously and most justly re probated, in every country of Europe, " To this objection I .need _not, I think, give 4ny other answer, than that it rests upon an opinion, that by sending a minister we pay some compliment, implying approbation. to the prince or state to whom we send him ; an opini' which, for the honour of this country, I must hope to he wholly erroneous. We had a minister at Versailles, when > Corsica S03 uniformly partial, and even prejudiced, in favour ofthe English people. What manly sense, what vigorous Corskifwas hough t and enslaved. We had ministers atthe German courts, at the time of the infamous partition of Poland. We have generally a resident consul, who acts as a minister to the piratical republic of Algiers ; and we have more than once sent embassies to emperors of Morocco, reeking from the blood through which, by the murder of their nearest relations, they had waded to their thrones. In none of these instances was any sanction given by Great Britain to the transactions by which power had been ac quired, or to the manner in which it had been exercised; '' 2ndly'. That a recognition might more properly take place at the end, and as the result of a private communica tion, and (in the phrase used upon a former occasion) as the price of peace, than gratuitously at the outset of a nego ciation. " 1 cannot help suspecting, that they who urge this ob. jection have confounded the present case with the question, formerly so much agitated, of American independence. In this view they appear to me wholly dissimilar. — I pray to God that, in all other respects, they may prove equally so. To recognise the Thirteen States, was in effect to withdraw a claim 304 Vigorous intellect, what generous feelings, com municating with them might have done, it was not a claim of our own,' and it might fairly enough be argued that we were entitled to some price or compensation for such a sacrifice. Even upon that occasion, I was of opinion that' a gratuitous and preliminary acknowledgment of their inde pendence was most consonant to the principles of magna nimity and policy ; but in this instance we have no sacrifice' to make,' for we have no claim ', and the reasons for which the French must wish an avowed and official intercourse, can only be such as apply equally to the mutual interest of both nations, by affording more effectual means of preveat- ing misunderstandings, and securing peace. " I vrould further' recommend to those who press this objection, to consider whether, if recognition be really a sacrifice on our part, the ministry have not already made that sacrifice, by continuing to act upon the commercial treaty as a treaty still in existence. Every contract must be at an end when the contracting parties have no longer any existence either in their own persons or by their represen tatives. After the 10th of August the politieal existence of Louis XVI, who was the contracting party in the treaty of commerce, was completely annihilated. The only question therefore is, Whether the executive council of France did or did- 305 not easy to calculate: but the with -holding all these from that nation in our hollow neutrality, was did not represent the political power so annihilated ? If we say they did not, the contracting party has no longer any political existence either in his person or by representation, and the treaty becomes null and void. If We say they did, then we have actually acknowledged them as representatives (for the time at least) of what was the executive government in France. In this character alone do they claim to be ac knowledged, since their very style describes them as a provi- soinal executive council and nothing else. If we would pre serve our treaty we could not do less ; by sending a minister we should not do more*. * Mr. Fox adds the following note to this passage. " If my argument is satisfactory, I have proved that we have re cognised the executive council ; and %t is notorious, that through the medium of M. Chauvelin wc have negociated with them. But although we have both negociated and re cognised, it would be dishonourable, it seems, to negociate in such a manner as to imply recognition. How nice are the points upon which great businesses turn ! Hovy remote from vulgar apprehension !" vol. ii. x "Sdly. 306* was an evil which could never be sufficiently lamented. — Unhappily for the nation all the warn ings " 3dly. That our ambassador having been recalled, ami no British minister having resided at Paris, while the conduct of the French was inoffensive with respect to us and our ally, it would be mortifying to send one thither, just at the time when they began to give us cause of complaint. *' Mortifying to whom ? Not certainly to the house of commons, who were not a party to the recal of lord Gowerj and who, if my advice were followed, would lose no time in replacing him. To the ministers possibly*; and if so, it ought to be a warning to the house, that it should not, by acting like the ministers, lose the properj that is, the first opportunity, and thereby throw extrinsic difficulties of its own creation in the way of a measure, in itself wise and salutary. * c' I do not think it would have been mortifying even to them, because in consequence of the discussions which had arisen, a measure which had -been before indifferent might become expedient ; but as this point made no part of my consideration, I have not thought it incumbent upon me to , argue it." " 4thly. 307 ings of the opposition Were fruitless ; and so pre^ dominant was the rage for war, that Mr. Fox's motion " 4thly. That by acting in the manner proposed we might give ground of offence to those powers, with whom, in case of war, it might be prudent to form connection and alliance. " This objection requires examination. Is it meant that our treating with France in its present state will offend the German powers, by showing them that our ground of quar rel is different from theirs ? If this be so, and if we adhere to the principles which we have publicly stated, I am afraid we must either offend or deceive, and ih such an alternative I trust the option is not difficult. " If it be said, that, though our original grounds of quar rel were different, yet we may, in return for the aid they may afford us in obtaining our objects, assist them in theirs of a counter revolution, and enter into an offensive alliance for that purpose. — I answer, that our Laving previously treated would be no impediment to such a measure. But if it were, I freely confess that this consideration would have no influence with me; because such an alliance, for such a purpose, I conceive to be the greatest calamity that can befall the British nation : for let us not attempt to deceive our- x 2 - selves; 308 motion was negatived without the formality of a division. When selves ; whatever possibility or even probability there may be of a counter-revolution, from internal agitation and disj cord, the means of producing such an event by external force can be no other than the conquest of France. The couj quest of France! O! calumniated crusaders ! how rational and moderate Were your objects ! O ! much injured Louis XVI. upon what slight grounds have you been accused of restless and immoderate ambition ! O ! tame and feeble Cer* vantes, with what a timid pencil and faint colours have you painted the portrait of a disordered imagination ! " I have now stated to you, and I trust fairly, the argu ments that persuaded meito the course of conduct which I have pursued. In these consists my defence, upon which you are to pronounce ; and I hope I shall not be thought presumptuous, when I say, that I expect with confidence a favourable verdict. " If the reasonings I have adduced fail of convincing you, I confess indeed that I shall be disappointed, because to my understanding they appear to have more of irrefragable de monstration than can often be hoped for in political .discus* sions; 309 When information was received of the deter mination of the national convention to bring the sions ; but even in this case, if you see in them probability sufficient to induce you to believe that, though not strong enough to convince you, they, and not any sinister or oblique motives, did in fact actuate me, I have still gained my cause ; for in this supposition, though. the propriety of my conduct may be doubted, the rectitude of my intentions must be admitted. Knowing therefore the justice and candour of the tribunal to which I have appealed, I wait your decision without fear — your approbation I anxiously desire, but your acquittal I confidently expect. " Pitied for my supposed misconduct by some of my friends, openly renounced by others, attacked and misre. jpresented by my enemies,— ^to you I have recourse for refuge and protection ; and conscious, that if I had shrunk from my duty, 1 should have merited your censure, I feel equally certain, that by acting in conformity to the motives which I have explained to you, I can in no degree have forfeited the esteem of the city of Westminster, which it has so long been the first pride of my life tp enjoy, and which it shall be my constant endeavour to preserve. « C. J. FOX." *: South-Street, Jan. 26, 1793.x 3 unfortunate 310 unfortunate Louis XVI. to trial, Mr. Fox took an early opportunity of expressing his sense of the injustice, cruelty, and pusillanimity of the mear sure, and suggested that an unanimous address1 of the two houses of parliament, expressing their abhorrence, and that of the country in general, pf such a proceeding, would have a decisive influence' with persons of all descriptions in France. Such a step might haye averted the fate of the unhappy Louis ; but it was held by the minister to be in compatible with the dignity of England to solicit any thing from France, and Mr. Fox's suggestion/? passed unregarded. In a few days intelligence was received of the execution of the king of France, and a message- was communicated from his majesty, acquainting, the two houses of parliament that he had directed the French ambassador to quit the kingdom, and at the same time informing them that he had judged it expedient to make a further augmenta tion of his forces by sea and land. Mr. Fox, on the motion for an address, (Feb. 1, 17g3,) again besought the house not rashly to plunge the nation into 311 into the calamities of war. The vile calumnies and misrepresentations which had been industri ously propagated to his disadvantage, would not, he said, intimidate him from the public avowal of his sentiments. Never had he known a period in which the duties of his station bound every man more strongly to deliver his sentiments openly and firmly. Never was there a time when it was more essential for a man to speak out. — Believing, as he didj that the service in which he was employed was a service of honour ; that it required much diligence to discharge his duty faithfully to his constituents ; and that he was not placed there as the representative of* Westminster alone, but as representative for the nation at large ; the pebple of England had a right toknow the politi-r cal doctrines by which he was actuated. He had been represented as friendly to the introduction of French principles. Such an infamous assertion excited his indignation, convinced as he was, that every effort had been used on his part to avert the Calamities in which we were about to be involved.- He had been misrepresented and calumniated ; but if misrepresentation and calumny were to x 4 deter 312 deter him frpm delivering opinions because they might be unpopular — from deprecating a war with France, as an evil' to be avoided by every possible means consistent with the honour and safety of us and our allies, he should basely desert his trust to his constituents and to his country, The crimes, the murders, and the massacres . which' had been committed in France, no man viewed with more horror than he did, though he did not think proper to make them the perpetual theme of declamation. He considered the execu tion ofthe king an act as disgraceful as any that history records. Revenge being unjustifiable, and punishment useless, where it could not operate either- by, way of prevention or example, he viewed with detestation the injustice and inhumanity with which that unhappy monarch had been treated. Not only were the rules of criminal justice, rules that more than any other ought to be strictly observed, violated ; not only was he tried and con demned, without any existing law to which he was personally amenable, and even contrary to laws whiph did actually exist ; but the degrading circumstance 313 circumstance of his imprisonment, the unnecessary and insulting -asperity with which he had been treated, the total want of republican magnanimity in the whole transaction, (for it could be no -of fence to say that there might be such a thing as magnanimity in a republic) added every aggrava tion to the inhumanity and injustice of his sen tence. But having made this declaration as the genuine expression of his feelings and his reason, Mr. Fox said, he saw neither propriety nor wisdom in the house passing judgment on any act com- ¦mitte'd by another nation, which had no direct reference to Us.' The general maxim of policy always was, that the crimes committed in one independent state were not cognizable in another. \v hat had been our conduct on other occasions } Hui we not treated and even formed alliances with Portugal and with Spain, at the very time when those kingdoms were disgraced and polluted by the most shocking and barbarous acts of supersti tion and cruelty, of racks, torture, and burning, under the abominable tyranny ofthe inquisition ? Did toe ever make these outrages against reason pnd humanity a pretext for war ? Did we ever enquire 314 enquire how the princes with whom we have re lative interests either obtained or exercised their power ? Why then were the enormities of the French in their own country held up as a cause of war? Much of these enormities, Mr. Fox said, had been attributed to the attack of the combined powers ; but that he neither considered as an ex cuse, nor would argue as a justification. Jfthey dreaded, or had felt an attack, to retaliate on their fellow-citizens, however much suspected, was a proceeding which justice disclaimed ; and he had nattered himself, that when men were disclaiming old, and professing to adopt new principles, those of revenge and persecution would be the first that they would discard, — No man felt greater horror atthe proceedings of the combined powers than he did. A combination more dan gerous to the tranquillity of Europe, and the liberties of mankind, had never been formed. It had been said, that Austria was not the aggressor in the war with France. Had those who said so seen the treaty of Pilnitz I Let them look to that 31'5 that declaration, take the golden rule of supposing themselves in the situation of' the French, and judging of others as they would wish to be judged, say whether or not the French had been the aggressors. But whatever might be, thought of Austria, was the king of Prussia attacked by France ? Were his territories menaced or his allies insulted ? Had he not been completely the aggressor, he would have called upon us as his allies for succour; no such call had ever been made — a proof that he never considered himself but as engaged in an offensive war.-— What were the principles of these combined powers ? They saw a new form of government establishing in France,- and they agreed to invade the kingdom, to mould its government according to their own caprice, or to restore the despotism which the French had overthrown. Was it for the safety of English liberty, that if we should make any change in our form of government or constitu tion, and that change should be disagreeable to • foreign powers, they should be considered as hav ing a right to combine^ and replace what we had rejected, or give us any thing in its room, by fire and 310 and sword ? He would not go over the atrocious manifestoes that proceeded and followed the march of the combined armies. There was not a man in the house, or at least but one, (Mr; Burke*) who would attempt to defend them, But these it seems were not to be executed — he hoped they were not ; but the only security he knew of was, that those who issued them had not the means, Mr. Fox then proceeded to examine the alledg^ ed grounds of the war. These, he said, were three— the danger of Holland ; — the decree of the French convention Nov. 1 Q, — and the general danger to Eurbpe from the progress of the French arms. — With respect to Holland, the conduct of ministers afforded a fresh proof of their disin- v genuousness. They did not. state that the Dutch had called upon us to fulfil the terms of our alli ance.' They were obliged to confess that no such requisition had been made. The decree of the 1 pth of November Mr. Fox considered as an insult, and the explanation ofthe executive 317 executive council as no adequate satisfaction ; but he contended that the explanation showed that the French were not disposed to insist upon that decree, and that they were inclined to peace ; and surely it was the extreme of arrogance for ministers to. complain of insult, without deigning -to state the nature of the reparation required. When it was said we must have security, we ought at least to tell them what that word was meant to import. It had been said, they m ust withdraw their troops from the Austrian Netherlands, before we could be satisfied. Were we then come to that pitch of insolence as to say to France.* "You have conquered part of an enemy's territory who made war upon you, but we require you to abandon the advantages you have gained, while he is pre paring to attack you anew." Was this the neu trality we meant to hold out to France ? " If you are invaded and beaten, we will be quiet specta tors ; but if you hurt your enemy, if you enter his territory, we declare war against you," We perceived no danger in the success of despotism, but the moment the opposite cause. became suc cessful, 318 cessful, Our alarms were extreme. The French.' said they would evacuate Brabant at the conclusion of the war, and when its liberties were establish ed. Was this sufficient ? By no means ; but we ought to tell them what we would deem sufficient. That war was unjust which told not an enemy the ground of provocation, and the measure of atonement^— it was as impolitic as it was unjust, for without the object of contest was clearly and definitively stated, what opening could there be for treating of peace ? Before going to war with France, surely the people who must pay and suffer, ought to be informed on what object they were to fix their hopes for its honourable termi nation. With respect to the general danger of Europe, the same arguments applied, and to the same extent. To the general -situation and security of Europe we had been scandalously inattentive ; we had seen the entire conquest of Poland, and the invasion of France with such marked indifference, that it would be difficult now to take it up with the 310 the grace of sincerity ; but even this would be better provided for, by proposing terms before going to war. After he had thus shewn that none of the pro fessed causes were legitimate grounds for going to war, Mr. Fox asked, what then remained but the internal government of France, always dis avowed, but constantly kept in mind ? The de struction of that government was the avowed ob ject of the combined powers whom it was hoped we were to join ; and we could not join them heartily, if our object was' one thing while theirs Was another. To this then we came at last, that we were ashamed to own engaging to assist in the restoration of despotism, and collusively sought ' pretexts in the Scheldt and the Netherlands. Such would be the real cause of the war, if a war we were to have — a war, which he trusted, he should soon see as generally execrated as it was now thought to be popular. He knew that for this wish he should be represented as holding up the internal government of France as an object for imitation. He thought the present govern ment 320 ment of France nothing less, but he maintairied as a principle inviolable, that the government of every independent state was to be settled by those who were to live, under it, and not by foreign force. In all decisions on peace or war, it was of im portance, Mr. Fox said, to consider what we might lose, and what we might gain. Extension of ter ritory was neither expected nor eligible. On the other hand, would any man say that the events of war might not, with too great probability, pro duce a change in the internal state of Holland, and in. the political situation of the Stadtholder, too afflicting for him to anticipate ? — Was the state of Ireland such as to render war desirable ? This was said by some to be a subject top deli cate to be touched upon ; but he approved not of that delicacy wliich ta«ght men to shut their t eyes to danger. He thought the state of Ireland alarming, because the gross misconduct of ad ministration had brought the government and legislature into contempt in the eyes of the peo ple. He hoped the plan to be pursued would be conciliatory, 321 conciliatory, that concession to the claims Of the people would be deemed wisdom, and the time of danger, contrary to the maxims of policy hither to adopted, the fit season for reform. The people of this country, Mr. Fox said, loved the constitution ; they had experienced its benefits, and were attached to it from habit. Why put their love to any unnecessary test ? That love by being tried could not be made greater, nor would the fresh burthens and' taxes, which war must occasion, more endear it to ftjeir affection. If there were any danger from French principles, as some gentlemen seemed to apprehend, to go to war without necessity" would be to fight for their propagation. On these prin ciples he would deliver his opinion freely. It was not the principles which were bad and to be re probated, but the abuse of them. From the abuse, not from the principles, had flowed all the evils that afflicted France. The effect bf the . A1* address was to condemn not the abuse of those principles, and the' French undoubtedly had gross ly abused 'them, but the principles themselves. VOL. II. Y To 322 To this he could not consent, for they were the principles on which all just and equitable govern ments were founded. He had already differed sufficiently with a . right honourable gentleman (Mr. Burke) on this subject, not to wish to pro-' voke any fresh difference ; but even against so great an authority he would not hesitate to main tain, that the people are the sovereign in every state, that they have a right to change the form oj their government, and a . right to cashier their ^¦governors for misconduct, as the people of this country cashiered James II, not by a parliament, or any regular form 'known to the constitution, but by a convention speaking the sense of the peo ple ; that convention produced a parliament and a king. They elected William to a vacant throne, not only setting aside James whom they ,had justly cashiered for misconduct, but his innocent son. Again they elected the house of Brunsibich, not individually, but by dynasty ; and that dy nasty to continue uihile the terms and conditions on which it was elected were fulfilled, and no longer. He could not admit the right to do all this but by acknowledging the sovereignty ofthe people 323 people as paramount to all other laws. But it was said, .that although we had once exercised this power, we had in the very act of exercising it renounced it for ever. To this he should reply, we had neither renounced it, nor, if we had been so disposed, was such a renunciation in our power. We elected first an individual, then a dynasty, and lastly, passed an act of parliament, in the reign of queen Anne, declaring it lo be the right of the people qf this realm to do so again, without even assigning a reason. If, there were any persons among us,- who doubted the su- ¦ periority of our.monarchical form of government, their error was owing to those who .changed its strong and irrefragable foundation in the right and choice of the people, to a more flimsy ground of title. Those who proposed repelling opinions by force, the example of the French in the Netherlands might teach the impotence, of power to repel or to introduce.' How was the war to operate in keeping opinions, supposed dan gerous, out of the kingdom ? It was not surely meant to beat the French out of their own opini ons— and opinions were not like commodities,, the y 2 importation 324 importation of which from France war would prevent. War, it was to be lamented, was a passion inherent in the nature of man ; and it was curious to observe what at various periods had been . the different pretences. In ancient times wars were made for conquest. To these succeeded wars for religion, and the opinions of Luther and Calvin were attacked with all the fury of super stition and power. The next pretext was com merce, and probably it would be allowed that no nation that made war for commerce ever found the object accomplished on concluding peace. Now we were to make war about opinions — what was that but recurring again to an exploded cause, for a war about principles in religion was as much a war about opinions as a. war about principles in politics. Mr. Fox stated the justifiable grounds of war to be three, insult, injury, or danger. For the first satisfaction was the object, for the second reparation,' and for the third security.. Each of these two was the proper Object of negociation, which ought ever to precede war, except in case of 32b of an attack actually commenced. — If we did but know for what we were to fight, we might look forward with confidence, a'nd exert ourselves with unanimity ; but kept in the dark, how many might there be who would believe that we were fighting the battles of despotism ! To undeceive those who might happen to fall into this unhappy delusion, it would be no derogation from the dig nity of office to grant an explanation. Mr. Fox concluded with earnestly entreating the minister to pause before he plunged the country into the horrors of war-; — of a war of opinion ; and to be ware lest a fatal suspicion should go abroad, that kings had an interest different from that of their subjects ; and that- between those that had pro perty and those that had none, there was not a common cause and a common feeling. — He was aware, he said, of the obloquy to which his. present conduct would give rise, and was prepared to encounter it. He knew that he should now be represented the partizan of France, as he had formerly been represented the partizan of .Ameri ca. He was no stranger to the industry with .which these and other calumnies were circulated y 3 against 320 against him, and therefore he was not surprised." But he really was surprised to find that he could' not walk the streets without hearing whispers that he and some of his friends had been engaged in improper correspondence with persons in France. If there was any foundation for such a charge, the source of the information could be . mentioned : if it were, true, it were capable of proof. If any man believed this, he called upon him to state the reasons of his belief. If any man had proofs, he challenged him to produce them. — He hoped the house would give him the credit of being inno cent till an open charge was made ; and that if any man heard improper correspondence imputed to him in private, he would believe that he heard a falsehood, which he w durst not speak in public, a falsehood, which he who circulated it in secret A few days ' subsequent to this debate intelli gence was received that the French republic had declared war against his majesty and the stadt holder of the United Provinces, for, on' this occa sion, the existing government of France, contrary to the usage of modern nations under similar v ' circumstances? 327 circumstances, declared war personally against the ! heads of the governments of Great Britain ,and Holland. On the 11th of February 170,3 a mes sage was communicated to the two houses of par liament announcing this event, and the following day it was taken into consideration in the house of . commons. Mr. Pitt, who moved the address, endeavoured to show, that we had been forced into hostilities ; that on the part of Great Britain all had been forbearance and mildness, while the behaviour of France had been characterised by insolence, aggression, and attack. Happy would it have been for England and for Europe had this been a true statement of the case ; but the ques tion was set in a very different light by the. mas terly, and unanswerable arguments of Mr.1 Fox. He observed, that on an occasion so important, it would ill become the duty which he owed to his constituents and to the nation, to decline meeting the imputation ofbeing-the abettor, of France, with which he was already menaced, or by the bold misconstruction of his sentiments and, arguments, to which he had been accustomed, to be deterred from examining and stating what was Mr. Fox then proceeded to examine the' grounds of war as stated ' in the French declare- , tion. With respect to the prohibition ofthe cir- , culation , of assignats, we had a right to prohibit them if we pleased, and that measure was only to be regarded as a matter of internal regulation. Prohibiting the exportation of corn to France, while it was free toother countries, might, ac- cording to circumstances, be an act of justifiable or unjustifiable hostility ; but, in his opinion, it was an act of hostility so severe, that the circum stances which could have justified it, would have justified a war, and no such circumstances could be shewn. The alien bill was not a just cause of ' war, but it was a violation of the commercial treaty, both in the letter and the spirit. Th6 minister said that-the French made regulations in their own country by which the treaty was before completely broken off and at an end, But did he complain 333 complain of these regulations ? for it was expressly provided by the treaty itself, that no violation should put an end to it till complaint was made, and redress refused ; and here lay the important difference. The French made no regulations that put aliens on a different footing from Frenchmen. They made general distinctions of safety and police as every nation has a right to do; but * we made regulations affecting aliens only ; confessed to be more particularly intended to apply to Frenchmen. It was admitted that the French demanded an explanation of these "regula tions, and that an explanation was refused them. By us therefore, and not by the French, was the commercial treaty broken. Our sending a squad ron tb the Scheldt they complained of as an in jury. He was as little disposed to commend their operations in Belgium as the minister ; but" if by our squadron we had disturbed them in their operations of war against the emperor, which he admitted we had not done, they would have had just cause to complain. Then, says the minister, they complain of our conduct on the afflicting news of the murder of theirking : what, shall 334 shall we not grieve for the untimely fate of an innocent monarch, most cruelly put to death by his own subjects ? Shall wo not be permitted to testify our sorrow and abhorrence on an, event that outrages every principle' of justice, and shocks every feeling of humanity ? Of that event, Mr. Fox said, he never, should speak but with grief and detestation.' But was the expression of our sorrow all? Was not the atrocious event made the subject of a message from his majesty to both houses of , parliament? And now he would ask the few more candid men who owned that they thought this event alone a sufficient cause of war, '! What end could be gained by further negociation , with Chauvelin, with Maret, or Dumourier ?" ,Did ministers mean to barter the blood of this ill-fated monarch for any of the points in dispute — nto, say the evacuation of Brabant shall atone for so much, the evacuation of Savoy for so much more ? Of this he would accuse no man; but on their principle, when the crime was committed, nego ciation must cease. He agreed, however, with the 335 the right honourable gentleman, and he was glad to hear him say so, that this crime was no cause of war ; but if it were admitted, it was surely not decent that the subject of war should never be even mentioned without reverting ' to the death of the king. When he proposed sending an am bassador to France, " What," said the right honourable gentleman, " send an ambassador to men that are trying their king !"¦ — If we had sent '-- ' i an ambassador even then, had our conduct to wards the French been more candid and conciliat ing, the fatal issue of that trial might have been prevented. But, said the right honourable gen tleman, we negociated unofficially. The import ance to any wise purpose between official and unofficial ' negociation, of this bartering instead of selling, he could never understand ; but even to this mode of 'negociating the dismission of M. Chauvelin put an end. But M. Chauvelin went away the very day after he received the order, although he might have staid eight days, and negociated all the while. Was it so extra ordinary a thing that a man of honour, receiving such an order, should not choose to run the risk 336 risk of insult, by staying the full time allowed him ; or could he imagine .that his ready com pliance with such an order would be considered as an offence ? When M. Chuavelin went away, and M. Maret did not think himself authorised;ito negociate, ministers sent a message to lord Auck land, to negociate with general Dumourier, which reached him too late. Admitting this to be a proof of their wish to negociate, while negocia: tion was practicable, what was their conduct from- the opening of the session ? If he or any of his friends K proposed to negociate — "Negociate;!" they exclaimed, " we are already at war." Now it appeared that they did negociate with unac credited agents, although the secretary of state had said such a negociation was not compatible with his belief; and last of all, strange conduct for lovers of peace ! they ordered to quit the country the only person with whom they could! negociate in their unofficial way. He was happy to see the right honourable gentleman so much •ashamed of this mutilated farce of negociation, as to be glad to piece it out with lord Auckland, and general Dumourier. • Then was asked" the miserable 33? hiiserable question, K What interest have minis-* ters In promoting a war, if, as it has been Said, that the ministers who begin war in this country' are never allowed to conclude it ?" Admitting5 . this to be true, for which he saw no good reason, then surely they who endeavoured to avert a war, ought to be allowed some credit for the purity of , their motives. But ministers never opened a fair communication on the points in dispute with France. They acted like men afraid of asking satisfaction, for fear if should be granted — of stat ing the specific causes Of war, lest they should lose the pretext. An opinion, somewhere stated, had been adverted to, that the people might con sider this as a war in which kings were more interested than their subjects. He felt great respect for monarchy, and it was neither his practice nor his inclination to speak harshly of kings. He had already said, that monarchy was the corner, or rather the key-stone of the British constitution, that is limited, not unlimited monar- chy. But with all due reverence for crowned heads, was it impossible to conceive that kings may love, not limited, but Unlimited monarchy ; vol. u. z and 333 and that resistance to the limited monarchy at tempted to be established in France, in the room of the unlimited monarchy, by which that country was formerly governed, might have been the true cause of the combination of some of the crowned; j heads of Europe ? Our king had sat too long : on the throne of a free kingdom ; he had had too, much experience that love of his people was a stronger defence than guards and armies, to for-, •feit that love by transgressing the bounds which ;i the constitution prescribed to him, were even his virtues and his wisdom less than they were known ,1 fi tobe. But had not kings the frailties of other j men ? Were they not liable to be ill-advised? What became of that freedom of speech; which > was the boast of parliament, if he might not suppose, that by evil counsellors their ears might be poisoned, and their hearts deceived ? He therefore feared, that this war would be supposed a war for restoring monarchy in France, and for supporting rather the' cause of kings, than the cause of the people. He would be the last to draw a distinction of interest between the rich and ' the poor ; for whatever the superficial observer might 339 might think, nothing was clearer, when philoso phically considered, than that a man, who was \ not immediately possessed of property, had as great an interest in the general protection and Security of property j as he who was ; and therefore he reprobated all those calls upon the particular exertions of men of property, as tending to excite the idea of an invidious distinction, which did not exist in fact. When the attack on France was called the . cause of kings, it was not a Very witty, but a sufficient reply, that opposing it might be called the cause of subjects. He imputed bad motives ' to no man, but when actions could not be explained on one motive, he had a right to attempt to explain them on another. If there i Were at present such a spirit in this country as in the beginning of the American war, what would be our conduct ? To join the combined powers in their war on the internal government of France. He was happy that the public abhorrence of a War on such a motive was so great, that the right honourable gentleman felt himself called upon to disclaim itat great length ; but how had ministers •acted ? They had taken advantage of the folly z 2 of ; 340 of the French, they had negociated without prtr->, posing- specific terms, and then broke off -the negociation — At home they had alarmed the peo ple that their own constitution was in danger, and they had made use of a melancholy event, which,' however it might affect us as men, did not eon- cern us as a nation, to inflame our passions arid ' impel us to war ; and now that we were at war, they durst not avow the causes of it, nor tell ug on what terms peace might have been preserved. ' Mr. Fox said, he Was now called upon, as a member of that house, to support his majesty in the war, and he, would do it ; but he was not pledged to any of those crooked reasonings on which some gentlemen grounded their supportof ministers, nor less bound to watch them, be-\ cause, by their misconduct, we had been forced into a war, which both the dignity and the secu rity of Great Britain would have been better con sulted in avoiding. He was never sanguine on the success of war. It might be glorious to our army and our navy, and yet ruinous to the peo ple. The event of the last campaign— procul absit omen — 341 omen — and the example of the American war had taught him- that we might be compelled to make peace on terms less advantageous than could have been obtained without unsheathing the sword; and if this might bethe consequence to us, the -consequences to our ally, the Dutch, must ¦ be such as he would not suffer himself to anticipate. The ordering M. Chauvelin to depart the king dom, and the stopping the exportation of corn to France, when exportation was allowed to other countries, were acts of hostility and provocation on our part, which did not allow us to say, as the proposed address said, that the war was an unprovoked aggression on the part of France. Truth and justice were preferable to high-sound ing words, and therefore he should move an amendment, containing nothing that was not strictly true, and in voting which the house might be unanimous. Mr. Fox then moved his amendment, Which was negatived without a division. Having in vain endeavoured to avert from his % 3 country 342 country the calamities of war, Mr. Fox, on the 18th of February, brought forward a series of resolutions, the purport of which was to state in clear and specific terms the sentiments of the friends of peace, and the real grounds of difference between ministers and the members of opposition, . The necessity of the war, he said, might be defended upon two principles ; first, .the villus animus, or general bad disposition of the French towards this country ; the criihes they have com-; mitted among themselves; the systems they en deavoured to establish, if systems they might.be called ; in short, the internal government of their country. There were few persons, he believed, who would venture to defend it on tins principle; and this being disavowed as the cause ofthe war by his majesty's ministers, it was unnecessary for him to dwell upon it.— Second, that various things have been done by the French, manifestly extend ing beyond their own country, and affecting the interests of us and our allies ; for whiph, unless satisfaction was given, we must enforce satisfaction, by arms. This he considered as the only principle on which the necessity of the war could be truly * defended,, • 343 defended, arid in this he was sure the great ma^ jority ofthe house and of the country were of the same opinion. His object was to record this in an address. Such a record would be a guide to their conduct in the war, and a landmark on which to fix their attention for the attainment of peace. In examining the alledged causes of pro vocation, he had maintained that they were all objects of negociation, and as such, till satisfac tion was explicitly demanded and refused, did not justify resorting to the last extremity. He had perhaps also said, that ministers did not appear to have pursued the course which was naturally to be expected from their professions. He did not mean to charge them with adopting one principle for debate and another for action ; but he thought they had suffered themselves to be imposed upon, and misled by those who wished to go to war with France on account of her internal government, and therefore took all occasions of representing the French as irreconcileably hostile to this coun try. It was always fair to compare the conduct of men in any particular instance with their con duct on other occasions. If the rights of neutral z 4 nations 344 nations were now loudly extolled ; if the danger to be apprehended from the aggrandisement of any power was magnified as the just cause of the present 'war ; and if, on looking to another quar ter, we saw the rights of Poland, of a neutral and independent nation, openly trampled upon, its territory invaded to the manifest aggrandisement of other powers, and no war declared or menaced, not even a remonstrance interposed, — could we be blamed for suspecting that the pretended was not the real object -of the present war — that what was not told was in fact the object, and what was told, only the colour and pretext ? Whatever might be the cause, the war would be much - less calamitous to this country, if, in the prosecution of it, we could avoid allying ourselves with those who had made war on France, for the avowed purpose of interfering in her in ternal government ; if we could avoid entering into engagements which might fetter us in our negociations for peace. Since -negociation must be the' issue of every war that was not a war of absolute conquest, he hoped ministers would shun .345 shun the disgrace of becoming parties with those who in first attempting to invade France, and some of them since invading Poland, had violated all the rights of nations, and all the principles of justice and of honour. Mr. Fox said the whole of our pretended ne gociation, such as it had been, was a farce and a delusion — not an honest endeavour to preserve the blessings of peace, but a fraudulent expedient to throw dust in the eyes of the people of this country, in order that they might be hurried blindly into war. The more he attended to the printed papers of correspondence, the more lie was convinced how extremely deficient we had been in communicating the terms on which we ' thought peace might be maintained. We told them they must keep within their own territory ; but how were they to do this when attacked by two armies that retired out of their territory only to repair the losses of their first miscarriage, and prepare for a fresh irruption ? When to this studied concealment of terms were added the baughty language of all our communications, and the 346 the difficulties thrown in the way of all negocia- , tion, we must surely admit, that it was not easy for the French to know with what we would be satisfied, nor to discover on what terras our amity (not our alliance, for that he had never suggested,' though the imputation had been boldly made) could be conciliated. When to all these he added the language held in that house by ministers, although he by no means admitted that speeches made in that house were to be sifted by foreign powers for causes of war, any more than speeches . in the French convention, by us ; and last of all, the paper transmitted by ?. lord Auckland, at the Hague, to the States Ge neral,— a paper which for contempt and ridicule of the French, stood unparalleled in diplomatic history — a paper in which the whole of them, without distinction, who had been in the exercise of power .since the commencement of the, French revolution, were styled a set of wretches assuming the title qf philosophers, and presuming in the dream of their vanity to think themselves capable ¦ of establishing a new system of civil society. How could he hope the French tp expect that any thing 347 thing would be. considered as satisfactory, or any pledge a sufficient security ? Compare lord Auckland's language at the Hague with the pa* cific conduct of ministers at home, as repre sented by themselves. While they were trying every means to conciliate, while with moderation to an excess, which they could not help think ing culpable, they were publicly ordering M. Chauvelin to quit the country within eight days, but privately telling him, that he might stay and negociate, while they-were waiting for propositions from M. Maret, which M. Maret did not make. While they were sending instructions to lord Auckland to negociate with general Dumourier, s lord Auckland was writing that silly and insulting I paper by their instruction : for if he did it without, he was very unfit for his situation, and must have been instantly recalled. Thus while they were ¦publicly courting peace, they were using every clandestine manoeuvre to provoke war. Mr. Fox came next to consider the conduct of ministers with respect to Poland. He had for merly said that he wished not to speak harshly of 348 of sovereign princes in that house, although/ the period was not long since passed, when it was thought perfectly allowable to talk of the empress' of Russia as a princess of insatiable ambition, and of the late emperor, (Joseph II,) as a prince too- faithless to be relied upon. But when he spoke of the king of Prussia, he desired to be un derstood as speaking of the cabinet of the courjt of Berlin, whose conduct he was as free to criticise, as other gentlemen the conduct of the executive council Of France. In May 1791, a revolution took place in Poland on the sugge?-,« tion, certainly with the concurrence of the king- of Prussia ; and, as was pretty generally imagined, although not authentically known, with the con currence of the court of London. By a dispatch! to his minister at, Warsaw, the king of Prussia expressed the lively interest which he had always taken in the happiness of Poland, and the con firmation of her new constitution, and his appro bation of the choice of the elector of Saxony and his descendants to fill the throne of Poland, made hereditary by the new order of things, after the death of the reigning king. In 1 792, the empress -849 eihpress of Russia, without the least plausible pretext, but this change in the internal govern- - ment of the country, invaded Poland. Poland called upon the king of Prussia, with whose ex press-approbation this change hadJbeen effected* for the stipulated succours of an existing treaty, of alliance. He replied that the state of things being entirely changed since that alliance, and the present conjuncture brought on by the revo lution of May 1791, posterior to his treaty, it did not become him to give Poland any assistance, unless indeed she chose tp retrace all the steps of that, revolution, and then he would interpose his good offices both with Russia and the em* peror to reconcile the different interests. The different interests of foreign powers in the internal government of a free and independent nation ! It was singular that ministers should be so keen to mark and stigmatise ail the inconsistencies of the French with their former declarations, which' had been too great and too many, and yet could see without emotion such inconsistency, not to say perfidy, as this. He was not the defender of the gross departures from their own principles of 350 of the French ; but if we thought it unsafe to treat with them, because of their perfidy, we had little inducement to unite with the king of Prus sia, who had violated not only principles, but an express treaty, in a more particular and pointed! manner than they had yet had an opportunity of doing. Among the powers at war, or likely to be at war with France, there was no great option of good faith. But the French, it was said vio* lated their principles, for the sake of robbery and rapine, to seize on territory, and plunder property^l Let us look again to the king of Prussia. In 1792 he limited the cause of war against Poland by Russia to the new constitution, which he him-' self had approved, and promised to defend. This obnoxious constitution completely subverted, and that excellent old republic— for these crowned heads were great republicans when it suited their convenience — which had for ages made the hap-: piness of Poland, reestablished on its ancient basis, he would interpose his good offices to con ciliate the different interests and restore peace. What then prevented ? Was not the new con stitution completely subverted ? Did not the Russian 351 Russian troops succeed in overrunning Poland Y Were they not in possession of the whole coun try ? And was not the empress of Russia able to restore the excellent old republic, and con vinced of her own success ? Not so with the king of Prussia. He was a critic in principles. , When he approved of their revolution, the prin ciples of the Poles were unexceptionable; when they were attempting a brave but unsuccessful resistance to a more powerful adversary, their principles were not dangerous ; but when they were overpowered by superior force, when they had laid down their arms, and submitted to their conqueror, when their whole country was pos sessed by a foreign army, then he discovered that they had got French principles among them, subversive of all government, and destructive of all society. And how did he cure them of these abominable principles ? — O ! by an admirable re medy ! invading their country, and taking pos session1 of their towns. Are they tainted with jacobinism ? hew down the gates of Thorn, and march in the Prussian troops. Do they deny that they entertain such principles ? seize upon Dantzicky 352 i Pantzidk, and annex it to the dominions of Pms-1 sia. Now did not this seizure arid spoil of Poland tend to the aggrandisement of the powers by whom it 'was perpetrated ? Was it not a greater" and more contemptuous violation of the law of nations than the French bad yet been guilty of? Most undoubtedly it was. Had we opposed; it?' Had we remonstrated against if? If ministers- had any such remonstrances to shew, they would- produce them in due time, and the house would judge of them ; but while none were produced^ or even mentioned, he must presume that none had been made. ' The invasion of Poland had this material aggravation," that the powers who invaded; were not themselves attacked at the time. They had not the excuse of the French to plead, that they, did it in a paroxysm of fear and danger^ circumstances that prompt nations, as well as in dividuals', to rriany acts of impolicy and injustice. The king of Prussia first connives at, or consents' to the invasion of Poland, which he was bound by treaty to defend— Next he attempts an unprd- voked invasion of France, ^nd is foiled— how does he revenge the disgrace of his repulse ? By in creasing 353 creasing his army on the Rhine, by concentrating his forces for a fresh attack ? No— he more gallantly turns round on defenceless Poland, and indemnifies his losses by seizing on towns where he can meet with no resistance. It was not, there- 'fofe, on any general system of attention to the balance of power in Europe that ministers were acting, since, while they pretended to consider it as of the utmost importance in one case, they had suffered it to be' most flagrantly infringed upon in another. Mr. Fox concluded with reading the following resolutions, and moving the first : 1st.——" That it is not for the honour and in terest of Great Britain to make war upon France, on account of the internal circumstances of that country, for the purpose of either suppressing or punishing any opinions and principles, however pernicious in their tendency, which may prevail there, or of establishing among the French people any particular form of government." VOL. II. A A 2d. — 354 2d.-—" That the particular complaints which have been stated against the cpnduct of the French government, are not of a nature to justify a war, in the first instance, without having attempted to obtain redress by negociation." 3d.—" That it appears to this house in the late , negociations between his majesty's ministers and the agents of the French government, the said ministers did not take such measures- as were likely to procure redress, without a rupture, for the grievances of which they complained, and particularly, -that they never stated distinctly to ' the French government any terms and conditions, the accession to which on the part of France wbuld induce his majesty to persevere in a system of neutrality." 4th. — "That it does not appear that the se curity of Europe, and the rights of independent nations, which had been stated as grounds of war against France, have been attended to by his ma jesty's ministers in the case of Poland, in the invasion of which unhappy country, both in the 1 last 365 last year, and more recently, the most open con tempt of the law of nations, and the most un justifiable spirit of aggrandisement have been mani fested, without having produced, as far as appears to this house, any remonstrance from his majesty's ministers." 5th. — "That it is the duty of his majesty's ministers, in the present crisis, to advise his ma jesty against entering into engagements which may prevent Great Britain from making a separate peace, whenever the interest of his majesty, and his people, may render such a measure advise- able, or which may countenance an opinion in Europe, that his majesty is acting in concert with other powers for the unjustifiable purpose of com pelling the people of France to submit to a form of government not approved by that nation." Mr. Fox's resolutions were violently opposed by Mr. Burke, Mr. Powis, and other alarmists* They represented them as insidious in the ex treme, and such as could proceed from none but a decided friend to France, ahd the loss of Mr. A A 2 Fox's 356 ' Fox's popularity was confidently predicted as the certain consequence of the freedom with which i he delivered his opinions and their dangerous; tendency. In reply to these insinuations Mr, Fox said',* no man was more desirous of popularity than . he was ; and no man would make less sacrifices, to obtain it. If the part which regard to the in terests of the country obliged him and the gen tlemen who acted with him to -take, was not popular, it was not their duty to be influenced' by that consideration. We had got into a war, and how* to put an end to that war was now the object which demanded their attention. It was their business, treading the old constitutional ground, to come forward boldly with their opin ions, in proportion to the crisis, and the danger of their country, and not tobe deterred by the suggestions of timidity, or the menace of unpo-i pularity. There appeared a general exultation in that house, with respect to' the war, in which he could by no means join : he feared that this exul tation in its'" event would have a termination similar to that which had been so emphatically described by the Roman historian Tacitus, Spe i lata, 357 Iceta, tractata dura, eventa tristia. Mr. Fox's resolutions were negatived by a majority of 270 against 44. Notwithstanding the -diminished, and daily di minishing number of his supporters, and the calumnies and misrepresentations of his principles^ ' so grossly and confidently urged both in and out of parliament, Mr. Fox continued to oppose the frantic and tyrannical proceedings of the ministry with unabated spirit, and in some instances not without success. Various parts of the traiterous correspondence biflwere modified in consequence of his suggestions ; and that infamous clause which prohibited British subjects from returning to their own country without a passport first obtained from the secretary of state, was expunged from the bill. The king, Mr. Fox said, had no right of preventing any person from returning to his native country, under the specious mask, of regulating upon general policy, nor had he the power of expelling from his native land any person he might think proper. If the king had any right to say to an Englishman, " You shall not return A a 3 to 358 to England Without my passport," it was high time to examine into the expediency of suffering such a prerogative to continue — high time to enquire whether some means could not be devised to limit the extent, and regulate the exercise of that prerogative. " But," continued Mr. Fox!, " I am sure he' has not, and never ought to have, and never can have, unless this house scandalously neglect its duty." A motion for a parliamentary reform, brought forward by Mr. Grey at the request ofthe society ;, of the friends of the people, and supported by numerously-signed petitions from all parts of the kingdom, afforded Mr. Fox an ample opportunity '{ oi exposing the tergiversation and apostacy of the ¦; minister. — It had been stated, he said, that the particular circumstances of the times might justify, a deviation from certain principles. — Granted. But he was at a loss to determine how such an objection could now be seriously maintained. The bug-bear innovation might be advanced as ah ar gument against the measure ; but Mr. Pitt having made the same motion during the marquis of Rockingham's 359 Rockingham's administration — once in the time of war, and twice during that of peace, his own example justified all seasons. But the difference between Mr. Pitt's independence as a man, and his interest as a minister, had occasioned him to change his opinions; and the complaisance he had experienced for several years from the house of commons, had, perhaps, in his mind, rendered all reform unnecessary. In the pride of his new wisdom, his present self felt such contempt for his former self, that he could not look back on his former conduct and opinions without a sort of insulting derision. Surveying his former self, he seemed in the situation of lord Foppington in the play, who says, " I begin to think that when I was a commoner, I was a very nauseous fellow :" so the right honourable gentleman began to think, that when he was a reformer, he must have been a very foolish fellow : he might nevertheless have retained some degree of candour for those gentle men, who had not yet received the new lights with which he was so marvellously illuminated. ' If Mr. Pitt had rested his objections on the a A 4 change ?6o change of circumstances produced by the, events in France, his arguments would have been ra->. tianalr or at least consistent. Mn Fox said, he had always disliked universal representation as much as the minister;- but that dislike was no reason for charging it with more mischief than was fairly imputable to it. It had not been the cause, as the minister alleged, of all the evils in France. The first, or constituting assembly, was not elected on this plart, but on old usages, and old abuses. Yet^ that assembly had been guilty of some of the most unjustifiable acts perpetrated in France. It had despoiled the clergy without regard to function or character, and had destroy ed the nobility. The second, or legislative assem* bly, was not chosen by individual suffrage ; for when the constitution was framed, wild as the French were, they had laid many restrictions on individual suffrage, and made a distinction between active and inactive citizens. It was therefore un? just to charge upon it_what was done by assem blies elected before it was brought into use, France, after doing' great honour to herself by shaking off her old intolerable despotism, had since 361 since been governed by counsels generally unwise jjnd often wicked. But what had this to do with our reform ? It had been said that French prin ciples, though not more detestable than the prin ciples of Russia, were more dangerous, and more to be guarded against, because more fascinating. Would any man say that. French principles were fascinating ? What, then had we to fear' from what no man in his senses would wish to copy ? A right honourable friend of his (Mr. Wind^ ham) had, in a very eloquent, but very whimsical speech, endeavoured to prove that the majority was generally wrong. But when he came to an swer some objections of his own suggesting^ he ' found himself reduced to say, that where he dif- fered from the majority, he would consider himself &s independent as one independent country mem- , ber of the decision of another — which was just to say that he would put an end to society; for where every individual was independent of the will af Ihe rest, no society could exist. It was singular for him to defend the decision of the majority, who had found it so often against him ; and he was in 362 in hopes that his right honourable friend would have shewn him some easy way of solving the difficulty. His honourablefriend said, a wise man would look first to the reasori-of the thing to be decided, rather than to force, or his power of car rying that decision into effect, but never to the majority. He said, look first, and look last to the reason of the thing, without considering whe ther the majority is likely to be for or against you, and least of all force. He admitted that the ma jority might sometimes oppress the minority, and that the minority might be justified in resisting such oppression, even by force ; but as a general rule, though not without exception, the majority in every community must decide for the whole, because in human affairs there was no umpire but human reason. The presumption was also that the majority would be right ; for if five men were to decide by a majority, it was probable that the three Would be right and the two wrong, of which, if they were to decide by force, there would be no probability at all. If, then, what all men agreed on was admitted to 363 l to be true, there was a strong presumption that what many, or the majority agreed on, was true likewise. Even reverence for antiquity resolved itself into this ; for what was it but consulting the- decision of the majority, not of one or two generations, but of many, by the concurrence of which we justly thought that we arrived at greater certainty. This objection to universal suffrage was not distrust ofthe decision of the majority, but because there was no mode of collecting such suffrages ; and that, by attempting it, what from the operation of hope on some, fear on others, "and all the sinister means of influence that would so certainly be exerted, fewer individual opinions would be collected than by an appeal to a limited number. Therefore holding fast to the right of the majority to decide, and to the natural rights of man, as taught by the French, , but much abused by their practice, he would resist universal •suffrage. Without attempting to follow his right honourable friend, when he proposed to soar into the skies, or dive into the deep, to encounter his metaphysical adversaries, because ih such heights and depths the operations of the actors were too remote 364 remote from view to be observed with much be nefit, he would rest on practice, to which, he was more attached, as being better understood. And if he could collect all the wisest men of every age and of every country unto our assembly, he did not believe that their united wisdom would.be capable of forming even a tolerable constitution. In this opinion he thought he was supported by the unvarying evidence of history and observa tion. Another opinion he held, no matter whe* ther erroneous or not, for he stated it only as an illustration, viz, that the most skilful architect could not build in the first instance so commodi ous a habitation as one that had been originally intended for some other use, and had been gra dually improved by successive alterations suggest ed by various inhabitants for its present purpose. If then so simple a structure as a commodious habitation was so difficult in theory, how much more difficult the structure of a government ! One apparent exception might be mentioned — the constitution of the United States of America, which he believed to be so excellently constructed, and so admirably adapted to their circumstances and 365 and situation, that it left us no room to boast that our own was the sole admiration of the world. The objection, however, was only apparent. They had not a constitution to build up froin the foundation; they had ours to work upon, arid adapt to their own wants- and purposes. This was what the motion now recommended to, the house, not to pull down, but to work upon our constitution, lo examine it with care and reve- rence, to repair it where decayed, to amend it where defective, to prop it where it wanted sup port, to adapt it to the purposes of the present time, as our ancestors had done from generation to generation, and always transmitted it not only [unimpaired, but improved, to their posterity. '¦\\ XXr'/f: > His right honourable friend (Mr. Windham) had said on a former occasion (Mr. Flood's mo- ' tion,) that if the constitution of the house of, commons were that the county of Middlesex alone elected the representatives for* the whole kingdom, he would not consent to alter that mode of representation, while he knew from ex perience 366 perience that it had produced such benefits as we had long enjoyed. Now suppose, for the sake of argument, that the county of Cornwall, some what less likely to be a virtual representative of the whole kingdom than Middlesex, instead of sending forty-four members to parliament, to send the whole five hundred and fifty-eight, such a house of commons might, for a time, by a proper check on the executive power, watch over the interests of the whole kingdom with as much care as those of Cornwall ; but with such a house of commons no argument would persuade him to remain satisfied, because there was no security that it would continue to do so. The question1 now to be examined was, — did the house of com mons, as at present constituted, answer the pur* poses which it was intended to answer : and had the people any security that it would continue to do so ? To both branches ofthe question he an swered decidedly in the negative. Before pro ceeding to the reasons on which he thus answered, it was necessary to say a few words on the cir cumstances which, in his opinion,, would justify a change. Many things short of actual suffering would 367 would justify, not only a change, but even resist^ ance. When the dispute began with America, it was not because , it was held that the British parliament had no legal right to tax America that the project of taxing her was opposed. The Americans indeed did maintain that the British parliament had no such right ; but he and many Others who opposed the measure admitted the rightj and he was still of the same opinion. What then was the ground of the opposition ? It was not any actual suffering on the part of the Ameri cans : they themselves allowed that the taxes at tempted to be imposed were ofthe most easy and unoppressive kind. — But although these taxes Were so, they had no security that heavy and op pressive taxes might not at some future period be imposed upon them by a legislative body, in which they had no representation, with which they had no very close connection of common interest, and over which they had no means of control. He, therefore, and those with whom, he had the hon our to act, thought this want of security, for what they were not then ashamed to call the rights of man, a sufficient cause of resistance. They jus tified 368 tified ihe Americans in that glorious resistance, for which they were then called the advocates of American rebels, as some of them, though too familiar with such charges much to heed them, were now called the advocates of the French. That glorious resistance was ultimately successful, and to that success would yet be owing the liber ties of mankind, if in this country they should unhappily be suffered to perish. Jealousy too was a good cause of change, or even of resistance— not jealousy captious or malignant, but jealousy founded on well examined and rational grounds of suspicion. Men were not bound to wait till their liberties were actually invaded ; prudence called for means of prevention and defence ; and to justify these, it was sufficient that they saw a clear possibility of danger. Now to shew that the house in its present state was unfit for the functions which it ought to dis charge, he referred to the history of the Ameri can warr It was dangerous to make a concession in argument, for on that concession was gener ally built some assertion very different from what had 360 had been conceded. He had once admitted that the American war was popular in the beginning : and on that had been built the assertion, that he had called it the war of the people. He never Called, nor meant to call it so — for, in truth, it was nothing less than the war of the court. By fhe court the project of taxing America was con ceived, and the people were taught to believe that their money would be saved, and their burdens eased, by a revenue drawn from another country. Thus were they first deluded, and then bribed, by an appeal to their pockets, into an approbation of the scheme of the court. This was no assumption t of his, for it was perfectly well known, that when a considerable addition to the standing army was proposed, the country gentlemen were induced to agree to it, by hints that the expense would be defrayed from another quarter, instead of falling upon them! In compliance with the wishes of the court, the house passed the memorable stamp act. The stamp act was resisted' and repealed: and the repeal was as popular as the passing of it had been. Was this a presumption that the war was the war of the people ? Was it not, on VOL. ii. B b the 370 the contrary, a clear proof that the people had. no definite idea of the object of the war ? When, by subsequent acts ofthe same nature, and similar. resistance on the part of America, the war was brought on, then indeed the indignation of the people was excited by the supposed ingratitude of the colonies to the mother country ; their pas sions inflamed ; the love of military glory, natural to the minds of a great and brave nation, roused; and the war became popular. But the war itself was the act of the court, deluding the people by the subserviency of the house of commons. The house passed the stamp act ; the house took all the other measures that led to the war, and vote4 that it should be supported, not as the organ, of the people, but as the obedient servant of the court. What was a successful war he was some what at a loss to know. The American war from the beginning he had always called unsuccessful : but he was year after year told that he was quite mistaken, ahd that the success was fully adequate to every reasonable expectation^ At length came the final blow, the capture of lord Cornwallis and his army— the war was then acknowledged to be unsuccessful, 371 unsuccessful, and the house put an end to it ; but not till several years after the people had begun to send up petitions and remonstrances against it1. Mr. Fox then recalled to the recollection of the house, a speech made by Mr. Burke, in 1775, on presenting his plan for conciliating America, and in which the virtues and the efficacy of represen tation were displayed with a force and clearness unequalled. On that occasion it was asked by the right honourable gentleman, were the people of Ireland uncivilized and unsubdued after a forcible possession of their country for ages, what was the remedy ? Representation. — Were the Welch in perpetual contention among themselves and hos tility to Englishmen, what was the remedy ? — Re presentation. — Were the counties of Chester and Durham full of discontent and disorder, what was the . remedy ? — Representation. Representation was the universal panacea, the cure for every evil. When the English constitution had once arisen in their sight, all was harmony, within and with out — B b 2 . Simul 372 — — ¦ Simul alba nautis Stella refulsit, ' Defluit saxis agitatus humdr ;- Conciduht venti, fugiuntque nubes ; Et minax (sic Di voluere) ponto Undo, recumbit. Let gentlemen read this speech by day, and meditate ort it by night ; let them peruse it again and again, study it, imprint it on their minds, impress it on their hearts — they would there learn, that representation was the sovereign remedy for every evil, the infallible security against popular discontent ; let them learn this, and give to the people,' not the unreal mockery, but the efficient substarice of representation. He came next to consider the conduct ofthe house since the American war. When the India bill, which he had the honour to propose, was * lost, was it because the bill was unpopular ? By no means. Whatever odium had been afterwards excited against it, the people had then. expressed no disapprobation. The right honourable gentle man (Mr. Pitt) had no hand in its defeat ; for ready 373 ready and able as he was to speak against it, it passed the house of commons by a great majority. By whom then was it thrown out ? Let the merit be given to those to whom it belonged — it was thrown out by certain bed-chamber lords acting under the direction of those who had access to advise the king. — The dismission -of the ministry Mowed the rejection of the bill, and the house of commons adhered to the discarded ministers. The right honourable gentleman would surely allow that the house, in order to execute its func tions, ought to command respect. Did it com- iand respect on that occasion ? Was it respected by the crown, by the peers, or by the people ? The advisers of the crown disregarded its re monstrances ; the peers came to resolutions cen suring its proceedings ; and the people treated it not as their organ in the constitution, and the guardian of their rights, but as a faction' leagued to-oppress them, with whom they had no common interest or common cause. Since that period, the house had hot only commanded respect but praise from those who were permitted to advise the crown — not by opposition, but by prompt obedi- b b 3 ence; 374 ence ; not by a watchful and jealous guardianship of the interests of the people, but by implicit confidence in ministers, and pliant acquiescence in the nfieasures of the court — thrice had that house of commons, which he never should men tion but with honour, resisted the influence ofthe crown, and nothing then was talked of but a re form of parliament. The house of commons had been now for nine years a complaisant and confid ing body, and the cry of reform from those who were formerly the loudest and most active was heard no more. — Reform was then the only thing that could save the constitution ; the very sound of reform was now pregnant with the most im minent and gigantic danger. When that house of commons resisted the influence of the court, they were told, that they were not the representa tives of tbe people ; that they were not so chosen as they ought to be ; they felt that the charge was true in part, and were easily induced to give credit to the whole. Had that house of commons been chosen in a less objectionable manner ; had the people considered them as their representa tives ; could they have been so contemptuously treated 375 treated and so ignominiously dismissed as they were ? No — the people would have seen that the cause of their representatives was the same with their own ; they would have given them their confidence and their support. But, it was said, a house of commons so chosen as to be a com plete representative of the people would be too powerful for the house of lords, and even for the king. They would abolish the one, and dismiss the other. If the king arid the house of lords were unnecessary and useless branches of the constitution, let them be dismissed and abolished ; for the people were not made for them, but they for the people. If, on the contrary, the king and the house of lords were felt and believed by the people, as he was confident they were, to be not only useful but essential parts of the constitution, a house of commons freely chosen by, and speak ing the sentiments of, the people, would cherish and protect both within the bounds which the con stitution had assigned them. In the Russian armament what had been the mode of proceeding ? The minister thought pro- b b 4 per 376 per to arm against Russia, and the house of com mons was called upon to vote the supplies. Were they allowed to enquire into the necessity of that armament, or to judge of its propriety ? No — ; they were told that to ministers it belonged to iudge, and to them to confide, and on this im*- plicit confidence they voted the sums demanded of them. In the mean time the people shewed their disapprobation of a war with Russia; the minister adopted their sentiments ; called on the house of commons to agree with him' in this change of opinion ; and the house acquiesced. He would neither allow the house of commons to ' judge in the first instance, nor through them look for the opinion of the people in the second. He was to look for the opinion ofthe people, and tell those who ought to be their representatives, and the organ of their sentiments, what their opinion was. The lesson thus held out to every man in the house was this— -:" If you look for honour or power, 'you must take care to conciliate the ad visers of the crown by a ready subserviency to whatever 'they require. If you presume to coun teract them, you may enjoy the consciousness of serving 377 serving the public without hope of reward ; but from power and situation, from all the fair objects of honourable ambition, you are for ever ex cluded." Having thus given his opinion, Mr. Fox said, that the house of commons, as now constituted, was neither adequate to the due discharge of its duties at present, nor afforded any security that it would be so in future, what remained for him to answer but general topics of declamation ? He had sufficient confidence in the maxims he had early learned, and sufficient reverence for the authors from whom he learned them, to brave the ridicule now attempted to be thrown upon all who avowed opinions which, till very, lately, had been received as the fundamental principles of liberty. He was ready to maintain with Locke, that government originated not only for but from the people, and that the people were the legitimate sovereign in every community. — With regard to the danger of rash innovation, and the great ad vantages of temperate and slow reform, gentle men might find all they had -to say anticipated in 378 in a much more pleasant treatise than any of their speeches — viz. the Tale of a Tub, where brother Jack's tearing off the lace points and embroidery from his coat, at the hazard of re ducing the coat itself to tatters, and brother Martin's cautiously picking it up stitch by stitch, exhibited an abstract of all their arguments on the subject.: — The septennial act, in the opinion of many, had been the ineans of preserving the house of Brunswick on the throne : but had such a house of commons as the present been then in being, what would have become of the house, of Brunswick and the protestant succession ? " What," they would have said, " adopt so vio lent an innovation as septennial, instead of trien nial parliaments ! Do you mean to subvert the whole fabric of the constitution ? Triennial par liaments were sanctioned at the glorious epoch of the revolution ; to triennial parliaments we owe all the prosperity, all the glory of the reigns of William and Anne ; to them we are indebted for the victory of Blenheim."—: — As rationally might they have said, that to triennial parliaments they were indebted for the victory of Blenheim, as 379 as it might be now said, that to the right of Old Sarum to send members to parliament we were indebted for the- annual increase of our exports. If to such sources as these national prosperity was to be traced ; if for the essence of our constitu tion we were to repair to a cottage on Salisbury Plain — or, for the sake of antiquity more re verend, let us take Stone- Henge for Old Sarum, then might we undertake pilgrimages to the sacred shrine, and tell each admiring stranger — " Look not for the causes of our envied condition in the system of our government and laws ; here resides the hallowed deposit of all the happiness we en joy ; but if you move one of those rugged stones from another, the British constitution is thrown down from its basis, and levelled with the dust." The petitions of the people, praying for a par liamentary reform, presented facts, Mr. Fox said, into which the house was bound, both by its le gislative and inquisitorial functions, to enquire. It was affirmed by the petitioners, that peers no minated members to that house ; and they had a standing order, that no peer should interfere in elections. 380 elections. — It was asserted that bribery and cor ruption were openly practised at elections ; and they had a standing order against bribery and cor ruption. — Let those facts be enquired into, and corrected, or these idle denunciations be expung-. ed from their journals. A select committee had reported bribery against certain electors of Stock- bridge ; and a bill of pains and penalties, which had been founded on that report, had been re jected. He was not sorry for it— he wished not to see a poor man punished for selling his votej while the sale of seats was connived at. The corruption of an individual voter was undoubtedly an evil, but small in comparison of the mischievous effects which the sale of seats must produce on the minds of the sellers and the buyers, while both of them knew that it was against law. Let the house enquire and put a stop to such practices, or avow their expediency, and repeal the laws that made- them criminal. Mr. Fox concluded with remarking, that it was triumphantly said by, gentlemen on the opposite benches, that ninety-nine out of every hundred of ' the' 381 the people of England were well affected to the constitution ; and he believed that they were right. Where then was the danger of enquiring into the defects of the constitution with a view of cor recting them ? Could they hope for some golden period, in which the proportion of the ill-affected would be less than as one to ninety -nine ?' The objection to time was therefore a fallacy, a mere pretext for putting off what the house could not help seeing to be necessary, but felt unwilling to -begin. — On a division of the houise, Mr. Grey's motion was rejected by a majority of 282 against 41. A few days previous to the prorogation of par liament, (June 17, 1793,) Mr. Fox brought for ward a motion, the object of which was, to entreat his majesty to take the earliest opportunity of restoring to his people the blessings of peace. At this period considerable advantages had been gained by the combined powers over the arms of France, and a negociation might certainly have been opened under more favourable auspices than . at any future period of the war. The French were 382 were driven back within the limits of their own territory ; the Dutch frontiers were protected ; and, as yet, Austria and Prussia seemed fully competent to the defence of their own states. Mr. Fox, ever alive to what was now the object of his warmest wishes, a peace With France, and deeply impressed with a sense ofthe dangers thai; might accrue from the further prosecution of hostilities, thought that he saw in the then situa tion of affairs a reasonable opening for negociation, and came forward boldly to avow his sentiments. He should not, he said, repeat his former ob jections to the justice and policy of the war ; but, for the sake of argument, allow that its origin was wise and necessary, and that it was entered into for the safety of this country and for the general interests of Europe. — The grounds of the war he had understood were principally these. — First, the particular alliance we had with the Dutch, attacked as they were by the French.— Secondly, not only this alliance, which in point of good faith called upon us to act for the safety of our ally and for our own honour, but also on account 383 account of the interest we ourselves had in the issue, independent of good faith and of honour. There was another ground stated, and that might be. divided into parts, as on former occasions it had been ; he meant that which was stated upon the general footing of the aggrandisement of France, and the effect and operation of the spirit of their councils. These were the grounds upon which we undertook the war ; and his object was to shew that upon neither of these grounds could the war be continued. He perhaps might be told that we hadvbeen at considerable expence in the war already, and that hitherto we had met With considerable success in the prosecution of it; and therefore, under such circumstances, it was fair for us to say, that we were entitled to indemnity for the expences we had sustained, and security against future danger, or that if we had not, the war should be followed up with vigour. That principle, as far as it regarded the situation of our allies, he did by no means deny ; but he thought the continuation of the war, after the real object of it was gained, for an indemnity to ourselves, was a gross error in politics, and we ought first to 384 to ask, what could we promise ourselves by the continuation of hostilities ? After having shewn in the strongest light the inexpediency of continuing the war for the purpose of indemhificatian, and the folly of prosecuting it with a secret design of effecting a change in the internal government of France, Mr. Fox said,' " If I were asked when we ought to put an end to this calamitous war, I would answer, when the first objects for which we commenced it had been fully attained. We have now," continued he, " happily prevented the aggrandisement of the French by defeating their measures of ambition. We have preserved Holland, Brabant, and Flan ders ; and if the ministers are mad enough to continue the war, for the sake, of indemnification,* Jet them announce their resolution to the public,'' Mr. Fox dwelt much upon his former opinion, that if an application had been made from this country • for a reconciliation of differences, France would not have denied the restitution of Brabant, Flan ders, and Savoy. The purchase of peace, he said, would have been acceptable to the French on any terms 385 terms consistent with their liberty ; and the price would have been thought trifling indeedjwheri Compared with the happy consequences* To those who were for the continuance of the war, and who so triumphantly asked, "Would you put a stop to the progress of our arms when ^victorious ?" He would answer, yes ! for the end of all war is peace, and the sooner that desirable object is attained the better. " If you demand an indemnification," said he, " let a, negociation be commenced, and perhaps the French might agree to cede part of their West India possessions." — Another question had been asked, whether > we were to treat with France in her present state ? To this he answered, yes ! With him, or them, be he or they what they may, who have the go vernment of France in their hands, you ought, and ultimately -you must treat. If the contraiy was true — if France was' to be at peace only on a plan of our own, as to a form of government, it was impossible to say when the war would have an end. vol. n. c c Mr* 386 Mr. Fox freely confessed that his heart sighed for peace, and that his judgment saw the policy* of it so strongly, that if there was any one of the council of the king who wished for it, what ever situation that person held, and if he said he thought the continuance of thia war dangerous, and wished to put an end to it, such peraon f&r such a purpose should have his support *, and he was in hopes that the motion he should make would strengthen that opinion^ But he was the more inclined to think that would be the effect of it, from experience of the past, than he was disposed to indulge in- pleasing conjecture. All remembered the American- war,— that, during a long period previous to the termination' of it, there was great reason to believe, not only the house of commons, but also many of the efficient minis ters of the crown, wished to put an end- to itt Whether that was the case as to the latter part * A. report prevailed at this period that Mr. Pitt was averse to the war, and that he had engaged in it only at the instigation of the alarmist party ; but this does, not ap pear from any subsequent explanations to have been the case. in 387 in the present case he could not tell — btit this he would say, that whenever any minister would stand forward regardless of the impression he should make upon the party on whose favour he might principally depend, and avow his sentiments, he should be glad to join with him upon that subject, and give him all the aid in his power.— The American war was an awful example to the people of this country, and He hoped we were not doomed to endure another such calamity. He exhorted the members of the house of commons to exercise their own judgment, and to look at the small possible advantage to be gained, if we pursued, and the almost inevitable ruin ofthe pursuit of the war ; and conjured them to act with firmness, and put an end to the dangerous career of hazard and folly. — Mr. Fox theft moved — " That an humble address be presented to his majesty, to lay before his majesty the humble representations of his faithful commons on the present awful and momentous crisis ; a duty which they feel themselves the more especially called c c 2 upon upon to perform at this juncture, as a long and eventful period may probably elapse before his majesty can again have an opportunity of collect ing, ythrOUgh their representatives, the real senti ments and wishes of his people. " In the name of the people of England, his majesty's . faithful commons are bound to declare, that they concurred in the measures necessary to -carry on -the present war, for the objects of de fence and security, and for those objects only. ".'That any plan of aggrandisement, founded on thfi present distressed situation of France, much less any purpose of establishing among the French people any particular form of government, never would have had their concurrence or support. >' " In expressing these their sentiments and Opinions, on entering into the present war, ' his majesty's faithful commons are sensible that they are only repeating . those benevolent declarations which policy, and a careful attention to the real interests of the British nation, induced his majesty -to 380 to use in his most gracious speech from the throne, at the beginning ofthe present session of parliament, and in repeated messages to this house. " To represent to his majesty, that though his faithful commons have the most perfect reliance on his majesty's sacred word and promise,, so lemnly pledged to this country and to Europe, not to interfere in the internal affairs of France, or to enter into the views arid projects of other, powers, who, in the present war, may be actuated by motives far different from those which govern the conduct of his majesty ; yet they feel it to . be their indispensable duty to call his majesty's most ' serious attention to- some ofthe circum stances which jhave occurred since the com mencement of the present unfortunate contest. " The French arms, which, after a successful invasion of Brabant, had threatened the security ¦ of his majesty's allies the States General, have since been confined within their own territory, and are now occupied in defence of their frontier c c 3 towns 390 towns against the united forces of his majesty and his allies. The danger apprehended from the former conquests and aggrandizement of the French nation appears, therefore, to be no longer a subject of just uneasiness and alarm. "Some of the powers engaged in the con federacy against France have, on the other hand, openly avowed, and successfully executed plans of-domination and conquest, not less formidable to the general liberties of Europe. The rapacious and faithless dismemberment of the unhappy king dom of Poland, without having produced, as far as it appears to this house, any remonstrance from his majesty's ministers, has excited in his majesty's faithful commons the highest indignation at so daring an outrage on the rights of independent nations, and the keenest solicitude to rescue the honour of the British government from the sus picion of having concurred or acquiesced in mea sures so odious in their principle, and so dangerous in their example to the peace and happiness of mankind. i " The 391 a The severe calamities which since the com mencement of the present war this nation hasr already experienced,— the shock given to com mercial credit, and the alarming consequences which the failure of the mercantile and manu facturing interests threateri to the public revenue, and to the general prosperity of the country, can not have failed to attract his majesty's attention, and to excite in his benevolent mind a sincere desire to relieve his subjects from distresses of which they cannot hope for a termination but in the, speedy re-establishment of peace. " His majesty's faithful commons make it, therefore, their most earnest and solemn request* that his majesty, taking into his consideration all the above circumstances, will not fail to employ the earliest measures for procuring peace on such terms as are consistent with the professed objects of the war, and with that good faith, strict jus tice, and liberal and enlightened policy, which have hitherto so peculiarly distinguished the Brit ish nation." c c 4 A reformed 392 A reformed house of commons would probably have adopted this address, by which Holland; almost to a moral certainty, would have been pre-" served to the Stadtholder, and' Brabant perhaps have been preserved to the emperor; but the same rniserable politics which had severed America from the British empire, prevailed upon this oc casion, and Mr. Fox's motion was negatived by a majority of I87 to 47. . A political writer of eminence,' speaking of the state of parties at the opening of the session of 1794, says, " There never occurred in the annals ofthe British history so much unanimity in par liament upon any system of measures, as that- carried on by Mr. Pitt for the prosecution of the- war against republican France. Never conse quently did an opposition act upon purer convic tions of the!r rectitude than upon the, present occasion. Their numbers dwindled to absolute insignificance: proselytism profusely recompensed : secession no longer vilified : we behold them strug gling against every advantage of power, of opu lence, of patronage ; against the prejudices of the people, 393 people, the frowns of royalty, the malevolence of long-rooted enmities, and the keener rancour of newly-lost friendships. The most fertile malice can invent no other ground for their opposition, than the honourable solace of every true patriot — mens sibi conscia recti. Their real grounds, mo tives, and reasons may be hereafter seen in the silent page of history, when the present vortex of prejudice shall have spent itself*." . The adherents of ministry at this period did jiot hesitate to avow that the real object of the war was to overturn the new government of France ; and though' ministers themselves were •more reserved in their language, they were not less sanguine in their hopes of being able to effect a , counter revolution. Nothing was now heard from the ministerial benches but violent tirades against the Jacobin government of France, exag gerated descriptions ofthe internal distress ofthe French nation, and confident predictions of the * A Short History of the British Empire during the year J794, by Francis Plowden, L. C. D. p. 33. successful 394 successful issue of the war. So cheap were the armies ofthe French held, that a march to Paris was represented as an easy achievement. But success was chiefly looked for from the disordered^ state of the French finances. It was said by the ministerial orators, that the French nation was in a state of bankruptcy ; that public credit was no more ; that the certain effect of the measures adopted by the convention would be to annihilate the stock of the necessaries of life still remaining in France, and to hasten the moment when it would be impossible for the -government either to subsist the people at home, or even to maintain their armies on the frontiers. Any attempt, there fore, towards a negociation for peace was strenu* ously deprecated, and a vigorous and unremitting prosecution of hostilities recommended. The arguments of these infatuated politicians, Mr. Fox said, reminded him of what he had heard in the American war. The Americans were re presented as destitute of money ; as making tem porary exertions by means of paper, which a few halfpence might buy to the nominal amount of 100 dollars; 395 100 dollars ; as exercising on one another the most intolerable tyranny ; on the royalists the most unheard-of cruelty ; and then came what on the present occasion was the master argument, that if such principles of resistance were suffered to exist, there must be an end of all civilized government, and the monarchy of England rriust be trodden in the dust. — He was not then deterred from recommending what he now recommended •senegociation, while negociation was practicable. He had lived to see Great Britain treat with, that l^ery congress so often vilified \ and abused:; and the monarchy subsist in full vigour enough, cer tainly fuller than it had ever before subsisted since the revolution. — If it were not presumptuous for , any man to reckon on his own life, he might say, that he should see Great Britain treating with those very Jacobins — and might the period be as favourable for making peace as it was then. Mr. Fox maintained, that as much security might be obtained by treating with France, as in any case that came within experience, or was presented by theory, and it remained only to prove, 3Q6 prove, that if negociation should fail, we had much to. gain,, arid nothing to' lose. We should' demonstrate, -he said, to all the world, that, the war, on our part, was strictly defensive ; and we should convince the people of England,: that their money was not expended to gratify the caprice of an individual. In France the advan tage would be still greater ; in France, where i enthusiasm supplied the place of military, dis cipline and military skill— where it made the peo ple submit to tyranny almost beyond human pa tience— -we should diminish that enthusiasm,. by shewing them, that they were engaged not, in* a war of defence, but a war of conquest. t . Mr. Fox then entered into an examination* of the conduct of the war, which he shewed had been deficient in every material point. " If," said he, " any independence of spirit remains in this house, if there is a man in it not the sycophant of minis ters, that man cannot hold up his head and say, he does not. in his conscience believe that the campaign, as far as this country is concerned,:has exhibited "nothing but the imbecility of those who planned 397 planned it. The minister possesses great talents and great eloquence; and his having been so long in office, must have considerably increased the number of his admirers ; but he must pick and choose from the very lowest class of those who pay court to him, before he can find thirty persons, even at his own table, who will say that he is a war minister. They will tell us that he may do better another time ; but how much British blood and treasure must be lavished, while the minister is serving his apprenticeship to this trade of war?" :; A question of great constitutional importance was agitated early in the session, which exhibited the despotic and libe'rticide principles of Mr. Pitt and his adherents in a way more glaring and alarming than they had yet appeared. A consider able body of Hessian troops having been landed in the Isle of Wight; without the consent of par liament, Mr. Grey, moved in the house of /Com mons, " That to employ foreigners in any situa tion of military trust, or to bring foreign' troops into this kingdom, without the consent of parlia- - ment first had and obtained, is contrary to law." This 398 This incontrovertibly was the old Constitutional doctrine on the subject ; but th© minister and his followers maintained, that it was the king's wk doubted prerogative to introduce foreign troops into his dominions in time Of war ; and that in tHe case then before the house, nothing had been done illegalj unconstitutional, or in violation of the declaration of rights and the act Of settlement. ' Mr. Fox, with great strength of argument,' re sisted these slavish doctrines, and proved their illegality from an unanswerable series of prece dents^— He entreated gentlemen to act with cau tion and deliberation on as momentous a question as ever arrested the attention of a British senate, It had been asserted, he said, that the foreign troops had been landed in England for the purpose of foreign service ; but he cared not What was the cause, where the consequences were fatal to the bill of rights. Subsequent events might reveal the mystery. Who could tell what might attend this unwarrantable exercise of the preroga-? tive, if these troops were to become the instru ments in the hands of a wicked prince, or of a venal 399 venal minister. The divine prerogatives of the crown, was a language which he did not expect to have heard during that night's, debate. During the arbitrary reign of James, it was considered , Blasphemous to attempt defining those limits, to which he set no bounds ; but mow he conceived that words more suitable to the tongues of British freemen were those that defined and supported the divine rights of the commons. We \Vere as sured by his majesty's ministers, as an excuse for the landing of these troops, that they are not to remain long in the country. But this is not the question. Will the minister say, that it is legal or consistent with the spirit of the constitution ? Who are to tell an army of Austrians, of Hulans, of Hanoverians, or of Hessians, that their further continuance in England was contrary to law ? Was the house to wait till it was surrounded by foreign mercenaries, and then present them with a bit of parchment, or the bill of rights, to con vince them that they were violating the liberties of Englishmen, and acting repugnant to our con stitution ? Who was to translate the contents ? And when they were translated,, could the minis ter 400 ter answer What deference they, would pay to that bill, which had been treated with so much in difference by >him and his adherents ? Mr. Fox conjured the house to consider that the liberty of Europe had been destroyed by the illegal use of the mercenary arms^of kings and princes. The liberties of the people, and the privileges of par-^ liament, he pronounced at stake; and he entreated those who heard him not to desert either, through private friendship or personal interest. If there were any in that house, Mr. Fox said, who were infected by the alarms attempted to be propagated, of a, party in England who wished to limit' the powers of the monarchy, this was the time for them explicitly to declare themselves. He, for his part, did not believe that there was any such ; for a few, and those inconsiderable men, he could not dignify with the appellation of a party. But, if there were any such, it was the duty of the house of commons to remove their suspicions, by shewing themselves the zealous guardians of the constitution ; by proving that they were not governed by circumstances of personal affection; and by demonstrating, that they were as hostile to 401 to any invasion on the part of the prerogative, as to any innovation on that of the democracy. The present war might be absurd, or the contrary; but the war was not now the question. The con stitution and liberty were at stake; and it was their duty to say whether they would put so for- • midable a weapon as a foreign army into hands which were likely to be actuated by hurfian temp tations, by human frailty, and by human ambitiom — We had no invasion to fear but an invasion of the constitution, and the commons, which were its natural watchmen, ought to regard with a •tenacious and jealous eye, any measures calculated to destroy the balance of power in the three .festates, by any unconstitutional extension of the prerogative of the crown. When the eyes of the world were turned to the constitution of England, he implored the house not to cause their admira tion to cease by defacing its noble structure. Notwithstanding these unanswerable argu ments, the previous question, which was moved by a new partizan of the minister, was carried by a majority of 1 84 to 35. Such was the unhappy vol. Ii. i> d tone 402 tone ofthe public mind in the house of commons):;! and such the blind, obsequious confidence reposed | in a minister the most arrogant in his counsels and the most incapable in his actions, of any that ] ever directed the affairs of a free and powerful !\ people. Mr. Fox bore a large share in the discussions which took place in consequence of the cruel, and, in the judgment of many, illegal sentences passed on Messrs. Muir and Palmer by the Court' of Justiciary of Scotland. Taking a review; of the opinions delivered by the Scotch judges upon) those trials, he reprobated them in the strongest terms, and clearly pointed out their falsehood, barbarity, and absurdity. " One of the lords of the justiciary," said Mr. FOx, " asserted that no man had a right to speak of the constitution unless he possessed landed property : men of per sonal property, though they might have immense sums in the funds, were told that they must not discuss such topics., When judges speak thus at random with levity and ignorance, what is the inference I would draw ?— that the temper ofthe' 2 , jadge. A 403 judge is manifold from such conduct, a conduct which would have disgraced even the times' of the •Stuarts. Another lord, in the exercise of his ju dicial trust, wandered into the Roman law, not finding any written precedent in the laws of his country sufficiently strong to serve his purpose. Having recourse to this extrajudicial authority, he at last discovered that the mildest punishment which could be inflicted on one of these unfor tunate gentlemen was, transportation for fourteen lyears. The Roman law left it at his discretion to give Muir either to the gallows, to wild beasts^ or to Botany Bay. And of the whole he had 'happily selected the mildest ! A judge had seri- 'ously supported such unaccountable nonsense from the bench. Recollecting that torture had been ^abolished, and dreading the consequences of a surrender of the prisoner to wild beasts in a civil ized country, he put his invention to the rack, and at last hit upon the mild punishment oi fourteen years' transportation beyond the seas 1— They send the unjustly accused and convicted to herd with the most infamous and abject criminals, and even think this punishment is too mild for the n d 1 ' offence; 404 offence. Were I to live in Scotland, I > would conclude my life, my liberty, and my property in secure. I would place no confidence in enjoying either." Mr. Fox then said, " It cannot escape the re collection of some gentlemen, that, not many years ago, there were associations in this country formed exactly on the same principles that Mr, Muir and his friends had formed their associa^ tions ; and it is precisely for those very offences which were committed by those very associations in England, that Mr. Muir and Mr. Palmer are now condemned to transportation for fourteen years. — But it will be said, that the French revo lution has changed the nature of affairs. It may .be so; but I wish never to believe that what was once meritorious, what was once fit, and what was considered as the only means of preserving the liberties of our country, can, all of a sudden, have so changed its complexion, can become so black and atrocious a crime, as to call down on the nead of him, who so far reveres the constitution of England, as to wish to restore it to its primitive perfection, 405 perfection, the unrelenting vengeance of persecu tion ; while those very men, who perhaps . set this fatal example, have fled into the arms of power, as into an asylum, and are now enjoying the emoluments, of the highest places this kingdom knows, the wages perhaps of their apostacy. Yes, these unfortunate gentlemen have done what the chancellor of the exchequer and the duke of Richmond have done before them. They have done no more. Can the house forget the address- , es of these two persons to the people ? and this, not to petition for a reform in parliament, not simply to state the abuses, and, in the manner of suppliants, to pray for redress of those abuses ; but to demand (I say demand) them as their right. As long as gentlemen shall remember the Thatched-House, and these very associations, it is impossible to forget their addresses to the people. O human folly . and inconsistency ! ex claimed Mr. Fox, why are these very men now exalted to the most envied stations, while the Unfortunate Muir and Palmer are doomed to waste out their days in a dreary and inhospitable cli mate ; the companions of outcasts and felons, of d p 3 the 40$ the most degraded; of the human species ? And have not we, at some period or another; all of us called assemblies ? Have we not all of us been , guilty of crimes which might send us to Botany- Bay ? Happy I am to boast, that however I may disapprove of those violent prosecutions that have been conducted in thts country against individuals un charges of, sedition, which when compared with the trials - now before us are merciful and humane' ; happy am I to boast, that it is my for tune to be a subject of, and to live in England: Were I a native of Scotland, I would instantly prepare to leave that land of tyranny and of des potism. Till such infamous laws' be abrogated^ you may talk^of justice, you may talk of juries ; but all trials will be mockeries. Till these in famous laws are abrogated, the liberty of the sub ject is unsafe and unprotected, and Scotland, like France, is a land of despotism and oppression, nitude and complication of the misery. I am clearly of opinion, that the human mind may be made so familiar with misery, and scenes of hor ror, as at last to disregard them, or at least to view them with indifference. It is difficult always to preserve the acuteness of the feelings ; and it. is in my-mind no small misfortune to live at a period when scenes Of horror and blood are frequent; By the constant repetition of such scenes, oiir feelings are by degrees blunted ; and in time we become indifferent to what would at first interest us with the most amiable sympathy and distress. Humanity, on this account, has been, by the stoics, deemed a weakness in our natures; and in their opinions impeded the progress of judgment, and consequently the improvement of morals'; but my sentiments so widely differ from, theirs; that I think humanity not only not a weakness, .but the strongest and safest friend to virtue. No man can lament more than I do the mischisf » done 411 done to mankind by making the heart too familiar with misery, and rendering it at last indifferent ; because, on the heart and on the feelings chiefly depend our love of virtue, more than on the wisest precepts of the wisest men. This humanity is one of the most beautiful parts of the divine system of Christianity, which teaches us not only to do good to mankind, but to love each other as .. brethren ; and this all depends on the sensibility of our hearts, the greatest, blessing 'bestowed by Providence on man, and without which he would, With the most refined and polished understanding, be no better than a savage. In my' opinion, the feelings of all Europe have already 'suffered by the' repeated horrors of France ; but, with regard to their cause, I confess it is my belief, that the French have in a great measure been driven to these violent scenes pf bloodshed and horror. It is with a nation as with an individual ; for if an individual be placed in a situation in which he 1 feels himself abandoned by the whole world, he finds that no one is his friend, no one is interested in his happiness or welfare, but all, mankind, as it were, by general consent, his enemies, he must becom* 412 become a misanthrope and a savage, unless he pos^ sessed a mind more heroic and exalted than any we have a right to expect. Such was the situation in which France had been placed ; almost all Europe united against that single people; not for the purpose of regaining any territory upon the Rhine, or restraining the strides of an am-. Ijitious monarch towards; universal empire, as was the case of the combination against Louis XIV ; not for the purpose of repelling an aggression, or, to obtain reparation for an injury, or satisfaction for an insult, or indemnification for losses, and security for future peace, but for the open and avowed purpose of destroying a people, or com? pelling them to accept a form of government ta be imposed upon them by force of arms ; and that too, the form which, from every conjecture possible to be made, that which they most detest find abhor, their ancient monarchy. Can it be wondered at that the French, under such cir cumstances; are savage and ferocious ? I do not say that it is the intention of the combined powers to compel them to return to their ancient form of government ; it is enough that they are under the apprehension 413 apprehension of it, and that almost the whole of Europe are leagued in arms against them ; and no man can deny, that as a people, they have an equitable and moral right to resist such an at- tempt, and to refuse their submission to such dictation. A right honourable gentleman (Mr. Burke) has drawn a pleasing picture of the happiness of the people of France under their monarchy, and be- flowed what I consider an unmerited eulogium on that form of government. He tells us, that the French peasant then sat in happiness and security tinder his vine or his olive ; now, I have certainly ho pretensions to ariy thing like profound philoso phical observation on men and manners, but I have been in France when this mild and tem perate monarchy was in being, and have seerf some of their peasants who, far from having any iI- thing like security for the possession of any pro perty they might have, it was altogether at the disposal of the higher orders; and their situation In general was, to all appearance, so replete vvith misery, so abject and so wretched, that they could not 41.4 not be objects of envy to the subjects "of the most absolute despots upon earth. I know France has been called " a mitigated absolute monarchy ;" but this I deny from experience, and contend, that it was most fierce and barbarous. I do not mean to compare the situation of the people of France, under their monarchy, with the situation" of the people of this country, or with the situa tion of the inhabitants of Holland, or the United States, or the happy cantons of Switzerland; it is my intention to compare them with the inhabi tants of Germany and Italy, and the other des- 1 potic governments of Europe, and to contend, that their situation was by far the most wretched and distressed of any of them. Seeing this to have been their situation, and apprehending the object of the combined powers to be to replace them 'in that bondage, it is not surprising that they are become furious. "¦.>-.. " In a former debate, I heard it asked, whether if any of the emigrants employed by' this country should be taken, and put to death, we were to retaliate ? I heard also, in reply, a solitary, but dreadful 415 dreadful yes. (Mr. Burke said yes.) Dreadful are the consequences that must follow the adop tion of a system of retaliation ; dreadful the situa tion in which these unhappy men will be placed, who must, if taken, be considered as rebels, and put to death. As to these unfortunate men, the war will be a civil War to all intents and purposes ; and every man knows that civil wars have never been distinguished for humanity. — An opinion which I am now about to state is perhaps, Hke , many of my other opinions, singular ; it is, that war ought to be carried on as merciful as possi ble, without any regard to persons. I cannot find this opinion either in books, or in the practice of Europe. Let us look to our own history, and to times called good. We have had, during the present century, in this country, two rebellions ; did we then reverence this merciful maxim ? Did we consider that the treason of every man was done away by his ' holding a commission from a foreign power ? No ; Mr. Radcliffe offered this plea, but it did not avail him, he was put to death. If the French were to land in this king dom, and there chanced to be any body of people so 416 so abandoned to all sense of duty, so lost to the love of their country, so dead to their own interest and happiness, as to join.them, would you pardon any of them who should produce a commission from the convention ? You would not* If, therefore any of these persons are taken in the field of battle, is it to be supposed that the con vention will respect the commissions granted by the king of Great Britain, or that they will afford them protection, or secure them from punish ment ? If you determine not to retaliate, in what! a disgraceful and calamitous situation do you place those whom you employ ! And if you retaliate, good God ! in what horrors will Europe be in volved ! In whatever point of view we consider the measure, it appears highly objectionable ; and, if adopted, will tend to render the war more bloody and of longer duration. " If we take a view of ancient history, and see how wars have been conducted, and compare them with the present, we shall then see the reason why the present war is more bloody, and more cruel, than any of those wars recorded in modern 417 modern times. In all modern- wars, the contest has been, generally speaking, concerning the pos session of territory ; at least the loss of territory^ for the most part, has determined it ; each ac knowledging the independence of another as a nation j and therefore the parties, like two indi viduals at law, did not seek to destroy each other after their difference was determined. In ancient wars, the contest was between powers seeking the |destruction of each other as a nation, and the |pctermination of each other as a nation. It is not my wish to take from the mild effects of the 5 christian religion, which also has tended to soften the manners of men, but the merciful maimer in ' which modern wars have been carried on, in com parison of the ancient, has resulted chiefly from this great difference between their objects. De- lenda est Carthago, said the Roman senate. Athens conceived it was for her interest to de stroy the government of Sparta, and vice versa : the Macedonians were convinced of the necessity of destroying the Greeks. To these wars of the ancients, the civil wars of modern times alone afford a parallel, because their objects are also to vol. n. e e effect 418 effect the destruction of governments; and tot < this reason, they are less merciful and mild than , wars waged between independent sovereigns. The present contest with France may justly be termed a civil war, in the force, the acrimony, and ; savageness with which it is carried on, in which all Europe is involved. " The combined powers have declared that the government of France must be destroyed, and that declaration has rendered the French despe rate and cruel. This is a system at which hu manity shudders ; this is a system promoted by the present bill ; a system- openly avowed and' maintained by those who support the principles of this measure. This system has already had its Jeffects in this country ; it has rendered the people callous ; some through fear, a power which de prives a man of rationality ; others from indif ference, which prevents a man from exerting his intellects, and benumbs his feelings. To what but this can be imputed the excessive severity of the sentences lately passed upon individuals, (Muir, Palmer, Gerald, &c.) for having done 1~ nothing 419 nothing more than an honest man, acting perhaps linder the influence of a misguided judgment, might conceive his duty ; in doing nothing more than pursuing a little tod closely the former steps of their present prosecutor ? To what but this can be imputed the general disinclination of the house, and lastly, its absolute refusal, to interfere with these sentences ? If any man, three years ago, had committed such an offence, and had re ceived such a sentence, the house would have' been fired with indignation, and interfered to | prevent its execution. That punishment so ¦* » enormous should be inflicted on gentlemen of a liberal education, and irreproachable manners, probably possessed of good hearts, and whose only crime so nearly resembled the virtues of Other men, who even arrogated to themselves some merit on that head; that such men, for a bare misdemeanor, should receive a sentence worse than death ; a sentence that has the cer tainty of death, without its immediate release from misery^-a lingering, peevish infliction of a punish ment, which, in cruelty, exceeds immediate death; and all this for a conduct not long since deemed e e 2 meritorious. 420 meritorious. This is owing to the horrid exam ples of France, and arises from inordinate fear and miserable apprehension. Am I not, then, entitled to say, that this war is dangerous to the constitution of the country, since it tends so directly to extinguish, in this house, and in the people, that spirit which has hitherto guarded the constitution from the daily attacks of the executive power ? Impressed so forcibly with these sentiments, I feel myself unable to with hold my opinion ; not from any expectation of being able to make any very deep impression on the majority of this house ; that I am well con vinced would be a hopeless expectation ; but be cause I conceive it my duty so to do, that the public may be called upon to exert their judg ment. " There are two points more to be considered, and then I shall take my leave of the subject: first, the probable effect this system would have on the French character ; and the other, the im- mense expense the measure might introduce in the public expenditure of this country. With regard 421 regard to the first point, it is to be observed, that the French character is a marked one ; and no thing is more prominent than an attachment to their country, which you may call patriotism or nationality, but it is the desire of having France appear great and magnanimous in the eyes of the world. Perhaps in this they have never been equalled, except by the ancient Romans. This ought to make us cautious as to what may be the result of employing any very considerable number of those men. Let us consider, that should we even succeed in placing Louis XVII on the throne, and a question of indemnity arises ; per haps these very French troops we have employed may take part against us ; they may possibly have also other interests in betraying us. I do not mean to say that they will do it, but at the same time it will not be altogether discreet to hold out to them so great a temptation. But suppose we should fail in our attempts, and should be forced to return to the first objects of the war, what will then be the consequence ? We shall become the sad spectators of the ruin we have roused : we shall hear these emigrants reproach us in this e e 3 manner: 422 manner: ".We depended on your promises, and you- have deceived us ; we have relied on you with confidence, and you have thus prevented us from using any endeavour to reconcile ourselves to our country." We shall then be forced either to cast them out to the wide world in misery and dis tress, or to burthen the people of this country for their maintenance ; a burthen that will be more heavy and less just than that in consequence of the protection afforded the loyalists in the American war. With regard to the expense, it is impossible to say to what extent it may. go; and as our resources, like all human things, have their limits, we cannot be quite sure the people will be able to bear the burthen ; nor can we bev sure, supposing them able, they will be long willing to do so. When so desirable an end will be accomplished God only knows; but I contend - that we should endeavour to accelerate the period of peace, and to make the war as little savage and ferocious as we can. This bill, as inimical to these two very desirable objects, which are so much the wish of my heart, shall have my decided negative." When 423 When the bill for the suspension of the habeas corpus act was brought forward by ministers, Mr. Fox expressed his astonishment, that it should have been thought necessary to have recourse to a measure so sudden, so violent, and so alarming, and that too upon facts which had been notorious for years. — Was it pretended, he asked, that the great body of the people were dissatisfied with the government and the constitution? No such thing ! It was the boast of ministers and their adherents, that every part ofthe country was most strictly united in love and attachment to the con- . . stitution. But the birth-right of Englishmen was to be taken 'away, because some low persons, without property, and without consideration, in the country, were found to entertain opinions about a parliamentary reform that were thought to be dangerous. How long," said Mr. Fox, will it take to eradicate these opinions from the minds of these men ? Is it meant to keep them all in confinement under this bill ? Ministers will be forward, I suppose, to disclaim any such inten tion. What then do they mean to do ? To sus pend one of the grandest principles of the con- e e 4 stitution 424 stitution of England, until there shall be found no men within the kingdom tinctured with dis-; contents, or who cherish the design of reform. If they mean to suspend the habeas corpus act until such time, there is an end of it in this coun try. What do they declare by this to all man kind ? That there • is no period when it will be possible to restore to the country this grand and inestimable right ; that the constitution of Eng-; land is fit only for an Utopian society, where all men live in perfect concord, without one jarring sentiment, without one discontented feeling ; but that it is utterly unfit for a world of mortal and mixed men, not fit for any state of society that ever did exist upon the face of the earth, or that is ever likely to exist. Never, never then, upon this doctrine, is it probable that we shall ever recover this most essential part of the British con stitution ; for it is not the will of Providence that society should be formed so perfect and unmixed, so free from all passions, as to meet the ideas upon which it is contended that the constitution of England could with safety be conferred upon them." With 425 With regard to the popular societies, then the objects of so much real or pretended alarm, Mr. , Fox said, " Though there are among those so cieties men of low and desperate fortunes, who may be ready to embrace any enterprize, however hazardous ; and though there may be others, whom, I believe, from their characters, to possess wicked intentions ; yet still this is no argument with me for throwing forth a general obloquy on measures that are in themselves harmless. To deny to the people the right of discussion, because, upon some occasion, that right has been exercised by bad or indiscreet men, is what I cannot sub scribe to, The right of popular discussion is a salutary and an essential privilege of the people. We all entertain becoming respect for the ex ecutive government, that is, for the chief magis trate of the kingdom, but our respect for the king does not prevent the vigilance of parliament. In my opinion the best security for the due main tenance of the constitution is in the strict and in cessant vigilance of the people over parliament itself. Meetings of the people, therefore, for the discussion of public objects, are not merely legal, but 426 but laudable ; and unless it is to be contended that there is some magic in the word convention,^ i which brings with it disorder, anarchy, and ruin, I can perceive no just ground for demolishing the constitution of England, merely because it is in tended to hold a meeting for the purpose of ob taining a parliamentary reform. With respect to their plan, that of universal suffrage, I never had but one opinion on the subject. I have con stantly and uniformly considered universal suffrage as a wild and ridiculous idea. When my noble relation (the duke of Richmond) had one day taken pains to explain his ideas on this subject, a learned and ingenious friend of his said to him, with as much truth as wit, " My lord, I think the best part of your grace's plan is its utter impracticability." I have always been of opinion that it was utterly impracticable ; and though I cannot agree with the opinion, that rather than continue the present state of representation, I would incur all the hazards of universal suffrage, yet I am ready lo say, that the measures of last .year, the horrid and detestable prosecutions, the scandalous sentences that have been passed,, and the 427 the Scandalous way in which they have been exe cuted, do not tend to make me wish less than heretofore for spme reform, that shall protect the country against the recurrence of such abuses. — If the habeas corpus act be suspended on such slight arguments as have been advanced this night, and we are to go on step by step, as we are threatened, with the introduction of the Scotch criminal code, with the extinction perhaps ofthe trial by jury, and I should then be asked what is my opinion, I do not know but I should be ready to prefer any change to such a horrid situation as the country would then be reduced to. I am ready to own, that the events which have lately passed in France have made a most powerful impression on my mind. I should not do justice to myself if I did not frankly confess, that they have served to correct several opinions which I previously held ; th y have served also to confirm many former opinions. They have con vinced my mind of the truth of an observation of Cicero, one of the most common, which is early taught in our grammars, but from which, 'when a boy, my heart revolted. It is this : ': ' " Iniquissimam 428 it constitutionally 403 constitutionally belongs.-^-Did he give you any intimation of his having advanced this money be fore you were called together ? Did he give you any intimation of it before this very night, when becomes before you with his fresh burthens on the .people f Not a word ] For this conduct, I say, he ought to be* impeached.'' Mr. Fox then proceeded to observe, that the minister had that night omitted the brilliant com parison which he had so often made between the French and English finances. The French" had been stated week after week, and month after month, \o be not on the verge, but in the gulf of bankruptcy. He had omitted also to state that ' the French had, by becoming the allies of the Putch, partaken of their sluggishness. He did not know, he said, whether the French had pass ed the gulf of bankruptcy. He hoped they had, for while they were in it, they were most dreadful enemies to this country. — The minister, continu ed Mr. Fox, year after year calculated upon the events of the war, and year after year the public had been misled by his calculations. What se curity 464 curity had the house and the public that the minister would not miscalculate in future as he had already done, so often in the course ofthe war. By his miscalculations he had added to the- debt of the country one hundred and fifty millions; and rivers of "human blood had been made to flow all over the world. The minister at length talked of peace, and he hoped in God we should soon enjoy that blessing ; but as the minister was par ticularly fond of his own calculations, he wished he would, some day or night, sit down in his .closet, and calculate what a sum of human happi ness he- had destroyed by his false .calculation^ already ; what a waste of human life he had occasioned; and all this because he could not sooner discover that tbe French " were not ca pable of maintaining the relations of peace and amity *." * Mr. Fox resumed the subject with great force and elo* quence in subsequent debates, and on the 14th of December movqd, " That his majesty's ministers having authorised and directed, at different times, without the consent, and during the sitting of parliament, the issue of various sums of money for the service of his imperial majesty, and also for the service 465 When the papers relative to lord Malmsbury's unsuccessful mission to Paris came under the con sideration of the house, (Dec. 30th, 1796,) Mr. Fox, in a most splendid and luminous speech, marked with all the ingenuousness, the exalted honour, and profound political discernment which had so long distinguished the parliamentary efforts of that great and unrivalled statesman, took a view service of the army under the prince of Conde, have acted contrary to their duty, and to the trust reposed in them, and have thereby violated the constitutional principles of this house." This motion, which in the reign of George II. would probably have been followed by another for impeach ing the minister who had had the audacity to commit so flagrant a breach of the privileges of the commons, was nega tived by a majority of 185 to 81, and an amendment carried in favour of Mr. Pitt; such _ was the venality, the blind confidence, or the deplorable want of spirit in that body of men, who, by our ancestors, were emphatically denominated the guardians of the public purse, but who now, with the exception of one transient gleam of sunshine that broke over their heads, and for a moment redeemed them from the public scorn, may justly be stigmatised as willing servants' ef cor« ruption, zealous patrons of abuses, the steady, inflexible enemies of reform. VOL. II. H H Of 466 of the leading causes which had produced the failure of the negociation. He commenced with observing, that it was impossible to survey the situation of the country but with the most serious and painful reflections, and feelings of the deepest regret. After a war of four years, whiph they had been repeatedly told had been honourable and advantageous to the British arms,-^-after the im mense expenditure of treasure incurred — after the enormous effusion of human blood— after the in calculable additions to human wretchedness, so far were we, he said, from having gained any ofthe objects for which we embarked in the war, so far were we from having achieved any advantage, the minister had that night come forward in a most elaborate speech to prove, that the enemy have become more unreasonable than ever in their pretensions. If we may believe the right honour", able gentleman, a war of four years, far from "having produced any change of disposition in the enemy, has only served to increase the insdlence of" their style, ahd the exorbitance, of their pre tensions. It would have been some consolation, if; after the right honourable gentleman had stated at 467 at such length, and with such an elaborate display1 of eloquence, the extravagance of these demands, he had suggested some means of reducing them. How often have we been told that the resources of the French nation were exhausted ? But has it not been found from experience, that in propor tion as the finances of the French have been acknowledged, even by themselves, to be at the lpwest ebb, in the same proportion have their exertions been found wonderful and unparajjeled. After the egregious failure of all his former pre dictions, what claim could the minister possess to the confidence of the house, in that crisis to which his measures had reduced the country ? — France appeared as the conqueror of most impor tant and extensive territories. Belgium was an nexed to her empire ; great part of Italy had yield ed to the force of her arms, and Holland was now1 united to her fate by bonds of the strictest alli ance. If, indeed, these acquisitions could be regained to the cause of Great Britain and her ' allies by magnificent boasts or pompous declamar tions, if the tide of victory could be turned by dexterity of debate, and the efficacy of our exer- h H 2 tions 468 tions bore any proportion toythe insolence of our boasting within these walls, then indeed we should not have been reduced to the necessity of negoi- elating for restitution, but have dictated terms of peace long ago in the heart of Paris. We were not at all deficient on the score of confident exer tion, or presumptuous menace. But it was by other means, by other criterions, and by other trials, that the conduct of ministers was to be measured. " Weak and inconsiderable,"- said Mr. Fox, " as I am in this house, I did my utmost, previous. to the commencement of this unfortunate .contest,. to persuade the government to send an ambas sador to Paris, when undoubtedly he would not have met with the treatment which an ambassador, of Great Britain is alleged to have received. But when they say that this ambassador was dismissed in a way unexampled in the history of civilized ¦ nations, they surely must have forgot the manner in which M. Chauvelin was sent from this country. At a subsequent period, when the whole of Bel gium was regained, when the French were not 1 possessed 469 possessed of one foot, of ground in that territory, did I then neglect my duty to my country ? No ! I then renewed my motion for peace. This was at the period before the powers combined against France had gained the fortress of Valenciennes ; but when it was certain that it must fall, I con tended then it was the period to make peace. And now I ask, if an attempt had been then made to negociate, whether we might not have expected to obtain peace on terms equally ho nourable and advantageous as any we can. now possibly claim ? Would we have obtained a peace less favourable to the general balance of power, or less likely to be permanent in its duration than . any which can be concluded under the circum stances of the present moment? Again and again have I pressed upon the house the necessity arid policy of adopting measures for the restoration of peace, and again and again have my motions for that purpose been rejected. In order to shew how greatly ministers miscalculated the nature of the contest, at that former period when I argued for peace, it was said, " What, make peace be fore you have achieved a single conquest, and h h 3 when 470 when you are just beginning to make advances into the country of the enemy !" Such, at that time, was the style of reasoning brought forward in opposition to the argument which I urged in favour of peace. So widely were ministers then deceived with respect to the nature of the contest, so falsely did they calculate as to the turn of sub sequent events. Unhappy calculation ! Perverse mistake ! The contest did not respect a particu lar branch of trade, or a limited extent of terri tory. The most important interests of the coun try we*e at stake. The ministers, by their cal culations, were not pledging Jamaica, or any island in the West Indies. They were pledging Great Britain itself, the fate of which may in some degree be considered as dependant on the issue of this night's debate. The right honour able gentleman, formerly in talking of the nature ofthe contest, had made use of a memorable ex pression, and which could not easily be forgotten. He intimated that the nature of the contest was such, that our exertions ought to know no bounds, except so far as they were limited by our .re sources ; and that our efforts must be extended to 471 to the utmost pitch, before we could either hope for an honourable termination of the struggle, or the secure and permanent enjoyment of peace. He expressly declared that we ought not to cease from the contest till we should be able to say, Possit qii(s plurima virtus . Esse fuit. Toto certatum est corpore regni. Mr. Fox then proceeded to animadvert upon the manner in which the negociation had been conducted, and argued that ministers had not evinced themselves sincerely disposed to cultivate the good will of the French nation. In every negociation, he said, the difficulty of coming to any definitive arrangement must be, infinitely in creased by the mutual prevalence of distrust be tween the parties. If the minister had some rea son to suspect the sincerity of the French direc tory, had not they at least equal grounds to en tertain the same doubts with respect to his views in the negociation ? After every epithet of re proach had been exhausted by ministers to vilify their characters, was it to be expected that they h h 4 would 472 ¦ / would readily^ listen to terms of peace dictated by' those ministers, except they were brought into that state of , necessity and submission, which precluded them from any alternative, and com pelled them to an unconditional compliance with any pacific proposition that might be presented , to their acceptance. Mr. Fox, after ridiculing lord Malmsbury's repeated professions of " high consideration" for the French minister, said, with cutting severity, he could not help smiling, when he recollected that lord Auckland was created a peer for no other merit, than because he had declared that the men now addressed in such respectful terms " ought to be put under the sword of the law," and because, adopting anew style of diplomacy, he had denounced them as miscreants and traitors to all Europe. Mr. Fox, after arguing strongly 'on the folly of making Belgium the sine qua non oi a pacifica* tion, with a prophetic spirit asked, " What, in the prosecution of this unhappy contest, are the people of England to look for, but terms still worse than those which might be obtained, if ministers 473 ministers entered on negociation with sincerity ? " Consider," said he, " what your disgrace will be, if you fail to recover Belgium, which you have . told the world is a sine qua non. You say it may be recovered by force of arms. Good God ! what is the probability of such an event ? What are we to do ? What can we do ? Have you considered all the difficulties that may attend it ? Are you prepared for all the hazards that may accompany it ? If you are, say so at once boldly, and act like men, but do not abuse the people of this country by a delusive pretence: — the shadow of a negociation. — I know that these little tricks and artifices have h^d their end ; they have often, much too often, been employed to cover the dexterity of a debate ; and in some situations they may almost appear harmless ; but these little .quibbling distinctions are not adapted to the im portant affairs of which we are now to consider. The minister, in ordinary cases, shall be welcome on my part to his little triumph in such artifices ; but these are not times to indulge him in them. He is not made for these times of difficulty. When the fate of a question, comparatively in different, 474 different, is before us, his talents are well adapt ed to obtain success, which, for my own part, I do not envy him ; but when the fate of empires depends upon our proceedings, we should hot give way to his vanity. These are (times that require openness and- candour, anda determina tion to look at the posture of our affairs in a direct, operi^ and undaunted manner." Mr. Fox concluded with moving, the 'following address— " That this house had learnt, with in* expressible concern, that the1 negociation for the restoration of peace had been unhappily suspend ed. In so awful and important a crisis the com mons felt it their duty to speak to his majesty with' that freedom and earnestness which became men anxious to preserve the honour ofthe crown, and to secure the interests of the people. They de plored that, from the documents submitted to their consideration, his majesty's ministers appear not to have been so sincere in their professions for peace as their repeated declarations had in-! dicated. The insincerity ofthe overtures made for that purpose was to be inferred from their having 475 having insisted as a sine qua non, on the surrender of the Netherlands by France. — That this house had farther to regret that his majesty's ministers had repeatedly refused to enter into any negocia tion with the French republic, upon the arrogant and insulting pretence that the government of France was not capable of maintaining the rela tions of peace and amity amongst nations ; and on this unfounded assumption had advised his majesty to continue a war ruinous in itself, after the defection of the major part of his majesty's allies. — That this house having thus humbly sub mitted to his majesty the reflections which his majesty's gracious communication immediately suggests, feel themselves in duty bound, for the information Of his majesty, and the satisfaction of an exhausted people, to proceed with un remitting diligence to investigate' the causes which have produced our present calamities, and to offer such advice as the critical and alarming circum stances of the nation may require." — Upon a division Mr. Fox's motion was rejected by 212 to 37 voices, at so low an ebbj, at this period, v . were 476 were public virtue and common sense among the representatives of the nation. * When the order of council appeared prohibit ing the bank of England to issue payments in specie, Mr. Fox again strongly urged the neces sity of an enquiry into the conduct of his majes ty's servants. I^o man, he said, had any doubts of the solvency of the bank, before the minister laid his rapacious hands upon the treasure depo sited there, and converted it to the most unlawful and unconstitutional purposes. In 'reply to the arguments of those who defended the conduct of 'the minister on the ground that he was supported by vast majorities in parliament, and had invaria bly possessed the confidence of the house of com mons, Mr. Fox said he had no doubt but many who supported the minister were actuated by honourable motives : but when he found men confide in him year after year, long after they have been told the effects which that confidence will produce, and when year after year those effects have as constantly appeared as they have been 477 been foretold, surely it is not very ungracious to suppose that there is at least an unfortunate ob-: stinacy in the continuance of such a confidence. An honourable member (Mr. Wilberforce) has said that " the minister did not suppose, at the commencement, that this war would have been of so long duration; the minister mistook the matter, and therefore we ought not tojiidge of him too harshly.'' Is mistake a ground for con fidence ? " He has expended much more money than could be wished.'' Is that a ground for confidence ? — Another honourable supporter of the minister admits that he has been unfortunate, but says, " misfortune is no proof of guilt." Certainly not. Then we are told " we cannot prove the guilt of the minister." How should we be able to prove it without enquiry ? " Have we not repeatedly," said Mr. Fox, " asked for it, and has it not as repeatedly been refused? When I see this sort of conduct on the part of those who support the minister, must I be told I am using harsh language when I say they are actuated by corrupt motives ? Do I impute cor ruption to all the supporters of the present minis ter? 478 ter? I certainly do np such $hjng ; but to many of them I dp. Here I ^m reminded of a senti* ment which was uttered by the lpte lord Chat ham i , he said, *'• that he had knowp men of great ambition for power and dominion, many whq^e, characters were tarnished by glaring defects, some \jnth m^ny vices, who, nevertheless, could be prevailed upon to join in the best public mea^ sures : but that the rnoment he found any man who had set himself down as a candidate for -a peerage, he despaired of his ever being a friend to his country,"— -X Lqok," said Mr. Fox, " at jhe history of the minister, ^nd ofthe peerages he has given away, and then ^sk yourselves wher ther he has not gained an enormous influence in that way ? Examine whether he has not disposed pf more peerages than any other minister ever did in England in the same length of time, in any part of our history ?-i-I have heard much of negative successes in the course of this war. { dp not wish to be an egotist, but I think I may s^y, without vanity, that I have some negative merjt.. I have not had the misfortune to counsel this odious, this. ruinous war] I h#ve not h ^nd influence had been promoted ? In viewing the inhabitants of Ireland, he said, the Roman catholics were usually estimated about five sixths. ' It was true that considerable concessions had been made in their favour, and several of their griev ances removed ; but the question, in point of fact, was, whether these concessions had tended to remove dissatisfaction, and to conciliate at tachment ?" — It was a matter, he was afraid, of too 4B1 too obvious notoriety, that a regular system had been devised for enslaving Ireland. A syste matic plan of corruption upon principle, wa3 followed up by a suitable system of measures. It was asserted, and offered to be proved in the Irish parliament^ that it had been the system of govern ment, by the sale of peerages, to raise a purse to purchase the representation, or rather the misre presentation of the people pf Ireland. It was offered to be proved, that one half, or even a majority of the house of commons, were creatures of the crown. The manner in which these mas ters were considered by the people in Ireland was' this. " You have granted us," say they, " an independent legislature, independent certainly of your legislature, but dependent certainly upon your executive government." The concession, therefore, they viewed not as a blessing, but as a mockery and an insult.- With regard to the demands oi the catholics, Mr. Fox said, " I know an opinion has gone fortb, that the catholics have now no substantial griev ances to complain of; and that the presbyterians vol. ti. I i have 482 have still less. It is said that the catholics have had ceded to them all the privileges of the most importance; that they can vote for members of parliament, and that they are not distinguished from the protestants but by being excluded from the high offices of state, and from being members of parliament. If this were all, I should still say that they have a right to all the privileges possess ed by the protestants. Upon what principles ought they to be excluded? On what grounds of justice ? Sir, on no grounds of justice; the only reason, therefore, must be a reason of policy, which is sufficient proof of a hostile mind against them ; but let us consider it in other points of view. Is it nothing to have no share in the go vernment, and to be excluded from the higher offices in the state ? It is invidiously objected by the government, that it is not civil liberty which the catholics want, but power and emolument. To this I would answer for the catholics, yes; nor is it any discredit that they should be actuated by such desire. I would say that civil liberty could have no security without political power. Tp ask for civil liberty without political power, would 483 Would be to act like weak men, and to ask for tbe possession of a right for the enjoyment of whicn they could have no security. I know that distinc tions have been made between civil and political liberty, and that it is possible for whole classes^ whole casts and descriptions of men, to enjoy the. one without possessing the other. Still, how ever, I assert, that it can only be by sufferance. The catholics may justly say, therefore, that it is not this nor that concession that will satisfy us, but give us that which alone can give us security for its continuance. It is objected also that the catholics are not merely ambitious of power, but actuated by. views of private emolument. But if this be true, is it improper that the catholics, contributing so largely to the support of govern ment, should be desirous to share the emolument which it bestows, as a compensation for what they sacrifice ? The compensation indeed is tri-* fling, but still, should they in point of right be excluded from their proportion ? Yet, how ' Strongly will their claim be felt, when it is con sidered who are the disputants ? Are the catho^ lies to be told by a few monopolizing politicians, i i 2 who 484 who engross all places, all reversions, all emoltt* ments, all patronages, " Oh ! you base catholics, you think of nothing but your private emolument You perverse generation, who have already' been; permitted to vote for members of parliament, are you so base as to urge the disgraceful demand of a share in personal emoluments ? The catholici are men, and to be governed by the common motives which actuate human nature. The ex* pense of maintaining all governments must be considerable, and that of Ireland certainly is not a model of economy. Of the emoluments arising out of the establishments of government, the ca tholics have a just right to participate ; and for a small and interested majority to imagine that ^hey can monopolize all these advantages to themselves, is a pretension not to be admitted : mankind are not to be treated in this manner„and it is not now ¦a-days that such claims will pass current with the world." With respect to the coercive laws which had passed in Ireland, tbe apprehensbn of individuals^ on the slightest suspicions, and the military exe cutions' 485 cutions that had taken place in various parts of the country, " whb can doubt," said Mr. Fox, " but these things will goad ? Is it not possible that they who prefer monarchy may find the exercise of it so bad, as almost to doubt the ex cellence of monarchical government ? But should the people even be totally subdued, can you do otherwise than keep up a large military force ? But suppose the people submit — I put the case in, that way — can you trust them in such a situation ? Will their submission to laws which they detest, last longer than your power lasts and their impo tency ? Will you continue to keep up your forces } During the war I believe you will ; but can Ireland afford to . maintain them in peace ? Is it the way to persuade the catholics to assist you, to refuse their demands ? — Refuse these de mands — determine to govern Ireland by military , force — risk a civil war. — But it may be said, what is to be done ? My general principle is to restore peace on principles of peace, and to make con cessions on principles of concession. I would therefore concede, and if I found I had not conceded enough, I would concede more. And i i 3 what 48S what should we lose by it ? Would Ireland be less useful to Great Britain ? What is she now ? Little more than a diversion for the enemy. If you keep Ireland by force now, what must you do in all future wars ? You must in the first place secure her from insurrection. I will there fore adopt an Irish expression, and say, that you can only govern Ireland,, by letting her have "her own way. — The consequences of a war with Ire land were dreadful to contemplate; public horrors would be so increased by the lasceration of private feelings, as to sprepd universal misery through both countries ; the connection was so intimate,'- that no rupture could happen without1 wounding the most tender friendships and the most sacred- ties.' Rigour has already been attempted; let conciliation and concession be tried before the last appeal is hazarded. My wish, said Mr. Fox, is, that the whole people of Ireland should enjoy the same principles, the same system, the same operation of government, arid all classes have an equal chance of emolument." Mr. Fox conclud ed with moving an address to his majesty, " that he would be pleased to take into consideration the disturbed 487 disturbed state of Ireland, and to adopt such heal ing and lenient measures as might appear best calculated to restore tranquillity, and to conciliate the affections of all descriptions of his majesty's subjects in that kingdom." The motion was opposed by Mr. Pitt, as tend ing to infringe on the legislative independence of Ireland. Pie thought concession unnecessary, and that the admission of catholics into pai'liament would endanger the existence of the established church. As long as French principles were abroad in the world, he would strenuously oppose any alteration in the present constitution of par liament, and therefore the motion should have his decided negative. Mr. Fox in' a most masterly reply, lamented that he found it was the determination of govern ment to persevere in a system that must be at tended with incalculable mischiefs. He, however, had performed his duty. — " I have been a long time," said this great statesman, " deprecating I i 4 coercive 488 coercive measures. ' I deprecated the "adoption of them against America in 1774. In 1793, I' de^ precated their being employed- against France; and now I deprecate the same system being fol lowed with Ireland. Though my advice has not hitherto been followed, it is some consolation to me individually that it was not withheld ; and whatever consequence may result from what is now pursuing towards Ireland, I shall not have to reproach myself with not having remonstrated against it. All these measures of coercion flow frbm the same source. War has been preferred to negociation, and force to conciliation, because, in this age of philosophy, instead of regulating our plans by a mild and enlightened policy, we have acted upon the maxims of barbarism. I shall now conclude with quoting the words of an ancient orator, (Cicero,) which I recommend to the seri* pus consideration of every person to v\hom is assigned the important task of legislation, :— " Carum esse civibus, bene de republica mereri, laudari, coli, diligi, gloriosum est ; metui vero,. et in odio esse, invidiosurnj, detestable, imbecillum, caduQum."*™ 489 caducum.'' — On a division ofthe house. the num bers for Mr. Fox's motion were 84, against it 220 *. Mr. ¦ * About this time a petition' was presented to the king, from the city of Westminster, praying the removal of his ministers. From circumstances that transpired at the meet ing where it was agreed to, and from the language of the petition, there is every reaSon to suppose thart Mr. Fox was the author of it. — It commenced by stating the incon trovertible facts, " that in the four years' prosecution ofthe war ministers had squandered upwards of 130 millions of money, and had imposed taxes to the amount of six millions .and a half annually." The petition then proceeded in the following terms. — " We humbly represent to your majesty, that in the hands of those ministers nothing has succeeded, Instead -of restoring monarchy in France, they have been, compelled to recognize the republic there established, and to offer terms of peace to it. Instead of dismembering the territories of that republic, they have suffered it to add fa \ them the Netherlands, Holland, and great part of Italy and Germany ; and even part of these kingdoms, which the fleets of that republic have insultedj has only been pre served from the calamities of invasion by the accidents ofthe season. — In their negociation for peace they have been f i equally 4go Mr. Fox, wearied out with unavailing opposi tion, determined at length to retire, in a great degree, equaUy unsuccessful. It was to be expected. When they asked for peace, , they were abject, but not sincere ; they acknowledged their impotence, but not their errors. They . discovered the most hostile dispositions- towards France at the very time they proved their utter inability to contend with her, — When they wanted to obtain our consent to the war, they assured us that it was necessary for the, safety of our commerce. At this moment most ofthe ports of Europe are shut against us ; goods to an immense amount are lying on the hands of our merchants, and the manufacturing poor are starving by thousands.— They assured us that the. war was necessary for the preservation of property and public credit. They have rendered every man's, property subject to an order of the privy council, and the bank of England has stopped payment. — They assured us that the war was necessary for the preservation of the constitution. They have destroyed its best part, which is its liberty, by oppres- > sive restrictions upon the right of petitioning, and upon the freedom' of the press; by prosecuting innocent men under false pretences; by sending money to foreign princes without the consent of parliament ; while, by erecting barracks throughout the kingdom, they give us reason to suspect their intention of finally subjecting the people to military1 despot ism.— 491 degree, from the fatigues and the chagrins of a constant attendance in the house of commons. He announced this resolution in a speech he made (May 26, 1797,) on Mr. Grey's motion for a parliamentary reform, which he earnestly recom mended to the adoption of the house. In the conclusion of his speech he observed, that power had been indefatigable and unwearied in its en croachments ; every thing had run in that direc tion through the whole course of the present reign. This was the opinion of sir George Saville, ism. — They assured us that the war was necessary for the preservation of the unity of our empire. But they have so conducted themselves, and are still so conducting themselves in Ireland, as to alienate the affections of that brave, loyal, but oppressed and persecuted nation, and to expose the most flourishing of its provinces to all tho horrors of lawless mili tary violence.- — These are no common errors; they are great crimes, and of these crimes; before God and our country, we accuse your ministers. — They have tarnished the national honour and glory ; they have oppressed the poor with al most intolerabl e burthens ; they have poisoned the intercourse of private life ; they have given a fatal blow to public cre dit ; they have divided the empire, and they have /subverted the constitution." Of 4QZ y£ the marquis of Rockingham, and of all the virtuous men who, in their public life, proved themselves to be the advocates ofthe rights ofthe people. They saw and deplored the tendency of the court ; they saw that there was a determined spirit in the secret advisers of the crown to ad vance its power, and to encourage no administra-. tion that should not bend to that pursuit*. Ac cordingly, through the whole reign, no adminis-i tration who cherished notions of a different kind had heen permitted to lust, and nothing, there fore, or next to nothing, had been gained to the Side ofthe people, but every thing to the crown, in the course of the reign. During the whole period we had no more than three administrations, one for twelve months, one for nine, and one for" three months, that acted upon the popular prin-' ciples of the early part of the century ; nothing, therefore^ had been gained to the people, while the current had steadily run towards the crown. fc I believe,"- said Mr. Fox, " that we are come to the last moment of possible remedy. I believe fthat at the present moment the disaffected are iew -, but if "we go on with our convention-bill . and 4Q3 and acts of exasperation of all kinds, the few will soon become the many, and we shall have to pay a severe retribution for all our present pride. What a noble lord (Hawkesbury) said some time ago of France, may be applicable to this very subject. *' What," said he, " shall we degrade ourselves by going to Paris, and there asking in humble diplomatic language, to be on a good understanding with them ?" Gentlemen will re- ' member these lofty words, and yet We have come to this humiliation ; we have negociated with. France, and I should not be surprised to see the noble lord himself going to . Paris, not indeed at the head of his regiment, but on a diplomatic commission to those very regicides, to pray to be on a good understanding with them *. Shall wes then, be blmd to the lessons which the events of • the world exhibit to our view ? Pride, obstinacy;, and insult, must end in concessions, and those concessions must be humble in proportion to out Unbecoming pride. Now is the moment to pre- * It need scarcely be noticed that this prediction waS afterwards almost literally verified. vent 494 vent all these degradations ; the monarchy, the aristocracy, the people may yet be saved ; it is only necessary, at this moment, to conquer our own passions. Let those ministers, whose evil genius has brought us to our present condition, retire from the posts to which they are unequal. I do not hesitate to declare, that the present ad ministration neither can nor ought to remain in 'place; let them retire from his majesty's councils* and then let us, with an earnest desire of recover ing the country, pursue a moderate scheme of reform, under the auspices of men who are likely to conciliate the opinion of the people. — I do not speak this, sir, from personal ambition. A new administration ought to be formed ; but I have no desire,- no wish, of making a part of any such administration ; and I am sure that such an ar- > rangement is feasible, and that it is capable of being accomplished without me. My first and chief desire is to see this great, end effected; I have no desire to be the person, or one of the persons to do it ; but though my wish is for re tirement, I shall always be ready to give my free and firm support to any administration that shall restore 49» restore to the country its violated rights, and re establish its strength upon the basis of free repre sentation *." Soon * Among other excellent constitutional doctrines laid down in this speech, the question how far representatives ought to be bound by the instructions of their constituents, was most ably argued. Mr. Fdx admitted, that having ta legislate for the empire, representatives ought not to be alto gether guided by instructions that might be dictated by local interests. " But I cannot," said he, "• approve of the un gracious manner in which I sometimes hear expressions of contempt for the opinion of constituents ; they are made with a very bad grace in the first session of a septennial parliament, particularly if they should come from individuals, who in the Concluding session pf a former parliament did not scruple to court the favour of the very same constituents, by declaring that they voted against their conscience in com pliance with their desire, as was the case with an honourable alderman (Curtis) of the city of London. But there is one Class of constituents, whose instructions it is considered as the implicit duty of members to obey. When gentlemen re present populous towns and cities, then it is disputable whe ther they ought to obey the voice of their constituents, or follow the dictates of their own conscience ; but if they represent 496 Soon after Mr. Fox had an audience of the king, and with great magnanimity imparted to his majesty represent a noble lord, or a noble duke, then it becomes no longer a question of doubt ; he is not considered as a man of honour who does not implicitly obey the orders of his single constituent. He is to have no conscience, no liberty, no discretion of his own ; he is sent here by my lord this, or the duke of that, and if he does not obey the instructions he receives, he is not considered as a man of honour. Such is the mode of reasoning'that prevails in this house. Is this fair ? Is there any reciprocity in this conduct ? Is a gen. tleman to be permitted, without dishonour, to act in oppo-' sition to the sentiments ofthe city of London, or ofthe city of Westminster, or fcf Bristol ? But if he dares to disagree Vvith the duke or lord, or baronet, whose representative he is, then he is. to be considered as unfit for the society of.. gentlemen ? — This is the chicane of tyranny and Corruption'! f, and this at the same time is called representation. In a very great degree the county members arehcld in the same state of thraldom. A number of peers possess an overween ing influence in a county, and a gentleman is no longer per mitted to hold his situation than as he acts agreeably to the dictates of those powerful families. — Let -us see how the whole of this stream Of corruption has been diverted from the side of the people to that of the crown ;— with what a constant, 497 majesty his readiness to retire to private life, that he might not be considered as any impediment to a change in his councils : at the same time he informed his constituents, that if his conduct, in with-holding his attention from parliament, was displeasing to them, he was ready at any time to give them an opportunity of choosing another re presentative, by vacating his seat. The good sense pf the electors of Westminster, however, and their steady attachment to Mr. Fox, prevailed over all the artifices which were used at this period to alienate them from him, and never was his popu larity higher. His birth-day, on the 24th of constant, persevering art, every. man who is possessed of in fluence in counties, corporations, or boroughs, that will/ yield to the solicitations of the court, is drawn over to that phalanx which is opposed to the small remnant of populaf election ! I have looked to_ the machinations of the pre sent minister in that way, and I find that including the num ber of additiorfal titles, the right honourable gentleman has made no fewer than one hundred and "fifteen peers, in the course of his administration. How many of these are to be ascribed to national services, and how many to parliamentary interest,- I leave to the house to inquire." vol. ii. K k January 498 January 179B, was celebrated at the Crown and Anchor tavern, upwards oftwo thousand persons, many of. them of the first distinction, , attending to, do honour to the occasion. At this meeting a; circumstance occurred, which in a very particular manner excited the resentment ofthe court. The duke of Norfolk, a nobleman not more esteemed for hjs high rank sind illustrious descent, thjin for his loye of liberty and munificent patronage of the useful arts, who presided on the occasion, gave, among other tRasts commemorative of the principles of the great man whose anniversary ' , they were met to celebrate,, " The majesty ofthe people" This sentiment, however, proved so of fensive at St. James's, that in a few days the duke of Norfolk was dismissed both from the command of his regiment of militia, which he had trained with great assiduity, devoting his whole pay as commanding officer to improve the comforts and appearance of his corps, and likewise from the lord-lieutenancy of one ofthe ridings of Yorkshire. At the next meeting of the whig club, Mr. Fox presided, and having most ably vindicated the duke of Norfolk, repeated the obnoxious toast, For ^99 Bor this assertion of the principles which seated the house of Brunswick on the throne, but which in this unhappy reign have been held in abhor rence, his majesty, by the advice of his ministers, on the 9th of May 1798, ordered the council book to be laid before him, and struck out the name of Mr. Fox from the list 'of privy counsel lors. Whether this proceeding was more dis graceful to the great statesman whom it was meant to affect, or to those puerile statesmen Who advised it, requires no stretch of political sagacity to determine. Mr. Fox's name needed no titles of honour to give it lustre : no titles of bonour, no marks of distinction, could redeem his odious opponents, whose wretched counsels had rendered the present reign an almost perpe tual spectacle of blood and horror, of corrup tion, extortion, disgrace and calamity, from the hatred and just execration of an oppressed and in sulted people- Mr. Fox, though he ceased now regularly to attend parliament, sometimes, in compliance with the wishes of his constituents, attended forthe k k 2 purpose 500 purpose of opposing particular measures which appeared injurious to their interests. In this way he opposed the bill for tripling the assessed taxes, and that for laying a tax uport income; and also/ at the request of those who ,were friends to the '¦ > abplition of the slave trade, he attended in his place, and delivered a most eloquent speech in favour of that measure. Alluding to some ofthe gentlemen who belonged to the society /or the suppression of vice, who were supposed not to be very friendly to the abolition, Mr. Fox ex pressed his astonishment how they could hold forth an uncommon austerity of manners, in tri fling and insignificant circumstances,' and at the same time neglect humanity and benevolence^ the true vital spirit of Christianity. — Was there a man in that house who could" seriously and gravely think that he could serve his country by voting* for a continuance of the slave trade, and that he could shew his piety to the world, by taking eare not to be at the opera after twelve o'clock on Saturday night, or to be seen travelling on Sun days? ¦'; When 501 When the present head of the French govern ment announced his accession to the chief con- ' sulship, and, in his celebrated letter to the king, expressed his strong desire that a negociation should be opened, Mr. Fox, considering it as a " new era in the war, again attended in the house of commons, and most earnestly entreated the minis-- ter not to "slight the pacific disposition of the enemy ; nor at the end of seven years ofthe most calamitous contest ever known, again amuse the house with notions of finance, and calculations of the exhausted resources of the enemy, as a ground of confidence. After having gone on from year to year with such assurances, could we still be deluded with the hope, he asked, that we had the same prospect .of success on the same identical ground ? And without any other security, were we to be invited to carry it on, at this era of the war, upon principles which, if adopted, would make it eternal. Mr. Fox lamented, with every genuine friend of peace, the harsh and unaccommodating language which ministers had used in their reply to the K k-3 pacific 50% pacific communication of the French government. Such -conduct had ever, been reprobated by di plomatic men of ability and candour. — After prov- ' ing that the French had not been so blameable in the commencement of the war as ministers were desirous to shew, Mr. Fox next proceeded to consider that part of their arguments which repre sented the war — such was the hypocrisy or fanati cism of this detestable administration— as areli- gious war. If he understood, he said, the true precepts of the christian religion, as set forth in the New Testament, there was no rule or doc trine whatever by which we' could be justified in waging a war for, religion ; the idea was subversive of the very foundation upon which it stood—; ''peace and good- will amongst men." Yet this sacred name had been too often grossly used as the pretext for the most unprincipled wars. The conduct ofthe French, he admitted, was not jus tifiable towards foreign nations ; but ministers,; in their eagerness to throw odium upon them, had made an indiscriminate catalogue of the nations they had offended without investigating the sources of their several quarrels, or enquiring into 503 into the provocations they had received. How ever culpable the French might have been, was this a moment to dwell upon their enormities, or to waste our time and inflame our, passions by criminating' or recriminating upon each other ? — If this war of reproach and invective, said Mr. Fox, was to be countenanced, might not the French complain, with equal reason, of the out rages and horrors committed by the powers op posed to them ? And if we were not to treat with the republic on account of the iniquity of their former transactions, ought we to connect ourselves with other nations equally criminal ? If it Was necessary to be thus rigid in scrutinizing the conduct of an enemy, ought we not to be equally careful in committing ourselyes to an ally who had manifested the same want of respect for the rights of other nations ? If it was material to know the character of an enemy with whom we were to treat for peace, surely it was more ma terial to know that of allies whom we were to pay for assistance, and with whom we were to enter into the closest bond of friendship. What /had been the conduct of these allies to Poland ? Was k k 4 there 5C4 there a single atrocity of the French in Italy, in Switzerland; in Egypt, more inhuman than that ' of Austria, Prussia, and Russia towards Poland ? What had there ever beeh worse in their violation of solemn treaties, in the plunder and devastation of unoffending countries, in the horrors and mas sacres perpetrated upon the subdued victims of their rage in any district they had over-run ? What could have been worse than the conduct of these three great powers in the' miserable and devoted kingdom of Poland ? Yet these all were or had been our allies in this war for religion, social order, and the rights of nations ! But, it might be said, we regretted the partition — Yes ! and united ourselves to the actors ; in fact, by acquiescence confirmed , their atrocities ! — But^ then, said Mr. Fox, they were our allies ;, and though they divided Poland, there was nothing perhaps in the manner oi doing this which stamp ed it with peculiar infamy. The hero of Poland (general Suwarrow) might be merciful and mild, as much superior, as it was said, to Bonaparte in bravery, and in the discipline which -be main tained, a in virtue and humanity. He was ani- 1 x mated 605 mated too, it was said, by the purest principles of Christianity, and restrained in his career by the benevolent precepts which it inculcates. Let un fortunate Warsaw and the miserable inhabitants of Piaga speak ! What were the deeds of this magnanimous hero with whom Bonaparte is not to be compared ? He entered Praga, the most populous suburb of Warsaw, and there let his , soldiery loose on the unarmed and unresisting people : men, women, ahd children, nay even in-/ fants at the breast, were doomed to one indis criminate massacre. And why ? because they dared to join in a wish to meliorate their condi tion as a people, and to improve their constitu tion) which had been confessed by their Own sove* reign to be in want of amendment. Such was the hero upon whom the cause of religion and social order was to depend ; whom we were to praise for his discipline and virtue, and to hold out as our boast and dependence, whilst the conduct of , Bonaparte was represented to unfit him to be treated with even as an enemy*. Are^ c * Tp those who cannot see> in passing events, the Pro vidence 506 Are we forever to deprive ourselves of the benefits of peace, continued Mr. Fox, because France has perpetrated acts of injustice ? With the knowledge of these acts of injustice we had already treated with them twice, and yet the minister refused to enter into a negociation now. But he then treated with them, he said, " because the unequivocal sense of the people of England was declared in favour of peace." The majority in parliament spoke a different language. Was vidence of God in the moral governance of the world, the punishment which Austria and Prussia has lately undergone; and the humiliation of Russia, will afford no instruction : but, for my own part, I am not ashamed to confess what I feel — that I perceive in the recent events in Poland the manifest interposition of Divine Providence, for the chastise ment of injustice, treachery, and "cruelty. What, at the time Mr. Fox's speech was delivered, (January 28th, 1800,) could scarcely be supposed within the verge of probability, has occurred. The victorious chief ofthe French nation, . like Suwarrow, has entered Warsaw as a conqueror. Let the inhabitants of that city decide upon the humanity of the two commanders ! If any of the inhabitants of Ismael sur vive the sword, let them, in the name of justice, be con fronted with the burghers qf Vienna and Berlin !" it 507 it then acknowledged that the unequivocal sense ofthe people might be spoken by the minority, and that it was not by the test of numbers that an honest decision was to be ascertained ? The house of com mons decided against what the minis- ter knew to be the sense of the country ; but he himself acted upon that sense against the vote of parliament. The negociation went off (as we were informed) upon the question of Belgium ; but he now asserted it was because the French advanced principles incompatible with all nego ciation. Why did he not acquaint the people of England that this was the reason ? Why, on the contrary, did he publish a manifesto, imme diately on the rupture, declaring, " that when- ever the enemy should be disposed to pacification, nothing snould be wanting on our part to the ac complishment of this desirable object ?" — The house, Mr. Fox said, were called upon that night to support the ministers in rejecting a frank, candid, and respectful offer of negociation, and to countenance the continuance ofthe war. But if, instead of this question, they had been asked to address his majesty with thanks for accepting the overture 508 overture for opening a negociation, would not the gentlemen on the opposite side have voted as eer- dially for such an address ? He appealed to their consciences whether they would not have upheld an address directly the reverse. Alas ! how was the character of that house of commons degraded, which, after supporting the minister in his negd- ciatibn of 1 7 96 and 1797, and in his solid system qf finance, would again vote with him, notwith standing, their inward convictipn that he was wrong, in the same measures, or bring themselves to join him in any measures, however opposite to the former ? But Bonaparte, it was said, had declared to the directory that the two govern ments of Great Britain and, France could not exist together. Had not Mr. Pitt declared the . same thing in that house? If we were to brings up all the idle speeches of the French, and. they were to repeat ours, there would be no end to these reciprocations of animosity ; and we might proceed for ever in shedding blood about words. Our own history was replete with instances of the ill consequences of despising proffered occa sions to make peace. At Ryswick we accepted ' the 509 the terms we had refused five years before ; and the same peace which was concluded at Utrecht might have been obtained at Gertruydenburg. The peace of 1763 was not accompanied with securities, and it was no sooner made, than the French, as usual, began with" their intrigues. What security did the right honourable gentle man himself exact in 1783 ? It was well known that soon after they formed a plan, in conjunction with the Dutch, to attack our Indian possessions, exciting the natives against us, and driving us out, as they were desirous of doing now ; only with „this difference, that the then cabinet of France entered into the project in a moment of profound, . peace, and when they imagined us to be lulled in perfect security. — It was the interest of France tc make peace ; if it continued her interest, said Mr. Fox, 'she would keep it ; and if not, break it again. Such was the state of nations, and the only security on our part was vigilanqe. Adverting next to the arguments which had been advanced to shew the probability that the . power of Bonaparte . might be of no long dura tion, 310 tion, Mr. Fox observed that much had been said' of the short-lived nature of military despotism ; yet such was the government erected by Augustus, Caesar, which endured for six or seven hundred years. Indeed it was too likely, where^-ever it was. established, to he durable ; nor was it true that it depended upon the life of the first usurper. ' Half the Roman emperors were murdered, yet the tyranny continued. What difference would it make in the quality ofthe military establishment. of France, or in our relation to that country, if Bonaparte were removed ? That the house should express such abhorrence of, this frame of govern ment was somewhat singular, when it had so re cently affirmed it to be the system peculiarly suited to the exercise of free opinion, and which had been so happily established over Ireland, The persons and the property of that people were left in many districts to the entire will of military commanders ; and this was held out as advantageous to the Irish, at the time when they were to discuss,, with unbiassed judgments, the most interesting question of a legislative union. Notwithstanding the existence of martial law, so far 511 far from thinking Ireland enslaved by it, we had pronounced it the best period, and the most favourable circumstance, under which she could ¦ declare her opinion. Those who spoke thus of . military despotism in Ireland, had little reason to rail at it in France. The minister thought that the change of property in .France would not form an insurmountable barrier to the return of the ancient proprietors, property being so much de preciated that the purchasers would easily be brought to restore the estates. But surely this was improbable : it was the character of every such, convulsion as that which had ravaged France, that an indescribable load of misery was inflicted on private families, and the heart sickened at the recital of their sorrows. Revolutions did not im ply, though they might occasion, a total alteration of property ; but the re-establishment of the Bour bons did imply it— ahd this vvas the great differ> ence. If the noble families of France had foreseen the duration and extent ofthe evils which were to fall upon, their heads, there is no. doubt but they would have taken a very different line of conduct. But unfortunately they fled their country* the king 512 king and his advisers sought foreign aid ; a con federacy was formed to restore them by military force ; and as means of resisting this combina tion, the estates of the fugitives were confiscated and sold. However compassion might deplore the case, it was not a thing unprecedented ; the people had always resorted to such means of de fence. Now the point was, how was this pro perty to be got out of their hands ? The pur chasers of national and forfeited estates were said to amount to 1 5,000,000 persons : what possible hope could there be of compelling so large a number to deliver up their property ? — Louis the XVIIIth, said Mr. Fox, published a manifesto at Mittau, assuring 'his friends that he was about to come back with all the- powers that formerly be- longed to his family. He did not promise them a constitution which might conciliate their minds ; but stated his intention of restoring the ancient Tegime, to which they naturally attached a bastille, lettres de cachet, gabelle, &c. &c. The noblesse, for whom this proclamation was made, would na turally expect, if the monarch was to be restored to his privileges, that they were to be reinstated in 513 in their estates, without any compensation to those they considered as usurpers. Was this likely to induce the people to wish for the restoration of monarchy ? There might be a number of Chou- ans in France, and others/ dispersed in certain provinces in France, who retained an attachment to royalty ; but if Bonaparte should attempt some similar arrangement to that of Henry IV, when be quelled the insurrection of the Hugonots, ahd conciliated that party by granting them impor tant privileges, and raising them to high posts in the government — should Bonaparte, continued Mr. Fox, pursue this conduct, who dare pretend to say, he would not succeed ? The French would not be likely to forget the revocation of the edict of Nantes, one of the memorable acts ofthe house ofBoUrbon;— an act never surpassed in impolicy, in injustice and atrocity 4 by any thing which had • disgraced jacobinism . A successful campaign led us to cherish the hope of now placing this most worthy family upon the throne ; but this was not the first campaign, he reminded the house, which had been success- VOL. II. Ia x. ftilj 514 fui, and yet our endeavours were unaccomplished. The situation 'of the allies, with all they had ob tained, was not comparable at this time to what it was when we had taken Valenciennes, Queshoy$ ' '' and Conde : we had now only recovered a part of what we had lost. One campaign was successful to us, another to the French ; and thus, animated by the passions of revenge,, hatred, and rancour, we might proceed from year to year, prolonging human misery ; and all this upon speculation. We are told, we must keep Bonaparte some time longer at war, as a state of probation. We must pause till the bowels of Great Britain be torn out, her best blood spilt, her treasures wasted, till we " had fully made the experiment ! " Oh !" ex claimed the indignant orator, " that ministers would- place themselves in the field of battle, and there learn to judge of the horrors which they prolonged." — Was this the system calculated to establish justice, to restore humanity, to endear religiou ? May the Supreme Being deliver us from it ! and enlighten our understandings, that we may no longer consider war as the natural state of man, and peace as a dangerous extremity ! Mr.- 515 Mr. Fox concluded a most brilliant and master ly speech with observing that the people of Eng land were friends to peace, although by the laws lately made to restrain the expression of their wish, public opinion could not be heard as here tofore. It was afflicting, he said, to see the strides of arbitrary power, whereby liberty of every kind, both of speech and writing, "was abridged, and to observe in Ireland the rapid approaches to that military despotism, which was now made an ;„argument against peace with France. — But, how ever irresistible the arguments of Mr. Fox, on a division of the house, they were found to have - made but little impression on that body, 260- members supporting the war-breathing address of the minister, against 64 who had the honesty and boldness to recommend peace. After this ineffectual attempt to impress the house of commons with his own wise, moderate, and pacific sentiments, finding the current of ministerial influence, in spite of all the experience of their imbecility and folly, too strong to be successfully combated, Mr. Fox again retired to l l 2 the 516 the enjoyment of private life, and did not return to parliament till after Mr. Pitt's dismission from office, and the appointment of Mr. Addington to fill his place, in the beginning of the year 1801. He attended, on the 25th of March, to support a motion made by Mr. Grey, for an enquiry into the state of the nation, and condemned in severe terms the treacherous conduct of the late minister in relation to the catholics of Ireland. The ca tholics had been told, he said, that the union Would favour their claims ; but what had been the right honourable gentleman's conduct ? If resistance made in another quarter to these claims had induced him to resign, could he not as a private member have brought forward a motion in the house which he could not while in the ca binet ? It was surely a reflexion upon parliament to say, as he had said, that he could not there propose a measure which he approved. For his own part, he must repeat that he strenuously; believed in the original rights of man : he be lieved that all legitimate governments were found ed not only in fact, but in consequence, upon principles of liberty ; and that no government was adequate 517 adequate to its true end which did not recognize them. Catholics had rights as well as protestants, and no man should be deprived of his rights be cause he worshipped God according to the dictates of his own conscience. Mr. Fox then proceeded to consider the state of Ireland, and reprobated the introduction of martial law into that kingdom. The mass of a people, he said, could never be dis affected without great blame being due to the government. Conduct which had produced such havoc, conflagration, and horror of every des cription, as that in Ireland, was the criminal cause of it. The recall of earl Fitzwilliam had been attended with the most fatal consequences ; for then it , was that the rebels began their corres pondence with France, despairing of any mild conciliatory government at home. He represent ed the state of our relations with foreign powers, the decay, of our manufactures, and the miseries of our labourers, many of whom were unable to supply themselves with the necessaries of life, as all loudly calling for enquiry. With regard to the change of administration, he hoped it would prove a fortunate occurrence ; but if the new l l 3 ministers, 518 ministers, as some apprehended, were only pup* pets directed by those who had quitted their sta-* tions ; and if they adopted the system of their predecessors, with the additional blame of being hostile to the catholic claims— acting in this point from their own motives— rthey would be unworthy confidence *. In * The untimely and lamented death of the duke of Bed. $)rd, who had long lived in habits of the greatest attachment and cordiality with Mr. Fox, and uniformly supported the principles of that illustrious statesman, both in the house of peers and elsewhere, occasioned him, on the 16th of March 1S03, to deliver one of the most beautiful and pathetic ora tions to the memory of his departed friend, that is to be found in the compass of the English or any other language. Fortunately for the world, this speech, so worthy of the heart and understanding of him by whom it was delivered, so worthy of the exalted and patriotic nobleman to whom it was applied, has been transmitted to us by Mr. Fox himself, and is, it is believed, the only one of his speeches that he ever took the trouble of preparing for the press. It is as follows ; < troops have acquired immortal honour, but we should have gained Egypt without the waste of blood and treasure. At that time the instability of 538 of the French government was argued as a reason for refusing to negociate ; but neither' its stability nor its instability were of any real consequence, none of the convulsions and changes of the French revolution having produced any material difference in her relations with foreign powers, — We were then told by ministers to pause, and we did pause from January 1800 to October 1801, and since our insolent reply to the overture of the first consul, had added 73 millions to bur national debt. This pause cost five times as much as all the duke of Marlborough's campaigns. The experience of the first coalition, Mr. Fox said, should have deterred Mr. Pitt from attempt ing any other ; and as to the principles and power of France, whieh were represented as so dreadful, he confessed he had little apprehension of the principles, .ofthe power much. He was sensible, and he lamented as much as any man, the weight and preponderance which France had acquired on the continent ; but this was an effect, not of the peace, but ofthe war; and the right honourable gentleman had proved himself the greatest curse of 539 of his country by his inveterate hostility, which produced nothing else than the aggrandizement of France. How did we come to our present situation, said Mr. Fox, but by maintaining a war upon grounds originally unjust ? This it was that had excited on the part of the enemy a spirit of proud independence, that had inspired them with resistless vigour, and with a zeal and patriotism which no opposition could check, and no attack could subdue. With respect to the future, Mr. Fox thought the interest of the country would be best consulted by moderate establishments ; and that it was by commercial pursuits we should endeavour to com pensate for the aggrandizement of our ancient rival. He was not sanguine enough, he said, to Calculate on seven years of peace, but he hoped the new state of affairs in France would turn the disposition of her people to a mind less hostile to England.— -The trade of France, it had been said with truth, had been nearly annihilated ; but the accounts from the interior of that country did not represent her in so deplorable a state as some gen tlemen 540 tlemen were willing to suppose ; and it was not to be overlooked- that the revolution had removed many of those internal grievances, under which she had groaned during the old government. It had -abolished the corvees, a most vexatious tax ; the feudalities, the odious and unjust immunities of the rich from the payment of taxes, and the privileges of the nobility, by which he did not mean those privileges which placed them as a barrier between the crown and the people, but those which enabled them to oppress and tyran nize over the lower orders of their fellow crea tures. In a word, Mr. Fox thought that France had made those reforms which we had done two centuries ago.— Mr. Fox concluded his' speech with some observations on the situation of Ireland, and expressed his ardent wishes that the blessings of the constitution might be restored to that un happy country. On the dissolution of parliament towards the end of June 1802, it was the wish of Mr. Fox to have retired from public life, but the zeal and im portunity of his friends prevailed on him not to withdraw 541 withdraw his vast talents from the service of the nation ; and he published the following forcible address to the electors of Westminster, severely characteristic of the political degeneracy and un blushing subserviency ofthe late house of com mons. " To the Independent Electors of the City of Westminster. " Gentlemen, "Having for some years utterly despaired of rendering any useful service to you or the coun try, by a regular attendance in the house of com mons, I should not have presumed, upon the present occasion, to offer myself to represent you in parliament, if I were not informed by many respectable persons among you, that by so doing I shall best consult the peace and independence of constituents to whom I am under greater obli gations than any other man ever owed to persons in a similar relation. "In 542 " In consequence of this information, and in compliance with the desire with which it was ac companied, I once more offer myself as a candidate for your favour, and request the honour of your votes and support at the ensuing election. " At the same time it is fair to state that I see not the smallest reason to expect that the character ofthe next parliament will be at all different from the last, and that if I find myself in like circum stances, my conduct will be the same. "_ To expatiate upon those measures of the, late house of commons, which have fixed in me ao ill an opinion of public affairs, or even to point them out one by one, would far exceed the necessary limits of an address of this nature ; suffice it to say, that according to the judgment which I form ed of that assembly,1 the principles of national policy, liberty, humanity, and justice were to them as nothing — the will and pleasure of the crown every thing. No tax, however unjust in its prin ciple, or tyrannical in its execution, did they ever refuse. No enquiry, however disastrous or dis graceful 543 graceful the occasion, did they ever institute. No proposed suspension or surrender of the liber ty of the subject seemed to cause among them the slightest hesitation ; and if it happened that, in consequence of such measures, the liberty, character, and means of livelihood of individuals were sacrificed to the alledged exigencies of go- vernmertt, not compensation to the sufferers, but indemnity to those who inflicted the suffering, was the first object of their concern. Private misery excited no compassion ; torture itself rais ed no indignation. ' * " That our general situation is much improved by the peace, I was among the first to admit ; and the disposition manifested by the first consul and government of France> to preserve the good un derstanding between the two nations, a disposition which, I own, appears to be met by a correspon dent desire on the part of our present ministers, has every day more confirmed me in my opinion. But it is not to the late parliament that we are, in any degree, indebted for that blessing. If the king's servants had peremptorily refused that very peace 544 peace which has spread such universal joy-through every part of the country — if they had rejected those very terms which have been approved by a majority almost unexampled (on such an occasion) in the annals of parliament, is it a calumny upon the late house of commons to say, that the con duct ofthe ministry would, in that case, have been equally sanctioned by their decided approbation. " When, therefore, my motives are considered, I trust that even such among you as may have disapproved of my abstaining from a regular at tendance in parliament will not very severely con demn me ; and, if I feel any anxiety for your suf- frages\ipon the present occasion, it is not for the sake of sitting in parliament, but as a proof that the city of Westminster Continues to me that. kindness and esteem which it has been the object of my life to deserve, and my happiness so long to have enjoyed. " I am, gentlemen, your most obliged and " Obedient humble servant, " CHARLES JAMES FOX." " Si. Anne's Hill, July 1, 1802. 545 A slight contest ensued at the election, owing to the folly or presumption of an obscure indivi dual of the name of Graham, who, without pre tensions of any sort,- thought proper to declare himself a candidate. In a few days, however, his cause appearing hopeless, he had the discretion to decline the contest, and Mr. Fox and the court candidate were declared duly elected. The numbers who voted for this election were Mr. Fox 2673 Lord Gardner 2434 Mr. Graham 16gi Soon after this period Mr. Fox set out on a tour to Paris. In the course of his journey through the interior of France, he was received every where with the profound respect so emi nently due to his talents and his virtues ; and on his presentation to the first consul, that person twice addressed him in terms the most flattering and engaging. If the news-paper reports of what passed at the first interview between these two wonderful men, the one the greatest military leader that the world ever saw, the other un vote n. n ?j equalled 546 equalled for his political attainments and elo quence, and endowed with all the virtues of the heart, be correct, the first consul accosted bim with saying, " There are in the World but two nations ; the One inhabits the east, the other the west. The English,1 French, Germans, Italians, &c , under the same civil code, having the same manners, 'the same habits, and almost the same ' religion, are all members of the same family ; aha the men who Wish to light up again the flames of war among them, wish for civil war. Those prin ciples, sir, Were developed 'in your speeches, with an energy that does as much honour to your head as to your heart." From the same authorities it appears that Mr. Fox dined with the first consul on the samC day, and held a long and interesting conversation with him on the subject of the free dom of the British press, which Mr. Fox defend ed with his usual candour ail d spirit, and main tained the necessity of its continuance as long as England continued a free nation. The chief object of Mr. Fox's journey to'Paris was to consult the .public' archives for materials towards 547 towards a history of the revolution of 1688, the composition of .which amused his leisure hours in his retiretn,ent froin parhamentary business. The French government afforded every facility to his researches, and Mr. Fox, in a letter addressed to the editor of the Monthly Magazine, (Match I8Q4,) mentions, .that in the archives of the se cretary of state's office, Barillqn's and d'Avaux's correspondence afforded hirn much very useful and curious matter : but th^t the Stuart .papqrs, formerly belonging to the §cQt;ch college, were irrecoverably lost, — What progress Mr. Fox had made in his projected history, at the time of his decease, I have not the means of determining, but, I fear, from the nature qf the ,\vork, and,the,varjety of .evidence tto be examined, and qf authorities to he collated, that much progress could not have .been made in it. — It is a matter, however, qf " jmuch satisfaction to reflect, that his papers, in whatever state they may be, are in the hands of a ,poble person in every way qualified to, do justice , to the memory of his illustrious relative ; and I indulge the hope, which must be cpmmpn to every friend of freedom, that some interesting n n 2 remains, 548 remains, be they only fragments, of the pen of so distinguished an advocate and lover of freedom, rriay yet be made public for our advantage and that of posterity. Mr. Fox returned to England to attend the opening of parliament in November 1803, The speech from the throne declared, that his majesty Was actuated by a sincere disposition for the main tenance of peace, but various circumstances indi cated that his majesty's servants were 'by no . means actuated by a disposition as sincere. The press, under their immediate influence, groaned with invectives against the French government, and the minor orators of their party, in both houses' of parliament, lost no opportunity of vili fying the character of the chief of the French nation. Instead of endeavouring to allay national animosities, these orators and writers .laboured ' incessantly to kindle anew the flames of national resentment ; and fhe ministers of the crown, if they did not secretly encourage; at least connived at this war bf newspapers and vapid declamation. Mr, 54Q Mr. Fox, in his speech at the opening of the session, took a most luminous view of the state pf European politics, and in the strongest terms deprecated the renewal of hostilities. The con tinuance of peace, he said, was infinitely desirable: he felt its importance, in the strongest manner. But adverse as he was to the renewal of hostilities, he did not mean to assert that no circumstances might have followed the peace, which might jus tify ministers. in refusing to comply with its provi sions. He would avow an opinion for which he had not unfrequently been exposed to ridicule, that he considered the preservation of national honour to be almost the only legitimate cause of war. This doctrine he held on the plain prin ciple, that honour is directly and inseparably con nected with self-defence. If it could be proyed to him that the national honour had been insult ed, or the national dignity disgraced, this would be a fair and legitimate cause of recommencing hostilities. — In the circumstances of Europe, he saw no ground of war as far as this country was concerned. It was his conviction that there was on the part of the French government, and of n N 3 the 556 the French peopfe, a stforig desire to restore their commerce to new activity,, arid their manu factures to new life ; and this, he believed, was the field in which, if any contest was id be car ried on betwixt the two countries, they wished the dispute to be conducted. Mr. Fox said, he lamented as much as any man could do the im mense aggrandizements of France ; but repeated his former assertion, that " France had beeh . made great by the war, and not by" the peace." A good deal had been said about the disposition of the people in this country being in favour of a renewal ofthe war. But this arose, he affirmed', froin the coalition of some newspapers, which affected to hold out this as the real disposition of ' the people. They might wish to gratify spleen, or to increase their circulation by contriving some thing to excite the curiosity of their readers ; but if the publishers of newspapers were to be the means of plunging the .nation again into a de structive contest, it would be the most base and ignoble cause in which a people were ever en gaged. But we were also told, that a most consi derable body in this country, the commercialin- terest, 551 terest, were strongly actuated with a desire that the war should be renewed. To this representa tion he was not disposed to give his assent. If, however, the fact were as represented, if human beings were to perish to gratify any passion of our nature* he would rather that their blood should flow to gratify a romantic passion like that of Alexander, than to fill the coffers of a cpld cal culating body of unfeeling merchants. — When there is not a single power ready to second our efforts, let us not, said Mr. Fox, by a rash step r forfeit those blessings which are indispensably and eternally connected with a state of peace. — He did not say he was for peace on any terms, or pur chased by any submissions ; but he recommenced peace as most consonant to the true honour and to the true interests of the nation. In another of his speeches at this eventful crisis, Mr. Fox recommended the avoidance of those unmanly and illiberal libels, which both in and out of parliament were too frequently levelled at the French government. He declined sup- pprting expensive establishments, because he was N N 4 of 552 of opinion paying off fifty millions of the national debt would strike more terror into our enemies than to maintain fifty thousand seamen. A few years 6f peace and moderate establishment would enable us to throw off a considerable part of that debt, which in war was called the best ally of France ; While peace would equally tend to fortify us in Ireland, a point where it was evident We now were vulnerable. He remarked that the strength of England and France were different ; their offensive and defensive systems were dif ferent. The credit of this country was the main spring of its greatness and of its wealth. In England, the destruction of credit, though it might not be, attended, with the loss of the inde pendence ofthe country, — for we might still pos sess men and arms, — yet would spread infinite misery over the land. He was, therefore, pf opin ion, that we should above all things ward our finances and credit from danger, and that this was only io be- done by wise and provident eco nomy. On the rupture with France, Mr. Fox blamed the 553 the conduct of ministers in the course of the ne gociation, which, he was of opinion, might have been brought to a favourable issue, had they acted with temperance and discretion. Before he could be convinced that the war was necessary, he must be convinced, he said, that it was just, and this he was unable to discover in the documents laid before the house. After predicting, what we have seen so dreadfully fulfilled, the slight prospect of the powers of the continent coalescing success fully against France, or operating as a diversion in our favour, Mr. Fox gave notice of his intention to bring forward a motion for an address to the king, beseeching his majesty to employ the me diation of the emperor of Russia for the purpose of putting an. amicable termination to the contest as speedily as possible. Accordingly, on the 27th of May, a few days after hostilities had actually commenced, he made a motion to that effect, and in a most energetic and masterly speech pointed out the numerous advantages which must attend such a negociation, No reply was attempted to be made to Mr. Fox's arguments, but the motion was withdrawn, on the ground that it was calcu lated 554 lated to unhinge the public mind ; at the same time ministers expressed an earnest desire to eultjU vate the friendship of Russia. Soon after the renewal of hostilities, the po^* tical incapacity of Mr. Addington and his colt leagues became so apparent, that just apprehef^ sions were entertained that the enemy, through the imbecility of his majesty's advisers, might be able to carry his plan of invasion into effect ; and therefore, as a measure of safety, it appeared necessary for Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt to unite the strength of their several parties to procure thp removal of a weak and inefficient administration. Accordingly, in the ensuing session of parliament Mr. Pitt supported Mr. Fox's motion for a coffin mittee to consider of the defence of the nation, and Mr. Fox supported Mr. Pitt's motion for 'an enquiry into the naval means of defence that had been adopted. It was now thought that Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox must necessarily, come into power together ; and the nation at large, which had sp long seen these. two great men opposed to each other as rivals, hailed with joy the prospect of seeing 555 seeing their enmities forgotten, and their talents united, for the preservation of the state. But tbe insidious politics and selfish ambition of Mr. Pitt prevented the hopes and the wishes of^ the people from being realized. When Mr. Addington had been Compelled to resign, by the efforts of Mr.' Fox attd himself, instead of insisting, as the more noble-minded and spirited part of his former col leagues, lord Grenville, earl Spencer, Mr. Wind ham, &C. did, on the admission of Mr. Fox to a share of power, as the sine qua non- on which alone they would undertake the responsibility of goVeftifnent, he, in an ill-fated moment, was again advanced to the head of affairs, and this country, Once more, unhappily found itself under the guid ance of a minister whose political career - was covered with disgrace, and whose name can scarce ly ever be mentioned but with execration. But Mr. Fox was consoled for the duplicity of the minister by the firmness of his new allies, the. Grenville patty, who resolutely refused to come into power without Mr. Fox's co-operation ; and it must likewise have been a gratification to him, at 556 at this time, to have been united once more in sentiment and confidence with some of those, old friends whom the French revolution had separated from him, among whom was Mr. Windham, who now cordially and powerfully supported most of the opinions of his ancient leader. Sensible of the dangers to which his country was exposed, and animated with an earnest desire, if possible, to avert the ruin that menaced her, Mr. Fox watched the proceedings , of ministers with a vi gilant eye, and notwithstanding the love of retire ment he had so frequently expressed, determined to scrutinize their conduct minutely. In the ses- . sion of 1 805 he was particularly active, and it must be confessed that the events of that session were of a nature well calculated to draw forth. the great powers of his mind; In the discussions on the policy of a war with Spain, he strongly reprobated the insidious in structions sent out to Mr, Frere to prolong, the negociation, at the very time when orders were given to our naval officers to stop the ships of that power. To what purpose, said he, instruct Mr. Frere 557 Frere to negociate on the footing of tranquillity, still existing ? To what purpose labour to prolong a peace,, when war was actually begun ? It was like saying, when a man had been already hanged, let him have a fair trial to see whether there was reason to hang him or not. Indeed there was something in the transaction that equalled in bad faith any of the most perfidious acts of the, worst governments in any age. , What instance, unre- probated and uncondemned by history, could be found to justify it ? Suppose that discussions. existed between any governments ; that a public minister was directed to negociate for the removal of any obstacle that might disturb the existing tranquillity : suppose that vvith much address he had prevailed on the pride of the other govern ment to submit to concessions, that he had brought them to a temper of conciliation ; a post , arrives from his court, and those with whom he had negociated, then imagining that they were to reap the fruit of their concessions, instead of the confirmation of peace, find it announced that acts of open hostility had been committed while negociations were going on upon the footing of actual 5.18 actual tranquillity. What must be the feelings .of such a government ? What wouldbe thought of any public minister who could ,bend himself fo such a scene of fraud and duplicity ? Was it possible that any person in the rank of a gentle man could descend to play so unworthy a part ? Yet what was the fact ? Had not the Spanish frigates been captured, and was npt Mr. Frere instructed to negociate as on -the footing of w- -interrupted peace, and to bring matters to an arragement, keeping altogether out of .view Abe hostilities committed ? He had no doubt, there- Ifore/'Aat ;Mr. Frere must have been imposed oipon when employed to carry on a negocia.tio.fl, ^concealing from Spain so important a fact as the ¦capture of her frigates; by an act of open hostility. Wihaticould have ibeen the avail .of any,arrange- ment while that fact was, unknown ? Was it.not in litself nugatory, and to, the Spaniards most. in sulting, to negociate with . them, concealing ;so important a circumstance ? Was there any, good .precedent for such a , proceeding ? Jf.it was a measure of war that > the ; Spanish frigates were captured, it was in puEsuance , of a .system of policy 5bg policy altogether irreconcileable lo good faith. If it was as precaution, it was not a measure that partook of the nature of precaution, 'because mea sures of precaution were directed only against particular dangers ; but the danger from - the Spanish. treasures, or Spanish power.,, were dangers not existing at particular movements merely, but dangers of that sort that were to be removed, not by precaution merely, but by war. — With respect to the necessity of a declaration of war, he said, 'that though wars had commenced -without de claration, yet, the best authorities stated it to be most eligible' to declare war first ; and there was an instance at the commencement of that glori ous -war which began in 1702, that' the govern ment then, by a public proclamation in the '-Gazette, ordered all ships seized and detained, "previous to the declaration of war, to be released, as was stated in the proclamation " in pursuance of the laws of nations." In reply to what had fallen from the ministerial speakers, that the conduct of opposition would have a tendency to damp the courage and zeal of the s6o the public, by, censuring the measures of govern ment, or arraigning the justice of the war, Mr. Fox asked, what could tend more to damp the national spirit, or to make the people question the resolves of parliament, than a supposition that they did not speak or vote as they really thought^ . but were influenced by fears of making unfavour* able impressions on the public mind. As, howr ever, both in public and in private life, sincerity was the source of confidence, and in order - tp convince men of one's sincerity it was necessary tp be sincere, he conceived it his duty to declare his real sentiments, and to lay before his majesty his real opinions. Thinking the conduct of ad ministration culpable both in the conduct ofthe negociation, and in the war with Spain, he. saw no reason why he should not, by his- speech and by his vote, express those sentiments, and there fore he gave his hearty assent to the amendment proposed by Mr. Grey. Mr. Fox took an animated part in the discus sions, unhappily so unavailing, to bring the delin quencies of lord Melville to punishment. In an admirable 561 admirable speech on Mr. Whitbread's motion (April 8, 1805) for a series of resolutions crimin ating the conduct of lord Melville; it was pre tended, Mr. Fox said,, that no loss had accrued to the public from the malversation of the noble delinquent ; and a very singular argument was ad vanced, that as there was no loss, there was no risk. " Now," said Mr. Fox, " it happened in v certain parts of my life, which I do not quote to recommend my example to others, that I was in the' habit of engaging in certain speculations which are commonly called gaming. If a man should in that kind of speculation win a large sum of money, I am sure that an argument would not thence arise that he had made no risk. I rather think that the inference would be that his risk was considerable. Probably, however, in this case, lord Melville did take care that his -agent should not lose any money. Trotter was the confidential agent of lord Melville, and lord Mel ville the confidential agent ofthe state; therefore, in this sort of speculation in which Trotter en gaged, lord Melville could guard against much risk. If two men play cards together, and a vol. n. ° 9 ^hird 562 third person, stands behind one of them, and throws, out hints to the other, he that receives thehints is tolerably sure of Winning. Just so in this business : lord Melville knew when navy bills were likely to he founded, and Trotter might act upon his information." In another part of his speech Mr. Fox Was par ticularly severe upon the ansWers made by lord Melville to the board of naval enquiry, from whose report the. subsequent proceedings origin-. ated. He could not, he said; enter into the par ticulars of the report without disgust. It dis gusted him to think that a man with whom lie had any connection, although that connection was even of a hostile nature — that a man belong ing to; spch a class in society — that any man of rank would, upon being asked a question, refiise to 'answer, " lest he should criminate hirhself" 'He would appeal to any man who had a spark of honour in his' bosom, whether he would not sooner have submitted to any punishment than have re turned such an answer. > The rioble lord had stated in his attempt at defence, rfehat 'he had not authorized 503 authorised Trotter to apply any of the public money for his benefit or advantage " lo the best of his .recollection!" " Now," said Mr. Fox, " my objection to this is, that the noble lord should have occasion to mention his recollection at all. There are some cases where a man may be , allowed to speak as1 to his recollection, while in Others, to mention it is to betray him. If a man was asked whether he was on a particular night in a room with a John-a-Noakes, it might be very well to answer, that to the best of his recollection he was not ; but if he were asked whether John-a- Noakes did not charge him with an attempt to pick his pocket, and kick him out of the roOm, what would be the inference if he were^to answer, that John-a-Noakes did not, " to the best of his recollection." In some of the debates that occurred in the investigation of this business, it was affirmed by the friends of lord Melville, and by his son (Mr. W. Dundas) in particular, that the example of lord Holland justified lord Melville, and that the peculations ofthe former noble lord had furnished o o 2 Mr. ,564 Mr.' Fox- with the means of defraying the ex travagancies of early life. To this attack Mr. Fox made a most feeling and animated reply. "Although a 'considerable time has elapsed since the death of my, father," said he, " I cannot but feel a high interest in whatever concerns his repu tation. What the right honourable gentleman could mean by calling him to my recollection, Unless to create an uneasiness in my breast, I am at a loss to imagine. For how does the case of my father apply to that of lord Melville? There Was no law to forbid the paymaster of the army to apply the balances remaining in his hand to any purposes of private emolument, at the time lord Holland held that office. The difference between the case of lord Holland and lord Melville is this, that the conduct of the ^former was not' against law, while that of the other was in the very, teeth of a law proposed by himself."— With respect to the allusion to his own conduct in early life, Mr. Fox said, " I undoubtedly gambled a good deal, and I feel also that I continued that practice much too long, and lost a considerable sum of money. My father, no doubt, left me a large fortune, 565 fortune, — but how the right- honourable gentle man can infer that my manner of spending that fortune can afford any proof of my connivance, in what he considers my father's improper manner of obtaining it — or that I was privy to the misap propriation of the public money, I leave it to the house to conjecture — What I speculated with was my own property, what lord Melville hazarded was the property of the public." Early in the session Mr. Fox presented a peti tion from the catholics of Ireland, praying to be admitted to a full participation in the blessings of the British, constitution. This boon, so artfully held out to them by Mr. Pitt, lord Castlereagh, and the marquis Cornwallis, as an ample indemnity for the surrender of their legislative independence, it was now thought unsafe to grant, and those statesmen (if the epithet statesman can be gravely applied to the mercenary politician who so in famously bartered , away the rights of his native country, in the Irish house of commons, for Eng lish honours and emoluments) now opposed those very claims which they had formerly admitted the o o 3 justice 566 justice of, and which their promise to, support had been the means of carrying into effect their fa- < vourite, but strongly-resisted measure of a con solidation ofthe legislatures ofthe two kingdoms* The catholics applied in the first instance to Mr. Pitt, but he giving a cool and discouraging answer to their application, they requested Mr. Fox to present their petition to parliament, and to sup port it with the weight of his , powerful abilities. The/ petition was presented to the house of com mons on the 25th of March, but, in consideration ,of the magnitude and importance of the subject, was not taken into consideration till the 1 3th of May. Mr. Fox, after an eloquent exordium,. stating the importance of the subject, as being of a nature more grave and serious than any that had for a series of years come under consideration, observed that the complaints of the catholics3 in every way in which they could be viewed, were of a nature deeply interesting, as they involved the dearest interests of the empire : if they were at tended to, as sound policy would dictate, there could be no doubt,, he said, but that the strength and resources of the,, empire would be wonderfully increased, 567 increased, without detriment to any individual pr body of men. He was aware of the prejudices that existed in some minds against any concessions being granted to the catholics ; but he hoped the house was too enlightened to entertain them, and that they would recollect the petitioners, whatever were their religious opinions, were still subjects' to the same monarch ; that they were equally loyal with their protestant brethren ; that they paid their contributions to the exigencies of the state withthe same chearfulness ; and he appealed to - their justice whether it was not unmerited as well as cruel, that they should be denied a participa tion in the common rights of their fellow sub jects. The stigma under which they laboured, he said, was as unjust as it was impolitic; and nothing could tend more to weaken the force of the coun try than the continuance of the penal statutes against the catholics with which our law-books were disgraced. He was aware that cases might be stated where the catholics had been treated with rigour and severity on account of their religi ous tenets ; but such cases, he contended, could not be applicable to the practical view ofthe ques-, o o 4 tion 568 tion before the house, as in former days, when it was thought necessary to impose restraints on the catholics ; those restraints were imposed on them rather on account of their jacbbite than religious principles. Some, he observed, had said, we have no objection to make the concessions the catholics demand as a matter of courtesy, but we deny their being -granted as a matter of right. This Mr. Fox could by no means allow, and said, if the concessions were acceded to at all, they must be granted-as a right, and not be considered as an indulgence. Mr. Fox then proceeded to give a history of the restrictive acts in force against the catholics, in order to ascertain whether they had resulted from necessity, and whether that necessity still existed ; and by a most argumentative and masterly chain of reasoning, proved that the ne cessity was no longer in existence. On the sub ject of the concessions being a violation of his majesty's coronation oath, he observed that this oath had been framed by parliament itself, and it was absurd to suppose that'parliament would ever have committed to the care of the sovereign a power of refusing his assent to measures which the 56§ the parliament itself might think highly adviseable. It had been said that an opinion entertained in a certain quarter (by his majesty) was inimical to the measure ; but to this he should reply, that such an opinion was unknown to the house, and could not be entertained or acted upon. Towards the conclusion of his speech, Mr. Fox observed, that the British empire was engaged in a war of much expense, with an enemy who did not wage war against us by her army, her navy, her commerce, or her internal resources of money, but by her great and united population. What in such an awful exigency then ought to be the conduct of this country ? Ought not measures to , be taken to unite every hand and heart in our defence against, the common enemy ? We had four or five millions of our people, as brave and loyal subjects as any the empire could boast, who laboured under disabilities which cramped their energies, and rendered them useless. The instant they obtained a participation in the common rights of British subjects, these men would come forward and augment both the offensive and the defensive 570 defensive means of government ; and the country at large wpuld have cause to( bless the d^y that should give this respectable class -of citizens a participation in their common rights, Mr. , Fox> after dwelling with great strength on the policy, justice, and expediency of emancipating the ca tholics from the restraints under which they la boured, concluded with moving that a committee be appointed to take the petition into considerar- tion.- — A long debate ensued, in the course of which the justice ofthe catholic claims was fully admitted by most of the eminent speakers on. both sides of the house, but the minister opposing the motion as ill timed, it was negatived by a ma jority of 336 to .124. The death of Mr. Pitt on the 23d of January 1 806, who may be said to have died almost literally of a broken heart, occasioned by bitter reflection on the calamities in which Europe and his country had been so fatally involved by his measures *, i produced, * The motion for erecting a monument to the memory of that 571 produced, after Some lingering delay on the part ofthe colleagues of the late minister, an entire change that " great and excellent statesman," (as he was called by his admirers) Mr. Pitt, was opposed by Mr. Fox in a speech of much delicacy and unaffected candour. After payingTa just tribute to the splendid talents of Mr. Pitt, and ex pressing his fears that the sentiments he was about to deliver might be ungracious to some of his new friends, '< There are cases," said he, " in which our. public duty is so clear and imperious, that no desire of praise, no motive of per sonal .respect, jio wish to gratify our friends, nor any other consideration, however powerful, can possibly enable us to, dispense with it — We must tjien act as our consciences di rect, however painful it may be to our feelings. In my conscience, sir, I believe this to be one of those cases : if the marks of respect were such as did not compromise my public duty in the compliance, no person would join in it more chearfully, more eagerly than I would." If, for instance, it had been proposed to remedy those pecuniary difficulties which Mr. Pitt had incurred in the course of his political life ; if it had been proposed to do those things for his relations in, that way, which his own acknowledged disin terestedness did not allow him to do ; if it had been proposed to supply the deficiencies of his own fortune, I would most willingly consent that all -should be done in the most liberal manner. 572 change in his majesty's councils, and Mr. Fox, to manner. But it is a very different thing to be called upon to confer honours upon Mr. Pitt as " an excellent states man." Public honours are matters of the highest import ance, because they must more or less influence posterity. , They ought not therefore to be conferred lightly, but only where merit is clearly seen and acknowledged. When public honours are solicited, it becomes m€ to consult neither my interest -nor my feelings, but to adhere rigidly and conscien tiously to my public duty. — It is not to particular acts that we have to look, but to the general effects of his admini stration. Certainly when I look at lord Chatham's monu ment, when I find the inscription bearing upon the face of it the grounds upon which it was voted : when I 'find^ it there stated, that he had reduced the power of France to U very low ebb, and raised the prosperity of his country to a very high pitch, I must say that the case of Mr. Pitt can never be compared to that of lord Chatham — I must say, that the country at present is reduced to the most-dangerous and alarming situation — a situation which might cal J for any thing rather than honours to be conferred upon him who had the direction of measures which brought it to that state. It was said, that in the case of lord Chatham there was the most perfect unanimity, though there were many in the house who had opposed his political principles. This was true, 573 to the universal joy ofthe nation, was once more raised true, but the merit was clear, and the inscription related to points on which there must have been the most perfect un animity ; and though undoubtedly during the seven years' war there was a strong opposition, yet his merit on certain points, to which the inscription referred, was allowed by thp bitterest of his antagonists. But though no consideration ought to induce us to betray our trust in conferring the public honours, yet there are'cases in which the effects of this might be less sensibly felt. For instance,, in cases where we should be compelled to oppose particular acts of an ad ministration, we might still make a clear distinction between what was good, and what was bad. In the present case I do not wish' to enter .upon particular acts. But I was always one of those who constantly said that the system to which Mr. Pitt lent his aid was an unfortunate and dangerous sys tem, and the great cause of all the misfortunes and calamities that assailed us in the course of his administration. Being pf this opinion, how can I conscientiously say that he was " an excellent statesman -?" Let us look atthe American war, and the death of lord Guildford. For the private character of that nobleman I had the highest respect and esteem. I lived with him in habits of intimacy and friend ship ; yet had any attempt been made to confer upon him honours of the nature now proposed, I should certainly have 574 raised to the rank of privy counsellor, and ap- i have opposed it.— I have been uniformly of opinion; that the system upon which Mr. Pitt acted was productive of thp worst effects to this country and to the world. , It was a system little calculated to bring forward such men of eminence as himself, though he was so much attached to it. It was owing to him indeed, I am persuaded, that the system main tained its ground so long. His great eloquence, his splen- did talents, cast a veil over it, and concealed those things which otherwise would have been exposed in all their hideous deformity. No man can be more desirous than I am, to bury in oblivion those contests in whjch we had so long been engaged : but I cannot consent to' confer public honours, on the ground of his being "an excellent statesman," on the man who, in my opinion, was the sole, certainly tha chief supporter of a system, which I had early been taught to consider as a very bad one, an idea which the result has fully arid fatally proved. Thinking thus, it cannot be ex pected that I should so far forget my public duty, and the f - principles which I have uniformly professed, as to subscribe" to the condemnation of those principles, by agreeing to the motion now before the house." To the motion for the payment of Mr. Pitt's debts Mr. Fox gave his cordial assent, and passed some high encomiums on. the disinterested integrity of his deceased rival, pointed 575 pointed secretary of state for the foreign depart ment *. Never on any former change of adminis tration * Mr- Fox> on vacating his seat in parliament, published the following address to his constituents. " To the Independent Electors ofthe city of West minster. " Gentlemen, '' My seat in the house of commons being vacant by his majesty's having been graciously pleased to appoint me one of his principal secretaries of state, I have once more to 1 solicit your votes and interest to replace me in the honourable situation of your representative. " It has for five-and-twenty years been the pride of my life to enjoy your uninterrupted. confidence and partiality; and my feelings of gratitude have been continually increased by the constancy of your kindness. To make professions would be neither suitable to my time of life, nor to the long connection that has subsisted between us. The crisis is ar duous — I feel all its difficulties, and to serve you and my country" shall be the business of my life. " I have the honour to be, &c. " C. J. FOX." "Arlington-street, Feb. 8, 1806. 576 tration were so many addresses sent up from all parts of the empire to the throne, expressive of the On the day of election, Mr. Fox, after dwelling some time on the calamitous situation into which the measures of the late administration had brought the country, declared that he >could have but little inducement to accept a' seat in the cabinet, at a period when there was more reason io fear dis appointment than to hope success. " We can discern," said Mr. Fox, '' little consolation for the past, and but small hopes for the future. There is undoubtedly one splendid exception to the general gloomy state which we have to look to ; I mean the very high reputation so justly earned by the British navy. Let us hope, that the immortal day of Tra- falgar, though so dearly purchased by the death of that great and heroic character who commanded on that occasion, will more than compensate for all that Britain has suffered in every other quarter. We have acted upon public grounds, uninfluenced by any motives of ambition or personal interest. We have undertaken an arduous duty in a perilous crisis, and without much prospect of succeeding as we could wish. But whatever may be the difficulties we have to encounter, your support will enable us to meet them with confidence, and to overcome them with effect. With regard to general politics, I feel that it would not be suitable at my time of life, nor to the long connexion that has subsisted between us, t» 577 the gratitude of the people ; and never was a cabinet formed better entitled to their confidence. The new ministers proceeded with vigour to correct the abuses that had been so much coun tenanced by their predecessors,' and to draw forth the resources ofthe empire in a way at once cal culated to avert danger from abroad, and to in spire confidence at home. The military defence ofthe country underwent an elaborate revision, and a committee of finance was appointed, with rigid impartiality in the choice of its members, to examine into and report upon the 'malversations that were practised in the expenditure of the public treasure. Contrary to the usage of Mr. Pitt's administration, the dangers that threatened the country were not attempted to be concealed from the people, and they were honestly told the extent of the privations they would have to submit to' make professions. I am now, what I always have been — a friend to liberty, an enemy to corruption, and a firm and decided supporter of that just weight which the people ought ' to have in the scale of the constitution." VOL. II. P P to, 57« to, and the painful sacrifices they would have to make, before they could hope to enjoy the bless ings of peace. In these labours Mr. Fox had only an indivi dual share ; but still mindful of his former pledges to the public, his attention, at an early period after his accession to power, was turned to the abolition of the slave trade, and a bill brought in by one of his Coadjutors, for preventing the im^ portation of slaves, received his most strenuous support. He professed that he had never changed his opinions respecting that detestable traffic; that he felt the total abolition of it as Involving the dearest interests of humanity, and as a measure which, however unfortunate the administration with which he. had the honour to act might be in other respects, should they be successful in effect ing, would entail more true glory upon them, and , more honour upon their country, than any other transaction in which they could be engaged. — Mr. Fox afterwards, under the apprehension that it would be impossible for a bill of abolition to pass both houses in the course of the session, moved a resolution 579 resolution expressive of the opinion of the house> that the African slave trade was contrary to the principles of justice, humanity, and sound policy 5 and also, that the house would proceed with all due speed, and take such steps for abolishing the slave, trade, in such a manner, and at such a pe riod, as should be thought most adviseable ! The speech which Mr. Fox made on this occasion was one of the last he ever delivered in the house of commons ; and he concluded it with observing, that should his motion be Carried, he would think all the time he had spent in parliament, now be tween thirty and forty years, well bestowed- On a division the motion was carried by 114 to 15; and though Mr. Fox did not live to witness what he had so long ardently desired, the certainty of having given a mortal blow to this accursed dis grace to humanity and the christian name, must „ have soothed the dying moments of this most benevolent hearted of the human kind. The conduct of the king of Prussia in seizing upon the German possessions of his majesty, and, at the instigation of France, excluding British p p 2 ships 580 ships from all the ports in his own dominions, and,. those under his influence, excited a high degree of resentment in the new cabinet, and measures of retaliation were immediately determined on. Mr. Fox, in a spirited speech, took a detailed view of the aggressions of Prussia, and ably vindicated the conduct that his majesty's servants had adopted. Having shewn that previous to the battle of Au sterlitz, Prussia was arbiter of the fate of Europe, Mr. Fox contrasted the conduct of the king of ¦ Prussia with that of the powers of Holland and Spain, and declared that that of the latter was honourable, as they could not avoid furnishing either money or men ; but that the conduct pf Prussia excited pity and contempt. Alluding to the cession of Anspach and Beyreuth, Mr. Fox Observed that the degradation of this cession was much increased by the conduct of the people of Anspach, who had entreated their sovereign not to abandon them : it was a great increase of dis honour to sell a brave and loyal people for what was called an equivalent : it was an union of every thing that was contemptible in servility with every thing that was odious in rapacity. The remainder of 581 of the speech illustrated in striking terms the baseness, selfishness, and bad policy of Prussia ; and he concluded with calling upon the house to support the dignity of the crown, the honour of the British flag, .and the freedom of British navi gation, by repelling the treacherous aggressions of the court of Berlin. But by far the most important transaction in which Mr. Fox was engaged, during the short period his invaluable life was spared to his country after his accession to power, was an attempt to put an end to the miseries of war. Of his merits as a negociator there had long been but one opi nion throughout Europe, and his well-known dis position for peace precluded all idea of any want of sincerity as to the great object he had in view. Very soon after his acceptance of the seals, a re markable incident opened the way to a direct communication with the French government. A foreigner waited upon Mr. Fox, and communi cated to him a real or pretended project for assas sinating the ruler of the French nation, supposing that the design would be satisfactory to the British. p p 3 minister ; 582 minister ; but never was villain or impostor more mistaken in the quarter where he had chosen to make known his execrable intention. Mr. Fox received his communication with generous indig nation ; ordered him into the custody of an officer of' the police until he could be sent out of the kingdom under the provisions of the alien act, but not before he had (to use his own expression) " as an honest man," communicated the circum stance to the French minister for foreign affairs, in order that precautions might be taken against his attempts, should he continue to entertain his design after he had been sent out of the kingdom. The answer ofthe French minister to this frank and generous communication was, as might be expected, suitable to the occasion. He observed that he had laid Mr. Fox's letter before the em peror, whose first words, after having read it, were, " I recognize here the principles of honour and virtue, by which Mr. Fox has ever been actuated. Thank him on my part." The minis-. ter would not permit himself to add any thing to the complimentary expression of his master, but concluded 583 concluded in the usual style of diplomatic civility In another letter of the same date, (March 5th, 1806,) he inclosed the emperor's speech to the legislative body, and observed upon it, " You will see therein that our wishes are still for peace* I do not ask what is the prevailing inclination with you ; but if the advantages of peace are duly ap preciated, you know upon what basis it may be discussed." — The passage in the speech which related to England, was as follows : " I desire peace with England, On my part I shall never delay it a moment. I shall always be ready to conclude it, taking for its basis the stipulations of the treaty of Amiens." Mr. Fox, in his reply to this communication, objected to the stipulations of the treaty of Amiens, proposed as the basis of the negocia tion. " The true basis of a negociation between two great powers, equally despising every idea of chicane, would be," he said, " the reciprocal recognition of the following principle ; viz. That the object of both parties should be a peace, ho nourable for both, and for their respective allies, p p 4 and 584 and at the same time, of a nature to secure, as far as in their power, the future ; tranquillity of Europe. England cannot neglect the interests of any of her allies ; and she is united to Russia by such close connections, that she would not treat, still less conclude upon any thing, but in conT cert with the emperor Alexander ; but, whilst awaiting the actual intervention of a Russian ple-r mipotentiary, some of the principal points might however be discussed, and even provisionally arranged.^ It might seem that Russia, on ac-* count of her remote situation, should have fewer intermediate interests to discuss with France than other powers ; but that court, so respectable in eyery point of view, interests herself, like Eng^ land, warmly in every thing that concerns the greater or less degree of independence enjoyed by the different princes and states of Europe. " You see, sir, how inclined we are here to remove every difficulty that might retard the dis cussion in question. With the resources that we possess, it is most assuredly not on our own acr count that we need fear a continuance of the war. Of ,585 Of all the nations of Europe, England, perhaps, is that which suffers the least by its prolongation ; but we do not the less commiserate the sufferings of others. " Let us then do all in our power to terminate them, and let us endeavour, if it be possible, to reconcile the respective interests and glory of the two countries with the tranquillity of Europe, and the happiness of the human race." The French minister, in his answer to the above, assured the British secretary, that the emperor coveted nothing that England pos^ sessed. Peace with France was possible, and it might be perpetual, provided there was no inter ference in her internal affairs, and that no attempt was made to restrain her in the regulation of her custom duties, to cramp her commercial rights, or to offer any insult to her flag. " It is not you, sir," said he, " who have displayed in many public discussions an exact knowledge of the ge neral affairs of Europe and of France, who re quire to be convinced that France has nothing to desire 586 desire except repose, anda situation such as may enable her, without obstruction, to give herself up entirely to the labours of her industry." With respect to admitting Russia to take a part in the negociation, M. Talleyrand observed, that the emperor might accept the mediation of a power possessing a great naval force, because,' in that case, the participation of such a power in the peace would be regulated by the same in terests that they had to discuss with England ; but the mediation Mr. Fox proposed was not_of this nature. " You do not wish to deceive us," said M. Talleyrand, " and you' are well aware there is no equality betwixt us in the guaranty of a power which has three hundred thousand men on foot, and no naval force. For the rest, sir, your communication has a character of openness and precision, which we have hitherto never seen in the communications between your court and us. I will make it my duty to employ the same openness, and the same precision in my reply. We are ready to make peace with the whole world. We wish to dictate to no one. But we will not be dictated to ; and- no one possesses either the power or the means of doing it." M. Tal- 587 M. Talleyrand, after signifying the unwilling ness of the emperor to treat with Great Britain conjointly with Russia, on account of the remote situation of the latter power, eommented on the relative strength of England and France. " Our interests are . reconcileable," said he, " inasmuch as they are distinct. You are the rulers of the ocean ; your naval forces are equal to those of all the' sovereigns of the world united. We are a great continental power ; but there are many who equal our power by land, and your maritime preponderance will always place our commerce at the mercy of your squadrons, immediately after your declaring war. Do you think it -reasonable . to expect that the emperor should ever consent to submit himself to your discretion in continental affairs also ? If, masters ofthe sea through your own power, you propose being masters of the land likewise by a combined force, peace, is im possible ; for in that case you will be striving for an object which you can never attain." M. Tal leyrand concluded with declaring that the emperor fully adopted the principle laid down in Mr. Fox's former dispatch, and offered as the basis of the negotiation, 588 negociation, " that the peace proposed should be honourable for the two courts, and for their re spective allies." The negociation now turned entirely on the admission of Russia to treat conjointly with Eng land, and, after much discussion on the subject, Mr. Fox, in a letter dated April 20th, declared, that any negociation in which Russia was not included as a party, was wholly inadmissible. — " We wish for peace,' ' said he, " but we cannot wish for any thing that is injurious either to the dignity of our sovereign, or to the honour and interests of the nation. , But if we negociated without Russia, considering the intimate ties by which we are united with that power, we should conceive ourselves open to the reproach of having failed in that scrupulous fidelity to our engage ments, on which we pride ourselves ; whilst, on the other hand, by persisting in our demand that Russia be admitted, we do not conceive that we do any thing contrary to the principle of equality to which both of us lay claim." — In conclusion, he said, " The affair is reduced to one single point. 58Q point. Will you negociate conjointly with Rus sia ? We answer, yes : but if you require us to negociate separately, we answer, no." After some delays a negociation was at length regularly opened, and the earl of Yarmouth, who had been detained a prisoner in France at the commencement of the war, was invested by his majesty with the proper powers to treat with the French government. For some time the negoti- - atioh seemed to proceed in a favouiable train. The French consented to restore Hanover, with out any equivalent, and to cede Malta and the Cape of Good Hope in perpetuity to the British crown. The integrity of the possessions of the Ottoman Porte, and likewise ofthe dominions of Portugal and Sweden, was guaranteed ; Fiance demanded the restoration of the foreign possess ions which had been wrested from her in the course of the war, and the recognition of the new titles that had been created in the. imperial family. The chief difficulty, in the way to an accommodation, lay in the island of Sicily, which the French wished to annex to the newly-con quered f . 500 quered kingdom of Naples, but which his ma jesty's ministers were unwilling to give up. It is probable, however, that, had Mr. Fox lived, this difficulty would have been surmounted, for in demnities might have been found for the king of Naples elsewhere, and were actually proposed by the French minister. But unhappily, the de clining health of Mr. -Fox,, at the most critical moment of the negociation, prevented him from giving that attention to public affairs which inte rests so complicated and discussions so important demanded ; and after his death, though the ne gociations were some time prolonged, it was scarcely to be expected, from the tone and temper of the British negotiator, that they could be brought to a happy issue. But these points are foreign to this Work. To proceed to the closing scene of the mortal ' career of this illustrious statesman. The health of Mr. Fox had been some months declining, and latterly interrupted his regular attendance in par liament ; but it was not till the beginning of August that his friends became seriously alarmed for 501 fot his safety, and the afflicting intelligence was communicated to the public that his life was in danger. The disease which deprived hi* country and the world of this bright ornament of human nature was the dropsy, which resisting the efforts of the most eminent of the faculty to subdue, the usual operations in such complaints were twice performed upon him without producing any effectual relief; and lingering but a few days after the second operation, he breathed his last at six o'clock on the afternoon of Saturday the 13th of September 1 806, without pain, and almost with out a struggle. All. the accounts that have been laid before the public concur in representing the dying moments of this great man to have beeh in perfect unison with the character of his preceding life. No ex pressions of peevishness or impatience escaped him ; he bore his sufferings with resignation, and received the intimation of his approaching dis solution with that firmness which nothing but the consolations of an untroubled conscience can bestow in the hour of death. Surrounded by weeping 502 WCeping friends, his last moments were employed in acknowledging their kindness and soothing their grief ; and, probably alluding to that paece of mind which he felt within, his last words were, " I DJE HAPPY." Ofthe character of Mr. Fox, various estimates have been formed ; but none, which, in my judgment, do perfect justice to the merits of that incomparable man. I have endeavoured to give with accuracy the leading features of his public life, as a statesman and orator, in the preceding pages, and pointed out some of those strokes of political wisdom and foresight which so eminent ly distinguished him above all his contempora ries : posterity will probably be enabled to ren der more ample justice to his memory, for till the hopes and fears of the present day are con firmed , or dispelled, till the clashing ' interests, which at this exigent moment occupy our atten tion and agitate our minds, are composed, the ex tent of his worth and the magnitude of Our loss, , Cannot be duly appreciated. When the heats of the present day shall have passed away, and the artifices t>y3 artifices and intrigues of present parties are for-' gotten, then the character of Mr. Fox may be fairly weighed, and a rank will indubitably be as signed him among the first men, who, in any times, have done honour, to the human name. So far as concerned his own glory, Mr. Fox lived sufficiently long ; but his existence was far too short for the good, not only of his own coun* try, but of Europe and the worid, for his bene* volence embraced, and his wisdom comprehended the whole of the human race. It is the more par ticularly to be lamented by this nation, that he was overtaken by a mortal disease, at the moment when he had laid the foundation stone of a tem ple of peace, which, under his hands, might have become a solid and durable structure. Of the various tributes that have hitherto been paid to the memory of this great man, the most just and the most eloquent perhaps is that from the pen of Sir James Mackintosh, the recorder of Bombay, who, uniting the advantages of an in timate and unreserved acquaintance with Mr. vol. ir. a tween them had ceased, speaking to a person ho» noured with some degree of Mr. Fox's friendship, said, " To be sure he is a man made to be loved !" and these emphatical words were ut tered with a fervour of manner which left no doubt of their heart-felt sincerity, " These few hasty and honest sentiments are sketched in a temper too sober ¦ arid serious for intentional exaggeration, and with too pious an affection for the memory of Mr. Fox to profane it with any intermixture with the factious brawls and wrangles of the day. His political conduct belongs to history. The measures which he sup ported or opposed may divide the opinion of posterity, as they have divided those of the pre sent sent age. But he will most certainly command the unanimous reverence of future generations, by his pure sentiments towards the common wealth, by his zeal for the civil and religious rights of all men, by his liberal principles favourable to mild government, to the unfettered exercise of the human faculties, and the progressive civil ization of mankind ; by his ardent love for a country, of which the well-being and greatness were, indeed, inseparable from his own glory ; and by his profound reverence for that free constitution which he was universally admitted to understand better than any other man of his age, both in an exactly legal and in a compre hensively philosophical sense." In his religious opinions (if we may gather his private sentiments from his public declarations, and certainly he spoke on all occasions with equal freedom and sincerity) Mr. Fox was a sincere be^ liever in the doctrines of Christianity, without gny mixture of bigotry. Whenever he delivered his opinion on the subject of religion in the house, there 600 there was never the least appearance of indiffer ence or want of confidence in his faith ; but, on the contrary, whenever he had occasion to intro duce the subject, his conviction was clear, his piety was rational, and his spirit the same as that which the best annotators on the doctrines of our excellent religion have attributed to its divine author, a spirit of catholic and universal cha rity. Other public men might be cited as more decorous in their attendance to the forms of pub hc devotion than Mr. Fox, but none was ever endowed witb a larger portion of what constitutes the essence of religion, and what the inspired writ ers have denominated the first of christian virtues < — charity ; and, I may add, though undoubtedly there were and are men of great piety in the house of commons, whose close attention to re ligious subjects have done them particular ho nour, I have not, in the whole course of that attention to the parliamentary proceedings of the last thirty years, which the preceding pages of this volume required, found any speeches, or even allusions, to a subject in every age so interesting to 601 to man, the hope of the virtuous, the comfort of the afflicted, and the terror of the vicious, so re plete with genuine and unaffected religion as those of Mr. Fox. His remains were interredj by a singular coined dence of circumstances, on the same day as the anniversary of his first return for Westminster October 10, 1806, with every mark of venera tion and sorrow, in Westminster Abbey ; and io the affliction ofthe multitude who attended to pay honour to his memory might be seen an exempli fication of the mourning which his death had cast Over the land. Never* was grief more universal ; never could the character that was applied to a Roman patrician, who was snatched at an awful moment from his country, be applied with more propriety than to him whose hallowed remains were followed, in all the solemnity of funeral pomp, to the last sad depository of our kings, our statesmen, our heroes, 'and our poets. — Truly might it be read of him in the eyes of sorrowing thousands, as well those who were endeared to him 602 him by personal attachment, as those who revered him only on the public report- of his virtues, HOC MORS LUCTUOSUM FUIT SUIS, ACERBUM PATRIA GRAVE OMNIBUS BONIS. THE END. Si.ury, Printer.. YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 02216 7838