These
gentlemen
are much stronger, too, without doors
than some calculate.
than some calculate.
Edmund Burke
Before the prevalence of the French
system, (which, as far as it has gone, has extinguished
the salutary prejudice called our country,) nobody
was more sensible of this important truth than Mr.
Fox; and nothing was more proper and pertinent,
or was more felt at the time, than his reprimand
to Mr. Wilberforce for an inconsiderate expression
which tended to call in the judgment of the poor to
estimate the policy of war upon the standard of the
taxes they may be obliged to pay towards its support.
35. It is fatally known that the great object of
the Jacobin system is, to excite the lowest description
of the people to range themselves under ambitious
men for the pillage and destruction of the more
eminent orders and classes of the community. The
thing, therefore, that a man not fanatically attached
to that dreadful project would most studiously avoid
is, to act a part with the French Propagandists, in
attributing (as they constantly do) all wars, and all
the consequences of wars, to the pride of those orders,
and to their contempt of the weak and indigent part
of the society. The ruling Jacobins insist upon it,
that even the wars which they carry on with so much
obstinacy against all nations are made to prevent the
? ? ? ? 40 OBSERVATIONS ON THE
poor from any longer being the instruments and victims of kings, nobles, and the aristocracy of burghers
and rich men. They pretend that the destruction of
kings, nobles, and the aristocracy of burghers and
rich men is the only means of establishing an universal and perpetual peace. This is the great drift
of all their writings, from the time of the meeting of
the states of France, in 1789, to the publication of
the last Morning Chronicle. They insist that even
the war which with so much boldness they have
declared against all nations is to prevent the poor
from becoming the instruments and victims of these
persons and descriptions. It is but too easy, if
you once teach poor laborers and mechanics to defy
their prejudices, and, as this has been done with an
industry scarcely credible, to substitute the principles of fraternity in the room of that salutary prejudice called our country, -it is, I say, but too easy to persuade them, agreeably to what Mr. Fox hints
in his public letter, that this war is, and that the
other wars have been, the wars of kings; it is easy
to persuade them that the terrors even of a foreign
conquest are not terrors for them; it is easy to persuade them, that, for their part, they have nothing
to lose, -- and that their condition is not likely to be
altered for the worse, whatever party may happen
to prevail in the war. Under any circumstances
this doctrine is highly dangerous, as it tends to
make separate parties of the higher and lower orders, and to put their interests on a different bottom. But if the enemy you have to deal with should appear, as France now appears, under the
very name and title of the deliverer of the poor
and the chastiser of the rich, the former class would
? ? ? ? CONDUCT OF THE MINORITY. 41
readily become not an indifferent spectator of the
war, but would be ready to enlist in the faction of
the enemy, - which they would consider, though under a foreign name, to be more connected with them
than an adverse description in the same land. All
the props of society would be drawn from us by these
doctrines, and the very foundations of the public defence would give way in an instant.
36. There is no point which the faction of fraternity in England have labored more than to excite in
the poor the horror of any war with France upon any
occasion. When they found that their open attacks
upon our Constitution in favor of a French republic
were for the present repelled, they put that matter
out of sight, and have taken up the more plausible
and popular ground of general peace, upon merely
general principles; although these very men, in the
correspondence of their clubs with those of France,
had reprobated the neutrality which now they so earnestly press. But, in reality, their maxim was, and
is, "Peace and alliance with France, and war with
the rest of the world. "
37. This last motion of Mr. Fox bound up the
whole of his politics during the session. This motion had many circumstances, particularly in the
Norwich correspondence, by which the mischief of
all the others was aggravated beyond measure. Yet
this last motion, far the worst of Mr. Fox's proceedinlgs, was the best supported of any of them, except
his amendment to the address. The Duke of Portland had directly engaged to support the war;here was a motion as directly made to force the crown to put an end to it before a blow had been
struck. The efforts of the faction have so prevailed
? ? ? ? 42 OBSERVATIONS ON THE
that some of his Grace's nearest friends have actually voted for that motion; some, after showing themselves, went away; others did not appear at all. So it must be, where a man is for any time supported from personal considerations, without reference to his public conduct. Through the whole of
this business, the spirit of fraternity appears to me
to have been the governing principle. It might be
shameful for any man, above the vulgar, to show so
blind a partiality even to his own country as Mr.
Fox appears, on all occasions, this session, to have
shown to France. Had Mr. Fox been a minister,
and proceeded on the principles laid down by him,
I believe there is little doubt he would have been
considered as the most criminal statesman that ever
lived in this country. I do not know why a statesman out of place is not to be judged in the same
manner, unless we can excuse him by pleading in
his favor a total indifference to principle, and that
he would act and think in quite a different way, if
he were in office. This I will not suppose. One
may think better of him, and that, in case of his
power, he might change his mind. But supposing,
that, from better or from worse motives, he might
change his mind on his acquisition of the favor of
the crown, I seriously fear, that, if the king should
to-morrow put power into his hands, and that his
good genius would inspire him with maxims very
different from those he has promulgated, he would
not be able to get the better of the ill temper and
the ill doctrines lie has been the means of exciting
and propagating throughout the kingdom. From the
very beginning of their inhuman and unprovoked
rebellion and tyrannic usurpation, he has covered
? ? ? ? CONDUCT OF THE MINORITY. 43
the predominant faction in France, and their adherents here, with the most exaggerated panegyrics;
neither has he missed a single opportunity of abusing and vilifying those who, in uniform concurrence
with the Duke of Portland's and Lord Fitzwilliam's
opinion, have maintained the true grounds of the
Revolution Settlement in 1688. He lamented all
the defeats of the French; he rejoiced in all their
victories, - even when these victories threatened to
overwhelm the continent of Europe, and, by facilitating their means of penetrating into Holland, to
bring this most dreadful of all evils with irresistible
force to the very doors, if not into the very heart,
of our country. To this hour he always speaks of
every thought of overturning the French Jacobinism
by force, on the part of any power whatsoever, as an
attempt unjust and cruel, and which he reprobates
with horror. If any of the French Jacobin leaders
are spoken of with hatred or scorn, he falls upon
those who take that liberty with all the zeal and
warmth with which men of honor defend their particular and bosom friends, when attacked. He always represents their cause as a cause of liberty, and all who oppose it as partisans of despotism. He
obstinately continues to consider the great and growing vices, crimes, and disorders of that country as
only evils of passage, which are to produce a permanently happy state of order and freedom. He
represents these disorders exactly in the same way
and with the same limitations which are used by one
of the two great Jacobin factions: I mean that of P6tion and Brissot. Like them, he studiously confines
his horror and reprobation only to the massacres
of the 2d of September, and passes by those of the
? ? ? ? 44 OBSERVATIONS ON THE
10th of August, as well as the imprisonment and
deposition of the king, which were the consequences
of that day, as indeed were the massacres themselves
to which he confines his censure, though they were
not actually perpetrated till early in September.
Like that faction, he condemns, not the deposition,
or the proposed exile or perpetual imprisonment,
but only the murder of the king. Mr. Sheridan,
on every occasion, palliates all their massacres committed in every part of France, as the effects of a natural indignation at the exorbitances of despotism,
and of the dread of the people of returning under
that yoke. He has thus taken occasion to load, not
the actors in this wickedness, but the government of
a mild, merciful, beneficent, and patriotic prince, and
his suffering, faithful subjects, with all the crimes
of the new anarchical tyranny under which the one
has been murdered and the others are oppressed.
Those continual either praises or palliating apologies
of everything done in France, and those invectives
as uniformly vomited out upon all those who venture
to express their disapprobation of such proceedings,
coming from a man of Mr. Fox's fame and authority, and one who is considered as the person to whom a great party of the wealthiest men of the kingdom
look up, have been the cause why the principle of
French fraternity formerly gained the ground which
at one time it had obltained in this country. It will
infallibly recover itself again, and in ten times a
greater degree, if the kind of peace, in the manner
which he preaches, ever shall be established with the
reigning faction in France.
38. So far as to the French practices with regard
to France and the other powers of Europe. As to
? ? ? ? CONDUCT OF THE MINORITY. 45
their principles and doctrines with regard to the constitution of states, Mr. Fox studiously, on all occasions, and indeed when no occasion calls for it, (as
on the debate of the petition for reform,) brings forward and asserts their fundamental and fatal principle, pregnant with every mischief and every crime,
namely, that "in every country the people is the legitimate sovereign": exactly conformable to the declaration of the French clubs and legislators: --" La
souverainet6 est une, indivisible, inalienable, et impreseriptible; elle appartient a la nation; aucune section du peuple ni aucun individu ne peut s'en attribuer l'exercise. " This confounds, in a manner equally mischievous and stupid, the origin of a government from the people with its continuance in their
hands. I believe that no such doctrine has ever been
heard of in any public act of any government whatsoever, until it was adopted (I think from the writings of Rousseau) by the French Assemblies, who
have made it the basis of their Constitution at home,
and of the matter of their apostolate in every country. These and other wild declarations of abstract
principle, Mr. Fox says, are in themselves perfectly
right and true; though in some cases he allows the
French draw absurd consequences from them. But
I conceive he is mistaken. The consequences are
most logically, though most mischievously, drawn
from the premises and principles by that wicked
and ungracious faction. The fault is in the foundation.
39. Before society, in a multitude of men, it is obvious that sovereignty and subjection are ideas which
cannot exist. It is the compact on which society is
fbrmed that makes both. But to suppose the people,
? ? ? ? 4-3 OBSERVATIONS ON THE
contrary to their compacts, both to give away and
retain the same thing is altogether absurd. It is
worse, for it supposes in any strong combination of
men a power and right of always dissolving the social union; which power, however, if it exists, renders them again as little sovereigns as subjects, but a mere unconnected multitude. It is not easy to
state for what good end, at a time like this, when
the foundations of all ancient and prescriptive governments, such as ours, (to which people submit, not
because they have chosen them, but because they are
born to them,) are undermined by perilous theories,
that Mr. Fox should be so fond of referring to those
theories, upon all occasions, even though speculatively they might be true, -- which God forbid they
should! Particularly I do not see the reason why
he should be so fond of declaring that the principles
of the Revolution have made the crown of Great Britain elective, -- why he thinks it seasonable to preach
up with so much earnestness, for now three years together, the doctrine of. resistance and revolution at
all, - or to assert that our last Revolution, of 1688,
stands on the same or similar principles with that
of France. We are not called upon to bring forward
these doctrines, which are hardly ever resorted to but
in cases of extremity, and where they are followed by
correspondent actions. We are not called upon by
any circumstance, that I know of, which can justify
a revolt, or which demands a revolution, or can make
an election of a successor to the crown necessary,
whatever latent right may be supposed to exist for
effectuating any of these purposes.
40. Not the least alarming of the proceedings of
Mr. Fox and his friends in this session, especially
? ? ? ? CONDUCT OF THE MINORITY. 47
taken in concurrence with their whole proceedings
with regard to Franlce and its principles, is their eagerness at this season, under pretence of Parliamentary reforms, (a project which had been for some time rather dormant,) to discredit and disgrace thq
House of Commons. For this purpose these gentlemen had found a way to insult the House by several
atrocious libels in the form of petitions. In particular they brought up a libel, or rather a complete
digest of libellous matter, from the club called the
Friends of the People. It is, indeed, at once the
most audacious and the most insidious of all the performances of that kind which have yet appeared. It
is said to be the penmanship of Mr. Tierney, to
bring whom into Parliament the Duke of Portland
formerly had taken a good deal of pains, and expended, as I hear, a considerable sum of money.
41. Among the circumstances of danger from that
piece, and from its precedent, it is observable that
this is the first petition (if I remember right) coming
from a club or association, signed by individuals, denoting neither local residence nor corporate capacity. This
mode of petition, not being strictly illegal or informal,
though in its spirit in the highest degree mischievous, may and will lead to other things of that nature,
tending to bring these clubs and associations to the
French model, and to make them in the end answer
French purposes: I mean, that, without legal names,
these clubs will be led to assume political capacities;
that they may debate the forms of Constitution; and
that from their meetings they may insolently dictate
their will to the regular authorities of the kingdom, in
the manner in which the Jacobin clubs issue their
Inla:ldates to the National Assembly or the National
? ? ? ? 48 OBSERVATIONS ON THE
Convention. The audacious remonstrance, I observe,
is signed by all of that association (the Friends of the
People) who are not in Parliament, and it was supported most strenuously by all the associators who are
members, with Mr. Fox at their head. He and they
contended for referring this libel to a committee.
Upon the question of that reference they grounded
all their debate for a change in the constitution of
Parliament. The pretended petition is, in fact, a
regular charge or impeachment of the House of
Commons, digested into a number of articles. This
plan of reform is not a criminal impeachment, but
a matter of prudence, to be submitted to the public
wisdom, which must be as well apprised of the facts
as petitioners can be. But those accusers of the
House of Commons have proceeded upon the principles of a criminal process, and have had the effrontery to offer proof on each article. 42. This charge the party of Mr. Fox maintained
article by article, beginning with the first, - namely,
the interference of peers at elections, and their nominating in effect several of the members of the House
of Commons. In the printed list of grievances which
they made out on the occasion, and in support of
their charge, is found the borough for which, under
Lord Fitzwilliam's influence, I now sit. By this remonstrance, and its object, they hope to defeat the
operation of property in elections, and in reality to
dissolve the connection and communication of interests which makes the Houses of Parliament a mutual
support to each other. Mr. Fox and the Friends of
the People are not so ignorant as not to know that
peers do not interfere in elections as peers, but as
men of property; they well know that the House
? ? ? ? CONDUCT OF THE MINORITY. 49
of Lords is by itself the feeblest part of the Constitution; they know that the House of Lords is supported only by its connections with the crown and
with the House of Commons, and that without this
double connection the Lords could not exist a single
year. They know that all these parts of our Constitution, whilst they are balanced as opposing interests, are also connected as friends; otherwise nothing but confusion could be the result of such a complex
Constitution. It is natural, therefore, that they who
wish the common destruction of the whole and of
all its parts should contend for their total separation.
But as the House of Commons is that link which connects both the other parts of the Constitution (the
Crown and the Lords) with the mass of the people, it
is to that link (as it is natural enough) that their
incessant attacks are directed. That artificial representation of the people being once discredited and
overturned, all goes to pieces, and nothing but a
plain French democracy or arbitrary monarchy can
possibly exist.
43. Some of these gentlemen who have attacked
the House of Commons lean to a representation of the
people by the head, - that is, to individual representation. None of them, that I recollect, except Mr.
Fox, directly rejected it. It is remarkable, however, that he only rejected it by simply declaring
an opinion. He let all the argument go against
his opinion. All the proceedings and arguments
of his reforming friends lead to individual representation, and to nothing else. It deserves to be
attentively observed, that this individual representation is the only plan of their reform which has been
explicitly proposed. In the mean time, the conduct
VOL. V. 4
? ? ? ? 50 OBSERVATIONS ON THE
of Mr. Fox appears to be far more inexplicable, on
any good ground, than theirs, who propose the individual representation; for he neither proposes anything, nor even suggests that he has anything to propose, in lieu of the present mode of constituting
the House of Commons; on the contrary, he declares against all the plans which have yet been
suggested, either from himself or others: yet, thus
unprovided with any plan whatsoever, he pressed forward this unknown reform with all possible warmth;
and for that purpose, in a speech of several hours,
he urged the referring to a committee the libellous
impeachment of the House of Commons by the association of the Friends of the People. But for Mr.
Fox to discredit Parliament as it stands, to countenance leagues, covenants, and associations for its
further discredit, to render it perfectly odious and
contemptible, and at the same time to propose nothing at all in place of what he disgraces, is worse, if
possible, than to contend for personal individual representation, and is little less than demanding, in plain
terms, to bring on plain anarchy.
44. Mr. Fox and these gentlemen have for the
present been defeated; but they are neither converted nor disheartened. They have solemnly declared that they will persevere until they shall have obtained their ends, --persisting to assert that the
House of Commons not only is not the true representative of the people, but that it does not answer
the purpose of such representation: most of them
insist that all the debts, the taxes, and the burdens
of all kinds on the people, with every other evil
and inconvenience which we have suffered since the
Revolution, have been owing solely to an House of
? ? ? ? CONDUCT OF THE MINORITY. 51
Commons which does not speak the sense of the
people.
45. It is also not to be forgotten, that Mr. Fox,
and all who hold with him, on this, as on all other
occasions of pretended reform, most bitterly reproach
Mr. Pitt with treachery, in declining to support the
scandalous charges and indefinite projects of this infamous libel from the Friends of the People. By the animosity with which they persecute all those who
grow. cold in this cause of pretended reform, they
hope, that, if, through levity, inexperience, or ambition, any young person (like Mr. Pitt, for instance) happens to be once embarked in their design, they
shall by a false shame keep him fast in it forever.
Many they have so hampered.
46. I know it is usual, when the peril and alarm
of tle hour appears to be a little overblown, to think
no imore of the matter. But, for my part, I look back
with horror on what we have escaped, and am full
of anxiety with regard to the dangers which in my
opinion are still to be apprehended both at home
and abroad. This business has cast deep roots.
Whether it is necessarily connected in theory with
Jacobinism is not worth a dispute. The two things
are connected in fact. The partisans of the one are
the partisans of the other. I know it is common
with those who are favorable to the gentlemen of
Mr. Fox's party and to their leader, though not at
all devoted to all their reforming projects or their
Gallican politics, to argue, in palliation of their conduct, that it is not in their power to do all the harm which their actions evidently tend to. It is said,
that, as the people will not support them, they may
safely be indulged in those eccentric fancies of re
? ? ? ? 52 OBSERVATIONS ON THE
form, and those theories which lead to nothing.
This apology is not very much to the honor of
those politicians whose interests are to be adhered
to in defiance of their conduct. I cannot flatter myself that these incessant attacks on the constitution
of Parliament are safe. It is not in my power to despise the unceasing efforts of a confederacy of about
vfty persons of eminence: men, for the far greater
part, of very ample fortunes either in possession or
in expectancy; men of decided characters and vehement passions; men of very great talents of all kinds,
of much boldness, and of the greatest possible spirit
of artifice, intrigue, adventure, and enterprise, all
operating with unwearied activity and perseverance.
These gentlemen are much stronger, too, without doors
than some calculate. They have the more active part
of the Dissenters with them, and the whole clan of
speculators of all denominations, - a large and growing species. They have that floating multitude which
goes with events, and which suffers the loss or gain
of a battle to decide its opinions of right and wrong.
As long as by every art this party keeps alive a spirit
of disaffection against the very Constitution of the
kingdom, and attributes, as lately it has been in the
habit of doing, all the public misfortunes to that Constitution, it is absolutely impossible but that some moment must arrive in which they will be enabled to produce a pretended reform and a real revolution.
If ever the body of this compound Constitution of ours
is subverted, either in favor of unlimited monarchy
or of wild democracy, that ruin will most certainly be
the result of this very sort of machinations against
the House of Commons. It is not from a confidence
in the views or intentions of any statesman that I
? ? ? ? CONDUCT OF THE MINORITY. 53
think he is to be indulged in these perilous amusements.
47. Before it is made the great object of any man's
political life to raise another to power, it is right to
consider what are the real dispositions of the person
to be so elevated. We are not to form our judgment
on these dispositions from the rules and principles of
a court of justice, but from those of private discretion, - not looking for what would serve to criminate
another, but what is sufficient to direct ourselves.
By a comparison of a series of the discourses and
actions of certain men for a reasonable length of
time, it is impossible not to obtain sufficient indication
of the general tendency of their views and principles.
There is no other rational mode of proceeding. It
is true, that in some one or two perhaps not wellweighed expressions, or some one or two unconnected and doubtful affairs, we may and ought to judge of the actions or words by our previous good or ill opinion of the man. But this allowance has its bounds.
It does not extend to any regular course of systematic action, or of constant and repeated discourse. It
is against every principle of common sense, and of
justice to one's self and to the public, to judge of a
series of speeches and actions from the man, and not
of the man from the whole tenor of his language and
conduct. I have stated the above matters, not as inferring a criminal charge of evil intention. If I had
meant to do so, perhaps they are stated with tolerable exactness. But I have no such view. The intentions of these gentlemen may be very pure. I do
not dispute it. But I think they are in some great
error. If these things are done by Mr. Fox and his
friends with good intentions, they are not done less
? ? ? ? 54 OBSERVATIONS ON THE
dangerously; for it shows these good intentions are
not under the direction of safe maxims and principles.
48. Mr. Fox, Mr. Sheridan, and the gentlemen
who call themselves the Phalanx, have not been so
very indulgent to others. They have thought proper
to ascribe to those members of the House of Commons, who, in exact agreement with the Duke of
Portland and Lord Fitzwilliam, abhor and oppose the
French system, the basest and most unworthy motives for their conduct; - as if none could oppose
that atheistic, immoral, and impolitic project set up
in France, so disgraceful and destructive, as I conceive, to human nature itself, but with some sinister
intentions. They treat those members on all occasions with a sort of lordly insolence, though they are
persons that (whatever homage they may pay to the
eloquence of the gentlemen who' choose to look down
upon them with scorn) are not their inferiors in any
particular which calls for and obtains just consideration from the public: not their inferiors in knowledge of public law, or of the Constitution of the kingdom; not their inferiors in their acquaintance
with its foreign and domestic interests; not their
inferiors in experience or practice of business; not
their inferiors in moral character; not their inferiors in the proofs they have given of zeal and indus
try in the service of their country. Without denying to these gentlemen the respect and consideration
which it is allowed justly belongs to them, we see
no reason why they should not as well be obliged to
defer something to our opinions as that we should
be bound blindly and servilely to follow those of
Mr. Fox, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Grey, Mr. Courtenay.
? ? ? ? CONDUCT OF THE MINORITY. 55
Mr. Lambton, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Taylor. and others. We are members of Parliament and their
equals. We never consider ourselves as their followers. These gentlemen (some of them hardly
born when some of us came into Parliament) have
thought proper to treat us as deserters, -as if we
had been listed into their phalanx like soldiers, and
had sworn to live and die in their French principles.
This insolent claim of superiority on their part, and
of a sort of vassalage to them on that of other members, is what no liberal mind will submit to bear.
49. The society of the Liberty of the Press, the
Whig Club, and the Society for Constitutional Information, and (I believe) the Friends of the People, as well as some clubs in Scotland, have, indeed,
declared, "that their confidence in and attachment
to Mr. Fox has lately been confirmed, strengthened,
and increased by the calumnies" (as they are called)
" against him. " It is true, Mr. Fox and his friends
have those testimonies in their favor, against certain
old friends of the Duke of Portland. Yet, on a full,
serious, and, I think, dispassionate consideration of
the whole of what Mr. Fox and Mr. Sheridan and
their friends have acted, said, and written, in this
session, instead of doing anything which might tend
to procure power, or any share of it whatsoever, to
them or to their phalanx, (as they call it,) or to inlcrease their credit, influence, or popularity in the nation, I think it one of my most serious and important public duties, in whatsoever station I may be placed for the short time I have to live, effectually
to employ my best endeavors, by every prudent and
every lawful means, to traverse all their designs. I
have only to lament that my abilities are not greater,
? ? ? ? 56 OBSERVATIONS ON THE
and that my probability of life is not better, for the
more effectual pursuit of that object. But I trust that
neither the principles nor exertions will die with me.
I am the rather confirmed in this my resolution, and
in this my wish of transmitting it, because every ray
of hope concerning a possible control or mitigation of
the enormous mischiefs which the principles of these
gentlemen, and which their connections, full as dangerous as their principles, might receive from the influence of the Duke of Portland and Lord Fitzwilliam, on becoming their colleagues in office, is now entirely
banished from the mind of every one living. It is
apparent, even to the world at large, that, so far
from having a power to direct or to guide Mr. Fox,
Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Grey, and the rest, in any important matter, they have not, through this session,
been able to prevail on them to forbear, or to delay,
or mitigate, or soften, any one act, or any one expression, upon subjects on which they essentially
differed.
50. Even if this hope of a possible control did exist,
yet the declared opinions, and the uniform line of
conduct conformable to those opinions, pursued by
Mr. Fox, must become a matter of serious alarm, if
he should obtain a power either at court or in Parliament or in the nation at large, and for this plain
reason: he must be the most active and efficient
member in any administration of which he shall
form a part. That a man, or set of men, are guided by such not dubious, but delivered and avowed
principles and maxims of policy, as to need a watch
and check on them in the exercise of the highest
power, ought, in my opinion, to make every man,
who is not of the same principles and guided by the
? ? ? ? CONDUCT OF THE MINORITY. 57
same maxims, a little cautious how he makes himself one of the traverses of a ladder to help such a
man, or such a set of men, to climb up to the highest authority. A minister of this country is to be
controlled by the House of Commons. He is to be
trusted, not controlled, by his colleagues in office: if
he were to be controlled, government, which ought to
be the source of order, would itself become a scene
of anarchy. Besides, Mr. Fox is a man of an aspiring and commanding mind, made rather to control
than to be controlled, and he never will be nor can
be in any administration in which he will be guided
by any of those whom I have been accustomed to
confide in. It is absurd to think that he would or
could. If his own opinions do not control him, nothing can. When we consider of an adherence to a
man which leads to his power, we must not only see
what the man is, but how he stands related. It is
not to be forgotten that Mr. Fox acts in close and
inseparable connection with another gentleman of exactly the same description as himself, and who, perhaps, of the two, is the leader. The rest of the body are not a great deal more tractable; and over them,
if Mr. Fox and Mr. Sheridan have authority, most
assuredly the Duke of Portland has not the smallest
degree of influence.
51. One must take care that a blind partiality to
some persons, and as blind an hatred to others, may
not enter into our minds under a color of inflexible
public principle. We hear, as a reason for clinging
to Mr. Fox at present, that nine years ago Mr. Pitt
ogot into power by mischievous intrigues with the
court, with the Dissenters, and with other factious
people out of Parliament, to the discredit and weak
? ? ? ? 58 OBSERVATIONS ON THE
ening of the power of the House of Commons. -is
conduct nine years ago I still hold to be very culpable. There are, however, many things very culpable that I do not know how to punish. My opinion oin
such matters I must submit to the good of the state,
as I have done on other occasions, - and particularly with regard to the authors and managers of
the American war, with whom I have acted, both in
office and in opposition, with great confidence and
cordiality, though I thought many of their acts criminal and impeachable. Whilst the misconduct of Mr. Pitt and his associates was yet recent, it was
not possible to get Mr. Fox of himself to take a single
step, or even to countenance others in taking any
step, upon the ground of that misconduct and false
policy; though, if the matters had been then taken
up and pursued, such a step could not have appeared
so evidently desperate as now it is. So far from pursuing Mr. Pitt, I know that then, and for some time after, some of Mr. Fox's friends were actually, and
with no small earnestness, looking out to a coalition with that gentleman. For years I never heard
this circumstance of Mr. Pitt's misconduct on that
occasion mentioned by Mr. Fox, either in public or
in private, as a ground for opposition to that minister. All opposition, from that period to this very session, has proceeded upon tire separate measures
as they separately arose, without any vindictive retrospect to Mr. Pitt's conduct in 1784. My memory, however, may fail me. I must appeal to the printed
debates, which (so far as Mr. Fox is concerned) are
unusually accurate.
52. Whatever might have been in our power at
an early period, at this day I see no remedy for what
? ? ? ? CONDUCT OF THE MINORITY. 59
was done in 1784. I had no great hopes even at the
time. I was therefore very eager to record a remonstrance on the journals of the House of Commons, as a caution against such a popular delusion in times to
come; and this I then feared, and now am certain,
is all that could be done. I know of no way of animadverting on the crown. I know of no mode of
calling to account the House of Lords, who threw
out the India Bill in a way not much to their credit. As little, or rather less, am I able to coerce the
people at large, who behaved very unwisely and
intemperately on that occasion. Mr. Pitt was then
accused, by me as well as others, of attempting to
be minister without enjoying the confidence of the
House of Commons, though he did enljoy the confidence of the crown. That House of Commons,
whose confidence he did not enjoy, unfortunately
did not itself enjoy the confidence (though we well
deserved it) either of the crown or of the public.
For want of that confidence, the then House of
Commons did not survive the contest. Since that
period Mr. Pitt has enjoyed the confidence of the
crown, and of the Lords, and of the House of Commons, through two successive Parliaments; and I suspect that he has ever since, and that he does
still, enjoy as large a portion, at least, of the confidence of the people without doors as his great rival. Before whom, then, is Mr. Pitt to be impeached, and
by whom? The more I consider the matter, the
more firmly I am convinced that the idea of proscribing Mr. Pitt indirectly, when you cannot directly punish him, is as chimerical a project, and as unijustifiable, as it would be to have proscribed Lord North. For supposing that by indirect ways of opposition,
? ? ? ? CGO OBSERVATIONS ON THE
by opposition upon measures which do not relate to
the business of 1784, but which on other grounds
might prove unpopular, you were to drive him from
his seat, this would be no example whatever of punishment for the matters we charge as offences in
1784. On a cool and dispassionate view of the
affairs of this time and country, it appears obvious
to me that one or the other of those two great men,
that is, Mr. Pitt or Mr. Fox, must be minister. They
are, I am sorry for it, irreconcilable. Mr. Fox's conduct in this session has rendered the idea of his power a matter of serious alarm to many people who were very little pleased with the proceedings of Mr.
Pitt in the beginning of his administration. They
like neither the conduct of Mr. Pitt in 1784, nor
that of Mr. Fox in 1793; but they estimate which
of the evils is most pressing at the time, and what
is likely to be the consequence of a change. If Mr.
Fox be wedded, they must be sensible that his opinions and principles on the now existing state of
things at home and abroad must be taken as his
portion. In his train must also be taken the whole
body of gentlemen who are pledged to him and to
each other, and to their common politics and principles. I believe no king of Great Britain ever will
adopt, for his confidential servants, that body of geIntlemen, holding that body of principles. Even if the
present king or his successor should think fit to take
that step, I apprehend a general discontent of those
who wish that this nation and that Europe should
continue in their'present state would ensue,- a discontent which, combined with the principles and
progress of the new men in power, would shake
this kingdom to its foundations. I do not believe
? ? ? ? CONDUCT OF THE MINORITY. 61
any one political conjecture can be more certain
than this.
53. Without at all defending or palliating Mr.
Pitt's conduct in 1784, I must observe, that the
crisis of 1793, with regard to everything at home
and abroad, is full as important as that of 1784
ever was, and, if for no other reason, by being
present, is much more important. It is not to nine
years ago we are to look for the danger of Mr. Fox's
and Mr. Sheridan's conduct, and that of the gentlemen who act with them. It is at this very time, and
in this very session, that, if they had not been strenuously resisted, they would not only have discredited the House of Commons, (as Mr. Pitt did in 1784, when he persuaded the king to reject their advice, and
to appeal from them to the people,) but, in my opinion, would have been the means of wholly subverting the House of Commons and the House of Peers, and the whole Constitution actual and virtual, together with the safety and independence of this nation, and the peace and settlement of every state ill the now Christian world. It is to our opinion of the
nature of Jacobinism, and of the probability, by
corruption, faction, and force, of its gaining ground
everywhere, that the question whom and what you
are to support is to be determined. For my part,
without doubt or hesitation, I look upon Jacobinisnm
as the most dreadful and the most shameful evil
which ever afflicted mankind, a thing which goes
beyond the power of all calculation in its mischief, -
and that, if it is suffered to exist in France, we must
in England, and speedily too, fall into that calamity.
54. I figure to myself the purpose of these gentlemen accomplished, and this ministry destroyed. I
? ? ? ? 62 OBSERVATIONS ON THE
see that the persons who in that case must rule can
be no other than Mr. Fox, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Grey,
the Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord Thurlow, Lord Lauderdale, and the Duke of Norfolk, with the other
chiefs of the Friends of the People, the Parliamentary
reformers, and the admirers of the French Revolution.
The principal of these are all formally pledged to their
projects. If the Duke of Portland and Lord Fitzwilliam should be admitted into that system, (as they
might and probably would be,) it is quite certain
they could not have the smallest weight in it, - less,
indeed, than what they now possess, if less were possible: because they would be less wanted than they
now are; and because all those who wished to join
them, and to act under them, have been rejected by
the Duke of Portland and Lord Fitzwilliam themselves; and Mr. Fox, finding them thus by themselves disarmed, has built quite a new fabric, upon quite a new foundation. There is no trifling on this
subject. We see very distinctly before us the ministry that would be formed and the plan that would
be pursued. If we like the plan, we must wish the
power of those who are to carry it into execution;
but to pursue the political exaltation of those whose
political measures we disapprove and whose principles we dissent from is a species of modern politics
not easily comprehensible, and which must end in
the ruin of the country, if it should continue and
spread. Mr. Pitt may be the worst of men, and
Mr. Fox may be the best; but, at present, the former
is in the interest of his country, and of the order of
things long established in Europe: Mr. Fox is not.
system, (which, as far as it has gone, has extinguished
the salutary prejudice called our country,) nobody
was more sensible of this important truth than Mr.
Fox; and nothing was more proper and pertinent,
or was more felt at the time, than his reprimand
to Mr. Wilberforce for an inconsiderate expression
which tended to call in the judgment of the poor to
estimate the policy of war upon the standard of the
taxes they may be obliged to pay towards its support.
35. It is fatally known that the great object of
the Jacobin system is, to excite the lowest description
of the people to range themselves under ambitious
men for the pillage and destruction of the more
eminent orders and classes of the community. The
thing, therefore, that a man not fanatically attached
to that dreadful project would most studiously avoid
is, to act a part with the French Propagandists, in
attributing (as they constantly do) all wars, and all
the consequences of wars, to the pride of those orders,
and to their contempt of the weak and indigent part
of the society. The ruling Jacobins insist upon it,
that even the wars which they carry on with so much
obstinacy against all nations are made to prevent the
? ? ? ? 40 OBSERVATIONS ON THE
poor from any longer being the instruments and victims of kings, nobles, and the aristocracy of burghers
and rich men. They pretend that the destruction of
kings, nobles, and the aristocracy of burghers and
rich men is the only means of establishing an universal and perpetual peace. This is the great drift
of all their writings, from the time of the meeting of
the states of France, in 1789, to the publication of
the last Morning Chronicle. They insist that even
the war which with so much boldness they have
declared against all nations is to prevent the poor
from becoming the instruments and victims of these
persons and descriptions. It is but too easy, if
you once teach poor laborers and mechanics to defy
their prejudices, and, as this has been done with an
industry scarcely credible, to substitute the principles of fraternity in the room of that salutary prejudice called our country, -it is, I say, but too easy to persuade them, agreeably to what Mr. Fox hints
in his public letter, that this war is, and that the
other wars have been, the wars of kings; it is easy
to persuade them that the terrors even of a foreign
conquest are not terrors for them; it is easy to persuade them, that, for their part, they have nothing
to lose, -- and that their condition is not likely to be
altered for the worse, whatever party may happen
to prevail in the war. Under any circumstances
this doctrine is highly dangerous, as it tends to
make separate parties of the higher and lower orders, and to put their interests on a different bottom. But if the enemy you have to deal with should appear, as France now appears, under the
very name and title of the deliverer of the poor
and the chastiser of the rich, the former class would
? ? ? ? CONDUCT OF THE MINORITY. 41
readily become not an indifferent spectator of the
war, but would be ready to enlist in the faction of
the enemy, - which they would consider, though under a foreign name, to be more connected with them
than an adverse description in the same land. All
the props of society would be drawn from us by these
doctrines, and the very foundations of the public defence would give way in an instant.
36. There is no point which the faction of fraternity in England have labored more than to excite in
the poor the horror of any war with France upon any
occasion. When they found that their open attacks
upon our Constitution in favor of a French republic
were for the present repelled, they put that matter
out of sight, and have taken up the more plausible
and popular ground of general peace, upon merely
general principles; although these very men, in the
correspondence of their clubs with those of France,
had reprobated the neutrality which now they so earnestly press. But, in reality, their maxim was, and
is, "Peace and alliance with France, and war with
the rest of the world. "
37. This last motion of Mr. Fox bound up the
whole of his politics during the session. This motion had many circumstances, particularly in the
Norwich correspondence, by which the mischief of
all the others was aggravated beyond measure. Yet
this last motion, far the worst of Mr. Fox's proceedinlgs, was the best supported of any of them, except
his amendment to the address. The Duke of Portland had directly engaged to support the war;here was a motion as directly made to force the crown to put an end to it before a blow had been
struck. The efforts of the faction have so prevailed
? ? ? ? 42 OBSERVATIONS ON THE
that some of his Grace's nearest friends have actually voted for that motion; some, after showing themselves, went away; others did not appear at all. So it must be, where a man is for any time supported from personal considerations, without reference to his public conduct. Through the whole of
this business, the spirit of fraternity appears to me
to have been the governing principle. It might be
shameful for any man, above the vulgar, to show so
blind a partiality even to his own country as Mr.
Fox appears, on all occasions, this session, to have
shown to France. Had Mr. Fox been a minister,
and proceeded on the principles laid down by him,
I believe there is little doubt he would have been
considered as the most criminal statesman that ever
lived in this country. I do not know why a statesman out of place is not to be judged in the same
manner, unless we can excuse him by pleading in
his favor a total indifference to principle, and that
he would act and think in quite a different way, if
he were in office. This I will not suppose. One
may think better of him, and that, in case of his
power, he might change his mind. But supposing,
that, from better or from worse motives, he might
change his mind on his acquisition of the favor of
the crown, I seriously fear, that, if the king should
to-morrow put power into his hands, and that his
good genius would inspire him with maxims very
different from those he has promulgated, he would
not be able to get the better of the ill temper and
the ill doctrines lie has been the means of exciting
and propagating throughout the kingdom. From the
very beginning of their inhuman and unprovoked
rebellion and tyrannic usurpation, he has covered
? ? ? ? CONDUCT OF THE MINORITY. 43
the predominant faction in France, and their adherents here, with the most exaggerated panegyrics;
neither has he missed a single opportunity of abusing and vilifying those who, in uniform concurrence
with the Duke of Portland's and Lord Fitzwilliam's
opinion, have maintained the true grounds of the
Revolution Settlement in 1688. He lamented all
the defeats of the French; he rejoiced in all their
victories, - even when these victories threatened to
overwhelm the continent of Europe, and, by facilitating their means of penetrating into Holland, to
bring this most dreadful of all evils with irresistible
force to the very doors, if not into the very heart,
of our country. To this hour he always speaks of
every thought of overturning the French Jacobinism
by force, on the part of any power whatsoever, as an
attempt unjust and cruel, and which he reprobates
with horror. If any of the French Jacobin leaders
are spoken of with hatred or scorn, he falls upon
those who take that liberty with all the zeal and
warmth with which men of honor defend their particular and bosom friends, when attacked. He always represents their cause as a cause of liberty, and all who oppose it as partisans of despotism. He
obstinately continues to consider the great and growing vices, crimes, and disorders of that country as
only evils of passage, which are to produce a permanently happy state of order and freedom. He
represents these disorders exactly in the same way
and with the same limitations which are used by one
of the two great Jacobin factions: I mean that of P6tion and Brissot. Like them, he studiously confines
his horror and reprobation only to the massacres
of the 2d of September, and passes by those of the
? ? ? ? 44 OBSERVATIONS ON THE
10th of August, as well as the imprisonment and
deposition of the king, which were the consequences
of that day, as indeed were the massacres themselves
to which he confines his censure, though they were
not actually perpetrated till early in September.
Like that faction, he condemns, not the deposition,
or the proposed exile or perpetual imprisonment,
but only the murder of the king. Mr. Sheridan,
on every occasion, palliates all their massacres committed in every part of France, as the effects of a natural indignation at the exorbitances of despotism,
and of the dread of the people of returning under
that yoke. He has thus taken occasion to load, not
the actors in this wickedness, but the government of
a mild, merciful, beneficent, and patriotic prince, and
his suffering, faithful subjects, with all the crimes
of the new anarchical tyranny under which the one
has been murdered and the others are oppressed.
Those continual either praises or palliating apologies
of everything done in France, and those invectives
as uniformly vomited out upon all those who venture
to express their disapprobation of such proceedings,
coming from a man of Mr. Fox's fame and authority, and one who is considered as the person to whom a great party of the wealthiest men of the kingdom
look up, have been the cause why the principle of
French fraternity formerly gained the ground which
at one time it had obltained in this country. It will
infallibly recover itself again, and in ten times a
greater degree, if the kind of peace, in the manner
which he preaches, ever shall be established with the
reigning faction in France.
38. So far as to the French practices with regard
to France and the other powers of Europe. As to
? ? ? ? CONDUCT OF THE MINORITY. 45
their principles and doctrines with regard to the constitution of states, Mr. Fox studiously, on all occasions, and indeed when no occasion calls for it, (as
on the debate of the petition for reform,) brings forward and asserts their fundamental and fatal principle, pregnant with every mischief and every crime,
namely, that "in every country the people is the legitimate sovereign": exactly conformable to the declaration of the French clubs and legislators: --" La
souverainet6 est une, indivisible, inalienable, et impreseriptible; elle appartient a la nation; aucune section du peuple ni aucun individu ne peut s'en attribuer l'exercise. " This confounds, in a manner equally mischievous and stupid, the origin of a government from the people with its continuance in their
hands. I believe that no such doctrine has ever been
heard of in any public act of any government whatsoever, until it was adopted (I think from the writings of Rousseau) by the French Assemblies, who
have made it the basis of their Constitution at home,
and of the matter of their apostolate in every country. These and other wild declarations of abstract
principle, Mr. Fox says, are in themselves perfectly
right and true; though in some cases he allows the
French draw absurd consequences from them. But
I conceive he is mistaken. The consequences are
most logically, though most mischievously, drawn
from the premises and principles by that wicked
and ungracious faction. The fault is in the foundation.
39. Before society, in a multitude of men, it is obvious that sovereignty and subjection are ideas which
cannot exist. It is the compact on which society is
fbrmed that makes both. But to suppose the people,
? ? ? ? 4-3 OBSERVATIONS ON THE
contrary to their compacts, both to give away and
retain the same thing is altogether absurd. It is
worse, for it supposes in any strong combination of
men a power and right of always dissolving the social union; which power, however, if it exists, renders them again as little sovereigns as subjects, but a mere unconnected multitude. It is not easy to
state for what good end, at a time like this, when
the foundations of all ancient and prescriptive governments, such as ours, (to which people submit, not
because they have chosen them, but because they are
born to them,) are undermined by perilous theories,
that Mr. Fox should be so fond of referring to those
theories, upon all occasions, even though speculatively they might be true, -- which God forbid they
should! Particularly I do not see the reason why
he should be so fond of declaring that the principles
of the Revolution have made the crown of Great Britain elective, -- why he thinks it seasonable to preach
up with so much earnestness, for now three years together, the doctrine of. resistance and revolution at
all, - or to assert that our last Revolution, of 1688,
stands on the same or similar principles with that
of France. We are not called upon to bring forward
these doctrines, which are hardly ever resorted to but
in cases of extremity, and where they are followed by
correspondent actions. We are not called upon by
any circumstance, that I know of, which can justify
a revolt, or which demands a revolution, or can make
an election of a successor to the crown necessary,
whatever latent right may be supposed to exist for
effectuating any of these purposes.
40. Not the least alarming of the proceedings of
Mr. Fox and his friends in this session, especially
? ? ? ? CONDUCT OF THE MINORITY. 47
taken in concurrence with their whole proceedings
with regard to Franlce and its principles, is their eagerness at this season, under pretence of Parliamentary reforms, (a project which had been for some time rather dormant,) to discredit and disgrace thq
House of Commons. For this purpose these gentlemen had found a way to insult the House by several
atrocious libels in the form of petitions. In particular they brought up a libel, or rather a complete
digest of libellous matter, from the club called the
Friends of the People. It is, indeed, at once the
most audacious and the most insidious of all the performances of that kind which have yet appeared. It
is said to be the penmanship of Mr. Tierney, to
bring whom into Parliament the Duke of Portland
formerly had taken a good deal of pains, and expended, as I hear, a considerable sum of money.
41. Among the circumstances of danger from that
piece, and from its precedent, it is observable that
this is the first petition (if I remember right) coming
from a club or association, signed by individuals, denoting neither local residence nor corporate capacity. This
mode of petition, not being strictly illegal or informal,
though in its spirit in the highest degree mischievous, may and will lead to other things of that nature,
tending to bring these clubs and associations to the
French model, and to make them in the end answer
French purposes: I mean, that, without legal names,
these clubs will be led to assume political capacities;
that they may debate the forms of Constitution; and
that from their meetings they may insolently dictate
their will to the regular authorities of the kingdom, in
the manner in which the Jacobin clubs issue their
Inla:ldates to the National Assembly or the National
? ? ? ? 48 OBSERVATIONS ON THE
Convention. The audacious remonstrance, I observe,
is signed by all of that association (the Friends of the
People) who are not in Parliament, and it was supported most strenuously by all the associators who are
members, with Mr. Fox at their head. He and they
contended for referring this libel to a committee.
Upon the question of that reference they grounded
all their debate for a change in the constitution of
Parliament. The pretended petition is, in fact, a
regular charge or impeachment of the House of
Commons, digested into a number of articles. This
plan of reform is not a criminal impeachment, but
a matter of prudence, to be submitted to the public
wisdom, which must be as well apprised of the facts
as petitioners can be. But those accusers of the
House of Commons have proceeded upon the principles of a criminal process, and have had the effrontery to offer proof on each article. 42. This charge the party of Mr. Fox maintained
article by article, beginning with the first, - namely,
the interference of peers at elections, and their nominating in effect several of the members of the House
of Commons. In the printed list of grievances which
they made out on the occasion, and in support of
their charge, is found the borough for which, under
Lord Fitzwilliam's influence, I now sit. By this remonstrance, and its object, they hope to defeat the
operation of property in elections, and in reality to
dissolve the connection and communication of interests which makes the Houses of Parliament a mutual
support to each other. Mr. Fox and the Friends of
the People are not so ignorant as not to know that
peers do not interfere in elections as peers, but as
men of property; they well know that the House
? ? ? ? CONDUCT OF THE MINORITY. 49
of Lords is by itself the feeblest part of the Constitution; they know that the House of Lords is supported only by its connections with the crown and
with the House of Commons, and that without this
double connection the Lords could not exist a single
year. They know that all these parts of our Constitution, whilst they are balanced as opposing interests, are also connected as friends; otherwise nothing but confusion could be the result of such a complex
Constitution. It is natural, therefore, that they who
wish the common destruction of the whole and of
all its parts should contend for their total separation.
But as the House of Commons is that link which connects both the other parts of the Constitution (the
Crown and the Lords) with the mass of the people, it
is to that link (as it is natural enough) that their
incessant attacks are directed. That artificial representation of the people being once discredited and
overturned, all goes to pieces, and nothing but a
plain French democracy or arbitrary monarchy can
possibly exist.
43. Some of these gentlemen who have attacked
the House of Commons lean to a representation of the
people by the head, - that is, to individual representation. None of them, that I recollect, except Mr.
Fox, directly rejected it. It is remarkable, however, that he only rejected it by simply declaring
an opinion. He let all the argument go against
his opinion. All the proceedings and arguments
of his reforming friends lead to individual representation, and to nothing else. It deserves to be
attentively observed, that this individual representation is the only plan of their reform which has been
explicitly proposed. In the mean time, the conduct
VOL. V. 4
? ? ? ? 50 OBSERVATIONS ON THE
of Mr. Fox appears to be far more inexplicable, on
any good ground, than theirs, who propose the individual representation; for he neither proposes anything, nor even suggests that he has anything to propose, in lieu of the present mode of constituting
the House of Commons; on the contrary, he declares against all the plans which have yet been
suggested, either from himself or others: yet, thus
unprovided with any plan whatsoever, he pressed forward this unknown reform with all possible warmth;
and for that purpose, in a speech of several hours,
he urged the referring to a committee the libellous
impeachment of the House of Commons by the association of the Friends of the People. But for Mr.
Fox to discredit Parliament as it stands, to countenance leagues, covenants, and associations for its
further discredit, to render it perfectly odious and
contemptible, and at the same time to propose nothing at all in place of what he disgraces, is worse, if
possible, than to contend for personal individual representation, and is little less than demanding, in plain
terms, to bring on plain anarchy.
44. Mr. Fox and these gentlemen have for the
present been defeated; but they are neither converted nor disheartened. They have solemnly declared that they will persevere until they shall have obtained their ends, --persisting to assert that the
House of Commons not only is not the true representative of the people, but that it does not answer
the purpose of such representation: most of them
insist that all the debts, the taxes, and the burdens
of all kinds on the people, with every other evil
and inconvenience which we have suffered since the
Revolution, have been owing solely to an House of
? ? ? ? CONDUCT OF THE MINORITY. 51
Commons which does not speak the sense of the
people.
45. It is also not to be forgotten, that Mr. Fox,
and all who hold with him, on this, as on all other
occasions of pretended reform, most bitterly reproach
Mr. Pitt with treachery, in declining to support the
scandalous charges and indefinite projects of this infamous libel from the Friends of the People. By the animosity with which they persecute all those who
grow. cold in this cause of pretended reform, they
hope, that, if, through levity, inexperience, or ambition, any young person (like Mr. Pitt, for instance) happens to be once embarked in their design, they
shall by a false shame keep him fast in it forever.
Many they have so hampered.
46. I know it is usual, when the peril and alarm
of tle hour appears to be a little overblown, to think
no imore of the matter. But, for my part, I look back
with horror on what we have escaped, and am full
of anxiety with regard to the dangers which in my
opinion are still to be apprehended both at home
and abroad. This business has cast deep roots.
Whether it is necessarily connected in theory with
Jacobinism is not worth a dispute. The two things
are connected in fact. The partisans of the one are
the partisans of the other. I know it is common
with those who are favorable to the gentlemen of
Mr. Fox's party and to their leader, though not at
all devoted to all their reforming projects or their
Gallican politics, to argue, in palliation of their conduct, that it is not in their power to do all the harm which their actions evidently tend to. It is said,
that, as the people will not support them, they may
safely be indulged in those eccentric fancies of re
? ? ? ? 52 OBSERVATIONS ON THE
form, and those theories which lead to nothing.
This apology is not very much to the honor of
those politicians whose interests are to be adhered
to in defiance of their conduct. I cannot flatter myself that these incessant attacks on the constitution
of Parliament are safe. It is not in my power to despise the unceasing efforts of a confederacy of about
vfty persons of eminence: men, for the far greater
part, of very ample fortunes either in possession or
in expectancy; men of decided characters and vehement passions; men of very great talents of all kinds,
of much boldness, and of the greatest possible spirit
of artifice, intrigue, adventure, and enterprise, all
operating with unwearied activity and perseverance.
These gentlemen are much stronger, too, without doors
than some calculate. They have the more active part
of the Dissenters with them, and the whole clan of
speculators of all denominations, - a large and growing species. They have that floating multitude which
goes with events, and which suffers the loss or gain
of a battle to decide its opinions of right and wrong.
As long as by every art this party keeps alive a spirit
of disaffection against the very Constitution of the
kingdom, and attributes, as lately it has been in the
habit of doing, all the public misfortunes to that Constitution, it is absolutely impossible but that some moment must arrive in which they will be enabled to produce a pretended reform and a real revolution.
If ever the body of this compound Constitution of ours
is subverted, either in favor of unlimited monarchy
or of wild democracy, that ruin will most certainly be
the result of this very sort of machinations against
the House of Commons. It is not from a confidence
in the views or intentions of any statesman that I
? ? ? ? CONDUCT OF THE MINORITY. 53
think he is to be indulged in these perilous amusements.
47. Before it is made the great object of any man's
political life to raise another to power, it is right to
consider what are the real dispositions of the person
to be so elevated. We are not to form our judgment
on these dispositions from the rules and principles of
a court of justice, but from those of private discretion, - not looking for what would serve to criminate
another, but what is sufficient to direct ourselves.
By a comparison of a series of the discourses and
actions of certain men for a reasonable length of
time, it is impossible not to obtain sufficient indication
of the general tendency of their views and principles.
There is no other rational mode of proceeding. It
is true, that in some one or two perhaps not wellweighed expressions, or some one or two unconnected and doubtful affairs, we may and ought to judge of the actions or words by our previous good or ill opinion of the man. But this allowance has its bounds.
It does not extend to any regular course of systematic action, or of constant and repeated discourse. It
is against every principle of common sense, and of
justice to one's self and to the public, to judge of a
series of speeches and actions from the man, and not
of the man from the whole tenor of his language and
conduct. I have stated the above matters, not as inferring a criminal charge of evil intention. If I had
meant to do so, perhaps they are stated with tolerable exactness. But I have no such view. The intentions of these gentlemen may be very pure. I do
not dispute it. But I think they are in some great
error. If these things are done by Mr. Fox and his
friends with good intentions, they are not done less
? ? ? ? 54 OBSERVATIONS ON THE
dangerously; for it shows these good intentions are
not under the direction of safe maxims and principles.
48. Mr. Fox, Mr. Sheridan, and the gentlemen
who call themselves the Phalanx, have not been so
very indulgent to others. They have thought proper
to ascribe to those members of the House of Commons, who, in exact agreement with the Duke of
Portland and Lord Fitzwilliam, abhor and oppose the
French system, the basest and most unworthy motives for their conduct; - as if none could oppose
that atheistic, immoral, and impolitic project set up
in France, so disgraceful and destructive, as I conceive, to human nature itself, but with some sinister
intentions. They treat those members on all occasions with a sort of lordly insolence, though they are
persons that (whatever homage they may pay to the
eloquence of the gentlemen who' choose to look down
upon them with scorn) are not their inferiors in any
particular which calls for and obtains just consideration from the public: not their inferiors in knowledge of public law, or of the Constitution of the kingdom; not their inferiors in their acquaintance
with its foreign and domestic interests; not their
inferiors in experience or practice of business; not
their inferiors in moral character; not their inferiors in the proofs they have given of zeal and indus
try in the service of their country. Without denying to these gentlemen the respect and consideration
which it is allowed justly belongs to them, we see
no reason why they should not as well be obliged to
defer something to our opinions as that we should
be bound blindly and servilely to follow those of
Mr. Fox, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Grey, Mr. Courtenay.
? ? ? ? CONDUCT OF THE MINORITY. 55
Mr. Lambton, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Taylor. and others. We are members of Parliament and their
equals. We never consider ourselves as their followers. These gentlemen (some of them hardly
born when some of us came into Parliament) have
thought proper to treat us as deserters, -as if we
had been listed into their phalanx like soldiers, and
had sworn to live and die in their French principles.
This insolent claim of superiority on their part, and
of a sort of vassalage to them on that of other members, is what no liberal mind will submit to bear.
49. The society of the Liberty of the Press, the
Whig Club, and the Society for Constitutional Information, and (I believe) the Friends of the People, as well as some clubs in Scotland, have, indeed,
declared, "that their confidence in and attachment
to Mr. Fox has lately been confirmed, strengthened,
and increased by the calumnies" (as they are called)
" against him. " It is true, Mr. Fox and his friends
have those testimonies in their favor, against certain
old friends of the Duke of Portland. Yet, on a full,
serious, and, I think, dispassionate consideration of
the whole of what Mr. Fox and Mr. Sheridan and
their friends have acted, said, and written, in this
session, instead of doing anything which might tend
to procure power, or any share of it whatsoever, to
them or to their phalanx, (as they call it,) or to inlcrease their credit, influence, or popularity in the nation, I think it one of my most serious and important public duties, in whatsoever station I may be placed for the short time I have to live, effectually
to employ my best endeavors, by every prudent and
every lawful means, to traverse all their designs. I
have only to lament that my abilities are not greater,
? ? ? ? 56 OBSERVATIONS ON THE
and that my probability of life is not better, for the
more effectual pursuit of that object. But I trust that
neither the principles nor exertions will die with me.
I am the rather confirmed in this my resolution, and
in this my wish of transmitting it, because every ray
of hope concerning a possible control or mitigation of
the enormous mischiefs which the principles of these
gentlemen, and which their connections, full as dangerous as their principles, might receive from the influence of the Duke of Portland and Lord Fitzwilliam, on becoming their colleagues in office, is now entirely
banished from the mind of every one living. It is
apparent, even to the world at large, that, so far
from having a power to direct or to guide Mr. Fox,
Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Grey, and the rest, in any important matter, they have not, through this session,
been able to prevail on them to forbear, or to delay,
or mitigate, or soften, any one act, or any one expression, upon subjects on which they essentially
differed.
50. Even if this hope of a possible control did exist,
yet the declared opinions, and the uniform line of
conduct conformable to those opinions, pursued by
Mr. Fox, must become a matter of serious alarm, if
he should obtain a power either at court or in Parliament or in the nation at large, and for this plain
reason: he must be the most active and efficient
member in any administration of which he shall
form a part. That a man, or set of men, are guided by such not dubious, but delivered and avowed
principles and maxims of policy, as to need a watch
and check on them in the exercise of the highest
power, ought, in my opinion, to make every man,
who is not of the same principles and guided by the
? ? ? ? CONDUCT OF THE MINORITY. 57
same maxims, a little cautious how he makes himself one of the traverses of a ladder to help such a
man, or such a set of men, to climb up to the highest authority. A minister of this country is to be
controlled by the House of Commons. He is to be
trusted, not controlled, by his colleagues in office: if
he were to be controlled, government, which ought to
be the source of order, would itself become a scene
of anarchy. Besides, Mr. Fox is a man of an aspiring and commanding mind, made rather to control
than to be controlled, and he never will be nor can
be in any administration in which he will be guided
by any of those whom I have been accustomed to
confide in. It is absurd to think that he would or
could. If his own opinions do not control him, nothing can. When we consider of an adherence to a
man which leads to his power, we must not only see
what the man is, but how he stands related. It is
not to be forgotten that Mr. Fox acts in close and
inseparable connection with another gentleman of exactly the same description as himself, and who, perhaps, of the two, is the leader. The rest of the body are not a great deal more tractable; and over them,
if Mr. Fox and Mr. Sheridan have authority, most
assuredly the Duke of Portland has not the smallest
degree of influence.
51. One must take care that a blind partiality to
some persons, and as blind an hatred to others, may
not enter into our minds under a color of inflexible
public principle. We hear, as a reason for clinging
to Mr. Fox at present, that nine years ago Mr. Pitt
ogot into power by mischievous intrigues with the
court, with the Dissenters, and with other factious
people out of Parliament, to the discredit and weak
? ? ? ? 58 OBSERVATIONS ON THE
ening of the power of the House of Commons. -is
conduct nine years ago I still hold to be very culpable. There are, however, many things very culpable that I do not know how to punish. My opinion oin
such matters I must submit to the good of the state,
as I have done on other occasions, - and particularly with regard to the authors and managers of
the American war, with whom I have acted, both in
office and in opposition, with great confidence and
cordiality, though I thought many of their acts criminal and impeachable. Whilst the misconduct of Mr. Pitt and his associates was yet recent, it was
not possible to get Mr. Fox of himself to take a single
step, or even to countenance others in taking any
step, upon the ground of that misconduct and false
policy; though, if the matters had been then taken
up and pursued, such a step could not have appeared
so evidently desperate as now it is. So far from pursuing Mr. Pitt, I know that then, and for some time after, some of Mr. Fox's friends were actually, and
with no small earnestness, looking out to a coalition with that gentleman. For years I never heard
this circumstance of Mr. Pitt's misconduct on that
occasion mentioned by Mr. Fox, either in public or
in private, as a ground for opposition to that minister. All opposition, from that period to this very session, has proceeded upon tire separate measures
as they separately arose, without any vindictive retrospect to Mr. Pitt's conduct in 1784. My memory, however, may fail me. I must appeal to the printed
debates, which (so far as Mr. Fox is concerned) are
unusually accurate.
52. Whatever might have been in our power at
an early period, at this day I see no remedy for what
? ? ? ? CONDUCT OF THE MINORITY. 59
was done in 1784. I had no great hopes even at the
time. I was therefore very eager to record a remonstrance on the journals of the House of Commons, as a caution against such a popular delusion in times to
come; and this I then feared, and now am certain,
is all that could be done. I know of no way of animadverting on the crown. I know of no mode of
calling to account the House of Lords, who threw
out the India Bill in a way not much to their credit. As little, or rather less, am I able to coerce the
people at large, who behaved very unwisely and
intemperately on that occasion. Mr. Pitt was then
accused, by me as well as others, of attempting to
be minister without enjoying the confidence of the
House of Commons, though he did enljoy the confidence of the crown. That House of Commons,
whose confidence he did not enjoy, unfortunately
did not itself enjoy the confidence (though we well
deserved it) either of the crown or of the public.
For want of that confidence, the then House of
Commons did not survive the contest. Since that
period Mr. Pitt has enjoyed the confidence of the
crown, and of the Lords, and of the House of Commons, through two successive Parliaments; and I suspect that he has ever since, and that he does
still, enjoy as large a portion, at least, of the confidence of the people without doors as his great rival. Before whom, then, is Mr. Pitt to be impeached, and
by whom? The more I consider the matter, the
more firmly I am convinced that the idea of proscribing Mr. Pitt indirectly, when you cannot directly punish him, is as chimerical a project, and as unijustifiable, as it would be to have proscribed Lord North. For supposing that by indirect ways of opposition,
? ? ? ? CGO OBSERVATIONS ON THE
by opposition upon measures which do not relate to
the business of 1784, but which on other grounds
might prove unpopular, you were to drive him from
his seat, this would be no example whatever of punishment for the matters we charge as offences in
1784. On a cool and dispassionate view of the
affairs of this time and country, it appears obvious
to me that one or the other of those two great men,
that is, Mr. Pitt or Mr. Fox, must be minister. They
are, I am sorry for it, irreconcilable. Mr. Fox's conduct in this session has rendered the idea of his power a matter of serious alarm to many people who were very little pleased with the proceedings of Mr.
Pitt in the beginning of his administration. They
like neither the conduct of Mr. Pitt in 1784, nor
that of Mr. Fox in 1793; but they estimate which
of the evils is most pressing at the time, and what
is likely to be the consequence of a change. If Mr.
Fox be wedded, they must be sensible that his opinions and principles on the now existing state of
things at home and abroad must be taken as his
portion. In his train must also be taken the whole
body of gentlemen who are pledged to him and to
each other, and to their common politics and principles. I believe no king of Great Britain ever will
adopt, for his confidential servants, that body of geIntlemen, holding that body of principles. Even if the
present king or his successor should think fit to take
that step, I apprehend a general discontent of those
who wish that this nation and that Europe should
continue in their'present state would ensue,- a discontent which, combined with the principles and
progress of the new men in power, would shake
this kingdom to its foundations. I do not believe
? ? ? ? CONDUCT OF THE MINORITY. 61
any one political conjecture can be more certain
than this.
53. Without at all defending or palliating Mr.
Pitt's conduct in 1784, I must observe, that the
crisis of 1793, with regard to everything at home
and abroad, is full as important as that of 1784
ever was, and, if for no other reason, by being
present, is much more important. It is not to nine
years ago we are to look for the danger of Mr. Fox's
and Mr. Sheridan's conduct, and that of the gentlemen who act with them. It is at this very time, and
in this very session, that, if they had not been strenuously resisted, they would not only have discredited the House of Commons, (as Mr. Pitt did in 1784, when he persuaded the king to reject their advice, and
to appeal from them to the people,) but, in my opinion, would have been the means of wholly subverting the House of Commons and the House of Peers, and the whole Constitution actual and virtual, together with the safety and independence of this nation, and the peace and settlement of every state ill the now Christian world. It is to our opinion of the
nature of Jacobinism, and of the probability, by
corruption, faction, and force, of its gaining ground
everywhere, that the question whom and what you
are to support is to be determined. For my part,
without doubt or hesitation, I look upon Jacobinisnm
as the most dreadful and the most shameful evil
which ever afflicted mankind, a thing which goes
beyond the power of all calculation in its mischief, -
and that, if it is suffered to exist in France, we must
in England, and speedily too, fall into that calamity.
54. I figure to myself the purpose of these gentlemen accomplished, and this ministry destroyed. I
? ? ? ? 62 OBSERVATIONS ON THE
see that the persons who in that case must rule can
be no other than Mr. Fox, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Grey,
the Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord Thurlow, Lord Lauderdale, and the Duke of Norfolk, with the other
chiefs of the Friends of the People, the Parliamentary
reformers, and the admirers of the French Revolution.
The principal of these are all formally pledged to their
projects. If the Duke of Portland and Lord Fitzwilliam should be admitted into that system, (as they
might and probably would be,) it is quite certain
they could not have the smallest weight in it, - less,
indeed, than what they now possess, if less were possible: because they would be less wanted than they
now are; and because all those who wished to join
them, and to act under them, have been rejected by
the Duke of Portland and Lord Fitzwilliam themselves; and Mr. Fox, finding them thus by themselves disarmed, has built quite a new fabric, upon quite a new foundation. There is no trifling on this
subject. We see very distinctly before us the ministry that would be formed and the plan that would
be pursued. If we like the plan, we must wish the
power of those who are to carry it into execution;
but to pursue the political exaltation of those whose
political measures we disapprove and whose principles we dissent from is a species of modern politics
not easily comprehensible, and which must end in
the ruin of the country, if it should continue and
spread. Mr. Pitt may be the worst of men, and
Mr. Fox may be the best; but, at present, the former
is in the interest of his country, and of the order of
things long established in Europe: Mr. Fox is not.
