the legal form had been suspended so long, that it never seemed likely to be revived. It perished in the very instant of its restoration, by a Revolution introducing the first Constitution, which perished in a short time; by a second introducing a Republic; which was subverted again by a third, a mongrel form of mixed Monarchy, with five elective Sovereigns periodically changed.

Those of the Duke of PORTLAND's Party who concurred in the War, originally wished for, and actively forwarded measures for the restoration of the Legal Constitution of France (1); whether or not they thought it required some modification to make it effective, is at present of little import. It is on this account that Mr. Fox brings against them the charge of Apostacy. He assumes to stand upon very eminent ground, on account of the uniformity and steadiness with which he has always maintained the principles which he now declares for. But if he be admitted to have been fixed; as he declares, it admits of proof that he has a species of fixedness belonging to him of a very oscillating kind; which may be best illustrated by that of a ship riding off at sea by a single anchor, which at every turn of the tide swings about, and brings her head round to a

(1) In 1691 KING WILLIAM, with other parties, entered into " a "solemn Engagement in the presence of Almighty God," to prosecute the War against the KING of FRANCE until this object was effected. And the Parliament, consisting chiefly of the Leaders of the Revolution, year after year afterwards, voted large sums for the vigorous prosecution of the War. The PORTLAND Party, therefore, on this subject conformed to the principles of the Authors of the Revolution. This Engagement is considered in another point of view farther on.

7

point of the compass diametrically opposite to that it stood toward before.

For let it be granted, that previous to the French Revolution, Mr. Fox and his former Friends had a common principle with regard to the interposition of this Nation in the forms and detail of administration of Government of Foreign States; and let him be permitted, in his own expressions, to be the Expositor of that common principle(1); if he be fond of harsh words, be it also admitted to him, for argument sake, that the person or persons who recently have spoken and acted diametrically opposite to this, are Apostates; then let us examine to which of the two the title, on his own shewing, belongs, to him-self or to his former friends, against whom he now sets himself in opposition.

The Partizans of Republican Liberty in Holland had very nearly effected a Revolution in 1787: the former Constitution was re-imposed upon that Country by a combination of Kings, of which the KING of GREAT BRITAIN was a Member. After the measure had. succeeded, that event was announced in Parliament, in a Speech from the Throne; it states something about lawful Government having been, by our interposition, reinstated in that Country. Mr. Fox, by the Reporters of the Debates, is stated to have declared:

"For myself, I do not think it necessary to inquire "into the legality of the Constitution of a Foreign State.

(1) Nobody ever followed him to the length he laid it down.

"It is sufficient for me to consider which party is most "inclined to be friendly to Great Britain (1);" or rather, as the latter part of this extract is stated in another Work, of which this quotation is prima facie an abridgment," where there are two parties in a Country, "one of them hostile and the other friendly to us, we "have a right to interfere in support of that which is friendly."

In the latter end of 1792, we find Mr. Fox arguing against this principle: and on the 27th of May 1795, he declared, that" to attempt giving any Country a Con"stitution, is detestable (2)." The like must be true of assisting the weaker party to restore an old one or to frame a new one.

If the word Apostate were the proper term to be used on this occasion, it must be applied to Mr. Fox. There is one observation, however, to make on his first declaration; it goes a little too far for the point here wanted to be proved: it shews, indeed, the secession from the Party to have been made by Mr. Fox; but their common principles never extended to the lengths laid down by him ten years ago. They held indeed, that there were cases in which one State might interfere in behalf of a party in another; but they never maintained, that I have heard, that the interference of one Nation to sub

(1) New Annual Register, 1788. History, p. 51.-(2) DEBRETT'S Parliamentary Debates, 1787, vol. 23, p. 11, where he is made to say that the friendliness of the Government we establish, is the only point to be con sidered that the legality of it is a redundant circumstance, not of conse quence enough to be mentioned in the Speech.

vert

vert the lawful Government of another was allowable, merely to give power to their friends.

I must return again to the matter of these two contradictory declarations, and shall therefore now go to some circumstances attending them, which have their curiosity. Nations, like individuals, have their true and false honour, and the gratification of their pride by the attainment of either, is very fascinating to the individuals composing a State. Shall we admit, that, dazzled with splendid appearance attending the success of the interposition of his Country, his principles were laid asleep by it for a short time? Mr. Fox himself has taken pains to preclude the possibility of supposing such a thing in his favour.

The "principal object" of the Speech from the Throne, the subject he was then discussing, was to obtain the approbation of Parliament to the interposition of the Executive Power in the affairs of the domestic government of Holland. That his former eye was not dazzled by the events of this minute, is proved by the declaration he then made:

66

"That he must contradict every political principle upon which he had hitherto acted, if he refused his approbation to the principal object of the Speech from "the Throne (1).”

But when the very next event to which the principal object was applicable, brought it upon the carpet, he

(1) New Annual Register, 1788, p. 51.

declared,

J

declared, "that his own argument upon that head had always been, that no one State had a right to model the "internal polity of another(1)." This amounts at least to a proof, that since the French Revolution, Mr. Fox had always argued upon grounds contrary to every political principle upon which he had acted to the year 1788; and being the proper Expositor of his own principles, a deserter from them he certainly became on the French Revolution.

But the zeal displayed by him on the second of these occasions, completely to contradict every thing he had said on the first, has not yet had sufficient justice done to it. In 1787, and 1793, our aid was called in by the same parties in Holland: he further is stated to have said on the first of these occasions:

"Those principles which have been long stigmatized "as romantic, constitute the system by which it is the true "interest of this Country to be governed (2)." And on the second, which stands on the same ground, he gives this opinion: "It is urged, that we went into the War “to save Holland: of the Quixotic idea of going to war "to save others, he should not say any thing; but he "could not think it was real chivalry to save the Dutch

against their will (3)." It is by the repetition of a charge of Apostacy against his former friends, so well founded, that he hopes to restrain what he calls future

(1) WOODFALL's Debates, vol. 7, p. 355, on the Motion of Mr. W11BERFORCE, May 27, 1795.—(2) New Ann. Register, p. 51.—(3) WooDFALL'S Debates, vol. 7, p. 354.

desertion.