joying. Little fear do I feel of success with the electors of Westminster, who will not, I am sure, abandon me until I desert those principles which first recommended me to their favor!

(4.) A person of great rank in this House [Mr. Pitt] has thrown out a hint or threat, I know not which to call it, in a former debate, "that I should not again disturb the peace of the city of Westminster." Good God, sir! did any man ever hear such aggravating, such insulting insinuations? I disturb the peace of Westminster! Is that honorable gentleman not contented with breaking every law, with violating every statute, with overturning every analogy and every precedent, to accomplish this business; but must he, at the very moment he thus makes a deep breach in the English Constitution, complete the catalogue of injury, by adding pertness and personal contumely to every species of rash and inconsiderate violence! I, I disturb the peace of this city, who have three times had the honor of representing it in this House! I, who was favored with the free suffrages of its electors, long, long before any of those who lately opposed me were ever talked of, ever thought of for such a distinction! Every man qualified to sit in Parliament has a right to offer himself wherever he thinks proper; and it is indecent, daring, and audacious in any man, to insinuate that he ought not to disturb the peace of the place. I therefore hope, sir, that a language so peculiarly false and unbecoming toward me, and so directly repugnant to the genius and spirit of the Constitution, will meet with the disapprobation it deserves in this House, as it certainly will be received with merited odium and execration out of this House.

of those by whom I am supported-when I consider that all that artifice could dictate and pow. er could execute have been exerted upon this occasion, I can have no doubt that the hand of a revengeful government pervades it all. The opposition of such a government upon an election is a discouraging circumstance; and the likelihood of renewing again those events which I have witnessed within the last two months, is indeed a formidable and terrific prospect.

When I look back, sir, to all the shameful and shocking scenes of the Westminster electionwhen I consider that my enemies practiced all that was possible of injustice, indecency, and irreverence in their efforts to overwhelm mewhen I consider the gross, the frontless prostitution of names too sacred to be mentioned_ when I consider that all the influence of all the various branches of government was employed against me, in contempt of propriety and defiance of law-when I consider that a body of men was brought, in the appearance of constables, to the place of election, under the command of a magistrate, and against the express opinion of all the other magistrates of Westminsterthat these constables broke that peace they were bound to preserve, and created a riot which proved fatal to one of their own body-when I consider that this was made the pretense of a wanton, and indecent, and unconstitutional introduction of the military, in violation of all that has been done by our ancestors to keep sacred the freedom of election-when I consider that the lives of innocent men were deemed light and trivial impediments to the gratification of that implacable spirit of revenge, which appears through the whole of this business-when I consider that several men of the lower order of life, whose only crime was appearing in my interest, were confined for many weeks in a prison, and obliged to stand trial, and that others, of the higher rank, ingenious and amiable men, valuable for their qualities, respectable for their characters, distinguished for their abilities, and every way meriting the esteem of mankind, were also attacked without the show of a pretense, and obliged to undergo the ceremony of a public acquittal from the foul crime of murder-when I consider that palpable perjury, and subornation of perjury were employed to accomplish the sanguinary object of this base conspiracy—when I consider that the malignity of my enemies has stopped at nothing, however gross and wicked, to ruin me and all that appeared in my interestwhen I consider all this, sir, I can not, indeed, but look with some anxiety to the circumstance of a new election.

Upon the generous protection of the electors of this city I shall certainly throw myself, in case of a new writ; and, in doing so, sir, well I am aware what a series of various difficulties I have to encounter. Expenses at elections, in despite of every effort to reduce them, still continue most exorbitant; and how ill matched in funds and certain inexhaustible resources I stand with my opponents, is indeed very unnecessary to explain. But, sir, it is not in the article of expenses that I should most dread the operation of that power that sustains my adversaries-that power which discovers itself in characters that can not be mistaken, through every part of this transaction. I must be blind not to see that the hand of government appears throughout this matter. When I consider the extreme care employed in preparing it for the measures which have been taken in this House in consequence of it-when I consider the evident determination not to let it rest here-when I consider the extraordinary zeal and anxiety of particular persons in this House to shelter and to sanctify this High Bailiff when I consider the situation of those who take the lead, and are most active in his vindication-when I consider the indifference 29 They were acquitted on that trial. Mr. O'Bryof my adversaries to the expenses which resulten, who is next referred to, was indicted for murder, from this scrutiny, but which expenses must be but no evidence whatever was produced against a severe stroke upon the spirit and independence him, and he was of course discharged.

I am not, it is well known, sir, of a melancholy complexion, or of a desponding turn of 28 Reference is here made to the use of the King's name by Lord Temple and others, to defeat Mr. Fox.

mind; yet the idea of again combating this host | think there is little to be expected from such a of oppressions might, in other situations, deter me from the risk. But I owe too much to the electors of Westminster ever to abandon them from any dread of any consequences; and I do assure you that I should conceive a new writ, with the hazard of all these hardships, as a great indulgence and favor, compared to that mockery, that insult upon judicature, a scrutiny under Mr. Thomas Corbett.

SPEECH

OF MR. FOX ON THE RUSSIAN ARMAMENT, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 1,

1792.

INTRODUCTION.

THIS was the most galling attack ever made by Mr. Fox on his great antagonist. The circumstances of the case were these. Turkey having commenced war against Russia in 1788, Joseph, Emperor of Austria, espoused the cause of the Russians, and attacked the Turks. At the end of two years, however, Joseph died, and his successor, Leopold, being unwilling to continue the contest, resolved on peace. He therefore called in the mediation of England and Prussia at the Congress of Reichenbach; and the three allied powers demanded of the Empress of Russia to unite in making peace on the principle of the status quo, that is, of giving up all the conquests she had gained during the war. To this Catharine strongly objected, and urged the formation of a new Christian kingdom out of the Turkish provinces of Bessarabia, Moldavia, and Wallachia, over which her grandson Constantine was expected to be ruler. This the allied powers refused, on the ground of its giving too great a preponderance to Russia: and the Empress, being unable to resist so strong an alliance, consented finally to relinquish all her conquests, with the exception of the fortress of Oczakow (pronounced Otchakoff), at the mouth of the Dnie

per, on the Black Sea, and a desert tract of country dependent thereon, which was valuable only as a security for her former conquests. England and Prussia, however, insisted on her restoring Oczakow, to which they attached undue importance as the supposed key of Constantinople, distant about one hund red and ninety miles. The pride of Catharine was touched, and she indignantly refused. Mr. Pitt instantly prepared for war, and with his views and feelings at that time he would probably have thrown himself into the contest with all the energy and determination which marked his character.

But when he brought the subject before Parliament, he found that both sides of the House shrunk back. His majority carried him through, indeed, but with diminished numbers; and as the question came up again and again under different forms, it became obvious that the nation would never sustain him on so narrow an issue; for it seemed preposterous to every one to think of plunging England into war about a fortress in the wilds of Tartary, which hardly any man in the kingdom had ever heard of before. He therefore wisely determined to recede, though much to the mortification of some of his friends, and particularly of the Duke of Leeds, his foreign secretary, who instantly resigned under a sense of the disgrace brought upon government. Still Mr. Pitt continued his preparations for war (fearing, no doubt, that the Empress might rise in her demands), and thus brought upon himself new charges of wasting the public money, since it turned out that Catharine was still ready to abide by her original terms. On those terms the matter was finally adjusted, Mr. Pitt pledging himself that Turkey should accept them within four months, or be abandoned to her fate. Accordingly, peace was concluded on this basis between the Empress and the Porte, in August, 1791, and Oczakow has remained from that time in the hands of the Russians.

At the next session of Parliament, early in 1792, the Opposition seized upon this as a favorable opportunity to attack Mr. Pitt. He had placed himself, they affirmed, in a dilemma from which it was impossible for him to escape. If Oczakow was so important as to justify threats of war, and the expenditure of so large a sum for its recovery, he deserved a vote of censure for giving it up; if not so important, he equally deserved censure for endangering the peace of the nation, and adding, by his rashness, to the weight of the public burdens. Whether he had acted the part of a coward or a bully, he had equally disgraced the nation, and deserved its sternest reproof. Such were the views with which Mr. Whithread moved his celebrated resolutions, on the 29th of March, 1792, condemning Mr. Pitt as having been "guilty of gross misconduct tending to incur unnecessary expense, and to diminish the influence of the British nation in Europe."

The debate occupied two nights, probably the most painful ones Mr. Pitt ever spent in the House of Commons. He was ingeniously defended on the ground of the balance of power, by Mr. Jenkinson, Mr. Grant, and Mr. Dundas (though some of his adherents gave him up, and joined in the general reprobation); and was lashed unmercifully by Mr. (afterward Earl) Grey, Sir Philip Francis, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Windham, and others. Mr. Sheridan, speaking of the plea that ministers had obtained the navigation of the Dniester as a "radoucissement," said, "The Empress, with a vein of sarcasm, granted them their sweeten er, but required them to go to the Porte and demand the same on their part. The entry of the Grand Vizier (Mr. Pitt) into the divan, accompanied by the Reis Effendi (Mr. Dundas), must have been a very curious spectacle! What sort of reception and dialogue must have taken place? What glorious terms have you procured with your grand fleet? Have you humbled Russia? Does she tremble at your power? Does she crouch? Have you burned her fleets for us? Have you demolished St. Petersburgh?' A melancholy No! must be the answer. 'What! does she not repent that she provoked you? But have you made her give up Oczakow? That your sovereign has pledged himself for.' The reply must be, 'Nothing of all this! We have engaged, if you do not comply with every tittle she demanded of you before we presumed to interfere, that we will abandon you to all the consequences of the war!'" Mr. Windham, speaking of the unimportance of Oczakow as a ground of arming, said, "Their political object was almost a nothing, and that nothing they have failed to obtain! They have not even the plea of a great and glorious failure. They aimed at trifling objects, and their success has been still more diminutive. It reminds one of the account of an invalid who could swallow nothing, and even that would not stay on his stomach! Or, to express it more classically,

Nil habuit Codrus, attamen infelix ille,
Perdidit totum nil!"'1

Mr. Pitt bore the whole in silence, resolved, when the attack was through, to sum up briefly in his own defense, and throw himself on his majority. But Mr. Fox held back, obviously with a view to defeat the plan; until, at the end of the first evening, Mr. Dundas called upon him by name to come forward, claiming for Mr. Pitt a right to the closing turn. Mr. Fox denied the right, but promised (as there was not then enough time left) to open the debate the next evening, if the House would adjourn over. This was accordingly done, and, on the evening of the first of March, he delivered the following speech. Lord Brougham has spoken of it as perhaps the ablest, and certainly the most characteristic, of all Mr. Fox's productions. The occasion was one which gave the fullest scope for his favorite mode of attack, the argumentum ad hominem, the exposure of inconsistencies, the detection of what he considered the secret

1 Codrus had nothing, yet, unhappy man,

He all that nothing lost!

motives of his opponents, and the bitterest invectives against Mr. Pitt's conduct, as bringing indelible disgrace on the country. The reader will mark the dexterity and force with which he wrests from the hands of Mr. Pitt's friends every weapon they had used in his defense-the ingenuity with which he shapes and interprets every act of the minister into a ground of condemnation-the closeness with which he holds him to the point, and the incessant goading to which he subjects him, on the horns of the dilemma mentioned above.

SPEECH, &c.

I. Much argument has been used on topics not unfit, indeed, to be mixed with Mr. Pitt not exthis question, but not necessary; doctrine of the topics which undoubtedly may be balance of power. incidentally taken up, but which are not essential to the discussion. In this class I rank what has been said upon the balance of Europe. Whether the insulated policy which disdained all continental connection whatever, as adopted at the beginning of the present reign-whether the system of extensive foreign connection, so eagerly insisted on by a young gentleman who spoke yesterday for the first time [Mr. Jenkinson, afterward Lord Liverpool]-or whether the medium between these two be our interest, are certainly very proper topics to be discussed, but as certainly not essential topics to this question. Of the three, I confidently pronounce the middle line the true political course of this country. I think that, in our situation, every continental conI am one of those who hold that a total inattennection is to be determined by its own merits. tion to foreign connections might be, as it has proved, very injurious to this country. But if I am driven to choose between the two extremes.