attack on her possessions or those of her allies; and concluding, "That the expence of an armament must be burthensome to the country, and is, under the present circumstances, as far as the House is informed, inexpedient and unnecessary."

In support of Mr. Grey's motion, it was urged, among other arguments, that Russia was so far from deriving any increase of strength and power from her conquests to the south, that every accession of territory to her in that quarter was an accession of weakness; and that, therefore, the true method to prevent her from disturbing the peace of Europe, would be to permit her to pursue her present schemes. But, were the Empress to realize all her imputed views of ambition, to get possession of Constantinople, and exterminate the Turks from Europe, still, Mr. Grey contended, that mankind, so far from being injured, would be greatly benefited by it. It was asserted, on the other hand, in opposition to Mr. Grey, and in defence of the measures of administration, that the possession of Oczakow by the Empress would facilitate not only the acquisition of Constantinople, but of Alexandria, and all the Lower Egypt; which would transfer into the hands of Russia the supremacy of the Mediterranean, and render her a formidable rival to Great Britain, both as a commercial and naval power. But the Empress was not only charged with designs on the Porte, but on the liberties and independence of all the northern powers. In the course of this debate many severe observations were made on the obstinate silence of the minister, with regard

to many points, concerning which it was proper that the House should be informed. When he changed his principles and his mode of conduct, it was alleged by Mr. Courtney, he took shelter in existing circumstances. When questions were put to him relative to the measures he pursued, he told them that the country had, and that they ought, to have confidence in his Majesty's ministers. These two phrases, existing circumstances; and confidence in his Majesty's ministers, were often the hinges on which many long and elaborate speeches turned.

Mr. Dundas replied, that while a negociation was on foot, relative to any particular points, his Majesty's ministers did not think it their duty to make them subjects of public discussion. Mr. Grey's motions were negatived by a majority of only 80. The numbers for them being 252. Against them 172. In this day's debate, Mr. Sheridan, in a long and elaborate speech, ran over the political map of Europe, and came, in conclusion, to what was now the grand centre of all political councils and measures, the French Revolution. He avowed, in the most explicit and strongest terms, the sentiments he had formerly expressed on that subject. The improvements of modern times, and the progress of modern philosophy had wiped away ancient prejudices; and by men of the best heads and hearts in both France and England, the two countries were not any longer considered, and ought not to be considered, as natural enemies. They might have been good neighbours, and mutually beneficial to each other, if the French nation had been permitted, without foreign interfer

ence,

ence, to regulate their own internal concerns.

The decrease of the minister's inconsiderable majority in favour of an address to the crown on the subject of the Russian armament, encouraged the members in opposition to the present ministry, to push and try the question by further motions in parliment. The ground on which they now stood was generally popular. To war, in a commercial country like Britain, the people are naturally, and not unreasonably averse; and they had formerly been accustomed to consider Russia as a friendly country, with which no rival interests should lead us to quarrel, and with which the intercourse aud mutual advantages of trade should hold us connected. Resolutions differently worded or framed, but tending to the same end with those brought forward by Mr. Grey, were moved by Mr. Baker, Mr. Grey again, and Mr. T. Grenville; but negatived by larger majorities than those that had set aside Mr. Grey's first string of motions.

In the debate on the resolution moved by Mr. Baker on the 15th of April, Mr. Fox spoke with even more than usual force and animation. In the conclusion of his speech he introduced the French Revolution in much the same manner, or under the same ideas and views as it had been brought forward in the preceding debate by Mr. Sheridan. But he was much more explicit than Mr. Sheridan, as to the points that formed the particular objects of his approbation; and on the whole, he did not hesitate to declare, that the new constitution of France was, in his judgment, "the most stupendous

and glorious edifice of liberty that had been erected on the foundation of human integrity in any time or country." It is proper here, for a reason which will by and by appear, to mention that, as soon as Mr. Fox sat down, Mr. Burke rose up in great agitation: but the cry of "the question," begun on the Opposition benches, and re-echoed on all sides of the House (for it was by this time three in the morning) obliged him, for the present, to keep silence, and to give way to an immediate division of the Housé.

An address to the King, in answer to his message, was moved by Lord Grenville on the 29th of March, and carried by a majority of 97 to 34. But three motions against a war with Russia were successively made by the Earl Fitzwilliam: the first on the 1st of April: the second on the 9th of May; the third on the 8th of June: all of them negatived, and the last, which was for an Address to his Majesty not to prolong parliament while the negociation with Russia was depending," with a division.

The principal supporters of Lord Fitzwilliam's motion were, the Lords Stormont, Porchester, Rawdon, Carlisle, Loughborough, and the Marquis of Landsdown. The chief speakers on the opposite side, were, the Lords Grenville and Hawkesbury; the Dukes of Leeds and Richmond; and the Lord Chancellor Thurlow. Lord Fitzwilliam's motions were supported on the same grounds as those of a similar tendency in the House of Commons:-the injustice of an attack on Russia; its impolicy and inexpediency, and its dangerous consequences. On the side of administra

tion, the same necessity was urged for confidence in the executive government during a negociation, as in the House of Commons: and the silence of ministers was justified as a duty which, in their situation, they owed to their country. The importance of our trade to Russia was not disputed: but its interruption was not allowed to be a necessary consequence of the present measure of preparation; and it was contended, on general principles, that the preservation of our national trade, as of every other national advantage, depended on the maintenance of our political importance in Europe: which the immoderate aggrandizement of any single power must unavoidably impair.

:

This last argument must, undoubtedly, have had great weight with all candid and comprehensive minds but from the first to the last of the debates respecting the Russian armament, it was evident that the majority of the nation was against the minister: who, being somewhat in the habit, as was very generally believed, of giving way to counsels, and even of being active in the execution of measures which he did not approve, did not attempt to command the public approbation by their superior wisdom, and by a resolute perseverance in his designs; but, still retaining his office, abandoned the affairs of the north of Europe to their fate, and was drawn by degrees into a new and even opposite course of conduct. Poland was finally dismembered, the Turkish empire exposed to future attacksand the period of rivality and contention between Great Briain and

Russia for commercial and naval greatness, hastened.

The great mass of the people, comprehending even those of easy and affluent circumstances, especially if these be the result of trade, are not accustomed to look forward to remote consequences; and have neither the capacity nor inclination to balance present inconveniences against future advantages, nor present advantages with future losses and dangers. Their prospect of the political horizon is extremely confined, and their knowledge imperfect within the circle:-their great object is present ease, pleasure, and gain. All wars, though these in the present unfortunate state of things are unqestionably necessary to preserve that energy of character on which the political independence of nations rests as on its foundation, are execrated as unnecessary and wanton interruptions of public tranquillity and prosperity, as well as private happiness. The military spirit departs from the busy exchange; the territories as well as the commercial privileges of the state are invaded; foreign and mercenary troops are called in in vain. These consider their employers, not as their sovereign Lords, but as their pay-masters: and it is well if, instead of courageously repelling invasion, they do not themselves become invaders. The public honour and safety being impaired, patriotism is discouraged and dies; commerce itself languishes, or seeks out new stations; and an universal and solitary selfishness and indifference to the affairs of the public, excepting as far as they are connected with feuds and factions,becomes the sign that invites foreign and hostile

armies,

armies, and finally subjects the divided states to new masters. The truth of this theory is miserably illustrated by the fall of so many commercial states in our times, particularly that of the United Provinces; and by the imminent dangers which at the present moment are suspended over the heads of others. It seems to be extremely fortunate for this great and highly commercial country of Great Britain, that in the East Indies, the grand source of our commercial wealth, we do not hold our territorial possessions without a severe struggle; without frequent appeals to the sword, which would nourish and keep alive a military spirit and military habits in the British nation, even if our wars in Europe and America were, as we wish they were, and think they might well be, somewhat less frequent.

The conduct of the ministry, in giving way to the popular clamours against a war, and even the preparations for a war with Russia, naturally became a subject of observation, and of not a little animadversion. It was admitted, that there is no British minister but who must, and ought to pay regard to public opinion: but that a minister, who is conscious that his measures are right, and the popular opposition to them founded in error and delusion, when supported by a decided majority in both Houses of parliament, ought not to abandon his views, from any apprehension of losing his place, in consequence of any popular discontents. Truth is stable, being fixed in nature, and is illustrated and confirmed by the progress of time. Error and delusion are temporary and transient. It is not enough, it was said, that a minister be honest, diligent, and VOL. XXXIII.

protect himself and his measures by arts of management. He should possess an inventive and sublime genius, that can penetrate into things which would not in all cases be prudent, or perhaps possible, to explain to the nation. He should not only be profound in his views, but firm and magnanimous in his conduct; and possess such confidence in the wisdom of his measures as may enable him to foresee, and to foretell the effects of his conduct, and boldly to appeal to this from the hasty decisions of the blind and unadvised multitude. On the other side, it was observed, that it is the duty of a senator and statesman to do, if not all the good that he would, yet all the good that he can and that, in order to be in a situation for doing some good, it is necessary, on some occasions, to fall into the wake of the court; and on others, to sail before the popular breeze.

The politicians of 1791, and we believe those of the present day, may be divided into two classes: The Theorists and the Empirics. The importance of this subject will excuse a brief digression.

The philosophers of ancient times were chiefly employed in moral, as those of modern times are in physical investigation. Moral knowledge accompanied by suitable practice, is styledin our sacred scriptures Wisdom, by way of eminence; as it also is in the writings of the Persians, the Arabians, and the Hindoos. The nature of the mind, the conduct ofthe passions,and the chief end and supreme good of mankind, were studied with close attention and nice observation. There is nothing of this kind that has exceeded, or can exceed, what is inS terspersed

terspersed in the books of the Old and New Testament, or even what has been written by Xenophon, Plato, and Aristotle. It was to philosophers, men addicted to the study of general, but particularly moral, comprehending political truth, that colonists, in the course of migration from east to west, applied for laws, both constitutional and civil. And, in all the differ, ent stages of the ancient states with which we are at all acquainted, men in public offices endeavoured to justify their conduct by general maxims drawn from great authorities, or from examples in history, or observations on actual life. After the revival of literature in Italy, we find a great deal of politics in the writings of that country. Aristotle begat Machiavel, with many others; and Machiavel Montesquieu and his brethren. From the Italian school sprung various branches in other countries, besides France, and particularly in Great Britain; where we find, among many other names, those of Milton, Buchannan*, Hobbes, Harrington, Algernon Sidney, Locke, Sir Robert Filmer, and Mr. Fletcher of Saltoun. So late as the reign of James I. learning and philosophy were called to the service

of politics, with prosperous success, in the settlement of the affairs of Ireland, in the persons of Lord Salisbury, Sir John Davis, Sir Edward Coke, Lord Baoon, and the King himself. Learning and philosophy maintained their ground, if not always, nor perhaps often, in the conduct of administration, yet in political writings, as well as in the debates of both the English and the Scottish parliaments, until the Union, and even the accession of George I. Even after this period, and at the present, there are not a few who lean to the economy of that old school. In this country, as well as in France, are many who entertain very exalted ideas of what may be done in the ways of both legislation and the management of affairs, by an ingenious, profound, and accomplished statesman; such a statesman, as it is said, on all great emergencies casts an eye over the wide field of history, as well as the present state of the world, in order to discover the most prosperous courses in the most similar situations. Nor does his genius droop when examples fail. He calls up possibilities before his imagination; compares them with realities and with one another; and, distinguishing