lutary; in counteracting wisdom. In many of Burke's writings we meet rather with an abundance of important facts, profound obfervations, brilliant images, and able arguments, adding to the general amusement, pleasure, information, and inftruction, than with a chain of proofs, tending to confirm a fpecific popofition" Thefe, remarks the biographer applies to the pamphlet in question, in a critique which is equally correct and acute.

Lord Archibald Hamilton, however, has evidently not wisdom or sense enough to make that discrimination which is necellary to every one who feeks to derive advantage from the perufal of Mr. Burke's political writings. His Lordship had a party purpose to answer, he had recourfe, therefore, very naturally, to a party pamphlet, and, his object being the fame with that of its author, to prefs a Whig Miniftry upon the Crown, he thought it fair to enlist him in his fervice, and to make use of such detached passages as suited his purpose. But as no name, however illustrious, can give currency to erroneous opinions, or to dangerous doctrines; fo cannot the adoption or imitation of the errors of great minds, by the interest or the folly of little minds, however fervile, be entitled either to respect or to forbearance.

His Lordship, adverting to the negotiation for Mr. Pitt's return to office during the adminiftration of Mr. Addington, a subject which we have had frequent occafion to difcufs, and with which, therefore, our readers are well acquainted, obferves, with his accuftomed fagacity, and his ufual accuracy of statement, and knowledge of the conftitution, "This negtoiation is only mentioned as a proof, that court intrigue and secret advisers of the crown, exilt in thefe times as well as others; and exist in a full and eager readiness, to exert their baneful influence upon every favourable opportunity. To devise means, and to exert a fpirit competent to counteract fuch efforts, whenever they are made, is a public concern. It cannot be denied, that if the negotiation alluded to had taken effect, the government of this country would have been transferred from one person to another, without any avowed, or visible interference of King, Lords, Commons, or People!" Is his Lordship so ignorant as not to know that confident affertion is not of itself fufficient to extort belief, or to filence enquiry? Never furely was man fo egregiously mistaken, or fo grofsly ftupid. It is denied, and will be denied by every man of common fenfe, and common candour, that the negotiation alluded to could poffibly have taken effect without the avowed interference of the KING, neither Lords, Commons, nor People having any more to do with the tranfaction than they have with the choice of his Lordship's footman. As to the proof which this negotiation affords of the existence of court intrigue and secret advisers of the crown, the miferable cant of factious Whigs, it is equally valid with all his Lordship's other proofs. The plain fact was, as our readers well know, that Mr. Addington, becoming confcious of the weaknefs of his adminiftration, naturally, and wifely, wifhed to ftrengthen it; and for that purpose, before he mentioned his wifh to his Sovereign, caufed · application to be made to Mr. Pitt, to ascertain whether he were willing to join the Ministry, and upon what terms. If Mr. Pitt had expreffed his willingness to accede to Mr. Addington's terms, the latter would, of course, have submitted the matter to the King, and have taken his Majefty's orders in refpect of it; the former, too, declared, that, without the exprefs.coms mands of his Sovereign, he would not come to any determination. The

Biffet's Life of Burke, fecond edition, Vol. I. P. 191, 192.

difference

difference, however, between Mr. Pitt and the Minister crushed the nego ciation at its birth. But it must be evident to every man whose understanding is not abfolutely blinded, whofe mind is not totally impervious to conviction, that, if the negociation had taken effect, it must have been with the avowed and visible interference of the King, and that the only secret advisers would have been the Ministers of the crown, who, if we know any thing of the conflitution, are the true conftitutional advisers of their Sovereign; and yet to counteract their advice, their efforts, for ftrengthening the government whenever they are made, we are told, in the tone of a dictator, and with the confidence of truth, is a public concern!!! It may, for aught we know, be the public concern of an unprincipled Jacobin, but fuch conduct we thould confider as a grofs violation of duty in a Member of Parliament, and as a fhameful breach of allegiance in a private fubject. It would be analogous to the employment of an oppofition envoy at a foreign court "to devife means, and to exert a fpirit competent to counteract the effects" of his Majesty's ambaffador at that court; and Lord A. H. ought to know that the object of his imitation, Mr. Burke, has publicly ftigmatized fuch a proceeding as a high treasonable misdemeanour. We hope his Lordihip does not mean merely to abide by the dicta of his mafter when he appears as the advocate of a party, and to reject his decifions when he ftands forth in the exalted character of the champion of truth, and the avenger of infulted Majefty. When his Lordship afks, refpecting this negociation, "Does the conftitution authorife fuch a proceeding?" the ftare of amazement and the laugh of contempt are the only answers we can prevail upon ourselves to give him.

Mr. Addington being difmiffed, Mr. Pitt's return to office is the next object of our noble author's moft fagacious animadverfions. "It has been generally understood," he fays, "that the obftacle to forming an adminiftration upon a broad and extensive basis, arose from a determination on the part of the crown to exclude Mr. Fox, in confequence of which, the friends of Mr. Fox, as well as Lord Grenville, Mr. Windham, and their friends declined taking any official fituations; alleging, probably, that as their hopes and endeavours were directed to a comprehenfive adminiftration, compofed of the strength and talent of all parties, they did not choofe to give their fanction to one, formed upon a principle of exclufion." This af fected delicacy as to the motives of Lord Grenville in refufing to join the Miniftry, is perfectly ridiculous, after the publication of his Lordship's letter to Mr. Pitt, which has raised the probability into a certainty. On that letter we do not feel ourselves at liberty to comment, not having yet afcertained whether its publication was not the refult of one of thofe thameful breaches of confidence which, unhappily, are but too common in the prefent dege nerate times. Thus much, however, we will fay, that we were utterly af tonished at reading a letter fo weak from a nobleman fo fenfible. A child in politics might expofe its weaknels and its fallacy. Lord A. H. had pro bably forgotten that this nobleman and his friends who were now fo shocked at the idea of excluding Mr. Fox from the cabinet, had been the first, on a former occafion, to recommend his Majesty to exclude that gentleman from his Privy-Council. How a man who is deemed unworthy to be a member of the Privy Council, can, by the fame perfons, be regarded as worthy to be a member of the cabinet, we are not, we confefs, fufficiently skilled in the tactics of party, to comprehend. We mention the fact, however, only to

hew

༔

Thew that Lord Grenville and his friends cannot have any great objection to the principle of exclusion.

Our author, after this ftatement, proceeds to confider: 1. "How far the exclufion of Mr. Fox can be deemed constitutional."-2. "How far, under all the circumflances of the case, it ought to have operated on the conduct of Mr. Pitt."-and 3. "How far his actual conduct has been regulated, either by tenderness towards the prerogative of the crown, or regard to the fentiments and welfare of the country."

It is truly laughable to obferve the miferable shifts to which the author is driven from an evident dread of meeting the queftion fairly and fully. Af ter promifing, with wonderful delicacy, that he does not mean "to infi nuate that the determination alluded to" (not to receive Mr. Fox as a minifter)" could really originate with his Majefty," though he must know that it did originate with his majefty and with no one elfe, we are told, forfooth, with admirable gravity, that, "The juftice or propriety of the exclufion of Mr. Fox, in particular, forms no part of the question, as far as relates to conftitutional ground; becaufe fuch juftice or propriety cannot conftitutionally be estimated by the royal mind; nor does there appear to be any argument, which can juftify or condemn it, in this point of view, that would not apply with equal force to Mr. Pitt, or to any other man. The object of our enquiry does not relate to the perfon excluded, but to the principle of exclufion; and in the prefent cafe, not to exclufion, in concurrence with the House of Commons, and (of) the country, but in direct oppofition to both."

As to the constitutional question, (of exclusion) as it is here called, refpe&ting which the conftitution is wholly filent, it is a violation of common fense to affert, that the conftitution, which expressly gives to the Sovereign the right of chufing his own fervants, without exception or restraint, muft, by implication, forbid him to except, on any ground whatever, to any individual; and to fay that the royal mind cannot constitutionally eftimate the juftice or propriety of excluding Mr. Fox, or any one elfe, is to talk the most arrant nonfenfe that ever iffued from the lips or from the pen of a rational being. If his Majefty cannot be allowed to exercile his judgement in the rejection of a man propofed to him as minifter, he cannot, of courfe, be allowed to exercise it in the choice of a minifter; in which cafe the acknowledged right of choice would be nugatory, would be infulting; and the fuperior power of the flate, the source of juftice, and the fountain of honour, would be reduced to a mere cypher, a paffive agent, acting never judicially, always ministerially, the tool of party, and the fport of faction. Such, Heaven be praised, is not a British monarch! We give his Lordthip credit for withing to put Mr. Fox out of the question in difcuffing the point, but when the question arofe out of Mr. Fox's exclufion alone, and when the reafons which operated to his exclufion neither did nor could apply to any other of the perfons proposed to form a part of the new adminiftration, no one will be found, we fufpect, ready to acquiefce in the propriety of that mode of argument which his Lordship has chofen, for very obvious reafons, to adopt. But even in arguing the cafe, in his own way, if that can be called argument, which confifts of a ftring of inappropriate affertions, inapplicable facts, and monstrous fuppofitions, he exhibits the most crude notions, the moft prepofterous deductions, and the most miferable fophiftry, that ever proceeded from the pen of the moft ignorant party-writer. The fubftance of all his reafoning on the fubject is briefly this; that the conftitution fays

No. XXIII. VOL. XVII.

the

the King can do no wrong; "every act of executive power, conftitutionally fpeaking, does proceed from refponfible advifers of the crown;" over whoin the House of Commons has a conftitutional check; the King might nominate his footman minifter;" "some person must be responsible for the outrage; and there does not appear any reafon why the fame refponfibility fhou not attach to a capricious exclufion, as to an unwife appointment;" and therefore the exclufion of Mr. Fox must be unconstitutional!!! If our readers can difcover no connection between the premises and the conclufion, if they can defcry neither argument, nor fenfe, nor reafon, in this statement, the fault refts not with us, but with the noble member of the House of Commons, who, probably, may affert, for himafelf and his fellow-members (and certainly with as good reafon as any which he affigns for the affertion of fome other rights) an exclufive privilege of talking or of writing nonfenfe at their pleasure, without exception or restraint.

His Lordship feems to affume as a fact that the exclufion of Mr. Fox by his Majesty was the refult of "private prejudice, or (of) perfonal feelings in the royal mind;" for, though he fays that to make that affertion would be to libel and traduce the King, fince it anfwers his own purpose to afcribe it to "the weakness or wickednefs of his advilers;" it is evident that he thinks this was the cafe; elle why introduce private prejudice or perfonal feelings which have never before been mentioned as the ground of exclufion. It would be more juft and true to impute fach exclusion to the legal and upright exercife of the royal judgment leading to a proper, honourable, and conftitutional decifion on public grounds. Whether afcribed to the King, or to his minifters, and to the latter only, for the purpofe of punifliment or of cenfure, it can, we admit, be afcribed, instead of difplaying weakness or wickedness, in our eftimation it exhibits a strong proof of wildom and of virtue. In the name of much infulted common feufe, in the names of violated trutlf, and of injured juftice, is the political character of Charles James Fox, fo spotlefs and immaculate, as to render it impoffible to impute his exclufion from the cabinet to any thing but the private prejudice or the perfonal feelings of the Sovereign, or to the weaknets and wickedness of his minifters? Has Lord A. H. ever studied that character; has he ever read the parliamentary register; the proceedings of the Whig Club; or the tranfactions of the people in Palace-yard? Has he forgotten the praises lavished by Mr. Fox on the principles and the p tices of the French revolutionifts; his tavern-harrangues in which the heat of wine and the heat of party combined to produce fentiments worthy the den of jacobinim? Is the young Lord, (we infer his Lordship's youth from his arguments) who avails himself of the courtesy of the country, to a Tume a title appropriated to the peerage, prepared to fubfcribe to Mr. Fox's anti-monarchical and anarchical doctrine of the sovereignty of subjects; to a fociate with corresponding traitors and acquitted felons; or publicly to rejoice, with the object of his fenfelefs panegyrics, in a peace because it is glorious to the enemies of his country? If in thefe proceedings and in numberTefs others of a fimilar nature, which mark the public career of his idol, he can fee no folid, conftitutional, and public grounds of exclufion, he may be allowed to enjoy his own blindness, but we cannot flatter him with the hope of making the public as blind as him felf.

prac

His Lordihip has farther asserted, that Mr. Fox was excluded from the cabinet in direct opposition to the Houfe of Commons and to the country. If he had favoured us with the grounds of this dogmatical decifion, we might

have examined their validity; but as it is, we can merely remark, that the affertion is contrary to fact, for a majority of the House of Commons have fupported the weak and wicked minifters, to whom he imputes the exclufion of his leader, and his Lordship has not dared to take their fenfe upon the fpecific question, or to call upon them to exercife their constitutional check, though fupported by the moft undue and unconftitutional influence, exerted, indeed, most unwifely, and without any confideration of confequences; while the -country has been, at least, filent upon the fubject, the public not being fo foolifh as to look for the voice of the country in the hireling prints of a party.

Though, according to our author's political creed, the conftitution gives no power of rejection, or of exclufion (which is the fame thing) to the KING, he does not fcruple to contend that fuch right is virtually vefted by the conftitution in the House of Commons!" There is," he fays, "a conftitutional right in the Houfe of Commons, to refufe fupport (to the minifters of the Crown), which, in its spirit and effect, is a power of rejection;" and again, its fpirit (the fpirit of the conftitution) does authorize a refufal to fupport, and a continued refufal to fupport government till power be in the hands of perions acceptable to the people." We deny the truth of this affertion; and maintain that neither the letter nor the spirit of the British conftitution authorizes a refufal, on the part of the Houfe of Commons, to fupport minifters, whofe measures they cannot condemn, merely because they are not precisely the men, whom they (the Houte of Commons) withed to place in the cabinet. That Houfe has not only a right conferred, but a duty impofed, on it, to judge of the minifters by their measures alone; confequently, clofely to watch, and minutely to investigate, thofe measures, and from them to infer their fitness or unfitnefs for their fituations. It may refufe fupport, but it must ground its refufal on the badness of the measures of the minifters; may addrefs the Throne for their removal, but their measures must conftitute the ground of the application. It was upon this ground, and upon this ground alese, that the parliamentary oppofition to the late ministry profeffed to take its stand. No one ever prefumed to start the monstrous doctrine of the constitutional ineligibility of Mr. Addington. On the contrary, Mr. Fox and his friends fupported that minifter when he firft came into office; and thereby gave their negative to the ridiculous notion of their pointment being a breach of a conftitutional principle.

it

ap

Such is the right vefted by the conftitution, not in the House of Commons only, but in the two great councils of the nation (one of which, the most noble, and the moft permanent, his Lordship-fcarcely deigns to notice, as if he did not confider it as forming a conftituent part of the government of the country), and no other right can they exercife, in the way of check or of con troul over the minifters of the Crown, without a grofs, and most dangerous, deviation from the fundamental principles of the British monarchy. As to the power of a Houfe of Commons, that we mean not to conteft. If we were to judge, indeed, of its extent and of its nature, by the occafional practices of former Houfes of Commons, we fhould confider it to be boundlefs and tyrannical; for they repeatedly invaded the privileges, and afurped the functions, of our Courts of Judicature, without obferving their forms, or refpecting their laws; confounding all the principles, and destroying all the diftinctions of jurifprudence, by acting, at once, as accufers, parties, jury and judges, in the fame caufes. It would be a mad attempt to define the power of any assembly who could fo act with impunity. The legal rights