Mr. Addington's objection to Lord Grenville, it is known, broke off the negociation, and the matter was never communicated to the crown. But, in the last instance, the Grenville party were not called upon to act with men in whom they could not confide; with men from whom the differed in leading principles, or prominent opinions, on political questions, but with men with whom they had long acted, with whom they had resumed their situations, and whose return to office they had frequently called for in Parliament as being the only man who, in their estimation, could save the country. Their objection was founded solely on the refusal of their KING, not of his Minister, to admit Mr. Fox into power; that Mr. Fox,-will after ages credit the fact? -whose name, by the advice of that very cabinet of which they themselves were members, was erased by his Majesty from the list of his privy-counsellors! And this objection was started and persisted in, at a time when the King was left without a cabinet; whereas Mr. Pitt's refusal to comply with Mr. Addington's wishes took place at a period, when an administration existed, with a strong and triumphant majority in both Houses of Parliament. Both the principle and the consequences of the two transactions, then, were materially, and even radically, different.

When we reflect on this new coalition between the Grenville party and Mr. Fox, and his friends, our astonishment increases beyond measure. These parties were the very antipodes of each other; during the whole course of the last eventful war, on every leading question, on every principle, on the French revolution, and, lastly, on the peace of Amiens, their sentiments were opposite as the poles. Mr. Fox held up the regicides of France to the admiration of Europe; publicly adopted and proclaimed their grand principle of the sovereignty of the people, whence all their subsequent opinions and acts were almost necessary deductions; reprobated the war as unjust and unnecessary; systematically opposed every measure of the ministers for prosecuting it with success; declared his joy at the peace of Amiens, not because he thought it safe or honourable to his country, but because it was a glorious peace for France; paid his adora tions at the Consular shrine; and, lastly, on the renewal of hostilities, steady and consistent once in his life, he pleaded with eloquence and energy the cause of Buonaparté, and

pretty plainly insinuated that he had justice on his side! To say that Lord Grenville, Mr. Windham, and ther friends, did the reverse of all this, is to say only that which is notorious to the whole world. Still we are far from harbouring a wish to perpetuate political animosities, and we can even conceive the existence of one reason, of a nature too delicate to admit of public discussion, which might operate with considerable force on the minds of these eminent characters, and justify their proposal of Mr. Fox to his Majesty, as one of his ministers. But having made that proposal, their duty was discharged, and its rejection by their Sovereign could not, in our apprehension, justify their refusal to come into power themselves, at a period when, they must be sensible, their services were of consequence to the country. The same reason, and that alone, we conceive, could justify MR. PITT in proposing MR. Fox to his Majesty; for that he did propose him, and endeavour, as far as his respect for his Sovereign would allow him, to persuade his Majesty to accede to the proposal, is a fact which we shall venture to state, notwithstanding the heavy denunciations which may possibly be issued against us from the new school for constitutional principles.

Impressed with these sentiments, on this important topic, we cannot but consider the country as highly indebted to Mr. Pitt, for proving himself, at this dangerous crisis, the champion of the lawful prerogative of the crown, and, consequently, the guardian of the people's rights. We are neither parasites nor partisans: to whom the King delegates the executive offices of the state is a matter, comparatively, but of little consequence; of ministers it may truly be said, "a breath may make them as a breath has made." But the King is a permanent being; in the eye of the constitution, he Bever dies; and it is of primary importance that his rights and prerogatives should remain inviolate and uninvaded, because they are vital parts of the constitution, with which the liberty and happiness of the subject are indissolubly connected and interwoven. At this time, too, when the visionary speculations of wild enthusiasts, who have succeededip shaking half the thrones of Europe to their bases, are still aflcat in the world; when (the melancholy truth must be acknowledged) regal power is materially weakened, it is peculiarly essential to guard these rights with extraordinary jealousy,

jealousy, vigilance, and care. That the right of chusing his own servants was vested in the King, subject to no previous controul whatever, every man acquainted with the most simple rudiments of constitutional knowledge knew and admitted. If Parliament should find the measures of those servants injurious to the interests of the country, the constitution that vests the choice of them in the Sovereign gives the Parliament the privilege of remonstrating with that Sovereign; and, if remonstrance fail, and the measures be still pursued, of withholding the supplies, without which the business of government cannot be carried on. But, if Parliament were to object to the men, and not to their measures, and, in consequence of that objection, were to address the King for their removal, and, in the event of a refusal, should withhold the supplies, it would certainly exceed its powers, violate the constitution, and invade the prerogative of the crown. This, however, is a case, thank Heaven, not likely to occur. Should it ever occur, the memorable prediction of Montesquieu will speedily be fulfilled.

Such, then, and no other, is the controul which the Parliament can constitutionally exercise over the prerogative of the Sovereign, in the choice of his ministers; yet, have not some sapient depts of the new school hesitated to push this controul to an indefinite length, to assert that its extent is a matter of doubt, and gravely to propose a revision of the constitution*, for the purpose of fixing the boundaries of parliamentary right, and the limits of the regal prerogative!

The principles and the opinions which we have thus freely declared, without seeking whom to please, or whom to offend, are the same which we have invariably maintained. On these grounds it was, that we defended the prerogative of the crown, when Mr. Addington came into office. And if, by the exercise of that prerogative, Mr. Fox had obtained a seat in the cabinet, we should certainly have declared our opinion on the subject, but we should have respected his Majesty's choice, and have judged his new minister solely

* See the Morning Poft paffim, where it is moft loyally obferved, in refpect of the King's rejection of Mr. Fox: "While the crown ftruggles for a little portion of its will, the public fervice fuffers, the public ftrength is impaired, and the glory of the empire is retarded." If the word party had been fubftituted for crown, the defcription had been more accurate, but lets Whiggish. And yet this fame writer, a very few days before, had deprecated every change of minifters!

by his measures. By the same criterion will we judge Mr. Pitt and his present colleagues. We approve the principle upon which they came into power, and while they act up to that principle, and labour to promote the real welfare and prosperity of the country, by a steady, consistent, and decisive line of policy, they shall have our feeble, but honest, support. On the other hand, however we may have the misfortune to differ from the distinguished members of the Grenville party, we shall never, in the expression of such difference, lose sight of the respect which is due to their characters, nor imitate the conduct of some of their intemperate and injudicious advocates, who bestow the most vio lent abuse upon all who presume to question the infallibility of their opinions. These same advocates have lately connected with the proceedings of their patrons, an illustrious name which should never be coupled with party. Our allegiance to our Sovereign prescribes respect to every. branch of his family; and in that respect our forbearance, on many occasions, proves that we have not failed; but if Pall Mall or Tylney-street become the rendezvous of a party, and if Persian or Parisian adoration be exhibited as a proof of patriotism, or exalted as a token of attachment, all claims to forbearance will cease, and we must yield, however reluctantly, to the pressure of superior duties. We deprecate the discussion--but we will not shrink from it.

The partisans of the opposition to Mr. Pitt's administration, are instructed to urge against it the want of ability; and to maintain, with confidence, its utter incapacity to withstand the formidable attacks which it will have to encounter. As to the first charge, the premier himself is most prudently excepted from it; because these same writers had recently boasted of his talents, when those talents happened to be directed to the same purposes as those which Mr. Fox then pursued. But let us ask who ever doubted the abilities of an Eldon, a Camden, or a Melville? Who will presume to say that Lord Harrowby and Mr. Canning are without talents? And who has forgotten the very great abilities, judgment, temper, and skill, manifested by Lord Castlereagh, during the discussions, in the Irish parliament, on the momentous question of the union? We lament, as much as any man can do, not, indeed, the exclusion of Mr. Fox, but the absence

of

of Lords Spencer, Grenville, and Minto, Messrs. Windham, Grenville, and Elliot, from the ministry; but our high opinion of them cannot render us blind to the merits of others, or so fascinate our judgment as to prevent us from discerning in the new administration, a sufficient portion of talent, knowledge, and experience, to conduct the affairs of government, at this arduous crisis, with skill and success. As to the numbers to be opposed to them, which we have heard most accurately specified, we shrewdly suspect that these panders of the party reckon without their .host. At all events, their presumption is intolerable, and amounts, indeed, to little less than a libel on the parliament, in positively deciding on the votes of its members, not only before those votes are given, but even before it is known what measures they will have to oppose. On the subject of these party-systems we have, on more occasions than one, delivered our opinion; and long reflection has convinced us, that any systematic plan for indiscriminate opposition to his Majesty's ministers, with a view to drive them from their posts, without any regard to their measures, is totally incompatible with the principles of the constitution, and with the duties of a member of pariament. And in what respect such parties differ from factions we are at a loss to conceive. Mr. Pitt appears to have formed a just notion of such principles and such duties, by the conduct which he has lately observed; keeping aloof from all party; forming no engagements; pledging himself to no specific plans; but honourably giving his sup.. port to such measures of the ministers as he conscientiously approved, and opposing those measures which he thought injudicious or improper. If this be not the right constitutional conduct for a representative of the people to observe, we must have formed very erroneous notions, indeed, of a British parliament. We are aware that men long in the habit of acting with parties have formed very different notions on this subject; and we are not unacquainted with the specious and plausive theory which they have framed to satisfy their own minds on the matter. let them submit that theory to public inspection, tricked out with all the meritricious embellishments with which wit, learning, and eloquence so well know how to adorn it, and we leave little of the ability of any plain man, to detect its

C4

But

fallacy