personal persecution towards the noble lord at the head of the treasury, ou account of what he deemed a mixture of treachery and mean revenge, in procuring his dismission from the treasury board. On the whole, with all Mr Fox's superior advantages, we do not esteem him as rendering his party any very essential service, though we must allow he would be a valuable acquisition to his old friends, who would probably receive him like the prodigal son, were it not for the powerful obstacle which stands in the way, the irreconcileable personal difference which subsists between him and the minister."

Previous to his breach with Lord North, young Fox had formed an intimate acquaintance with Burke, who now became his political Mentor. But while, to use the language of another contemporary, the latter 66 argued against the American war, chiefly on the ground of its policy, Fox, young, bold, and impetuous, attacked it on account of its injustice. Liberated at length from the seductions of wine and play, he rose with a giant's might, and being armed with the better cause, his adversaries, although arrayed in all the power and influence of the state, appeared but as pigmies before him. The friend and associate of Camden, of Chatham, of Shelburne, and of Portland-who supported the same cause in the house of peers-he was already considered as the second man of the whig party, and in reality was the first, for he who excelled others was alone entitled to direct them."

In the summer of 1778 overtures were made him to join the ministry, which he promptly rejected. He was now the leading-commoner in the Rockingham party, and shared with it the triumph when the celebrated resolution against the further prosecution of the American war was carried in the commons. When that honest and upright nobleman was nominated first lord of the treasury, in 1782, Mr Fox obtained the office of secretary for foreign affairs. The sudden death of the nobleman just mentioned, at once afflicted the nation and divided the friends of liberty, while the ex-minister and his adherents knew how to derive advantage from the storm, and benefit from the dismay that unhappily ensued. A dispute-as had been foreseen-immediately took place about who should succeed as first lord of the treasury. The candidates were, Lord Shelburne, afterwards marquess of Lansdowne, and the duke of Portland; the favour of the king made the interest of the former preponderate, and a schism having ensued, Mr Fox retired in disgust. As the earl of Chatham was accustomed to observe that he would never be responsible for actions which he did not direct, so the secretary of state, when he withdrew, remarked, that he had determined never to connive at plans in private, which he could not publicly avow. "What those plans may have been," says the writer of a memoir of Fox in the Monthly Magazine,' we are left to guess. We have reason to believe, that the only ostensible dispute in the cabinet was relative to the independence of America, which Mr Fox wished to grant as a boon, while Lord Shelburne desired to confer it in the manner of a bargain; the secret, and perhaps leading cause, on the present occasion, originated in friendship to the duke of Portland, then a very popular nobleman, whose exclusion had produced the most fatal jealousies among the best friends of liberty.

"Mr Fox now resumed his old seat, facing the treasury bench, while his former colleague, the earl of Shelburne, was busied in con

cluding a peace with France, Spain, Holland, and the United States of America. This nobleman, although possessed of great talents, forgot to adopt the most obvious means for insuring his own safety. In the first place, he did not call a new parliament, and in the next, he omitted to secure the immense advantages resulting from the press, which in a free country will always influence, if not govern, the nation. But even

as it was, he would have triumphed, but for a most odious as well as impolitic coalition, supposed to be bottomed on ambition alone, and destitute of any common principle of union." Such is the language in which this celebrated coalition has been often spoken of; and, in truth, it does seem to us to have been a very questionable measure on the part of Fox. But let us hear the candid and judicious remarks of Sheridan's eloquent biographer on this subject, and on the general principle of political coalitions: "To the general principle of coalitions," says Mr Moore," and the expediency and even duty of forming them, in conjunctures that require and justify such a sacrifice of the distinctions of party, no objection, it appears to me, can rationally be made by those who are satisfied with the manner in which the constitution has worked, since the new modification of its machinery introduced at the Revolution. The Revolution itself was, indeed, brought about by a coalition, in which tories, surrendering their doctrines of submission, arrayed themselves by the side of whigs, in defence of their common liberties. Another coalition, less important in its object and effects, but still attended with results most glorious to the country, was that which took place in the year 1757, when, by a union of parties from whose dissension much mischief had flowed, the interests of both king and people were reconciled, and the good genius of England triumphed at home and abroad. On occasions like these, when the public liberty or safety is in peril, it is the duty of every honest statesman to say, with the Roman, Non me impedient privatæ offensiones, quo minus pro republicæ salute etiam cum inimicissimo consentiam.' Such cases, however, but rarely occur; and they have been in this respect, among others, distinguished from the ordinary occasions, on which the ambition or selfishness of politicians resorts to such unions, that the voice of the people has called aloud for them in the name of the public weal; and that the cause round which they have rallied has been sufficiently general, to merge all party titles in the one undistinguishing name of Englishman. By neither of these tests can the junction between Lord North and Mr Fox be justified. The people at large, so far from calling for this ill-omened alliance, would, on the contrary-to use the language of Mr Pitt-have forbid the banns;' and though it is unfair to suppose that the interests of the public did not enter into the calculations of the united leaders, yet, if the real watchword of their union were to be demanded of them in the Palace of Truth,' there can be little doubt that the answer of each would be, distinctly and unhesitatingly, Ambition.' It has been truly said of coalitions, considered abstractedly, that such a union of parties, when the public good requires

"This alliance," said a cotemporary, "seemed so much beyond the usual pliancy even of politicians,-the personal violence of their former hostility seemed so repugnant to every idea of junction,-that the natural integrity of the people felt the coalition as one of those public violations of consistency,-one of those public derelictions of principle,which destroy all future confidence, and forfeit all future esteem."

it, is to be justified on the same grounds on which party itself is vindicated. But the more we feel inclined to acknowledge the utility of party, the more we must dread and deprecate any unnecessary compromise, by which a suspicion of unsoundness may be brought upon the agency of so useful a principle-the more we should discourage, as a matter of policy, any facility in surrendering those badges of opinion, on which the eyes of followers are fondly fixed, and by which their confidence and spirit are chiefly kept alive. Court and country,' says Hume, which are the genuine offspring of the British government, are a kind of mixed parties, and are influenced both by principle and by interest. The heads of the factions are commonly most governed by the latter motive; the inferior members of them by the former.' Whether this be altogether true or not, it will, at least, without much difficulty be conceded, that the lower we descend in the atmosphere of party, the more quick and inflammable we find the feeling that circulates through it. Accordingly, actions and professions, which, in that region of indifference, high life, may be forgotten as soon as done or uttered, become recorded as pledges and standards of conduct, among the lower and more earnest adherents of the cause; and many a question, that has ceased to furnish even a jest in the drawing-rooms of the great, may be still agitated, as of vital importance, among the humbler and less initiated disputants of the party. Such being the tenacious nature of partisanship, and such the watch kept upon every movement of the higher political bodies, we can well imagine what a portent it must appear to distant and unprepared observers, when the stars to which they trusted for guidance are seen to shoot madly from their spheres,' and not only lose themselves for the time in another system, but unsettle all calculations with respect to their movements for the future. If, indeed, in that barter of opinions and interests, which must necessarily take place in coalitions between the partisans of the people and of the throne, the former had any thing like an equality of chance, the mere probability of thus gaining any concessions in favour of freedom might justify to sanguine minds the occasional risk of the compromise. But it is evident that the result of such bargains must generally be to the advantage of the crown,-the alluvions of power all naturally tend towards that shore. Besides, where there are places as well as principles to be surrendered on one side, there must in return be so much more of principles given up on the other as will constitute an equivalent to this double sacrifice. The centre of gravity will be sure to lie in that body which contains within it the source of emoluments and honours, and the other will be forced to revolve implicitly round it."

Ministers being at length outvoted by the coalition, resigned their seals; and after a lapse of several weeks-during which the nation was left without a government, from the reluctance of the king to accept Fox and Lord North as his ministers-a new administration was formed early in April, 1783. Fox and his old enemy were the principal secretaries of state; the duke of Portland became the nominal premier; and Pitt took the lead in opposition. All the first measures of government were triumphantly carried; and on the 18th of November Fox brought forward his India bill. This measure excited a great sensation in the house. It was espoused with zeal and enthusiasm by the friends of the minister, and attacked by his opponents with all the vehemence

On one side of the

of indignation, and all the energy of invective. house it was extolled as a master-piece of genius, virtue, and ability; while on the other it was reprobated as a deep and dangerous design, fraught with mischief and ruin. Pitt said, he would acknowledge "that India indeed wanted a reform, but not such a reform as this. The bill under consideration included a confiscation of the property, and a disfranchisement of the members of the East India company. The influence which would accrue from this bill-a new, enormous, and unexampled influence-was indeed in the highest degree alarming. Seven commissioners, chosen ostensibly by parliament, but really by adminis tration, were to involve in the vortex of their authority the patronage and treasures of India! The right honourable mover had acknowledged himself to be a man of ambition,-and it now appeared that he was prepared to sacrifice the king, the parliament, and the people at the shrine of his ambition! He desired to elevate his present connections to a situation in which no political convulsions, and no variations of power, might be able to destroy their importance, and terminate their ascendancy." On the other hand, Fox with astonishing eloquence and ability vindicated the bill. "The arguments of his opponents, he said, might have been adopted with additional propriety, by James the Second. James might have claimed the property of dominion; but what had been the language of the people? No! you have no property in dominion; dominion was vested in you, as it is in every chief magistrate, for the benefit of the community to be governed. It was a sacred trust delegated by compact; you have abused it. You have exercised dominion for the purpose of vexation and tyranny,-not of comfort, protection, and good order; we therefore resume the power which was originally ours. I am also," continued the orator, "charged with increasing the influence, and giving an immense accession of power to the crown. But certainly this bill as little augments the influence of the crown as any measure that could be devised for the government of India, with the slightest promise of success. The very genius of influence consists in hope or fear,-fear of losing what we have, or hope of gaining more. Make the commissioners removable at will, and you set all the little passions of human nature afloat. Invest them with power, upon the same tenure as the British judges hold their station,-removable upon delinquency, punishable upon guilt, but fearless of danger if they discharge their trust,-and they will be liable to no seducement, and will execute their functions with glory to themselves, and for the common good of the country and mankind. This bill presumes the possibility of bad administration; for every word in it breathes suspicion. It supposes that men are but men; it confides in no integrity; it trusts to no character. It annexes responsibility, not only to every action, but even to the inaction of the powers it has created. He would risk, he said, his all upon the excellence of this bill. He would risk upon it whatever was most dear to him, whatever men most valued, the character of integrity, of talents, of honour, of present reputation and future fame, all these he would stake upon the constitutional safety, the enlarged policy, the equity and wisdom of the measure. Whatever might be the fate of its authors, he had no fear but it would produce to this country every blessing of commerce and revenue; and, by extending a generous and humane government over those millions whom the in

་

scrutable dispensations of Providence had placed under us in the remotest regions of the earth, would consecrate the name of England among the noblest of nations."

While the bill was pending in the commons, a petition was presented by the East India company, representing the measure as subversive of their charter, and operating as a confiscation of their property without charging against them any specific delinquency,-without trial, without conviction, a proceeding contrary to the most sacred privileges of British subjects; and praying to be heard by counsel against the bill. The city of London also took the alarm, and presented a strong petition to the same effect. But it was carried with uncommon rapidity through all its stages in the house of commons by decisive majorities, the division on the second reading being 217 to 103.

On the 9th of December, Fox, attended by a numerous train of members, presented the bill at the bar of the house of lords. The second reading of the bill took place on the 15th of December, when counsel was heard at the bar in behalf of the Company. On the 17th it was moved that the bill be rejected. On this occasion Lord Camden spoke with great ability against the bill, which his lordship affirmed to be "in the highest degree pernicious and unconstitutional. To divest the company of the management of their own property and commercial concerns, was to treat them as idiots; and he regarded the bill not so much in the light of a commission of bankruptcy as of lunacy! But as a means of throwing an enormous addition of weight into the scale, not of legal but ministerial influence, it was still more alarming. Were this bill to pass into a law, his lordship declared, we should see the king of England and the king of Bengal contending for superiority in the British parliament." After a vehement debate, the motion of rejection was carried by 95 against 76 voices.

Such was the concluding scene of an administration from whose vigour its partisans had conceived the most sanguine hopes. As the first divisions in the upper house were favourable to the bill, it will naturally be imagined that such a sudden and remarkable change of sentiment must have been occasioned by the intervention of some very powerful though hidden cause. On the 11th of December, Earl Temple had a conference with his majesty which appears principally to have turned on the bill then pending in parliament. A card was immediately written, stating "that his majesty allowed Earl Temple to say, that whoever voted for the India bill was not only not his friend, but would be considered by him as his enemy. And if these words were not strong enough, Earl Temple might use whatever words he might deem stronger or more to the purpose.' An interference of so extraordinary a nature was not likely to pass without animadversion and censure. It was, accordingly, moved in the house of commons on the 17th, the very day that the bill was rejected by the lords," That it was now necessary to declare, that to report any opinion, or pretended opinion, of the king upon any bill, or other proceeding depending in either house of parliament, with a view to influence the votes of the members, was a high crime and misdemeanor." After an animated debate the house divided upon the question, when the resolution was carried by a majority of 73.

An entire change of administration was now determined upon. At