tution, expensive, and ineffectual, inadequate to their protection, and dangerous to their liberty; and that they do think it so cannot be doubted. Session after session has the floor of the senate been covered with their petitions, praying to be relieved against it, as an oppressive, a corrupt, and therefore an execrable establishment.

True it is also, my lords, they have been guilty of those triumphant processions, which the learned counsel have so heavily condemned. The virtue of the people stood forward to oppose an attempt to seize upon their representation, by the exercise of a dangerous and unconstitutional influence, and it succeeded in the conflict; it routed and put to flight that corruption, which sat, like an incubus on the heart of the metropolis, chaining the current of its blood, and locking up every healthful function and energy of life. The learned counsel might have seen the city pouring out her inhabitants, as if to share the general joy of escaping from some great calamity, in mutual gratulation and publick triumph.* But why does the learned counsel insist upon this subject before your lordships? Does he think such meetings illegal? He knows his profession too well, not to know the reverse. But does he think it competent to the lord lieutenant and council of Ireland, to take cognizance of such facts, or to pronounce any opinion whatever, concerning the privileges of the people? He must know it is not. Does he then mean that such things may be subjects of your resentment, though not of your jurisdiction? It would have been worth while, before that point had been pressed, to consider between what parties it must suppose the present contest to subsist. To call upon the government of the country to let their vengeance fall upon the people for their resistance of unconstitutional influence, is surely

*The processions here alluded to, took place on the election of Mr. Grattan and lord H. Fitzgerald, who had been returned for the city of Dublin, in opposition to the court candidates, one of whom was alderman Warren, then at the head of the police establishment.

an appeal not very consistent with the virtuous impartiality of this august assembly. It is only for those who feel defeat, to feel resentment, or to think of vengeance.

But suppose for a moment, (and there never ought to be reason to suppose it) that the opposition of the city had been directly to the views or the wishes of the government. Why are you, therefore, called upon to seize its corporate rights into your hands, or to force an illegal magistrate upon it? Is it insinuated that it can be just to punish a want of complaisance, by an act of lawless outrage and arbitrary power? Does the British constitution, my lords, know of such offences, or does it warrant this species of tyrannical reprisal? And, my lords, if the injustice of such a measure is without defence; what argument can be offered in support of its prudence or policy? It was once the calamity of England to have such an experiment made by the last of the Stuarts, and the last of that unhappy race, because of such experiments. The several corporations of that country were stript of their charters; and what was the consequences? I need not state them; they are notorious: yet, my lords, there was a time when he was willing to relinquish what he had so weakly and wickedly undertaken; but there is a time when concession comes too late to restore either publick quiet, or publick confidence; and when it amounts to nothing more than an acknowledgment of injustice; when the people must see, that it is only the screen behind which oppression changes her attack, from force to fraud, from the battery to the mine. See then, my lords, how such a measure comes recommended; its principle injustice, its motive vengeance, its adoption sanctioned by the authority of a tyrant, or the example of a revolution.

My lords, the learned counsel has made another observation which I cannot pass without remark; it is the last with which I shall trouble you. He says, the commons may apply to the law, and bring an information in quo warranto, against Mr. James,

though you should give him your approbation: that is, my lords, your judgment does not bind the right, it only decides the possession of the office. To this I answer, that in this case to decide on the possession is, in fact, to decide the contest; and I found that answer on the high authority of the noble lord, who was pleased to say that "when the city had spent three years in the king's bench, she would probably grow sick of the contest."* I was not sur

prised, my lords, to hear an expression of that regret which must arise in every worthy mind, and I am sure the noble lord sincerely felt, at the distress of a people, reduced to defend those rights which ought never to have been attacked, and to defend them in a way by which they could not possibly succeed. The truth is, as the noble lord has stated, the time of Mr. James's mayoralty would expire in a year, and the question of law could not be terminated in three. The present contest, therefore, cannot be decided by law. How, then, my lords, is it to be decided? Are the people to submit tamely to oppression, or are they to struggle for their liberties? I trust, my lords, you will think they have not done any thing so culpable as can justify the driving them to so calamitous a necessity; for fatal must that struggle be, in whatsoever country it shall happen, in which the liberties of a people can find no safety but in the efforts of vindictive virtue; fatal to all parties whatever may be the event. But, my lords, I feel this to be a topick on which it is neither my province nor my wish to expatiate, and I leave it the more willing, because I know that I have already trespassed very long upon your patience, and also, because I cannot relinquish a hope, that the decision of your lordships this day will be such as shall restore the tranquillity of the publick mind, the mutual confidence between the government and the people, and make it unnecessary for any man to pursue so painful a subject.

*The lord chancellor.

MR. FOX'S SPEECH,

ON MR. WHITBREAD'S RESOLUTIONS RESPECTING THE RUSSIAN ARMAMENT, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS,

MARCH 1, 1792.

To

protect the Ottoman empire against those designs of criminal ambition with which, in the late war it was menaced, by the alarming coalition of the two great powers then opposed to it, Mr. Pitt, with the enlarged, liberal, and long-sighted wisdom which eminently distinguishes the whole of the external policy of his administration, entered into an alliance with that distressed court and induced Prussia, Holland, and Sweden to become parties. A confederacy, thus authoritative, could not fail to produce the end to which it was directed. Austria, at once, concluded a separate peace, and Russia despairing of her ability to maintain the unequal contest alone, soon afterwards consented to open a negotiation. To the requisition of the allies of an entire restoration of her conquests made during the war, she finally acceded, with the reservation of the town of Oczakow and its dependencies, which she insisted on retaining. Though a remote and barren spot, this possession was not destitute of importance. It guarded the dominions of Russia against the irruptions of the Tartars, and commanded an entrance into Turkey. Finding his pacifick exertions unavail. ing, Mr. Pitt resolved to extort by force a concession of the point in dispute, and having previously secured the concurrence of the allies, he prepared by a formi

dable naval armament to execute the determination of his government..

But, when the message of the king which recommended this hostile measure came under the consideration of parliament, the conduct of ministers towards Russia was severely arraigned by a respectable minority, and the expediency of a war with her for the recovery of a sterile district in the barbarous recesses of Tartary," ridiculed and decried.

The opposition certainly spoke the language of the nation, and especially of the merchants and manufacturers, whose interests were more immediately concerned.-Ministers ascertained of the fact, did not choose to risk their influence by embarking in an unpopular war, and therefore terminated the quarrel by yielding the "bone of contention.”

Elated with their supposed triumph, the opposition thought, while standing on the "vantage ground," to push their success, and accordingly on the 1st of March, 1792, the subsequent resolutions, censuring the ministry, were moved in the house of commons, each of which was, however, negatived by a large majority.

1. "That no arrangement, respecting Oczakow and its district, appears to have been capable of affecting the political or commercial interests of this country, so as to justify any hostile interference on the part of Great Britain between Russia and the Porte."

2. "That the interference of Great Britain for the purpose of preventing the cession of the said fortress, and its district, to the empress of Russia, has been wholly unsuccessful."

3. "That his majesty's ministers in endeavouring, by means of an armed force, to compel the empress of Russia to abandon her claim to Oczakow and its district, and in continuing an armament, after the object for which it was proposed had been relinquished, have been guilty of gross misconduct, tending to incur unnecessary expense, and to diminish the influence of the British nation in Europe."