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 formidable 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."

1

In the debate on these propositions, Mr. Fox delivered the present speech, to which his admirers have delighted to recur as one of the most brilliant efforts of his genius, and as illustrating with unusual fidelity, the peculiar traits of his eloquence."

The speech of the minister on the occasion has been very imperfectly preserved, yet meagre as the report is, we distinctly discern in it his "accustomed aptitude for defence, and his quickness at reply."

SIR,

SPEECH, &c.

AFTER the challenge which was thrown out to me, in the speech of a right honourable gentleman, * last night, I consider it my duty to trouble you somewhat at length on this important question. But before I enter into the consideration of it, I will explain why I did not obey a call made, and repeated several times, in a manner not very consistent either with the freedom of debate, or with the order which the right honourable gentleman himself has prescribed for the discussion of this day. Why any members should think themselves entitled to call on an individual in that way, I know not: but why I did not yield to the call is obvious. It was said by an honourable gentleman last night to be the wish of the minister to hear all that could be said on the subject, before he should rise to enter into his defence. If so, it certainly would not become me to prevent him from hearing any other gentleman who might be inclined to speak on the occasion; and as he particularly alluded to me, I thought it respectful to give way to gentlemen, that I might not interrupt the course which he has chosen for himself, as it seems he reserves himself till I have spoken. This call on me is of a singular nature. A minister is accused of having rashly engaged the country in a measure by which we have suffered disaster and disgrace, and when a motion of censure is made, he

chooses to reserve himself, and speak after every one, that no means may be given to reply to his defenceto expose its fallacy if fallacious-or to detect its misrepresentations, if he shall choose to misrepresent what may be said. If the right honourable gentleman is truly desirous of meeting the charges against him, and he has confidence in his ability to vindicate his conduct, why not pursue the course which would be manly and open? Why not go into a committee, as was offered him by the honourable gentleman who made the motion, * in which the forms of this house would have permitted members on each side to answer whatever was advanced by the other, and the subject would have received the most ample discussion? Instead of this honourable course, he is determined to take all advantages. He screens himself by a stratagem which no defendant in any process in this country could enjoy; since no man put upon his defence in any court of justice could so contrive as not only to prevent all reply to his defence, but all refutation of what he may assert, and all explanation of what he may misrepresent. Such are the advantages which the right honourable gentleman is determined to seize in this moment of his trial; and to confess the truth, never did man stand so much in need of every advantage! never was there an occasion in which a minister was exhibited to this house in circumstances so ungracious, as those under which he at present appears. Last session of parliament we had no fewer than four debates upon the question of the armament, in which the right honourable gentleman involved this country, without condescending to explain the object which he had in view. The minority of this house stood forth against the monstrous measure of involving the country, without unfolding the reason. The minister proudly and obstinately refused, and called on the majority to support him. We gave our opinion at large on the subject, and with effect, as it turned out, on the publick

mind. On that of the right honourable gentleman, however, we were not successful; for what was his conduct? He replied to us, "I hear what you say I could answer all your charges, but I know my duty to my king too well to submit at this moment to expose the secrets of the state, and to lay the reasons before you of the measure on which I demand your confidence. I choose rather to lie for a time under all the imputations which you may heap upon me, trusting to the explanations which will come at last." Such was explicitly his language. However I might differ from the right honourable gentleman in opinion, I felt for his situation. There was in this excuse some shadow of reason by which it might be possible to defend him, when the whole of his conduct came to be investigated. I thought it hard to goad him, when, perhaps, he considered it as unsafe to expose what he was doing. But when the conclusion of the negotiation had loosed him from his fetters, when he had cast off the trammels that bound him, I thought that, like the horse described by Homer, (if I remembered I would quote the lines) exulting in the fresh pastures after he had freed himself from the bridle, the right honourable gentleman would have been eager to meet us with every sort of explanation and satisfaction. I thought that, restrained by no delicacy, and panting only for the moment that was to restore him to the means of developing, and of expatiating upon, every part of his conduct that was mysterious; of clearing up that which had been reprobated, of repelling on the heads of his adversaries those very accusations with which they had loaded him-the right honourable gentleman would have had but one wish, that of coming forward in a bold and manly manner, and endeavouring to make his cause good against us, in the face of the world. Has he done so? has he ever given us the means of inquiring fully and fairly into his conduct? No such thing. He lays before us a set of papers, sufficient, indeed, as I shall contend, to found a strong criminal charge of misconduct against him, but evidently mutilated, garbled, and imperfect, with a view