COOTE’S HISTORY 
to meddle in the wars of men; but had 
he found there Juno girded with the ces- 
tus, Greek and ‘Trojan might longer 
have been at rest. 
This volume comprizes a convenient 
epitome of the whole Pitt administra- 
tion, which may be divided into two 
main segments: the portion conducted 
in opposition to Mr. Burke, which was 
characterised by a compromising, ac- 
commodating cast of politics, and was 
liked ; and the portion conducted in 
_ unison with Mr. Burke, which was cha- 
racterised by an intolerant, malignant 
cast of politics; and was odious. We 
shall bestow on it a sort of perpetual 
commentary. 
The coalition with Lord North was 
probably recommended to Mr. Fox by 
Burke, in order to destroy a popularity 
he envied; aware that the more vehe- 
ment partizans, who preferred Fox to 
him, would be precisely the repelled 
portion of their supporters. The popu- 
lar animosity felt against this coalition 
was a correct feeling; for it really 
tended to disband popular principle, to 
destroy personal confidence, and to ren- 
der impossible to the people the attain- 
ment of any one end by confederacies of 
their own. Yet the conduct of the coa- 
lesced parties was patriotic, and favoura- 
ble to an increase of the power of the 
representatives of the people. Mr. Pitt 
was lifted by the ebb-water of that tide 
of popular favour which had billowed 
about Mr. Fox. His first conspicuous 
act was to disclaim (on the 12th Ja- 
nuary, 1784) all thoughts of resigning 
his post, in compliance with the declar- 
‘ed wish of the majority of the house of 
commons. Ji is, no doubt, the tradi- 
tional or constitutional prerogative of 
the crown, to name or elect the minis- 
ters of Great-Britain. But, as the pa- 
tronage of government gives to such 
_ ministers a far-felt power over the house 
of commons, it is highly improbable 
that any set of placemen should be left 
‘ama minority, who are not either inca- 
le or odious. Incapable ministers 
should be removed for the public safe- 
ty odious ministers should be remoy- 
, because civility is due to the people 
en when they err, and because a ta- 
‘cit complacency in the subject is essen- 
tial to the efficacious execution of public 
measures. ‘The house of commons have, 
therefore, usefully set up the doctrine, 
that a minister censured by them is 
OF ENGLAND. 931 
bound in honour to resign; and this 
doctrine it is expedient for the people to 
prop them in enforcing. If the right 
of expulsion vested in the house of 
commons, the expulsion of a refractory 
minister, when a commoner, would be 
a fit mode of enforcing this propriety in 
political behaviour ; Eut the Rocking- 
ham administration, in every thing a 
suicidal party, had set aside this right 
to please the friends of Mr. Wilkes. 
The old remedy of withholding the sup- 
plies is clearly inapplicable to a country 
burdened with a considerable national 
debt, because it is a measure far less 
alarming to the crown than to the 
stockholders. Another remedy would 
be to refuse passing the mutiny-bill; 
but this is only applicable in a state of 
peace. So that the house of commons 
has still to devise some innocent mode 
of enforcing its highly desirable nega- 
tive on the ministerial nominations of 
the crown. Perhaps the civil list could 
conveniently *be separated into its na- 
tional and personal grants, and the lat- 
ter voted annually. 
Mr. Pitt’s second conspicucus mea- 
sure was. his India-bill. Mr. Fox had 
devised one which contemplated the 
dissolution of the company, at the ex- 
piry of the charter ; and which propos- 
ed to vest in commissioners, elected by 
the house of commons, the eventual 
patronage of India. The benefit which 
commercial men must have derived 
from the opening of the trade to India 
is incalculable. The possession of pa- 
tronage, by the house of commons, no 
doubt tended to alter the leaning of the 
constitution, to counteract the influence 
of the crown, and to make parliament 
a seat of independent volition. Mr. 
Pitt’s bill contemplated the prolongation 
of the company’s monopoly; and the 
addition, through the board of controul, 
of the patronage of India to the extant 
influence of the crown. But it tended 
to make rival powers of the company’ 
and of the governmental establishment, 
and thus to endanger the eventual de- 
pendence of India: whereas, under Mr. 
Fox’s bill, an adhesion to the British 
house of commons, must have been very 
strong and very lasting. Distant pa- 
tronage is of little consequence as an 
engine of favouritism, because it ba- 
nishes the person’ it attaches; but it is 
of great consequence as a motive of al-* 
legiance, because it operates at the ex- 
