338 
well read in that gréat master of nature, 
Shakespeare, and acts. upon the magnani- 
mous plan of indifference to any thing he 
may have said er done. When Justice Shal- 
jow upbraided Falstaff with having broken 
into his park, and stolen his deer, ‘ I have, 
Master shallow, rephed Falstaff, * 1 have— 
ao I hope that’s answered.’ 
« 3. Under the protection of this coura- 
geous indifference (a better protection than 
a * sevenfold shield’), such a man will 
securely prais¢ in 1795 a motion concerning 
volunteer corps, because it went farther than 
the former measures of 1778 and 1782, and 
¢ made the force applicable to the defence of 
the whole of the country.” And in 1803 he 
will as securely condemn the measure which 
establishes aad extends the principle itself of 
1795, and will prove that the yolunteer force 
js no better than an ‘ armed rabble,” fit only 
to ‘ consume provisions,’ to ‘ choak up the 
roads,” and to ‘stand in the way of the 
ulars *.’ 
«4, Such a man will say in 1808, that 
the country cannot meet France single- 
handed, for it is < out of condition to go to 
war.’—March 9. Nor will he care if an op- 
ponent reminds him, that in Dec. 1794 he 
Maintained, ¢ it was not the character of the 
English to despond. Perseverance and in- 
wincibility were their characteristics; they 
had met France single-handed in her proud- 
est day.’ Or that in Jan. 1795 he * warned 
the house not to be led away by the motives 
that induced gentlemen on the other side to 
aint the situation of the country as they 
d done!’ 
’ «¢ Let other men be sore when contradic- 
tions are proved upon them ; nothing of this 
sort can move the man who has ‘ no one 
tion to suppose inconsistencies in his Jan= 
guage.’ ’ 
«© 5. Such a man will say in 1303, that 
recular troops alone are fit to meet an ene- 
my, and that «the mititia and other corps 
are no better than a mob’ in comparison of 
them: nor is it any thing to him, if in Nov. 
1795 he undertook to answer Gen. M‘Leod’s 
ebjections to his fencible troops, (viz. that 
they could only defend the kingdom from 
ynvasion, or preserve its internal tranquillity), 
and to maintain, that ‘ it might as well be 
asked, Of what use are any troops at all? 
‘They were of double use, because they 
_might-be employed against the attacks of a 
foreign enemy; and they might be raised 
with greater facility than other troops, be- 
cause they were not to go out of the coun- 
try.” And itis equally immaterial to him, 
that in Dec. 1797.he proved the fencibles to 
have also this advantage, that § they partook 
more of the nature of a militia, than of re- 
gular troops ? ‘ { 
‘« But other men may contradict them- 
_ selves, and fogget it after a few years. The 
fature minister of this country will, in the 
HISTORY, POLITICS, AND STATISTICS. 
same year, and very nearly in the same de~ 
bate, contradict himself, and forget it, or 
(which is the same thing) will care nothing-’ 
for the consequences. Fie will talk of the 
merit of regular troops alone for all pur- 
poses, offensive or defensive; and in a mo- 
nent these invaluable regulars shal! be turned 
about their business. * Nothing but the 
line can defend us, and all fevies should be* 
into the line.’ But ¢ the best method of de- 
fending the country, ts to fight like the Ven- 
deans—that is, behind trees, and bushes, 
and walls!’ Now, a common debater would 
endeavour to secure himself in the best man-~ 
ner he could, when pressed by an opponent 
under circumstanees so unexpected and un- 
toward. If upbraided with piiphdbdichs the 
country to the protection of bush-fighters, 
he would answer, ¢ All the world knows 
with what vehemence I dwelt on the exclu- 
sive advantages of the line.’ And if attacked 
on this undue preference of the line, he 
would turn upen his antagonist, and briskly 
ask, * Did I not extol an armed peasantry 
above the line itself!’ And, to say the 
truth, it is convenient enough to set out 
with two principles of opposite natures, and 
to take refuge in either, as necessity may re- 
quire, But the destined minister of this 
country scorns these subterfuges, which are 
more calculated for ordinary men, He has 
‘no objection to suppose inconsistencies in 
any thing he says: and though some people 
may not like inconsistency in a minister, 
surely much more is gained on the ground 
of intrepidity ; a quality particularly accept- 
able in Saatees times like these. 
“6. Such a man will go to war for any 
thing. ‘ Any spot upon the earth or sea, 
though fit only for the contention of seals 
and sea-gulls, may assume a much more im- 
portant aspect, and become a legitimate sub- 
ject of diplomatic interference, if honour is 
connected with it.—My. Windham, Nov. 
1801. 
*s And hence we may see how unreason- 
able Burnet was, in saying that it seemed an, 
odd thing for France to go to war formerly 
about some old furniture of. the duchess of 
Orleans. But, on the other hand, the fu- 
ture minister of this country shall say, when; - 
ever he pleases, that honour is nothing, and 
interest every thing; ner shall he eave for 
the contradiction. 
«« T will put the point of honour out of 
the question. I will not push it toa wild, 
extravagant, and chivaltous excess; for na- 
tional honour, when rightly understood, is, 
generally speaking, nothing more than nae 
uonal interest. In general, there is nothing 
dishonourable in giving up this or that, 
when it is not disadvantageous to the na- 
tional interest. —Mr. Windham, Nov. 1802. 
“Tt is the privilege of greatsiess to be eareless 
about itself, while it draws the attention of 
all towards it. Thus the destined minister 
se ® TY despise the rabble of volunteers."——Pol. Reg. Sept. 17. - 
