~ 
gument, 
HIS TO. RY: OF) EUROPE... 
‘The following appear to, us to be 
amongthemost striking and weighty 
of, his observations, and: ‘arguments 
in the present debate.—He saw 
nothing, in what is called the la- 
mentable example of France, to 
proye tohim, that timely acquie- 
scence with the desires of the peo- 
ple was more dangerous than ob- 
Stinate resistance to their demands, 
The situations/of Great Britain and 
France were so essentially different, 
there was so little in common be- 
tween the character of England at 
this day, and the character of France 
atthe commencementof the revolu- 
tion, that it was impossible to reason 
upon them from parity of circum- 
stances or. of character., It had 
been said, that the house possessed 
the confidence of the country as 
much asever. ‘This, in. truth, 
said Mr. Fox, is as. much as to say, 
that his majesty’s ministers possess 
the. confidence of the country in the 
same degree as ever, since the ma- 
jority of the house support and ap- 
plaud, the measures of the govern- 
ment, and give their countesance 
to all the evils which we are doom- 
edtoendure. Is confidence to .be 
-alwaysagainst the people, and never 
for them? Itis a notableargument, 
that, because we do not tind, at 
the general election, very material 
changes in the representation, the 
sentiments of the people continued 
the same, in favour of the war, and 
in favour of his majesty’s ministers. 
The very ground of the present dis- 
cussion gives the answer to this. ar- 
Why do we agitate the 
gnestion of parliamen.a,y. rerorm ? 
Shgaes but because this house is not 
saflicient representation of the 
‘poonle } >. We must argue from, ex- 
perience. Let us look: bacis to the 
period of the American war; it be 
[259 
came unpopular, and, the-.king’s , 
ministers lost, the confidence of. ‘the 
nation; yet on the general elec- 
tion which. foliewed the dissolution 
of parliament, inl780, not more 
than three or four.persons were add- 5 
ed to the number of those who had, 
from the begianiug, opposed the 
disastrous career of the ministers in 
that war.” . 
Lhe grand topic of declamation 
against the minister, and that on 
which, notwithstanding bis defence 
of changing times and circum- 
stances, he was constantly teized 
andbadgered, was, hisalleged apos- 
tacy, from his professed principles _ 
of parliamentary reformation. And 
that not only by the speakers usually 
in opposition, but even, in some in- 
stances, by others, on the whole, by 
no means adverse to admivistration. 
This instrument of attack, though 
so common, was not disdained by | 
Mr. Fox; but he wielded it with 
his usual superiority of address. | 
Iremember, said Mr. Fox, that lord 
North, after the geveral. election 
just osentioned, madeuseof the same 
argument preciscly as is now made 
use of, and ihe present chancellor of - 
the exchequermadeajustand striking 
use of, it to demoustrate the neces- 
sity of a parliamentary reform. Re- 
fercing to.the gcueral el-ction, still 
decidedly i ia favour of the minister 
of the’ day, as to a demonstration of 
the necessity of a parliamentary re- 
form, he said, “ you see, that so 
defectiye, so ina ‘equate is the pre- 
sent practice, ai least of the elective 
franchise, that no it mpression of na- 
tional calamity, mo conviction of 
ministerial error, no ¢ abhorreiice ‘of 
disastrous war, is sufficient to stand 
against that corruptinticcace which 
has mixed itself with clectio., and 
which) drowns, the popular voice.” 
[5 2] Upon 
