Fox and Burke had one day a dissertation on the comparative merits of Homer and Virgil; Burke maintaining the superiority of Virgil's poem, although allowing the superiority of Homer's genius: Fox, on the other hand, maintaining the superiority of Homer's poem as well as of his genius. As they entered on the real and important object of criticism, beauty, sublimity, pathetic exhibition of character, philosophy, in short, nature and truth, instead of wasting their time: on the petty details of versification, the principal subjects of consideration with those verbal pedants whose capacities do not rise to a comprehension of primary excellence, their discussion is said to have. evinced on both sides very extraordinary critical powers. It were to be wished, if Mr. Fox recollects the arguments of each, that he would favour the world with making them public. Mr. Fox is himself, from having been bred at Eton and Oxford, a more accurate and nicer classical scholar than even Mr. Burke was.

The Administration of which Mr. Fox was now a leading member had many symptoms of strength superior to that possessed by any Ministry since the commencement of this reign. It combined the leading members of both parties during the American war. It unitedphilosophy and genius with official experience. To consolidate parts, formerly heterogeneous, into one mass, a great weight of aristocratic influence was superinduced, Lord North retained many of his numerous supporters. Fox had a less numerous, but more able band of friends. The result of this union of genius, experience, rank, and property, was a majority seldom seen in favour of the Minister from the time of the illustrious Pitt. It was more likely to continue, bet cause, not depending solely on the native genius of the Minister, it had so many strong adventitious supports. Strong, however, as the building appeared, there was a latent flaw. The Administration had been evidently forced upon the Sovereign, and was suspected by many, and known by some, to be disagreeable to that personage and his courtiers. The people also regarded the coalition, with a jealous eye. The party which the coalition had driven from power, it might be well supposed, would narrowly watch every opportunity which either the favour of the Sovereign, or the people, might improve to

ladies to be stationed at Windsor, Salt-Hill, Slough, Maidenhead, and other adjacent places, to act as auxiliaries to his juvenile troops. The memory of Charles Fox was held in a reverence amounting to adoration for many years after he left school. During his famous election in 1784 a poll was opened among the young men at Eton, and he was returned with much more unanimity than af Westminster.

them. The India bill of Mr. Fox afforded to them the opportunity they wished:

The session met on the 11th day of November. The speech and address were received in the House of Lords without any censure except from Earl Temple alone, and in the House of Commons with unanimity and applause. On the 18th Mr. Fox introduced, with a speech that few ever equalled, and even he himself never surpassed, his famous India Bill.

Were we called upon to bring forward the most striking instance we could select of the exertions of Mr. Fox's extraordinary powers, we should refer to his East India Bill, as a political plan, and to the speech with which he introduced it, as a specimen of eloquence which we do not believe Demosthenes or Cicero surpassed or could surpass. The writer, who has taken the trouble to analyse the highest and most comprehensive efforts of both the Athenian and Roman orators, is convinced, and would undertake to prove, that the eloquence of both does not exceed that of Charles James Fox.* This indeed was a speech in which there was all the intellectual excellence of its author, without the usual defects which so often result from his carelessness. There were not only materials, the result of extensive infor mation and powerful reasoning, the general characteristic of the author's eloquence, but orderly arrangement, not a general characteristic of his eloquence. Considering it as a political plan, we are led to inquire into its various objects, and into its probable and evidently intended result, if it had been successful. The purport of it was simply and concisely this: I Charles James Fox propose that the whole power and influence arising from the commercial, territorial, and political establishments in India shall be vested in eight nominees of mine, totally independent, after their appointment, of either Legislature or Crown. Thus, if any attempt adverse to my Administration be made, I have all that influence to back me.' This was a project of dictation that none but a man of lofty towering genius could have formed he devised so effectual means for its execution, that had Cæsar himself been the subject of a mixed monarchy, where, from the balance of orders, he could not raise himself to supremacy by deluding the mob, we cannot conceive that he would have invented a more masterly scheme for making himself perpetual dictator; but

• The writer has made the same observation elsewhere concerning both Mr. Pitt and Mr. Burke.

although Mr. Fox, in point of genius, intrepidity, and ambition, was not unlike that extraordinary personage, there were some points in which their intellectual habits differed. Cæsar's rule for both thinking and action was,

Nil credens affum dum quid superesset agendum.

There is in Mr. Fox a degree of indolence that frequently prevents him from turning his mind to every possible view of the case, and thus leads him to draw conclusions from premises not completely adequate. He had assured himself of a great majority in the House of Commons; and trusting to the strong ground on which he stood there, had not considered with sufficient attention the other positions that might be taken. The first remonstrants against the bill were the East India Company. The proprietors and directors petitioned the house, not to pass a bill, operating as the confiscation of their property and annihilation of their charters, without proving specific delinquency that might merit the forfeiture of their privileges and property; asserting, that proved delinquency alone could justify such a bill, and desiring the charges and proofs might be brought forward. A more cautious politician would have, by some concessions, secured the consent of the East India Company, by leaving to themselves the commercial administration, over which his nominees, from their political importance, might have retained an influence almost equal in effect to the projected power. The concurrence of the Company might have been thus obtained, which would have destroyed one of the principal arguments against the bill; a very strong argument, no doubt, would have been still opposed to it, that it vested an unconstitutional power in eight individuals; but if the India Company had been satisfied, that might have heen possibly got over; at any rate, the experiment was politically worth trying. Mr. Fox's own sagacity might have seen that other sagacious men wou'd discover its tendency and intent; he should have taken care to have guarded against the opposition. Much as we, and all men, must admire his genius as exerted in this grand scheme, impartiality obliges us to charge him with a failure in the exertion of judgment and foresight, and we believe in that opinion his present friends, and those the next in ability to himself, concur. This, however, is a subject which we shall discuss more minutely in Our account of Mr. Sheridan.

In Parliament the bill met with the most powerful opposition from October.]

From him,

Mr. Fox's new and formidable antagonist, Mr. Pitt. * indeed, and Mr. Dundas, did it meet with almost the sole opposition it experienced in its passage through the House of Commons. Pitt attacked it, in the first place, as an infringement, or rather annihilation of the Company's charter; insisting that the charter was as clear and strong, and the right founded on it as well ascertained as that of any chartered body in the kingdom; that the violation of the India Company's rights, glaringly unjust in itself,

* A very common observation concerning the East India bill of Mr. Pitt is, that it did circuitously what Mr. Fox's bill proposed to do directly. They must be very superficial reasoners who do dot see the following material difference. The nominees projected by Mr. Fox would have possessed an influence that would have secured him and his friends in power, even though the confidence of the King and country should be withdrawn: the plan of Mr. Pitt would not give either to him or his friends an influence which would have secured him in power, if the confidence of the King or country were withdrawn. By Mr. Fox's plan there might be a Minister who held his place by a new and unconstitutional tenure: Mr. Pitt's did not admit the possibility of such a tenure. The appointments by Mr. Pitt's bill were to be held during pleasure, agreeably tothe general analogy of executorial offices under the Crown: the appointments, according to Mr. Fox's bill, were to be held contrary to that general analogy, and to both the theory and practice of the Constitution. By Mr. Pitt's bill the political direction was to be vested in those whose offices in the State implied the admission of their political capacity: by Mr. Fox's, both political and commercial details, principles, and operations, were to be submitted to individuals not holding offices that implied the admission of their political capacity, and not known for education or habits that would have fitted them for superintending mercantile transactions. We are far from wishing to assert any thing disrespectful to any of the individuals, we merely state a fact, that the gentlemen he proposed for managing the affairs of merchants were not known to be experienced in trade; that those in whom he wished to be vested the management of the pecuniary concerns of persons whom he asserted to be solvent, were not known as accountants; that high as the general opinion was of Mr. Fox's talents, the assignees of an individual bankrupt might, perhaps, hesitate before they would say, 'We think the best way of arranging the affairs of this bankrupt's estate, is to ask Mr. Charles Fox to appoint some of his friends or intimate companions; as among his intimates we may expect to find the most' juditious managers of every thing connected with money. They might doubt: whether the best physicians for a distempered purse were to be found in Charles Fox's college. If private traders would not choose such accountants, a publicCompany might object to them without being very unreasonable. It would have sounded rather awkwardly as an article of Gazette intelligence--- Bankrupt, the East India Company. To surrender at Brookes's. Attorneys, Charles Fox and Co.'

militated against the security of all chartered rights. He argued, that besides its injustice respecting the Company, it would be dangerous to the Constitution, by establishing an influence independent of the Legislature; an influence that, from its nature, would be under the controul of its creator, Mr. Fox. He did not hesitate to impute so unjust and so unconstitutional a plan to an ambitious desire of being perpetual dictator. Dundas coinciding with Pitt's idea, that the system was unjust and unconstitutional, and concurring in his assignation of motives, entered into a detailed discussion of Fox's statement of the finances of the Company; insisting that their affairs were by no means in that desperate state which he alledged.

The history of the bill is too well known to require much discussion. Though defended by the Duke of Portland, Lords Stormont, Carlisle, Sandwich, and Loughborough, with all the force of their respective talents, it was thrown out in the House of Peers. The King determined on an entire change of Administration. The principal members were immediately dismissed from office, and a very general resignation of employments took place. Mr. Pitt was appointed Prime Minister. The majority, however, continued in favour of Opposition. A series of motions was proposed and adopted, tending to prove that the Minister ought not to continue in office without the support of the House of Commons. That no one could be long Minister, if thwarted by the House of Commons, is obvious; at the same time, neither law nor precedent was brought forward to prove, that the continuance of a Minister in office, contrary to the approbation of the House of Commons, was unconstitutional. The King certainly, as chief executive magistrate, has a right to choose his own Ministers (unless under disqualifications ascertained by law) for performing any branch of the executive duties. The House of Commons have a right to impeach, on the ground of malversation in office, any of the Ministers, but not to prescribe to him in his choice of a Minister. Notwithstanding the remonstrances of the House of Commons, Mr. Pitt remained in office. His Majesty, seeing that the opinion of the House of Commons continued contrary to his own, and conceiving it to be contrary to that of his people, determined to put it in the power of the people to manifest their approbation or disapprobation of their present representatives. By dissolving Parliament, he virtually asked this question, Did your late representatives speak your sense or not? If they did, you will re-elect them; if not, you will elect others.' Being asked this question respecting their