o the
Empress of Russia has been wholly unsuccessful; and 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 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 expenses, and to diminish the influence of the British
nation." Many members took part in the debate which followed this
motion, but the most remarkable speeches were delivered by those two
great rivals, Pitt and Fox. After reviewing our foreign policy from the
time of our joining Prussia, in order to prevent Holland becoming the
prey of France, Fox said that we were standing forward the principals
of every quarrel, the Quixotes of every enterprise, and the agitators in
all the plots and disturbances that were every day arising in Europe.
He said, if Oczakow was a place of no importance, ministers ought to be
censured for having armed and protracted war on its account; and if it
was an important place, they ought to be censured for disarming without
having obtained repossession of it from the Turks. Fox argued that
the Empress of Russia weald have granted better terms \o the Turks if
England had not interfered; and bitterly complained of Pitt's reserve
and secrecy with parliament. On the latter subject he remarked:--"This
is what puts our constitution in danger. That the pride, the folly, the
presumption of a single person shall be able to involve a whole people
in disgrace is more than philosophy can teach mortal patience to endure.
Here are the true weapons of the enemies of our constitution! Here
may we search for the source of the present outpourings of seditious
writings, meant either to weaken our attachment to the constitution by
depreciating its value, or that loudly tell us we have no constitution
at all. We may blame, we may reprobate such doctrines; but while we
furnish those who circulate them with argumenta such as these, while the
example of this day shows us to what degree the fact is true, we must
not wonder that the purposes the seditious writings are meant to answer
be but too successful. They argue that a constitution cannot be right
where such things are possible; much less so when they are practised
without punishment. Against the vain theories of men who project
fundamental alterations upon grounds of mere speculative objection I can
easily defe