e consider of an adherence to a man
which leads to his power, we must not only see what the man is, but how
he stands related. It is not to be forgotten that Mr. Fox acts in close
and inseparable connection with another gentleman of exactly the same
description as himself, and who, perhaps, of the two, is the leader. The
rest of the body are not a great deal more tractable; and over them, if
Mr. Fox and Mr. Sheridan have authority, most assuredly the Duke of
Portland has not the smallest degree of influence.

51. One must take care that a blind partiality to some persons, and as
blind an hatred to others, may not enter into our minds under a color of
inflexible public principle. We hear, as a reason for clinging to Mr.
Fox at present, that nine years ago Mr. Pitt got into power by
mischievous intrigues with the court, with the Dissenters, and with
other factious people out of Parliament, to the discredit and weakening
of the power of the House of Commons. His conduct nine years ago I still
hold to be very culpable. There are, however, many things very culpable
that I do not know how to punish. My opinion on such matters I must
submit to the good of the state, as I have done on other occasions,--and
particularly with regard to the authors and managers of the American
war, with whom I have acted, both in office and in opposition, with
great confidence and cordiality, though I thought many of their acts
criminal and impeachable. Whilst the misconduct of Mr. Pitt and his
associates was yet recent, it was not possible to get Mr. Fox of himself
to take a single step, or even to countenance others in taking any step,
upon the ground of that misconduct and false policy; though, if the
matters had been then taken up and pursued, such a step could not have
appeared so evidently desperate as now it is. So far from pursuing Mr.
Pitt, I know that then, and for some time after, some of Mr. Fox's
friends were actually, and with no small earnestness, looking out to a
coalition with that gentleman. For years I never heard this circumstance
of Mr. Pitt's misconduct on that occasion mentioned by Mr. Fox, either
in public or in private, as a ground for opposition to that minister.
All opposition, from that period to this very session, has proceeded
upon the separate measures as they separately arose, without any
vindictive retrospect to Mr. Pitt's conduct in 1784. My memory, however,
may fail me. I must appeal to the printed debates, which