the Legislature “disapproved of an administration on proper grounds, it would not be well for that administration to retain office.”  But in the present instance he contended that “no ground for disapprobation had been shown.”  The existing administration “had, in fact, by an unaccountable obstinacy and untowardness of circumstances, been deprived of all opportunity” of showing its capacity or its intentions.  “If any accusations should be made and proved against it, if any charges should be substantiated, it would, indeed be proper for the ministers to resign; and if, in such a case he were afterward to continue in office, he would suffer himself to be stigmatized as the champion of prerogative, and the unconstitutional supporter of the usurpation of the crown.  But till this period arrived, he should reckon it his duty to adhere to the principles of the constitution, as delivered to us by our ancestors; to defend them against innovation and encroachment, and to maintain them with firmness.”  “The constitution of this country,” he presently added, “is its glory; but in what a nice adjustment does its excellence consist!  Equally free from the distractions of democracy and the tyranny of monarchy, its happiness is to be found in its mixture of parts.  It was this mixed government which the prudence of our ancestors devised, and which it will be our wisdom to support.  They experienced all the vicissitudes and distractions of a republic; they felt all the vassalage and despotism of a simple monarchy.  They abandoned both; and, by blending each together, extracted a system which has been the envy and admiration of the world.  This system it is the object of the present address to defeat and destroy.  It is the intention of this address to arrogate a power which does not belong to the House of Commons; to place a negative on the exercise of the prerogative, and to destroy the balance of power in the government as it was settled at the Revolution.”

Fox had urged that our history afforded no example of a ministry retaining office after the House of Commons had passed a resolution condemning it.  Pitt, in reply, urged that our history equally failed to furnish any instance of a ministry having been called on to retire without any misconduct being alleged against them.  And the result of the division showed that his arguments and his firmness were producing an impression on the House, for, though he was again defeated, the majority against him (only twelve) was far smaller than on any previous division.[102] A week later, this feeling in his favor was shown still more decidedly, when Fox, on moving for a fresh address, or, as he termed it, a representation to the King that the House had received his Majesty’s reply to their address “with surprise and affliction,” he could only carry it by a single vote.[103] And this division closed the struggle.  Fox made no farther effort.  Before the end of the month the Parliament was dissolved, and the general election which ensued sent to the House a majority to support the ministers which Pitt was fairly warranted in claiming as the full justification of the course which he had pursued.