In the same debate Mr. Burke was represented by Mr. Fox as arguing in a manner which implied that the British Constitution could not be defended, but by abusing all republics ancient and modern.  He said nothing to give the least ground for such a censure.  He never abused all republics.  He has never professed himself a friend or an enemy to republics or to monarchies in the abstract.  He thought that the circumstances and habits of every country, which it is always perilous and productive of the greatest calamities to force, are to decide upon the form of its government.  There is nothing in his nature, his temper, or his faculties which should make him an enemy to any republic, modern or ancient.  Far from it.  He has studied the form and spirit of republics very early in life; he has studied them with great attention, and with a mind undisturbed by affection or prejudice.  He is, indeed, convinced that the science of government would be poorly cultivated without that study.  But the result in his mind from that investigation has been and is, that neither England nor France, without infinite detriment to them, as well in the event as in the experiment, could be brought into a republican form; but that everything republican which can be introduced with safety into either of them must be built upon a monarchy,—­built upon a real, not a nominal monarchy, as its essential basis; that all such institutions, whether aristocratic or democratic, must originate from their crown, and in all their proceedings must refer to it; that by the energy of that mainspring alone those republican parts must be set in action, and from thence must derive their whole legal effect, (as amongst us they actually do,) or the whole will fall into confusion.  These republican members have no other point but the crown in which they can possibly unite.

This is the opinion expressed in Mr. Burke’s book.  He has never varied in that opinion since he came to years of discretion.  But surely, if at any time of his life he had entertained other notions, (which, however, he has never held or professed to hold,) the horrible calamities brought upon a great people by the wild attempt to force their country into a republic might be more than sufficient to undeceive his understanding, and to free it forever from such destructive fancies.  He is certain that many, even in France, have been made sick of their theories by their very success in realizing them.

To fortify the imputation of a desertion from his principles, his constant attempts to reform abuses have been brought forward.  It is true, it has been the business of his strength to reform abuses in government, and his last feeble efforts are employed in a struggle against them.  Politically he has lived in that element; politically he will die in it.  Before he departs, I will admit for him that he deserves to have all his titles of merit brought forth, as they have been, for grounds of condemnation, if one word justifying or supporting abuses of any sort is to be found in that book which has kindled so much indignation in the mind of a great man.  On the contrary, it spares no existing abuse.  Its very purpose is to make war with abuses,—­not, indeed, to make war with the dead, but with those which live, and flourish, and reign.