It requires great ingenuity to make out such a parallel between the two cases as to found a charge of inconsistency in the principles assumed in arguing the one and the other.  What relation had Mr. Fox’s India Bill to the Constitution of France?  What relation had that Constitution to the question of right in an House of Commons to give or to withhold its confidence from ministers, and to state that opinion to the crown?  What had this discussion to do with Mr. Burke’s idea in 1784 of the ill consequences which must in the end arise to the crown from setting up the commons at large as an opposite interest to the commons in Parliament?  What has this discussion to do with a recorded warning to the people of their rashly forming a precipitate judgment against their representatives?  What had Mr. Burke’s opinion of the danger of introducing new theoretic language, unknown to the records of the kingdom, and calculated to excite vexatious questions, into a Parliamentary proceeding, to do with the French Assembly, which defies all precedent, and places its whole glory in realizing what had been thought the most visionary theories?  What had this in common with the abolition of the French monarchy, or with the principles upon which the English Revolution was justified,—­a Revolution in which Parliament, in all its acts and all its declarations, religiously adheres to “the form of sound words,” without excluding from private discussions such terms of art as may serve to conduct an inquiry for which none but private persons are responsible?  These were the topics of Mr. Burke’s proposed remonstrance; all of which topics suppose the existence and mutual relation of our three estates,—­as well as the relation of the East India Company to the crown, to Parliament, and to the peculiar laws, rights, and usages of the people of Hindostan.  What reference, I say, had these topics to the Constitution of France, in which there is no king, no lords, no commons, no India Company to injure or support, no Indian empire to govern or oppress?  What relation had all or any of these, or any question which could arise between the prerogatives of the crown and the privileges of Parliament, with the censure of those factious persons in Great Britain whom Mr. Burke states to be engaged, not in favor of privilege against prerogative, or of prerogative against privilege, but in an open attempt against our crown and our Parliament, against our Constitution in Church and State, against all the parts and orders which compose the one and the other?

No persons were more fiercely active against Mr. Fox, and against the measures of the House of Commons dissolved in 1784, which Mr. Burke defends in that remonstrance, than several of those revolution-makers whom Mr. Burke condemns alike in his remonstrance and in his book.  These revolutionists, indeed, may be well thought to vary in their conduct.  He is, however, far from accusing them, in this variation, of the smallest