the confidence of the people without doors as his great rival.  Before whom, then, is Mr. Pitt to be impeached, and by whom?  The more I consider the matter, the more firmly I am convinced that the idea of proscribing Mr. Pitt indirectly, when you cannot directly punish him, is as chimerical a project, and as unjustifiable, as it would be to have proscribed Lord North.  For supposing that by indirect ways of opposition, by opposition upon measures which do not relate to the business of 1784, but which on other grounds might prove unpopular, you were to drive him from his seat, this would be no example whatever of punishment for the matters we charge as offences in 1784.  On a cool and dispassionate view of the affairs of this time and country, it appears obvious to me that one or the other of those two great men, that is, Mr. Pitt or Mr. Fox, must be minister.  They are, I am sorry for it, irreconcilable.  Mr. Fox’s conduct in this session has rendered the idea of his power a matter of serious alarm to many people who were very little pleased with the proceedings of Mr. Pitt in the beginning of his administration.  They like neither the conduct of Mr. Pitt in 1784, nor that of Mr. Fox in 1793; but they estimate which of the evils is most pressing at the time, and what is likely to be the consequence of a change.  If Mr. Fox be wedded, they must be sensible that his opinions and principles on the now existing state of things at home and abroad must be taken as his portion.  In his train must also be taken the whole body of gentlemen who are pledged to him and to each other, and to their common politics and principles.  I believe no king of Great Britain ever will adopt, for his confidential servants, that body of gentlemen, holding that body of principles.  Even if the present king or his successor should think fit to take that step, I apprehend a general discontent of those who wish that this nation and that Europe should continue in their present state would ensue,—­a discontent which, combined with the principles and progress of the new men in power, would shake this kingdom to its foundations.  I do not believe any one political conjecture can be more certain than this.

53.  Without at all defending or palliating Mr. Pitt’s conduct in 1784, I must observe, that the crisis of 1793, with regard to everything at home and abroad, is full as important as that of 1784 ever was, and, if for no other reason, by being present, is much more important.  It is not to nine years ago we are to look for the danger of Mr. Fox’s and Mr. Sheridan’s conduct, and that of the gentlemen who act with them.  It is at this very time, and in this very session, that, if they had not been strenuously resisted, they would not only have discredited the House of Commons, (as Mr. Pitt did in 1784, when he persuaded the king to reject their advice, and to appeal from them to the people,) but, in my opinion, would have been the means