This man, therefore, had been selected by Lord Fitzmaurice (become Earl of Shelburne by the death of his father) as a bravo to run down Mr. Pitt. Lord Shelburne held a little knot of young orators at his house; but Barré soon overtopped them; and Fox had pushed on the project of employing him to insult Pitt--to what extent was surmised by all the world. The consequences will appear in the next debate. Glover,[143] the author of “Leonidas,” uttered a speech in most heroic fustian, but not without good argument, to show that all our great advantages had been obtained before we went deeply into the German war. Charles Yorke, Attorney-General, defended the measures of the late King against Barré and his own friend Mauduit’s pamphlet, urging that his Majesty had reduced himself to poverty to support the war in Germany. Elliot made an admirable oration to reconcile himself to consistence: owned he had opposed the treaties in 1755; and was then told they were calculated to prevent a war in Germany. He had since been dazzled with the national enthusiasm on the King of Prussia’s victories, and confessed that on the like appearances he should again be led to approve the German war. It was true that war had its object, collateral division; but would the House wish to Germanize this young King, and make him turn his thoughts thither more than he did? He concluded with a pathetic ejaculatory wish that the peace had succeeded. Oswald[144] took the same turn of endeavouring to palliate his inconsistencies; but though his parts were still shrewder and quicker than Elliot’s, he did it much worse. Dr. Hay[145] attempted, too, an apology for himself, but with the worst success of the three; and the necessity which the principal men in Parliament found themselves under of justifying their abandoned corruption and versatility, stamped disgrace on this Parliament itself, which it did but increase by fresh and repeated instances of servility in ensuing sessions on every change of Administration. The next day, Dec. 11th, Mr. Cooke[146] moved for all memorials relating to our fisheries, &c., which he introduced by saying, he wished to know what was the state of our affairs with regard to Spain--he hoped peaceable; but desired to see the papers relating to their claims, and to know if they had treated us with contempt and disdain. Beckford seconded him, urging that the Gazette and Bussy’s memorial contradicted one another. The King had asked advice of Parliament: if ministers should refuse these papers, they refused to comply with the King’s request. He did not know who were the ministers, nor whether we had a single minister, or a minister depute. It was necessary to have _one_ minister.