‘You observe probably in the papers, that on Baker’s motion, Pole Carew moved the previous question and contended “that the interests of all are closely connected even in respect to things not stipulated by treaty.” This judicious doctrine was first advanced by the Chancellor, and Mr. Pitt defended in his speech on Baker’s motion. According to this doctrine, there is no difference between defensive and offensive treaties; all the writer’s _de jure gentium_ should be burnt, and, indeed, most of the European treaties also; and it is certain that under such circumstances England ought never to make an alliance on the Continent unless a Continental war were actually broken out; otherwise she could not foresee the consequences to which she would be exposed. ‘Charles Fox said in his speech on Baker’s motion “that Mr. Pitt dared not to enter into the war, and that he kept a majority together at present by his assurance that there would not be one.” ‘This is, perhaps, the case; but however it may be, it is certain that Faukner, Clerk of the Council, is sent to Berlin, and most persons think with a view of showing the King of Prussia the impossibility of persuading this country to enter into a Russian war. Had Mr. Pitt felt the pulse of the Parliament and people before he delivered the King’s message, he would have saved his credit, though he might have been blamed; but he has now run into the horns of a dilemma, as the logicians call it. If he prosecute the war, he will infallibly be ex-Minister, and bad consequences are to be apprehended in a country oppressed by taxes and heated by political pamphlets; if he give it ‘up, he will lose all his influence in the eyes of Europe, and teach foreign Courts that no confidence is to be placed in an English Minister. His friends lament very much this last circumstance. ‘Adieu! JOHN SYMONDS.’