CHARLES JAMES FOX: lEADEROF M
WW6 QPPOSQTEON IN THE ERA 05
THE FRENCH REVOWTION

Thais 5M tho Dean. of M. A.
MHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
N. Franklin Hurt
1956

CHARIES JMES FOX: LEADER OF THE
WHIG OPPOSITION IN THE ERA OF
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

By
N. Franklin Hurt

An Abstract

Submitted to the College of Arts and Sciences
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

Department of History
1956

ABSTRACT

The outbreak of the French Revolution was joyousLy hailed
in England. No one in the realmmas more exuberant over the news
than Charles James Fox, leader of the Whig opposition in the House
of Commons. Like many Englishmen, he believed the upheaval was a
grand surge for political liberty against Bourbon despotism. ‘With
the flight of the French royal family to Varrenes in June, 1791,
however, most of his countrymen abandoned the idea that France was
trying to emulate the Glorious Revolution of 1688. They realized
that the cry for "Equality and Fraternity" implied considerably
more than the Lockean concept of Revolution, and withdrew into
apprehensive Francophobia. Charles Fox, however, persisted in his
notion that the Revolution was only a great blow for "Liberty,"
and failed to recognize it as an egalitarian movement. Misunderstanding
the upheaval, he defended it continually throughout the crimson era.

Fox was more realistic toward the French Republic's
aggressive foreign policy. He deplored its menacing attitude toward
Holland and the Austrian Netherlands in late 1792, and called for a
full-scale armament to defend English shores. Hoping to avert an
Anglo-French war, he demanded that the British.government recognize
the new'Republic and restore regular diplomatic relations with France.
His efforts were fruitless, and France declared war upon England and

the United Provinces on February 1, 1793. Fox supported the prosecution

 

of the War 80

French aggreSC

he demanded P6

the 3ntish 30'

the despots of

the Bourbons 2‘€
to oppose and c
As 16

not very succeszt
iri’luence of th:
Milt on the ci‘r
could collect or;
toward the Revel :.
hiseinority. All!
Embers of the If.“
liristerial ranksl

ef

forts to equate I

“Rim him was e'

luc * .
retire places .

u
«as 9 1 .
~°d~Hing yea“

and a '1
ice of cone

.Educed to about t
hilt‘

me I
11 refom a:

 

of the war so long as Britain's only objective was to repulse
French aggression. 'When this was briefly achieved in June, 1793,
he demanded peace negotiations. Then, however, it appeared that
the British government meant to continue hostilities along with
the despots of'Europe until the Revolution was extinguished.and
the Bourbons restored. Abhorring this object, Fox exerted himself
to oppose and obstruct the ministry's war policy.

As leader of the aristocratic party in parliament, he was
not very successful. His lifelong effort to strike a blow at the
influence of the Crown was frustrated by George III's huge majorities
built on the civil list. Under the most propitious conditions, Fox
could collect only about seventy followers in Commons. His attitude
toward the Revolution and hiscpposition to the war nearly blighted
his minority. Alarmed by his sentiments, the more conservative
members of the'Whig party constantly threatened to desert to the
ministerial ranks. Their misgivings were exacerbated by the ministry's
efforts to equate Fox with the jacobins, and their eagerness to -
abandon him was encouraged by the younger Pitt's offers of high and
lucrative places. Fox kept his party intact throughout 1792, but in
the following year individual Whigs drifted into the ministerial camp,
and a bloc of conservatives defected to Pitt in 179h. 'With his party
reduced to about thirty adherents, Fox continued his demands for

political reform and his opposition to Pitt's repressive policy.

 

 

Duri
of societies e
Host of them :1
Charles Fox's
all he refuses
tirelessly def.
attacks by the
they "’‘3“? not 1

ad no go;

During the Revolution and the war with France, a number
of societies emerged in England advocating parliamentary reform.
Most of them desired annual parliaments and universal suffrage.
Charles Fox's notions about reform did not embrace those tenets,
and.he refused to join any of the societies. Nevertheless, he
tirelessly defended the more extreme reformers from the aspersive
attacks by the British ministry. He constantly maintained that
they were not tainted with jacobin ideas, and that domestic reform
had no affinity with revolution abroad. Moreover, he persistently
defended their right to organize, discuss, and publicly work for
the achievement of their goals. Besides attacking the reformers
as jacobins, the British government tried to manacle the country
with stringent "security" measures. There was a proclamation
against seditious writings, an Alien bill, a Habeas Corpus
Suspension act, and an act prohibiting political meetings. Fox,
of course, opposed all these measures with unrestrained vehemence.
In a moment of despair, however, he seceded from.parliament in
1797. It was an imprudent step, but he continued his opposition

outdoors even at the risk of imprisonment.

CHARLES JAMES FOX: LEADER OF THE
WHIG OPPOSITION IN THE ERA OF
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

By
N. Franklin Hurt

A Thesis

Submitted to the College of Arts and Sciences
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

Department of History
1956

AC IQ‘JO‘.VLEDGEJ~IEI‘IT

I wish to express my sincere
appreciation to Professor Marjorie
Gesner for her guidance and encouragement
during the preparation of this essay.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

I FoxandtheRevolution ................ l
IIFoxandtheWar....................30
III Fox and the Whig Party . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
IVReformandRepression................. 90
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12S

BIBLIOQAPI-UCAL LIST 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 131

ii

INTRODUCTION

In speaking of Charles James Fox, commenters invariably
liken him to figures of classical antiquity. Burke compared him
with Cicero, whereas Disraeli did not think he ever rose above
the level of Cataline. There is no gainsaying that he was one of
the greatest orators of all ages, and if comparisons must be made
he was probably most akin to his own French contemporary, Mirabeau.
He stands forth in.Eng1ish.political history as the most ardent
spokesman for parliamentary supremacy, rivaled only by Pym and
Shaftesbury. As a champion of personal and political liberty, he
has no peers.

Born on January 2h, l7h9, to Henry Fox, afterwards Baron
Holland, and the former Lady Caroline Lennox, Charles Fox was
reared in one of the most opulent and influential families in the
realm. His childhood was pleasant and unrestrained, as Lord
Holland "brought up his children without the least regard to
morality."1 He attended Eton and Hartford College, Oxford, although
his academic pursuits were frequently interrupted by family tours
abroad. His education was rounded at the gambling tables of France
where he was instructed and encouraged in the fine points of game

by his father. In March, 1768, Fox was returned to parliament for

4-

1
Quoted in.Dictionary of National Biography, ed., Leslie Stephen
(London, 1889), XX, 95.

iii

Midhurst in Sussex, one of Lord Holland's pocket boroughs.

Taking his seat in November, he soon cut a great figure in Commons.
After a lucky night at faro he would appear in the House in foppish
habiliment, but following an evening of trays instead of deuces he
would turn up dishevelled, unkempt, black with beard, and scratching
his obese self. Nonetheless, he soon established himself in the
vanguard of great orators. His delivery was marked by torrential
railing, and when he became heated words piled upon one another
until only a great roar filled the chamber. But he could debate

as well as declaim, and he was not wanting of wit. Many M.P.'s
felt his banderillas, though he usually saved the espadon for

North or the younger Pitt.

During his initial five or six years in the British
legislature, Fox advanced some rather wrongheaded ideas about the
supremacy of parliament over popular liberties. In 1769, for
example, he called for the seating of Colonel Henry Luttrell instead
of the notorious John Wilkes in the disputed Middlesex election.

That cause celebre involved the constitutionality of parliament

 

seating a defeated candidate (Luttrell) instead of the legitimately
elected, but outlawed, Wilkes. For his misguided attempts to-
impose rigorous laws on the press in 1771, he was soundly lampooned
by the mordant and still unidentified pamphleteer, Junius. Meanwhile,
he was raised to the Treasury Bench where he served under Lord North

as one of the Lords of the Admiralty from February 2h, 1770 until

iv

February 20, 1772. After a short interlude in opposition for
casting a vote against the government, he returned to office in
December, 1772, as one of the junior Lords of the Treasury. For
his opposition to the Royal Marriage Act, and his increasing
hostility toward George III, he was dismissed from office on
February 2h, 177B. Thereafter, his notions about parliamentary
supremacy were directed against the influence of the Crown rather
than popular liberties.

From l77h until his death in 1806, Fox spent his
8 political career on the opposition benches excepting two very brief
periods in office during the 1780's. To strike "a good stout blow
at the influence of the Crown,"2 became his transcendent objective.
He vigorously defended the American colonists, and wore buff and
blue, Washington's colors, to parliament throughout the War for
Independence. During the conflict he persistently assailed the
British government, and upon one occasion threatened to impeach
ministers and make Lord North expiate his misdeeds on the public
scaffold. When North's government fell in 1782, Fox entered the
Rockingham.ministry as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
Within four months, he resigned after a rupture with.Lord Shelburne,
Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs, over the peace treaty with

America. Next year, however, he returned to power after coalescing

 

“If
Quoted in Christopher Hobhouse, Egg (Boston, 1935), p. 171.

with his erstwhile opponent, Lord North, in the "infamous coalition."
George III even threatened to abdicate rather than accept this
"unnatural combination,"3 but remained and drove the coalition from
office in December, 1783, by personally arranging for the defeat of
Fox's India bill in the House of Lords. Returning to opposition,
Fox continued to harangue the "secret influence" of the Crown and
struck up a bitter rivalry with George III's new First Minister and
hireling, William.Pitt the younger. Also, he persisted in his
efforts to achieve parliamentary reform, repeal the Test and
Corporation Acts, and abolition of the slave trade. 'With the out-
break of the French.Revolution, Fox entered.the most luminous phase
of his career. In praising the upheaval as a great blow for liberty,
opposing the war with France, and resisting domestic oppression, he
sacrificed friends, party, and public esteem. His opposition in this
period is unexampled, and.as Mr. A. J. P. Taylor recently commented,
"there is no more glorious story in our history."Lt
In Western political philosophy, opposition is heLd to be
an end in itself. It is the makeweight, if not the complement, of

authority. In our own dying age of liberty, infected with investigating

committees, the proscription of political parties, "brainwashing",

—T

The Corres ondence of King_George the Third From 1760 to December
1183, 63., Sir John Fortescue (London, 1927), VI, BIL-l7.

 

"Charles James Fox, champion of liberty," Manchester Guardian
‘Weegly, vol. 75. No. 12, September 20, 1956, ll.

conformity, and almost absolute governmental control of the
individual, it is to be hoped that another Charles Fox will soon

step forth in real opposition.

vi

CHAPTER

FOX AND THE REVOLUTION

Charles James Fox, leader of the Whig opposition in the
House of Commons, welcomed the news of the French Revolution. Like
many Englishmen, he mistook the assault on the Bastille as a stroke
for liberty instead of seeing that it was only a strategic move to
defend Paris.l Learning of the destruction of the fortress, he
rejoicingly xclaimed "HOW'much the greatest event it is that ever

.”2 Heretofore a

happened in the worl‘l and how much the best
detractor of the Bourbon power, which he was wont to call "our
ancient enemy and rival,"3 Fox now grew enthusiastic over its
prospective future. He even considered a trip to France, and
instructed his good friend Richard Fitzpatrick who was destined for
Paris to apprise the Due d'Orleans, soon to be known as the
fratricidal Philippe Egalite, "that all my prepossessions against
French connections for this country will be at an end, and indeed

most part of my European system of politics will be altered, if this

Revolution has the consequences that I expect."h The Revolution did

 

1
George Stead Veitch, Genesis of Parliamentary Reform (London, 1913),
p. 118.
2
Memorials and Correspondence of Charles James Fox, ed., Lord John
RussEIl (London, l85hf, II, 361. ’Hereafter cited as Fox Memorials.
3

The Annual Register, or a View of the History, Politics and
Literature, For the Year 1791, (London, 179% ram, 113. hereafter
cited as AnnualIRegisteg.

h

Fox Memorials, II, 361.

 

not result as Fox expected. To him, it was a crusade for political
liberty similar to the dritish event of 1688, and he overlooked the
implications of the latter two points in the new trinity. "Equality
and Fraternity” had no place in Fox's political thinking, but his
ardor for "Liberty" carried him into a half-understood defense of
the doctrinal basis of the Revolution.

In 17t9, most Englishmen shared.Fox's exuberance over the
French upheaval.S Some applauded the cataclysm as a just requital
to Louis XVI for his interference in the late American war. Others,
like Fox, viewed it as something analogous to the glorious advance
toward Liberty which their ancestors had won against the last English
despot at the close of the seventeenth century. heligious dissenters
and political reformers especially were hopeful about events in
France. On November h, a group of them, known as he Society for
Commemorating the Revolution in Great Britain, met at Old Jewry
Chapel to celebrate the lOlst anniversary of the Glorious Revolution.
After the well-known Unitarian minister and political economist, Dr.
Richard Price, had delivered his famous Discourse on the Love of Our
Countr , the celebrants repaired to the London Tavern where they
voted a congratulatory address to the French National Assembly.6

Public enthusiasm over the Revolution continued until the flight of

S

'W. T. Laprade, England and The French Revolution, 1789-1797,
Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Dcience.
Ser. ZCCJII. Hos. 8-12 (Baltimore, 1909), 9-10.

6

The address is reprinted in Veitch, p. 122.

 

3.

the French royal family to Varrenes on June 21, 1791. Meanwhile,

"the newspaners teamed with addresses, votes, and resolutions, and

every mail was laden with freash congratulations to the Jacobin

"7

Societies of France.
For varied reasons, the governing class of England also
smiled upon the French disturbance during its incipient phase. King
George III believed the Revolution condign punishment for Bourbon
meddling in the recent imperial dispute which had resulted in the
loss of his American colonies.8 The ministry, headed by Fox's arch
political opponent, Uilliam Pitt, countenanced the imbroglio with
indifference.9 Pitt, however, saw its incapacitating effect upon
Britain‘s great foreign rival, and abruptly declined the French
government's plea for English grain in the summer of 1789. Host of
the Whig opposition reflected Fox's attitude. In the House of
Commons such notables as Richard Brinsley Sheridan, the playwright,
Charles Grey, later Lord Grey of the Reform Bill, and Thomas Erskine,

the eminent fihig barrister, acclaimed the Revolution, while in the

10

upper chamber the Earl of Shelburne, political economist, philosophic

7

Annual Register, KKKII, 115.

8 .

Donald G. Barnes, George III and'William Pitt, 1783-1806 (Stanford,
1939), p. 201:.

9

Lord N. w. Grenville to the Marquis of Buckingham, September 1h,
1789. Memoirs of the Court and Cabinet of George the Third from the
Original Family Documents, ed., the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos
(London, 1853), II, 163. Hereafter cited as Court and Cabinets.

10

Shelburne had acquired the title Marquis of Landsdowne in l78h,

but historians usually refer to him by the earlier title. To avoid
confusion I have also used it.

 

 

 

LL.

speculator and friend of all free-thinners, accorded his approbation
along with the inventor E “l Stanhope, and the Scottish Lord Lauderdale.
As the disorders abroad assumed frightening proportions, King, ministers,
and many flhigs replaced their hopefulness with implacable Francophobia.
For the nonce, however, they remained sanguine.

The news of the Revolution had its greatest impact upon Fox's
long-time friend and political colleague, Edmund Burke. Mute with
consternation of the "strange, nameless, wild enthusiastic thing
established in the centre of Europe,"11 Burke made no early pronouncement
about the upheaval. Not until the debate on Army Estimates in February
1790, did he proffer his opinion. Then, he soared into high dudgeon over
Fox's fervent avowal that the new fonn of government which France was
likely to assume ”would render her a better neighbour, and less disposed to
hostility than when she was subject to the cabal and intrigue of

"12 To the contrary, Burke retorted

ambitious and interested statesmen.
with indignation, "the French had shown themselves the ablest architects
of ruin that had hitherto existed in the world," and had "expunged"

their country "out of the system of Europe."13 Instead of bringing peace

 

ll
Edmund.Burke to John Trevor, January, 1791. Correspondence of the

IRight Honourable Edmund Burke; Between the Year l7hh,»and_ThePPeriod of
His Decease,_in 1797, ed., Charles William, Earl Fitzwilliam and Sir
Richard Bourke TLondon, 18m), III, 185. Hereafter cited as Burke Corr.
12
The Parliamentary History of England, From The Earliest Period to
The Year 1803, ed., T. C. Hansard (London, 1817), XXVIII, 332.
Hereafter cited as Parl. Hist.

13
Parl. :{iSto, XXVIII, 3530

 

 

and concord, Burke prophesied in Lear-like screams that the
Revolution would eventuate in an "irrational, unprincipled,
proscribing, confiscating, plundering, ferocious, bloody, and
tyrannical democracy}?Ll Continuing, he censured Fox's assertion
that the traditional English fear of a standing army was now
anachronistic in view of the new French lesson that "a man, by
becoming a soldier, did not cease to be a citizen."15 That was rank
sophistry, said Burke, for the French soldiers were not citizens,
but "base hireling mutineers, and mercenary sordid deserters wholly
destitute of any honourable principle." Concluding his oracular
flight, Burke cautioned his friend that he was prepared to abandon,
if necessary, colleagues and party to combat the spread of French
principles.16
Fox took the cue from Burke and proceeded to define his own
position toward French affairs. First, he denied the suggestion
that he was a friend to democracy, declaring himself "equally the
enemy of all absolute forms of government, whether an absolute monarchy,
or absolute aristocracy, or an absolute democracy."l'7 Democracy,

however, was not the object of the French. He was convinced that they

were only trying to achieve political freedom and a mixed form of

lhpari. Hist., XXVIII, 355.
15Perl. Hist., XXVIII, 330.
16Parl. Hist., XXVIII, 356.
17Par-1. Hist., XXVIII, 36h.

 

 

 

government as the English had done by the Glorious Revolution.

From the event of 1688, he averred, "we had, undoubtedly, to date
the definition and confirmation of our liberties; and the case was
certainly more parallel to the revolution in France, than his right
hon. friend seemed willing to allow." Furthermore, he lamented the
recent scenes of bloodshed in France, but believed they should "be
spoken of with some degree of compassion . . . when the severe tyranny
under which the people had so long groaned was considered."18 These
remarks are of single importance because they clearly delineate
Fox's constant posture toward the upheaval. Throughout the crimson
era, he persistently maintained that France was only trying to
achieve political freedom -- never realizing that Liberty, Equality,
and Fraternity implied vastly more than the Lockean concept of
revolution.

To Burke's chagrin, Fox was supported by the other member
of the great Whig triumvirate, Richard Brinsley Sheridan. The
playwright-orator concurred in Fox's view of the Revolution,19 and
scorned.his other cohort's aspersions of the French attempt to break
the manacles of Bourbon despotism. Caustic as his Critic, he
ridiculed Burke's assertion that if the French people had waited
patiently,their misery might, perhaps, have been alleviated, in due
time, by a new constitution issued through the magnanimity of their
monarch. I"Hhat£" exclaimed Sheridan, "was it preparing for them in

18
Parl. Hist” XXVIII, 365.

19
Parl. His to , XWIII’ 367 o

 

 

7.

the camp of marshal Broglio? or were they to search for it in the

20 In no vein for persiflage, Burke

ruins of the Bastile?"
responded by severing his friendship with Sheridan.
Thus by early 1790, the tremors in France, even before

they had shaken the basis of the Ancien Regime, were tearing asunder

 

the parliamentary opposition in England. The Nhig leaders were

taking divergent and irreconcilable stands. Charles Fox and Richard

Brinsley Sheridan eulogized the hevolution as a milestone in the

march toward political liberty, whereas Edmund Burke vilified it as

a leveling movement, "born of hell and chaos,"21 which.would ultimately

bring law, morality, and religion under "the hoofs of the swinish

multitude."22 It also might be noted that the ministry, or at least

its head, was beginning to take a more resolute, if not different

position toward the upheaval. 'William Pitt now announced that "he

agreed with.Hr. Burke in every point he had urged relative to the late

commotions in France."23
Burke's hostility to the fievolution, adopted by Pitt and

reflected by the First Minister's overwhelming majority in parliament,

virtually precluded the enactment of domestic reform legislation. The

 

2Orarl. Hist., KKVIII, 369.

2JiAnnual'Register, XXXIII, 135.

22Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, ed.,Oskar
Piest, The Library of Liberal Arts Ser., No.fih6(HeW'York, 1955), p. 89.

2jParl. Hist., AIVIII, 372.

 

efforts of Fox and other reformers to rectify the unequal representation
in the House of Commons, abolish the slave trade, and repeal the
antiquated Test and Corporation Acts were confounded with the
egalitarian ideas sweeping across France. Fox strenuously combatted
this practice, initiated by Burke and quickly pursued by Pitt,
maintaining that there was absolutely no connection between foreign
revolutionary principles and domestic reform measures. Both precedent
and example supported his argument for England had witnessed numerous
attempts to redress the constitution during the 1780's, and two of
thelnost active participants in the reform movements had been Edmund
Burke and William Pitt.2h Now, however, they equated reform with
revolution. Any motion which tended to alter the status quo was
virulently assailed, and its author stigmatized as a jacobin.

The policy of aspersion began on March 2, 1790, when Fox
introduced a motion to repeal the Test25 and Corporation Acts26 which
had debarred catholics and protestant dissenters from public office

and.from the universities of Oxford and Cambridge since the reign of

2h .

As a reformer in the 1780's, Burke did not exert himself beyond
his bill for economic reform of 1780 which brought the Civil List
under stricter supervision by parliament and eliminated a number of
placemen and sinecures. Pitt, however, was an ardent reformer until
1785, when his bill to erase 100 rotten boroughs was defeated.
Thergafter, he abandoned the cause.

2

25 Charles II. c. 2. Reprinted in Select Documents of En lish
Constitutional History, ed., George Burton Adams and H. Marse Stephens
(NBw'York, 1910), pp. h36-38. Hereafter cited as Adams and Stephens.

26
13 Charles II, st. 2., c. 1. Reprinted in Adams and Stephens,

pp. h25-27.

 

9.

Charles II. While inveighing against those palladia of the Anglican
Church, Fox lauded the French efforts "to secure the rights of men"

. ,. . . 27 m, . . .
against such bigoted and intolerant measures. lne remark eliCited
only wild vaporings from Burke who claimed that the dissenters were
bent on the "robbery and plunder" of the established church like the

. . 28 _
anarchists in France. A more cutting response, however, came from
the Treasury Bench. Turning toward Fox, Pitt announced that he
would oppose the motion because "he had no idea of such levelling
principles as those which warranted to all citizens an equality of
. "29 I'. a 1‘:- n-' o . 1 1 o
rights. . . . lhlS was the rirst niniSter s cue to his powerful
majority that henceforth motions of reform were to be decried as
revolutionary measures. It was promptly heeded and acted upon. Two
days after Fox's motion was debated and rejected by a vote of 29h to
105, a bill for parliamentary reform was introduced by Henry Flood,
v o - O ”V - s o o o

the noped Irish reformer.3 He was warmly assailed by ministerial
followers, one of whom accused him of being a missionary of the French
National Assembly who was trying to import leveling doctrines into

1 p . r r - , . .
England.5 In defending Floou, Fox denounced the practice of equating

27
Parl. Hist., LAVIII, 388.
28
Parl. Hist. , MVIII, LL37.
29
Parl. Hist., AlVIII, h09.
30
The reformers themselves were not above purchasing seats in
parliament in the eighteenth century. Flood, for example, bought his
Winchester seat from the Duke dfChandos for £’h,OOO in l78h. See
iDictionary of National Biography, ed., Leslie Stephen (London, 1889),
XX, 333.
31
Parl. Hist., XXVIII, h70.

 

 

 

 

10.

reform.and revolution for "he thought the present state of France
no objection to proceeding with the business of Reform then,
because he never could agree, that whatrwas passing abroad, ought
to have any influence on their proceedings, in respect to their

"32 Cogent as it sounded, Fox's

internal and national concerns.
argument was overridden by the fright methods of Burke and Pitt.
Domestic reform, now linked with jacobinism, lost all possibility
of success in the British legislature.

In 1790, however, most Englishmen outside parliament
inclined to accept Fox's thesis that revolution abroad had no
kinship with reform at home. Like the Whig leader, they still
believed that the upheaval in France was an internal affair of the
French people who were simply trying to wrest political liberty from
their Bourbon despot. Therefore, Edmund Burke's alarming plea to
the nation in October made few proselytes. His celebrated manifesto,
Reflections on the Revolution in France, was motivated as much by
detestation of English reformers as by abhorrence for French
doctrines, and in this sense it may be considered as a continued
attempt to identify efforts to redress the British constitution with
jacobinism. Upon Burke's own admission, the tract was written
primarily to expose Dr. Richard Price and the Earl of Shelburne, ardent

reformers, "to the hatred, ridicule, and contempt of the whole world;

as I always shall expose such calumniators, hypocrites, sowers of

32
Peri. Hist” XXVIII, mz.

 

ll.

33

sedition, and approvers of murder and all its triumphs."
The pamphlet enjoyed wide circulation and provoked much

comment, but failed to win many adherents besides those already

opposed to the Revolution.3h Charles Fox of course thought The

Reflections "mere madness,"35 but a less abrupt observation was

 

made by William windham, a Whig who was veering towards Burke's
position at this time and eventually became as denunciatory of the
Revolution as the master himself. Shortly after the appearance of
the treatise, flindhan recorded that Burke was "a man decried,
persecuted and proscribed; not being much valued, even by his own
party, and by half the nation considered as little better than an
ingenious madman'."36 Windham's comment has been substantiated by
modern scholarship.37 In 1790, most Englishmen repudiated the Burke-
Pitt view of the French Revolution as a great leveling disease. They
still shared Fox's contention that the French were only trying to
secure liberty without smashing the political and social structure

of their country. Also, they supported the'Whig leader's disavowal

33
‘ Edmund Burke to rhilip Francis, February 20, 1790. Burke Corr.,
III , lbO-hl.
3h ,
Carl B. Cone, "Pamphlet Replies to Burke's Reflections,"
Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, XXVI (19h5-h6), 22-3h.
35
Fox to Henry, Lord Holland, May 26, 1791. Fox Memorials, II, 363.
36
The Diary of The Right Honourable William Windham, ed., Mrs. Henry
Baring (London, 1866), p. 213. Hereafter cited as Windham's Diary.
37
Barnes, p. 236.
Laprade, p. 9.
Philip Anthony Brown, The French Revolution in English History
(London, 1923), p. 88.

 

12.

of any connection between revolution in France and reform in England.
Next year Fox's enthusiasm about French affairs nearly
overshot the rim of political discretion. At times it swelled into
romantic proportions, endangering his hold on the Whig party and his
public esteem. His initial burst of intensified exuberance came
during the Oczakow armament debates on April 15. The discussion
centered about Pitt's attempt to compel Russia to abandon the Black
Sea fortress of Oczakow which she had recently captured from the
Turks. The First Minister believed that,Catherine II's southward
thrust might jeopardize British interests in the Mediterranean, and
he had asked parliament to support his demands for Russian withdrawal
by voting an armament. Fox, of course, opposed the request as he
believed the danger less real and imminent than Pitt had depicted it.38
But his declamation ranged considerably beyond strict objections to
the motion.before the House. He proceeded to assert that the time
had arrived when England could safely retire the balance of power
concept as the keystone of her foreign policy, since the altered

government of France would give "neither insult nor injustice" to the

 

§8

Catherine II gratefully acknowledged Fox's opposition to the
British demands on Russia by placing his bust on a shelf in her
boudoir between the marble-head replicas of Cicero and Demosthenes.
Horace Walpole to Mary Berry, July 26, 1791. Horace walpole's
Correspondence'With.May and anes Berry and Barbara Cecilia Seton,
ed., W. S. IEwis and.A. Doyle Wallace (New Haven, 198§), XI, 323.
Hereafter cited as Walpole Corr.

 

13.

countries of Europe.39 The concept could be revived if another
formidable power like Bourbon France emerged, but until then its
maintenance was unnecessary. Then, growing warm over French
experiments, Fax declared that "he for one, admired the new
constitution of France, considered altogether, as the most
stupendous and glorious edifice of liberty, which had been erected
on the foundation of human integrity in any time or country."ho
The encomium did not pass without repercussions.

According to the quidnunc Horace'flalpole, Fox's "most
considerable friends were much hurt, and protested to him" over
this panegyric which he had "most imprudently thrown out."hl In
fact, the words were scarcely from Fox when Edmund Burke shot to
his feet "in much visible emotion", but he was silenced by cries of
"Question" and gave way to the division.""2 Fox, however, maintained
his position, and several days later he announced in the House that
he did not intend "to recede from anything he had formerly advanced."

He also pointed out that despite his praise of the efforts of the

French to remodel their government "he never had stated any republican

 

 

principles, with regard to this country, in or out of parliament. . ."h3
39
Parl. Hist., XXIX, 2h7.
ho '

Parl. Hist., XXIX, 2h8. Fox remarked shortly afterwards that his
encomium was delivered upon the French.Revolution and not the new
French constitution. There was a difference, but it did not modify
Foxls attitude in the least.

hl .
Horace Walpole to Hary Berry, hay l2, 1791.'Ualpole Corr., XI, 263.

h2 ,
Parl. Hist., XXIX, 2h9.

 

Parl. Hist., XXIX, 361.

 

1h.

But this did not assuage Burke, who again warned Fox that he was
ready to abandon cohorts and party to resist French principles. A
breach between "the two illustrious friends was distinctly foreseen."uh

te,"h5 a

The "fatal day of rupture with Burl s windham called
it, occurred on May 6, 1791, during the debate on the Quebec Government
Bill. This anomalous debate, which scarcely touched upon the business
at hand, illumined the strikingly different conceptions of the
Revolution held by the two Whig titans. Burke opened by reprobating
the new French creed called "the rights of man" which taught that all
men were free by nature and equal in respect to rights.hé This
doctrine, he cried, was "replete with every mortal evil . . . and every
demon of mischief to overspread the face of the earth." In France, it
had provoked outrages upon royalty by "a tumultous rabble," and led to
the creation of a government founded upon "plots, murders, and
assassinations.”7 Burke was called to order no less than seven times
during the course of this aberrant flight, and finally he accused Fox
of inciting his own followers to make the interruptions. After
disavowing this charge, Fox acknowledged Burke as his political mentor

who had taught him the imprudence of drawing "a bill of indictment

against a whole people."h8 As for the French Revolution, he still

11F
Annual Register, XXIIII, 11h.
hb

I‘Jindhanl's Diary, p. 2250
D6

147
Parl. Hist., XXIX, 366.
)48
Parl. Hist., XIII, 379.

 

 

Parl. Hist., XXII, 36h.

 

 

ls.

deemed it "one of the most glorious events in the history of
mankind,"h9 because "the rights of man" which it was aiming to
secure "were in fact the basis of every rational constitution,
and even of the British constitution itself, as our statute book
proved: since, if he knew anything of the original compact between
the people of England and its government, as stated in that volume,
it was a recognition of the original inherent rights of the peeple
as men, which no prescription could supercede, no accident remove or
obliterate."SO Burke and Fox were worlds apart. To the former, the
rights of man was a leveling scythe which would raze social and
political barriers and demolish traditional institutions. To Fox,
they represented nothing more than the established or "natural born
rights of Englishmen" as set forth in Magna Carta, the Petition of
Right, and the Bill of Rights. Little wonder the friendship snapped.
Burke terminated the connection. Replying to Fox's defense
of the rights of man, he admitted that it was indiscreet at his age
to provoke enemies "or give his friends occasion to desert him; yet
if his firm adherence to the British Constitution placed him in such
a dilemma, he would risk all; and, as public duty and public prudence
taught him, with his last words exclaim, 'Fly from the French
constitution.'" Hereupon, Fox, who was sitting near his colleague,

leaned over and whispered that there was no loss of friendship. Burke,

 

B9

Parl. Hist., XXII, 377.
50

Parl. HiSto, XXIX, 3790

 

16.

however, retorted "Yes, there was a loss of friend - he knew the

price of his conduct - he had done his duty at the price of his

friend - their friendship was at an end."51 Thus, one of the

greatest friendships in English political history ended on the

floor of the House of Commons. The House was astonished, and Fox

was so disturbed that "tears trickled down his cheeks, and he strove
E2

to give utterance to feelings . . . ."’ The foreseen rupture had

occurred, and it threatened to cleave the Whig opposition.

The divisive force came from Burke. Instead of retiring
from parliament in the face of discredit, as contemporary journalists
predicted,53 he remained and began a vigorous attack upon Fox and
other so-called "French Whigs."Sh ‘Nithin a month of the breach, he
published his Appeal From the New to the Old Whigs, assailing those
who continued "to countenance the French insanity" as "mistaken

politicians" and "bad men."55 His efforts, however, failed to reduce

SI
Parl. Hist., XXIX, 387.

52

Parl. Hist., XXIX, 388.
53
The following paragraph appeared in the Horninnghronicle of May
12, 1791. "The great and firm body of the'Uhigs of England, true to
their principles, have decided on the dispute between Mr. Fox and Mr.
Burke; and the former is declared to have maintained the pure doctrines
by which they are bound together, and upon which they have invariably
acted. The consequence is, that Mr. Burke retires from parliament."
Thesfiassafie is reprinted in Parl. Hist., XXIX, hlé.
Edmund Burke to Nilliam'weddell, January 31, 1792. Burke Corr.,
III, h08.
SS
Edmund Burke, Appeal from The New to The Old Whigs (London, 1791),
p. In.

 

 

l7.

Fox's support. Both windnam and Sir Samuel uomilly, the law
reformer, noted after the rupture that "Fox has gained with the
public by his conduct, and Burke has lost much.”r

It was a frightening turn of events in France rather than
Burke's fulminations which threatened Fox's control of the opposition
in parliament and popularity outdoors. On June 21, 1791, the French
royal family aosconded to Varrenes where it was arrested and returned
to Paris under guard. EngliShmen were appalled by "the very
unexpected event"57 which portended ill to monarchs everywhere. In
the following month, "Church and King" moos at Birmingham were even
encouraged by the local magistratesto wreak depradations upon a group
of dissenters who met to commemorate the second anniversary of the
fall of the Bastille.>8 uhile marauding in the name of established
order, the rioters destroyed the home and laboratory of the famed
dissenter, scientist, and friend of Charles Fox, Dr. Joseph Priestley.

The government was lax about putting down the commotions, and George III

himself declared: "I cannot but feel pleased that Priestley is the

 

50

Windham's Diary, p. 223-33. Sir Samuel Romilly to Madame Q___,
May 20, 1791. hemoirs of The Life of Sir Samuelldomilly, written by
himself; with a_8election From His Correspondence, edited by his
sons (London, lbhdj, I,h26. Hereafter citedfas‘Romilly Corr.

57

Lord W. N. Grenville to the harquis of Buckingham, June 25, 1791.

Court and Cabinet§,II, 192.
58*

During the debates in the House about the Birmingham.mobs no one,
not even the ministers, attempted.to exonerate the local magistrates
from.their disgraceful conduct. There is no doubt that they incited
the mobs to attack the dissenters. See Parl. Hist., IXIX, 1h31-6h.

 

 

sufferer I" .‘1‘
Fear was tal'i
Fox's glorio:
himself.

The
French jaCOL‘l.
Chieftain's n

has not been I

1n COUBEII'CI‘E!‘

TE“, ‘7
H H‘- H ‘T
2d” VTStari" 1
'v (T "a

‘

18.

S9

sufferer for the doctrines he and his party have instilled."
Fear was taking hold of Englishmen, and they looked askance at "Mr.
Fox's glorious fabric, the French Revolution"60 and at.Mr. Fox
himself.

The story of Fox's alleged letter to Barnave, one of the
French jacobin leaders, probably had a damaging effect upon the Whig
chieftain's reputation. The letter, supposedly written in July, 1791,
has not been located, and only two references to it have been found
in contemporary material. Nonetheless, it provokes several questions
which deserve more than lower margin comment. Allusions to the
letter occur in the diplomatic exchanges between Lord W. w. Grenville,
Foreign Secretary, and.William Eden, Lord Auckland, British ambassador
to the Hague. On July 29, 1791, Grenville wrote to Auckland:

What do you.think of Fox's letter to Barnave? I cannot vouch
for the words, but you may depend upon the fact of a letter
having been written. Is not the idea of Ministers from
Opposition to the different Courts of Europe a new one in
this country? I never heard of it before, and should think
that if it could be proved, I mean legally proved, it would
go very near to an impeachable misdemeanour. In the
meantime, I trust it will not fail to get out into the
public here, and to make the impression it ought to do.61

Auckland replied on August 2:

The incident of Mr. Fox's letter to Barnave is curious if
true; there is a similar report here; and it is also said

39
Quoted in Brown, p. 81.
60
Quoted in Laprade, p. hl.
61
The Manuscripts of J. B. Fortescue, Esq., preserved at Dropmore,
ed., Historical Manuscripts Commission, Fourteenth Report, Appendix,
Part V (London, 189h), II, 1hh. Hereafter cited as Dropmore MSS.

 

 

19.

that Hr. hyndham of Norfolk is also a great admirer of

the present leaders of the National Assembly. If these
opinions lead to a communication, and if the same system
should extend itself to political discussions between
England and other countries, as has been surmised in
regard to Joronzow and reported in some of the correspondence
in respect to hr. Adair's journey to Petersburg, it would
become a very scandalous indiscretion; and, though it would
not be easy to subject it to the animadversion of the law,
it would, when known, make an impression at least as penal
in regard to the parties as any legal judgement could be.
But it is not fair to form any opinion as to the supposed
letter to Barnave until we have seen it.b '

Three plausible conjectures can be made about this reputed
letter: 1) Fox was carrying on an indiscreet correspondence with
leaders in the national Assembly; perhaps, suggesting that a
representative of the ahig opposition visit Paris to discuss relations
between England and France. 2) Grenville was sowing rumors in
accordance with the ministry's efforts to stigmatize Fox as a
republican. 3) Fox, in a moment of enthusiasm over the Revolution,
dashed off a note of congratulations to its leaders. The first
possibility is highly unlikely, although it cannot be completely
discounted. During the crisis with.Russia it was bruited about that
Fox had sent his own representative, the Robert Adair referred to in
Auckland's letter, to Petersburg in order to frustrate the official

lBritish demands on Catherine II to withdraW'from Oczakow. The story

has never been satisfactorily disproven, though Adair flatly denied

 

 

it in 18h2-- fifty-one years afterwards.03 True.or not, contemporaries
62
Dropmore mss., II, 150.
63

Adair's denial is reprinted in Fox Memorials, II, 383-87.

20.

did not believe Fox above sending personal envoys to foreign
governments. That Grenville was playing upon this popular belief
and trying to forge it into a treasonous connection between F x

and the jacobins is incredible. If that were his purpose, his

note was too clumsy to deceive an adroit diplomat like Auckland.
The phraselogy rings with doubt, e.g., the note begins "I cannot
vouch for the words, but you may depend upon the fact of such a
letter having been written." Furthermore, if rumors were to be
spread, the ministry's hack writers could have found a wider and
more gullible audience. The third possibility is the most likely
one. Fox's ardor for the Revolution at this time, his impetuosity,
and his rashness have already been demonstrated. The letter, if
there were one, was probably nothing more than a congratulatory
note to Barnave. The public impact of the missive is as
indeterminable as its historicity, since no further mention of it
has been found. But hazarding a final conjecture, it is probable,
considering the mounting sentiment against the Revolution, that the
story lost Fox support wherever it lodged.

In 1792, implacable aversion to the French tumult
developed in England. Ministers strained themselves to blacken
'reformers with the republican tar brush, and also inaugurated a
repressive program against "seditious writings." Fox's opposition to
these neasures will be fully discussed in a later ch.pter, “Refonn
and Repression." Suffice it to say here that he strongly denounced

ifluan as designs to frighten the public and stir dissension among the

21.

Despite the growing Francophobia, Fox persistently
defended the upheaval as a stroke for liberty. "His opinions of
the French Revolution," he told the House of Commons in hay, "were
precisely the saie now that they ever had been," and no "temporary
or accidental defeat that the French might suffer in their struggle
for liberty, would stagger his mind with regard to their success in
the result." Furthermore, he was thoroughly convinced that the
French people were justified in revolting. Although the wags were
saying that "no two legged animal" could be found who would credit
the tales about the Bastille prior to 1789, For "acknowledged

, _ . "bu . .. .
himself to be that animal. He did not believe, however, that
there was the slightest possibility of the Revolution spreading
to Great Britain unless conditions there became as intolerable as
. w o \ 7'1 Ob
they had been in Bourbon rrance.

These asseverations of faith in the devolution provoked
heated attacks from Fox's opponents. Henry Dundas, Home Secretary,
accused Fox and his lawyer-friend Thomas Erskine, defense attorney

m ' - 4. - n ° n ‘ ()0
for lom raine, of trying to eXCite the people. George III and
‘William.Pitt practically charged the'whig leader with abetting
, . 67 ,. v, . .
rebellion, wnile Edmund Burke, rankling over the course of his

wayward pupil, merely blustered that "a downright fool is as capable

6h

Parl. Hist., XXIA, thl.
65

Parl. Hist., KKIA, 1316.
66

Parl. Hist., XXIX, l337.
6?

Parl. Hist., ikIX, lblj.

 

 

 

 

22.

of government as Charles Fox."68 Neither traduction nor the
horrifying rush of events in France, however, dented Fox's
admiration of the Revolution.

During the summer and autumn of 1792, it became shockingly
evident that the French tumult was far more than a struggle to gain
political liberty and secure it by constitutional means. Monarchy
itself was swept away on August 10, when mobs stormed the Tuileries,
slaughtered some 800 of Louis XVI's Swiss Guard, and imprisoned the
King and Queen. The crimson tide gushed on erupting again in the
September massacres which raged for four days taking l6lh lives.69
Then the torrent was diverted into a.mi1itant foreign policy.
Dumouriez's legions swept the Austrians from the Netherlands in
October, and on November 16 the National Convention resolved that
French armies would assist all peoples who wished "to recover their
liberties," i.e., rid themselves of crowned rulers. Several days
later, the Convention issued a decree opening the Scheldt River,
which had been limited to the exclusive navigation of the Dutch since
the treaty of Munster in l6h8. A new dispensation, with international
overtones, was unfolding from France. It bore no kinship with the
Glorious Revolution of 1688.

England was filled with consternation. License, not liberty,

appeared to be the aim of the French. Edmund Burke besought the

 

768
Parl. Hist., XXIX, 1391.
69
Louis Madelin, The French Revolution (New York, 1928), p. 287.

 

23.

cabinet to join Prussia and Austria who had invaded France to
stamp out the contagion.7O This advice was rejected as England
was still committed to neutrality. Nevertheless, Earl Gower,
British ambassador at Paris was recalled shortly after the
Tuileries episode. In the autumn months, ministers became
increasingly apprehensive and raised a jacobin phantasmagoria.
Finally, they called out the militia to stem what their modern
counterparts would call "infiltration," and to guard against
invasion.

Charles Fox deplored the excesses in France, but did not
alter his conception of the Revolution. To him, it remained a
true struggle for liberty. Writing about French affairs to his
nephew, Henry, Lord Holland, on September 3, 1792, he declared it
"impossible not to look with disgust at the bloody means which have
been taken, even supposing the end to be good . . . And yet, with
all their faults and all their nonsense, I do interest myself for
their success to the greatest degree. It is a great crisis for the
real cause of liberty, whatever we may think of the particular people
who are to fightrthe present battle."71 Several days later, Fox
again demonstrated his misconception of the cataclysm: "I had just
made up my mind to the events of the 10th of August, when the horrid

accounts of the 2nd of this month.[$he September massacre§7 arrived,

 

7O
Edmund Burke to Lord'N. W. Grenville, August 18, 1792. Burke
Corr., III, 508-9.
71
Fox Memorials, II, 368-69.

2h.

and I really consider the horrors of that day and night as the
most.heart-breaking event that ever happened to those, who, like
me, are fundamentally and unalterably attached to the true course."72
One other factor in this late 1792 correspondence which attests to
Fox‘s misunderstanding of the Revolution was his notion that the
jacobins were primarily trying to establish the precedent of
ministerial responsibility to a majority in the legislature. Here,
Fox was reading Whig ideas into the Revolution. He believed that
the French upheaval was a contest between crown and subjects which
would result beneficially for the people when it was recognized that
the majority party in the legislature should control ministerial
posts.73

While Fox speculated over the course of jacobinism, the
British government resolved to counter it. Late in 1792, ministers
conjured up a republican specter which was allegedly infecting the
land. They sent agents into the country to buy "libels" savoring of
French ideas "with a view to indictments at the Christmas sessions."7h
On December 5, they called out the militia from Scotland around to

Wales, and when parliament met a week later they informed it through

the King's speech that "acts of riot and insurrection" were raging in

 

72
Fax to Henry, Lord Holland, September ?, 1792. Fox Memorials, II,
371.
73 ,
Fox to Henry, Lord Holland, October 12, 1792. Fox hemorials, II,
373'7ho
7h

Lord N. N. Grenville to the Marquis of Buckingham, November 1h,
1792. Court and Cabinets, II, 227.

25.

the country because of a subversive design "pursued in connexion
and concert with persons in foreign countries."75 Actually, there
was no threat to Great Britain's internal security in the fall of
1792. There were a few riots in the Scottish towns of Pirth and
Dundee, but they appear to have sprung from a demand for higher
wages by artisans. Even Pitt's ministerial colleagues and
followers attested to the "improbability of internal commotion
here . . . ."76 On November 1h, Lord Grenville himself wrote to
his brother that stories of subversion were just canards of
"landed gentlemen," and admonished "not too hastily to give credit
to them."77 Nonetheless, the jacobin scare was promoted; probably,
as Professor w. T. Laprade has suggested, to drive frightened Whigs
away from Fox and into the ministerial camp.78
Fox was infuriated with these tactics, and he railed
against them with unrestrained vehemence. He was averse to any
curbs on freedom of expression. Trusting that common sense would

reject pernicious ideas, he even declared that "open avowal of inhuman

and absurd doctrines ought, in my opinion, to be permitted in every

 

‘7?
Perl. Hist., XXIX, 1556-57.
76
Henry Addington to Pole Carew, December S, 1792. The Life and
Correspondence of the Right Honourable Henry Addington, First Viscount
Sidmouth, ed., George Pellew (London, 18h7), I, 96.
77

lord Grenville to the Marquis of Buckingham, November lb, 1792.
Court and.Cabinets, II, 228.
78
Laprade, p. 60.

country." 9 Upon learning that ministers had called out the
militia, he burst into flaming indignation. His reaction,
dashed off in a letter to the Duke of fortland, is worth citing

in extenso.

 

My Dear Lord,

I send you enclosed a note I have just received from Adam.
If they mention danger of Insurrection, or rather, as they
must do to legalise their proceedings, of neoellion,
surely the first measure all honest man ought to take is
to impeach them for so wicked and detestable a falsehood.
I fairly own that, if they have done this, I shall grow
savage, and not think a French Lanterne too bad for them.
Surely it is impossible -- if any thing were impossible
for such monsters, who, for the purpose of weakening or
destroying the honorable connection of the Hhigs, would
not scruple to risk a civil war. I cannot trust myself

to write any more, for I confess I an too much heated.

 

lours affectionately,
60
C. J. Fox
When parliament met on December l5, Fox disappointed no
one for he veritably did "grow savage." In one of the most virulent
denunciations of his political career, he assailed ministers as
scare-mongers more despicable than Titus Oates and threatened to
impeach them. Ihey had insidiously divided the country by erecting
"every man, not merely into an inquisitor, but into a judge, a spy,

an informer - to set father against father, brother against brother,

 

79
Fox to Henry, Lord Holland, November 25, l7y2. Fox memorials,
II, 380.
80
Fox Memorials, IV, 291-92.

 

 

27.

and neighbour against neighbour . . . ."81 If division were

to take place, Fox announced that henceforth he would cause the
House of Commons to divide on every measure Mr. Pitt introduced.
Settling to particulars, he impugned the existence of any
commotion: "An insurrection! Where is it? Good God! . . . I
will take upon me to say, that it is not the notoriety of the
insurrection which.prevents those gentlemen from communicating to
us the particulars, but their non-existence."82 He concluded by
animadverting upon the doctrines of Tom rains, who had debased the
"rights of man" slogan. He still believed that the rights of man
were not dangerous leveling principles, but the safe-guards to
individual liberty which girded the British as well as the new
French constitution.83
This marks the high point of Fox's preoccupation with the
Revolution, per se. He continued to defend it, of course, on the
grounds that France was struggling for liberty and "had justice
completely on her side."8h Even during the Terror he believed "the

success of the wretches who now govern Paris is like to be the least

evil of any that can happen."85 Although.he deplored the executions

‘81
Parl. Hist., XXX, 21.
82

 

Parl. Hist., XXI, 1h.
83

Parl. Hist., xxx, hl.
8h

Parl. Hist., m, 60.
85

Fox to Henry, Lord Holland, August 22, 1793. Fox Memorials, III,

h7.

 

 

 

28.

of Louis XVI and.Harie Antoinette, he remarked as late as 1795 that
even the heinous regime of Robespierre'was preferable to the
restoration of the Bourbon line.86

Fox never understood the objectives of the Revolution. To
him, it remained a great crusade of the French people to secure
personal and political liberty from their despotic rulers. He
completely overlooked the implications of "Equality and Fraternity"
which aimed at a thorough political.and social revision of the
‘fincien Regime. A recognition and understanding of those tenets
would have modified his enthusiasm over the upheaval. Fox was no
opponent to the institution of monarchy so long as it did not
oppress subjects or intrude upon the legislative domain. His hatred
for the Bourbons, therefore, cannot be considered as disdain for
monarchy itself. They had abused their prerogative by oppressing
the people and dispensening with the Estates-General for over a
century. He believed that the Revolution was an effort of the
French people to regain their liberties and preserve them from future
monarchical encroachment by erecting a system of constitutional
checks. To him, it remained a French effort to emulate the British
event of 1688.

After November 15, 1792, Fox exercised himself to avert

war with France. The need for diplomacy rather than eulogies of the

 

86
Fox to Henry, Lord Holland, May 17, 1795. Fox Memorials, III,
107.

C‘
/.

Revolution became his central theme. He persistently demanded that
a British representative be sent to Paris, but to no avail. Then,
after hostilities between England and France broke out on February

1, 1793, Fox poured all his energies into truculent denunciations

of Pitt‘s war policy.

30.

Chapter II

FOX AND THE HER

Unlike his attitude toward the Revolution, Charles
Fox had no illusions about the progress of French arms. He
was as apprehensive as anyone in the kingdom. France's
aggression in the Austrian Netherlands, the National Convention‘s
menacing attitude toward Holland, and the so-called "propaganda
decree"1 of November 19, 1792, pledging French assistance to any
people who wished to regain their liberties, filled the Whig
leader with grim forebodings. He clearly saw that these maneuvers
imperiled Britain's continental allies, and "threatened external
danger" to England itself.2 But diplomacy, he believed, could
avert war. Unfortunately, the French Executive Council was not
in a conciliatory vein, and hostilities commenced on February 1,
1793. So long as England's only objective was to repel French
aggression, Fox supported the war. ‘When the object was achieved
momentarily in June, 1793, he called for peace negotiations. Then,
however, it became apparent that the British ministry intended to
pursue the conflict, along with the despotic powers of Europe,

until monarchy was restored in France. This meant a war of

"'1
This is the term Professor Leo Gershoy uses to describe the
decree of November 19. I do not think it a misnomer. See Leo
Gershoy, The French Revolution and Napoleon (New York, 19h7),
p. 21d.
2
Parl. Hist., XXX, 193.

 

 

31.

extermination, and Fox denounced the new policy, which, he
contended, was a result of the alliance with Austria, Prussia,
Russia, and Spain. From the summer of 1793 until his secession
from parliament in 1797, he persistently demanded that England
disavow the restoration of the Bourbons as her aim and open
negotiations with whatever regime happened to be topside in
France.

Quite emphatically, Fox declared that "he was not one who
with an indifferent eye saw the progress of the French arms."3
Despite his "partiality" toward France, he suffered no illusions
about her militant foreign policy. External aggression had no
affinity with the philosophic goals of the Revolution. Even
though France and Austria were already at war, he had difficulty
reconciling himself to Dumouriez's conquest of the Austrian
Netherlands in October, 1792.h As for the National Convention's
decree opening the Scheldt River, he deemed it a bellicose threat
to Holland, England's staunchest ally. The river had been closed
to the exclusive navigation of the Dutch since the treaty of
Hunster in léhfi, and the privilege had been renewed periodically.
As recent as 1788, England had pledged herself to uphold Holland's

use of the waterway. Fox admitted that if Holland invoked this

 

3

h
Fox to Henry, Lord Holland, November 23, 1792. Fox Memorials,
II, 379.

 

 

32.

5

treaty against France, England was committed to support her.
Furthermore, he considered the decree of November 19, pledging
French arms to any people wishing to regain their liberties, as
"an insult."6 In fact, he believed it tantamount to "a declaration
of hostilities" unless the National Convention repealed it or
vouchsafed a satisfactory explanation.7
Though alarmed, Fox was unwilling to hazard war before
trying every avenue of diplomacy. He deplored the British
government's recall of Earl Gower, ambassador to Paris, and believed
its refusal to recognize the new republican regime in France "a
crime."8 If regular diplomatic intercourse were restored, he
believed that salient differences between the two countries might
be settled. Therefore, on December 15, 1792, he presented the House
of Commons with a motion to send a minister to Paris. First, he
pointed out that it was a very unpropitious time for a war with
France, in view of that country's growing military strength.9 Then
he attacked the ministry's refusal to recognize the French Republic.

If war came, he argued, England would eventually have to treat with

the republican regime. Therefore, it would be prudent to re-establish

SI
Parl. Hist., xxx,222.
6

Perl. Hist., XXX, 30;.

 

 

 

Parl. Hist., xxx, 222.

Parl. Hist., RX, 65.

 

\OOJNI

Parl. Hist., XXX, 2h.

33.

regular diplomatic relations now, while there still remained a
possibility of averting war, preserving Holland's monopoly of the
Scheldt, and obtaining a revocation or at least a satisfactory
explanation of the November 19 decree.lo

This was not a cry for peace at any price. Fox had no
intentions of sending a British ambassador across the Channel to
make supplicating overtures to the National Convention. French
insolence required firm dealing. If a minister were sent to
Paris, he told the house, he "would not instruct him to petition
. . . but to demand satisfaction; and if that were denied, to

'11 By satisfaction he meant that France must acknowledge

return.‘
Holland's neutrality and exclusive navigation of the Scheldt, and
make an acceptable explanation, if not a revocation, of the

November 19 decree. Like Frederick the Great, he also realized

that diplomacy without arms was as meaningless as music without
instruments. He "wished that by negotiation a war might be averted,
but he was not willing that we should even negotiate unarmed," and
"if a neutrality was preserved in, he would still vote for an
armament." This was not mere cant, for Fox supported the government's
call for an additional 9,000 seamen declaring that he "was as eager

as any man could possibly be for an armament" and was ready to vote

an increase of h0,000 seamen.l2

 

10

Parl. Hist., XXX, 126.
ll

Parl. Hist., mi, 125.
12

Parl. Hist., KKK, lhO-hl.

 

 

 

3h.

The House of Commons rejected Fox's motion for a
minister to Paris, and from a constitutional viewpoint it was
obliged to do so. As Robert Banks Jenkinson, later Lord
Liverpool, pointed out, the motion was a bald attempt to invade
the executive's prerogative of negotiating and making war or
peace.13 Had it passed, a precedent certainly would have been
established for legislative interference with the executive's
conduct of foreign affairs. Disapproval of the motion, however,
was premised not so much on constitutional grounds as on a
frenzied disinclination, if not fear, to have any relations with
the French Republic. Insane as Burke, Lord Sheffield, M. P. for
Coventry, ranted that any dealings with France, "the vilest of all
nations," would only bring butchery and rape to England. Therefore,
"no communication, no measures, no treaties should be maintained"
with the republican "robbers and cut-throats."1h Burke himself
saw no reason for negotiating with the "French savages," for as
far as he was concerned "we are now engaged in actual war."15
This vaporing was reiterated by an overwhelming number of M. P.'s.
Hysteria, not constitutional objections, wrought the defeat of
Fox's motion to send a minister to Paris.

Although a ministerial majority rejected his motion, Fox

could not arraign the British government for severing all diplomatic

 

l3
Parl. Hist., XXX, 86.
th . (
arl. Hist., XXX, 81.
15“*
Parl. Hist., XIDC, 112.

 

 

 

3S.

ties with France. Lord Grenville, British Foreign Secretary,

r'jr
.‘J

continued to deal with h. Chauvelin, Louis 1's minister
plenipotentiary in London. Chauvelin was retained in his capacity
by the National Convention after France was proclaimed a republic
on September 20, 1792, but the British government, refusing to
recognize the new regime abroad, continued to treat with him as a
representative of the deposed monarch. Chauvelin did not insist
upon recognition as an agent of the Republic after September 20,
so a semi-diplomatic liaison was preserved between.England and
France.
Grenville communicated with Chauvelin until the

. . - 16 ,,
execution of Louis XVI on January 2h, 1793. dis notes to the
French plenipotentiary amounted to demands for satisfaction, but
they were accorded evasive replies and patent dissimulation.
Replying to the British Foreign Secretary's call for an explanation
of the November 19 decree, Chauvelin explained that it was not
intended to provoke disturbances in other countries, but to pledge
French assistance to any nation when its "genera will" determined
to regain liberty.l7 Understandably, the British government

rejected this ppeal to the Social Contract as a satisfactory

 

explanation. Chauvelin's response about the decree concerning

 

16
The diplomatic exchanges between Grenville and Chauvelin from
May 12, 1792 to January 2h, 1793 are reprinted in Parl. Hist., XXX,
238‘700
17
Chauvelin to Grenville, December 27, 1792. Parl.Hist., XXX,
251.

 

36.

Holland the Scheldt was pure subterfuge. While the plenipotentiary
was disavowing French designs upon Holland, so long as the Dutch
remained neutral, a vessel of the Republic forced its way up the

18 Then the news of Louis XVI's

Scheldt and attacked Antwerp.
execution reached England, and Chauvelin was ordered to leave the
country. A diplomatic settlement appeared impossible. Hope of
averting war revived briefly during the last week of January, 1793,
when General Dumouriez, commander of French forces in the Austrian
Netherlands, sought an interview with Lord Auckland, British
ambassador at the Hague. The British government quickly dispatched
instructions authorizing Auckland to negotiate with the French
general.19 Before the communique reached the Hague, however,
France had declared was on England and the United Provinces.

Fox, of course, criticized the government's diplomatic
tactics and even impugned its sincerity. The negotiation with
Chauvelin, he contended, was a "farce and delusion" to veil the
ministry's decision for war.20 French transgressions were causes

of complaint, but not grounds for war until every diplomatic

means was exhausted. Embargoing corn shipments to France, and

18
Napoleon later characterized the French occupation of Antwerp
as "a loaded pistol aimed at the heart of England." Quoted in
Gershoy, p. 2h3.
l9

 

Annual Register, XXXV, SS.
20
Parl. Hist., XXX, h26.

 

37.

ordering Chauvelin out of the country, he alleged, were measures
designed to provoke war with the Republic.21 Overlooking the
French seizure of Antwerp, he declared that ministers were
coercing Holland to invoke its treaty of alliance with England

as a pretext for war.22 The validity of these charges has been
pretty well established}3 In dealing with the French, Fox might
have demonstrated more sincerity than the ministry but his tactics
would have been almost the same.

Actually, there was only a shade of difference between
his posture toward France's militant foreign policy and that of
the British government. Fox would have recognized the republican
regime and sent an agent to Paris; the ministry would not. In

view of the Republic‘s violation of treaties and aggression while

professing a desire for peace, it is doubtful that Fox's proposal

 

21
Parl. Hist., XXX, 37h. An embargo had been placed on corn
shipments destined to France on November 15, 1792.
22
Parl. HiSt., m, 3050
23
It seems that Pitt had decided upon war during January, 1793.
The tenor of his speeches at that time indicatesthat he had ‘
resolved upon such a step. Also, on January 20, Lord Loughborough,
who had just come from a conference with Pitt, told his friend
Lord Malmesbury "that war was a decided measure; that Pitt saw
it was inevitable, and that the sooner it was begun the better.
That we might possess ourselves of the French islands, that the
nation was now disposed for war, etc." Diaries and Correspondence
of James Harris, First Earl of Malmesbury, ed., the Third Earl
of Malmesbury (London, lBhL), II, 301. Hereafter cited as
Malmesbury Diaries. Most modern scholars accept the thesis that
Pitt had decided upon war in January, 1793. See Barnes, pp. 270-71.
Laprade, pp. 99-126. Gershoy, 2h3.

 

38.

would have succeeded in averting war. Aside from recognition
and sending a minister to Paris, his program for negotiating
with the French paralleled Grenville's procedure. Fox had
declared that he would make stiff demands upon France. Grenville
did, but his noteswere scorned. The Whig leader had called for

a satisfactory explanation of the November 19 decree. So had the
British Foreign Secretary, but Chauvelin's rep y, replete with
abstract terminolovv was as unacceptable to Fox as it was to the

CHJ ’
O O I 2
muusuy.h

Moreover, Fox had agreed with the government that no
settlement could be reached until France disclaimed the idea of
aggression upon Holland. He had admitted that any violation of
Dutch neutrality would constitute a cause of war. Shortly
afterwards France seized Antwerp. Finally, he had concurred with
the ministry's notion that negotiations should be backed with a
large-scale armament.

The war was commenced on February 1, 1793, with France's
declaration of hostilities against Entland and Holland. Fox gave
a qualified support to its prosecution. The only justifiable object
of the conflict, he maintained, was to repel French aggression.
"Various things have been done by the French," he declared,
"manifestly extending beyond their own country and affecting the
interests of us and our allies; for which, unless satisfaction was
given, we must enforce satisfaction by arms. This he considered as
the only principle on which the necessity of the war could be truly

21L
Perl. Hist., xxx, 305-6.

 

 

39.

defended, and in this he was sure the great majority of the House
and of the country were of the same opinion."25 Fox constantly
repeated this point. Until French aggression against England and
Holland 'as repulsed, he would support the war. But the conflict
had no other purpose. In fact, he tried to limit England's
wartime objectives by parliamentary resolution.

On February 18, Fox moved five resolutions which would
have greatly restricted the ministry's war policy. The first
article renounced any intention of Great Britain to interfere with
the internal affairs of France. The following three articles
merely laid strictures on the ministry for failing to try every
diplomatic means to avert war, and also censured its indifference
towards the recent dismemberment of Poland by Austria, Prussia,
and Russia. Article five would have debarred England from any
alliance which.miaht prevent her from making a separate peace with

26

France. The first and last articles were the important ones. They

would have prohibited the British government from intervening in
France in behalf of the royalists, and would have prevented it from
entering any alliance aiming to restore monarchy in France. The
resolutions were negatived by 270 votes to hh,27 but they underline
Fox's wish to confine England's military objective to the repulse of
French aggression.

2S

Parl. Hist., XXX, h25.
26Par1. Hist., XXX, h31-32.

27
Parl. Hist., XXX, BS3.

 

 

hO.

By June, 1793, the French armies had been thrown behind

"I

their own borders, and POX deemed it time to end hostilities. The
progress of French arms against Great Britain and Holland had
been stopped, and since that was the only just purpose of the war,
it must now cease. Therefore, on June 17, Fox moved that
negotiations pursuant to a peace treaty be opened with the French
government. French aggrandizement had been stopped, he argued,
"and we could not justify to ourselves the continuance of the war
solely upon the ground that France had declared war against us.
When'we had put an end to aggression, then was the time to put an
end to the war so commenced."28 Furthermore, peace was absolutely
necessary to England's dwindling commerce.29 Finally, he was
convinced that the French people wanted peace, and would relinquish
the “est Indies, already under siege by the British, as an
indemnity.30

The motion and its author were roundly denounced. ‘William
Pitt decried it as "impolitic and preposterous" since "peace is
impossible," and accused Fox of attempting "to create groundless
discontents and dissatisfaction with the present state of affairs."31
Edmund Burke, of course, went into a paroxysm of rage, avowing that

the only token of indemnity which could be expected from France was

"the bloody head of Louis 16th."32 Other members joined in the
28

Parl. Hist., KKK, 996,
29

Parl. Hist., XXX, 990.
30

Parl. Hist., XXX, 999-1002.

1

32 _','
Parl. Hist., Lil, 1012.

 

 

 

 

 

 

hl.

thunderous outcry, and the motion was rejected by a vote of 187
to h7. Abhorrence of the measure was echoed in Windsor Castle
where George III sat pointing the finger of disloyalty at Fox.
"I cannot help observing," wrote the King, "that it seems very
extraordinary that any one could advance so strong a proposition,
and I trust one so contrary to the good sense of the majority
of the whole nation, and such as no one but an advocate for the
wicked conduct of the leaders of that unhappy country can
subscribe to."33 Reaction to the motion also uncovered a demarche
in the ministry's war policy.

During the debate of the motion, Pitt intimated that
England might interfere with the internal affairs of France.
Previously, he had disavowed this object.3h In fact, Fox‘s view
of the war as a defensive contest, aimed at stemming French
aggression had been generally accepted. Now, however, it appeared
that the British government.meant to prosecute the war until the
republican regime was displaced. In a cautiously stated reply to
Fox about the ministry's objectives, Pitt declared that he intended
to continue hostilities until adequate reparation and security could
be achieved. Then, in a very cryptic passage, he stated:

I do not say that if, without any interference, sufficient
security and reparation could be had for this country, I
would not, in that case, be of opinion that we ought to

33
Quoted in Earl Stanhope, Life of the Right Honourable William

Pitt (London, 1861), II, XVIII.

3h
Parl. Hist., XXX, 3580

 

142 .

abstain from all interference and allow their government
to remain even upon its present footing. But I consider
the question of obtaining those while the sa.ne principle

that now prev ails continues to actuate their government
to be extremely difficult, if not impossible. I should
certainly thing, tIIQt the i383t security we could obtain,

would be in the end of that wild un; verned system, from
which it is necessary to guard.35

Shortly afterwards, Eitt dispelled all doubts about the exact
meaning of this pronouncement.

Between June, 1793 and January, l79h, it became evident that
the Fir st fiinistcr meant to pursue the war until the republican
regine in faris was replo oed by a monarchical system. By late

August he consummated his first coalition which linked Enzland
- ’

'1'}

with Austria, Prussia, Russia, Holland, Spain, ortugal, Sardinia,
and Haples. .he despotic heads in this league were bent upon the
restoration of the Bourbons. During the su ma er of l 92, a

combined force of Austrians and Prussians, commanded by the Duke

of Bruns trick, had even invaded rrance to smother the Revolution.

3y pledr in3 his country to act in concert with these powers, and
not to ma ';e a separate peace, Pitt Virtually cosz.itted England to
continue the war until monarchy was restored in France. That this
was the new military objective of tie 3r' tish government was
underscored by the hoyal Declaration of October 29, drafted by Pitt
and Grenville, which promised political asylum to Frenchmen who

declared themselves in favor of the re-establishment of hereditary

35'
Earl. Hist 0. ,XXX, 1017.

 

 

113.

monarchy.36 When parliament convened on January 21, 179h, it was
apprised through the King's Speech that his majesty's government
eant to continue hostilities, since peace and security were

still "obstructed by the prevalance of a system in France equally
incompatible with the happiness of that country, and with the

tranquillity of other nations."37 All of Charles Fox's misgivings

were now confirmed.

From the beginning of hostilities, and even before, Fox had
deprecated the idea of invading France in behalf of monarchy.
Austria and Eruss‘a had tried coercion in the summer of 1792, and
Fox had lavished abuse on Brunswick's horde. He termed the march
upon France an "Invasion of the Barbarians,"38 and was more
jubilant over the French conquest of the combined armies at Valmy
than he had been about the victories of the colonists over the
British during the American war. Hearing of Valmy, he exclaimed,
"No: no public event, not exceptin3 Saratoga and York Town ever
happened that gave me so much delight."39 Soon after England went
to war, Fox obtained an open admission from Pitt that the British
government was not pursuing he conflict to restore monarchy in

France.110

36

A reprint of the declaration may be found in Parl. Hist., KKK,

1057-600

37

Earl. 111312,, X222, lohé.
38

Fox to He y, Lord Holland, September 3, 1792. Fox hemorials, II, 368.
39

Fox to Henry, Lord Holland, October 12, 1792. Fox Memorials, II, 372.
[I0

Parl. Hist., XXX, 358.

As we have seen, he also tried to preclude British

 

 

 

 

 

 

uh.

interference with the internal affairs of France by parliamentary
resolution. Furthermore, he dreaded any alliance with the
despotic rulers on the continent, lest it commit England to
vastly more than the repulse of French arms.

Fox wanted no pact with the "detested league" of continental
despots who were anxious to suffocate the Revolution and restore
the Bourbons.hl By entering an alliance with Austria, Prussia,
and.Russia, he feared that England would commit herself to their
objectives, and forego any opportunity of negotiating a separate
peace with France. He was thoroughly convinced that Austria and
Prussia especially were the harpies to the peace and security of
Europe. By the declaration of Pillnitz in 1790, they had threatened
to invade France and eradicate the Revolution. Two years later,
a combined army of Austrians and Prussians did invade, and its
leader, the Duke of Brunswick, had issued a proclamation promising
death to all rebels and the complete destruction of Paris if the

h2 And to divert themselves in

French royal family were harmed.
eastern Europe, they had partitioned Poland along with the Czarina
of Russia. Fox was persuaded that no trust could.be placed in them.
He demanded that England eschew "this abominable confederacy of

kings," averring that "if we had quarrels, we should fight them by

ourselves; or if we were to have allies, that we should keep our

El
Parl. Hist., rec, h31.
h2

Brunswick's proclamation is reprinted in Parl. Hist., XXX, 16—17.

 

 

hS.

cause of quarrel completely separate from theirs and, without
intermeddling with the internal concerns of the French republic,
not burthen ourselves with any stipulations which should prevent
us at any time from making a separate peace, without the

nh3

concurrence or approbation of those sovereigns. Moreover, no

alliance could conquer France and restore the Bourbons. Hoping
. hh

for that, said Fox, was like "expecting figs from thistles."
He was substantially correct.

The allied campaign of 1793 failed completely. Until
September, the armies of the first coalition were victorious,
and even pierced French territory. But witI he re-organization
f the French army by Carnot, the monarchical forces were rolled
back. A British contingent under the Duke of York was almost
crushed near Dunkirk in early September. A month later the Austrians,
under Coburg, were conquered at Wattingnies and the royalist
strongholds of Lyons and Toulon in southern France were taken by
republican forces. On the Eastern front, the Prussians were thrown
back in December. By the end of the year, the allies could only
boast of British gains in the French West Indies.)45 Fox was correct;

a quick conquest of France was impossible. The only sane course was

to press for an "honourable and secure peace," not withstanding the

LB
Parl. Hist., XIQZ, LL31.

hh

Fox to Henry, Lord Holland, August 1, 1793. Fox Hemorials,
III, h3.
h5

 

For a more detailed account of the 1793 campaign see Gershoy,
pp. 268-69.

ho.

complexion of the present regime in France.

Throughout l79h, Fox persistently demanded that peace
negotiations be opened with the French R public. In view of
France's military strength, he considered it fatuous to think
she could be conquered. Moreover, the British government had
"deluded this country into a ruinous war" by allying it with
the despotic powers of Europe and committing it to the restoration
of the Bourbons. This, Fox charged, was patent fraud. Ministers
had gone to war, ostensibly, to repel French aggression against '
England and Holland, "but their object in reality was the
subversion of the ruling powers in France."[*6 Since this was an
illusory and unobtainable goal, he believed "that we ought to
treat with the present or with any other government to which the
present may give place in France." Again, he was not calling for
peace at any price. It should be based on "honourable and secure"
terms; "and if peace cannot be concluded on such terms," he
avowed, "I will grant that the war ought to be carried on."h7

All Fox's efforts to open peace negotiations were
defeated. His motion to re-establish peace with France, presented
to the House on January 21, l79h was rejected by a vote of 277 to

59,h8 after Pitt announced in debate that he chose "to perservere

LS

Parl. Hist., XXX, 1253.
h?

Parl. Hist., XXX, 1258.

hB
Parl. Hist., XXX, 1287.

 

 

h7.

in the war, even amidst the worst disasters . . . than to

conclude a peace with the ruling powers in France on their

present system."h9 Two.months later, Samuel Whitbread, m. p.

for Bedford and an ardent supporter of Fox, also moved for a

separate peace with the French. Naturally, the Whig leader spoke

in favor of the motion, demanding that England disentangle itself

from Austria and Prussia, "the fomentors of this contest."so

This motion was defeated by 138 votes to 26.51 On.May 30, Fox

moved fourteen resolutions for putting an end to the war. It was

"madness" to continue hostilities. ‘While England lavished men

and money,

her allies failed to fulfill their treaty obligations;

and, he argued, after a glance at the front one "could not help

thinking the conquest of France a more desperate crusade than

ever."52 These were practical conclusions, but the terms which

Fox proposed as a basis for negotiations were highly impractical.

In light of France's sweeping victories during the 179h campaign,

it was being more than sanguine to expect that she would accept a

ante bellum settlement.53 The motion was drowned, of

 

a vote of 208 to 55.5h With the failure of these efforts

 

 

 

 

 

 

status quo
course, by
h9
Parl. Hist., XXX, 1283.
50
Parl. Hist., XXX, lh66.
51
Parl. Hist., XXX, lh86.
52
Parl. Hist., XXXI, 626.
53
Parl. Hist., XXXI, 632.
St
Parl. Hist., XXXI, 658.

 

h8.

to terminate hostilities, Fox exerted himself to obstruct the
ministry's war measures and to reduce Jngland's support of the
coalition.

He vociferously denounced the government's bill to
enlist French emigres in the British arty. The measure was
introduced on April ll, and provoked heated exchanges. Before
Fox spoke his colleague Richard Brinsley Sheridan observed that
if the emigres were recruited, sent to France, and captured they
would be murdered as counter-revolutionaries rather than treated
as prisoners of war. Supposing such a contingency, he inquired
if Britain would revenge the fate of the emigres by retaliating-

/

on French prisoners, and mad Burke screamed "Yes." The House

was astonished, and Fox animadverted on this piece of lunacy.

Then he assailed the bill as a measure which would prolong the

war since it virtually ”pledged the faith of this country to the

restoration of their [the emigresL7 rights, titles, privileges,

and properties which they had lost by the Revolution, and that we

would overturn the present existing government of France by force
I<6 n -. . . . . .

of arms."’ He conceived this motion as Just another ramification

of England's alliance with the despotic powers of Europe who were

bent on restoring the Ancien Regime in France.57

 

 

Parl. Hist., XXXI, 377.

 

Parl. HiSto, ELTI, 3730

 

Parl. Hist., XXXI, hO8—9.

 

As the war continued, Fox developed chronic malaise
over the first coalition, and he tried to reduce England's
support of the arrangement. Austria and Prussia particularly
were the targets of his wrath. He had never trusted them. To
him, their "unwarrantable and impious" declaration of Pillnitz
and their subsequent invasion of France had instigated the war.
Then they had lured the British ministry into their design to
crusi the French Republic and restore the Bourbons. Once they
received British assistance, however, they proved themselves
sluggrrds and drones. There was no gainsaying that the King of
Prussia had relaxed his efforts during the l79h campaign, and
when Pitt moved the acceptance of a mutual assistance treaty with
the German ruler, whereby England agreed to pay Frederick William
II B 2,500,000 in exchange for 62,h00 Prussian troops, Fox soared
into high dudgeon. why, he asked, should Great Britain subsidize
the Prussian monarch when he was manifesting a disinclination to
continue in the war as a principal? By continuing these payments,
Fox averred that Britain could only expect similar laxity from
other members of the coalition. Soon Austria and Spain would ask
England to reimburse tlem for their miserable showings, and "we
might be brought to pay for every man and every horse in Europe,
employed against France in the present dreadful contest."58 To
avert this contingency, and to loosen the threads of the coalition,

he proposed an amendment to the treaty which would have reduced the

58
Parl. Hist., XXXI, hhh.

 

 

SO.

Prussian subsidy to t 1,150,000. Needless to say, this attempt
was defeated, but Fdx's distrust of the allies was soon justified.

Between the autumn of 179k and the summer of 1795,
Pitt's shaky coalition splintered to pieces on a reef of petty
self-interests. Prussia sued for peace with France in the fall
of 179h, so she could transfer her troops from the Rhine to
Poland, where Frederick William intended to join Austria and
Russia in the third partition. The treaty of peace was not
concluded until April 5, 1795. Meanwhile, Holland surrendered,
and following a re-organization of her government, the ascendant
Dutch republicans agreed to join their French co-religionists in
arms against England. The Franco-Dutch treaty was signed at the
Hague on May 16, 1795, and two months later Spain defected from
the coalition. The Austrian emperor did not slither out of the
alliance, but he contributed little to the war against France
while occupied with the spoliation of Poland.59 Deserted by the
allies, and confronted with extraordinary French triumphs, the
British government could scarcely hope to restore monarchy in
France. There developed in 1795, a disposition to open peace
negotiations with the Republic.

A number of regular ministerial supporters now joined Fox
in clamoring for peace with France. In fact, when parliament

convened on December 30, 179h, Pitt's closest friend, William

59
Gershoy, pp. 301-6.

 

 

 

51.

Wilberforce, moved an amendment to the address of thanks advising
his majesty to seek peace with France on "just and reasonable

"60 Fox, of course, supported the amendment which was

terms.

defeated by 2h6 votes to 73.61 The significance of this division

is that the usual minority of thirty or forty, which had

persistently called for peace negotiations, now increased to 73

votes. Several weeks later the number rose to 86, when Fox's

truculent young protege, Charles Grey moved that peace negotiations

be commenced.62 On May 27, Wilberforce again moved that "the

present circumstances of France, ought not to preclude the

government of this country from entertaining proposals for a general
,

pacification."O3 This motion also attracted 86 votes. It was

apparent that an increasing number of m.p.'s were for ending

hostilities. 'Jith his coalition gone, and his parliamentary majority

slipping away, Pitt heeded the warning.

Between January and October, 1795, the First Minister
conformed to the mounting aversion toward his war. Gradually, and
painfully, he renounced the restoration of monarchy in France as
his objective, and accepted the idea of negotiating with the
republican regime. His reversal must have been uncomfortable. Having

prosecuted the war for a year and a half in league with the despotic

60
Parl. Wist., XXXI, 1026.
61
6 Parl. Hist., (XI, 1061.
2

 

 

 

Parl. Hist., XXI, 122.76.
63
Parl. Hist., XXXII, 9.

 

52.

heads of Europe, Pitt blandly announced on January 26, that there
had been "great misconstructions and misconceptions with respect
to what he had stated on former occasions to be his sentiments,
as to the re-establishment of monarchy, which he by no means

wished to be considered as a sine qua non to the attainment of

 

peace . . . ."6h He was slower, however, in agreeing to peace

negotiations. The first signal of Pitt's willingness to negotiate

7 ‘1

with France emerged during the debate on Jiloerforce's motion in
May. Then, the First hinister surprisingly declared: "To look

for negotiation at the present moment is premature, though I look

65

to it at no remote period." When parliament convened on

October 29, it was announced through the king's speech that the

a . . . . . 66
Dritish government was now disposed to open peace negotiations.
Pitt had no alternative. His alliance was gone, and the growing
desire for peace was paring his majority. Moreover, he probably
believed that suitable terms could be obtained from the new

government of France, which was not as ultrademocratic as its

67

forerunners.

Fox was jubilant over the ministry's decision to open

peace negotiations with France. He considered it a virtual

6h

Parl. Hist., XXXI, 1226.
65

Parl. Hist., XKXII, 28.
66

Parl. Hist., mm, M3.
6?

Barnes, p. 278.

 

 

53.

recantation of the government's entire war policy, besides "a
complete absolution of all his past sins." After a royal
message was read in the House on December 8, repeating the wish
of his majesty's government to treat with the French Directory,
Fox exalted his own prescience. "Ministers had made a total
retraction of all the charges they had brought against him for
the motions he had made," he observed, "and for the doctrines
he had held from the commencement of the war to the present day:
they had fully acquitted him, and had positively declared that,
in every sentiment he had uttered, he was right, and that the
House should have acted upon his opinion; for all along, he had
maintained the doctrine now laid down in his majesty's message."68
After chaffing ministers, Fox prodded them to open negotiations
with the French post-haste. The people of England and France
wanted peace, and he was confident that it could be achieved.
Within a fortnight, however, his hopes gloomed. On
December 2h, he lamented to his nephew that "the later accounts
from Paris lead me to think that the French_are less earnest in
their wishes than I had supposed . . . ."69 Two months later,
he abandoned all sanguineness, observing that "the ministry cannot
make any peace without incredible sacrifices. The minds of the

two Governments are as hostile to each other, and their mutual

'68
Parl. Hist., XIKEI, 586.
69 '

 

 

Fox Memorials, III, 128.

diffidence so rooted, that it must be next to a miracle, if they

"70 Fox's after-

can agree till absolute necessity forces them.
thoughts proved correct.

The French did not want peace in 1796. 'Hith a new
constitution, a new government, and a new model army under the
new leadership of Napoleon Bonaparte, they chose to continue
their old play at power politics. In harch, the Directory
responded to Britain's peace overtures with xtravagant demands.71
Nontheless, the British rovernment again tried to Open peace
negotiations in September, but the attempt was equally unsuccessful.
With French armies striking through Austria, southern Germany, and
Italy, the Directory was not inclined to restore Jelgium to the
emperor or withdraw from Italy as the dritish ministry proposed.
France meant to pursue the war. It accorded contumely to England's
peace overtures, and, on December 19, the firitish representative,
Lord.Kalmesbury was ordered to leave Paris within forty-eight hours.72

Fox, of course, blamed the British government for the
collapse of negotiations. Ln December 30, he even moved a vote of
censure on ministers for their inept and insincere conduct while

treating with the French. The negotiations had failed, he charged,

because ministers insisted upon the return of Belgium to Austria as

 

 

70
Fox to Henry, Lord Holland, February 18, 1796. Fox Memorials,
1:1, 130.
71
Barnes, p. 280.
72

Halmesbury Diaries, III, 36h.

 

SS.

73 *1
a Sine quo non for peace. Also, they had aggravated the firench

7h

Directory by talking of a status quo ante bellum settlement.

 

 

This was mere gasconade in the regular line of opposition. Earlier
in the year, Fox had expressed little hope of obtaining peace. He
had impugned France's sincerity, and surely he saw that the
astounding progress of her armies precluded a settlement except on
the most abject terms for her foes. 3y insisting that delgium be
restored to Austria Halmesbury probably did give umbrage to the
Directory, but even had he offered it to France, it is doubtful

that her leaders would have been more disposed to peace in 1796.

As for the charge that ministers had galled the French by suggesting

a status quo ante bellum settlement, Fox was overlooking his own

 

motion of May 30, 179b, calling for peace negotiations on the same

75

terms. He could find a stronger case to embarrass the ministry.

His opportunity came with the great naval mutinies in
the spring of 1797. The mutinies of Spithead and the More sprang
from the brutal methods of the press gang, poor living conditions,
inadequate pay, and a barbarous disciplinary system. an April 15,
the fleet at Spithead rebelled, and the government promised to

redress the grievances of the mutineers and to grant them an

indemnity by royal proclamation against future recrimination. But

 

73

Parl. Hist., mm, M92.
711

Parl. Hist., XXXII, 11489.
75

See above p. h7.

 

 

56.

official promises were not forthcoming, and two weeks later the
Spithead fleet, then at St. Helena, again refused to obey orders.
The seamen refused to budge until their demands were satisfied.
Meanwhile, the spirit of mutiny touched the fleet at the Nora
which defended the Thames and London.76
Fox was indignant over the ministry's "criminal conduct"
during these incidents.77 By delaying the promised redress of
grievances, he charged that ministers had aroused the suspicions
of the Spithead fleet, encouraged further insubordination, and
contributed to the second mutiny. Undeniably, the government had
lingered in fulfilling its promise to the disgruntled sailors. In
fact, Pitt did not introduce bills to increase the food allowance
and pay of the seamen until May 9, when the whole channel fleet
threatened to erupt into a mutinous conflagration. This "scandalous

78

delay," as Fox termed it, provided the opposition with cannon-

fodder. Here was an excellent chance to embarrass the government.
On May 10, Whitbread introduced a motion to censure Pitt for his
dilatory conduct, and Fox tried to expand it into a general
stricture upon the ministry.79 Needless to say, it suffered the

common fate of every motion which Fox and his friends had introduced

76This paragraph is based on the account of the mutinies found
in Barnes, pp. 310-13.

77Parl. Hist., XXXIII, use.

78Parl. Hist., XXXIII, h79.

79Par1. Hist., XXXIII, 509.

 

 

57.

since the beginning of the war. A number of his followers

believed it pointless to continue their unrewarding opposition.
Therefore, in July, 1797, Fox acquiesced, "from

indolence rather than from judgement," in the "ill-advised

secession from Parliament" recommended by Grey, Lord Lauderdale,

and the Duke of Redford.80 The imprudence of this maneuver will

be discussed in a later chapter. During the next five years, Fox

sequestered himself from political concerns at his beloved St.

Anne's Hill, where he was solaced by his mistress, Mrs. Armitstead,

the beauty of his estate, and literary pursuits. But absence from

the House and inactivity soon gave way to bitterness. Occasionally

he did go down to parliament, but he preferred to stay away because

of the "chance of saying indiscreet things." And in 1801 he sourly

remarked to Grey: "I am gone somewhat further in hate to the

English Government than perhaps you and the rest of my friends are,

and certainly further than can with prudence be avowed. The

triumph of the French Government over the English does in fact

afford me a degree of pleasure which it is very difficult to

disguise."81
Fox's opposition to the war was admirable and astute, but

ineffectual. He had hoped to avert hostilities through diplomacy.

 

I
I

80
Henry Richard Lord Holland, memoirs of the
Henry Edward Lord Holland (London, 1052 , I, 61;.
81
Fox hemorials, III, 3h9.

T

an 3 rarty, ed.,

 

 

 

_,_.. ”a".

58.

His program for negotiating differed from the ministry's only

on the points of recognizing the republican regime and sending

a minister to L ris. But considering the bellicose attitude of
th French convention in 1792, it is doubtful that Fox's scheme
would have proved successful. When war case, he supported its
prosecution so long as England's only objective was to repel
French aggression. He even tried to limit the ministry's war
policy to this objective by parliamentary resolution. When it
appeared, however, that Pitt and his colleagues meant to pursue
hostilities along with the despotic heads of Europe until the
Bourbons were restored, Fox withdrew his support of the war. From
June, 1793, until his secession in 1797, he persistently called
for peace negotiations, tried to obstruct the ministry's war
policy, weaken the coalition, and embarrass ministers by votes of
censure. In view of the unworthy objective of Pitt's coalition,
these were commendable measures. Their impotence derived from

the break up of the Whig party.

59.

Chapter III

FOX AND THE WHIG PARTY

Fox's enthusiasm for the Revolution and his‘opposition
to the war undermined his leadership of the Whig party. His
frequent eulogies of the French upheaval along with his attempts
to frustrate the ministerial war policy alarmed the more conservative
members of the party and ultimately drove them into alliance with
Pitt. They preferred callous reaction to the stigma of republicanism.
The first rift within the partyoccurred in the spring of 1792, when
Pitt inaugurated his repressive policy and accelerated his attempt
to identify domestic reformers with French jacobins. By playing upon
the misgivings of those Whigs who were averse to the Revolution and
seriously concerned about Fox's sympathetic attitude towards it, Pitt
hoped to bring them into the ministerial camp and reduce his rival's
following to an insignificant and ineffectual coterie. The First
Minister tried to easethe prospect of abandoning Fox by dangling a
number of lucrative offices and places before the frightened'Whigs.
Some members were eager to jump into Pitt's alluring web. Fox,
however, curbed their enthusiasm, and held his party intact until
the summer of l79h, when the conservative Whigs formally joined the
ministry. Before tracing the maneuvers, shifts, and re-alignment of
the politicians between June, 1792, and July, l79h, it may not be
amiss to outline Charles Fox's concept of a political party and its

role in the state.

60.

Fox's concept of party was rooted in his lifelong
struggle with George III. Throughout his political career he
considered the third Hanoverian as nothing less than a reincarnated
Stuart king who was bent upon royal absolutism. Party, Fox believed,
was the only effective makeweight to the growing influence of the

Crown. He was not alone in his conviction about George III. It

1

was shared by many of his contemporaries, and has been ingenuously

accepted by an astonishing number of nineteenth and twentieth century
historians. Thanks to the unrivaled scholarship of Sir Lewis Namier,
the myth has been exploded. George III may have been a bigoted,
meddlesome, and very adroit politician, but he was not, and had no
intentions of being, IBolingbroke's Patriot King.

Throughout his political career, Fox held "that party is
by far the best system, if not the only one, for supporting the
cause of liberty in this country . . . and this system, and this alone,
has prevented Great Britain from falling into what Hume calls, its

euthanasia of absolute monarchy."2 The independent, or as Fox would

1

Probably the most notable example of contemporary suspicion about
George III was the famous Dunning resolution passed by the House of
Commons in 1779 declaring "That the influence of the Crown has
increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished." Suspicion
about the King's allegedly despotic tendencies was echoed by the
cartoonists and pamphleteers of the day. For instance, one
caricature appeared portraying George III doting over a miniature of
Oliver Cromwell. It is reprinted in A. S. Thrberville, English.Men
and Manners in the Eighteenth Century (Oxford, 1926), pf82

2

Fox.to Henry, Lord Holland, October S, 179h. Fox Memorials, III,
88-89.

 

61.

say, "insulated" man in politics was "always liable to act both
corruptly and absurdly" because of the many decisions he was

bound to make on the basis of sheer private interest.3 Activated

by no higher goals than private gain, the lone politician would

fall prey to the "temptations of titles and emoluments" preferred
by the Crown.LL ‘With the increase of royal hirelings in the British
legislature, the prerogative would be augmented, personal and
political liberties would be subverted, "and then comes Mr. Hume's
Euthanasia."5 Party was the check to this process. By engaging
himself with an organized group, Fox held that the politician would
not be confronted with myriad decisions impinging upon his private
fortunes: "if a man has once engaged in a party the occasions for
new decisions are more rare, and consequently the corrupt influences
operate less." That the party itself might be a sinkhole of
corruption was of no count to Fox. 80 long as it secured men from
royal temptings it was inherently good. A party arrangement committed
to the opposition of royal influence would.even invest its members
with "public virtue," "comprehensive understanding," and serve as

"the highest advantage to the morals and happiness of mankind."6 It
3

90.

Fox to Henry, Lord.Holland, October S, l79h. Fox Memorials, III,
91.
5

Fox to Henry, Lord Holland, ? ?, 1796. F‘m Memorials, III, 135.

6

Fox to Henry, Lord Holland, October S, l79h. Fox Memorials, III,
90-91.

 

Fox to Henry, Lord Holland, October S, 179h. Fox Memorials, III,

 

 

was not to be built upon ordinary men.

It.must be drawn from an aristocracy. To Fax,
aristocracy was the keystone of both government and the party
system. It was "the proper poise of the constitution," the
balancing factor between the monarchical and the denocratic
factors.7 Furthermore, the aristocratic party was the true guardian
of English liberties. "I cannot help feeling every day more and
more," he once wrote to his nephew, "that in this country, at least,
an aristocratic party is absolutely necessary to the preservation
of liberty . . . ."8 This elite was, of course, to be based upon
"property and rank,"9 and was to manifest "that sort of energy, that
sort of spirit, and that sort of enterprise which made a country

"10 This included a patriarchal regard for "the

great and happy.
inferior classes" whose demands should be countenanced, but tempered
'with "aristocratic leaven."ll Herein, of course, is the explanatory
link between Fox's ardor for parliamentary reform and his hostility

to universal suffrage. Although his concept of party was grounded

in feudal elitism, it contained a notion which is peculiar to

 

“H

Parl. Hist., XXIX, 1409.

January 5, 1799. Fox Memorials, III, 1&9.

\OG)

Fox to Henry, Lord Holland, March 9, l79h. Fox Memorials, III,
67.
10
lord John Russell, The Life and Times of Charles James Fox
(London, 1859), II, 271.
11
Fox to Henry, Lord Holland, ? ?, 1796. Fox Memorials, III,
136.

62.

[nun-m...“- A‘I54‘PI-i J z 3 v‘.‘ -

63.

nineteenth and twentieth century political development.

Fox always held that ministers should be responsible to
the majority group in parliament. This was a novel doctrine in the
late eighteenth century, and.it did not mature until after 1830.
Before the second third of the nineteenth century, the appointment
and dismissal of ministers was a recognized prerogative of the
English Crown. In Fox's lifetime, the notion of ministerial
responsibility to a "faction" in the legislature was considered an
overt challenge to kingship itself. George III held that it was
"forcing his closet," and in 1782 he even threatened to abdicate
rather than accept the "infamous coalition" of Charles Fox and
Lord North to manage the affairs of state.12 Fox's notion of
ministerial responsibility to the preponderant group in the
legislature was the logical outgrowth of his concept of party.
With a majority in parliament and with ministerial posts and
patronage at its disposal, an aristocratic party could offset the
"temptations of titles and emoluments" issuing from the civil list.
It could secure its own factotums, curtail royal influence, and
virtually reduce the crown to a cipher. In short, Fox hoped to
supplant Windsor with Holland House.

The Whig party of the eighteenth century was a loosely knit

group acting upon a broad and by no means rigid set of principles.

12
The papers of abdication which George III drafted in 1782 are
reprinted in The Correspondence of KinggGeorge the Third from 1760
to December 1783, ed., SIEIJohn Fertescue (London, 1928), VI, BIEZ317.

 

6h.

Primarily, it was an aristocratic body, based on the great families
which had emerged ascendant from the Glorious Revolution, and its
nominal head was customarily a nobleman. During Fox's own career,
the party was ostensibly under the leadership of the Marquis of
tockingham.from 1756 to 1782 and then under the Duke of Portland.

In practice, real leadership usually devolved upon a "House of
Commons man." From 1782 until his death in 1806, Charles Fox was
actual leader of the Whig party. Although it had an homogeneous
basis, the party was in no sense a monolithic body. It was

composed of various splinter groups with divergent objects. There
was abundant disagreement on matters like parliamentary reform,
abolition of the slave trade, and the repeal of the Test and
Corporation acts. About the only common goal of those who

professed to be Whigs was, as Fox put it, "to give a good stout blow
to the influence of the Crown."13 Additionally, these who acknowledged
Charles Fox as their leader held that ministers should be responsible
to a majority in parliament and that.the Treasury Bench should be
composed of men sharing similar political ideas.

Under Fox, the Whig party was neither large nor very
effective, in the sense of winning elections and carrying motions in
parliament. ‘With a good attendance and a favorable sentiment in the
House of Commons, Fox could count on about seventy or eighty votes.

This was the best he could do against the court party of George III

71?
Quoted in Christopher Hobhouse, E25 (Boston, 1935), p. 171.

 

65.

and Pitt, whose commanding majority of two hundred followers was
built on the civil list and government patronage. In fact, the
only notable piece of legislation Fox ever succeeded in putting
through.parliament was his Libel Act of 1792, which gave juries
rather than judges the authority to decide what constituted
libel.1h

As we have seen, Fox's attitude toward the French
Revolution offended "his most considerable friends."15 It also
threatened his leadership of the Whigs, and ultimately reduced
the party to some thirty devoted followers. By the spring of
1792, Fox's more conservative adherents were thoroughly alarmed
about his panegyrics of the French upheaval, and began to veer
towards Pitt. The First Minister was eager to stir their misgivings,
and he increased the tempo of his efforts to couple English admirers
of the Revolution and domestic reformers with jacobinisn. His
object, of course, was to bring the frightened Whigs into the
ministerial camp, out the opposition to a few boisterous voices in
the wilderness, and cast the stigma of republicanism upon Charles
Fox and his more radical adherents.

The Society of the Friends of the People was the first
lever Pitt used to dislodge the conservative Whigs from Fox. This

haplessly named organization was formed on.April ll, 1792, by Charles

11;
32 George III. c. 60. ‘Reprinted in Adams and Stephens, p. h95.

15
See above p. 13.

 

16

Grey and some 100 other young Whigs, only 29 of whom were m.p.'s.
Its objects were to secure more frequent elections and to achieve
"a.more equal representation of the people in parliament."17 Most
of the Society's members were good friends or ardent followers of
Charles Fox, but they declined to ask him to join or to consult

with them "until they saw the probability of success, in order

that he might not be involved if they failed." A sparing sentiment,

but it piqued Fox, who lamented that the "Association seemed
determined not to.have any advice, and particularly not to hggg
Egg."18 Nonetheless, he defended it from the aspersive onslaught
of Pitt.

By depicting the society as nothing less than a jacobin
cabal, the First Minister played upon the apprehensions of the
conservative Whigs and.made a direct bid for their support. His
opportunity came on.April 30, when Grey informed the House that in
accordance with the recent declaration made by the society, he
would introduce a measure for parliamentary reform in the next
session.19 The erstwhile reformer'William Pitt decried this

pronouncement in the extremest terms of sanctimonious patriotism.

16 .
A list of the Society's members is printed in Earl. Hist.,
XXIX, lBOh.
l7
Parl. Hist., XXIX, 1303.
18
Quoted in.Veitch, p. 197.
19
The Society's "Address to the People of Great Britain,"

 

 

announcing its objectives is reprinted in Parl. Hist., XXIX, 1305-9.

w .v: --..r ‘4 Ass! - “u-j

67.

He admitted that he had changed his mind about reform,2O since, at
this time, it would only plunge the country into "anarchy and
confusion."21 Then, he turned full cannonade on the Society of
the Friends of the People, compounding it with the sans-culottes:
"He had seen with concern that those gentlemen of whom he spoke,
who were members of that House, were connected with others, who
professed not reform only, but direct hostility to the very form
of our government. This afforded suspicion, that the motion for
a reform was nothing more than the preliminary to the overthrow of
the whole system of our present government; and if they succeeded,
they would overthrow what he thoumit the best constitution that
was ever formed on the habitable globe." To pursue reform at
this time, Pitt concluded in his stinging manner, "was to follow
a madness which had been called liberty in another country . . . ."22
Fox defended Grey and the society, thereby opening
himself to traduction. Naturally, he was indignant about Pitt's
denigration of a cause which the First Minister had fervently
championed during his initial four years in the House. In
abandoning and denouncing parliamentary reform, Pitt was guilty of
apostasy.23 As for the charge that reformers were "infuriated
republicans," Fox retorted that those who truckled behind the First
Minister were nothing but "slaves of despotism." Although he had
20

Parl. Hist., XXIX, 1307.

21
Parl. Hist., XXIX, 1302.

22
Parl. Hist., XXIX, 1311-12.
23

Parl. Hist., XXIX, 1313.

 

 

 

 

not joined the Society of tie Friends of the People, the Whig
leader averred that "he saw no danger . . . in continued reform,
and had no difficulty in declaring himself a friend to improvement
of every kind."211 This defense of the reformers brought a sharp
pronouncement from George III who was as eager as Pitt to break

the opposition and reduce Charles Fox to insignificance. The King
held that "the most daring outrage to a regular government committed
by the new Society, which yesterday published its manifesto in
several of the newspapers, could only be equalled by some of its
leaders standing forth the same day to avow their similar sentiments
in the House of Commons; and I cannot see any substantial difference
in their being joined in the debate by Mr. Fox, and his not being

25

a member of the society." These royal and ministerial attacks,

however, failed to bring over any alarmed'whigs.
But the effort was renewed shortl . In mid May, ministers
invited the Duke of Portland, grand seigneur among the conservative

‘Whigs, and some of his followers to attend a Privy Council meeting
26

to discuss a proposed proclamation against seditious writings.
Portland and his friends declined the invitation, but Lord Grenville
believed it "impossible for them not to support us" in parliament

when the measure was introduced.27 The proclamation was submitted to
Zn
Parl. Hist., XXIX, 1317.
2?
éReprinted in Stanhope, II, XIV.
2

Malmesbury_Diaries, II, h2h.
27
Court and.Cabinets, II, 207.

 

Ft Yi up: 1" K‘r.’:'.'.’

69.

the commons on Kay 25, and Pitt strained himself to cleave the
Whigs. After Fox had assailed the proclamation as an "insidious
and ambiguous" measure bearing "all the features of that craft
which belonged to the quarter from whence it came,"28 Pitt turned
on him with equal malice. Addressing himself to the conservative
Whigs, the First Minister observed that "Mr. Fox differed from
all others. He saw no necessity for any proclamation at all.
He saw no danger in writings, which.had for their tendency the
total overthrow of the Constitution."29 These tactics, however,
still failed to divide the Whigs.
Despite ministerial efforts to cleave it, Fox retained

a firm hold over his party. Lord Grenville even acknowledged the
refusal of Portland and his friends to attend the Privy Cbuncil
meeting as "an additional proof of the decisive influence Fox
possesses over their minds when he chooses to exert it."30 Some of
the Whigs wavered but none jumped sides when the proclamation against

seditious writings was presented in parliament. Lord North and
William'Windham, for example, regretted that they must differ from
Fox on this particular measure, but explicitly stated that they

did not intend to abandon him.31 Fox kept the waiverers in line

 

28Parl. Hist., XXIX, 1509.
29Parl. Hist., XXIX, 1513.
30Court and Cabinets, II, 207.
31Parl. Hist., XXIX, M92, 1501.

70.

with a friendly but strong reproof. He pointed out that the
proclamation was designed to promote fear of sedition rather than
to check it, and to create dissension in the party. Those Whigs,
said Fox, who believed that his opposition to the proclamation
sprang from disloyalty were "made the dupes of the deep and artful
designs which ministers had in view."32 He concluded with a plea
for unity. For the nonce, unity was preserved but there were
rumblings of discontent.

In early June, the conservative Nhigs began to consider
seriously a junction with Pitt. Lord Loughborough, Lord Fitzwilliam,
Lord Malmesbury, and the Duke of Partland met at the latter's home,
Burlington Hbuse, on June 9 to discuss the matter. Burke was there
also, and he exhorted them to break with Fox, who, he avowed, was
"tainted with French politics and principles."33 After Burke
departed, the noblemen agreed that it would be "highly disagreeable"
to separate from Fax, but that "the state of the times . . . called
out for a junction."314 On the following day, the Duke of Portland
even declared that a coalition with the ministry was "so desirable
a measure, that not only every overture tending towards one should be
listened to, but even overtures made to promote it, were it

practicable."3S When this grumbling reached Pitt's ear he hastened

32
Parl. Hist., XXIX, 1509.
33
Malmesbury Diaries, II, hl9.
3h
Malmesbury Diaries, II, h19-20.

35
Malmesbury Diaries, II, h2l.

 

 

71.

to extend something more "practicable" and palpable to the
conservative Whigs than patriotism.

On June 13, the First Minister tendered a number of high
and lucrative posts as inducements to abandon Fox. The offer came
through Henry Dundas, Home Secretary and Pitt's ranking henchman.

Dundas contacted Loughborough, who was eager to replace the recently

’"'””"71
?

cashiered Lord Thurlow on the woolsack.36 He apprised the
aspiring Lord Chancellor that Pitt would welcome a "permanent union"

with the conservative Whigs, and was prepared to accomodate them in ’ a

 

a number of places, viz., in positions of Lord Chancellor, Secretary
of State for Home Affairs [Dundas's own officé7, President of the
Council, and Privy Seal besides two or three Privy Councillors'

places in the House of Commons, and the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland.37
An astonishing offer. Loughborough refused to believe it until
confirmed by he First Minister. Also, he was anxious to learn if
it had the sanction of Pitt's royal master. On the following
evening [fihne 1&7, Loughborough dined with Pitt at Dundas's home,

and received what he believed an explicit and sincere answer from the

 

36’

There had been considerable antagonism between Pitt and Thurlow,
and when the Lord Chancellor spoke against the First Minister's
scheme for attaching a sinking fund to every future state loan,

Pitt demanded his dismissal. On May 15, 1792, the First Minister
informed the King that a choice must be made between himself and
lord Thurlow. Thurlow was asked to relinquish the Great Seal. For
a more extensive account of this incident see Barnes, p. 238.
37
Malmesbury Diaries, II, h2h-25.

72.

First;Minister who said "he did not come with the King‘s command
to propose a coalition, but that he would be responsible that it

would please the King and the Queen, and that the only difficulty

 

at all likely to arise was about Fox, and that difficulty owing

to Fox's conduct in Parliament during the last four months." Then
came the most astonishing statement during the interview. After
remarking that he did not believe there was any insuperable
barrier between himself and Fox that would bar their serving
together, "Pitt said that it perhaps would not be quite easy to

give Fox the Foreign Department immediately, but that in a few

 

months he certainly might have it."38 A very curious remark.

Three possible constructions may be placed on it.
Firstly, it may be accepted as a sincere expression of willingness
to let bygones be bygones. Pitt was not that gratuitous. Secondly,
it may be interpreted as a legerdemain to include Fox in the
ministry, muzzle him with officialdom, and thus give Pitt a free
and unopposed hand to pursue his repressive policy. Such an
interpretation would be as specious as the first was naive. If
elevated to a ministerial post, Fox would have caused Pitt more
discomfort than he already did on the opposition benches. He would
have divided the council, worked at cross purposes with Pitt, and
given the First Minister infinite embarrassment on matters of policy.
MOreover, official position and duty would not have muzzled Fox..

738
Malmesbugy Diaries, II, h26.

 

73.

Instead of submitting to silence, he would have resigned and
returned to opposition. The most likely explanation of Pitt's
remark is that it was a polite way of telling Loughborough and
his conservative friends that separation from Fox was the price
they must pay for the tendered office. It was a clever attempt f
to split the Whig party, and leave Fox with his Friends of the A
People, who were already laboring under the shadow of republicanism,

This conclusion rests on two factors. First, Pitt

[H‘H'flflfll‘ I’-1 N .' ‘€ . .3

admitted that he had not consulted the King about the proposed
coalition, but that he meant to get both his master's and the Queen's
assent. He could speak with some assurance that the King might admit
Portland and the conservatives, but he knew, and so did Loughborough, .
that George III would never admit Charles Fox to ministerial rank.
Had the King not threatened to abdicate in 1782, when necessity
compelled him to accept Fox and North? Secondly, Pitt knew that if
Fox were invited to join the ministry he [Pitg7 would have to comply
with the Whig leader's punctilio about equality. On the previous
day, Fox had declared himself agreeable to a coalition if Pitt would
resign and re-enter the ministry on an equal footing of power and
patronage control with the Whigs.39 Pitt would never assent to this.
His remark about giving the Foreign Office to Fox not "immediately,
'but in a few months" was merely a subtle way of placing a premium on
his bait.

39
Malmesbury Diaries, II, h25.

 

This was Fox's construction of Pitt's curious remark.
After divining the ruse, the Whig leader became abrupt and
indignant. But there was considerable acumen mingled with his
indignation. On June 16, he told Lord Malmesbury, one of the
principal Whigs involved in these negotiations who recorded every
turn in his diary, that "he doubted Pitt's sincerity, and suspected
he had no other view than to weaken their party and strengthen his
own -- that to divide the opposition was his great object . . . that
it was impossible ever to suppose Pitt would admit him to an equal
share of power, and that whatever might be his own feelings or
readiness to give way, he could not, for the sake of honour Egg
pgigg of the Party, come in on any other terms."ho Convinced of
Pitt's insincerity, he exerted himself to block the negotiations.

To counterpoise the First Minister's tactics, Fox

persuaded the Duke of Portland to insist upon Pitt's resignation as

First Lord of the Treasury prior to a coalition, with the understanding

that he‘ZPittJ7'would re-join the ministry in a lesser post. The
Treasury should be occupied by "some neutral man," like the Duke of
Leeds.)41 This, and Fox's other demand that the Whigs be given equal
power and patronage if they entered the ministry, was certain to
preclude a junction. Pitt would never accede to such humiliating

terms. Anyway, Portland was adamant about the First Minister

 

ho
Malmesbury Diaries, II, h27.
_ hl
Malmesbury Diaries, II, hZS.

7L1».

 

7S.

h2

resigning before the conservative Whigs would enter a coalition.
His insistence on this point even caused dissension among the
waiverers themselves. Some, like Lord Fitzwilliam, agreed with
Fox and Portland about "the indispensible necessity of Pitt
resigning the Treasury for another cabinet office." Others, like
the anxious Loughborough "really thought it unreasonable to
expect that Pitt should quit the Treasury."h3 By fomenting

argument among the conservative Whigs over the means of coalescing

*--.__F—u __ — _.-_.,_,_ -3 A ....a-...-—__.1

, x w .. _ . A _
I “I
4
l .f

with Pitt, Fox curbed their eagerness and held the party intact.
Musing over the difficulties of the prospective coalition, Burke
observed correctly that "53. Fox's coach stops the way . . . ."hh
Between June 20, and July 11, 1792, a stalemate developed
in the negotiations between the conservative Whigs and Pitt. The
Duke of Portland, who completely agreed with Fox about the terms
of the coalition, resisted the proddings of his office-anxious
companions. Despite his disapproval of Fox's attitude toward the
Revolution, he refused to abandon him or to sanction the conduct of
any Whig who joined the ministerial ranks before Fox's terms were
satisfied. Pitt, of course, refused to acknowledge Fox's terms as
a basis for negotiating a junction. So for about three weeks there

was considerable shuffling, but no significant political maneuvering.

Burke implored Portland and other conservatives to break with Fox,

T

Malmesbury Diaries, II, h3h.
1:3

 

Malmesbury Diaries, II, h30-31.

Malmesbury Diaries, II, h33.

76.

join Pitt, and end all "systematic opposition." The Duke, of
course, rejected this as "unwise and unsafe" advice!“S 'With
Portland secured, Fox disported himself by baffling the waiverers.

On one occasion he enheartened them by declaring that a coalition

 

"wag E2 damned right 3 thin , that it must be done."h6 Then he
dispirited their hopes for concession by speaking of "the
impossibility of his acting Egg§§_Pitt," and becoming "harsh,
impracticable, and opinionative."h7
Pitt tried to break the deadlock with additional
inducements. On July 11, Portland was informed that the First
Minister "still ardently wishes for an arrangement," and.was prepared
to offer the Governor—Generalship of India to the waiverers.)48
Shortly afterwards, the Great Seal was extended to Loughborough
again, and the Garter and the Chancellorship of Oxford were proferred
to Portland.h9 The Duke spurned all these lures and his obstinacy
may be attributed to Fox's influence over him. Replying to Portland's
request for advice about these latest overtures, Fox wrote: "I think

with you that your acceptance of the Garter at this moment could

produce no good effect in any view whatever, and that it might possibly

Malmesbury Diaries, II, h33-3h.
hb
Malmesbury Diaries, II, h32.
h?
Malmesbury Diaries, II, h35.

hB
Malmesbury Diaries, II, h36.

h9
Malmesbury Diaries, II, h38.

 

77.

do much.mischief; the greatest of all to the public in my judgement,

if it should tend (which.I confess I do not think impossible) to

lessen your weight and influence."50 This terminated the first

phase of the maneuvering. Fox opened the next stage to test the

soundness of Pitt's overtures. {—
Convinced that the First Minister was trying to destroy

the Whig party, Fox determined to test the validity of his offer.

Any official appointments would have to be sanctioned by the King, g

and Fox suspicioned that Pitt was making his astonishing offers é_

without royal approval.51 There was some basis for his doubts. In

June, the First Minister'had admitted to Loughborough that he had

commenced the negotiations without the King's approbation, although

he meant to secure both the King's and the Queen's approval.52

Between June 13, and July 22, Pitt did obtain the King's assent

to treat with the conservative Whigs. George III, however,

admonished him "to shew any marks of distinction to the respectable

part of the party, provided it was not accompanied with too much

power."53 Practically all of Pitt's enticements were offices

accompanied with considerable power. Mbreover, in limiting

negotiations to "the respectable part of the party," the King definitely
50
July 21, 1792. Fox Memorials, IV, 286.
51_
Malmesbury Diaries, II, h39.
52
See above p. 72.

53
Dropmore MSS., II, 29h.

 

78.

overruled Pitt's earlier talk about including Fox in the ministry
"in a few months." If it could be proved that Pitt had exceeded

his authority, and that the King had no intention of giving great
offices to the conservative Whigs, Fox could give the lie to his

rival and maintain his party intact.

The Duke of Leeds was the instrument Fox used to
corroborate his suspicions. Leeds had served in the cabinet as
Foreign Secretary until his rupture with Pitt over policy during
the Oczakow crisis in 1791. He was anxious to re-enter the
ministry, and was elated when Portland mentioned him in June as
a possible "neutral man” for the First Lord of the Treasury in case
Pitt resigned for a subordinate post. The Duke, says Malmesbury,
was "carried away more by his own imagination and sanguine hopes, in
which his string of toad-eaters encourage him, than by reason and
reflection."511 Believing himself to be "on a footing of perfect
confidence" at Windsor, Leeds proposed that he intercede with the
King to facilitate a union between the ministerial ranks and the
conservative Whigs.SS Portland was dubious about this proposal,
but Fox seized upon it. On July 31, Lord Malmesbury wrote Leeds
that "Fox has great satisfaction from your idea of seeing the King,
as he considers the success of the whole to depend on His Majesty

having an arrangement in his wishes; the ascertaining fiiat, he looks

 

5LMalmesbury Diaries, II, h38.

 

5‘—
Malmesbury Diaries, II, h37-38.

 

79.

upon as a material point, and which nothing is so likely to do as

56

what you intend." Also, Fox specified that Leeds must talk with
the King about a coalition before he conferred with Pitt and
Dundas. In other words, Fox intended to use Leeds to ascertain
how agreeable George III was to a union, and to determine whether
heJZthe King7 would concede the offices which Pitt had tendered.
If there appeared to be discrepancy between the King and his chief
minister, Fox's suspicion would be confirmed. Royal reluctance to
bestow the offices would establish Fox's contention that Pitt had
merely been dangling lucrative bait before the conservative Whigs
as an enticement to join the ministerial camp.

On August 11;, Leeds obtained an interview with the King in
the Library of the Queen's Lodge. Presuming that George III was
familiar with the recent transactions between Pitt and.Portland,
he began to discuss his own ideas for a union. But he was cut short.
"To my great surprise," Leeds wrote in his diary that night, "the
King answered that he had.not heard anything upon the subject for a
long time. That Mr. Pitt had indeed some months ago mentioned

something like an opening on the part of the Duke of Portland and

friends, to which H. M. had answered, "Anything Complimentary to

 

them, but 52 poweri£%“57 Fox's misgivings were substantiated. Pitt

55
Malmesbury Diaries, II, him.
57

The Political Memoranda of Francis Fifth Duke of Leeds, ed.,

OscarvBrowning (Westminister, 188k), p. 188. Hereafter cited as
LeedsiMemoranda.

 

80.

had disguised his maneuvers from the King, who had no intentions.
of making openings for "the respectable part of the party." Leeds,
of course, was bewildered, and Pitt embarrassed. The contretemps
is worth tracing to its conclusion.
Four days later Leeds met with Pitt to secure an
explanation. Meanwhile the First Minister had reversed his position,
probably after a very uncomfortable session with George III. On
August 22, he informed the already perplexed Duke that "there had
been no thought of any alteration in the Government, that circumstances
did not call for it, nor did the people wish it, and that no new

arrangement, either by a change or coalition, had ever been in

contemplation!!!"58 Stunned, Leeds groped his way to Lord.Halmesbury's

where he reported his strange intelligence. That night he recorded
in his diary what Professor Donald G. Barnes has termed "the most
delicious passage in Leeds's Memoranda:"59

‘we agreed it would be right to soften it to the Duke of
Portland and particularly to Mr. Fox, for as he had all
along doubted Hr. Pitt's being sincerely disposed towards
the arrangement in question, what had now passed would be
a matter of triumph to his discernment, and he might
perhaps not have discretion enough to be silent, and the
whole getting wind might be productive of many bad
consequences.

Fox, of course, did learn about the interview, and.he was an astute

enough politician not to remain silent, but to use the news discreetly

58
Leeds Memoranda, p. 19h.

S9
Barnes, p. 252.
60
Leeds Memoranda, p. 196.

 

81.

as a brace for party solidarity. Unfortunately, it did not prove
a very strong band.

Pitt continued to excite the fears of the conservative Whigs
about the Revolution. He was assisted by the extreme turn of
events in France during the autumn of 1792. As we have seen, the
British government used the Septemberlnassacres, the National
Convention's militant foreign policy, and the "propaganda decrees"
as an excuse to raise a jacobin scare in England and to call out
the militia.61 'When parliament met on December 12, talk of
"libels," "sedition," "insurrection," and "treason," cascaded from
the Treasury Bench. Fox, of course, inveighed against these fear-
provoking tactics, but his more conservative followers were
thoroughly alarmed. Mere safety from suspicion within the
ministerial fold now counted as much with them as the prospect of
office had during the previous summer. Cravenly, they renounced
Fox, badgered the Duke of Portland to abandon him, and to support
government measures.

The haste and eagerness displayed by the conservative Whigs to
break with Fox is reflected in their prevailings upon Portland. On
December 16, a group of them met with the Duke at Burlington House
to discuss Fox's unshakable veneration of the Revolution in general,
and his opposition to the government's security measures in particular.
Sir Gilbert Elliot, M. P. for Helston and.an inveterate conservative,

opened with a strong harangue against Fox‘s conduct, which, he claimed

 

61
See above p. 2h.

82.

was "founded on the worst principles, on those on which the French
Revolution was founded."62 By continuing to associate with the
Whig leader, Elliot argued that the conservatives partook of his
"bad reputation and unpopularity." Therefore, he implored Portland
to express publicly "entire disapprobation of Fox's conduct and

63

principles . . . and separate from him amicably, but decidedly."
The fluke rejected this proposal, but during the following week he
was hounded by Loughborough, Malmesbury, Elliot, and Windham to
renounce Fox openly. Though he'flamented Fox's conduct," Portland
would not break with him.

The conservatives, however, did persuade the Duke to support
the government. On December 21, he promised to declare his
approval of ministerial policy in the House of Lords. But to fine
chagrin of his followers, his speech was noncommittal.6h Elliot,
Malmesbury, and Windham were "hurt and vexed" by Portland's failure
to make an explicit statement in favor of the government, and
chided him severely at a meeting on the 2hth. Also, they spoke
harshly of Fox, demanding that the Duke separate from him, and
publicly accord his support to the government. The Duke confessed

that his failure "was a weakness, arising from a predilection and

tenderness to Fox; and to this cause must be ascribed the backwardness

 

 

 

62

Malmesbury Diaries, II, hh3.
63

Malmesbury Diaries, II, hhh.
6h

Malmesbury Diaries, II, hh7.

 

83.

which he had hitherto shewn to take those explicit and decisive
steps . . . ."65 Again, he would not separate from Fox, but he
agreed to announce his support of the government "immediately"
in the House of Lords. Also, he directed his son, Lord Titchfield,
to do the same in Commons, and authorized his followers to repeat
his sentiments.

Portland again disappointed his conservative followers.
"To the great concern and grief of his friends,'Zhé7 did not say
'g'gggd" in parliament on December 26, when he was supposed to
declare his support of the ministry.66 Now they were convinced
"that Fox had an invariable ascendency over him."67 Nonetheless,
the right-wingers proceeded as they had been authorized, and on the
28th Sir Gilbert Elliot announced in Commons, after renouncing his
own political connections with Fox, that henceforth those Whigs who
acknowledged the Duke of Portland as their leader would support
the ministry.68 Fox was enraged and questioned Elliot‘s authority
to say that the Duke intended to give his approval to ministerial
policy. 'When the Heuse recessed, he hastened to a Whig.meeting at

69

Burlington where he was "angry, and rude in his manners."

 

6?
Malmesbury Diaries, II, hSh.

Malmesbury Diaries, II, hSS.
67
Malmesbury Diaries, II, L60.

68
Parl. Hist., XXX, 176-77.
69
Malmesbury Diaries, II, h60.

8h.

Only bitterness and misunderstanding resulted from the
meeting. Both Fox and Elliot pledged themselves to the Duke of
Portland and appealed to him for a clarification. Fox contended
that Sir Gilbert's speech had conveyed the idea that the Duke
intended to renounce him and cast his lot with the government.

Elliot, on the other hand, claimed that he only meant to sever

his personal connections with Fox, not the Duke's. As for

supporting the government, he pointed out that on December 2h

Portland had authorized his followers to announce this step. The

Duke admitted that Elliot was correct in stating his sentiments

about endorsing the ministry, but that he had sanctioned nobody to
terminate his friendship and political connection with Fox.
Difficulties appeared solved until Fox recalled "that nine days

before (Sunday, 16) the Duke had arreed with him, in the most
unequivocal manner, that he saw no reason why opposition should

not be carried on against the present Government on the same
principles and from the same reasons as ever." This confused

matters again, for Portland did not deny the statement. The conclave
adjourned with Fox "angry," the Duke "embarrassed and perplexed beyond
measure," and the conservatives prepared to join Pitt."7O

Fox's grip over the right-wingers was now loose, but not
lost. On December 2h, it will be recalled, Portland had appointed

his son, Lord Titchfield, to declare in the House of Commons that

 

7O
Malmesbury Diaries, II, h60.

85.

the conservative Whigs would support the government during the
present crisis. Titchfield was to make his announcement on
December 31, 1792. That morning, Fox penned a mandate to the
Duke urging him to countermand his instructions.71 It was a
desperate attempt to deter the conservatives from jumping into
the ministerial ranks. Meanwhile, Windham was at Burlington
house writing the speech Titchfield was to deliver that afternoon.
Titchfield gave the speech announcing that his father and other
conservatives were prepared to support the government, but his
concluding remarks, aimed at the ministers, were so violent that
they virtually destroyed the effect of his pronouncement.
Ealmesbury and others surmised that "Fox had come to Burlington
House later than Windham, and added those last sentences."72 Not
a nice conjecture, but a plausible one considering Portland's
submissiveness to Fox. Anyway, the conservatives were so disgusted
with the Duke that they considered leaving him, too.

This phase of the struggle within the Whig party abated in
January, 1793. For several weeks the conservatives were so irate with
Portland that they considered scouting him as well as Fox and.joining

73

Pitt. Their indignation subsided, however, and Loughborough was

the only one who deserted to the ministerial ranks. He accepted the

 

 

 

71

Fox Memorials, IV, 292-96.
72

Malmesbury Diaries, II, h62-63.
73

Malmesbury Diaries, II, )463-66.

 

86.

Great Seal on January 26.711 To the disappointment of the government,
no great number immediately followed his example. Despite their
antipathy for the Revolution, and suspicions about Fox and the
Friends of the People, the right-wingers still balked at formally
joining or supporting the government. The ensuing calm, however,
did not reconcile them to Fox. Their sentiments were best expressed
by Sir Gilbert Elliot who wrote Malmesbury at the end of the month
that "a return to Fox, or of Fox to us, appears, as you say, highly
improbable; and every step he and those with whom he has exclusively
connected himself seem to take, renders our separation wider, and
anything like co-operation more irreconcileable [sié7 with our
principles."75 Nevertheless, he rejected the idea of joining the
ministry as repugnant to public duty and personal feelings. Unity
among the Whigs was preserved in name only.

Between February, 1793, and July, l79h, a liaison was
maintained between the ministry and the Portland Whigs. The war with

France, and Fox's opposition to it, bloated their apprehensions, and

made them anxious to arrange a.modus vivendi with the British

 

government. During this period, no calumnious device was spared to
detach them openly from Fox. On September 29, 1793, Burke sent a

lengthy dissertation to the Duke of Portland charging Fox with fifty-four

7h
Malmesbury Diaries, II, h69.

75—7
January 27, 1793. Malmesbury Diaries, II, h7h.

 

 

 

87.

76

counts of treason, and the administration's hack writers
assailed him (Tog? daily. The Morning Chronicle was not

overstating the case when it said on January 2, 179h: "Mr. Fox,

for more than twelve months past, has been most violently attacked
in a continued series of ministerial libels, without the least

proof of any mismanagement in office, or dishonourable practice in
opposition. Thus unblemished in his public conduct, indefatigable
pains have been taken to blacken his private character; and when
facts are wanting to support the attempt, bad intentions are alleged
against him as a positive charge."77 Fox did forestall an en masse
desertion, although a number of conservatives drifted into the
ministerial camp individually. As his opposition to the war grew
more implacable, the rate of defection increased and.his minority
dwindled to thirty some adherents.

Not until July, 179D, did the conservative Whigs formally
coalesce with the ministry. They would brook Fox's sympathy for
France no longer, and.openly joined Pitt. Portland was created
third Secretary of State, Earl Fitzwilliam was made Lord President

of the Council, the Privy Seal was given to Earl.Spencer, and William

 

Windham became Secretary at war.78 Other conservatives, who were
76
Laprade, pp. 128-29.
7?
Quoted in Laprade, p. 131.
78

Later in 179b, Earl Fitzwilliam became Lord Lieutenant of Ireland
and was succeeded as President of the Council by Earl Mansfield. Also,
Lord Spencer was placed at the head of the Admiralty, succeeding Pitt‘s
brother, Lord.Chatham, who became Lord Privy Seal. Court and Cabinets,
II, 270. '

88.

already voting with the government, openly announced their support
of the ministry. The union, however, did not meet with general
approval. Fox, of course, censured it as a "deadly blow to

public confidence in public men; a very serious evil to the public

79

in his opinion." This general stricture found definition in the
adverse reactions of some of Pitt's friends. The First Minister's
private secretary, George Rose, disapproved of the union because
it would appear to the public as “a junction of parties on a
footing of mutual interests, or of sharing power to preserve a
continuance of it."80 Also, the Marquis of Buckingham, Lord
Grenville's brother, believed that it partook of the odium
attending the Fox-North coalition in 1782.81

The union of the Portland Whigs with the ministry in l79h
left Charles Fox politically denuded. Previously, he had held the
party intact and faced the Treasury Bench with a united opposition,
in name if not in fact. His hold over the conservatives may be

attributed to his exposure of Pitt's devious efforts to divide the

party and to his "invariable ascendency" over the Duke of I)ortland.

 

79
Parlg Hist., XXI, 1125.
80
George Rose to George Prettyman Tomline, Bishop of Lincoln,
July 11, l79h. The Diaries and Correspondence of'the Right Hon.
George Rose: ContainingfLetters of the‘HostflDistinguished Statesmen
3? His Day, ed.,‘Reverend—Levesonjvernon Harcourt (London, 1860), I, 19h.
'81
Marquis of Buckingham to Lord Grenville, July 8, l79h. Dropmore
we, II, 597-980

 

89.

Between January, 1793, and July, 179h, the right wing dissolved
as individual members began to follow the government's long
train into the lobbies at division time. Yet, a semblance of
unity prevailed until Portland and the others formally joined
Pitt. Then Fox was left with about three dozen ardent followers,
most of whom were Friends of the People. Together, they labored
along under the stigma of republicanism, fighting valiantly for
enlightened reforms and.against the ministry's benighted policy

of repression.

90.

Chapter IV

REFORM AND EEPRESSICN

Fox did not join any of the reform societies which
mushroomed in England after the outbreak of the French Revolution.
He did, however, defend them tirelessly from the defamatory and
persecuting attacks of the British government, maintaining that
there was no affinity between domestic reform and revolution abroad.
His unwillingness to connect himself with these groups may be
explained by his aversion to universal suffrage, which was a
cardinal point to most of them. He was always a spokesman for
parliamentary reform, but his concept of it did not extend beyond
what was accomplished in 1832. Some of the societies which emerged
in England during the era of the Revolution were composed of
retainers and artisans with democratic aims. Fox would neither
join them nor subscribe to their programs, but he did defend their
right to discuss and work publicly toward their goals. Attacks
upon the reform societies, however, were not the only aspects of
the government's repressive policy. There was a proclamation
against seditious writings, an Alien bill, a measure prohibiting
public meetings for political purposes, and even the right of habeas
corpus was suspended. These were only the salient features of Pitt's

tyranny. Charles Fox's opposition to all the ministry's grinding

91.

measures in this period has been termed his "finest hour."1 It

was. His denunciation of the war and his admiration of the

Revolution cost him friends, political connections and public

esteem. In a moment of lethargy and despair, he seceded from

parliament but he did not abandon resistance. In fact, his [The

increased rashness nearly brought him imprisonment in the Tower. 3
The outbreak of the French Revolution heartened

reformers in England. It seemed to ring open an age of change

r—m—u—F-wq‘ - a“ - -
‘ D.—

and liberty moored only by reason. We have seen that Charles

Fox believed it "the greatest event . . . that ever happened in

the world."2 Other Englishmen of a liberal bent were also inspired.
The Dissenters raised their clamor for repeal of the Test and
Corporation acts, and several well organized groups emerged to work
for a reform of the British parliament where "seats for legislation
were as notoriously rented as the standings for cattle at a fair."
The Society for Promoting Constitutional Information, which had
been active in tee early 1780's, was revived in 1791. It was soon
joined in its efforts to achieve annual parliaments, more equal

representation, and universal suffrage by the London Corresponding

1
A. J. P. Taylor, "Charles James Fox, champion of liberty,"
Manchester Guardian Weekly, vol. 75, no. 12 September 20, 1956, ll.
2
See above p. 1.
3
Parl. Hist., XXX, h62. The remark was made originally by the.
cantankerous old reformer, John Horne Tooke, and was parroted in
Commons by M.P.'s who were enthusiastic about reform.

 

 

92.

Society.h This latter group was the most important of the reform
societies, because it marks the emergence of the workingman into
British politics.5 The London Corresponding Society was founded
by a shoemaker, Thomas Hardy, on January 25, 1792. 'With dues at
a penny per week, the group attracted between five and ten r-“
thousand unfranchised laborers within eight months.6 Needless to
say, the very composition of this group brought it under suspicion
by the government. A third organization, the Society of the T
Friends of the People, was formed in April, 1792. ‘we have noted L7J
that this group was made up of opulent and relatively advanced
thinking Whig gentlemen who hoped to obtain a.more equal
representation and.more frequent elections.7 Drawn from the
aristocracy, the Friends of'the People emphatically abjured
universal suffrage as an object. Nonetheless, they did not'escape
the baleful scrutiny and oppression of the British ministry.
Charles Fox Joined none of these groups, although he
constantly defended them. He was always a reformer, but his refusal
to connect himself with Hardy's organization.or the Society for

Promoting Constitutional Infermation is readily understood. His

’h
Barnes, p. 303.

 

George Macaulay Trevelyan, Lard Grey of the Reform Bill (London,
1922) , p. 31. .

Veitch, p. 218.

7
See above p. 66.

93.

concept of reform did not embrace their idea of universal
suffrage, "to which he was an avowed enemy." In fact, he even
declined a request by the London Corresponding Society to present
a petition in parliament stating its democratic aims.8 More from
misunderstanding than disinclination, he did not enter the !—-.
Society of the Friends of the People, although he supported its a I
measures.9 Composed of liberal Whigs, this group distinguished

itself from the other reform societies by its moderate aims. Its

tum-m. ”Nan-"‘1 .
,.

declaration for more equal representation in parliament and more
frequent elections is probably the most succinct approximation of
Fox's views on reform adducible. Though he disassociated himself
from these groups, and even disapproved of some of them, Fox
persistently defended their right to organize, discuss, and
publicly work toward the achievement of their goals. It was an
onerous, but commendable, task.

The ministerial attack upon the reformers did not gain
full momentum until the spring of 1792. Previously, Pitt and Burke
had tried to dovetail them with jacobinism.by innuendo, but the

broadside assault did not commence until Grey announced the

 

8

Fox to Thomas Hardy, May 2, 1793. A Complete Collection of
State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and
Hisdemeanors from the Earliest Period to the Year 1803, With Notes
and Other Illustrations, ed.::T. B. Howell and continued from the
year 1783 to the present by Thomas Jones Howell (London, 1818),
XXIV, 791. Hereafter cited as State Trials.

9
See above p. 66.

9h.

objectives of the Friends of the People on April 30, 1792. The
First Minister's reaction to the pronouncement has already been
noted. His assertion that reform would plunge the country into
"anarchy and confusion" indicatesthe attitude which he maintained
toward the subject throughout the revolutionary era. From.1792 ram:
onwards, he accused reformers of trying "to adopt the French
model, not as a temporary, but as a permanent rule of practice,"

and charged that "under the pretence of a parliamentary reform,

(Um‘j.'.‘ 11"." 3U'L.{ ’

‘Zthey7Vwould introduce a tyranny worse than that of Caligula."10
But verbal attacks were merely his softest weapon, for he eventually
employed the legal apparatus of the state to blight the reformers.
Why Pitt abandoned and persecuted a cause which he had championed
during his early years in parliament is difficult to ascertain. The
answer probably lies in his eagerness to split the Whig opposition
and increase his own political strength. The practices of some of
the reform.groups, however, facilitated his efforts to link them
with the jacobins.

The London Corresponding Society and the Society for
Promoting Constitutional Information maintained a felicitous and
innocuous communication.with the French National Convention until the
outbreak of hostilities between.England and France. Congratulatory
addresses to the French were nothing unusual during the early stages

of the Revolution. 'We have seen that the dissenters proffered their

 

10
Parl. Hist., m1, 917, 919.

95.

best wishes to the National Assembly in late 1789, and noted

that "every mail was laden with freash congratulations to the
Jacobin Societies" during the ensuing two years.11 Events

during the summer of 1792 -- the storming of the Tuilieres,
imprisomnent of Louis XVI, and the September massacres -- curtailed
most of this activity. Hardy's organization and the Society for
Promoting Constitutional Information, however, continued to land
the French and even sent emissaries to the National Convention in
late 1792. On November 7, both groups sent a message to the

French legislature expressing a wish for a "Triple Alliance, not

of crowned heads, but of the people of America, France, and Great
Britain [which7 will give liberty to Europe and peace to the
world."12 Through two of its agents in Paris, Joel Barlow and

John Frost, the London Corresponding Society presented the Convention
with a more than tepid address on November 28, declaring that "After
the example given by France, Revolutions will become easy. Reason
is about to make rapid progress; and it would not be extraordinary
if in a much less space of time than can be imagined, the bench

should send addresses of congratulations to a National Convention of

 

England."13 As a token of real empathy, the society followed the
See above pp. 2-3.
12

Quoted in John Holland Rose, Life of William Pitt (New York,
192h), II, pp. 67-68.
13

Quoted in John Holland Rose, II, p. 70.

, —-_. 1 -_- .w-—.—-—-._
rl , . .fl .
‘1

96.

address with a benevolence of 1,000 pair of shoes to the French
army. These ill-timed gestures were strongly denounced and
vilified by the British government.

Ministers condemned these proceedings in the most
hectoring terms when parliament met on December 13. Dundas, the
Home Secretary, culled the London Corresponding Society for
attack, noting that.it was formed "on the model of the affiliated
societies abroad, held a correspondence with France, for the
purpose of overturning the constitution, and.aven sent members to
Paris to procure instructions." Then, with an obvious and

flagrant barb for Hardy's group, he attributed all present discontents
1h

to "the seditious spirit of the lower classes." Burke and some of

the other conservative Whigs joined in chanting against the reformers,

and "their connexion with the band of Frendh robbers and assassins."15

Fox, of course, was equally vituperative in parrying these attempts
to smear the societies with the stench of republicanism. He
acknowledged that some of the reformers had "indulged themselves . . .
in silly and frantic speculations, and . . . published toasts, etc.,
that are objectionable," but he denied that they were connected with

the jacobins or were working for the overthrow of the British

16

constitution. For the nonce, only words were hurled at the societies

and the movement for parliamentary reform continued.

1h

Parl. Hist., XXX, h6.
15__

Parl. Hist., XXX, 55.
16'7

Parl; HiStQ, XXX, 23.

 

The outbreak of hostilities between England and France
neither reduced nor distracted the zeal of the reformers. They
did, of course, cease corresponding with the National Convention,
but the chauvinistic enthusiasm which attends the beginning of
all wars did not abate their eagerness to reapportion representation
in the British legislature. Even Fox, who was no zealot about this
matter, informed a French agent in England on February 2, 1793, that
"We Erasumably the liberal wing of the Whig party or the Friends of
the People] desire a reform; we desire it good, although founded
on [a] constitutional basis. We do not desire a war with France,
if there is no aggression made against Holland; and if this war is
solely to take place to secure the opening of the Scheldt, we will
even present the minister's desire to make war as a desire to
prevent reform."1L7 Many other Englishmen still wanted reform
despite the war. On February 18, a group from Nottingham presented
the House of Commons with a petition for legislative reapportionment
and universal suffrage. Similar petitions were made to parliament
in May by reformers from Sheffield, Norwich, Westminister, Suffolk,
Poole, Warwick, Huddersfield, Dundee, Paisley, Montrose, Perth,
Edinburgh, and numerous other counties and boroughs both in England
and Scotland.18 And on May 6, Charles Grey laid an elaborate motion

 

Quoted in Veitch, pp. 2140441.

18
Parl. Hist., m, 786.

 

 

 

 

98.

for reform before the House in behalf of the Friends of the People.”
All of these measures were disparaged by the ministry, and none
received the approval of the House of Commons. The tenets expressed

in some of the petitions were repugnant to Fox's concept of reform,

but he defended every one of them. f v
Charles Fox's attitude toward parliamentary refom is T
well defined in his defense of these measures. Speaking in their {
behalf did not imply carte blanche approval of their doctrines. E
Some of the petitions contained motions antithetical to Fox's L

concept of reform, and in many cases his defense sprang more from
indignation over the ministry's aspersive tactics than from sympathy
with the measure before the House. Most of the petitions contained
a clause for universal suffrage which Fox considered a most
"extravagant" idea.20 In fact, he declared during the debate on the
Sheffield petition [May 7, 1792] that "there was not in the kingdom
a more steady and decided enemy to general and universal representation,
than himself."21 He explained his aversion to it on grounds of
impracticability, stating that "there was no practical mode of
collecting suffrage, and that by attempting it, what from the
operation of hope on some, fear on others, and all the sinister

means of influence that would certainly be exerted, fewer individual

 

 

Grey's motion is reprinted in Perl. Hist., JOCK, 788-89.
20 -

Parl. Hist., xxx, h62.
21

 

Parl. Hist., xxx, 915.

opinions would be collected than by an appeal to a limited
number."22 This, however, seems to be a superficial explanation.
Fox's aristocratic concept of society, government, and party
probably would.be a more adequate explanation of his antipathy for
universal suffrage. As a reformer, he abjured all thoroughgoing
schemes for revising the British constitution. Distinctly
moderate on this head, he was for examining the old fabric "with
care and reverence," repairing it where it had decayed, amending
it where defective, propping it up where it wanted support, and
passing it on to posterity in an improved condition.23 His
moderate proclivities, however, did not inhibit him from defending
the more extreme reformers, who soon became victims of judicial
tyranny.

During the summer of 1793, the legal machinery of the
state was invoked to crush the reformers. Thomas Muir and.Reverend
Thomas Palmer, two brilliant young men who had agitated for reform
in Scotland, were indicted for sedition, tried by prejudiced judges
and juries, and sentenced to transportation. Muir wastried in
August before the High Court of Justiciary at Edinburgh, presided
over by Lord Braxfield, "the Scottish Jeffreys."2h From the

beginning of the trial he was virtually a condemned man, for Braxfield

22

Parl. HiSto, my 9150
23

Parl. Hist., XXX, 916.
2h

State Trials, XXIII, 117-237.

 

99.

100.

who had prejudged the case, vitiated all chance for fairness by
prevailing on the jurors to "come awa‘, and.help us to hang

ans 0' the damned scoondrels."25 Besides jury meddling, Braxfield
indulged in lengthy political exhortations. Putting the case to
the jury, he wondered "whether it was perfectly innocent or not [use
in Mr. Muir, at such a time, to go about among ignorant country 1
people, and among the lower classes of the people."26 Then he
asked, "What right had they to representation? . . . A Government 3

in every country should be just like a corporation; and in this

 

country, it is made up of the landed interest, which alone has a
right to be represented; as for the rabble, who have nothing but
personal property, what hold has the nation of them?"27 This
oblique procedure secured Muir's conviction, and he was transported
to Botany Bay for fourteen years. Palmer, a scholar and friend of
the late Dr. Samuel Johnson, was tried in September at the Circuit
Court in Perth.28 Although Braxfield did not try the case, the
defendant was doomed since Henry Dundas had recently labeled him
"the most determined rebel in Scotland."29 Palmer was found guilty

of sedition and sentenced to seven years transportation. Emboldened

2SQuoted in Brown, p. 96.
26State TriaIs, XXIII, 229.
27State Trials, XXIII, 231.
283mm Trials, XXIII, 237-82.
29Quoted in Brown, p. 96.

 

101.

by the proceedings in Scotland, Pitt prepared to strike at English
reformers through the courts.

Between Hay and October, 1791;, the British government
worked sedulously and ruthlessly to indict and convict reformers
in England. The trials themselves did not commence until autumn.
Meanwhile, the country experienced a witch-hunt for prodigal
reformers similar to the royalist search conducted by the Jacobin
Club in France. Thomas Hardy, and seven of his followers in the
London Corresponding Society, were arrested and imprisoned for
promoting a convention which, allegedly, intended to conspire against
the British government. Also, the tasty old reformer and linguist
John Horne Tooke was taken into custody besides six members of the
Society for Promoting Constitutional Information. Others were also
arrested. The personal papers of the suspects were seized, their
quarters ransacked, and their families treated with disrespect.30
Some of the prisoners were subjected to lengthy periods of
interrogation by the Privy Council, and accorded contumely and
threats. William Sharp, a member of the Society for Promoting
Constitutional Information, reported that upon refusing to answer
questions put to him by the Council, Pitt blurted "Well, we can do
without his evidence. Let him be sent to prison, and hanged with

the rest of them in the Tower.”31

.15
Brown, pp. 118-19.
1

This was the language of a

 

Quoted in Brown, p. 122.

rfn—lfl‘ux '- uflw ‘fl‘l-j

102.

Jeffreys, but thanks to the good sense of English jurors what
portended to be another "bloody assize" was knocked into a
fiasco.

The British government was discredited and embarrassed

by the state trials of 179B. The evidence adduced against the FT"
defendants charged with treason was flimsy, and not a conviction g
was obtained. Hardy went before the bar on.0ctober 28.32 Jehn P
Scott, later Lord Eldon, opened for the Crown with a nine hour T
speech. Hearing of this, ex-Chancellor Thurlow'exclaimed, "Nine ifi,:

 

33

hours. Then there is no treason, by God!" The shoemaker was

defended by Thomas Erskine, Fox's cohort who had acted as defense
counsel for Tom Paine in 1792. ‘The ordeal lasted nine days
before the case went to the jury, which declared Hardy "not
guilty." The verdict was cheerfully greeted, and the leader of
the Corresponding Society was carried on the shoulders of his

adherents through the Strand, Pall Mall, Piccadilly, and the
3h

Haymarket. Undismayed, the government resumed the prosecutions on

November 17, by setting the redoubtable John Hbrne Tooke before the

bar.35 It could not have selected a more formidable defendant after

the Hardy verdict. The witty, irascible old linguist even eclipsed

State Trials, XXIV, 199-138h.
33 ,

hQuoted in Brown, p. 127.
3

Brown, p. 128.
35

State Trials, XXV, 1-7h8.

 

103.

Erskine in his dexterous cross-examination of government witnesses.
Poking jibes and barbs, he asked permission of the court to hum a
tune in order that it might determine whether or not the limerick
was treasonable, asked the Bishop of Gloucester if Cambridge
University did not confer the master of arts degree upon any
creature capable of answering a rational question, and made the
government's stellar witness, the right honorable Mr. William
Pitt, appear a £001.36 Immediately after withdrawing, the jury
returned with a verdict of "not guilty". The government was
discredited. Many of the reformers were released, and the few
subjected to trials were acquitted. No one had been more
indignant about these trials than Charles Fox.

But as leader of a fractured opposition, there was little
Fox could do except publicly castigate the infamous proceedings.
To no avail, he submitted a protest to Dundas respecting the
sentences of Muir and Palmer,37 and supported a motion in parliament
charging that improper evidence and witnesses had been admitted in
the trials of those two unfortunate Scots. Also, he vehemently
censured Braxfield, whose "ignorance, levity, and hypocrisy," even
surpassed the turpitude which had disgraced the bench during the

reigns of the Stuarts.38 He considered the talk of conspiracy in

 

36
State Trials, XXV, 7h3-hh.
37

38
Parl. Hist., XXX, S69.

Veitch, p. 262.

 

rfifi" .m'T»;5m' Ié'WI '“ “‘7

10h.

England "nonsense," and denounced the arrests of the reformers in
the summer of l79h as "the most mischievous and at the same time
the most foolish" measure yet taken by the British.ministry. To

Fox, there was little difference between.Pitt and Robespierre.39

he
I

Quite understandably, he rejoiced over the acquittals of Hardy,
Tooke, and the others. The decisions in these cases vindicated
his contention that there was no connection between domestic

reform and revolution across the channel. Moreover, as practically

a.-

“I... W' m .2.-LI.-' . . -‘ W" “3.3“
r ‘-
“-

a,"

every historian writing about this period has observed, if the

I

reformers had been convicted of treason Fox, Grey and members of

the opposition probably would have followed them.to the bar.ho
Fortunately, the English courts were not debased into counter-
revolutionary tribunals, and the reform movement continued.

Fox opposed the government's other repressive measures
as strongly as he denounced its attacks on the reformers. He
constantly maintained that there was not the remotest possibility
of revolution in England, and that anyone trying to incite the
people would be "pronounced fitter for Bedlam than for Newgate."h1

As for the influx of French ideas, he believed it so limited "as to

“'39
Fox to Henry, Iord.Ho11and, June 23, l79h. Fox Memorials, III, 77.
he
Before attending Hardy's trial, Grey wrote to his fiance, Miss
Ponsoby: "I believe I shall attend it in order to learn how to conduct
myself when it comes to my turn." Quoted in.Edward Lascelles, Th2
Life of Charles James Fox (London, 1936), pp. 26h-65.

 

Parl. Hist., mm, 928.

afford no serious cause of alarm to any mind of rational constancy."

He was correct. Both contemporaries and modern scholars attest
to the relative calm in England during the French.Revolution.
Probably the most succinct and competent remark about public
tranquillity was made by Sir Samuel.Romilly, the noted legalist, in
July, 179h, when Pitt was trying to resuscitate Star Chamber. "A
great deal, indeed," Romilly wrote to a foreign acquaintance, "has
been said, both here and abroad, of the dangerous designs which
are entertained and cherished by many persons in this country; but
there has not hitherto been the smallest indication by any open'
acts of any such dangers existing; and whatever interruptions of
tranquillity have happened, have been by the too zealous friends
of quiet and good order riotously demonstrating their loyalty and
attachment to the constitution."l‘3 Since there was no internal
disturbance, the ministry fabricated one.

Political pamphleteers as well as reformers were harassed
by the British government. In May, 1792, a royal proclamation
against seditious writings was issued,hh and during the following

months the country was netted with ministerial agents to collect

Parl. Hist., m, 220.

h3
Sir Samuel Romilly to Madame G , July 29, 179k. Romilly

Corr , II, 39.

‘11}:

The proclamation is reprinted in Parl. Hist., XXIX, 1h76-
77.

 

hz

105.

warn

 

106.

"libels" and "seditious tracts."hs The most renowned of all the
publicists, Tom Paine who was now a delegate in the French
Conventidn, had already been tried and convicted, in absentia,
for seditious libel!“6 The trial was a ministerial warning to

Paine's emulators.h7 These measures were denounced by Fox, who

called for the unrestricted circulation of all political tracts. g
He was confident that the good sense of Englishmen would scout é
seditious or absurd doctrines. Moreover, no one in the kingdom a
had more valid grounds for complaining about libelous attacks, I .

 

for almost daily the government's hack writers poured abuse upon
him and Grey. But such squibs as One Pennyworth of Truth, from
Thomas Bull to His Brother John calling for "Destruction to Fox
and all his Jacobin crew" were not suppressed.h8 'While ministers
hunted for seditious libels, they canalized their own scurrilous
ones through the super-patriot John.Reeves, leader of the high-
church, high Tory Crown and.Anchor Association.h9
The government virtually manacled the country with

security measures. we have noted that in December, 1792, the

h;
’Lord'W.'W. Grenville to the Marquis of Buckingham, November 1h,

1792. Court and Cabinets, II, 227. Also, see above p. 2h.
l‘6State Trials, XXII, 3574470.
“John Holland Rose, II, 172.
::Parl. Hist., m, 13h.

 

Brown, pp. 83-8h.

SO

militia was called out to squash imaginary riots and insurrections.
Also, cumbersome restrictions were laid upon foreigners in England,
especially the newly arrived French emigres who were placed on a
probationary status by the Alien bill of 1793. This act obliged
them to reside in prescribed districts and report their movements
to the government. It was carried through parliament by tremulous
anxiety over the influx of revolutionary ideas. IMost of the
legislators feared that unregulated immigration would provide a
causeway for jacobin agents into England. None, however, displayed
their misgivings so grandiosely as Edmund Burke. In speaking for
the Alien bill on December 28, 1792, Burke enacted one of the
wildest and most aberrant scenes known to the chambers of parliament.
After alleging that French agents had ordered 3,000 daggers from a
Birmingham manufacturer, he drew a poniard from.his coat, "and with
much vehemence of action threw it on the floor." He concluded with
a screaming exhortation "to keep the French infection from.this
country; their principles from our minds, and their daggers from
our hearts."51 The fear-provoking tactics, however, did not go
unchallenged.

Sheridan introduced a motion for inquiry into the alleged
seditious practices on February 28, 1793. Ministers, he charged, had

purposely created alarm and suspicion to divert public attention while

T

See above p. 2h.
51
Parl. Hist.,.XXX, 189.

 

107.

108.

they steered the country into war. Also, he called on them to
adduce proof of the insurrections, sedition, and treason which

52

were prattled about on the Treasury Bench. Fox, of course,
supported the motion, and poignantly inquired if it was "a

justifiable expedient of government to tell the public, that

‘ -:‘-§ 7

treasons and conspiracies existed, and neither to prosecute nor
3
endeavour to discover the conspirators and traitors?"S A

provoking question, for aside from.Paine, the government had not

[Fain ml.-. .31.-

prosecuted anyone for political offences during the jacobin scare
of 1792. Nonetheless, Sheridan's motion was defeated and repression
continued. ~

The most odious aspect of the ministry's domestic policy,
however, was not perpetrated until May, l79h. Then, Pitt introduced
a bill in Commons to suspend habeas corpus.Sh This measure signaled
the beginning of his attempt to destroy the reformers by judicial
tyranny. He even premised the motion on the contention that the
societies were seeking to replace the British constitution with a
jacobin system. "Who was there," asked the First Minister, "that

knew what Jacobins and Jacobin principles were, but must see, in the

pretences of reform in parliament held out by the societies, the

 

32

S Parl. H-iSto, m, 52,4.
3 ,
Parl. Hist., XXX, 5h8.

5h
3h George III, 0. 5h. Reprinted in Adams and Stephens, pp. h95-97.

"55

arrogant claims of the same class of men who lorded it in France . .
This reasoning was as fallacious as the measure was presumptuous.
Since the outbreak of the war the societies had severed correspondence
with the French, and their loyalty was unimpeachable.56 Nevertheless,
the bill was passed over the objections of Charles Fox and his
minority of 28 by a vote of 116.57 'we have already seen the
persecuting effects this measure had on the reformers prior to the
state trials in the autumn of 179h. It may not be amiss to note
Fox's virulent opposition to it.

Fox and his followers harangued the Habeas Corpus Suspension
bill unremittingly. He pointed out that during the pastitwo years
the reform societies had met publicly and given copies of their

58

proceedings to the newspapers. Their record was open and clear,

and it was absurd to contend that their transactions demanded a
suspension of habeas corpus. Fox, however, was more fearful about
the ultimate dangers of suspension than the charges leveled against
the societies. So far as he was concerned, all the charges might be
true but he would still oppose suspension. By taking away habeas

corpus, he averred that the cornerstone of the constitution would be

‘17
Parl. Hist., XXXI, 503.
56
This is even acknowledged by Pitt's multi-volume apologist,
John Holland.Rose, II, 167.
S7
Parl. H1313.” MI, 5730
58

Perl, Hist., XXXI, 506.

 

109.

.__ ".1

rrfl‘w

 

destroyed and the personal freedom of every man in the kingdom
would be jeopardized.59 Additionally, he asked, "What was to be
done beyond this? After suspending the Habeas Corpus act, what
would he [Pitt] do more? Would he prohibit all meetings of the
people so as to debar them from.a11 discussions on political
subjects, and prevent all free intercourse between man and man?
And when this should be found ineffectual, would he give to
ministers the power of making arbitrary imprisonment perpetual?
WOuld he still further go on in the exact and horrid imitation of
the men who now held France in anarchy, and establish a revolutionary
tribunal, or what perhaps, he would call an anti-revolutionary
tribunal? 'Where would he stop?"6O Searching questions which were
answered, partially, by the inquisition and state trials of 179h.

In January, 1795, Fox ardently supported Sheridan's motion
to repeal the suspension act. He reminded the Heuse of the
iniquitous proceedings following the act, and noted that its sole
achievement had been to establish the baselessness of the ministry's
allegations of treason. Attempting to justify the suspension act,
Pitt of course was unable to adduce any specific instances of riot or
conspiracy. He merely alluded to "machinations of the disaffected,"
which, he charged, were rendered more dangerous by the speeches of

61
gentlemen on the other side of’the House. Sheridan's motion to

59
Parl. Hist., m1, 510.

Parl. Hist., XXXI, 551-52.
61
Parl. Hist., XXXI, 1189.

 

Inward! unfit-savor nu. ‘ x- - -;: .
it

111.

restore habeas corpus was defeated, and.Englishmen continued to be
deprived of the fundamental safeguard of their liberties.

Ministers, however, soon found a pretext to strangle the
remnants of civil liberty in England. On October 29, 1795, George
III's coach was stoned by a mob when the King came down to open f"
parliament.62 'While proceeding through westminister, the royal
carriage was surrounded by an angry band, of about 60 people,
yelling "No'War! No George!" "Peace! Peace!"63 Before it reached
parliament, the windows were broken by stones or pellets from an
air gun.6h Fortunately, the King was unscathed. This incident
provided ministers with an idyllic opportunity to accomplish what
they had failed to do by the state trials in the previous year.
The outrage upon the King was attributed to the London Corresponding
Society, which had held a mass meeting at Islington on October 27.
Libels, violence, and "treason itself," Pitt claimed, had proceeded
from that meeting.65 Therefore, on November 6, the government

introduced the Treasonable Practices bill in the House of Lords where

 

""3§
Testimonies about the incident may be found in Parl. Hist.,
mil, m.55.
3
6hParl. Hist., XXXII, lh8, 153.
Parl. Hist., XXXII, 150.
65
Parl. Hist., XXXII, 27h.

112.

it was passed a week later.66 This measure inflicted penalties for

treason upon anyone speaking or writing against the British

constitution. Meanwhile, Pitt placed before Commons the Seditious

Meeting bill, which provided that a magistrate must attend any

meeting of fifty or more persons not convened by local authorities.67 [-—-
Also, the magistrate was empowered to stop any speech, arrest any -

speaker, and to disperse the meeting. These measures, commonly

known as the Two Acts, were obviously aimed at the reformers, and

m‘, was". o v
9 -.

they did not pass without causing the most tempestuous debates heard

WWW t.
I“

in parliament during this restless era.

Fox's opposition to these bills is unrivaled by any
exertions he ever made against government measures. When the
Seditious Meetings bill was introduced in Commons on November 10, he
firmly denied that the assault upon the King, which he roundly
deplored, had proceeded from the earlier meeting of the reformers.
Then he pointed out that the right to assemble was a cardinal point
of English freedom, and by depriving the people of the right.to meet,
discuss, and petition against grievances the ministry was inviting
revolution. But this ratiocination did not deter ministers, who

brought into Commons the Treasonable Practices bill when it had been

'66
36 George III. c. 7. Reprinted in The Law and'Working of the
Constitution: Documents l660-l9lh, ed., W. C. Costin and J. Steven
Watson (London, 1952), II, 10-12. Hereafter cited as Costin and Watson.
67
36 George III. c. 8. Reprinted in Costin and watson, II, 12-16.

 

Parl. IfiSto, XXII, 2770

approved by the upper chamber. Since reason apparently had lost
weight with parliament, Fox now assailed the Two Acts and their
authors with unexampled fury. On November 23, he announced in
what may be considered the most violent speech of his career that
if ministers passed these measures, "by means of the corrupt
influence they possessed in the two houses of parliament," he would
go to the people, and "as to their obedience, he should tell them,
that it was no longer a question of moral obligation and duty, but
of prudence." This was not all, for he concluded by charging Pitt
with "glaring and open treason."69 Responding with his natural
invective, the First Minister promised Fox that treason would be
punished wherever it was found.70 He was followed by Windham, now
Secretary at war, who warned Fox that if he exhorted the people to
resist the Two Acts the ministry would “exert a vigour beyond the
law." This brought cries of "Hear, Hear!" and "Take down his
words" from the other side of the House.71 The opposition nmw
prepared to go to the people.

As soon as the nefarious bills were introduced in parliament,
the Whig Club met and decided to place the issue before the public.

On November 11, the Whigs resolved "to rouse the people, before it

 

 

72
becomes too late, to act by any other means than force . . . ."
59
Parl. Hist., XXXII, 383.
70

Parl. Hist., XXXII, 385.
7113ml. Hist., mm, 386.

72
Fox to Henry, Lord Holland, November 15, 1795. Fox Memorials, III,
125. e .

 

 

111;.

Charles Fox considered it an "act of duty to brave all the
73

calumny" which ministers would heap on them, and on November

12 he exhorted 30,000 Englishmen to petition against the Two Acts.7h
He was convinced that ministers were trying to impose despotism,

and anyone who denied it was "a fool, or a hypocrite."75 Only
activity and exertion by those who cherished liberty could "prevent
Mr. Hume's Euthanasia from taking place."76 Fox and the Whigs ”led
the way in this celebrated opposition," but they were joined by
various groups who were equally jealous about English freedom. The
London Corresponding Society, the electors of Westminister, and the
freeholders of Middlesex also held mass meetings and remons trated
against the impending legislation.77 Moreover, the agitation was
not confined to the politically articulate. According to the Ln_n__t_l_a_l_
Register the Two Acts caused alarm "in every part of the nation," and
there never had been "in the memory. of the oldest man, so firm and
decided a plurality of adversaries to the ministerial measures as on
this occasion: the interest of the public seemed so deeply at stake,
that individuals, not only of the decent, but of the most vulgar

professions, gave up a considerable portion of their time and

 

 

 

73
Fox to Henry, Lord Holland, November 15, 1795. Fox Memorials,
III, 121;.
7b
Parl. Hist., XXXII, 31:1.
7?

Fox to Henry, Lord Holland, November 15, 1795. Fox Memorials,
III, 125.

76 ,
Fox to Henry, Lord Holland, December 21;, 1795. Fox Memorials,
III, 129. .

77
Annual Register, XXXVIII, ho.

115.

occupations in attending the numerous meetings that were called
in every part of the kingdom, to the professed intent of
counteracting this attempt of the ministry."78 The government,
however, employed its own extra-parliamentary tactics.

To counter petitions against the Two Acts, ministers ,_.fl
sent agents into the country to circulate addresses favoring the
bills. Besides distributing propaganda, "the spies," as Fox
termed them,79 obtained the signatures of customs and excise

officials, military men and other "ministerial dependents" on

rfi'f‘t=.m.§_ear‘¢n '... .‘ , ,1 v as ' .—
. .. -_ .
a

petitions approving the measures. Despite their exertions, the

agents were able to produce only 6h petitions bearing about 30,000
signatures favoring the bills in contrast to the 100 remonstrances
loaded with 130,000 signatures against the Two Acts. The ministry

was also assisted, and embarrassed, by John Reeves, head of the

Crown and Anchor Society as well as the Association against Republicans
and Levellers, whose ultramonarchical fanaticism.prompted.him.to make
disparaging utterances about the British legislature. In a zealous
defense of the bills, Reeves compared the constitution to a tree,
likening kingship to the trunk and lords and commons to branches

which might be ”lopped off" and "cast into the fire."80 Even ministers

found this language repugnant, and the chauvinist was cited for libel

73
Annual Register; XXXVIII, 39-h0.

79

8 Annual.Register, XXXVIII, 33.

0
Annual Register, XXXVIII, hl.

 

of parliament.81

Unfortunately, the Treasonable Practices bill and the
Seditious Meeting bill were ratified by parliament in early
December, 1795. Empowered to control, or even prohibit public
meetings, the government now could smash the reform societies, or
any other group which sought the redress of grievances. Awaiting
its demise, the London Corresponding Society voted an address of
thanks to Fox "for his determined, and unequivocal opposition to
these Bills both in and out of Parliament."82 The battle, however,
had left him worn and discouraged. Continued opposition in
parliament seemed useless, since Pitt's majority had virtually
given the First Minister dictatorial powers. Moreover, there was
little hope of extra-parliamentary resistance after the passage of
the Two Acts, for as Fox remarked to his nephew in February, 1796,
"the whole country seems dead."83 Therefore, he soon acceded to
the idea of secession from parliament.

The Whig secession from parliament in 1797 was a most

imprudent maneuver. Firstly, it was ineffective as it kept no

 

81

The debates concerning Reeves' libel of parliament may be found

in Parl. Hist., XXXII, 308-82.
82

Quoted in J. L. Le Bret Hammond, Charles James Fox: A Political

Study (London, 1903), p. 125, n. l.

3
Fox to Henry, lord Holland, February 18, 1796. Fox Memorials,

III, 129.

116.

Fmb‘m€w fie (m .. . 1.3!}: if]
. a ‘ -.

semblance of agreement or unity. During the following four'or

five years, individual Whigs crept back to the opposition benches,
thereby giving the impression that the party had completely
dissolved. Secondly, secession meant the end of systematic
opposition, and desertion of public duty by the Whigs. As Sir George
Macaulay Trevelyan has observed, the House of Commons was the one
place in the kingdom where Pitt could not silence discussion. So
long as the government could be publicly denounced it was derelict
of the Whigs to abandon opposition. Moreover, the newspapers still
printed parliamentary debates, and they were about the only
remaining means by which the minority could reach the people without
fear of prosecution.8h 'we have already seen that Charles Fox
acquiesced in the secession, "from indolence rather than from
judgement," and disported himself at St. Anne's Hill during the
ensuing five years. Not all of his leisure, however, was devoted

to Mrs. Armitstead and.Ariosto.

During this interlude, Fox's rashness exceeded his bitterness

over political matters. His remarks about hating ministers, and
delighting in the triumphs of the French government over the English
have been noted.85 In early 1798, however, he came perilously close
to imprisonment in the Tower. On January 2h, the Duke of Norfolk

delivered a fiery speech to a group celebrating Fox's birthday at

78h
Trevelyan, p. 99.

85
See above p. 57.

 

117.

 

118.

the Crown and Anchor Tavern. He denounced the government, compared
the Whig leader to Washington as a champion of liberty, and ended
by proposing that the company "drink our Sovereign's health - the
majesty of the People."86 Learning of the toast, the ministry
dismissed.the Duke from.his command of a militia regiment and from
the Lord Lieutenancy of the west Riding. Rankling with indignation
over these cavalier tactics, Fox defiantly repeated Norfolk's toast
at a.meeting of the Whig Club on May 11, and also exhorted his

followers "to use every effort to shake off the yoke of our English

 

tyrants."87 Hearing of this audacity, Pitt had Fox's name struck
from the Privy Council list and even suggested a stay in the Tower
fer his incorrigible adversary.88 Soberer counsel prevailed, and
Fox was not immured. But this brush with authority did not deter
him, and he continued to assail the British government with unabated
ferocity -- thereby becoming the only man in England who could
successfully defy Pitt.

During the era of the Revolution and war with.France, the
British government imposed an excruciating policy of repression. It
bore most heavily upon reformers, particularly those who sought the
achievement of annual parliammts and universal suffrage. They were

investigated, interrogated, and even arraigned for treason. Fortunately,

they were acquitted by English jurors who refused to imitate the

86
Quoted in Lascelles, p. 28h.

87
Quoted in.Hemmond, p. 13h.

8
8 Lascelles, p. 285.

 

119.

jacobin tribunals, and the acquittals vindicated Charles Fox's
contention that domestic reform had no affinity with revolution
in France. Fox, of course, assailed the repression as tirelessly
as he defended the reformers. He had no sympathy with some of

the societies, whose democratic notions about parliamentary reform

 

Free
were quite alien to his aristocratic concept of government. -
Nevertheless, he persistently spoke for their right to organize,

discuss, and publicly work for the achievement of their goals. é
Everyone of the government's measures met his implacable

resistance. The proclamation against seditious writings, calling
out the militia, the Alien bill, the Habeas Corpus Suspension bill,
the state trials, and the Two Acts were virulently opposed and
denounced by Fox. In opposing the Two Acts, he even tried "to
rouse the people" by public meetings. But his efforts were
ineffectual against Pitt's servile majority in parliament, and he
despairingly abandoned the British legislature in 1797. His
resistance continued, however, and even the threat of imprisonment

failed to deter the opposition of Charles James Fox.

120.

CONCLUSION

Charles Fox totally misconstrued the French Revolution.
To him, it was a great stroke for liberty similar to the Glorious
Revolution of 1688. The French people, he believed, were only r*‘
trying to dilute Bourbon despotism with constitutional safeguards

for personal and political freedom. Through their reanimated

"5"! r ‘.,.'

legislature, they were contesting for "the rights of man" against

royal absolutism. Herein, Fox believed, was the parallel between

I."

the French upheaval and the event of 1688, since "the rights of
man" were precisely those things achieved by the British over the
last Stuart despot. He was completely mistaken. The French
Revolution bore no affinity to the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
Entranced with the notion of universal."Liberty", he ignored the
implications of "Equality and Fraternity". A recognition and
understanding of these doctrines undoubtedly would have dispirited
his enthusiasm over the Revolution. As leader of the aristocratic
party in England, with aversion for universal suffrage, he certainly
would not have championed the upheaval if he had recognized it as
an egalitarian crusade. Oblivious to its full import, he entered
into a half-understood defense of a movement entirely antithetical
to his own concept of society and government.

Fox was more realistic about France's militant foreign

policy. He looked askance at Dumouriez's conquest of the Austrian

Netherlands, the National Convention's decree opening the Scheldt
River and the decree of November 19, 1792, pledging French arms

to any people wishing to depose their crowned rulers. He considered
these offences as grounds for complaint, but not for war. He

sought to avert hostilities by recognizing the French.Republic and
sending a minister to Paris. He was not calling for peace at any
price, as he strongly recommended that negotiations should be

backed by a large-scale armament. Parliament, of course, rejected
his motion for restoring regular diplomatic relations with France,
and considering the National Convention's bellicose attitude in late
1792, it is doubtful that Fox's proposal would have succeeded in
averting war. Aside from recognizing the Republican regime and
sending a minister to Paris, the British ministry pursued a
negotiation with the French plenipotentiary along the lines Fox had
suggested. The talks collapsed, however, and France declared war on
England and the United Provinces. Fox supported the prosecution of
the war so long as England's sole objective was to repel French
aggression. He even tried to restrict the government's war policy

to this objective by parliamentary resolution, and when the French
armies were thrown back in June, 1793, he demanded peace negotiations.
Then, however, it appeared that Pitt intended to continue hostilities
in league with the crowned despots of Europe until the Revolution was
smothered and the Bourbons restored. Abhorring this object, Fox

withdrew his support of the war. Henceforth, he clamored for peace

121.

H‘Wfi‘mm‘fi 9‘3. f. a .'..‘-o“‘.-
. -n. '

 

_—

122.

negotiations, tried to frustrate the government's war policy,
reduce England's support of the first coalition, and embarrass
ministers by votes of censure. It was an admirable but
ineffectual opposition, owing to the break up of the Whig party.
As parliamentary leader of the Whig aristocracy, Fox Peaj
was not very successful. His lifelong effort to reduce the
influence of the Crown, and its overwhelming majority in parliament,
was blunted by George III's skillful distribution of the civil A

list. Though rooted in feudal elitism, his concept of government

 

and party did embrace the notion of ministerial responsibility to

a majority in parliament -- a notion peculiar to nineteenth and
twentieth century political development. It was a device Fox would
have liked to use to wrest control of ministerial posts and patronage
from the royal prerogative. His enthusiasm over the Revolution and
his opposition to the war with France undermined his control of the
Whig party. Alarmed by Fox's attitude, the conservative members
threatened to desert to the ministerial ranks. Their apprehensions
were exacerbated by Pitt who compounded Fox with the jacobins, and
their eagerness to join the government was encouraged by the First
Minister's offers of high and lucrative places. Between June and
January, 1792, the Whig leader held his party intact by exposing Pitt's
devious means to cleave the opposition and by his complete sway over
the Duke of Portland. During the ensuing two years, however, numerous

'Whigs drifted into the ministerial camp individually. Finally, in

123.

July, l79h, Portland and his followers openly abandoned Fox and
coalesced with the ministry. This reduced the Whig opposition
to Charles Fox and about thirty adherents, who struggled on under
the incubus of jacobinism in their efforts to achieve needed
reforms and to obstruct the ministry's policy of repression. ,hg
‘With the outbreak of the French.Revolution, a number of
societies advocating parliamentary reform emerged in England. Most
of them proposed such schemes as annual parliaments or universal a

suffrage. Eschewing these doctrines, Fox joined none of the

 

organizations. His ideas about parliamentary reform did not extend
beyond the elimination of the most flagrantly rotten boroughs and a
partial redistribution of legislative seats. As a leader of the
aristocratic party, he was not for broadening the electorate.
Nevertheless, he vigorously defended the reform societies from the
ministry's aspersive onslaught, and tirelessly proclaimed their

right to organize, discuss and publicly work toward their objectives.
The acquittals of the reformers in the state trials of 179h may be
regarded as vindications of his contention that domestic reform had
no kinship with revolution abroad. Besides the attack upon the
reformers, Fox assailed every other repressive measure introduced by
the British government. Believing in the unrestricted circulation

of ideas, he deplored the proclamation against seditious writings,

he denounced the ministry's effort to create a jacobin scare by calling

out the militia, assailed the Alien bill, harangued the Habeas Corpus

12h.

Suspension bill as an act of tyranny, and exhorted the people to
oppose the Two Acts by every non-violent means. Ineffectual
against the government‘s overwhelming majority in parliament, he
seceded from the legislature in 1797. His opposition, however,
continued notwithstanding Pitt's threat of imprisonment. It was
an intrepid stand. In the era of the Revolution and the war with
France, two obstacles stood between England and despotism -- the

fleet and Charles James Fox.

125.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

This is a selective bibliographical note. That is, I
discuss only those works which were germane to the study, relied
upon heavily, and cited extensively in the footnotes. Other F“
items, which I am aware of and have "looked at," but deemed of i

secondary importance to the essay, are included in the complete

:Gmfi't" ' 7'

bibliographical list following the note.

_'_

r‘.‘ 1 V '

Primary Sources:
The most important source for the study was The

Parliamentary History of England, From the Earliest Period to the

 

Year 1803, ed., T. C. Hansard. 36 vols. London, 1817. Besides the
debates in both houses of parliament, this collection includes
division lists, royal proclamations, treaties, diplomatic
correspondence, and pertinent selections from contemporary
newspapers. It is an indispensable source for the study of English
political history in any period. It is of pre-eminent importance

to a study of Charles Fox, who spent practically his entire adult
life in Commons. Significant, but disappointing, were the Memorials
and Correspondence of Charles James Fox, ed., Lord John.Russell.

h vols. London, l85h. A more inept, inadequate, and abominably poor
job of editing is unimaginable. Russell, a nineteenth century Whig
leader, obviously omitted material which did not reflect favorably

upon his predecessor. Consequently, the edition is marred by

126.

cavernous lacunae. For example, no correspondence is included for
the year 1790, and.only two letters are reprinted for the year

1791. Lamentable omissions, for it was during these two years

that Fox's ideas about the Revolution were germinating. Furthermore,

the selections are poorly arranged. In short, this is a thoroughly

“3‘ fl
,?.
.5

incompetent edition. Since Fox was a rash, outspoken leader of the
opposition during most of his career, the investigator does not have
to bore deeply to ascertain his political policy, tactics, and

maneuvers. To make tenable appraisals of his leading adversaries,

1..." Wm _h.r.-‘~ O'J;

however, requires drilling through bedrock. The most important
materials concerning Willian Pitt repose, unpublished, in the Public
Records Office in England. But illuminating glimpses of the First
Minister may be found in the Memoirs of the Court and Cabinets of
George the Third, from Orginal Family Documents, ed. , The Duke of
Buckingham and Chandos. h vols. London, 1853. Letters from Lord
Grenville to his brother the Duke of Buckinghan are contained in
this collection. Not a few of them reveal Pitt‘s hand in the
jacobin scare and the repressive policy. Additional Grenville
correspondence is located in The Manuscripts of J. B. Fortescue,fiEsq.,
Preserved at Dropmore, ed., Historical Manuscripts Commission. 10
vols. London, 189h. Diplomatic notes compose the bulk of this
collection, although some of Pitt's personal letters are included.
Interesting is the Correspondence of the Right Honourable Edmund

Burke;, Between the Year 17hh, and the Period of His Decease,gin 1797,

12?.

ed., Charles William, Earl Fitzwilliam and.Sir'Richard Bourke.
h vols. London, 18hh. Burke's letters between 1789 and 1797

depict, even more vigorously than the Reflections, his prodigous

 

and malignant abhorrence for anything or anyone promoting change.

His correspondence abounds with wild lashes at the reformers whom

he denounced as "abettors of treason and murder." About the only
significant items, however, are his letters to the British

government prior to February 1, 1793, imploring it to invade France
and smother the Revolution. This collection is not a paragon of
editing, and considerable material has been.omitted. Memoranda of
another Whig who deserted Fox:may be found in The Diary of the Right
Hon. William Windham, ed., Mrs. Henry Baring. London, 1866.

Although Windham followed Burke into reaction against the Revolution,
he did.maintain a degree of equilibrium, and was able to make fairly
astute observations on political affairs. Probably the most balanced
account of British politics in the era of the Revolution may be

found in the Memoirs of the Life of Sir Samuel.Romilly, Written by
Himself; with a Selection from His Correspondence, edited by his
sons. 3 vols. London, 18h0. Romilly was a staunch Whig, but he was
also a firm minded lawyer who was not duped by political ballyhoo.
The most informative and detailed source concerning the disintegration
of the Whig party in 1792 and 1793 is the Diaries and Correspondence
of James Harris, First Earl of Malmesbury, ed., Third Earl of

Malmesbury. h vols. London, 18h5. Malmesbury recorded every turn

 

128.

during the negotiations between the conservative Whigs and Pitt.
He was an accurate observer, capable of clearheaded analyses.
Another source upon the subject is The Political Memoranda of
Francis Fifth Duke of Leeds, ed., Oscar Browning. Camden Soc.,
New Ser., No. 35. London, 188h. Leeds, a rather dull witted
fellow, had a talent for blundering into and.muddling through E.
webbed situations, the gravity of which.usually struck him while i
he was recording in his journal. A thorough account of the

reform.societies and their activities in this period emerged

 

during the treason trials of 179h. Hence, a full reservoir on ””'
the subject may be tapped in.A Complete Collection of State Trials

and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanors

from the Earliest Period to the Year l783,gwith Notes and Other

Illustrations, ed., T. E. Howell and continued from the year 1783

to the present time by Thomas Jones Howell. 33 vols. London,

182h. A contemporary review of political events is The Annual

‘Rggister, or a View of the History, Politics and Literature for

the Year ---, 197 vols. London, 1758 +. Two competent editions

 

of statutes and royal proclamation are: Select Documents of English
Constitutional History, ed., George Burton.Adams and.H. Morse
Stephens. New York, 1923. The Law and Working_of the Constitution:
Documents 1660-19lh, eds., W. C. Costin and J. Steven Watson. 2 vols.

London, 1952.

129.

Secondary Sources:

The only noteworthy biography of Fox is Edward Lascelles,
The Life of Charles James Fox. London, 1936. This is the least of
many inferior works about the Whig leader, since a perfunctory
effort was made to invest it with an aura of scholarship. With a F“*'
dearth of competent secondary works about Fox, one is obliged to
peer at him through the principal studies of his rival, Pitt. ;
Superior among these is Donald G. Barnes, George III and'William i

Pitt, 1783-1806. Stanford, 1939. The thesis of the book is that

 

 

the younger Pitt was not the first Prime Minister free from royal
control, but merely another of George III's political hirelings.
Ancillary to his discussion of the King and Pitt, the author gives

a clear appraisal of Fox's role in British politics during the
latter portion of the eighteenth century. A ponderous biography,
freighted.with detail about English and European politics during
this period, is John Holland Rose, Life of William Pitt. 2 vols.
New York, l92h. The book is valuable for informative, but not for
interpretative purposes. A monograph centered upon Pitt's career

in the era of the Revolution is W. T. Laprade, England and the
French Revolution, 1789-1797, Johns Hepkins University Studies in
Historical and Political Science. Ser. XXVII. Nos. 8-12. Baltimore,
1909. The author maintains that Pitt virtually achieved dictatorial
powers in this period by employing fear provoking tactics. He also

gives a competent account of Fox during the period. An old and

130.

laudatory biography of Pitt, significant only because of some of
the First Minister's correspondence reprinted in the appendices,
is Earl Stanhope, Life of the Right Honourable William Pitt.

h vols. London, 1861. There are two excellent studies of the
reform movement during this era. Activities of the reformers Pym
are covered in chapters 5 through 7 of George Stead Veitch, Genesis ‘
of Parliamentary Reform. London, 1913. This is an incisive and
admirable study, and the author is not very complimentary toward

Fox as a reformer. A monograph concerning the reform societies

 

which emerged after the outbreak of the Revolution is Philip
Anthony Brown, The French Revolution in English History. London,
1918. Another biography, whose panegyrical timber nearly
overshadows the hitherto unpublished material set forth, is George
Macaulay Trevelyan, Lord Grey of the Reform Bill. London, 1929.
Some correspondence, heretofore unpublished, is reproduced
illuminating aspects of Grey's early political career. The book,
however, discloses no more than one would expect from a Whig
historian writing about a Whig statesmen at the request of the
latter's descendants. For a general view of the era through a
French prism, I consulted Leo Gershoy, The French Revolution and

Napoleon. New York, 19h7.

131.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL LIST

PRIMAR Y SOURCES :

, The.Annua1.Register,_or a View of the History,_Politics
and'Literature, for the Year ---. 197 vols. ‘London,

1758 +.

Adams, George Burton, and H. Morse Stephens, eds., Select Documents {T
of English Constitutional History. NewaOrk, 1923. V

 

Baring, Mrs. Henry, ed., The Diary of the Right Hon. William Windham.
London, 1866.

Browning, Oscar, ed., The Political Memoranda of Francis Fifth Duke of i
LEEQE- Camden 50°09 New Ser., No. 35,'Westminister, 188k. ;_

 

Buckingham and Chandos, The Duke of, ed., Memoirs of the Court and
Cabinets of George the Third, from.0riginal Family
Documents. hvols. London, 1853.

 

Costin, W. C., and J. Steven Watson, eds., The Law and Working of the
Constitution: Documents 1660-19IQ. 2 vols. London, 1952.

 

*Fortescue, Sir John, ed., The Correspondence of King George the Third
From 1760 to December 1783. 6 vols. TLondon, 1927.

Hansard, T. 6., ed., The Parliamentgry History of England, From the
Earliest Period to the Year 1803. 36 vols. London, 1817.

*Harcourt, Reverend Leveson Vernon, ed., The Diaries and Correspondence
of the Right Hon. George Rose: Containing'Original Letters
of the Host Distinguished Statesman ofVHis Day. 2 vols.
London,31860.

 

‘*Historical Manuscripts Commission, ed., The Manuscripts of the Earl of
Carlisle, Preserved at Castle Howard: ’London, 1897:*

 

. The Manuscripts of J. B. Fortescue,_Esq., Preserved at
Dropmore. 10 vols.. London, 189h.

Howell, T. B., and Thomas Jones Howell, eds., A Complete Collection of
State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other
‘Crimes and Misdemeanors from the‘Earliest Period to the
‘Year 1783, With Notes and Otharilllustrations. 4Continued
from the year 1783 to the present time by Thomas Jones
Howell. 33 vols. London, 182h.

 

 

 

 

* Sources not discussed in the bibliographical note.

 

o
x
J
C
n a I .
O
.u‘fl’l la.
. u
g - -
. e e V ‘
.. .
. . .
. c 0 e e
n
a a e
O a v o
. - o l
I . .
. , u g
n e o c
O Q o
n
c
C Q
‘ .
e
O ‘ I
I ~ . .
O v e
s . e
.
e
.
o . , .
g

 

 

 

132.

*Lewis, W. S., and A. Doyle Wallace, eds., Horace Walpole's Correspondence
with Mary and Agnes Berry and Barbara—CeciliaTeton. 2 vols.
New Haven, 19149.

 

 

Malmesbury, Third Earl of, ed. , Diaries and Correspondence of James
Harris, First Earl of Malmesbury. 1; vols. London, 181:5.

*Merivale, Herman, ed., Memoirs of Sir Philip Francis. 2 vols. London,
1867.

*Minto, the Countess of, ed., Life and Letters of Sir Gilbert Elliot, 2
First Earl of MintoLfrom 1751 to 1806. 2 vols. London, 1871:.

*Pellew, George, ed. , The Life and Correspondence of the Right
Honourable Henry Addfifipon, First Viscount Sidmouth. 3 vols.
London, 18h7.

 

 

Romilly, William, John, Edward, Henry, Charles, Frederick, eds. , Memoirs
of the Life of Sir Samuel Romilly, Written g1 Himself , with
a Selection From His Correspondence. 3 vols. London, 1810.

Russell, Lord John, ed. , Memorials and Correspondence of Charles James
For. 1; vols. London, 1851;.

William, Charles, Earl Fitzwilliam, and Sir Richard Bourke, ed. ,
Correspondence of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke 1 Between

the Year 17M. and the Period of TIis DeceaseLin 1797.
I; vols. London, 18141;.

SECONDARY SOURCES
Barnes, Donald 0., George III and'William Pitt,_l783-1806. Stanford, 1939.

Brown, Philip Anthony, The French ngolution in English History. London,
1918.

*Cone, Carl B. , Torchbearer of Freedom: The Influence of Richard Price
on Eighteenth Century Thought. Lexington, 1952.

Gershoy, Leo, The French Revolution and Napoleon. New York, 191:7.

*Hall, Walter P. , "British Radicalism," Columbia University Studies in
HistoryL Economics and Public Law. vols. XIJX. New York, 1912.

*Hammond, J. L. LeBret, Charles James Fox: A Political Stu_dy. London, 1903.

133.

*Hobhouse, Christopher, Fox. Boston, 1935.

*Holland, Henry Richard, Lord, Memoirs of the Whig Party During My Time,
ed., Henry Edward, Lord Holland, 2 vols. London, 1852.

W. T. Laprade, England and the French Revolution, 1789-1797, Johns
Hopkinflniversity Studies in Historical and Political
Science. Ser. XXVII. Nos. 8-12. Baltimore, 1909.

Lascelles, Edward, The Life of Charles James Fox. London, 1936. 'P‘

*Madelin, Louis, The French Revolution. New York, 1928.

*Moore, Thomas, Memoirs of the Life of Richard Brinsley Sheridan. 2
vols. London, 1826.

Rose, John Holland, Life of William Pitt. 2 vols. New York, 1921:.

 

*Russell, Iord JOhD: The Life and Times of Charles James Fox. 3 vols. .1...
London, 1859.

Stanhope, Earl, Life of the Right Honourable William Pitt. 1: vols.
London, 1861.

*Stephen, Leslie, ed. , Dictionary of National Bigm. 63 vols.
London, 1889.

Trevelyan, George Macaulay, Lord Grey of the Reform Bill. London, 1929.

* . British History in the Nineteenth Century and After; 1782-
1919. London, 1937.

*Turberville, A. 8., Egglish Men and Manners in the Eighteenth Century.
Oxford, 19 6

Veitch, George Stead, Genesis of Parliamentary Reform. London, 1913.

CONTEMPCRARY LITERATURE:

*Burke, Edmund, Reflections on the Revolution in France, ed. , Oskar Piest.
The library of Liberil Arts Ser., No. E5. New York, 1955.

. Appeal from the New to the 01d Whigs. London, 1791.

 

13h.

*Canning, George, "The Rovers, or, The Double Arrangement"; _____, and
J. H. Frere, "The Friend of Humanity and the Knife
Grinder". . "The Progress of Man, Canto Twenty-
Third"; , William Gifford and George Ellis, "New
Morality," A Collection of English Poems, 1660-1880, ed. ,
Ronald S. Crane. Now York, 1932.

 

*Paine, Thomas, "Rights of Man"; "Rights of Man, Part Second";
"The Age of Reason"; "The Age of Reason, Part Second," P-
The Complete Writings of Thomas Paine, ed., Philip S. 4‘
Eaner. 2 vols. New York, 19145.

ARTICLES:

 

s". a, A’”"—‘. - ' . 'l, . -\

-"-Cone, Carl B. , "Pamphlet Replies to Burke's Reflections, " ' ‘ \.
Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, XXVI (1915-1,6) , -1,
2'3140

at . "English Reform Ideas During the French Revolution,"
Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, XXVII (l9h6-h7),
368-811.

 

*Taylor, A. J. P., "Charles James Fox, champion of liberty,‘'
Manchester Guardian Weekly. vol. 75. No. 12, September
'20, 1956, 11.

l . .....IL h!‘.nlllr(l.“

 

"'Cxfiififififikflimflj“fififliijflifliflflflfiflflfifS