the House. In many respects, he was peculiarly qualified for such a station. He had a fine, genial spirit, characteristic of the family, which drew his political friends around him with all the warmth of a personal attachment. "He was a man," said Mr. Burke, soon after their separation from each other, "who was made to be loved." His feelings were generous, open, and manly; the gaming-table had not made him, as it does most men, callous or morose; he was remarkably unassuming in his manners, yet frank and ardent in urging his views; he was above every thing like trick or duplicity, and was governed by the impulses of a humane and magnanimous disposition. These things, in connection with his tact and boldness, qualified him preeminently to be the leader of a Whig Opposition; while his rash turn of mind, resulting from the errors of his early training, would operate less to his injury in such a situation, and his very slight regard for political consistency would as yet have no opportunity to be developed.

It was with these characteristics, that, at the end of the long struggle which drove Lord North from power, Mr. Fox came into office as Secretary of State under Lord Rockingham, in March, 1782. This administration was terminated in thirteen weeks by the death of his Lordship, and Mr. Fox confidently expected to be made prime minister. But he had now to experience the natural consequences of his reckless spirit and disregard of character. The King would not, for a moment, entertain the idea of placing at the head of affairs a man who, besides his notorious dissipation, had beggared himself by gambling, and was still the slave of this ruinous passion. Nor was he alone in his feelings. Reflecting men of the Whig party, who were out of the circle of Mr. Fox's immediate influence, had long been scandalized by the profligacy of his life. In 1779, Dr. Price, who went beyond him in his devotion to liberal principles, remarked with great severity on his conduct, in a Fast Sermon which was widely circulated in print. "Can you imagine," said he, " that a spendthrift in his own concerns will make an economist in managing the concerns of others? that a wild gamester will take due care of the state of a kingdom? Treachery, vanity, and corruption must be the effects of dissipation, voluptuousness, and impiety. These sap the foundations of virtue; they render men necessitous and supple, ready at any time to fly to a court in order to repair a shattered fortune and procure supplies for prodigality." In addition to this, Mr. Fox had made himself personally obnoxious to George III., by another exhibition of his rashness. He had treated him with great indignity in his speeches on the American war, pointing directly to his supposed feelings and determinations in a manner forbidden by the theory of the Constitution, and plainly implying that he was governed by passions unbecoming his station as a King, and disgraceful to his character as a man. It is difficult to understand how Mr. Fox could allow himself in such language (whatever may have been his private convictions), if he hoped ever to be made minister; and it was certainly to be expected, for these reasons as well as those mentioned above, that the King would never place him at the head of the government while he could find any other man who was competent to fill the station. He accordingly made Lord Shelburne prime minister early in July, 1782, and Mr. Fox instantly resigned.

This step led to another which was the great misfortune of his life. Parties were so singularly balanced at the opening of the next Parliament, in December, 1782, that neither the minister nor any of his opponents had the command of the House. According to an estimate made by Gibbon, Lord Shelburne had one hundred and forty adherents, Lord North one hundred and twenty, and Mr. Fox ninety, leaving a considerable number who were unattached. Early in February, 1783, a report crept abroad, that a coalition was on the tapis between Mr. Fox and Lord North. The story was at first treated as an idle tale. A coalition of some kind was indeed expected, because the government could not be administered without an amalgamation

of parties; but that Mr. Fox could ever unite with Lord North, after their bitter animosities and the glaring contrast of their principles on almost every question in politics, seemed utterly incredible. There was nothing of a personal nature to prevent an arrangement between Lord Shelburne and Lord North; but Mr. Fox had for years assailed his opponent in such language as seemed forever to cut them off from any intercourse as men, or any union of their interests as politicians. He had denounced him as "the most infamous of mankind," as "the greatest criminal of the state, whose blood must expiate the calamities he had brought upon his country;" and, as if with the express design of making it impossible for him to enter into such an alliance, he had, only eleven months before, said of Lord North and his whole ministry in the House of Commons: "From the moment I should make any terms with one of them, I would rest satisfied to be called the most infamous of mankind. I could not for an instant think of a coalition with men who, in every public and private transaction as ministers, have shown themselves void of every principle of honor and honesty in the hands of such men I would not trust my honor even for a minute." Still, rumors of a coalition became more and more prevalent, until, on the 17th of February, 1783, says Mr. Wilberforce, in relating the progress of events, "When I reached the House, I inquired,' Are the intentions of Lord North and Fox sufficiently known to be condemned?' 'Yes,' said Henry Banks, and the more strongly the better.'" The debate was on Lord Shelburne's treaty of peace with America; and every eye was turned to the slightest movements of the ex-minister and his old antagonist, until, at a late hour of the evening, Lord North came down from the gallery where he had been sitting, and took his place by Mr. Fox. His Lordship then arose, and attacked the treaty with great dexterity and force, as bringing disgrace upon the country by the concessions it made. Mr. Fox followed in the same strain, adding, in reference to himself and Lord North, that all causes of difference between them had ceased with the American war. The Coalition was now complete! The debate continued until nearly eight o'clock the next morning, when Lord Shelburne was defeated by a majority of sixteen votes, and was compelled soon after to resign.

Next came the Coalition Ministry. To this the King submitted with the utmost reluctance, after laboring in vain first to persuade Mr. Pitt to undertake the government, and then to obtain, as a personal favor from Lord North, the exclusion of Mr. Fox. So strong were the feelings of his Majesty, that he hesitated and delayed for six weeks, until, driven by repeated addresses from the House, he was compelled to yield; and this ill-fated combination came into power on the 2d of April, 1783, with the Duke of Portland as its head, and Mr. Fox and Lord North as principal secretaries of state." The occurrence of this coalition," says Mr. Cooke, one of Mr. Fox's warmest admirers, "is greatly to be deplored, as an example to men who, without any of the power, may nevertheless feel inclined to imitate the errors of Fox. It is to be deplored as a blot on the character of a great man, as a precedent which strikes at the foundation of political morality, and as a weapon in the hands of those who would destroy all confidence in the honesty of public men."5 The laxity of principle which it shows in Mr. Fox may be traced to the errors of his early education. It was the result of the pernicious habit in which he was trained of gratifying every desire without the least regard to consequences, and the still more pernicious maxims taught him by his father" that brilliant talents would atone for every kind of delinquency, and that in politics, especially, any thing would be pardoned to a man of great designs and splendid abilities." Certain it is that Mr. Fox could never understand why he was condemned so severely for his union with Lord North. As an opponent, he had spoken of him, indeed, in rash and bitter terms, but never with a malignant spirit, for nothing

3 Age of Pitt and Fox, vol. i., 145.

5 History of Party, vol. iii., 316.

4 Fox's Speeches, vol. ii., 39.

was farther from his disposition; and, knowing the character of the men, we can credit the statement of Mr. Gibbon, who was intimate with both, "that in their political contests these great antagonists had never felt any personal animosity; that their reconciliation was easy and sincere; and that their friendship had never been clouded by the shadow of suspicion and jealousy." Every one now feels that Mr. Fox uttered his real sentiments when he said, "It is not in my nature to bear malice or ill will; my friendships are perpetual; my enmities are not so: amicitiæ sempiternæ, inimicitiæ placabiles." But he had thus far shown himself to the world only on the worst side of his character; and it is not surprising that most men considered him (what in fact he appeared to be on the face of the transaction) as a reckless politician, bent on the possession of power at whatever sacrifice of principle or consistency it might cost him. Even the warmest Whigs regarded him, to a great extent, in the same light. "From the moment this coalition was formed," says Bishop Watson, “I lost all confidence in public men." "The gazettes," says Sir Samuel Romilly in a letter to a friend, "have proclaimed to you the scandalous alliance between Fox and Lord North. It is not Fox alone, but his whole party; so much so that it is no exaggeration to say, that of all the public characters of this devoted country (Mr. Pitt only excepted), there is not a man who has, or deserves, the nation's confidence."6

The great measure of the Coalition ministry was Mr. Fox's East India Bill. Perilous as the subject was to a new administration lying under the jealousy of the people and the hostility of the King, it could not be avoided; and Mr. Fox met it with a fearless resolution, which at least demands our respect. The whole nation called for strong measures, and Mr. Fox gave them a measure stronger than any one of them had contemplated. He cut the knot which politicians had so long endeavored to untie. He annulled the charter of the East India Company, and, after providing for the payment of their debts, he took all their concerns into the hands of the govern ment at home, placing the civil and military affairs of India under the control of a board of seven commissioners, and putting their commercial interests into the hands of a second board, to be managed for the benefit of the shareholders. Never, since the Revolution of 1688, has any measure of the government produced such a ferment in the nation. Lawyers exclaimed against the bill as a violation of chartered rights; all the corporate bodies of the kingdom saw in it a precedent which might be fatal to themselves; the East India Company considered it as involving the ruin of their commercial interests; and politicians regarded it as a desperate effort of Mr. Fox, after forcing his way into office against the wishes of the King, to set himself above the King's reach, and, by this vast accession of patronage, to establish his ministry for life. Mr. Fox had again to suffer the bitter consequences of his disregard of character. These objections were plausible, and some of the provisions of the bill were certainly impolitic for one situated like Mr. Fox. Yet Mr. Mill, in his British India, speaks of the alarm excited as one "for which the ground was extremely scanty, and for which, notwithstanding the industry and art with which the advantage was improved by the opposite party, it is difficult (considering the usual apathy of the public on much more important occasions) entirely to account." As to the principal charge, Lord Campbell observes, in his Lives of the Chancellors, "No one at the present day believes that the framers of the famous East India Bill had the intention imputed to them of creating a power independent of the Crown." And as to the other objections, it is obvious to remark, that any effectual scheme of Indian reform would, of necessity, encroach on the charter of the Company; that such encroachments must in any case be liable to abuse as precedents; and that if (as all agreed was necessary) the government at home assumed the civil and military administration of India, a large increase of patronage must fall into the hands of ministers, 6 Memoirs, vol. i., p. 269. Vol. iv., p. 475. Vol. v., p. 551.

which others could abuse as easily as Mr. Fox. But the difficulty was, no one knew how far to trust him! His conduct had given boundless scope for jealousy and suspicion. He had put into the hands of his enemies the means of utterly ruining his character; and it is undoubtedly true, as stated by a late writer, that he was at this period regarded by the great body of the nation "as selfish, vicious, and destitute of virtue-by thousands he was looked upon as a man with the purposes of a Catiline and the manners of a Lovelace."

Under all these difficulties, Mr. Fox placed his reliance on his majority in the House, and went forward with an unbroken spirit, trusting to time, and especially to the character of the men whom he should name as commissioners, for the removal of this wide-spread opposition. He introduced his bill on the 18th of November, 1783, in a speech explaining its import and design; and at the end of twelve days, after one of the hardest-fought battles which ever took place in the House, he closed the debate with a speech of great ability (to be found below), in reply to his numerous opponents, and especially to Mr. Dundas and Mr. Pitt. Believing (as almost every one now does) that Mr. Fox was far from being governed by the base motives ascribed to him-that, though ambitious in a high degree, and hoping, no doubt, to strengthen his ministry by this measure, his bill was dictated by generous and humane feelings, and was no more stringent than he felt the exigency of the case to demand-we can not but admire the dignity and manliness with which he stood his ground. He had every inducement, when he met this unexpected opposition, to shrink back, to modify his plan, to compromise with the East India Company, and to establish his power by uniting his interests with theirs. Even those who distrust his motives will therefore do honor to his spirit, and will be ready to say with Mr. Moore,10 "We read his speech on the East India Bill with a sort of breathless anxiety, which no other political discourses, except those, perhaps, of Demosthenes, could produce. The importance of the stake which he risks the boldness of his plan the gallantry with which he flings himself into the struggle, and the frankness of personal feeling that breathes throughout, all throw around him an interest like that which encircles a hero of romance; nor could the most candid autobiography that ever was written exhibit the whole character of a man more transparently through it."

The bill passed the Commons by a vote of 217 to 103, but when it came up in the House of Lords it met with a new and more powerful resistance. Lord Temple, a near relative of Mr. Pitt, had obtained a private audience of the King, and represented the subject in such a light, that his Majesty commissioned him to say, that "whoever voted for the India Bill were not only not his friends, but that he should consider them his enemies." At its first reading, Lord Thurlow denounced it in the strongest terms; and turning to the Prince of Wales, who was present as a peer with the view to support the bill, he added, with a dark scowl as he looked him directly in the face, "I wish to see the Crown great and respectable, but if the present bill should pass, it will be no longer worthy of a man of honor to wear. The King may take the diadem from his own head and put it on the head of Mr. Fox." An instantaneous change took place among the peerage. The King's message through Lord Temple had been secretly but widely circulated among the Lords, especially those of the royal household, who had given their proxies to the ministry. These proxies were instantly withdrawn. Even Lord Stormont, a member of the cabinet, who at first supported the bill, changed sides after two days; the Prince of Wales felt unable to give Mr. Fox his vote; and the bill was rejected by a majority of ninety-five to seventy-six. The King hastened to town the moment he learned the decision of the Lords; and at twelve o'clock the same night, a messenger conAge of Pitt and Fox, vol. i., p. 177. 10 Life of Sheridan, vol. i., 215, Phila.

9

veyed to Mr. Fox and Lord North his Majesty's orders "that they should deliver up the seals of their offices, and send them by the under-secretaries, Mr. Frazer and Mr. Nepean, as a personal interview on the occasion would be disagreeable to him." The other ministers received their dismissal the next day in a note signed "Temple." But the battle was not over. Mr. Fox had still an overwhelming majority in the House; and feeling that the interference of the King was an encroachment on the rights of the Commons, he resolved to carry his resistance to the utmost extremity. Accordingly, two days after, when Mr. Pitt came in as minister, he voted him down by so large a majority that a division was not even called for. Again and again he voted him down, demanding of him, in each instance, to resign in accordance with parliamentary usage, and bringing upon him at last a direct vote, "That after the expressed opinion of the House, the continuance of the present minister in office is contrary to constitutional principles, and injurious to the interests of his Majesty and the people." Earl Temple was terrified, and threw up his office within a few days, but Mr. Pitt stood firm. The contest continued for three months, during which Mr. Fox delayed the supplies from time to time, and distinctly intimated that he might stop them entirely, and prevent the passing of the Mutiny Bill, if Mr. Pitt did not resign." But his impetuosity carried him too far. He was in this case, as in some others, his own worst enemy. The King's interference was certainly a breach of privilege, and, under other circumstances, the whole country would have rallied round Mr. Fox to resist it. But every one now saw that the real difficulty was his exclusion from office; and when he attempted to force his way back by threatening to suspend the operations of government, the nation turned against him more strongly than ever. They ascribed all that he did to mortified pride or disappointed ambition; they gave him no credit for those better feelings which mingled with these passions, and which he seems to have considered (so easily do men deceive themselves) as the only motives that impelled him to the violent measures he pursued." Addresses now poured in upon the King from every quarter, entreating him not to yield. At a public meeting in Westminster Hall, Mr. Fox, who was present with a view to explain his conduct, was put down by cries of No Great Mogul!" "No India tyrant !" "No usurper!" "No turn-coat!" No dictator" The city of London, once so strongly in his favor, now turned against him. Sir Horace Mann relates, that, going up to the King at this time with one of the addresses of the House against Mr. Pitt, he met the Lord Mayor of London and others who had just come down from presenting one in his favor; and on Sir Horace remarking, "I see I am among my friends," they replied, "We were your friends, but you have joined those who have set up a Lord Protector!" Such demonstrations of public feeling operated powerfully on the House.

11 The bill for punishing mutiny in the army and navy is passed at each session for only one year. The power of withholding this bill and that which provides the annual supplies, gives the House of Commons, in the last extremity, an absolute control over ministers.

12 One of the speeches in this selection, that of December 17th, 1784, has been given with a particular reference to this point. The reader will be interested to remark how completely the matter of this speech is made up of just sentiments and weighty reasonings-contempt of underhand dealing, scorn of court servility, detestation of that dark engine of secret influence, which had driven Lord Chatham and so many others from power. All this is expressed with a spirit and eloquence which Chatham alone could have equaled, but coming from Mr. Fox, it availed nothing. He stood in so false a position, that he could not even defend the popular part of the Constitution without turuing the people more completely against him. The city of London, the most democratic part of the kingdom, thanked the King for that very interference which Toryism itself will not deny was a direct breach of the Constitution. But the people were taught to believe that Mr. Fox was aiming to make himself a "dictator" by the East India Bill, and they justified any measures which the King thought necessary for putting such a man down. Hardly any page of English history is more instructive than that which records the errors of Mr. Fox, and the pernicious consequences both to himself and others.