was farther from his disposition; and, knowing the character of the men, we can crelit 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: amicitia 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."

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 government 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 • Memoirs, vol. ., p. 269. 7 Vol. iv., p. • Vol. v., p. 551

475.

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 cf 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

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 pres ent bill should pass, it will be no longer worthy of a man of honor to wear. 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 next nigh, a messenger con9 Age of Pitt and Fox, vol. i., p 177. 10 Life of Sheridan, vol. i., 215, Phila.

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, some 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

"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, 1783, 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 turning 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

Mr. Fox's adherents gradually fell off, until, on a division at the end of eleven weeks, March 8th, 1784, his majority had sunk from fifty-four to a single vote! A shout of triumph now broke forth from the ministerial benches. The contest in the House was ended, and the question was carried at once to the whole country by a dissolu tion of Parliament.

The eler tions which followed, in April, 1784, went against the friends of Mr. Fox in every part of the kingdom; more than a hundred and sixty having lost their places, and become "Fox's Martyrs," in the sportive language of the day. In Westminster, which Mr. Fox and Sir Cecil Wray had represented in the preceding Parliament, the struggle was the most violent ever known-Wray in opposition to his old associate At the end of eleven days, Mr. Fox was in a minority of three hundred and eighteen. and his defeat seemed inevitable, when relief came from a quarter never before heard of in a political canvass. Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, a woman of extraordinary beauty and the highest mental accomplishments, took the field in his behalf She literally became the canvasser of Mr. Fox. She went from house to house soliciting votes; she sent her private carriage to bring mechanics and others of the lowest class to the polls; she appeared at the hustings herself in company with Mr. Fox; and on one occasion, when a young butcher turned the laugh upon her by offering his vote for a kiss, in the enthusiasm of the moment she took him at his word, and paid him on the spot! With such an ally, Mr. Fox's fortunes soon began to mend, and at the termination of forty days, when the polls were closed, he had a majority over Sir Cecil Wray of two hundred and thirty-five votes. This triumph was celebrated by a splendid procession of Mr. Fox's friends, most of them bearing fox tails, which gave rise to one of Mr. Pitt's best sarcasms. Some one having expressed his wonder how the people could procure such an immense number of foxes' tails; That is by no means surprising," said Pitt; "this has been a good sporting year, and more foxes have been destroyed than in any former season. I think, upon an average, there has at least one Fox been run down in every borough of the kingdom "" The Prince of Wales showed the lively interest he had taken in the contest, by joining the proces sion on horseback in his uniform of a colonel of the Tenth Dragoons. A few days after, he celebrated the victory in a fête at Carlton House, attended by more than fix hundred persons, the gentlemen being dressed in the costume of Mr. Fox, “bufi and blue," and some even of the ladies wearing the same colors, with the "Fox laurel" on their heads, and the "Fox medal" suspended from their necks.

66

But Mr. Fox was not allowed to enjoy the fruits of his victory. Sir Cecil Wray demanded a scrutiny or revision of the poll, involving enormous expense, and a delay, perhaps, of years, in taking testimony as to disputed votes. All this time Mr. Fox was to be deprived of his seat-the object really aimed at in the whole transaction. The presiding officer lent himself to this design; he returned Lord Hood (the third candidate) as a member; and made a report to the House, that he had granted a scrutiny in relation to Sir Cecil Wray and Mr. Fox. There was no prec edent for a scrutiny in a case like this, where the poll had been continued down to the very day before the meeting of Parliament, and the presiding officer was required by his writ to return two members for Westminster on the 18th of May, be ing the next day. If he could avoid this-if he was authorized (instead of doing the best he could) to reserve the question, and enter on a scrutiny after the session had commenced, it is obvious that the entire representation of the country would be in the hands of the returning officers. Any one of them, from party views or corrupt motives, might deprive a member of his seat as long as he saw fit, under the pretense (as in the present case) of satisfying his "conscience" by a protracted revision of the polls. The case came up early in the session, and Mr. Fox, being returned by a friend for the borough of Kirkwall, in the Orkney Isles, was enabled to FF

join in the debate. Under any other circumstances Mr. Pitt would never have allowed his passions to become interested in such an affair; even if he thought the scrutiny le gal, he would have seen the necessity of putting an end at once to a precedent so ob noxious to abuse. But the conflict of the last session seems to have poisoned his mind, and he showed none of that magnanimity which we should naturally expect in one who had achieved so splendid a victory at the recent elections. He assailed Mr. Fox in the language of taunt and ungenerous sarcasm, describing him as a man on whom a sentence of banishment had been passed by his country-as "driven by the impulse of patriotic indignation an exile from his native clime, to seek refuge on the stormy and desolate shores of the Ultima Thule." Nothing could be more admirable than the firmness and elasticity of Mr. Fox's spirit under these depressing circumstances, stripped as he was of nearly all his former supporters in the House. He seemed, like the old Romans, to gather strength and courage from the difficulties that surrounded him. On the 8th of June, 1784, he discussed the subject of the Westminster scrutiny in one of the clearest and most fervid pieces of reasoning ever delivered in the House of Commons; adding, at the same time, some admonitions for Mr. Pitt and his other opponents, which effectually secured him against uncivil treatment in all their subsequent contests. Although the vote went against him at that time by a majority of 117, the House and the country soon became satisfied that the whole proceeding was dishonorable and oppressive; and, at the end of nine months, Mr. Pitt had the mortification to see his majority, so firm on every other subject, turning against him upon this, and, by a vote of 162 to 124, putting an end to the scrutiny and requiring an immediate return. Mr. Fox was accordingly returned the next day. The moment he took his seat as a member for Westminster, Mr. Fox moved, that all the proceedings in regard to the scrutiny be expunged from the journals of the House. This motion was supported by Mr. Scott, afterward Lord Eldon, who, on this occasion (the only one in his life), came out in opposition to Mr. Pitt; but the majority were unwilling to join him in so direct a vote of censure, and the motion was lost.13 Mr. Fox recov ered two thousand pounds damages from the presiding officer, the High Bailiff of Westminster, and a law was soon after passed providing against any farther abuses of this kind.

Mr. Fox was appointed one of the managers of the impeachment against Warren Hastings in 1786, and had assigned to him the second charge, relating to the oppressive treatment of Cheyte Sing, Rajah of Benares. This duty he performed in a manner which awakened general admiration, and fully sustained the high character he had already gained as a parliamentary orator.

In the autumn of 1788, while traveling in Italy, Mr. Fox was unexpectedly presented with the prospect of being called again to the head of affairs. The King became suddenly deranged; and if the malady continued, the Prince of Wales would, of course, be Regent, and Mr. Fox his prime minister. A messenger with this intelligence found him at Bologna, and urged his immediate return, as the session of Parliament was soon to commence. He started at once, and never quitted his chaise during the whole journey, traveling night and day until he reached London, on the 24th of November. At this time no definite anticipations could be formed in respect to the King's recovery. Parliament had voted a fortnight's recess, to allow time for deciding on the proper steps to be taken, and the political world was full of intrigue and agitation. It was the great object of the Prince and his future ministers to come in untrammeled-to

13 Lord Eldon, speaking of this subject at a later period, said: "When the legality of the con duct of the High Bailiff of Westminster was before the House, all the lawyers on the ministerial side defended his right to grant a scrutiny. I thought their law bad, and I told them so. I asked Kenyon how he could answer this-that every writ or commission must be returned on the day on which it was made returnable. He could not answer it."