plunderers of mankind. I. is difficult to conceive, at the present day, how all this grated upon the ears of an immense majority of the English people. The world has learned many lessons from the French Revolution, and one of the most important is that which Mr. Fox was continually inculcating, that nations, however wrong may be their conduct, should be left to manage their internal concerns in their own way. But the doctrines of Mr. Burke had taken complete possession of the higher class of minds throughout the country. The French were a set of demons. They had murdered their king, and cast off religion; it was, therefore, the duty of surrounding nations to put them out of the pale of civilized society-to treat them as robbers and pirates; and whatever violence might result from such treatment was to be charged on the revolutionary spirit of the French. That spirit was certainly bad enough, and would very likely, under any circumstances, have produced war; but if Mr. Fox's advice had been followed, much of the enthusiasm with which the whole French nation rushed into the contest would have been prevented, and the fire of the Revolution might possibly have burned out within their own borders, instead of involving all Europe in the conflagration. But the great body of the English people were unprepared for such views, and Mr. Fox was the last man from whom they could hear any thing of this kind even with patience. His early mistakes as to the Revolution had made him the most unpopular man in the kingdom; and it must be admitted that, while he was right in the great object at which he aimed, the nature of the argument and the warmth of his feelings made him seern too often to be the advocate of the French, even in their worst excesses. It was hardly possible, indeed, to oppose the war without appearing to take part with the enemy. Even Mr. Wilberforce, when he made his motion against it in 1794, was very generally suspected of revolutionary principles. "When I first went to the levee," said he, "after moving my amendment, the King cut me." "Your friend Mr. Wilberforce," said Mr. Windham to Lady Spencer, "will be very happy any morning to hand your Ladyship to the guillotine!"

The name of Mr. Windham naturally suggests another event connected with Mr. Fox's views of the French Revolution. Nearly all his friends deserted him, and be came his most strenuous opponents. Mr. Burke led the way, as already stated in

the sketch of his life. The Duke of Portland, Lord Loughborough, Mr. Windham, and a large number of the leading Whigs, followed at a somewhat later period, leaving him with only a handful of supporters in the House to maintain the contest with Mr. Pitt. Any other man, in such circumstances, would have given up in despair, but Mr. Fox's spirit seemed always to rise in exact proportion to the pressure that was laid upon him. While he pleaded incessantly for peace with France, he maintained a desperate struggle for the rights of the English people during that memorable season of agitation and alarm from 1793 to 1797. His remedy for the disaffection which prevailed so extensively among the middling and lower classes, was that of Lord Chatham: "Remove their grievances, that will restore them to peace and tranquillity." "It may be asked," said he," what would I propose to do in times of agitation like the present? I will answer openly. If there is a tendency in the Dissenters to discontent, because they conceive themselves to be unjustly suspected and cruelly calumniated, what would I do? I would instantly repeal the Test and Corporation Acts, and take from them, by such a step, all cause of complaint If there are any persons tinctured with a republican spirit, because they think that the representative government would be more perfect in a republic, I would endeavor to amend the representation of the Commons, and to show that the House, though not chosen by all, can have no other interest than to prove itself the representative of ali. If there are men dissatisfied in Scotland, or Ireland, or elsewhere, by reason of disabilities and exemptions, of unjust prejudices, and of cruel restrictions, I would repeal

the penal statutes, which are a disgrace to our law books. If I were to issue a proclamation [the King had just issued one against seditious writings], this should be my proclamation: If any man has a grievance, let him bring it to the bar of the Com mons' House of Parliament, with the firm persuasion of having it honestly investigated.' These are the subsidies that I would grant to government."

Such were, indeed, the subsidia, the support and strength in the hearts of his people, which the King of England needed. But George III. and his counselors at that, time looked only to restriction and force. A repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts was not to be thought of (though strenuously urged by Mr. Fox), because Dr. Price and Dr. Priestley, who were leading Dissenters, had been warm friends of the French Revolution. The King would hear nothing of any relief for the Roman Catholics; his coronation oath required him to keep them in perpetual bondage. A to parlia mentary reform, Mr. Fox himself, at an earlier period, saw no plan which he thought free from objections; and hence Mr. Moore, and others of his friends, have been led hastily to represent him as a cold, if not a hypocritical advocate of this measure. But from a private letter (see article Fox, in the Encyclopedia Britannica), it ap pears that his views at this time experienced a material change. "I think," said he, "we ought to go further toward agreeing with the democratic or popular party than at any former period." Accordingly, in May, 1797, he supported Mr. Grey's motion for reform in a speech (to be found below) of uncommon beauty and force. His great struggle, however, for the rights of the people was somewhat earlier, during the period which has been called (though with some exaggeration) the "Reign. of Terror." Lord Loughborough, and the other Whigs who seceded to Mr. Pitt, had urged the ministry, with the proverbial zeal of new converts, into the most violent measures for putting down political discussion. The Habeas Corpus Act was suspended; the Traitorous Correspondence Bill made it high treason to hold intercourse with the French, or supply them with any commodities; the Treasonable Practice Bill was designed to construe into treason a conspiracy to levy war, even without an overt act amounting thereto; and the Seditious Meetings' Bill forbade any assembly of more than fifty persons to be held for political purposes, without the license of a magistrate. The two bills last mentioned were so hostile to the spirit of a free government, that even Lord Thurlow opposed them in the most vehement manner It was during the discussion of the latter, that Mr. Fox made his famous declaration, that "if the bill should pass into a law, contrary to the sense and opinion of a great majority of the nation, and if the law, after it was passed, should be executed according to the rigorous provisions of the act, resistance would not be a question of duty, but of prudence."

It was unfortunate for Mr. Fox that he was so often hurried into rash declarations of this kind. Threats are not usually the best mode of defending the cause of freedom. Nor is it true that men, under a representative government, have a right instantly to resist any law which the Legislature have regularly enacted, unless it be one diametrically opposed to the law of God. There is another remedy both in the judiciary and in the popular branch of the government. Mr. Fox's doctrine, that a law, contrary to the sense and opinion of the great majority of the nation," may be rightfully resisted, is a species of "nullification" hitherto unknown in America. Another of his hasty expressions did him great injury about three years after. At a dinner of the Whig club in 1798, he gave as a toast, "The Sovereignty of the People of Great Britain." Exactly what he meant by this, it is difficult to say. He was a firm friend of the British Constitution, with its three estates of King, Lords, and Commons. He always declared himself to be against a republic; and he could not, therefore, have wished that the functions of sovereignty should be taken from the

23 See Parliamentary History, vol. xxxiii.. n. 456.

existing head of the government, and conferred on the body of the people or then representatives in Parliament. If he only meant that the King and Lords ought to yield in all cases to the deliberate and well-ascertained wishes of the people (a doubt. ful doctrine, certainly, in a mixed government), he took a very unfortunate mode of expressing his views. It is not wonderful, at all events, that the King considered it as a personal insult, and ordered his name to be struck from the list of Privy Counsel. ors, a step never taken in any other case during his long reign, except in that of Lord George Germaine when convicted of a dereliction of duty, if not of cowardice, at the battle of Minden.

Mr. Pitt's ascendency in the House was now so complete, that Mr. Fox had no motive to continue his attendance in Parliament. He therefore withdrew from pubiic business for some years, devoting himself to literary pursuits and the society of his friends. At no time does his character appear in so amiable a point of view. He had gradually worn out his vices. His marriage with Mrs. Armstead, which was announced at a later period, exerted the happiest influence on his character. This was truly, as a friend remarked, the golden season of his life. He devoted much of his time to the study of the classics, and especially of the Greek tragedians. At this time, also, he commenced his work on the Revolution of 1688, which was published after his death.

From this retirement he was temporarily called forth by an occurrence which led to one of the noblest efforts of his eloquence. In December, 1799, Bonaparte was elected First Consul of France for ten years; and the day after his induction into office, he addressed a letter to the King of England in his own hand, making proposals of peace. Mr. Pitt, however, refused even to treat with him on the subject. Upon the third of February, 1800, the question came before the House on a motion for approving the course taken by the ministry, and Mr. Fox again appeared in his place. Mr. Pitt, who felt the difficulty of his situation, had prepared himself beforehand with the utmost care. In a speech of five hours long, he went back to the origin of the war, brought up minutely all the atrocities of the Revolution, dwelt on the instability of the successive governments which had marked its progress, commented with terrible severity on the character and crimes of Bonaparte during the preceding four years, and justified on these grounds his backwardness to recognize the new government or to rely on its offers of peace. When he concluded, at four o'clock in the morning, Mr. Fox, who was always most powerful in reply, instantly rose and answered him in a speech of nearly the same length, meeting him on all the main topics with a force of argument, a dexterity in wresting Mr. Pitt's weapons out of his hands and turning them against himself, a keenness of retort, a graphic power of description, and an impetuous flow of eloquence, to which we find no parallel in any of his published speeches. Both these great efforts will be found in this collection, with all the documents which are necessary to a full understanding of the argument. Respecting one topic dwelt upon in these speeches, namely, the justice of the war with France, it may be proper to add a few words explanatory of Mr. Fox's views, to be followed by similar statements, on a future page, as to the ground taken by Mr. Pitt.

Mr. Fox held that the grievances complained of by the English, viz., the opening of the River Scheldt, the French Decree of Fraternity, and the countenance shown to disaffected Englishmen (points to be explained hereafter in notes to these speeches), ought to have been made the subject of full and candid negotiation. England was bound not only to state her wrongs, but to say explicitly what would satisfy her. But Mr. Pitt recalled the English embassador from Paris on the tenth of August, 1792 (when Louis XVI. became virtually a prisoner), before the occurrence of any of these events. He suspended the functions of M. Chauvelin, the French embassa

dor at London, from the same date. He began to arm immediately after the alleged grievances took place; and when called upon by the French for an explanation of this armament, he declined to acknowledge their agents as having any diplomatie character, so that the points in dispute could not be regularly discussed; and after the execution of Louis XVI., he not only refused to accredit any minister from France, but sent M. Chauvelin out of the kingdom. Mr. Fox maintained that England, under these circumstances, was the aggressor, though the formal declaration of war came from France. He who shuts up the channel of negotiation while disputes are pending, is the author of the war which follows. No nation is bound to degrade herself by submitting to any clandestine modes of communication; she is entitled to that open, avowed, and honorable negotiation commonly employed by nations for the pacific adjustment of their disputes. Mr. Fox did not ask the ministry to treat with the new French government as having any existence de jure-he expressly waived this—but simply de facto; and as the English government had refused this, he held them responsible for the war. Such was his argument, and it was certainly one of great force. It may be true, as alleged by the friends of Mr. Pitt, that the French government were insincere in their offers and explanations; it is highly probable that the enthusiasm awakened by their triumph over their Austrian and Prussian invaders, had filled the nation with a love of conquest which would ultimately have led to a war with England. For this very reason, however, the course marked out by Mr. Fox ought to have been studiously followed. But Mr. Pitt shared in the common delusion of the day. He felt certain that France, split up as she was into a thousand factions, could not long endure the contest. "It will be a very short war," said he to a friend, "and certainly ended in one or two campaigns." Mr. Wilberforce, who at this time enjoyed his confidence, while he would not admit that the English were strictly the assailants, says in his Journal, "I had but too much reason to know that the ministry had not taken due pains to prevent its breaking out." As might be expected, Mr. Wilberforce united with Mr. Fox in condemning the refusal of Mr. Pitt to negotiate with Bonaparte.

But Mr. Fox's ardent desires for peace, though disappointed at this time, were soon after gratified by the treaty of Amiens, at the close of 1801. It proved, how ever, to be a mere truce. War was declared by England May 18th, 1803. To this declaration Mr. Fox was strenuously opposed, and made a speech against it, which Lord Brougham refers to as one of his greatest efforts. It does not so appear in any of the reports which have come down to us, and his Lordship perhaps confounded it with the speech of October, 1800, which he does not even mention.

Mr. Pitt, who had been again placed at the head of affairs, died in January, 1806; and Mr. Fox, at the end of twenty-two years, was called into the service of his coun try as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, on the 5th of February, 1806, through the instru mentality of Lord Grenville. His office was at that time the most important one un der the government, and he may be considered as virtually minister. One of his first official acts was that of moving a resolution for an early abolition of the slave trade, which he had from the first united with Mr. Wilberforce in opposing. This resolution was carried by a vote of 114 against 15, and was followed up, the next session, by effectual measures for putting an end to this guilty traffic. He soon after entered on a negotiation for peace with France, which commenced in a somewhat singular manner. A Frenchman made his appearance at the Foreign Office, under the namo of De la Grevilliere, and requested a private interview with Mr. Fox. He went on to say, that "it was necessary for the tranquillity of all crowned heads to put to death the ruler of France, and that a house had been hired at Passy for this purpose." On hearing these words, Mr. Fox drove him at once from his presence, and dispatched ■ communication to Talleyrand informing him of the facts. "I am not ashamed tr

confess to you who know me," said he, "that my confusion was extreme at finding myself led into conversation with an avowed assassin. I instantly ordered him to leave me. Our laws do not allow me to detain him, but I shall take care to have him landed at a sea-port as remote as possible from France." A reply was sent from Bonaparte, saying, among other things, "I recognize here the principles, honor, and virtue of Mr. Fox. Thank him on my part." In connection with this reply, Talleyrand stated, that the Emperor was ready to negotiate for a peace, "on the basis of the treaty of Amiens." Communications were accordingly opened on the subject, but at this important crisis Mr. Fox's health began to fail him. He had been taken ill some months before in consequence of exposure at the funeral of Lord Nelson, and his physicians now insisted that he should abstain for a time from all public duties. In July the disease was found to be dropsy of the chest, and, after lingering for three months, he died at the house of the Duke of Devonshire, at Chiswick, on the 13th of September, 1806. He was buried with the highest honors of the nation in Westminster Abbey, his grave being directly adjoining the grave of Lord Chatham, and close to that of his illustrious rival, William Pitt.

Mr. Fox was the most completely English of all the orators in our language. Lord Chatham was formed on the classic model-the express union of force, majesty, and grace. He stood raised above his audience, and launched the bolts of his eloquence like the Apollo Belvidere, with the proud consciousness of irresistible might. Mr. Fox stood on the floor of the House like a Norfolkshire farmer in the midst of his fellows short, thick-set, with his broad shoulders and capacious chest, his bushy hair and eyebrows, and his dark countenance working with emotion, the very image of blunt honesty and strength.

His understanding was all English-plain, practical, of prodigious force-always directed to definite ends and objects, under the absolute control of sound common sense. He had that historical cast of mind by which the great English jurists and statesmen have been so generally distinguished. Facts were the staple of his thoughts; all the force of his intellect was exerted on the actual and the positive. He was the most practical speaker of the most practical nation on earth.

His heart was English. There is a depth and tenderness of feeling in the na tional character, which is all the greater in a strong mind, because custom requires it to be repressed. In private life no one was more guarded in this respect than Mr. Fox; he was the last man to be concerned in getting up a scene. But when he stood before an audience, he poured out his feelings with all the simplicity of a child. "I have seen his countenance," says Mr. Godwin, "lighten up with more than mortal ardor and goodness; I have been present when his voice was suffocated with tears." In all this, his powerful understanding went out the whole length of his emotions, so that there was nothing strained or unnatural in his most vehement bursts of passion. "His feeling," says Coleridge, "was all intellect, and his intellect was all feeling." Never was there a finer summing up; it shows us at a glance the whole secret of his power. To this he added the most perfect sincerity and artlessness of manner. His very faults conspired to heighten the conviction of his honesty. His broken sentences, the choking of his voice, his ungainly gestures, his sudden starts of passion, the absolute scream with which he delivered his vehement passages, all showed him to be deeply moved and in earnest, so that it may be doubted whether a more perfect delivery would not have weakened the impression he made.

Sir James Mackintosh has remarked, that "Fox was the most Demosthenean speaker since Demosthenes," while Lord Brougham says, in commenting on this pas sage, "There never was a greater mistake than the fancying a close resemblance between his eloquence and that of Demosthenes." When two such men differ on a point like this, we may safely say that both are in the right and in the wrong. As to cer