Charles James Fox; J. Powell

Mr. Powell is editor 0/ Laissez Faire Books and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He has written/or the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Barron's, American Heritage, and more than three dozen other publications. Copyright © 1996 by Jim Powell. W artime provides the toughest test for a defender of liberty. That's when governments everywhere tend to censor, jail, and even execute opponents. Charles James Fox became a legend for defend ing liberty during not one but two major wars. Uniquely amonggreat British political figures, he spent almost his entire Parlia mentary career-38 years-in the Opposi tion. "It was the task of Mr. Fox," noted John Russell, one of his ideological successors, "to vindicate, with partial success, but with brilliantability, the cause offreedom and the interests of mankind. He resisted the mad perseverance of Lord North in the project of subduing America. He opposed the war undertaken by Mr. Pitt against France, as unnecessary and unjust. He proved himself at all times the friend of religiousliberty, and endeavoured to free both the Protestant and Roman Catholic dissenter from disabilities on account of their religious faith. He de nounced the slave trade. He supported at all times a reform of the House of Commons."

Thomas Babington Macaulay, the elo quent English historian, referred to Fox as "the great man whose mighty efforts in the cause of peace, of truth, and of liberty, THEFREEMAN IDEASON UBERTY Charles James Fox, Vallant Voicefor Liberty by Jim Powell have made that name immortal." Macaulay called Fox quite simply "the greatest par liamentary defender of civil and religious liberty." Fox gained influence, in part, because he made friends easily. He was cheerful, affec tionate, generous, and kind. "I have passed two evenings with him," wrote Tory wit George Selwyn, "and never was anybody so agreeable, and the more so from his having no pretensions to it." Edward Gib bon, famed chronicler of ancient Rome's decline, remarked about Fox: "Perhaps no human being was ever more perfectly ex empt from the taint of malevolence, vanity, or falsehood." More than most men of his time, Fox was generous toward women. As biographer George Otto Trevelyan explained, "His no tion of true gallantry was to treat women as beings who stood on the same intellectual tableland as himself; to give them the very best of his thoughts and his knowledge, as well as of his humour and his eloquence; to invite, and weigh, their advice in seasons of difficulty;and ifever they urged him to steps which his judgment or his conscience dis approved, not to elude them with half contemptuous banter, but to convince them by plainspoken and serious remonstrance.

... There have been few better husbands than Fox, and probably none so delightful; for no man ever devoted such power of pleasing to the single end of making a wife happy." 631 632 THE FREEMAN • SEPTEMBER 1996 If it weren't for his dissolute ways, Fox might well have headed a ministry and had more direct influence on events rather than spend so many years in the Opposition. During his early manhood, Fox drank to excess, and reportedly even pawned his gold watch for a beer. He managed, though, to stay sober enough for gambling. He became a skilled handicapper at the race tracks. The problem was he lost even more money at cards. He borrowed money from friends and from Jewish moneylenders. His losses exceeded £140,000, an astounding sum. At one point, creditors seized his furniture. Fox made costly political mistakes, too. His worst was in February 1783 when he formed a coalition with Frederick North, King George Ill's docile Prime Minister and front man during the American Revolution, whom Fox had long denounced in the harsh est terms. Fox joined North because the alternative at the time was a coalition with a man he opposed even more, but the move thoroughly undermined his credibility. A little later, Fox undermined his standing as a advocate of frugal government when he agreed to a proposal that Parliament grant the Prince of Wales a £100,000 annual al lowance.

A Frenchman asked William Pitt the Younger how his rival Fox could have achieved such influence despite all the mis takes. "You have not been under the wand of the magician," Pitt replied. Fox was among the most famous-and frequently caricatured-English faces of his generation. "It was impossible to contem plate the lineaments of his countenance," recalled one observer, "without instantly perceiving the marks of genius. His features in themselves dark, harsh and saturnine. . . derived a sort of majesty from the addition of two black and shaggy eyebrows which sometimes concealed but more frequently developed the workings of his mind. Even these features, however, did not readily assume the expressions of anger or enmity. They frequently and naturally relaxed into a smile, the effect of which became irresist ible because it appeared to be the index of a benevolent and complacent disposition. His figure, broad, heavy and inclined to corpu lence, appeared destitute of elegance or grace, except the portion conferred on it by the emanations of intellect, which at times diffused over his whole person, when he was speaking, the most impassionated anima tion."

It's hard to believe every superlative showered on Fox, but they surely suggest that he had a remarkable ability to touch people's hearts. Henry Brougham, who joined Fox's crusade against slavery, con sidered him "if not the greatest orator, certainly the most accomplished debater, that ever appeared upon the theatre of public affairs in any age of the world." And Macaulay gushed that Fox was "the most brilliant and powerful debater who ever lived." Early Years Charles James Fox was born at 9 Conduit Street, Westminster, London, January 24, 1749. He was the third son of courageous and corrupt Henry Fox, who enriched him self as Paymaster-General during an expen sive war, quite possibly the most lucrative post in the British government. Charles's mother was an aristocrat, Georgiana Car oline Lennox. Because her parents objected to her marrying Henry, a commoner, the young couple eloped and scandalized every body.

Education started with three years of tutoring at home, which was called Holland House. After that, he was off to the Wads worth School for a year, and he opted for prestigious Elon in June 1758. Meanwhile, his indulgentfather had taken him to Paris for experience with ladies and gaming tables. Fox entered Hertford College, Oxford, in October 1764.During his two years there, he acquired a love of reading classic literature which was to refresh him till his dying days. After Oxford, Fox spent two years traveling through Europe. On the way back, he stopped in Geneva to visit Voltaire, who recommended some books. Concerned about his son's directionless CHARLES JAMES FOX, VALIANT VOICE FOR LIBERTY 633 drifting, Henry Fox arranged for him to get elected a Member of Parliament from Mid hurst, one of many "pocket boroughs" controlled by a few aristocrats-Parliament was very much an exclusive club with 558 members intent on protecting their privi leges. Charles took his seat November 1768.

For a while, Fox echoed his father's establishment line, defending Parliamentary prerogatives. The most stubborn challenger was the witty, wildprinter John Wilkes, who relentlessly criticized the government. Mid dlesex voters elected Wilkes to Parliament four times in the 1760s, and four times Parliament refused to seat him. "Wilkes and Liberty" became the rallying cry of people who had no voice in government. Fox urged Parliament to disregard the "the imaginary infallibility of the people" and keep Wilkes out. Because of his speaking skills, Fox briefly held a minor post in Lord North's ministry, but he soon proved too much of a maverick and was dismissed in 1774. He turned for excitement to his favorite bars and casinos. For instance, recalled his contemporary Horace Walpole, "He had sat up playing hazard at Almack's from Tuesday evening, the 4th, till five in the Afternoon of Wednes day the 5th. An hour before, he had recov ered £12,000that he had lost, and by dinner, which was at 5 0' clock, he had ended losing £11,000. On the Thursday he spoke in this debate; went to dinner at past 11 at night; from thence to White's where he drank till seven the next morning; thence to AI mack's, where he won £6,000; and between three and four in the afternoon he set offfor Newmarket [race track]."

Family Woes Fox began maturing with the shocks of familytragedies. In July 1774,his father died after having paid more than £100,000 of Charles's gambling debts. He showed some remorse as he wrote his mother: "That my extreme imprudence and dissipation has given both of you uneasiness is what I have long known ... to flatter myself that, par ticularly with you, and in a great degree with my father, I had regained that sort of con fidence which was once the greatest pride of my life." By the end of July, his mother was dead. His older brother Stephen died in November. Charles was left with a £900 annual income and a £20,000 inheritance, which he soon lost at the gaming tables. Fox resolved to buck the establishment, especially because George III was attempt ing to reassert the supremacy of the throne. Whig aristocrats had dominated Parliament and the British government since the Rev olution of 1688, serving as a watchdog against a possible takeover by the Catholic Stuart dynasty, based in sullen Scotland.

But the last Stuart uprising had been crushed in 1745. Whig aristocrats had lost their callingand become corrupt long before George III was crowned king at age 22 in 1760. The florid, slow-witted king was de termined to take the power of appointing ministers away from Parliament and to make them his personal agents. Resisting both George III and the patron age-driven Whigs, Fox sought to revive the original Whig principles of 1688. This made him a compatriot of reformer Charles Went worth, Lord Rockingham. Fox was inspired by Lord Rockingham's Dublin-born private secretary, Edmund Burke, two decades his senior. Burke's father was a Protestant attorney, his mother was Catholic, and his most unforgettable teacher was a Quaker. Burke wasn't a great orator-indeed, his speeches, which were sometimes three hours long, emptied the seats in Parliament. But Burke had acquired deep knowledge of history which gave him valuable perspective, and he developed a passionate pen. He urged religious tolera tion for Irish Catholics. He supported freer trade. He favored ending the secrecy of Parliamentary proceedings. He expressed his outrage when a mob murdered two men convicted of homosexual contact. He de fended the right of Middlesex voters to choose their representative, radical John Wilkes.

Then came the epic debate about how to payoff the £70 million of debts from the Seven Years War (1756-1763).The purpose 634 THE FREEMAN • SEPTEMBER 1996 of this war had been to defend the American colonies from the French, but the colo nists-there were about two million at the time-saw proposed taxes as tribute to the British Empire whose major feature was the aggravating mercantilist system in which British merchants reserved the colonies as their exclusive territory. If somebody in Rhode Island wanted to buy hats from Virginia, they had to go through British merchants. The result of such restrictions, naturally, was widespread smuggling. In addition, each of the colonies had their own elected assemblies and didn't accept the supremacy of Parliament over their affairs. Burke opposed schemes to tax the Amer ican colonists because he believed proposed taxes were unjust, they would yield little revenue, and trigger rebellion. After the schemes were enacted, Burke called for repeal. Chancellor of the Exchequer George Grenville's Stamp Duty (1765)-some 50 taxes on newspapers and legal documents had provoked such a storm of protest that it was repealed in a year. Then in 1767 came Chancellor of the Exchequer Charles Town shend's taxes on tea and other articles, provoking the "Boston Tea Party," which led to the British blockade of Boston, op posed by Burke.

Fox worked to become the most powerful orator and debater in the House of Com mons. He refined his skills by speaking at least once every day. He rejected the tra ditional style of speaking with flowery met aphors, extensive quotations, and allusions to ancient Greece and Rome-a style prac ticed by William Pitt, who had been an influential Member of Parliament for three decades. Fox never gave a set speech. He was spontaneous, passionate, and direct. He built a case with dramatic facts and established an emotional connection with his audience. Again and again, Fox hammered the min istry of Lord North. In 1775,Fox denounced the suspension of Habeas Corpus, a bulwark of civil liberties. On February 2,1777, he warned that Britain would lose the war and that sending over more troops could leave Britain defenseless against France. Two years later, French 'and Spanish fleets cruised menacingly through the English Channel. After the British surrender at Yorktown, Fox insisted that recognition of American independence must be given·un conditionally, not made a price of peace.

A Formidable Foe George III viewed Fox as perhaps his most dangerous adversary, saying he had "cast offevery principle of common honour and honesty . . . as contemptible as he is odious ... aversion to all restraints." Lit erary lion Samuel Johnson wondered "whether the nation should be ruled by the sceptre of George III or the tongue of Fox. " Dressed in a blue frock-coat and a yellow waistcoat-colors later adopted by the Whig party as well as the Whig journal Edinburgh Review-Fox championed lib eral reform during the 1780s. For example, he advocated complete religious toleration. This meant expanding the Toleration Act (1689), which required that to legally serve as a clergyman a religious Dissenter must acknowledge the divinity of Christa mea sure specifically aimed at Unitarians. Fox also favored abolishing religious tests to exclude Dissenters from political office. Although Fox seemed to embrace the Church of England, he opposed using coer cion to support it. As he declared in 1787: "It was an irreverent and impious opinion to maintain, that the church must depend for support as an engine or ally of the state, and not on the evidence of its doctrines, to be found by searching the scriptures, and the moral effects which it produced on the minds of those whom it was the duty to instruct. "

Fox supported the campaign of fellow Member WilliamWilberforce to abolish the slave trade. Fox opposed proposals that it be continued under government regulation. According to one summary of the debate in Parliament, May 1789: "he knew o(no such thing as a regulation of robbery or a restric tion of murder. There was no medium; the legislature must either abolish the trade or avow their own criminality." But for the CHARLES JAMES FOX, VALIANT VOICE FOR LIBERTY 635 moment, proposals to abolish the slave French Revolution. In January 1790, Burke trade went nowhere. rose in the House of Commons to launch his Fox's leading adversary was Prime Min-first salvos against "the excesses of an ister WilliamPitt the Younger who served as irrational, unprincipled, proscribing, confis Prime Minister from 1784 to 1802. Loyal to cating, plundering, ferocious, bloody, and the king, Pitt displayed more integrity than tyrannical democracy." He denounced the most politicians, declining easy opportuni-Declaration of the Rights of Man and the ties to enrich himselfingovernment. He was Citizen as a "digest of anarchy." Fox re self-disciplined, utterly devoted to his work, sponded discreetly, hoping to avoid a pain stiftly formal, cool amidst a crisis, and he ful break with Burke. Fox affirmed that he seldom forgot past grudges, including dif-had "learnt more from his right honourable ferences with Fox about candidates for a friend than from all the men with whom he ministry. During the 1780s,Pitt had favored had ever conversed." He went on to em reducing tariffs, taxes, and the armed phasize he was "the enemy of all absolute forces. Fox was generally more uncompro-forms of government, whether an absolute mising in the defense of liberty, and they monarchy, an absolute aristocracy, or an moved poles apart later when Britain and absolute democracy." Burke welcomed France were at war. these conciliatory words, but some of Fox's The two men presented a dramatic con-allies like Robert Brinsley Sheridan weren't trast as they debated in the House of Com-as tactful, and they split from Burke.

mons. "Fox, with his harsh, thrilling voice Fox continued promoting liberty, but and rapid delivery," reported biographer Burke resisted any change. Fox was for Edward Lascelles, "poured out his argu-reforming Parliament; Burke was against. ments in an impetuous torrent of urgency, Fox revived a proposal to end the require while Pitt presented his case with faultless ment that candidates for political office precision and complete self-possession." swear allegiance to the Church of England; As an observer recalled: "Mr. Pitt con-Burke was against-many Protestant Dis ceives his sentences before he utters them. senters were "men of factious and danger Mr. Fox throws himself into the middle of . ous principles," he explained. his, and leaves it to God Almightyto get him Fox held his tongue because he knew out again." Burke was at work on a potentially exploMeanwhile, Fox had fallen in love with a sive pamphlet. Published in November 1790 tall, elegant woman two years younger than as·Reflections on the Revolution in France, he. She called herself "Mrs. Armistead," it denounced the "swinish multitude."

although there seems never to have been a Burke declared that before the Revolution Mr. Armistead. She was reportedly linked France' 'had the elements of a constitution to a "notorious establishment" in London very nearly as good as could be wished," and later became the mistress of a duke. and he added that Parliament, rife with During the early 1770s, she and Fox settled "pocket boroughs," had proven "perfectly down to contented domesticity. They were adequate to all the purposes for which a secretly married on September 28, 1795,and representation of the people can be desired she signed the register as "Elizabeth B. or devised." Cane." They lived on her 30-acre spread called St. Anne's Hill, just south of the Fox versus Burke Thames River in Surrey. The French Revolution Political constellations began to move after July 14, 1789, when angry mobs stormed the Bastille, the beginning of the Burke began beating the drums for Britain to declare war against France and stop the contagion of revolution. At first, few En glishmen were interested, although Prime Minister Pitt was contemplating war to stop Russia from expanding in Turkey. In 1791, 636 THE FREEMAN • SEPTEMBER 1996 Fox exclaimed that the new French Consti tution, in which staunch defenders of liberty like the Marquis de Lafayette and the Mar quis de Condorcet had a hand, was "the most stupendous and glorious edifice of liberty which has been erected on the foun dation of human integrity in any time or country." Burke launched into a fresh at tack on the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, on the Jacobins, and on the way the French treated their king.

Burke complained that Fox "had ripped up the whole course and tenour of his private and public life, with a considerable degree of asperity. " Fox whispered across to Burke that he still cherished their friend ship, and Burke responded by telling Par liament that "their friendship was over." Fox was in tears, shocked that Burke would suddenly and publicly renounce their friend ship, which had endured for a quarter century. Fox expressed regret at his own "rash and imprudent words," and he of fered to "keep out of his right honourable friend's way." Burke bored on, saying he "sincerely hoped that no member of that House would ever barter the Constitution of this country, that eternal jewel of his soul, for a wild and visionary system which could only lead to confusion and disorder." Fox attempted a reconciliation when Burke lay dying in July 1797, but Burke had his wife tum him away.

Fox continued to fightfor liberty. He had long been concerned about freedom of speech, especially restrictions imposed by libel law. The burden of proof was on the defendant. Judges, notjuries, had the power to decide whether a libel had occurred, and since judges were connected with govern ment and the established church, they gen erally considered attacks on either to be libelous. As Chief Justice John Holt had remarked, "it is very necessary that the people should have a good opinion of it [government]." Fox believed the burden of proof should be on government, so he wanted to make it more difficult to win a conviction for libel. Accordingly, in May 1791,he introduced his libel bill, which would givejuries the power to decide not only the facts about whether something had been published but also whether a libel had occurred. The bill pro vided that "the jury sworn to try the issue may give a general verdict of guilty or not guilty upon the whole matter." Asked for their opinions soon after the bill was intro duced, judges were unanimously opposed, and perhaps their vehemence led Parliament to reaffirm traditional confidence in juries, even amidst hysteria about the French Rev olution.

Fox's libel bill sailed through the House of Commons but opponents stopped it in the House of Lords. The bill was reconsidered there, passed and signed by the king some time after June 1, 1792. Determined to silence dissidents, the government filed more libel cases in the two years following passage of Fox's libel billthan had been filed during the entire eighteenth century. Juries saved many defendants from the gallows or banishment to Australia. Fox's generous hopes for France came crashing down as the Revolution turned into tyranny. By September 1792, the French central government was controlled by the Convention, an assembly which operated without effective checks or balances. Its Jacobin leaders ignited war by offering to help people throughout Europe who shared their revolutionary aspirations. By late 1792, French soldiers occupied Belgium (then known as the Austrian Netherlands), Savoy (ruled by the king of Sardinia, an Austrian ally), plus a number of German cities along the Rhine. Prime Minister Pitt objected to French expansion and explored an alliance with Austria and Prussia, which brought war with France on February 1, 1793. War accelerated the trend toward unlimited centralization in France, climax ing with the Reign of Terror that killed an estimated 40,000 people.

Despite Burke's dire warnings, there wasn't much evidence of revolutionary un rest in Britain, but war hysteria led Pitt to make a major assault on civil liberties. In 1794,Parliament passed the Act Suspending Habeas Corpus, empowering "his majesty to secure and detain such persons as his CHARLES JAMES FOX, VALIANT VOICE FOR LIBERTY 637 majesty shall suspect are conspiring against his person and government. " The next year, Parliament passed the Treasonable and Se ditious Practices Act which, among other things made it unlawful to "declare any words or sentences to excite or stir up the people to hatred or contempt to the person of his majesty, his heirs, or successors, or the government. . . ." Finally, Parliament passed the Seditious Assemblies Act which effectively banned meetings of more than 50 people who wanted to petition the govern ment "for alteration of matters established in church or state, or for the purpose or on the pretext of deliberating.upon any griev ance in church or state." Fox led the oppo sition to these measures every step of the way.

Supposedly to protect Britain against op pression from abroad, the government pur sued oppression at home. It shut down publications and prosecuted editors consid ered a threat to the nation. The government harassed Nonconformist Protestant preach ers. It imprisoned suspected traitors like shoemaker Thomas Hardy, a founder of the radical Corresponding Society. Police looked the other way as mobs assaulted people suspected of favoring republican ideas-in Birmingham, for instance, mobs burned every house belonging to a known Nonconformist. Fox continued to defend free speech in Parliament. "To deny to the people the right of discussion," he was reported as saying in one debate, "because upon some occa sions that right had been exercised by in discreet or bad men, was what he could not subscribe to. The right of popular discus sion was a salutary and an essential privilege of the subject ... the best security for the due maintenance of the constitution was in the strict and incessant vigilance of the people over parliament itself. Meetings of the people, therefore, for the discussion of public objects were not merely legal, but laudable." The proper policy, Fox declared, was less government intervention, not more.

By May 1797, an overwhelming majority had lined up behind Pitt's war policies. Fox's supporters in Parliament had dwindIed to about 25, compared with about 55 in 1794and 90 during the 1780s.Fox stopped going to Parliament, but he looked back with pride. "It is a great comfort to me to reflect how steadily I have opposed this war, for the miseries it seems likely to produce are without end." He spent his time mainly at St. Anne's Hill, reading and gardening. "In summer," recalled his secretary John Trotter, "he rose between six and seven; in winter before eight. . . . Mter breakfast, which took place between eight and nine in summer, and at a little after nine in winter, he usually read some Italian author with Mrs. Fox, and then spent the time preceding dinner at his liter ary studies, in which the great poets bore a principal part. A frugal and plentiful dinner took place at three, or half-past two, in summer, and at four, in winter; and a few glasses of wine were followed by coffee. The evening was dedicated to walking and con versation till tea-time, when reading aloud, in history, commenced, and continued till near ten. A light supper of fruit, pastry, or something very trifling, finished the day; and at half-past ten the family were gone to rest. ... "

Fox returned to Parliament long enough for a final blaze of glory. Mter the death of WilliamPitt on January 23, 1806, Fox stood as the leading political figure of the era, and he could no longer be excluded from a ministry. He accepted the post of Secretary of State. Working with Wilberforce and others, Fox developed a strategy to over come years of delaying abolition of the slave trade. First, a neutral Member introduced a bill that would make it illegal for a British citi zen to trade in slaves under a foreign flag or to fit a foreign slave ship in a British port. Enacted in the spring of 1806, this measure had the potential of wiping out three quarters of the British slave trade. Second, Fox sought a parliamentary com mitment for total abolition. On June 10, 1806,he offered his resolution: "this House, conceiving the Mrican slave trade to be contrary to the principles ofjustice , human ity, and sound policy, will, with all practi638 THE FREEMAN • SEPTEMBER 1996 cable expedition, proceed to take effectual measures for abolishingthe said trade.... "

The House of Commons voted 114 to 15 in favor. The House of Lords assented on June 25. "If, during the almost forty years that I have now had the honour of a seat in Parliament," Fox remarked, "I had been so fortunate as to accomplish that, and that only,I should think I had done enough, and could retire from public life with comfort, and conscious satisfaction, that I had done my duty." The next step would have been to intro duce an abolition bill, but Fox's health deteriorated during the summer of 1806, and others had to carry on. ·His arms and legs swelled up, and he suffered chronic exhaus tion. He was persuaded to let doctors do a couple of painful "taps," presumably ef forts to drain the excess fluids. For days, at St. Anne's Hill, he lay listlessly in a lounge chair as his wiferead aloud from Virgil,John Dryden, Jonathan Swift, and other favorite authors. Well-wishers gathered outside in the street, awaiting the latest news. On September 13, 1806, he got out a few puz zling words, "It don't signify, my dearest, dearest Liz." He died about 40 minutes after five that afternoon. He was buried October '10 next to William Pitt in Westminster Abbey.

As the valiant voice of the Opposition nearly all his career, Fox saw few of his dreams come true, yet he struck mighty blows for liberty. He kept the spirit ofliberty alive when government was determined to crush it. He won some important victories. He inspired the Whig and Liberal parties, which did much to make the nineteenth century the most peaceful period in human history. He affirmed that people who stub bornly speak out can be free. D Can't do without Commentary "You can save time subscribing to Commentary or you can waste time catching up with it." -George Will Indispensable wisdom from William J. Bennett on America's morals, Norman Podhoretz on the Arab Israeli peace process, Robert Kagan on American power abroad, David Gelernter on working mothers, Irwin M. Stelzer on the Republican revolution, and more. Subscribe today!! Call: I (800) 829-6270 Or write to us at 165 East 56th Street, New York, NY 10022 Economics on Trial New Keynesians Finally Reject Keynes's "General" Theory by Mark Skousen "When people attempt to save more, the actual result may be only a lower level of output . . ."