FOX, CHARLES JAMES (1749-1806), British statesman and orator, was born at 9 Conduit Street, Westminster, on Jan. third son of Henry Fox, Ist Lord Holland, and his wife, Lady Caroline Lennox, eldest daughter of Charles Lennox, 2nd duke of Richmond. The father, who treated his children with extreme indulgence, allowed him to choose his school, and he elected to go to one kept at Wandsworth by a French refugee, named Pampelonne. Then the boy asked to be sent to Eton, where he was entered in the autumn of 1758. During the six years he spent at Eton he acquired the love and knowledge of the classics in which he found refreshment and solace all through life. Lord Holland treated his children, and in particular Charles, as friends and companions in pleasure from the first. In 1763 he took Charles to Paris and to Spa, and encouraged him in dissipation and in gambling. In spite of this extraordinary interlude in his studies, Fox read hard from natural inclination. After he went up to Hertford College, Oxford, in 1764, he made repeated visits to France and Italy during the vacations. He became a good French and Italian scholar, with a keen appreciation of Italian literature and art.
If Fox's youth was disorderly, it was never indolent. He was incapable of half doing anything which he did at all. He was as energetic in sport as in learning. At a later period when he had grown fat he accounted for his skill in taking "cut balls" at tennis by saying that he was a very "painstaking man." He was all his life a great and steady walker.
In 1768 Lord Holland bought the pocket borough of Midhurst for him, and he entered on his parliamentary career, and on Lon don society, in 1769. Within the next few years Lord Holland reaped to the full the reward for all that was good, and whatever was evil, in the training he had given his son. The affection of Charles Fox for his father was unbounded, but the passion f or gambling which had been instilled in him as a boy proved the ruin of the family fortune. He kept racehorses, and bet on them largely. On the racecourse he was successful, and it is another proof of his native thoroughness that he gained a reputation as a handicapper. It is said that he won more than he lost on the course. At the gaming table he was unfortunate, and he was fleeced both in London and in Paris by unscrupulous players. Fox took his losses and their consequences with an attractive gaiety. He called the room in which he did business with the Jew money lenders his "Jerusalem chamber." When his elder brother had a son, and his prospects were injured, he said that the boy was a second Messiah, who had appeared for the destruction of the Jews. "He had his jest, and they had his estate." In 1774 Lord Holland had to find £140,000 to pay the gambling debts of his sons. For years Charles lived in pecuniary embarrassment, and during his later years, when he had given up gambling, he was supported by the contributions of wealthy friends, who in formed a fund of £70,000 for his benefit.
Fox's great political career is unique among the careers of British statesmen of the first rank, for it was passed almost wholly in opposition. Except for a few months in 1782 and 1783, and again for a few months before his death in 18o6, he was out of office. He declared, indeed, that he had "totally subdued" ambi tion, and was content with his life; yet it was certainly a cause of bitter disappointment to him that he had to stand by while the country was in his opinion not only misgoverned, but led to ruin. His reputation as an orator and a political critic, which was great from the first and grew as he lived, most assuredly did not console him for his impotence as a statesman.
During the eight years between his expulsion from office in 1774 and the fall of Lord North's ministry in March 1782 he planted the seed of the modern Liberal party as opposed to the pure Whigs. He became a member of the Rockingham party and worked in alliance with the marquis and with Burke. In opposing the attempt to coerce the American colonists, and in assailing the waste and corruption of Lord North's administration, as well as the undue influence of the crown, he was at one with the Rockingham Whigs. During the agitation against corruption, and in favour of honest management of the public money, which was very strong between 1779 and 1782, he and they worked heartily together. It had a considerable effect, and prepared the way for the reforms begun by Burke and continued by Pitt. But if Fox learnt much from Burke he learnt with originality. He declined to accept the revolution settlement as final, or to think with Burke that the constitution of the House of Commons could not be bettered. He believed that, if the House was to be made an efficient instrument for restraining the interference of the king and for securing good government, it must cease to be filled to a very large extent by the nominees of boroughmongers and the treasury. He became a strong advocate for parliamen tary reform. He was the ardent advocate of what have in later times been known as "Liberal causes," the removal of all religious disabilities and tests, the suppression of private interests which hampered the public good, the abolition of the slave trade, and the emancipation of all classes and races of men from the strict control of authority.
A detailed account of his activity from 1774 to 1782 would entail the mention of every crisis of the American War of In dependence and of every serious debate in parliament. Through out the struggle Fox was uniformly opposed to the coercion of the colonies and was the untiring critic of Lord North. While the result must be held to prove that he was right, he prepared future difficulties for himself by the fury of his language. He was the last man in the world to act on the worldly-wise maxim that an enemy should always be treated as if he may one day be a friend, and a friend as if he might become an enemy. At the opening of the autumn session in 1779 Fox, who was con vinced that the was responsible for North's continuance of the American War, stated plainly that the doctrine that the king could be his own minister was entirely unconstitutional and drew attention to the fate of Charles I. and James II. He denounced William Adam, a supporter of Lord North's, and in a duel which followed (Nov. 29) Fox was wounded. He assailed Lord North with unmeasured invective, directed not only at his policy but at his personal character, though he knew that the prime minister remained in office against his own wish, in deference to the king who appealed to his loyalty.
When the disasters of the American war had at last made a change of ministry necessary, and the king applied to the Whigs, through the intermediary of Shelburne, Fox made a very serious mistake in persuading Rockingham not to insist on dealing di rectly with the sovereign. The result was the formation of a cabinet (March 1782) belonging, in Fox's own words, partly to the king and partly to the country—that is to say, partly of Whigs who wished to restrain the king, and partly of the king's friends, represented by Shelburne, whose real function was to baffle the Whigs. Dissensions were acute between Shelburne and Fox, the two secretaries of state. The old division of duties by which the southern secretary had the correspondence with the colonies and the western powers of Europe, and the northern secretary with the others, had been abolished on the formation of the Rockingham cabinet. All foreign affairs were entrusted to Fox. Lord Shelburne, as secretary for the colonies, claimed a right to interfere in the negotiations for the peace at Paris, and fundamental differences arose. Fox thought the independence of America should be unconditionally acknowledged; Shelburne wished it to be the price of peace. The majority in the cabinet sided with Shelburne. Fox was about to resign, but resignation was deferred by the illness of Rockingham, who died on July 1, 1782. The king offered the premiership to Shelburne, Fox re signed, and was followed by a part of the Rockingham Whigs.
Fox now went into opposition again. The remainder of his life may be divided into four portions—his opposition to Pitt during the session of 1784 ; his parliamentary activity till his secession in 1797; his retirement till 1800; his return to activity and his short tenure of office before his death in 1806. During the first of these periods he deepened his unpopularity by as sailing the undoubted prerogatives of the crown, by claiming for the House of Commons the right to override not only the king and the Lords but the opinion of the country, and by resisting a dissolution. This last pretension came very ill from a states man who in 1780 had advocated yearly elections. He lost ground daily before the steady good judgment and unblemished character of Pitt. When parliament was dissolved at the end of the session of 1784, the country showed its sentiments by unseating I80 of the followers of Fox and North. The defeated candidates were known as "Fox's martyrs." Fox himself was elected for Westminster with fewer votes than Admiral Lord Hood, but with a majority over the ministerial candidate, Sir Cecil Wray. The election was marked by an amazing outflow of caricatures and squibs, by weeks of rioting in which Lord Hood's sailors fought pitched battles in St. James's Street with Fox's hackney coachmen, and by the intrepid can vassing of Whig ladies. The beautiful duchess of Devonshire (Georgiana Spencer) is said to have won at least one vote for Fox by kissing a shoemaker who had a romantic idea of what constituted a desirable bribe. The high bailiff refused to make a return, and the confirmation of Fox's election was delayed by the somewhat mean action of the ministry. He had, however, been chosen for Kirkwall, and could fight his cause in the House. In the end he recovered damages from the high bailiff. In his place in parliament he sometimes supported Pitt and sometimes opposed him with effect. His criticism on the ministers' bill for the government of India was sound in principle, though the evils he foresaw did not arise. His support of Pitt's Reform Bill was qualified by a just dislike of the ministers' proposal to treat the possession of the franchise by a constituency as a property and not as a trust. His unsuccessful opposition to the commer cial treaty with France in 1787 was unwise and most injurious to himself. He committed himself to the proposition that France was the natural enemy of Great Britain, a saying often quoted against him in coming years. It has been excused on the ground that when he said France he meant the aggressive house of Bourbon.
In 1788 Fox travelled in Italy, with his faithful companion, Mrs. Armistead (Elizabeth Cane), but returned in haste on hear ing of the illness of the king. Fox supported the claim of the prince of `'Vales to the regency as a right, a doctrine which pro voked Pitt into declaring that he would "unwhig the gentleman for the rest of his life." The friendship between him and the prince of Wales (see GEORGE IV.) was always injurious to Fox. In 1787 he was misled by the prince's ambiguous assurances into denying the marriage with Mrs. Fitzherbert. On discovering that he had been deceived he broke off all relations with the prince for a year, but their alliance was renewed. During these years he was always in favour of whatever measures could be described as favourable to emancipation and to humanity. He actively promoted the impeachment of Warren Hastings, which had the support of Pitt. He was always in favour of the abolition of the slave trade (which he actually effected during his short tenure of office in 1806), of the repeal of the Test Acts, and of conces sions to the Roman Catholics, both in Great Britain and in Ireland.
The French Revolution affected Fox profoundly. Together with almost all his countrymen he welcomed the meeting of the states-general in 1789 as the downfall of a despotism hostile to Great Britain. On hearing of the fall of the Bastille he wrote to Fitzpatrick : "How much the greatest event it is that ever hap pened in the world ! and how much the best !" He continued to adhere stoutly to his opinion that the Revolution was essentially just and ought not to be condemned for its errors or even for its crimes. As a natural consequence he was the steady opponent of Pitt's foreign policy, which he condemned as a species of crusade against freedom in the interest of despotism. Between 1790 and 1800 his unpopularity reached its height. He was left almost alone in parliament, and was denounced as the enemy of his country. On May 6, 1791, occurred the painful scene in the House of Commons, in which Burke renounced his friendship. In 1792 there was some vague talk of a coalition between him and Pitt, which came to nothing. The scene with Burke took place in the course of the debate on the Quebec Bill, in which Fox displayed real statesmanship by criticizing the division of Upper from Lower Canada, and other provisions of the bill, which in the end proved so injurious as to be unworkable. In this year he carried the Libel Bill. In 1792 his ally, the duke of Portland, and most of his party left him. In 1797 he withdrew from parliament, and only came forward in 1798 to reaffirm the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people at a great Whig dinner. On May 9 he was dis missed from the privy council.
The interval of secession (he and his friends ceased to attend parliament in 1797) was perhaps the happiest in his life. In com pany with Mrs. Armistead he established himself at St. Anne's Hill near Chertsey in Surrey. In 1795 he married her privately, but did not avow his marriage till 1802. Fox's time at St. Anne's was largely spent in gardening, in the enjoyment of the country, and in correspondence on literary subjects with his nephew, the 3rd Lord Holland, and with Gilbert Wakefield, the editor of Euripides. Greek and Italian were his first favourites, but he was well read in English literature and in French, and acquired some knowledge of Spanish. His favourite authors were Euripides, Virgil and Racine, whom he defends against the stock criticisms of the admirers of Corneille with equal zeal and insight.
Fox reappeared in parliament (Feb. 3, 180o) to take part in the vote of censure on ministers for declining Napoleon's over tures for a peace. The fall of Pitt's first ministry and the forma tion of the Addington cabinet, the peace of Amiens, and the estab lishment of Napoleon as first consul with all the powers of a military despot, seemed to offer Fox a chance of resuming power in public life. The struggle with Jacobinism was over, and he could have no hesitation in supporting resistance to a successful general who ruled by the sword, and who pursued a policy of perpetual aggression. During 1802 he visited Paris.
The death of Pitt (18o6) left Fox so manifestly the foremost man in public life that the king could no longer hope to exclude him from office. The formation of a ministry was entrusted by the king to Lord Grenville, but when he named Fox as his pro posed secretary of state for foreign affairs George III. accepted him without demur. Indeed his hostility seems to a large extent to have died out. A long period of office might now have ap peared to lie before Fox, but his health was undermined. Had he lived it may be considered as certain that the war with Na poleon would have been conducted with a vigour which was much wanting during the next few years. In domestic politics Fox had no time to do more than insist on the abolition of the slave trade. He, like Pitt, was compelled to bow to the king's invincible de termination not to allow the emancipation of the Roman Cath olics. When a French adventurer calling himself Guillet de la Gevrilliere, whom Fox at first "did the honour to take for a spy," came to him with a scheme for the murder of Napoleon, he sent a warning on Feb. 20, to Talleyrand. The incident gave him an opportunity for reopening negotiations for peace. A correspond ence ensued, and British envoys were sent to Paris. But Fox was soon convinced that the French ministers were playing a false game. He was resolved not to treat apart from Russia, then the ally of Great Britain, nor to consent to the surrender of Sicily, which Napoleon insisted upon, unless full compensation could be obtained for King Ferdinand. The later stages of the negotiation were not directed by Fox, but by colleagues who took over his work at the foreign office when his health began to fail in the summer of 18o6. After carrying his motion for the abolition of the slave trade on June 10, he was forced to give up attendance in parliament, and he died (of dropsy) in the house of the duke of Devonshire, at Chiswick, on Sept. 13, 1806. His wife survived him till July 8, 1842. No children were born of the marriage. Fox is buried in Westminster Abbey by the side of Pitt.
The striking personal appearance of Fox has been rendered very familiar by portraits and by innumerable caricatures. The latter were no doubt deliberately exaggerated, and yet a corn parison between the head of Fox in Sayer's plate "Carlo Khan's triumphal entry into Leadenhall," and in Abbot's portrait, shows that the caricaturist did not depart from the original. Fox was twice painted by Sir Joshua Reynolds, once when young in a group with Lady Sarah Bunbury and Lady Susan Strangeways, and once at full length. A half-length portrait by the German painter, Karl Anton Hickel, is in the National Portrait Gallery, where there is also a terra-cotta bust by Nollekens.
See Earl Russell, Memorials and Correspondence of Charles James Fox (1853-57), and Life and Times of C. J. Fox (18S9-66) ; G. 0. Trevelyan, Early History of C. J. Fox (i 88o) , and The American Revolution (4 vols. 1909) ; J. L. Hammond, Charles James Fox, a Political Study (1903) ; Lloyd Sanders, The Holland House Circle (1908) ; John Drinkwater, Charles James Fox (1928) . See also the general literature of the period indicated s.v. GEORGE III.
(D. H.; X.)