Tho Shelburne ministry, though, as regards its mode of formation, it was but a modification of the old one, was yet essentially different in character. Mr. Pitt, who had entered parliament on the occasion of the general election in 1780, and who, during the short time that ho had had a seat, had fought by the side of Fox against the American war and in favour of parliamentary reform, accepted the office of chancellor of the exchequer in the new ministry. Other vacant offices were filled up by old supporters of the war which Mr. Pitt had opposed, men who had held subordinate places in Lord North's administration. Lord North was himself excluded from the new arrangements. Hence it came to pass that Fox and Lord North, who for the last eight years had been violent antagonists, were found by one another's side in opposition ; and that after a time, tho great question of peace or war with America, which had formerly divided them having been settled, the similarity of their political positions brought about a coalition. That coalition called forth at the time, and has called forth since, ranch disapprobation. It may have been ill-judged ; and the result indeed showed that the parties had not formed a correct estimate of the public opinion, which was an import ant element in the problem to be solved. But there was certainly no dishonesty in the transaction. The question being now no longer whether there was to be peace or war with America, but in what way peace was to be brought about, the two parties in opposition united to pass a vote of censure on the terms of peace proposed by the ministers. This was in February 1783. The ministers, unable to obtain the king's consent to a dissolution, resigned; and after some difficulties a ministry was formed on the 2nd of April, of which the Duke of Portland was premier, and Lord North and Fox secretaries of state. This again was a short-lived administration ; and, like that of Lord Rockingham, it fell by the influence of court intrigue. The principal measure which it attempted was that known by the name of Fox's East India Bill, which went to vest the government of the East Indies iu a board consisting of seven members, who were to be appointed, the first time by parliament, but always afterwards by the crown, for a period either of three or five years. The objections to the bill were principally of two kinds, "violation of charter" (to adopt Mr. Fox's own mode of putting them) "and increase of influence of the crown ;" but there wero others again who denounced it as tending to diminish the influence of the crown for the aggrandisement of the ministers, and who opposed it upon this ground. Such was the view adopted by George Ill. himself. Accordingly, when the bill had passed through the Commons, and came on for the second reading in the Lords, the king sent a message, through Lord Temple, to all noblemen to whom his personal influence extended, that be should consider those who voted for the bill not only not his friends, but his enemies. The ministers were consequently left in a minority. Tho next day they were dismissed; and the ministry which had been formed in April ended its career In December of the same year. A new ministry was formed almost immediately under Mr. Pitt.
The new ministers very soon found themselves In a minority in tho House of Commons. Two resolutions, one for preventing the payment of any public money from the treasury, exchequer, or bank of England, in case of a prorogation or dissolution, unless the supplies should be previously appropriated by act of parliament; and the other, postponing the Mutiny Bill, were moved by Fox and carried by a considerable majority. The object of these resolutions was to render an immediate dissolution impracticable. Resolutions ngaiust
the ministers and against the mode of their appointment, together with addresses to the crown for their dismissal, followed. But the majority against ministers, which at first had been formidable, fast dwindled down; and after the king had twice refused his assent to their dismissal, be dissolved the parliament. The last effort of the opposition had beau the carrying of a representation to the crown, which, written by Fox, pointed out at length the evils of an adminis tration that was at variance with a majority of the representatives of the people.
Fox was again elected for Westminster ; but Sir Cecil Wray, the unsuccessful candidate, having demanded a scrutiny, the high bailiff took upon himself to make no return of representatives for this city. Fox was in consequence compelled to appear iu parliament as member for a Scotch borough; but the conduct of the high bailiff was one of the first matters brought before the House on its meeting. The Westminster scrutiny was one of the chief questions agitated for some time. Mr. Pitt and his friends did all that party animosity could suggest to prevent, or at any rate to delay, the announcement of Fox's election for Westminster; and it was not until after a struggle of a year's duration that the scrutiny was stopped and the return ordered to be made. In the beginning of the subsequent year, 1786, the question of Mr. Hastings's Indian Administration was first brought forward by Mr. Burke ; but the trial did not begin before 1788. From the commencement to the close of this affair, in all the pre liminary discussions, in the preparation of the articles of charge, and in the managing of the impeachment, Fox took a very active part. Towards the end of the year 1788 the king's illness rendered it necessary to resort to a regency. Fox now violently opposed the course proposed to be taken by Mr. Pitt; and while the latter con tended that it was for the two houses of parliament to appoiut the regent, Fox maintained that the regency belonged of right to the Prince of Wales. Holding this opinion, be opposed a motion made in the first instance by the minister for a committee to inquire into precedents, and subsequently a bill tending to limit the powers of the regent. It so happened that the king's speedy recovery rendered it unnecessary to bring the regency question to a conclusion; but it is clear that the ground taken up by Fox upon this occasion was even less tenable than that taken up by the minister. The case which now came before parliament was a new and unforeseen case, a case unpro vided for by the constitution. There was consequently no right in the matter ; there was neither a right attaching to the lords and commons, as was maintained by Mr. Pitt, nor a right attaching to the Prince of Wales, as was contended by Mr. Fox. The question to be decided was which of two courses was the more expedient, not which was the legal one.
In the session of 1789 Fox distinguished himself by the support of a motion for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. A year after he himself brought forward a motion for the same purpose. On the dissolution of parliament in 1790 he was again returned for West minster, and at the head of the poll. On the meeting of the new parliament an attempt was made to get rid of the impeachment 5f Mr. Hastings, on the ground that it had abated by the dissolution, and that the new House of Commons could not proceed with what had been begun by the old one. Fox made a powerful speech in opposi tion to this view; he had on this occasion the support of Mr. Pitt, and it was carried against the lawyers by a large majority.