have his authority as Regent, during his father's illness, established on the same footing as if he had succeeded to the throne by the King's death. The existing ministry, on the other hand, who believed the King might speedily recover, were desirous to impose such restrictions on the Regency as would prevent Mr. Fox and his friends from intrenching themselves permanently in power. It is curious to observe how completely the two parties changed sides under this new aspect of their political interests. Mr. Fox became the defender of the prerogative, and Mr. Pitt of the popular part of the Constitution. Before Mr. Fox returned from Italy, Lord Loughborough [Mr. Wedderburne] had devised a theory to meet the present case. He maintained that here (as in the case of natural death) " the administration of the government dovolved to him [the Prince of Wales] of right;" that it belonged to Parliament "not to confer, but to declare the right;" and it is now known that he actually advised the Prince, in secret, to assume the royal authority at a meeting of the Privy Council, and then to summon Parliament, in his own name, for the dispatch of business." This theory, with one important modification, Mr. Fox took with him into the House. In a debate on the 10th of December, 1788, he maintained that during the incapacity of the King, the Prince "had as clear and express a right to assume the reins of government and exercise the power of sovereignty, as in the case of his Majesty's having undergone a natural and perfect demise ;" but he added (limiting the theory of Lord Loughborough) that " as to this right, the Prince himself was not to judge when he was entitled to exercise it, but the two Houses of Parliament, as the organs of the nation, were alone qualified to pronounce when the Prince ought to take possession of and exercise this right."15 Mr. Pitt, the moment he heard this doctrine, exclaimed to a friend who sat by him in the House, "Now I'll unwhig that gentleman for the rest of his life!" He instantly rose, and declared it to be "little less than treason against the Constitution: he pledged himself to prove that the Heir-apparent had no more right, in the case in question, to the exercise of the executive authority, than any other subject in the kingdom, and that it belonged entirely to the two remaining branches of the Legislature, in behalf of the nation at large, to make such a provision for supplying the temporary deficiency as they might think proper." Mr. Fox, either seeing that he had been misunderstood, or feeling that he had gone too far, explained himself, two days after, to have meant, that from the moment the two Houses of Parliament declared the King unable to exercise the royal sovereignty, from that moment a right to exercise the royal authority attached to the Prince of Wales"-that "he must appeal to the court competent to decide whether it belonged to him or not, or must wait till that court itself made such a declaration." This was apparently taking still lower ground; but even this Mr. Pitt maintained was equally false and unfounded. "He denied that the Prince had any right whatever;" he declared it " subversive of the principles of the Constitution to admit that the Prince of Wales might set himself on the throne during the lifetime of his father; he denied that Parliament were mere judges in this emergency, affirming that they acted for the entire body of the people in a case not provided for in the Constitution ;" and affirmed it to be "a question of greater magnitude and importance even than the present exigency, a question that involved in it the principles of the Constitution, the protection and security of our liberties, and the safety of the state." A Regency Bill was now framed by the Ministers, making the Prince of Wales Regent, but committing the King's person to the care of the Queen, with the right of appointing the officers of the royal household. It provided that the Prince should have no power over the personal property of the King, and no authority either to create new peers, or to grant any pension, place, or reversion to be held after the King's recovery, except 14 See a paper of Lord Loughborough on this subject in Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors, vol. vi., page 195. 15 Speeches, vol. iii., 16 Id. ib., page 407 page 401.

1916

offices made permanent by law. Nearly three months were spent in debating this subject, every possible delay being interposed by Mr. Pitt, who was now confident of the King's early recovery. Accordingly, about February 19th, his Majesty was declared by the physicians to be restored to a sound state of mind; and Mr. Fox's prospect of office became more remote than ever, the King and the people being equally imbittered against him, as having again endeavored to establish himself in power by the use of violent and illegal means.17 On the question so vehemently discussed at that time touching the rights of the Prince of Wales, there has been a diversity of opinion down to the present day. All agree in considering Lord Loughborough's theory as a flimsy speculation;" but men have differed greatly as to Mr. Fox's doctrine. When the Regency question came up again, in 1810, an able writer in favor of the Prince remarked in the Edinburgh Review: "Strict legal right, which could be asserted and made good in a court of judicature, he [the Prince] certainly had none. It was observed, with more truth than decorum, by Mr. Pitt, that every individual of his father's subjects had as good a legal right to the Regency as his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales."18 Lord Campbell, however, would seem to hold with Mr. Fox, when he says: The next heir to the throne is entitled, during the continuance of this [the King's] disability, to carry on the executive government as Regent, with the same authority as if the disabled Sovereign were naturally dead;"'19 unless, indeed, he uses the word "entitled" in a looser sense to describe not what is strictly a legal right, but what is most accordant with the analogies of the Constitution and the nature of a hereditary monarchy. If so, he agrees with Lord Brougham, who nevertheless regarded the restrictions imposed on the Prince Regent as wise and necessary. After stating what he considered the argument from analogy, he says, in respect to this case: "There were reasons of a practical description which overbore these obvious considerations, and reconciled men's minds to such an anomalous proceeding. It seemed necessary to provide for the safe custody of the King's person, and for such a sure restoration of his powers as should instantly replace the scepter in his hand the very moment that his capacity to hold it should return. His Vicegerent must plainly have no control over this operation, neither over the royal patient's custody, nor over the resumption of his office and the termination of his own. But it would not have been very easy to cut off all interference on the Regent's part in this most delicate matter, had he been invested with the full powers of the Crown. So, in like manner, the object being to preserve things as nearly as possible in their present state, if those full powers had been exercised uncontrolled, changes of a nature quite irreversible might have been effected while the monarch's faculties were asleep; and not only he would have awakened to a new order of things, but the affairs of the country would have been administered under that novel dispensation by one irreconcilably hostile to it, while its author, appointed in the course of nature once more to rule as his successor, would have been living and enjoying all the influence acquired by his accidental, anticipated, and temporary reign. These considerations, and the great unpopularity of the Heir-apparent and his political associates, the Coalition party, enabled Mr. Pitt to carry his proposition of a Regency with restricted powers, established by a bill to which the two remaining branches alone of the crip 17 George III., throughout his whole life, believed that a conspiracy had been formed to prevent his remounting the throne. No explanations could ever relieve his mind from this error, and he always looked with abhorrence on those who resisted the limitations of the Regent's authority, and the transfer of his person to the custody of the Queen. The feelings of the nation were strongly excited in his behalf. Without sharing in his error, they considered him as treated with disrespect, and strongly condemned those who objected to the restrictions mentioned above. It was in this way, as well as by his East India Bill and Coalition, that Mr. Fox did more than any other man in the empire to remove the unpopularity of the King, and to draw his subjects around him in support and sympathy. 18 Vol. xviii., page 91. 19 Lives of the Chancellors, vol. vi., page 187.

pled Parliament had assented; instead of their addressing the Heir-apparent, declaring the temporary vacancy of the throne, and desiring him temporarily to fill it " When the same question came up again, in 1810, the Prince waived the claim of right, and yielded quietly to the restrictions enumerated above. These two precedents have settled the constitutional law and usage on this subject.

Mr. Fox's next conflict with his antagonist related to the Russian Armament, and here he carried the whole country with him in opposition to the warlike designs of the ministry. The courts of London and Berlin had demanded of the Empress of Russia, not only to desist from her war with Turkey, but to restore the numerous and important conquests she had made. Unwilling to provoke the resentment of these powerful and self-created arbiters, Catharine consented to yield every thing but a small station on the Black Sea called Ockzakow, with the dependent territory. Mr. Pitt, under a mistaken view of the importance of this fortress, peremptorily insisted on its surrender; the Empress, taking offense at this treatment, as peremptorily refused; and the British ministry made the most active preparations for war. When the subject came before Parliament, early in 1791, Mr. Fox put forth all his strength against this armament. Reflecting men throughout the country condemned Mr. Pitt for interfering in the contests of other nations; and, as the discussion went on in Parliament, ministers found their majority so much reduced, that they promptly and wisely gave up the point in dispute. Mr. Fox gained greatly in the public estimation by his conduct on this occasion. He appeared in his true character, that of a friend of peace; and was justly considered as having saved the country, probably from a long and bloody war, certainly from much unnecessary expense contemplated by the ministry. While this question was under discussion, he sent a friend, Mr. Adair, to St. Petersburgh, as it was generally supposed with confidential communications for the Empress. Mr. Burke, after his breach with Mr. Fox, spoke of this mission as involving, if not treason, at least a breach of the Constitution fraught with the most dangerous consequences. It is not easy to understand the ground of this severe charge. Mr. Fox was not in the secrets of the government, and could communicate nothing to the Empress which was not known to the world at large. He could only assure her that the English people were averse to war, and might, perhaps, exhort her not to lower her terms (though this was never proved); but as the two nations were still at peace, his communications with Catharine were certainly less objectionable than Burke's correspondence with Dr. Franklin during the American war, which he once proposed to read in Parliament, and which caused Lord New Haven to exclaim : Do not my senses deceive me? Can a member of this Assembly not only avow his correspondence with a rebel, but dare to read it to us?"20 There is one decisive fact which shows, that Mr. Adair's mission could not have been regarded by the King and ministry as it was by Mr. Burke. He was afterward sent as Envoy to the courts of Vienna and Constantinople. "The confidence of the Sovereign," as Dr. Parr remarks, "completely and visibly refutes the accusations of Mr. Burke." After Mr. Pitt was thus beaten off from the Russian Armament, Mr. Fox and his friends opened upon him one of the severest attacks he ever experienced, by proposing a vote of censure, on the ground that he had acted the part either of a bully or a coward—that he had disgraced the country by disarming, if there was just cause of war, and by arming if there was not. Mr. Fox's speech on that occasion will be found in this volume; it was one of his most powerful and characteristic efforts.

66

Mr. Fox likewise distinguished himself at this period by his efforts to defend the rights of juries. The law of libel, as laid down by Lord Mansfield in the case of Woodfall, restricted the jury to the question of fact, "Was the accused guilty of publishing, and did he point his remarks at the government?" They were not allowed 20 Wraxall's Memoirs, vol. ii., p. 277. 21 See page 199.

When a

to inquire into his motives, or the legality of what he said; and the real issue was, therefore, in the hands of the judges, who, being appointed by the Crown, were peculiarly liable to be swayed by court influences. This made the trial by jury in libel cases a mere nullity, and too often turned it into an instrument for crushing the liberty of the press. Mr. Burke took up the subject at the time of Woodfall's trial, and prepared a bill giving juries the right to judge of the law as well as the fact, but it was rejected by a large majority. This bill, in all its leading features, Mr. Fox brought forward again in the year 1791, after the famous trial of the Dean of St. Asaph, in which Mr. Erskine made his masterly argument on the rights of juries." man," said Mr. Fox, in urging his bill," is accused of murder, a crime consisting of law and fact, the jury every day find a verdict of guilty, and this also is the case in felony and every criminal indictment. Libels are the only exception, the single anomaly." "All will admit that a writing may be an overt act of treason; but suppose in this case the Court of King's Bench should charge the jury; Consider only whether the criminal published the papers-do not inquire into the nature of it-do not examine whether it corresponds to the definition of treason'—would Englishmen endure that death should be inflicted by the decision of a jury thus trammeled and overruled?" Mr. Pitt generously seconded Mr. Fox in this effort, and as he raised Mr. Grenville to the House of Lords in 1790, he could give the bill a more powerful support in that body, but Lord Thurlow succeeded in defeating it that session. It was passed, however, in 1792, notwithstanding the pertinacious opposition of the law Lords, Thurlow, Kenyon, and Bathurst; and Mr. Fox had the satisfaction of thus performing one of the most important services ever rendered to the liberty of the press.

The progress of our narrative has led us forward insensibly into the midst of the French Revolution. Some one, speaking of this convulsion, remarked to Mr. Burke, that it had shaken the whole world. "Yes," replied he, "and it has shaken the heart of Mr. Fox out of its place!" Certain it is that every thing Mr. Fox did or said on this subject, whether right or wrong, sprung directly from his heart, from the warm impulse of his humane and confiding nature. In fact, the leading statesmen of that day were all of them governed, in the part they took, far more by temperament and previous habits of thought, than by any deep-laid schemes of policy. Mr. Burke was naturally cautious. His great principle in government was prescription. With him abstract right was nothing, circumstances were every thing; so that his first inquiry in politics was, not what is true or proper in the nature of things, but what is practicable, what is expedient, what is wise and safe in the present posture of affairs. Hence, on the question of taxing America, he treated all discussions of the abstract right with utter contempt. "I do not enter into these metaphysical distinctions," said he, "I hate the sound of them." Mr. Fox, on the contrary, instantly put the question on the ground of right; all the sympathies of his nature were on the side of the colonies as injured and insulted. "There is not an American," said he, "but must reject and resist the principle and the right." With such feelings and habits of thought, it might have been foreseen from the beginning that Mr. Burke and Mr. Fox would be at utter variance respecting the French Revolution, carried on, as it was, upon the principle of the inherent "rights of man." The difficulty was greater, because each of them, to a certain extent, had the truth on his side. The right of self-government in a people, as Mr. Fox truly said, does not depend on precedent or the concessions of rulers, but is founded in the nature of things. "It is not because they have been free, but because they have a right to be free, that men demand their freedom." Mr. Burke, on the other hand, was equally correct in maintaining that the question of resistance is far from being a question of 22 For this speech, see page 656.

mere abstract right. Circumstances, to a great extent, enter as an essential element into the decision of that question. No one is weak enough to suppose that any nation, however oppressed, can be justified in a rebellion which it is plainly impossible to carry through; or that self-government would be any thing but a curse to a people who are destitute of moral and political virtue. These are points, however, on which it is usually impossible to decide in the early stages of a revolution. A people sometimes make their destiny by the energy of their own will. The trials and privations through which they pass (as in the case of the seven United Provinces) prepare them for self-government. It was, therefore, natural for a man of Mr. Fox's sanguine temperament, especially with the example of America before him, to have confident hopes of the same auspicious results in France.

The first instance of popular violence that occurred was the attack on the Bastile (July 14th, 1789); and Mr. Fox, in referring to it in the House, quoted, very happily, from Cowper's Task (which had been recently published), the beautiful lines respecting that fortress:

"Ye horrid towers, th' abode of broken hearts,

Ye dungeons and ye cages of despair,
That monarchs have supplied from age to age
With music such as suits their sovereign ears:
The sighs and groans of miserable men!

There's not an English heart that would not leap
To hear that ye were fall'n at last."

So far as this event was concerned, Mr. Burke's sympathies were entirely with Mr. Fox. He said it was impossible not to admire the spirit by which the attack was dictated; but the excesses which followed brought him out soon after as an opponent of the Revolution, while Mr. Fox, as might be expected from one of his ardent feelings, still clung to the cause he had espoused. He lamented those excesses as truly as Mr. Burke, but his hopeful spirit led him to believe they would speedily pass away. He ascribed them to the feelings naturally created by the preceding despotism, and thus insensibly became the apologist of the revolutionary leaders, as Mr. Burke was of the court and nobility.

The false position into which Mr. Fox was thus drawn was the great misfortune of his subsequent life. He had no feelings in common with the philosophizing assassins of France, and from the moment he learned their true character, and saw the utter failure of their experiments, it is much to be regretted that he should in any way have been led to appear as their advocate. And yet it seemed impossible for one of his cast of mind to avoid it. When Austria and Russia invaded France (July, 1792), for the avowed purpose of putting back the Bourbons on the throne, he felt (as the whole world now feel) that it was not only the worst possible policy, but a flagrant violation of national right. He sympathized with the French. He rejoiced, and proclaimed his joy in the House of Commons, when they drove out the invaders, and seized, in their turn, upon the Austrian Netherlands. So, too, on the questions in dispute between England and France, which soon after resulted in war, he condemned the course taken by his own government as harsh and insulting. He thus far sided with the French, declaring that the English ministry had provoked the war, and were justly chargeable with the calamities it produced. And when the French, elated by their success in the Netherlands, poured forth their armies on the surrounding nations, with the avowed design of carrying out the Revolution by fire and sword, Mr. Fox was even then led by his peculiar position to palliate what he had no wish to justify. He dwelt on the provocations they had received, and showed great ingenuity in proving that the spirit of conquest and treachery which characterized the Republic, was only the spirit of the Bourbons transfused into the new government that they had taught the nation, and trained it up for ages, to be the