Great Events in the History of North and South America

by Charles A. Goodrich

CHARLES JAMES FOX.

Charles James Fox was the third son of Henry Fox, Lord Holland, and was born January 24th, 1749. His mother was a daughter of the Duke of Richmond, and his sister the wife of Lord Cornwallis. Lord Holland made it a rule, in the tuition of his children, to follow and regulate, but not to restrain nature. This indulgence was a sad error, as it always is on the part of parents. On arriving to maturity, Charles used to boast that he was, when young, never thwarted in any thing. Two instances are related of this indulgence of the father, before the son was six years old. One day, standing by his father, while he was winding up a watch—"I have a great mind to break that watch, papa," said the boy. "No, Charles; that would be foolish." "Indeed, papa," said he, "I must do it." "Nay," answered the father, "if you have such a violent inclination, I won't baulk it." Upon which, he delivered the watch into the hands of the youngster, who instantly dashed it on the floor.

At another time, while Lord Holland was secretary of state, having just finished a long dispatch which he was going to send, Mr. Charles, who stood near him, with his hand on the inkstand, said, "Papa, I have a good mind to throw this ink over the paper." "Do, my dear," said the secretary, "if it will give you any pleasure." The young gentleman immediately threw on the ink, and his father sat down very composedly to write the dispatch over again.

Such a course of education, we should anticipate, would work the moral ruin of a child. Its baleful influence was seen in after years, in gambling, horse-racing, drinking, and kindred vices, carried to a fearful extent on the part of this son, whose training was so inauspiciously begun and persevered in.

Fox.

But, despite of these most degrading and ruinous practices, Fox proved to be one of the most accomplished and effective orators, and perhaps we may add, statesman of his times. He was the rival of Pitt; and, though not so finished in his elocution, he not unfrequently equalled him in the effect produced.

By what means he attained to such eminence, it scarcely appears; for the younger part of his life seems to have been so exclusively devoted to his pleasures, as scarcely to have time left for the cultivation of his intellect. His genius, however, was brilliant; and from his earliest years he was in the society of men distinguished for their cultivated intellect, and the eminent part they took in the government of the country. It is related of Fox, that he would not unfrequently spend the entire night at his favorite amusement, gambling, and thence proceed to the House of Commons, when he would electrify the whole assembly with some cogent and brilliant speech.

Fox was a firm, steadfast friend to the Americans and their independence. At the time the measures which led to the American war had come to a crisis, a formidable party existed in England, opposed to the unjust and illiberal policy of the government. To this party, Fox united himself; and, from his conspicuous talents, soon acquired the authority of a leader. In 1773, he opposed the Boston port bill, and apologized for the conduct of the colonies. In his speech on that occasion, he arraigned the measures of the ministers in bold and energetic language, and explained the principles of the constitution with masculine eloquence. The session of 1775, opened with a speech from the king, declaring the necessity of coercion. On this occasion, Fox poured forth a torrent of his powerful eloquence. In that plain, forcible language, which formed one of the many excellencies of his speeches, he showed what ought to have been done, what ministers had promised to do, and what they had not done. He affirmed that Lord Chatham, the king of Prussia—nay, even Alexander the Great—never gained more in one campaign than Lord North had lost.

When the news of the disastrous defeat of Burgoyne reached England, Fox loudly insisted upon an inquiry into the causes of his failure. And in like manner, when the fate of Cornwallis' army at Yorktown was made known, the oppositionists were loud in their denunciations of the proceedings of ministers in regard to the war. Mr. Fox designed to make a motion for an investigation into the conduct of Lord Sandwich, who was at the head of the admiralty. But he was, for a time, too much indisposed to make the attempt. It was on this occasion, that Burke is reported to have said, "that if Fox died, it would be no bad use of his skin, if, like John Ziska's, it should be converted into a drum, and used for the purpose of sounding an alarm to the people of England."

The death of Mr. Fox occurred 13th of August, 1806.

Walpole thus compares the two great orators of England: "Mr. Fox, as a speaker, might be compared to the rough, but masterly specimen of the sculptor's art; Mr. Pitt, to the exquisitely finished statue. The former would need a polish to render him perfect; the latter possessed, in a transcendent degree, every requisite of an accomplished orator. The force of Mr. Fox's reasoning flashed like lightning upon the mind of the hearer: the thunder of Mr. Pitt's eloquence gave irresistible effect to his powerful and convincing arguments."

The sympathy and support of such men as Fox, during our Revolutionary struggle, served to sustain and animate our patriotic fathers. They felt that while they were in the field, engaged in defeating the armies of England, they had friends in the House of Commons, who were making every possible effort to defeat the impolitic and oppressive measures of the king and his ministers.