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.
JOHN STUART.
John Stuart, Marquis of Bute, was born in 1715. In the ninth year of his age, he succeeded his father as Marquis of Bute. On the accession of George the Third, the highest dignities in the state were supposed to be within the grasp of Lord Bute; but, however he might have swayed the king's mind in private, he took no public part in the direction of public affairs until 1761, when he accepted the secretaryship resigned in that year by Lord Holderness. At length, he became prime minister; and, immediately on coming into power, determined, if possible, to effect a peace, which had for some time been negotiating. He accomplished his object, but his success rendered him exceedingly unpopular. He was accused, by some weak-minded persons, of having been bribed by the enemies of his country; and it was added, that the princess dowager had shared with him in the price at which peace had been purchased by the French government.
He quitted office in April, 1763, but continued to exert a powerful influence over the mind of the king, especially in relation to America. Several measures, the object of which was to humble the colonies, and continue them in subjection to the crown, are said to have been suggested by this nobleman. He died in 1792.