[go: up one dir, main page]
Wikiquote

Charles James Fox

British Whig statesman (1749–1806)

Charles James Fox (24 January 1749 – 13 September 1806) was a British Whig politician most noted for his support of the American and French Revolutions.

He that is conscious of guilt cannot bear the innocence of others: So they will try to reduce all others to their own level.

Quotes

edit

1770s

edit
  • What acquaintance have the people at large with the arcana of political rectitude, with the connections of kingdoms, the resources of national strength, the abilities of ministers, or even with their own dispositions? ... I pay no regard whatever to the voice of the people: it is our duty to do what is proper, without considering what may be agreeable.
    • Speech in the House of Commons (25 March 1771), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. I (1815), pp. 13–14
  • Religion was best understood when least talked of.
    • Speech in the House of Commons (7 February 1773), quoted in Lord John Russell (ed.), Memorials and Correspondence of Charles James Fox. Volume I (1853), p. 71
  • Kings, Sir, govern by means of popular assemblies, only because they cannot do without them; to suppose a king fond of that mode of governing, is to suppose a chimera.
    • Speech to the House of Commons (31 October 1776), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. I (1815), p. 61
  • The war of the Americans is a war of passion; it is of such a nature as to be supported by the most powerful virtues, love of liberty and of country, and at the same time by those passions in the human heart which give courage, strength, and perseverance to man; the spirit of revenge for the injuries you have done them, of retaliation for the hardships inflicted on them, and of opposition to the unjust powers you would have exercised over them; every thing combines to animate them to this war, and such a war is without end; for whatever obstinacy enthusiasm ever inspired man with, you will now have to contend with in America: no matter what gives birth to that enthusiasm, whether the name of religion or of liberty, the effects are the same; it inspires a spirit that is unconquerable, and solicitous to undergo difficulties and dangers; and as long as there is a man in America, so long will you have him against you in the field.
    • Speech in the House of Commons (26 November 1778), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. I (1815), p. 137
  • ...against which we should direct all our force, the navy of France: in the destruction of her marine we might see some hope of recovering America; but while our army remained in that country, we were to expect nothing from its operations. On the continent of Europe, it might be employed; there we might contend with France, in a manner that would make her feel that her own consequence was at stake. But the old Whig system of alliances on the continent had been given up, and we were left to fight all our battles by ourselves. If these alliances were renewed, France might then be taught, that rashness, not prudence, had made her enter into the American confederacy...America...might be won in Europe, while England might be ruined in America.
    • Speech in the House of Commons (14 December 1778), quoted in the The Parliamentary History of England, from the Earliest Period to the Year 1803. Vol. XX (1814), p. 79
  • There is no man who hates the power of the crown more, or who has a worse opinion of the Person to whom it belongs than I.
    • Letter to Edmund Burke (24 January 1779), quoted in L. G. Mitchell, Charles James Fox (1997), p. 41

1780s

edit
  • [T]he question now was, whether the British constitution, "that beautiful fabric, raised by the steadiness of our ancestors, and cemented by the best blood of the country!" ... whether that beautiful fabric, raised by the steadiness of our ancestors, and cemented by the best blood of our country, was to be maintained in that freedom, in that purity, in that perfection, in which those ancestors had delivered it to us, and for which, that blood had been spilt; or whether we were to submit to that system of despotism, which had so many advocates in this country.
    • Speech in the House of Commons (24 April 1780), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. I (1815), p. 261
  • Gentlemen, the malicious and groundless Reports which have been spread, make it necessary for me to assure you, that notwithstanding all that has been said, I never have supported, nor ever will support, any Measure which can by any Means be prejudicial to the Protestant Religion, or in any way tend to establish Popery in this Kingdom.
  • It is intolerable that it should be in the power of one blockhead to do so much mischief.
    • Letter to Mr. Fitzpatrick on George III (9 September 1781), quoted in John Brooke, George III (Panther, 1974), pp. 363-364
  • [Fox] exhibited two pictures of this country; the one representing her at the end of the last glorious war, the other at the present moment. At the end of the last war this country was raised to a most dazzling height of splendour and respect. The French marine was in a manner annihilated, the Spanish rendered contemptible; the French were driven from America; new sources of commerce were opened, the old enlarged; our influence extended to a predominance in Europe, our empire of the ocean established and acknowledged, and our trade filling the ports and harbours of the wondering and admiring world. Now mark the degradation and the change, We have lost thirteen provinces of America; we have lost several of our Islands, and the rest are in danger; we have lost the empire of the sea; we have lost our respect abroad and our unanimity at home; the nations have forsaken us, they see us distracted and obstinate, and they leave us to our fate. Country! ...This was your situation, when you were governed by Whig ministers and by Whig measures, when you were warmed and instigated by a just and a laudable cause, when you were united and impelled by the confidence which you had in your ministers, and when they were again strengthened and emboldened by your ardour and enthusiasm. This is your situation, when you are under the conduct of Tory ministers and a Tory system, when you are disunited, disheartened, and have neither confidence in your ministers nor union among yourselves; when your cause is unjust and your conductors are either impotent or treacherous.
    • Speech in the House of Commons (27 November 1781), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. I (1815), p. 429
  • On speaking to Mr. Fox (who had just received the seals as Secretary of State) on the important event of the day, he said certainly things look very well, but he, meaning the K[ing], will dye soon, and that will be best of all.
    • Remarks to Lord Carmarthen (27 March 1783), quoted in Oscar Browning (ed.), The Political Memoranda of Francis Fifth Duke of Leeds (1884), pp. 65-66, n.
  • [I] charged Mr. Pitt with having come into office upon unconstitutional grounds, and upon such principles as were disgraceful to himself, disgusting to the country, and such as must necessarily deprive him and his coadjutors of the confidence of that House.
    • Speech in the House of Commons (12 January 1784), quoted in L. G. Mitchell, Charles James Fox (1997), p. 75
  • Those principles which brought about the glorious revolution, which seated his majesty's illustrious family upon the throne, and which have preserved the liberty of this constitution, have ever been the inviolable rule of my political conduct.
    • Address to the electors of Westminster (26 April 1784), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. II (1815), pp. 438-439
  • The true simple question of the present dispute is, whether the House of Lords and Court Influence shall predominate over the House of Commons, and annihilate its existence, or whether the House of Commons...shall have power to....regulate the prerogative of the Crown, which was ever ready to seize upon the freedom of the Electors of this country.
    • Speech to his constituents in Westminster (1784), quoted in W. T. Laprade, 'William Pitt and the Westminster Election', American Historical Review, 23 (1912), p. 263
 
The worst of revolutions is a restoration.
  • The worst of revolutions is a restoration.
    • Speech to the House of Commons (10 December 1785)
  • I stand, said Mr. Fox, upon this great principle. I say that the people of England have a right to control the executive power, by the interference of their representatives in this House of parliament. The right honourable gentleman [William Pitt] maintains the contrary. He is the cause of our political enmity.
    • Speech in the House of Commons (27 February 1786), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. III (1815), p. 201
  • It behoved them, therefore, to waste not a moment unnecessarily, but to proceed with all becoming speed and all becoming diligence to restore the sovereign power and the exercise of the royal authority... In his firm opinion, his royal highness the Prince of Wales had as clear, as express a right to assume the reins of government, and exercise the power of sovereignty, during the continuance of the illness and incapacity with which it had pleased God to afflict his majesty, as in the case of his majesty's having undergone a natural and perfect demise.
    • Speech in the House of Commons advocating the Prince of Wales being appointed Regent (10 December 1788), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. III (1815), pp. 400-401
  • We shall have several hard fights in the H. of Cs. this week and next, in some of which I fear we shall be beat, but whether we are or not I think it certain that in about a fortnight we shall come in; If we carry our questions we shall come in in a more creditable and triumphant way, but at any rate the Prince must be Regent and of consequence the Ministry must be changed... I am rather afraid they will get some cry against the Prince for grasping as they call it at too much power, but I am sure that I can not in conscience advise him to give up any thing that is really necessary to his Government, or indeed to claim any thing else as Regent, but the full power of a King, to which he is certainly entitled.
    • Letter to Mrs. Armistead (15 December 1788), quoted in L. G. Mitchell, Charles James Fox (1997), p. 84
  • How much the greatest event it is that ever happened in the world! and how much the best!
    • Letter to Mr. Fitzpatrick on the fall of the Bastille (30 July 1789), printed in J. Russell (ed.), Memorials and Correspondence of Charles James Fox. Volume II (1853), p. 361

1790s

edit
  • To suppose a man wicked or immoral, merely on account of any difference of religious opinion, was as false as it was absurd; yet this was the original principle of persecution.
    • Speech in the House of Commons (2 March 1790), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. IV (1815), p. 57
  • Persecution always said, "I know the consequences of your opinion better than you know them yourselves." But the language of toleration was always amicable, liberal, and just; it confessed its doubts, and acknowledged its ignorance. It said, "Though I dislike your opinions, because I think them dangerous, yet, since you profess such opinions, I will not believe you can think such dangerous inferences flow from them, which strike my attention so forcibly." This was truly a just and legitimate mode of reasoning, always less liable to error, and more adapted to human affairs. When we argued à posteriori, judging from the fruit to the tree, from the effect to the cause, we were not so subject to deviate into error and falsehood, as when we pursued the contrary method of argument. Yet, persecution had always reasoned from cause to effect, from opinion to action, which proved generally erroneous; while toleration led us invariably to form just conclusions, by judging from actions and not from opinions.
    • Speech in the House of Commons (2 March 1790), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. IV (1815), pp. 58-59
  • [H]e was indebted to his right honourable friend [Edmund Burke] for the greatest share of the political knowledge he possessed,—his political education had been formed under him,—his instructions had invariably governed his principles.
    • Speech in the House of Commons (2 March 1790), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. IV (1815), p. 72
  • Toleration in religion was one of the great rights of man, and a man ought never to be deprived of what was his natural right.
    • Speech in the House of Commons (1 March 1791), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. IV (1815), p. 147
  • [H]e thought one of the most splendid triumphs of Christianity was, its having caused slavery to be so generally abolished, as soon as ever it appeared in the world. One obvious ground on which it did this, was by teaching us, that in the sight of Heaven all mankind are equal. The same effect might be expected also from the general principles which it taught. Its powerful influence appeared to have done more in this respect than all the ancient systems of philosophy; though even in them, in point of theory, we might trace great liberality and consideration for human rights.
    • Speech in the House of Commons (19 April 1791), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. IV (1815), p. 192
  • Where could be found finer sentiments of liberty, than in the works of Demosthenes and Cicero? Where should we meet with bolder assertions of the rights of mankind, and the dignity of human nature, than in the historians Tacitus and Thucydides?
    • Speech in the House of Commons (19 April 1791), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. IV (1815), p. 192
 
I have a natural partiality to what some people call rebels.
  • Any thing that proves that it is not in the power of Kings and Princes by their great armies to have every thing their own way is of such good example that without any good will to the French one can not help being delighted by it, and you know I have a natural partiality to what some people call rebels.
    • Letter to Mrs. Armitstead (7 October 1792), quoted in L. G. Mitchell, Charles James Fox (1997), p. 125
  • The people had been told by their representatives in parliament that they were surrounded with dangers, and had been shewn none. They were, therefore, full of suspicion and prompt of belief. All this had a material tendency to impede freedom of discussion, for men would speak with reserve, or not speak at all, under the terror of calumny.
    • Speech in the House of Commons (1 February 1793), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. V (1815), p. 26
  • Was it not a situation of the country horrible to relate, that men's correspondence and conversation were to be pried into with such inquisitorial jealousy, as to make it dangerous for them to commit their thoughts to paper, or to converse with a stranger but in the presence of a third person? Let the House do away all these suspicions and rumours by an honest inquiry, and restore the public to that freedom and confidence, both of writing and speech, which it was the pride of our constitution to bestow, and which became the frank and open character of a free people.
    • Speech in the House of Commons (4 March 1793), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. V (1815), p. 61
  • [I]f difference of opinion were a cause of withholding sympathy and compassion, this would indeed be a dismal world to inhabit. Difference of opinion was, in his mind, one great cause of the improvement of mankind, because it led to inquiry and discussion. It was his opinion that in all points, civil and religious, toleration of opinion was wisdom; upon that depended all the peace, he had almost said all the virtue, and consequently all the happiness of the world. This humane doctrine was the great leading feature of the mild and beneficent system of Christianity, and what had tended to render it such an inestimable blessing to mankind.
    • Speech in the House of Commons (17 April 1794), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. V (1815), p. 249
  • Was every man who had liberty in his mouth to be considered as a traitor, merely because liberty had been abused in France, and had been carried to the most shocking licentiousness? He would venture to say, that if this was to be the consequence, fatal, indeed, would it be for England! If the love of liberty was not to be maintained in England; if the warm admiration of it was not to be cherished in the hearts of the people: if the maintenance of liberty was not to be inculcated as a duty; if it was not to be reverenced as our chief good, as our boast and pride and richest inheritance;—what else had we worthy of our care? Liberty was the essence of the British constitution. King, lords, commons, and courts of judicature, were but the forms; the basis of the constitution was liberty, that grand and beautiful fabric, the first principle of which was government by law, and which this day they were going to suspend.
    • Speech in the House of Commons (17 May 1794), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. V (1815), p. 286
  • To deny to the people the right of discussion, because upon some occasions, that right had been exercised by indiscreet or bad men, was what he could not subscribe to. The right of popular discussion was a salutary and an essential privilege of the subject. He would not answer long for the conduct of parliament, if it were not subject to the jealousy of the people.
    • Speech in the House of Commons (17 May 1794), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. V (1815), p. 289
  • In his opinion, the best security for the due maintenance of the constitution, was in the strict and incessant vigilance of the people over parliament itself. Meetings of the people, therefore, for the discussion of public objects, were not merely legal, but laudable.
    • Speech in the House of Commons (17 May 1794), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. V (1815), p. 289
  • He would never forgo inquiry into the causes of the war, and measures to prevent similar calamities in future. This was due to the people, least, in the enjoyment of peace, they should forget their former sufferings from war, and again yield themselves up to delusion. Both the present and the American war were owing to a court party in this country, that hated the very name of liberty; and to an indifference, amounting to barbarity, in the minister, to the distresses of the people. It was some consolation to him that he had done his utmost to prevent the war, and to know that those who provoked it could not but feel, even while they were endeavouring to persuade others of the contrary, that they must, in no very long space of time, adopt the very course which he was recommending as fit to be adopted now.
    • Speech in the House of Commons (30 December 1794), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. V (1815), pp. 339-340
  • His opinion, indeed, was well known to those, who had done him the honour to attend to him; it was, that at all times, in all countries, and upon all occasions, there should be no distinctions in political rights, on account of religious opinions. He thought that the prejudices of the people were, generally speaking, worthy of attention. But when prejudices bent against the general principles of toleration, he did not think them entitled to much respect.
    • Speech in the House of Commons (19 May 1795), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. V (1815), p. 461
  • He would have religious toleration as equal as the laws of England, and that all men should be estimated in society by their morals, and not by the mode of religious worship. To root out prejudices altogether was not a thing to be accomplished at once; but it was a thing to be attempted, and every step towards it would be an advantage to the country.
    • Speech in the House of Commons (19 May 1795), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. V (1815), p. 465
  • ...a greater evil than the restoration of the Bourbons to the world in general, and England in particular, can hardly happen.
    • Letter to Lord Holland (28 July 1795), quoted in L. G. Mitchell, Charles James Fox (1997), p. 160
  • Peace is the wish of the French of Italy Spain Germany and all the world, and Great Britain alone the cause of preventing its accomplishment, and this not for any point of honour or even interest, but merely lest there should be an example in the modern world of a great powerful Republic.
    • Letter to Lord Holland (7 August 1795), quoted in L. G. Mitchell, Charles James Fox (1997), pp. 161-162
  • But at no one time had he given an unqualified opinion of the governments which succeeded that event [the abolition of the French monarchy]; much less would he stand pledged to give the least countenance to the scenes of blood and cruelty which had been the almost inseparable attendants on the varied and successive governments that followed one another. He formed his opinion of government by the test of practice, and not by the theory and on paper.
    • Speech in the House of Commons (29 October 1795), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. V (1815), p. 505
  • The people are to be prevented from discussing public topics publicly: they are to be prevented from discussing them privately. If then, without this private intercourse or public debate, the grievances of this country are to be felt, and are such as to call forth a general desire that they should be redressed, what are the public to do? They must send, it seems, to a magistrate, and under his good leave they are to be permitted to proceed... Behold, then, the state of a free born Englishman! Before he can discuss any topic which involves his liberty, he must send to a magistrate who is to attend the discussion. That magistrate cannot prevent such meeting: but he can prevent the speaking, because he can allege, that what is said tends to disturb the peace and tranquillity of this realm.
    • Speech in the House of Commons against the Treason Bill and Seditious Practices Bill (10 November 1795), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. VI (1815), pp. 6-7
  • I am not friendly to any thing that will produce violence. Those who know me will not impute to me any such desire; but I do hope, that this bill will produce an alarm: that while we have the power of assembling, the people will assemble; that while they have the power, they will not surrender it, but come forward and state their abhorrence of the principle of this proceeding; and those who do not, I pronounce to be traitors to their country. Good God, Sir, what madness, what frenzy has overtaken the authors of this measure! I will suppose for a moment that the only object which they have in view is the preventing a revolution in this country. But that they should have proceeded upon a plan which has no regard tor the liberty of the people, no regard for the glorious efforts of our ancestors, no regard for their maxims, no esteem for the principles and the conduct which have made us what we are, or rather, if this bill be countenanced, what we were, is to me astonishing! For to proceed thus, in order to suppress or prevent popular tumults, appears to me to be the most desperate infatuation. Good God, Sir! We have seen and have heard of revolutions in different states. Were they owing to the freedom of popular opinions? Were they owing to the facility of popular meetings? No, Sir, they were owing to the reverse of these; and therefore I say, if we wish to avoid the danger of such revolutions, we should put ourselves in a state as different from them as possible. What are we now doing? Putting ourselves in a condition nearly resembling the periods when these revolutions happened.
    • Speech in the House of Commons against the Treason Bill and Seditious Practices Bill (10 November 1795), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. VI (1815), p. 7
  • Look to France before the period of her revolution. Was it the facility of public meetings, or the freedom of discussion granted to the subject, that tended to produce that great change? On the contrary, was it not the absolute prerogative of the king? Was it not the arbitrary power lodged in ministers? Was it not the oppressive privilege of issuing Lettres de Cachet against all who dared to utter their sentiments, and complain of existing grievances, that excited the indignation of the people and accelerated the downfall of the monarchy? If, therefore, one view on which the present measure is held out to your acceptance, be in order to prevent the troubles arising from the frequency of popular assemblies, on that very ground ought the friends of peace and of order to resist the adoption of the measure.
    • Speech in the House of Commons against the Treason Bill and Seditious Practices Bill (10 November 1795), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. VI (1815), p. 8
  • In countries where men may openly state their grievances and boldly claim redress, the effect of their complaints and remonstrances may, indeed, for a time be obstructed by the operation of ministerial corruption and intrigue; but perseverance must ultimately be effectual in procuring them relief. But if you take away all legal means of obtaining that object, if you silence remonstrance and stifle complaint, you then leave no other alternative but force and violence.
    • Speech in the House of Commons against the Treason Bill and Seditious Practices Bill (10 November 1795), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. VI (1815), p. 8
  • If the pretext of grievances be groundless, and not warranted by any immediate pressure, the more it is discussed, the less effect it will have in exciting discontent. But if you preclude these political humours, if I may so call them, from having a vent, you then leave no alternative but unconstitutional submission, or actual violence. If ever there exists a just cause of grievance, one or other must be adopted; a tame acquiescence, incompatible with the spirit of freedom, or an open resistance, subversive of the order of government. I know that peace and quiet are the greatest of all blessings, but I know also, that rational liberty is the only security for their enjoyment.
    • Speech in the House of Commons against the Treason Bill and Seditious Practices Bill (10 November 1795), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. VI (1815), p. 8
  • I admire the British constitution, because it gives scope to the people to exercise the right of political discussion; not merely with the permission of a magistrate, or under the control of an executive force, but on all occasions to state, in bold and plain words, the grievances which they feel, and the redress which they desire.
    • Speech in the House of Commons against the Treason Bill and Seditious Practices Bill (10 November 1795), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. VI (1815), pp. 8-9
  • There appears to me to be no device at present but between an absolute surrender of the liberties of the People and a vigorous exertion... My view of things is I own very gloomy, and I am convinced that in a few years this Government will become completely absolute, or that confusion will arise of a nature almost as much to be deprecated as despotism itself... This is a great Crisis.
    • Letter to Lord Holland (15 November 1795), quoted in L. G. Mitchell, Charles James Fox (1997), p. 140
  • He declared he could discover nothing in the present state of the country that could justify this new infringement on the liberties of the subject intended by the bill. So far from it, the power and influence of the crown were obviously so enormous that all the liberty that subsisted in the country was preserved only by the freedom of speech and the liberty of the press; if either of these were given up, or in any degree taken away, the only barrier that we had against the annihilation of liberty would be completely destroyed.
    • Speech in the House of Commons against the Treason Bill and Seditious Practices Bill (16 November 1795), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. VI (1815), p. 14
  • Upon the liberty of the press and freedom of discussion, the basis of the constitution was known to rest. Take away these, and the whole fabric most fall.
    • Speech in the House of Commons against the Treason Bill and Seditious Practices Bill (17 November 1795), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. VI (1815), p. 26
  • [W]hen the power of speaking was taken away, what was there left but the patience of implicit submission? What hopes could be entertained that grievances would be removed when those who felt them dared not complain? In such a case, it would give him but little anxiety that a spirit of resistance was found impossible to be suppressed.
    • Speech in the House of Commons against the Treason Bill and Seditious Practices Bill (17 November 1795), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. VI (1815), p. 26
  • He admitted, that, by passing of the bill, the people would have lost a great deal. A great deal! (said Mr. Fox,) Aye, all that is worth preserving. For you will have lost the spirit, the fire, the freedom, the boldness, the energy of the British character, and with them its best virtue. I say, it is not the written law of the constitution of England, it is not the law that is to be found in books, that has constituted the true principle of freedom in any country, at any time. No! it is the energy, the boldness of a man's mind, which prompts him to speak, not in private, but in huge and popular assemblies, that constitutes, that creates, in a state, the spirit of freedom. This is the principle which gives life to liberty; without it the human character is a stranger to freedom. If you suffer the liberty of speech to be wrested from you, you will then have lost the freedom, the energy, the boldness of the British character.
    • Speech in the House of Commons against the Treason Bill and Seditious Practices Bill (25 November 1795), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. VI (1815), p. 45
  • He must also add, that if the people of this country, who felt that they were called by Providence into a free state, should revolt at such a measure as the present bill, he should not wonder at it. If they saw a conspiracy against that liberty which made them happy, a conspiracy proved, as it was, by the bill—for the bill repealed the bill of rights, and reduced Englishmen to the character of slaves—he should not wonder if they resented it. If, therefore...the people of England should be so unwise as to commit acts of resistance, ministers might condemn them, parliament might condemn them, the law might condemn them, prudence might condemn them, but he believed no good man could ever accuse them of moral guilt.
    • Speech in the House of Commons against the Treason Bill and Seditious Practices Bill (3 December 1795), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. VI (1815), p. 67
  • This is the last opportunity, (said Mr. Fox,) that I may have to state my sentiments with respect to these bills. I feel it therefore incumbent upon me to declare, that my objections still remain unimpaired. The one is calculated to prevent the liberty of speech; the other the liberty of writing and publishing. If these bills be carried into effect, and if their influence extend to the national character, other nations will be enabled to say, that England, which has conquered others, has at last made a shameful conquest of herself.
    • Speech in the House of Commons against the Treason Bill and Seditious Practices Bill (10 December 1795), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. VI (1815), p. 80
  • Our Sovereign's Health, the Majesty of the People.
    • Toast given at the Whig Club (1 May 1798), quoted in John Ehrman, The Younger Pitt. The Consuming Struggle (1996), p. 116. The King struck off Fox's name from the list of Privy Councillors in response. Fox also gave the toast "may the ancient Nobility of England ever think it their highest honour to support the Rights of the People".

1800s

edit
  • That a great General like Bonaparte should be inclined to military means of effecting a military Government is less to be wondered at than lamented...by taking the common & beaten path of Ambition he has...done much against the liberty of mankind in every part of the world...The only good that could come from this Event, so pernicious to the cause of general Liberty, was Peace, and that you see our Ministers are determined to refuse.
    • Letter to Christopher Wyvill (8 January 1800), quoted in L. G. Mitchell, Charles James Fox (1997), p. 166
  • [Napoleon has now] surpassed...Alexander & Caesar, not to mention the great advantage he has over them in the Cause he fights in.
    • Letter to Denis O'Bryen (16 July 1800), quoted in L. G. Mitchell, Charles James Fox (1997), p. 167
  • As to Bonaparte, you know what my apprehensions always were, and I can not help thinking they are in a great degree verified. For though he may, and I hope he will, trounce the Austrians...yet it is impossible to deny that he has lost, or at least risqued the losing of an opportunity. Every man has his weak side, and I have always thought Bonaparte's was the thinking Austria more inclined to peace and more to be depended upon than She is. I hope to God he will not suffer from his errour.
    • Letter to R. Fitzpatrick (10 September 1800), quoted in L. G. Mitchell, Charles James Fox (1997), p. 168
  • Why Egypt should be of such importance either to the French or to Us I never could discover and I have always thought the Expedition there the foolishest part, perhaps the only foolish part of Bonaparte's Conduct, unless perhaps he had some views in it connected with the internal Politicks of France of which we are not informed, or (which I have always suspected) that he had a desire to be out of the way of either accepting or refusing the command of an army destined to invade England.
    • Letter to H. E. Fox (15 May 1801), quoted in L. G. Mitchell, Charles James Fox (1997), p. 168
  • It may be said that the conditions are glorious for the French Republic: it must be confessed that they are; and there is not a Briton but who ought honestly to rejoice that such is the fact. The people of France resisted, as they ought to do, the whole combination of powers who would have imposed upon them a constitution contrary to their own will. Their's was the cause of liberty—the cause of mankind at large. They had every obstacle to oppose which imagination can suggest—but they have triumphed over such obstacles—their cause has been crowned with an everlasting triumph... We have not, I acknowledge, obtained the objects for which the War was undertaken—so much the better—I rejoice that we have not. I like the Peace the more on this very account.
    • Speech to his constituents at the Shakespeare Tavern, Westminster (10 October 1801) on peace with Napoleonic France, reported in The Times (12 October 1801), p. 2.
  • ...for the truth is, I am gone something further in hate to the English Government than perhaps you and the rest of my friends are, and certainly further than can with prudence be avowed. The triumph of the French Government over the English does in fact afford me a degree of pleasure which it is very difficult to disguise.
    • Letter to Lord Grey (22 October 1801), quoted in E. A. Smith, Lord Grey. 1764-1845 (1996), p. 86
  • However it may have happened, it is an excellent thing, and I do not like it the worse for its being so very triumphant a peace for France...The sense of humiliation in the Government here will be certainly lost in the extreme popularity of the measure...this rascally people are quite overjoyed at receiving from Ministers what, if they had dared to ask it, could not have been refused them at almost any period of the war. Will the Ministers have the impudence to say that there was any time (much less that when Bonaparte's offer was refused) when we might not have had terms as good? Bonaparte's triumph is now complete indeed, and, since there is to be no political liberty in the world, I really believe he is the fittest person to be the master.
    • Letter to T. Maitland (1801), quoted in L. G. Mitchell, Charles James Fox (1997), pp. 169-170
 
Bonaparte's wish is Peace, nay that he is afraid of war to the last degree.
  • As to War I can only say that my opinion is clearly that it will not be. I can tell you my reasons for this opinion in two sentences. 1st. I am sure that Bonaparte will do everything that he can to avoid it. 2nd. that, low as my opinion is of our Ministry, I cannot believe them quite so foolish as to force him to it, without one motive either of ambition or interest to incite them.
    • Letter to Lord Lauderdale (18 November 1802), quoted in L. G. Mitchell, Charles James Fox (1997), p. 177
  • Bonaparte's wish is Peace, nay that he is afraid of war to the last degree.
    • Letter to Charles Grey (12 December 1802), quoted in L. G. Mitchell, Charles James Fox (1997), p. 201
  • There is not a power in Europe, no not even Bonaparte's that is so unlimited [as the British monarchy].
    • Letter to Lord Holland (9 January 1804), quoted in L. G. Mitchell, Charles James Fox (1997), p. 194
  • So fully am I impressed with the vast importance and necessity of attaining what will be the object of my motion this night, that if, during the almost forty years that I have had the honour of a seat in parliament, I had been so fortunate as to accomplish that, and that only, I should think I had done enough, and could retire from public life with comfort, and the conscious satisfaction, that I had done my duty.
    • Speech in the House of Commons in favour of the abolition of the slave trade (10 June 1806), quoted in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, in the House of Commons. Vol. VI (1815), p. 659


  • I die happy.
    • Last words. Quoted in Lord John Russell Life and Times of C J Fox, Vol.3 (1860), Ch. 9.

Attributed

edit
  • ...the following passage from Major Cartwright's Memorandum Book: “On Sunday the 10th of April, 1814, Earl Stanhope informed me that in conversation with Mr. Fox and a third person, Mr. Fox said ‘Parliamentary reform was a fit thing to be made use of in argument in the House of Commons, but not to be carried into execution.’” Lord Stanhope also mentioned the same fact to Major Cartwright's friend, Mr. Holt White, and in the same words.
    • F. D. Cartwright (ed.), The Life and Correspondence of Major Cartwright. Volume I (London: Henry Colburn, 1826), pp. 132-133, n.

Quotes about Fox

edit
  • I will only mention one other circumstance as tending to show the fallacy of Mr. Bright's opinion. He quotes Charles James Fox as a great authority for peace. I happen to know, from the only living authority from whom that information could be derived—I happen to know that Charles James Fox, the great Minister who resisted the revolutionary war so long, told his colleagues each and severally, on his deathbed, that the great war in which they were then engaged could not be brought to a conclusion; he enjoined them to prosecute it with vigour, and I, among others, look back with gratitude to the results of that great contest.
    • The Duke of Argyll, speech in Dundee (11 November 1858), quoted in The Times (15 November 1858), p. 4
  • Charles James Fox, who, though through some of the perverse fortunes and accidents of political life, only held high office twice in his life, and in each case for a very brief time, was acknowledged by all good judges to be second to none among the Parliamentary speakers in what we are accustomed, and rightly, to describe as the Golden Age of British eloquence.
    • H. H. Asquith, speech in York (19 October 1927), quoted in The Times (20 October 1927), p. 9
  • [On 11 June 1784] I asked him [Samuel Johnson] if it was true as reported, that he had said lately, ‘I am for the King against Fox; but I am for Fox against Pitt.’ JOHNSON: ‘Yes, Sir; the King is my master; but I do not know Pitt; and Fox is my friend.’ ‘Fox, (added he,) is a most extraordinary man; here is a man (describing him in strong terms of objection in some respects according as he apprehended, but which exalted his abilities the more) who has divided the Kingdom with Caesar; so that it was a doubt whether the nation should be ruled by the sceptre of George the Third, or the tongue of Fox.’
  • Come down 50 years nearer to our own time, and you find a statesman, not long in office, but still held in the affections of all persons of liberal principles in this country, and in his time representing fully the sentiments of the Liberal party—Charles James Fox (Cheers.) Mr. Fox, referring to the policy of the Government of his time, which was one of constant interference in the affairs of Europe, and by which the country was continually involved in the calamities of war, said that although he would not assert or maintain the principle, that under no circumstances could England have any cause of interference with the affairs of the continent of Europe, yet he would prefer the positive policy of non-interference and of perfect isolation rather than the constant intermeddling to which our recent policy had subjected us, and which brought so much trouble and suffering upon the country.
    • John Bright, speech in Birmingham (29 October 1858), quoted in The Times (30 October 1858), p. 9
  • It was left...above all to Charles James Fox himself to defend the liberties of the subject, freedom of the press and of public meeting against the encroachments of a panicky Government. Fox was almost certainly wrong in his estimate of the danger from France, especially after Napoleon's coup d'état, and Whig opposition to the war had a tendency to degenerate into factiousness, but his defence of liberty was a vindication both of his own courage and of the liberal tradition.
  • Pitt's reputation would have been less decisive had not it contrasted so pointedly with the public image of his main rival. Indeed, it is not easy to explain why a man, so attractive in his private circle, should have been so distrusted by the public at large. It would be too simple to see Fox as the victim of unrelenting propaganda. Paragraph after paragraph, it is true, dwelt on his debts, his gambling, his love affairs, and reminded readers that his father had once been called "the public defaulter of unaccounted millions". The accusation of "Cromwell" was particularly effective. It was reported to be the "received notion among the inferiors" in Yorkshire that Fox was "attempting to dethrone the King and make himself an Oliver Cromwell". In Lancashire the name of Fox was said to be "most universally execrated", and in Gloucestershire "the Good Women and the Mob" exclaimed against him and the India bill "with an honest vehemence that will not permit them to discriminate between the Minister and the Man". But he was hounded in this way because he was peculiarly vulnerable, and because the public was prepared to believe the worst of him.
    • John Cannon, The Fox–North Coalition: Crisis of the Constitution, 1782–4 (1969), pp. 231-232
  • The main ingredient in the dislike of Fox seems to have been moral disapprobation. The wit, cynicism and urbanity of much of the fashionable world should not blind us to the fact that large sections of the community were sober, god-fearing and respectable, took their tone from the king, and were genuinely disgusted at the spectacle of Fox's furniture being put into the streets, or the leader of the opposition hurrying from the House of Commons to conduct a Faro bank. "Can you, as honest, rational men," appealed a broadsheet to the Parents of Westminster, "give your support to the high priest of drunkenness, gaming, and every species of debauchery that can contaminate the principles you would early wish to inculcate in your offspring...?" It was the paradox of Fox's life that, incomparably the sharpest weapon in his party's armoury, he was also its most grievous liability.
    • John Cannon, The Fox–North Coalition: Crisis of the Constitution, 1782–4 (1969), pp. 232-233
  • It is impossible to read the speeches of Fox, at this time, without feeling one's heart yearn with admiration and gratitude for the bold and resolute manner in which he opposed the war, never yielding and never repining, under the most discouraging defeats; and, although deserted by many of his friends in the house, taunted with having only a score of followers left, and obliged to admit that he could not walk the streets without being insulted, by hearing the charge made against him of carrying on an improper correspondence with the enemy in France, yet bearing it all with uncomplaining manliness and dignity. The annals of Parliament do not record a nobler struggle in a nobler cause.
  • Charles Fox...[had] the combination of gifts which made him the most attractive Englishman who ever gave his mind to parliamentary politics. Somehow the influence which persuaded Edward Gibbon to say, “Let him do what he will; I must love the dog,” has been transmitted down to us, and somehow, too, the cause of English liberty which he made peculiarly his own embodies the glow of his personality... Fox himself felt the democratic potency of those contests and gave emphasis to it in his own words: “It is the energy, the boldness of a man's mind, which prompts him to speak, not in private but in large and popular assemblies, that constitutes, that creates in a state, the spirit of freedom.” He drew strength and courage from the vast London crowds who swayed before him, and it was there he learned his hatred of censorship, repression, informers; his trust in the people.
    • Michael Foot, ‘Charles James Fox’, The Guardian (25 November 1990), quoted in The Uncollected Michael Foot: Essays Old and New, ed. Brian Brivati (2003), pp. 282–283
  • Little did I think that I should ever live to regret Mr. Fox's death.
    • King George III, remark to Lord Sidmouth (c. September 1806), quoted in George Pellew, The Life and Correspondence of the Right Honourable Henry Addington, First Viscount Sidmouth, Vol. II (1847), p. 435
  • In his tour of Switzerland (September 1788) Mr. Fox gave me two days of free and private society. He seemed to feel, and even to envy, the happiness of my situation; while I admired the powers of a superior man, as they are blended in his attractive character with the softness and simplicity of a child. Perhaps no human being was ever more perfectly exempt from the taint of malevolence, vanity, or falsehood.
  • I heard him [Robert Peel] express a low opinion of Fox. So far as Fox's private character is concerned, Peel may have been right; but, as a public man, Fox had certainly a remarkable power of grasping general principles.
    • William Ewart Gladstone's remarks to Lionel Tollemache (29 January 1894), quoted in Lionel Tollemache, Talks with Mr. Gladstone (1898), p. 117
  • Who was the best speaker you ever heard? Fox, during the American War—Fox in his best days; about the year 1779.
    • Henry Grattan, quoted in Samuel Rogers, Recollections (1859), p. 106
  • He was loud, turbulent, & threatening, at these times talking in a manner very unlike himself, & being extremely angry with all around Him— The Q: was now in no favor, He called Mr Pitt a rascal, & Mr Fox his Friend.
    • Robert Fulke Greville's diary, recording George III's remarks during a bout of mental illness (20 December 1788), quoted in The Diaries of Colonel The Hon. Robert Fulke Greville, Equerry to His Majesty George III, ed. F. McKno Bladon (1930), p. 128
  • What subject is there, whether of foreign policy or domestic interest, or that in the smallest degree affects our Constitution, which does not immediately associate itself with the memory of Mr. Fox; and what moment so fit to address to you the observations which may be thought proper on such an occasion, as that in which your feelings are most excited by the mention of his name?
    • Charles Grey, speech at the dinner to commemorate Fox at the Queen's Head Inn, Newcastle (31 December 1818), quoted in The Times (7 January 1819), p. 3
  • For not even our political sky is blacker than that under which Fox withstood the policy which devoted the strength of England to the appetites and the rancours of Europe, and diverted the splendid promise of the Revolution into the catastrophe of the Empire... He had surrendered to principle a popularity to retain which he had sacrificed everything else. He watched the dismal fulfilment of all his dark predictions, as the long-protracted war became each day more disastrous to liberty in Europe and at home... Those Englishmen who have inherited the Liberalism of Fox cannot reasonably complain if they share something of his hard lot... If Liberals choose the part of Fox, they cannot escape his eclipse. Mark the splendid waste of his genius—twenty years of his life exhausted in a fruitless struggle with the nightmares of a nation; his death surrounded by the abundant and unmistakable signs of the calamities he had seen written on the wall. Let Liberals measure their strength against the triumphant forces of Imperialism, and they can look for no better issue than a glorious defeat and the ineffectual stoicism of despair.
    • John Lawrence Hammond, ‘Colonial and Foreign Policy’, Liberalism and the Empire (1900), pp. 158–160
  • The giant race is extinct.
    • Francis Horner to Francis Jeffreys after Fox's death (15 September 1806), quoted in Memoirs of Francis Horner: With Selections from His Correspondence (1849), p. 180
  • Although Fox's private character was deformed by indulgence in vicious pleasures, it was in the eyes of his contemporaries largely redeemed by the sweetness of his disposition, the buoyancy of his spirits, and the unselfishness of his conduct. As a politician he had liberal sentiments, and hated oppression and religious intolerance. He constantly opposed the influence of the crown, and, although he committed many mistakes, and had in George III an opponent of considerable knowledge of kingcraft and immense resources, the struggle between him and the king, as far as the two men were concerned, was after all a drawn game...the coalition of 1783 shows that he failed to appreciate the importance of political principles and was ignorant of political science...Although his speeches are full of common sense, he made serious mistakes on some critical occasions, such as were the struggle of 1783–4, and the dispute about the regency in 1788. The line that he took with reference to the war with France, his idea that the Treason and Sedition bills were destructive of the constitution, and his opinion in 1801 that the House of Commons would soon cease to be of any weight, are instances of his want of political insight. The violence of his language constantly stood in his way; in the earlier period of his career it gave him a character for levity; later on it made his coalition with North appear especially reprehensible, and in his latter years afforded fair cause for the bitterness of his opponents. The circumstances of his private life helped to weaken his position in public estimation. He twice brought his followers to the brink of ruin and utterly broke up the whig party. He constantly shocked the feelings of his countrymen, and ‘failed signally during a long public life in winning the confidence of the nation’ (LECKY, Hist. iii. 465 sq). With the exception of the Libel Bill of 1792, the credit of which must be shared with others, he left comparatively little mark on the history of national progress. Great as his talents were in debate, he was deficient in statesmanship and in some of the qualities most essential to a good party leader.
    • William Hunt, 'Fox, Charles James (1749–1806)', Dictionary of National Biography (1889)
  • Fox could speak for four hours at a stretch without repeating himself, and in prose so magnificent that it makes the blood race simply to read it—what it must have sounded like beggars the imagination. What is more, Fox could do that after staying up all night gaming and drinking.
    • Bernard Levin, 'Jumping the gun, but not with Mr Fox', The Times (25 June 1975), p. 14
  • He could be irresponsible, he was certainly reckless, and, on occasion, he was a flagrant opportunist. He can rightly be accused of achieving in his lifetime little of what he so eloquently sought. But he was also warm-hearted, generous and immensely gifted; a richly endowed human being, whose principles have become synonymous with individual and political liberty. His posthumous influence has been enormous.
    For his arguments—however radical, however politically inconvenient, however ahead of their time—were incontestably right. As Pitt once wearily conceded, "Mr. Fox has never been answered". His arguments on the slave trade, on religious freedom, on the freedom of speech and of assembly, on constitutional reform and in opposition to war were—in the light of eternity—unanswerable. He could be outvoted, he could be out-manoeuvred, he could be checked. But he could not be silenced and—ultimately—he could not be stopped.
    • Neil McKendrick, '‘I must still love the dog’', The Times (3 May 1969), p. 22
  • Fame had informed me of his talents, and I soon found that he possessed a noble character, a good heart, liberal, generous, and enlightened views. I considered him an ornament to mankind, and was very much attached to him. We often conversed together upon various topics, without the least prejudice; when I wished to engage in a little controversy, I turned the conversation upon the subject of the infernal machine; and told him that his ministers had attempted to murder me; he would then oppose my opinion with warmth, and invariably ended the conversation by saying, in his bad French, “First Consul, pray take that out of your head.” But he was not convinced of the truth of the cause he undertook to advocate, and there is every reason to believe that he argued more in defence of his country, than of the morality of its ministers.
    • Napoleon (10 June 1816), quoted in Emmanuel-Auguste-Dieudonné comte de Las Cases, Memorial de Sainte Hélène: Journal of the private life and conversations of the emperor Napoleon at Saint Helena, Volume 2, Parts 3-4 (1823), p. 73
  • As to Fox, one must not look for his model among the ancients. He is himself a model, and his principles will sooner or later rule the world. ... Certainly the death of Fox was one of the fatalities of my career. Had his life been prolonged, affairs would have taken a totally different turn; the cause of the people would have triumphed, and we should have established a new order of things in Europe.
    • Napoleon (6 November 1816), quoted in Emmanuel-Auguste-Dieudonné comte de Las Cases, Memorial de Sainte Hélène: Journal of the private life and conversations of the emperor Napoleon at Saint Helena, Volume 4, Part 7 (1823), p. 97
  • Froude's palliation of the intolerable egoistic, magniloquent tyranny of Henry VIII is as misplaced as the sympathy of many Whig historians for that thoroughly unscrupulous and factious political adventurer who did his best to hinder British war-effort in the early days of the struggle against Revolutionary France. I cannot bear the sonorous champion of liberty who outside the senate house spends his time with wine, women and gambling.
    • Charles Oman, Memories of Victorian Oxford and of Some Early Years (1941; 3rd ed. 1942), p. 163
  • Had Fox lived in times less troublesome than those in which he was thrown—or had he not been opposed to such a rival as Pitt—he would, undoubtedly, have been ranked not only among those statesmen the brilliancy of whose genius has reflected honour upon the country that produced them, but among those illustrious patriots whose names, consecrated by the applause of a grateful people, are held up to the admiration of posterity as fathers of their country and benefactors of the human race. He set out in life by being the supporter of the royal prerogative, and took part with the Crown against Wilkes. But being thrown into opposition by Pitt, he quitted a line in which he saw his rival would eclipse him, and became a strenuous advocate for the rights of the popular part of our constitution. In this course the ardour of his temper carried him further than prudence could justify; and, as it generally happens in controversies, he frequently in the violence of debate supported doctrines which, perhaps, his cooler reflection would have led him to disavow. With this impetuosity of temper it is less to be wondered at than regretted that, in the general delirium produced by the French Revolution, he should have been infected with the disorder, and have connected himself with the most frantic of the reformers. It was well remarked in one of the papers of the day, that there scarcely ever lived a statesman for whom as an individual the people felt more affection, or in whom as a politician they placed less confidence.
    • Lord Palmerston, journal entry (16 September 1806), quoted in Evelyn Ashley, The Life and Correspondence of Henry John Temple Viscount Palmerston: Vol. I (1879), pp. 22–23
  • In 1805...the Catholic question was again discussed. He would beg the House to attend to the speeches which were delivered on that occasion, one of which he should never forget, for he happened to have heard it.—He never heard a speech which made a greater impression on his mind, than that delivered by Mr. Fox during that debate.
  • It was sometime in 1790 that Mirabeau, himself a moving and eloquent speaker, attempted to disparage Fox in Pitt's presence. Pitt replied simply: ‘You have never seen the wizard within the magic circle.’
    • Loren Dudley Reid, Charles James Fox: A Man for the People (1969), p. 268
  • Fox was a powerful speaker, and, in the words of Burke, the greatest debater the world ever saw. Not place or power, but reputation as an orator, was the object of his ambition, as he declares in one of his earliest letters to an intimate friend and relation. He inspired affection still more than admiration. In his worst days an observer said of his party, “There are only forty of them, but every one of them is ready to be hanged for Fox.” In his earlier days, Lord Mansfield being asked who that young man was whom he saw in Westminster Hall, answered, “That is the son of old Harry Fox, with twice his parts and half his sagacity.”
  • The errors of Fox—his coalition with Lord North, and his India Bill—were grave; but the warmth of his feelings and his passionate love of liberty should obtain for his memory indemnity for these or even greater faults. His affectionate temper, combined with his love of liberty, won him the attachment of devoted friends. His name ought to be consecrated in the heart of every lover of freedom throughout the globe.
  • George III. said to his daughter, the Princess Mary, afterwards Duchess of Gloucester, who told it to me, that he never thought he should have regretted the death of Fox so much as he found he did.
  • Fox's Libel Act had reached the statute book in the temperate early months of 1792, making the jury the judge of the matter as well as of the fact. It was, perhaps, Fox's greatest service to the common people, passed at the eleventh hour before the tide turned towards repression.
  • Charles Fox had great facility of delivery; his words flowed rapidly, but he had nothing of Burke's variety of language or correctness, nor his method. Yet his arguments were far more shrewd; he was many years younger. Burke was indefatigable, learned, and versed in every branch of eloquence. Fox was dissolute, dissipated, idle beyond measure.
    • Horace Walpole, The Last Journals of Horace Walpole during the Reign of George III from 1771–1783, Volume I, ed. A. Francis Steuart (1910), p. 81
  • Bernard [Levin] thought Charles James Fox was the greatest politician of the 18th century. I said, "Ridiculous. He was wrong about everything," after Bernard had said that he was right about everything. "Even about not wanting to fight Napoleon?" I asked. Petronella likes Charles James Fox. They both like romantic rollicking characters. Charles James Fox seems a very similar character to Nye Bevan, flashing and spectacular but not enough substance. We all agree however that we would rather have Charles James Fox to dinner with us that night than William Pitt.
    • Woodrow Wyatt, journal entry (19 January 1987), quoted in The Journals of Woodrow Wyatt, Volume One, ed. Sarah Curtis (1999), p. 273
edit
Wikipedia 
Wikipedia
Wikipedia has an article about:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_James_Fox&oldid=3605980"