1772. made a motion for the repeal of the Marriage Act; on which occasion Horace Walpole-a witness whose language must not always be construed strictly-gives the following account :

When he had moved this repeal, he had not read the Marriage Act, nor did he till some days after. A few evenings before he had been at Brompton on two errands; one, to consult Justice Fielding on the penal laws, the other to borrow 10,000l. which he brought to town at the hazard of being robbed. As the gaming and extravagance of young men of quality had arrived now at a pitch never heard of, it is worth while to give some account of it. They had a club at Almack's, in Pall Mall, where they played only for rouleaus of 50l. each, and generally there was 10,000l. in specie on the table. Lord Holland had paid above 20,000l. for his two sons. Nor were the manners of the gamesters, or even their dresses for play, undeserving notice. They began by pulling off their embroidered clothes and put on frieze great coats, or turned their coats inside outwards for luck. They put on pieces of leather (such as are worn by footmen when they clean the knives) to save their laced ruffles; and to guard their eyes from the light, and to prevent tumbling their hair, wore high-crowned straw hats with broad brims, and adorned with flowers and ribbons; masks to conceal their emotions when they played at quinze. Each gamester had a small neat stand by him to hold their tea, or a wooden bowl with an edge of ormolu to hold their rouleaus. They borrowed great sums of Jews at exorbitant premiums. Charles Fox called his outward room, where those Jews waited till he rose, his Jerusalem Chamber (Mem. of Fox, vol. i. p. 70).

ence over the King, after his retirement from office, is, we may remark, conclusively refuted by the evidence adduced in vol. i. pp. 65-68, of the Memorials of Fox. [Yet Mr. John George Phillimore, in his recent History of England in the Reign of George III. vol. i. p. 387, n. asserts his firm belief in the continuance of Lord Bute's secret influence, certainly till the death of the Princess Dowager on September 3, 1764. I confess that the suppressed passages from Lord Chesterfield's letters, quoted by him, seem to me to afford very insufficient reasons for doubting the conclusion arrived at by Sir George Lewis in this note.-ED.]

On the 20th of February 1772, Fox, being then in his 1772. twenty-third year, resigned his seat at the Admiralty Board. His resignation was due, partly to some personal discontent with Lord North, but chiefly to his intention of opposing the Royal Marriage Act, a measure then in preparation, much desired by the King, but reluctantly adopted by his Ministers. While the Bill was pending in Parliament, the King wrote to Lord North in the following terms: I expect every nerve to be strained to carry the Bill. It is not a question relating to administrations, but personally to myself; therefore I have a right to expect a hearty support from every one in my service, and I shall remember defaulters.' It is evident from the King's language that no person who voted against this Bill could continue to hold office under the Crown. Fox took an active part in opposing it during its passage through the House of Commons. In the course of the debates (says Horace Walpole) I have given very inadequate ideas of the speeches of Burke, Charles Fox, and Wedderburne, three excellent orators in different ways. Burke's wit, allusions, and enthusiasm were striking, but not imposing; Wedderburne was a sharp, clever arguer, though unequal; Charles Fox, much younger than either, was universally allowed to have seized the just point of argument throughout with most amazing rapidity and clearness, and to have excelled even Charles Townshend as a Parliament man, though inferior in wit and variety of talents.

Fox afterwards introduced his Bill for amending the Marriage Act: it was opposed by Lord North and by Burke, and was ultimately thrown out. Walpole's account of Burke's speech against this Bill is remarkable with reference to his subsequent career :

Burke made a fine and long oration against the motion. Burke was certainly in his principles no moderate man; and

1772.

..

when his party did not interfere, generally leaned to the more arbitrary side, as had appeared in the late debates on the Church, in which he had declared for the clergy. He spoke with a choice and variety of language, a profusion of metaphors, and yet with a correction of diction that were surprising. His fault was copiousness above measure; and he dealt abundantly, too much, in establishing general positions. Two-thirds of this oration resembled the beginning of a book on speculative doctrines, and yet argument was not the forte of it.

This first breach between Mr. Fox and Lord North was not of long duration; for in December of the same year, 1772, an arrangement was made, by which the former returned to office and became a Junior Lord of the Treasury. His habits of deep play, however, unhappily continued unbroken, and in order to pay his gaming debts, he actually incurred liabilities to the enormous amount of 140,000l. which sum was discharged by his father from his own estate.1 A strange story is likewise told by Horace Walpole (the truth of which is recognised by Lord Holland) of his having been at this time duped by an impostor calling herself the Hon. Mrs. Grieve, who undertook to procure for him as wife, a Miss Phipps,

1 The following curious account of the occurrences of this time, given to Lord Holland in 1823, by Lord Egremont, is worthy of attention by all persons who are in the habit of high play: 'Lord Egremont was convinced,' he said, 'by reflection, aided by his subsequent experience of the world, that there was at that time some unfair confederacy among some of the players, and that the great losers, especially Mr. Fox, were actually duped and cheated; he should, he said, have been torn to pieces, and stoned by the losers themselves, for hinting such a thing at the time, and even now, those of them, himself excepted, who survived, would exclaim at such a supposition; but he was nevertheless satisfied, that the immoderate, constant, and unparalleled advantages over Charles Fox, and other young men, were not to be accounted for merely by the difference of passing or holding the box, or the hazard of the dice. He had indeed no suspicions (any more than the rest had) at the time, but he had thought it much over since, and he now had.'

recently arrived from the West Indies, with a fortune of 1774. 80,0001.

In the session of 1774, Mr. Fox, impatient of the restraints to which a member holding a subordinate office is subject, differed from Lord North and took an independent line with respect to the committal of Woodfall the printer for a breach of privilege. The King, who appears to have conceived a personal dislike to Fox on account of his opposition to the Royal Marriage Bill, was much displeased at his conduct on this occasion, and, on February 15th, wrote thus to Lord North :

:

I am greatly incensed at the presumption of Charles Fox in forcing you to vote with him last night, but approve much of the making your friends vote in the majority. Indeed, that young man has so strongly cast off every principle of common honour and honesty, that he must become as contemptible as he is odious. I hope you will let him know that you are not insensible of his conduct towards you.1

On a subsequent stage of the same proceeding, Fox repeated his insubordination to North, who, in consequence, sent him a laconic letter, informing him that he was no longer a Lord of the Treasury. Fox now put an end to his connection with Lord North, went into Opposition, and began to act with the Rockingham party,

1 George III. commented very freely on the public men whom he disliked, in his letters to Lord North. Thus, in a letter of August 1775, he speaks of Lord Chatham's recent political conduct as 'abandoned;' he describes Lord Chatham as totally devoid of the honourable sentiment of gratitude, and calls him a trumpet of sedition' (Mem. of Fox, vol. i. p. 129). In letters of March 16, 1778, he speaks of 'Lord Chatham and his crew;' and calls him 'that perfidious man.' It seems to be ascertained that George III. had an attack of insanity (concealed from the public) so early as the year 1765. See Adolphus's History of the Reign of George III. vol. i. p. 175, ed. 1840; Lord Mahon's History, vol. v. p. 96. Nevertheless, the letters of Lord Grenville during the King's illness in 1788-9 (in the Buckingham Papers), convince us that the Ministers had, at that time, no suspicion of his having been previously insane. See particularly a letter in vol. ii. p. 5.

1774.

though he did not formally join it till 1778 or '79. By this means he became the friend of Burke; a friendship which exercised much influence upon him. His independent political career, after he had broken through his original party ties, may be considered as commencing from 1774, when he was in his twenty-fifth year. This year, as Lord John Russell remarks, in an excellent review of our history from 1763 to 1774 (vol. i. p. 102– 133), was the turning point of the American war. It was then that Lord North, though he had originally been adverse to the imposition of the tea duty, decided to maintain it, by closing the port of Boston, and altering the charter of Massachussets. In taking this course, says Lord John, Lord North was warmly supported in the closet, and received the sympathy of the country. Yet it is impossible not to reflect that Lord North was the same minister who in 1768 had, by his voice in the Cabinet, prevented the repeal of the tea duty, and the abandonment of all taxation by Parliament for imperial purposes.1 Had he supported that repeal in 1768, he would have prevented the American war; in 1774 he at least would have given a chance to peace; in 1778, after our armies had been defeated, the concession was useless and insufficient.'

Fox, from the time that he separated himself from Lord North, carried on an unremitting opposition to the

1 The division in the Cabinet of 5 to 4, by which it was decided to maintain the tea duty, was not in 1768, but on May 1, 1769. See Lord Mahon's History, vol. v. p. 242, and App. p. xxxvii. The votes were as follow:— Against it. Lord President.

For repeal.

Duke of Grafton.

Lord Chancellor Camden.

Lord Granby.

General Conway.

Lord North.

Lord Rochford.

Lord Hillsborough.

Lord Weymouth.

On such slight circumstances do great events sometimes turn.