Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:35:00.246Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

III. Charles James Fox and the Whig Opposition in 1792

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2011

H. Butterfield
Get access

Extract

If the year 1792 has come to be remembered for political crises which made it one of the turning-points in English history, it has been famous also for the auspiciousness of its commencement, the optimism and the promise that characterized its earliest months. In January and February Pitt repeatedly drew the attention of parliament to the increasing prosperity of the country and the flourishing state of the public revenue; and opposition did not pretend to deny this, but merely said that the prosperity ‘was no feather in the minister's cap’, since it was due to circumstances independent of government. Even that aggressive admirer of the French Revolution, Earl Stanhope, wrote to a Frenchman: ‘We are already free… and England is now the richest, the most prosperous and—climate apart—the happiest country in Europe.’ Even that determined reformer, the Rev. Christopher Wyvill, joined the crowd of witnesses to the country's good fortune, though he speculated that if a great European war should break out, ‘the English people would probably then renew, but in a louder tone’, the cry for parliamentary reform. Pitt attributed the prosperity to the rise of machinery, the credit facilities, the ‘exploring and enterprising spirit of our merchants’, and the mode in which money was continually being fed back into industry. He claimed that something was due, however, to the internal tranquillity of the nation and ‘the natural effects of a free but well regulated government’. The correspondence of the year 1792 often gives evidence of the sense of rising prosperity; and to this would be attributed on the one hand the general attachment to the constitution, and on the other hand the indifference of the nation to matters of foreign policy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Historical Journal , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , 1949 , pp. 293 - 330
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1949

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Parliamentary History, XXIX, 785, 816, 830, 832-5, 837; Stanhope, and Gooch, , The Life of Charles Third Earl Stanhope (1914), p. 113Google Scholar; Wyvill, C., Political Papers, III, Appendix, ‘Defence of Dr Price’, pp. 92–3Google Scholar.

2 E.g. Journals [and Correspondence] of [William, Lord] Auckland, II, 398; Veitch, G. S., The Genesis of Parliamentary Reform, p. 210Google Scholar.

3 E.g. The Diaries and Correspondence of the Rt. Hon. George Rose, I, 117: ‘I know how very desirous you gentlemen of finance are to avoid giving the least alarm to the funds.’ Cf. H[istorical] M[anuscripts] C[ommission], Dropmore MSS. II, 350.

4 [Fitzwilliam and Bourke], Correspondence of…Burke (1844), III, 343Google Scholar.

5 Parliamentary History, xxix, 826, 835.

6 See p. 327 below; cf. n. 82.

7 Parliamentary History, xxix, 846, 849.

8 Correspondence of…Burke, III, 171.

9 Life and Letters of Sir Gilbert Elliot, First Earl of Minto, II, 7-8.

10 Correspondence of…Burke, III, 402.

11 Ibid, III, 344.

12 Ibid, III, 415.

13 Ibid.; cf. ibid, III, 237.

14 Wentworth Woodhouse MSS. Jof Earl Fitzwilliam, now in the Sheffield Central Library], E. Burke to Lord Fitzwilliam, 21 Nov. 1791. Cf. ibid, copy of E. Burke to H. Dundas, 22 Mar. 1792: ‘Twelve years have been spent in this one Indian pursuit.… I am now an old man of 27 Years’ service in Parliament.… I desire only that the House should not abandon an old worn out Soldier in the exposed Post in which they have placed me; and in which I am content to die, but not to be disgraced.… You and Mr Pitt and Mr Fox and the other great Men who act a part on the Stage, if you fail in this, have other ways of indemnifying your reputations. I have none.’ Cf. also Correspondence of…Burke, III, 408.

16 H.M.C. Castle Howard MSS. p. 699. Papers on the side of government, e.g. Public Advertiser, 28 Feb. 1792, echoed the common view, that if Burke had not ‘urged the controversy Paine… most probably would have been a silent man’. Cf. p. 300 below, for Burke's part in provoking the revival of the Society for Constitutional Information.

16 Parliamentary History, XXIX, 749; Correspondence of… Burke, III, 235.

17 Ibid, III, 236; cf. ibid, III, 532, where Burke says: ‘I really do believe him to be [as good an aristocrat as the rest of us]; but, perhaps, do not the more excuse him.’ d'Arblay, Mme, Diary and Letters (1904), V, 92–3 (18 June 1792),Google Scholar reports Fox as having been heard to say, concerning the Reflections, ‘Well! Burke is right—but Burke is often right, only he is right too soon’; while Burke was heard to say that Fox ‘can never internally like the French Revolution, He is entangled; but, in himself, if he should find no other objection to it, he has at least too much taste for such a revolution’. In the Bodleian Library the Burke transcripts of Rev. R. H. Murray include a letter of 13 Apr. 1792, in which Burke writes: ‘They are not persuaded that Mr Fox and the other gentlemen who do not favour me with their good opinions, vary as much from my sentiments (which are their own) as I apprehend, and as they profess to do; or if there really exists such a diversity, that it is not likely to be followed with such effects as I had dreaded from the propagation of the principles and politics which they encourage. I heartily wish, without being able to change my opinions, that these my excellent friends may be found in the right.’

18 E.g. Public Advertiser, 10 Jan.: ‘Mr Fox possesses too good an understanding, much as it is usurped by Party, to reject the counsels of experience’; Ibid. 31 Mar.: ‘Mr Fox has been unfairly charged with inconsistencies.… But by taking the whole substance.…’ Morning Chronicle, 11 Jan.: ‘At no period has so much industry been used to misrepresent Mr Fox's political character.’ Morning Post, 16 Jan.: ‘In fact when Mr Fox delivered his sentiments the Constituent Assembly had made very little progress in the new system.’

19 Wentworth Woodhouse MSS., H. Dundas to E. Burke, 26 Sept. 1791; Windsor Castle MSS., George III, 6873, H. Dundas to George III, 1 Oct. 1791. Cf. Bodleian Library, Transcripts of Burke Letters by Rev. R. H. Murray, E. Burke to R. Burke junr., 28 Oct. 1791: ‘There are two men high in the party who would certainly be affected by these things if they ever attended to them, or combined them with each other or followed them up.… But one of them does not even read the Newspapers.’

20 Milton MSS. [of Earl Fitzwilliam, no w with the Northamptonshire Record Society at Lamport Hall], C. J. Fox to Earl Fitzwilliam, 16 Mar. 1792. I have to thank Mr H. V. F. Somerset for calling my attention to this document, which does not seem to survive in its entirety, though Mr P. I. King, Assistant Secretary to the Northamptonshire Record Society, has kindly communicated to me from the same collection a transcript of the missing section. Cf. ibid, the Earl of Carlisle to Earl Fitzwilliam, 19 Oct. 1792.

21 This part of Fox's letter is only given from the transcript mentioned in n. 20 above.

22 [British Museum] Add. MSS. 27811, f. 7, Thos. Hardy to the Manchester Society for Constitutional Information, 7 Apr. 1792: ‘we nattered ourselves that no other societies in the nation were formed upon the same principles.’ Ibid. ff. 4-5, Thos. Hardy to Rev. Mr Bryant, 8 Mar. 1792. For the early history of the Sheffield Society, see Jones, G. P., ‘The Reform Movement in Sheffield’, Hunter Archaeological Society, IV (1929-1937)Google Scholar; Taylor, J., ‘The Shef-field Constitutional Society, 1791-95’Google Scholar, ibid, V (1938-43); [Public Record Office] T[reasury] S[olicitor] 11/952, no. 34962, Alcock, John to the editors of The English Chronicle, 15 Jan. 1792Google Scholar; Ibid. Samuel Ashton to the London Society for Constitutional Information, 14 Mar. 1792, with enclosure; T.S. 11/951, no. 3495, J. H. Tooke to the Sheffield Constitutional Society, 2 Mar. 1792.

23 [Public Record Office,] H[ome] O[ffice] 42/20, no. 176, Col. de Lancy to Dundas, 13 June, copy: ‘The Manufactures of this Town are of a nature to require so little capital to carry them on, that a man with a very small sum of money can employ 2, 3 or 4 men, and this being generally the case, there are not in this, as in other great Towns, any number of persons of sufficient weight who could by their influence, or the number of their dependents, act with any effect in case of a disturbance, and as the wages given to the journeymen are very high, it is pretty generally the practice for them to work for three days, in which they earn sufficient to enable them to drink and riot for the rest of the week, consequently no place can be more fit for seditious purposes.’

24 Ibid. Concerning Birmingham the report was more favourable, though ‘both parties are carrying on a literary war, no day passing without some publication… tending to inflame the animosity’. In Liverpool, ‘however the people of the Town might differ in relation to their opinions of the present Administration, yet in support of the general government and constitution of the country, they were, with few exceptions, firmly united’. The Mayor of Liver-pool, though he had to report strikes and labour troubles, wrote to the Home Office, 5 June (H.O. 42/20, no. 61), ‘Rely upon it, Sir, that in this Town there is no danger of any political Commotion’.

26 T.S. II/952, no. 34962. T. Goff, Chairman of the Norwich Revolution Society to the London Society for Constitutional Information, 26 Apr. 1792: ‘Surely the interests of all the industrious, from the richest merchant to the poorest mechanic, are in every community the same; to lessen the numbers of the unproductive, to whose maintenance they contribute… and to do away such institutions and imposts as abridge the means of maintenance, by resisting the demand for labour, or by sharing its reward.’ At this time there were seven confederated clubs in Norwich.

26 H.O. 42/20, no. 176. Report of Col. de Lancy, 13 June:’ I was concerned to find that the magistrates of the place scarcely deserved the name… two justices of the peace have been in the habit of coming once a fortnight… the one nearer town, having made some efforts during the Riots last year… the populace burned a part of his property and since that time he has been very little in the country. ‘The other lived about 14 miles from the town.’ The people of property, who ought to exert themselves, are so much alarmed, that they dare not even speak their sentiments if in opposition to the populace.… The first object of the associators is to get the soldiers over to their party.… I am therefore of opinion that continuing the Troops in the manufacturing Towns, but particularly in Sheffield, is so full of danger, that I cannot help suggesting the propriety of quartering them in the adjacent towns.’

27 Wyvill, C., Political Papers, V, pp. IV-V and 3–7.Google Scholar On 8 Apr. 1793, Jeremiah Batley wrote to Edmund Burke a letter (Bodleian Library, Transcripts of Burke Letters by Rev. R. H. Murray), explaining the conservative nature of his reforming views and the manner in which he first joined the Society for Constitutional Information and then withdrew from it. For the revival of this society, see also Brown, P. A., The French Revolution in English History, p.53Google Scholar.

28 E.g. T.S. II/951, no. 3495: Copy of Preamble and Rules of London Corresponding Society. Cf. Add. MSS. 27811, f. 6, T. Hardy to J. H. Tooke, 27 Mar. 1792, where ft appears that Paine also assisted in the drawing up of the first address.

29 The Sheffield Society took the initiative; for, after making an attempt to secure London connexions by addressing an inquiry to ‘the Editors of The English Chronicle’ (T.S. 11/952, no. 34962), they sent what was clearly a similar inquiry to Tooke, apparently on 16 Feb., and Tooke replied 2 Mar. (T.S. 11/951, no. 3495; cf. index to Home Tooke's papers in the same parcel) referring them to the London Society for Constitutional Information and informing them of the forthcoming establishment of the London Corresponding Society. Tooke had been in communication with the Radicals in the provincial towns at an earlier date, however, for there are drafts, partly in his hand, of an address of 20 Aug. 1791, celebrating the anniversary of the downfall of feudalism in France, and stating, ‘Beneath the feudal System all Europe has long groaned, and from it England is not yet free.… But.… We sincerely [rejoice] in the Freedom of others, till we shall happily accomplish our own’ (Ibid.). A copy of this was printed in Sheffield on 20 Sept., but on 29 Aug. Thos. Cooper wrote to Tooke from Manchester that the local reforming newspaper did not dare, for fear of prosecution, to publish a document which he describes both as ‘the letter signed J.H.T.’ and as ‘your address’. Cooper declared the intention of founding a more radical newspaper which ‘will at first be gentle, but always decidedly democratic’, and asked Tooke to provide communications for it (Ibid.). The editors of the Sheffield Patriot declared on 11 June 1792 that their new periodical’ owes its Existence to a hint from the [Society for Constitutional Information] that small and cheap publications would be of great benefit’ (T.S. II/952, no. 34962).

30 T.S. II/951, no. 3495, J. H. Tooke to the Sheffield Constitutional Society, 2 Mar. 1792, and T. S. II/952, no. 3496, Samuel Ashton to the London Society for Constitutional Information, 14 Mar. 1792.

31 On 23 Mar. it decided on the policy of communicating all its resolutions to the societies with which itwas in correspondence, and at the same time it adopted the procedure which Tooke had prompted the societies in the provincial towns to ask for—namely, the election as honorary members of a number of people whom each of these societies had nominated for the purpose.

32 Wentworth Woodhouse MSS., The Duke of Portland to Lord Fitzwilliam, 6 Apr. 1792.

33 Political Papers, III, App. p. 69.

34 Ibid V, 1-2, 20-6, 30-2, 66-71.

35 Parliamentary History, XXIX, 749-50, 773.

86 Lord Auckland, writing to Lord Henry [Spencer] from Beckenham on 13 Apr. 1792 (Add. MSS. 34442, ff. 74—5) expressed the view that the Dutch could be reassured about ‘the Sheffield Democracy’, for though-these people ‘occasionally talk nonsense and treason with that Fluency and impunity which are usual at all times in this Country among certain classes… the Sheffield business had been treated with little regard or seriousness in any mention which I had heard of it’. In H.O. 42/20 there is an account by the magistrates, and in T.S. II/952, no. 34962, another by the associators (both dated 10 May 1792) of a conflict between citizens of Sheffield and the troops in that town.

37 Public Advertiser, 23 Mar. 1792.

38 The Master of Trinity, in his Lord Grey of the Reform Bill (2nd ed. 1929), p. 44nn.,Google Scholar has noted that ‘The “Association” and “Associators” are the words used for the Society of Friends of the People and its members in the correspondence and speeches of the year 1792’. I have discussed the significance of the conception of the association in the movement of 1780 in my George III, Lord North and the People 1779-80, pp. 255—68, and the initial pretensions of the Friends of the People to fulfil the same role in 1792 helps to explain the shock they created in Apr. and May. That the more extreme ideas of 1780 were in the air is illustrated, for example, by Public Advertiser, 7 Jan. 1792: ‘There can be no doubt that the Party in this country are meditating a kind of Sub-Parliament’; Ibid. 25 Jan.: ‘the lower tribes of opposition who issue daring invitations for the people to meet and appoint delegates from every town in the kingdom’; Ibid. 22 Mar.: ‘The Blue and Buff Patriots now urge the people to form Associations in order to Force the House of Commons to redress the evils’; Ibid. 24 Mar.: ‘Associations for the purpose of compelling the representative body… what is this but to instigate the mob to take arms?’ Cf. Morning Chronicle, 23 Mar.: ‘Associations are the only means of procuring redress’; Ibid. 27 Mar.: ‘Let us put an end to all quackery.… In every populous town associations on the most legal and temperate principles are now forming to obtain by the arms of reason [parliamentary reform].’

39 Wyvill, C., Political Papers, in, App. pp. 128–9,135-61 144-8,Google Scholar Addresses of the Friends of the People, n Apr., 26 Apr. and 5 May 1792.

40 Holland, Lord, Memorials of the Whig Party, I, 13–14Google Scholar; Holland, Lady, Journal, 1, 101Google Scholar; Life.… of Sir Gilbert Elliot, 11, 21, speaking of Colonel Fullarton. Of Dudley North the letter notes also ‘He got into the association by his connection with Lord Lauderdale, who is very light-headed on all subjects’.

41 Political Memoranda of the Duke of Leeds, p. 182; Life… of Sir Gilbert Elliot, II, 21; Wyvill, C., Political Papers, in, App. pp. 169–73Google Scholar; Mackintosh, R. J., Memoirs of… the Rt. Hon. James Mackintosh (1835), II, 88.Google Scholar Fullarton sent explanations of his conduct to Windham and Burke on 20 Feb. 1793 (Add. MSS. 37873, ff. 203-4; Bodleian Library, Transcripts of Rev. R. H. Murray). On 14 June Henry Erskine explained that, though he believed in reform and naturally desired to act with his brother Thomas, he considered ‘that this is of all others the most improper time… and that the mode adopted is at the present conjuncture the most un-fortunate that could have been devised’ (Life… of Sir Gilbert Elliot, II, 57-60). Thomas Erskine was talking about the association on 18 June and ‘said much of the use they had made of his name, though he had never yet been to the society’, as he had so little time (Mme d'Arblay, Diary and Letters, v, 97).

42 Wyvill, C., Political Papers, V, 66–71Google Scholar; cf. ibid, V, 22-6.

43 T.S. II/951, no. 3495, Tooke, J. H. to the Sheffield Constitutional Society, 2 Mar. 1792Google Scholar; Wyvill, C., Political Papers, V, 43–7.Google Scholar Paine gave his consent 5 Mar.

44 C[ambridge] U[niversity] L[ibrary] Add. MSS. 69586, Transcript, Earl of Westmor-land to R. Hobart, 4 May 1792.

45 State Trials, xxiv, 303.

46 Copy of the Resolutions in H.O. 42/20. On 4 July, ‘being the anniversary of the Independence of America’, Paine informed the society that the cheap edition of Part I was already in circulation at 30s. a thousand, for retailing at 6d. The papers of the society include orders for copies, e.g. 100 for Leicester, while Sheffield ordered 500 (T.S. II/952, no. 34962, J. Gales to D. Adams, 11 July).

47 Wyvill, C., Political Papers, III, App. p. 170Google Scholar; Parliamentary History, xxxi, 762-3. Appendix to the Second Report of th e Committee of Secrecy.

48 E.g. Political Papers, V, 55-8, Wyvill, C. to Ralph Milbanke, 21 May 1792Google Scholar: ‘It would’, he said, ‘obviate th e objection that these measures come from a self-created body.’ Cf. Ibid. pp. 66-71, C. Wyvill to Wm. Burgh, 16 May 1792, where Wyvill adds that it is the professed intention of the Friends of the People to adopt this course. On 4 May, writing to the Duke of Grafton, ibid, VI, 269, he flattered himself that ‘objections to Reform… which are grounded merely on the circumstances of the time or on the mode of moving it, will be overruled by those declarations of public opinion which may be expected next winter from many respectable districts’; cf. Ibid. p. 345, where he particularly specifies the north of England and expects ‘more numerous petitions than in any former period’.

49 Thos. Hardy's admission is in Trevelyan, G. M., Lord Grey of the Reform Bill, pp. 45–6.Google Scholar Cf. Wyvill, C., Political Papers, III, 161–4.Google Scholar The Committee of the Society for Constitutional Information, Sheffield to the Friends of the People, 14 May: ‘Your sentiments…are perfectly in unison with ours… [we believed] that in due time men of more respectable character and great abilities would step forward.’

50 H.M.C. Castle Howard MSS. p. 698, to Lord Carlisle.

51 Windsor Castle MSS., George III, 6947; Windham Papers, 1, 100-5, to W. J. Gurney; Life… of Sir Gilbert Elliot, 11, 20.

52 On 27 Apr. the Society for Constitutional Information wrote to the new Association questioning whether any member of parliament could be a friend of the people, demanding ‘the People's Rights in their full extent’, and declaring its intention of warning the ‘brethren’ against treachery. The reply of the Friends of the People, adopted 12 May, stated that the new association would have nothing to do with reforms which, ‘however specious in theory, can never be accomplished without violence’. It also announced the refusal of ‘all further intercourse’ ( Wyvill, C., Political Papers, III, App. pp. 149–58Google Scholar). This attitude of the Friends of the People was later used to support- the case against the Society for Constitutional Information in the trial of Hardy, Thomas (State Trials, xxiv, 298–301)Google Scholar, but it raised great controversy in the new association on 12 May ( Wyvill, C., Political Papers, V, 47Google Scholar; Public Advertiser, 14 May; cf. Morning Herald, 8 May), and certain men like Mackintosh, T. Brand Hollis, Saw-bridge, James Martin, Lord Daer, and Capel Lofft were members of both societies. The controversies concerning the attempt to admit to membership T. Cooper (which failed) and J. Cartwright (which succeeded) led to five resignations from the Friends of the People in June. In the meantime the Sheffield Society for Constitutional Information had written to the Friends of the People (see n. 49 above) and had suggested the establishment in London of a convention of deputies from all parts of the country. The association replied on 24 May, that it could give no immediate answer on this subject, but that discreet language was called for and they could only correspond with bodies which displayed moderation ( Wyvill, C., Political Papers, III, 165–9Google Scholar). Without waiting for the answer, the Sheffield Society, in a letter which, though addressed to the Society for Constitutional Information, shows corrections made by Tooke, declared on 28 May that they were not satisfied with the addresses, etc., of the Friends of the People and ‘shall not attempt any further Communication with them until we are favoured with your sentiments’ (State Trials, XXIV, 299–300). The Friends of the People in Southwark, formally instituted at a meeting on 19 Apr. 1792 (Minutes in T.S. II/952, no. 34962), held a meeting in May, at which Lord Daer and John Cartwright (representing the Society for Constitutional Information) were present, and declared their disapproval of the Whig Society whose name they had borrowed, because it went ‘no further than the reform of Parliament’ (Public Advertiser, 10 and 14 May).

53 T.S. II/951. no. 3495, n.d.

54 Holland, Lady, Memoirs, I, 15n.,Google Scholar Thomas Pelham to Lady Webster, 15 June 1792. Lauderdale said they were determined not to consult Fox ‘in order that he might not be involved if they failed’; but when they found themselves embarrassed they did their best to involve not only Fox but the Duke of Portland, who greatly resented this.

55 Morning Chronicle, 6 June.

56 Holland, Lord, Memorials of the Whig Party, pp. 11–15Google Scholar.

57 ‘Observations on the Conduct of the Minority’, Works, VII, 229. Coke refused to join the society and declared during the summer that ‘this was not the moment to attempt reform’. Stirling, A. M. W., Coke of Norfolk and his Friends (new ed. 1912), pp. 241, 243Google Scholar.

58 Life… of Sir Gilbert Elliot, II, 31, Sir Gilbert to Lady Elliot, 24 May; Political Memoranda of the Duke of Leeds, p. 195. At the Whig Club Fox confessed his pleasure that his conduct ‘had received the approbation of both sides’ (Morning Chronicle, 6 June).

59 Barnes, D. G., George III and William Pitt, p. 220Google Scholar.

60 Windham Papers, 1, 100-5.

61 Stanhope, , Life of William Pitt (1879), I, 493Google Scholar.

62 C.U.L. Add. MSS. 69586, Transcript, the Duke of Portland to W. Pitt, 24 May.

63 In Manchester the Constitutional Society on 2 June blamed the proclamation for creating alarm and exhorted people not to attend a meeting for an address in ‘the present agitated state of the public mind’. In Sheffield one general meeting rejected the proposed address which was only carried by the device of summoning another meeting merely for those who were willing to sign it (T.S. II/952. no. 34962, the editors of The Patriot to the London Society for Constitutional Information, 11 June; ibid, letters from S. Ashton, 6 and 12 June; Sheffield Register, 15 June). The Common Council of the city of Norwich rejected the address by 31 to 16 after it had been carried by the aldermen (T.S. II/952, no. 3496s, T. Goff to S. Adams, 19 June).

64 [ist Earl of] Malmesbury, Diaries and Correspondence, II, 453. Later in the month we see Fitzwilliam and the Duke of Norfolk making arrangements ‘for the purpose of fixing some channel’ of communication with the Secretary of State's Office, respecting the transactions at Sheffield’. H.O. 42/20, no. 197, Earl Fitzwilliam to J. King, 23 June. In the Wentworth Woodhouse MSS. Box A, Bundle S, there exist very rough notes, which are in Burke's hand and may belong to this time, on the kind of assurances which would be required from Fox, concerning his attitude to the followers of Paine and the Friends of the People. The y ru n on into a disquisition concerning the dangers likely to arise even from popular demonstrations in favour of the existing system, supposing such demonstrations to be called for. Next to this is the draft of a statement to be made on behalf of the King, urging Portland's duty not to refuse an invitation to join the ministry, and not to expect that the innovators would be regarded as admissible.

65 Malmesbury, , Diaries and Correspondence, II, 454–5Google Scholar.

66 Wentworth Woodhouse MSS., Earl Fitzwilliam-to Lady Rockingham, 28 Feb. 1793: ‘This circumstance led in the course of last spring to an apparent junction of Ministry and a part of Opposition against a small part of the latter: the very appearance of this though for a temporary and single purpose was mischievous, but it gave rise to what was more so, a good plausible opportunity for parts of the Opposition to communicate directly with Government, which has ended… in furnishing the-Woolsack of our house with a Chancellor—But this is not all: it certainly has given to others a leaning the same way, and it gave to the person particularly alluded to, the course of a whole summer to work more efficiently towards that end, whilst in the character of Opposition, he could sow the seed of jealousy, suspicion and mistrust of those he spoke of as his friends, allies and associates.’ The government newspapers in August gibe at what they describe as the desperate attempts of the opposition to gain a share in the government. See also Postscript, p. 330.

67 [Lord John Russell], Memorials {and Correspondence] of [Charles James] Fox, III, 33; Campbell, J. L., Lives of the Chancellors, VI, 359–60Google Scholar; H.M.C. Castle Howard MSS. p. 696Google Scholar.

68 E.g. Fox MSS. in the possession of the Master of Trinity, C. J. Fox to the Duke of Port-land [21 July 1792]: ‘Pitt has now made his third offer, the great seal to Ld. Lfoughborough], India to Ld. North and the Garter to you, whether if these are known they will strengthen him in the opinion of the public, or raise him in that of his Party, I much doubt, but that is his business.’

69 Malmesbury, , Diaries and Correspondence, II, 470Google Scholar; Fox MSS., C. J. Fox to the Duke of Portland, 21 July, Fox adds: ‘I agree with you in doubting much the D. of L.'s influence anywhere.’

70 Fox MSS. Cf. Malmesbury, , Diaries and Correspondence, II, 470–1.Google Scholar Curiously enough, Leeds in his Political Memoranda, pp. 179-80, states that Fox was pressing that he should see the King, and initiating the suggestion that Portland would provide him with a written authorization—this on 25 July, the day before Fox's similar communication to Portland.

71 On 12 Sept. Portland betrayed his disappointment in a letter to Burke (Wentworth Woodhouse MSS.): ‘As you know my Sentiments upon the subject of a Coalition, You will have no difficulty in believing the regret which I feel at the termination which has been put to any present idea of it. The Benefits which I imagined mankind in general might derive from such an Administration had led me to look forward to the formation of it with a degree of enthusiasm which made me imagine all the parties disposed to meet for the purpose of forming the arrangement with that temper of mind and that spirit which vaults over all subordinates and interested considerations. Dundas's language intitled me, as I thought, to indulge this idea. But I am sure I was mistaken, that never was, and is not, the sentiment of those with whom He is connected. They do not wish for power for the only purpose which makes that wish justifiable. They have no principle. They know not what party is, but for the desire of annihilating it, and suppose favors emoluments and Patronage a compensation for the loss of Consistency of Character.’

72 Milton MSS., the Duke of Portland to Earl Fitzwilliam, 26 Sept. Portland held that Malmesbury had recently gained an unfair impression of Fox because he had unwisely pressed him to approve of the interference of the German powers in France. Fox had insisted that the ‘forcing any constitution upon a people by arms… was horrible’; and on this Portland said, ‘I confess I do not at all differ from Fox, and yet I do not disapprove… the invasion of ‘France… the French themselves… have made it a case of necessity’.

73 T.S. II/951, no. 349s, M. Margarot and Thos. Hardy to J. H. Tooke, 15"and 16 Sept. Cf. Hardy's formal proposal of this to the Society for Constitutional. Information., 21 Sept., Rose, J. Holland, William Pitt and the Great War. (1911), pp. 65–6Google Scholar.

74 T.S. II/951, no. 3495.

75 Ibid. R. Mercy to J. H. Tooke, 29 Oct.

76 Cf. Ibid. Walter Miller (of Perth) to J. H. Tooke: ‘You may obtain assistance from a quarter where perhaps you would have list [least] expected it.… The Scotch nation… as they are nowise influenced by the aristocratical Church, perhaps the body of the people t ticularly in the boroughs) are almost as ripe for reform as they are in England.’

77 Buckingham declared to Grenville on 8 Nov., ‘I think you will find yourselves much charged with neglect or with a mistaken line of conduct’. He claimed that his opinions were shared ‘by all ranks of people’, who proclaimed them ‘with great dissatisfaction and increasing alarm’. He confessed later that he had thought ‘the inattention of government proceeded from some system’ (H.M.C. Dropmore MSS. II, 326-8).

78 Wentworth Woodhouse MSS., The Duke of Portland to Earl Fitzwilliam, 17 Oct. 1792. Portland was being hard pressed at this period by Windham, to whom he wrote on 13 Oct. that he had great faith ‘founded on the very general diffusion and distribution of property, the perfect security in which it is enjoyed, the great opulence… the superabundance of employment and wages’ (Windham Papers, I, 106-7). Loughborough'was also pressing him and re-ported to Carlisle on 26 Oct. that he had seen Portland ‘under a recent alarm from a festival which had been made in his neighbourhood, to celebrate the success of the French with an appearance of somewhat more cost than the sixpenny contributions of the company.… These feelings are much warmer in his mind than when you last saw him, but I do not think his resolution is yet formed to act up to them’ (H.M.C. Carlisle Papers, p. 697).

79 Burke wrote an account of this immediately afterwards in a letter to his son which has been endorsed with a wrong date and is erroneously attributed to ‘September 1792’ in Correspondence of… Burke, in, 523-30. He wrote a much longer report to Earl Fitzwilliam, 29 Nov. (Wentworth Woodhouse MSS.). Windham has an account of it in a letter to J. Coxe Hippisley, 28 Mar. 1793 (Windham Papers, 1, 113-20).

80 Bodleian Library, Transcripts of Rev. R. H. Murray. Burke's paper is printed in Works, VII, 87-116, under the title ‘Heads for Consideration on the present State of Affairs’.

81 Diaries and Correspondence of the Rt. Hon. George Rose, I, 114-17.

82 Wentworth Woodhouse MSS., Thomas GrenviUe to Earl Fitzwilliam, 15 Nov.:’ The success of the French arms has already made so much impression in this country & added so many partizans to it's cause, that (if I am not much mistaken) a declaration of offensive war against France might probably at once produce here all the dangers & calamities which you & I equally fear.… Look round and see the subscriptions openly advertised for assisting the French, the new enthusiasm which grows out of an admiration of their success, the busy and active spirits which have availed themselves of this to make their cause popular among all the societies and associations which exist throughout the country, see too that they have been taught (wisely I think) by government to believe that this country takes no part in the confederacy against France.’ Cf. Ibid. Thomas Grenville to Earl Fitzwilliam, 29 Oct. 1793, giving later recollections of this period.

83 Wentworth Woodhouse MSS., Thomas Grenville to Earl Fitzwilliam, 17 Nov.: Ibid. E. Burke to Earl Fitzwilliam, 29 Nov.; Milton MSS., W. Windham to Earl Fitzwilliam, 17 Nov.

84 Wentworth Woodhouse MSS., E. Burke to Earl Fitzwilliam, 29 Nov. Burke said that he came to this dinner feeling ‘with a degree of satisfaction which I had not experienced for a long time’, that ‘as in old times’, he was meeting ‘so many Friends’.

86 On 18 Nov. Loughborough, in a conversation with Pitt, confirmed the report originally-given by Burke and Windham on the disposition of the opposition Whigs, and specified some who would be sure to support the government ( Barnes, D. G., George III and William Pitt, p. 253Google Scholar, W. Pitt to Lord Grenville, 18 Nov.). See also Postscript, p. 330, below.

86 Wentworth Woodhouse MSS., Earl Fitzwilliam to R. Burke, 27 Aug. [1793]; Ibid. Earl Fitzwilliam to the Duke of Portland, Sept. 1793. Cf., however, ibid, the Duke of Portland to Earl Fitzwilliam, 22 Sept. 1793: ‘I never never saw, nor can I yet see Burke and Windham's visit to Pitt in the same light in which it has always been viewed by you, perhaps it had better been avoided, but yet I do not know that I should have protested against it had I been previously informed of it.’

87 Wentworth Woodhouse MSS., E. Burke to Earl Fitzwilliam, 29 Nov. If Portland noticed (n. 72 above) that Fox was inclined to set up a resistance when a man like Malmesbury was pressing him, this was true most of all when Fox was talking to Windham, whom he confessed a little later to find ‘very provoking’, and whose entry into the room sometimes made him perceptibly more recalcitrant. Thomas Grenville, who sometimes acted as a link between Fox and the ‘aristocratic’ party, with which he now sympathized, merely recorded after Jemappes that he found it as difficult as usual to induce Fox to share his apprehensions.

88 Memorials of Fox, II, 366-78.

89 Trevelyan, , Lord Grey of the Reform Bill, pp. 60–1Google Scholar; Memorials… of Fox, II, 379-80.

90 Wentworth Woodhouse MSS., the Duke of Portland to Earl Fitzwilliam, 30 Nov. Burke, writing to Earl Fitzwilliam, 29 Nov. (Ibid.), gives additional details of the views put forward by Fox on this occasion, though he only has them at second hand. ‘I understand that [Fox] says, he apprehends no danger to the internal state of the kingdom; which, however ^e checks by saying that he has not lived much about for this good while past. That he is of opinion we ought to recognise the French Republic; and that having done this we ought to inform that Republic that we shall not quietly see them add the Austrian Netherlands to their dominion. That however these countries are not to be restored to the Emperor but left to choose a government for themselves. He did not say who were to be the persons to elect this government. That as to the interior affairs, he thought satisfaction ought to be given to the Catholics in Ireland. That in England the test ought to be repealed. That in Scotland, the Boroughs ought to be settled according to Sheridan's Bill. As to the rest, a regular Opposition was to be carried on as usual.’ Burke offered the criticism: ‘Mr Fox's scheme of taking the Netherlands from the Emperor and electing some fashion of a Republic nominally independent is not likely to cause any difference between him and his friends in France. It is exactly the scheme they propose themselves and which they, and all the World think is their mode of extending an universal Empire. No man can dream that in the present state of things or any which can be divined in future that such a Republic can be really and substantially indepen-dent. It must cling to that power to which it owes its origin… and Great Britain is to cede in one day to that Nation, the Object for which she has carried on so many wars, and that Holland must not follow it is ridiculous to imagine.’

91 Trevelyan, , Lord Grey of the Reform Bill, pp. 61–2Google Scholar.

98 Add. MSS. 37873, flf. 181-2, J. Anstruther to W. Windham, 30 Nov. In the postscript of a letter to Portland of 26 July (Fox MSS.), Fox had written, ‘I have some difficulty to keep my temper when I hear of the friends of this Ministry complain of the weakness of Government & reflect upon it's original formation’.

93 T.S. 11/952, no. 34962.

94 Trevelyan, , Lord Grey of the Reform Bill, pp. 65–6Google Scholar(in the Fox MSS. there is a similar letter to W. Adams). Milton MSS., copy of the first of three letters written by Earl Fitz-william to Lady Fitzwilliam early in December, and wrongly endorsed as ‘]anuaiy 1793’.

95 Milton MSS., Earl Fitzwilliam to Lady Fitzwilliam [letters of early Dec. 1792 but wrongly endorsed Jan. 1793].

96 Wentworth Woodhouse MSS., Lord Loughborough to E. Burke, 30 Dec. By 11 Dec. Fox, though not doubting the necessity of assisting the Dutch if attacked, ‘seemed inclined to think the opening of the Scheldt was not a sufficient motive, and would not even be considered as such by the Dutch themselves’. Malmesbury, Diaries and Correspondence, 11, 474.

97 Fox MSS., C. J. Fox to Mrs Armistead, 13 Dec.

98 See the letters mentioned in n. 95. Cf. Malmesbury, , Diaries and Correspondence, II, 474Google Scholar, ‘Lord Fitzwilliam quoted what was passing at Sheffield and Leeds—he blamed the Ministry for neglect and carelessness, which had reduced them to the embarrassing dilemma of calling together Parliament, he believed against the letter of law, though justified by the circumstances of the times—Tom Grenville said nearly the same, and the few words which fell from the Dukes of Devonshire and Portland were to the same effect’. Burke's views are given in a paper in his hand amongst the Wentworth Woodhouse MSS.—clearly the draft of a speech for the opening of parliament.

99 E.g. Fox MSS., C. J. Fox to the Duke of Portland, [31 Dec. 1792].

100 The Morning Post of 31 Dec. declared that it was ‘not to be wondered at’ that Sir Gilbert Elliot should have ‘deserted the Party; the wonder is that he and many more of Lord North's Tory squad who came over at the Coalition should have had the patience to remain so long without the loaves and fishes’.

101 Against the familiar hostile accounts in Malmesbury, , Diaries and Correspondence, *II, 473Google Scholar et seqq., and Life… of Sir Gilbert Elliot, II, 79 et seqq., should be placed Wentworth Woodhouse MSS., the Duke of Portland to Earl Fitzwilliam, 29 Dec.

102 Add. MSS. 37873, f. 195. Cf. Windham Papers, I, 110-12, Thos. Grenville t o W. Wind ham, 10 Feb. 1793, protesting against this.

103 Ibid. I, 113-20.

104 Milton MSS., the Duke of Bedford to Earl Fitzwilliam, n.d. [1793], respecting the desire to increase the sum already raised; and enclosures, containing a list of those to whom the further appeal is to be made.

106 Milton MSS., William Adam to Earl Fitzwilliam, 19 Sept. 1793; ibid, the Duke of Portland to Earl Fitzwilliam, 23 Sept. 1793. A further letter from Adam to Fitzwilliam says, ‘I cannot but look to Your Lordship's words, in your last Letter, that state the party as dissolved, with great regret’. After this episode Adam offered to mediate an explanation between Fox and the noble leaders (Ibid. W. Adam to Earl Fitzwilliam, 31 Oct. 1793); but Portland, who traced the misunderstandings to ‘that accursed Association of Friends of the People’ wrote, ‘I must say that it seems to me that after all that has passed it is not for us to seek an explanation’.