Editing Charles James Fox (section)

=== "Pitt's Terror" ===
[[File:Tree of liberty.jpg|thumb|''The Tree of LIBERTY, – with, the Devil tempting John Bull'' (1798): Fox is caricatured by [[James Gillray|Gillray]] as [[Satan]], tempting [[John Bull]] with the rotten fruit of the opposition's Tree of liberty.]]

Fox continued to defend the French Revolution, even as its fruits began to collapse into war, repression and the [[Reign of Terror]]. Though there were few developments in France after 1792 that Fox could positively favour,<ref>{{harvnb|Mitchell|1992|p=124}}</ref> Fox maintained that the old monarchical system still proved a greater threat to liberty than the new, degenerating experiment in France. Fox thought of revolutionary France as the [[lesser of two evils]] and emphasised the role of traditional despots in perverting the course of the revolution: he argued that [[Louis XVI]] and the French aristocracy had brought their fates upon themselves by abusing the [[French Constitution of 1791|constitution of 1791]] and that the [[First Coalition|coalition of European autocrats]], which was currently dispatching its armies against France's borders, had driven the revolutionary government to desperate and bloody measures by exciting a profound national crisis. Fox was not surprised when Pitt and the King brought Britain into the war as well and would afterwards blame the pair and their prodigal European subsidies for the long-drawn-out continuation of the [[French Revolutionary Wars]]. In 1795, he wrote to his nephew, [[Henry Vassall-Fox, 3rd Baron Holland|Lord Holland]]:

{{blockquote|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.<ref>{{harvnb|Mitchell|1992|p=162}}</ref>}}
Rather ironically, while Fox was being denounced by many in Britain as a [[Jacobin (politics)|Jacobin]] traitor, across the [[English Channel|Channel]] he featured on a 1798 list of the Britons to be transported after a successful French invasion of Britain. According to the document, Fox was a "false patriot; having often insulted the French nation in his speeches, and particularly in 1786."<ref>{{harvnb|Mitchell|1992|p=159}}</ref> According to one of his biographers, Fox's "loyalties were not national but were offered to people like himself at home or abroad".<ref name="MI"/> In 1805 [[Francis Horner]] wrote, "I could name to you gentlemen, with good coats on, and good sense in their own affairs, who believe that Fox...is actually in the pay of France".<ref>{{harvnb|Horner|1843|p=323}}</ref>

But Fox's radical position soon became too extreme for many of his followers, particularly old Whig friends like the [[William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland|Duke of Portland]], [[William FitzWilliam, 4th Earl FitzWilliam|Earl Fitzwilliam]] and the [[Frederick Howard, 5th Earl of Carlisle|Earl of Carlisle]]. Around July 1794 their fear of France outgrew their resentment towards Pitt for his actions in 1784, and they [[crossed the floor]] to the Government benches. Fox could not believe that they "would disgrace" themselves in such a way.<ref name="MI"/> After these defections, the Foxites could no longer constitute a credible parliamentary opposition, reduced, as they were, to some fifty MPs.<ref>{{harvnb|Mitchell|1992|p=136}}</ref>

Fox, however, still insisted on challenging the repressive wartime legislation introduced by Pitt in the 1790s that would become known as "Pitt's Terror". In 1792, Fox had seen through the only piece of substantial legislation in his career, the [[Libel Act 1792]] ([[32 Geo. 3]]. c. 60), which restored to juries the right to decide what was and was not libellous, in addition to whether a defendant was guilty. [[E. P. Thompson]] thought it "Fox's greatest service to the common people, passed at the eleventh hour before the tide turned toward repression."<ref>{{harvnb|Thompson|1963|p=135}}</ref> Indeed, the act was passed by Parliament on 21 May, the same day as a [[Royal Proclamation Against Seditious Writings and Publications|royal proclamation against seditious writings]] was issued, and more libel cases would be brought by the government in the following two years than had been in all the preceding years of the eighteenth century.{{citation needed|date=September 2022}}

Fox spoke in opposition to the [[Speech from the throne|King's Speech]] on 13 December 1793, but was defeated in the subsequent division by 290 to 50.<ref>{{harvnb|Mitchell|1992|p=132}}</ref> He argued against war measures like the stationing of [[Hessian troops]] in Britain, the employment of royalist French émigrés in the British army and, most of all, Pitt's [[Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1794|suspension]] of [[habeas corpus]] in 1794. He told the Commons that:
{{blockquote|We had no invasion to fear but an invasion of the constitution.<ref>{{harvnb|Mitchell|1992| p=133}}</ref>}}

In 1795, the King's carriage was assaulted in the street, providing an excuse for Pitt to introduce the infamous Two Acts: the [[Seditious Meetings Act 1795]], which prohibited unlicensed gatherings of over fifty people, and the [[Treasonable Practices Act]], which greatly widened the legal definition of [[treason]], making any assault on the constitution punishable by seven years' transportation. Fox spoke ten times in the debate on the acts.<ref name="Mitchell 1992, p. 140">{{harvnb|Mitchell|1992|p=140}}</ref> He argued that, according to the principles of the proposed legislation, Pitt should have been transported a decade before in 1785, when he had been advocating parliamentary reform.<ref>{{harvnb|Watson|1960|p=360}}</ref> Fox warned the Commons that:
{{blockquote|if you silence remonstrance and stifle complaint, you then leave no other alternative but force and violence.<ref name="Mitchell 1992, p. 140"/>}}
He argued that "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."{{citation needed|date=September 2022}}
[[File:Charles James Fox by Joseph Nollekens 1792.jpg|thumb|right|[[Marble]] [[Bust (sculpture)|bust]] of Fox by [[Joseph Nollekens]], 1792. [[Yale Center for British Art]]]]
Parliament passed the acts. But Fox enjoyed a swell of extra-parliamentary support during the course of the controversy. A substantial petitioning movement arose in support of him, and on 16 November 1795, he addressed a public meeting of between two- and thirty-thousand people on the subject.<ref name="Mitchell 1992, p. 140"/> However, this came to nothing in the long run. The Foxites were becoming disenchanted with the Commons, overwhelmingly dominated by Pitt, and began to denounce it to one another as unrepresentative.<ref name="Mitchell 1992, p. 141">{{harvnb|Mitchell|1992|p=141}}</ref>