Lost History – The forgotten fame of Charles James Fox

Recent revisionist accounts of British history have curiously excluded one of the most important, relevant and radical figures of the 18th century – Charles James Fox.

A formidable orator, whose speeches have been described as “great storms of improvisational genius”, Fox aligned himself with liberal movements and progressive causes, radical factions that were often at odds with the elite to which he belonged. Far from being a habitual contrarian, Fox’s curious proclivities for fundamental reform precipitate the values of the modern world and undoubtedly helped ensure its realisation.

The son of Pitt the Elder’s ignominious nemesis, Henry Fox, Charles spent the span of his political career rhetorically duelling his rival, Pitt the Younger. Indeed, this inherited feud seriously affected his life.

Pitt’s prodigious ascent to the premiership and occupation of that office for nineteen years undoubtedly thwarted Fox’s supposedly inevitable prospects of supreme executive power, but it also has eclipsed his exceptional legacy.

A staunch opponent of George III, whom he deemed an “aspiring tyrant,” Fox promoted parliamentary sovereignty and helped steady the unsettled synthesis of legislative and monarchical power, subtly yet significantly contributing to the functioning constitutional equilibrium that Britain enjoys today.

Lauded by his successors and celebrated over the centuries that followed his death, his reputation has declined in recent decades. But given our current fixation on the course and outcomes of British history, the telling of Fox’s extraordinary story divulges the diversity of ideas that constituted high imperial politics and reveals the astonishing foresight and dedication possessed by 18th-century reformers.

In his day, Fox was one of the most famous names in the world. Entering parliament at the spritely age of 19, his orations galvanised a generation and inspired a long and illustrious list of future ministers and Prime Ministers.

Despite his notoriously louche and hedonistic social life, his impressive presence in the House of Commons terrified his opponents and motivated his comrades, endearing his demeanour to the electorate and gaining his reputation international recognition.

It is said that even Catherine the Great while delighting in her status as an “enlightened monarch” had a marble bust of Fox installed in her private study. Although he commenced his career espousing comparably conservative principles, the advent of the American Revolution activated his radical tendencies, alienating him from his close friend, mentor and colleague, Edmund Burke.

While besting contenders in the debating chamber and impressing an extinct calibre of orator (a generation that included the likes of Sheridan, Burke and Pitt), Fox became the self-styled champion of progressive causes, taking every practical opportunity to support egalitarian reform. Instrumental throughout every major Commons debate on the abolition of slavery, the impeachment of Warren Hastings, the sovereignty of parliament and negotiations with Revolutionary France.

A comment from his adversary, George III, arguably sums up Fox’s inability to achieve the premiership: “the excitement of politics enthralled him, but not the routine work of administration.”

However, noted biographer, RJ Mitchell believed that every time Fox received a ministerial appointment, he displayed all the diligence and sobriety that a government role necessitates, drinking less, ceasing his excessive gambling and rising earlier than his usual habits allowed.

His discernible flaws were always redeemed by his charm, conviviality and wit, qualities that even thawed the icy contempt of those who politically despised him. Edward Gibbon once remarked, “Let him do what he wills. I must love the dog.”

So why is he so forgotten today? Why can so few professional politicians describe his significance or explain his extraordinary exploits? His failure to become Prime Minister, his custom of aiding doomed causes, his awkward effusiveness towards Napoleonic France and his casual political conduct all contributed.

But now that themes like slavery and imperialism pervade contemporary discourse, Fox’s involvement in those issues should certainly be better reported and more widely discussed.