Charles James Fox Quotes

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.

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.

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.

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saw a conspiracy against that liberty which made them happy, a conspiracy proved, as it was, by the bill—for the bill repealed the bill of rights, and reduced Englishmen to the character of slaves—he should not wonder if they resented it.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Religion was best understood when least talked of.

[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.

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.

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.

It is intolerable that it should be in the power of one blockhead to do so much mischief.

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.

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.