What do you think?
Rate this book
Friends Until the End: Edmund Burke and Charles Fox in the Age of Revolution
A lively dual biography of the two great English orators of the eighteenth century, who cultivated a friendship across their political differences.
Edmund Burke and Charles Fox made common political cause in eighteenth-century Britain for twenty-five They supported the rebellious American colonies, attacked the British slave trade, defended religious liberty, and attempted to shield Britain’s public credit from the crisis-prone East India Company. The two men were an improbable pair. But the hard-drinking, mistress-collecting Fox loved and admired Burke, feelings that the clean-living political philosopher and statesman warmly reciprocated. They moved together in the London intellectual world and jointly opposed what they regarded as the overreaching crown. Friends until the End traces Burke and Fox’s relationship through three great the American Revolution; the impeachment of the East India Company’s governor-general; and the French Revolution, which ended their political union and shattered their friendship. With wit and panache, James Grant illuminates the politics and economics of their era and its lessons for our divided present.
Edmund Burke and Charles Fox made common political cause in eighteenth-century Britain for twenty-five They supported the rebellious American colonies, attacked the British slave trade, defended religious liberty, and attempted to shield Britain’s public credit from the crisis-prone East India Company. The two men were an improbable pair. But the hard-drinking, mistress-collecting Fox loved and admired Burke, feelings that the clean-living political philosopher and statesman warmly reciprocated. They moved together in the London intellectual world and jointly opposed what they regarded as the overreaching crown. Friends until the End traces Burke and Fox’s relationship through three great the American Revolution; the impeachment of the East India Company’s governor-general; and the French Revolution, which ended their political union and shattered their friendship. With wit and panache, James Grant illuminates the politics and economics of their era and its lessons for our divided present.
496 pages, Hardcover
Published August 12, 2025
About the author
James Grant
1,328 books60 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
James Grant was a Scottish novelist, who wrote fifty-six novels. A quick succession of incidents, much vivacity of style, and a dialogue that seldom flags characterise all of them. Those dealing with Scottish history embody considerable research, are vigorous and picturesque in style, and express much sympathy with the reckless daring, loyalty, and manliness of Scots and Border heroes. A charge of plagiarism has been brought against Grant owing to his having incorporated without acknowledgment a good many descriptive passages from a book of travels and campaigning in one of his novels. Grant, however, does not seem to have exceeded the license justly allowed a novelist of appropriating local colour for his fictions from graver writers (Athenæum, 9 Jan. 1875).
Grant wrote much and well on history, especially the history of his native land. The following are his works in this department of literature: 1. ‘Memoirs and Adventures of Sir W. Kirkaldy of Grange,’ 1849. 2. ‘Memorials of the Castle of Edinburgh,’ 1850. 3. ‘Memoirs and Adventures of Sir J. Hepburn,’ 1851. 4. ‘Memoirs of Montrose,’ 1858. 5. ‘The Cavaliers of Fortune, or British Heroes in Foreign Wars,’ 1859; reissued with title reversed, 1873. 6. ‘British Battles on Land and Sea,’ 1873; followed in 1884 by ‘Recent British Battles on Land and Sea.’ 7. ‘Illustrated History of India,’ 1876. 8. ‘Old and New Edinburgh,’ 1880; of this book over thirty thousand copies were sold in the United States. 9. ‘History of the War in the Soudan,’ 1885-6. 10. ‘The Tartans of the Clans of Scotland,’ 1886. 11. ‘Scottish Soldiers of Fortune,’ 1889 (posthumous).
James Grant was a Scottish novelist, who wrote fifty-six novels. A quick succession of incidents, much vivacity of style, and a dialogue that seldom flags characterise all of them. Those dealing with Scottish history embody considerable research, are vigorous and picturesque in style, and express much sympathy with the reckless daring, loyalty, and manliness of Scots and Border heroes. A charge of plagiarism has been brought against Grant owing to his having incorporated without acknowledgment a good many descriptive passages from a book of travels and campaigning in one of his novels. Grant, however, does not seem to have exceeded the license justly allowed a novelist of appropriating local colour for his fictions from graver writers (Athenæum, 9 Jan. 1875).
Grant wrote much and well on history, especially the history of his native land. The following are his works in this department of literature: 1. ‘Memoirs and Adventures of Sir W. Kirkaldy of Grange,’ 1849. 2. ‘Memorials of the Castle of Edinburgh,’ 1850. 3. ‘Memoirs and Adventures of Sir J. Hepburn,’ 1851. 4. ‘Memoirs of Montrose,’ 1858. 5. ‘The Cavaliers of Fortune, or British Heroes in Foreign Wars,’ 1859; reissued with title reversed, 1873. 6. ‘British Battles on Land and Sea,’ 1873; followed in 1884 by ‘Recent British Battles on Land and Sea.’ 7. ‘Illustrated History of India,’ 1876. 8. ‘Old and New Edinburgh,’ 1880; of this book over thirty thousand copies were sold in the United States. 9. ‘History of the War in the Soudan,’ 1885-6. 10. ‘The Tartans of the Clans of Scotland,’ 1886. 11. ‘Scottish Soldiers of Fortune,’ 1889 (posthumous).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
June 11, 2026
A thorough deep-dive into the Parliamentary politics of the late eighteenth century British Empire, which saw complications in economic exchanges of the East India Company, the emergence of revolution in America and France, and the give and take of economic policy between the Tories and Whigs, as represented respectively by Edmund Burke and Charles Fox, two esteemed orators and mouthpieces of their parties’ sides.
Grant leans heavily into economics in this study, so be aware of that underpinning. There is little about royalty, only when necessary, and little about international politics. This is a book very much zoomed in on Burke and Fox, their public and personal lives, and their professional and political exchanges. Ostensibly, they were on opposite sides, Burke more conservative and Fox more progressive, but as the book’s narrative proceeds we see them come together to achieve stability for the empire’s sprawling financial reach.
For certain, you must have interest in British parliamentary politics in the second half of the eighteenth century. You should find the maneuvering of policy and the rhetorical flourishes of both Burke and Fox to be interesting. You must be into hard politics, and the procedures necessary to get things done. The second half of the book rewards the reader with the emerging debate over the American Revolution, with both Fox and Burke surpassingly finding common ground in supporting the colonists in some measure of independence, and then fracturing over the revolution in France. At its heart is the complicated and evolving friendship of Burke and Fox, an improbable one, a fragile one based on their personal and political personalities, but one that reflected and impacted some of the most significant events of the eighteenth century, events that impact the world today.
It’s a book that shines a much needed spotlight on an important political synergy, usually relegated to the shadows behind kings, generals, and rebellious mouthpieces, but one that registered how the public at large processed these monumental changes that still impact us today. Could be filed under “one of those books we didn’t know we needed”, but a good one. Lots of insight into an Age we thought as already knew well.
Grant leans heavily into economics in this study, so be aware of that underpinning. There is little about royalty, only when necessary, and little about international politics. This is a book very much zoomed in on Burke and Fox, their public and personal lives, and their professional and political exchanges. Ostensibly, they were on opposite sides, Burke more conservative and Fox more progressive, but as the book’s narrative proceeds we see them come together to achieve stability for the empire’s sprawling financial reach.
For certain, you must have interest in British parliamentary politics in the second half of the eighteenth century. You should find the maneuvering of policy and the rhetorical flourishes of both Burke and Fox to be interesting. You must be into hard politics, and the procedures necessary to get things done. The second half of the book rewards the reader with the emerging debate over the American Revolution, with both Fox and Burke surpassingly finding common ground in supporting the colonists in some measure of independence, and then fracturing over the revolution in France. At its heart is the complicated and evolving friendship of Burke and Fox, an improbable one, a fragile one based on their personal and political personalities, but one that reflected and impacted some of the most significant events of the eighteenth century, events that impact the world today.
It’s a book that shines a much needed spotlight on an important political synergy, usually relegated to the shadows behind kings, generals, and rebellious mouthpieces, but one that registered how the public at large processed these monumental changes that still impact us today. Could be filed under “one of those books we didn’t know we needed”, but a good one. Lots of insight into an Age we thought as already knew well.
September 20, 2025
Edmund Burke (1729-1797) was the son an Irish solicitor. He graduated from Trinity College in Dublin. He dabbled in becoming a lawyer and then made a living as a writer on philosophy, history and politics. He was elected to Parliament in 1765 from a "pocket borough" under the control of Lord Fermanagh. He was in Parliament until shortly before his death in 1797.
Burke was a family man who spent as much time as he could with his wife and children. He had a strong moral code. He was considered the greatest Parliamentary speaker of his time.
Charles Fox (1749-1806) was the favorite son of Baron Holland. He grew up surrounded by wealth. He attended Oxford without graduating. He toured Europe and met all of the great names including Voltaire, Rousseau, and LaFayette. In 1768 his father bought him a chair in Parliament. He served until his death in 1806.
Fox was a spoiled rich guy. He blew through his father's gigantic fortune. He was a compulsive and unsuccessful high stakes gambler. He was a rake and a womanizer. Two years before his death he married a former mistress of the Prince of Wales.
Burke and Fox were odd but effective allies from 1768 until the French Revolution in 1791. They agreed that the war against America was a mistake. They agreed that England's policies in India were indefensible. They were defenders of freedom of speech. They supported removal of the restrictions on Catholics and Dissenting Protestants including being unable to serve in public office without swearing loyalty to the Church of England.
The French Revolution ended their friendship and their political partnership. Burke was temperamentally a conservative. He was certain that a violent end to an established government, followed by regicide, would lead to horrific results. Fox was temperamentally a progressive. He believed that the overthrow of ancient restrictions and rules followed by a true democratic state would lead to wonderful things.
Burke's most well-known book, "Reflections on the Revolution in France", was a vituperative attack on the Revolution. Fox's quip was that the well written book had "much to admire and nothing to agree with.".
They became bitter political enemies. The story has a sad ending. When Burke was on his death bed, Fox wrote his wife and said that, despite the last years, he would like to visit his old friend. Burke's wife wrote back that Burke told her to tell him "That it has cost Mr. Burke the most heartfelt pain to obey the stern vice of duty in rendering asunder a long friendship, but that he deemed this sacrifice necessary; that his principals remain the same". Burke died without seeing his old friend.
Grant tells this story in great detail. He gives us a full sense of the lives of Fox and Burke. One of the traits they shared was complete irresponsibility about money. They both always lived well above their income. They were constantly borrowing and finagling to keep the large estates and appearance up.
This is a detailed political history. Grant gives us three pages on the nuances of the Rohiilla War in Bengal, because it became an issue for Burke in Parliament. We also get a full history of the West India Company.
They were both great Parliamentary speakers. Fox was witty and sharp. He spoke quickly and was often considered insolent. Burke spoke in the grand style. His speeches were full of classical references and long intricate sentences, delivered ex tempore. It was not done to read a speech.
The most amazing thing to us about the speeches was their length. Three or four hour speeches were not unusual. Grant reports on Burke delivering an eight-hour speech.
Burke went on a crusade against Warren Hastings, the Governor of Bengal, India. Burke believed he was a tyrant who brutalized his Indian subjects, fermented wars and stole money. Unbelievably, Hasting's impeachment trial in Parliament dragged on for seven years. Burke acted as the chief prosecutor throughout the trial. Hastings was cleared of all charges by the House of Lords.
Burke's closing argument in the Hastings trial took nine days. To give a sense of the heat of rhetoric in Parliament at the time, Burke said of a witness who claimed to remember nothing, that "memory passes through him like diarrhea.". He argued that Hastings was "a Tyrant", ' a robber", " a thief", "a cheat', " A sharp", " a swindler" and " an Egyptian plague which covered the land with vermin and locusts and spread all over the calamities of distress, of misery and sore disease." (Which does put our current concerns about heated political rhetoric in context.)
This is a detailed professional history. It is well written but at times I bogged down in the political machinations of a complicated English scene or in some of the background digressions. On the other hand, it is a fascinating personal story of the tension between politics and friendship, and it is a vivid picture of England's political world during the American and French Revolutions.
Burke was a family man who spent as much time as he could with his wife and children. He had a strong moral code. He was considered the greatest Parliamentary speaker of his time.
Charles Fox (1749-1806) was the favorite son of Baron Holland. He grew up surrounded by wealth. He attended Oxford without graduating. He toured Europe and met all of the great names including Voltaire, Rousseau, and LaFayette. In 1768 his father bought him a chair in Parliament. He served until his death in 1806.
Fox was a spoiled rich guy. He blew through his father's gigantic fortune. He was a compulsive and unsuccessful high stakes gambler. He was a rake and a womanizer. Two years before his death he married a former mistress of the Prince of Wales.
Burke and Fox were odd but effective allies from 1768 until the French Revolution in 1791. They agreed that the war against America was a mistake. They agreed that England's policies in India were indefensible. They were defenders of freedom of speech. They supported removal of the restrictions on Catholics and Dissenting Protestants including being unable to serve in public office without swearing loyalty to the Church of England.
The French Revolution ended their friendship and their political partnership. Burke was temperamentally a conservative. He was certain that a violent end to an established government, followed by regicide, would lead to horrific results. Fox was temperamentally a progressive. He believed that the overthrow of ancient restrictions and rules followed by a true democratic state would lead to wonderful things.
Burke's most well-known book, "Reflections on the Revolution in France", was a vituperative attack on the Revolution. Fox's quip was that the well written book had "much to admire and nothing to agree with.".
They became bitter political enemies. The story has a sad ending. When Burke was on his death bed, Fox wrote his wife and said that, despite the last years, he would like to visit his old friend. Burke's wife wrote back that Burke told her to tell him "That it has cost Mr. Burke the most heartfelt pain to obey the stern vice of duty in rendering asunder a long friendship, but that he deemed this sacrifice necessary; that his principals remain the same". Burke died without seeing his old friend.
Grant tells this story in great detail. He gives us a full sense of the lives of Fox and Burke. One of the traits they shared was complete irresponsibility about money. They both always lived well above their income. They were constantly borrowing and finagling to keep the large estates and appearance up.
This is a detailed political history. Grant gives us three pages on the nuances of the Rohiilla War in Bengal, because it became an issue for Burke in Parliament. We also get a full history of the West India Company.
They were both great Parliamentary speakers. Fox was witty and sharp. He spoke quickly and was often considered insolent. Burke spoke in the grand style. His speeches were full of classical references and long intricate sentences, delivered ex tempore. It was not done to read a speech.
The most amazing thing to us about the speeches was their length. Three or four hour speeches were not unusual. Grant reports on Burke delivering an eight-hour speech.
Burke went on a crusade against Warren Hastings, the Governor of Bengal, India. Burke believed he was a tyrant who brutalized his Indian subjects, fermented wars and stole money. Unbelievably, Hasting's impeachment trial in Parliament dragged on for seven years. Burke acted as the chief prosecutor throughout the trial. Hastings was cleared of all charges by the House of Lords.
Burke's closing argument in the Hastings trial took nine days. To give a sense of the heat of rhetoric in Parliament at the time, Burke said of a witness who claimed to remember nothing, that "memory passes through him like diarrhea.". He argued that Hastings was "a Tyrant", ' a robber", " a thief", "a cheat', " A sharp", " a swindler" and " an Egyptian plague which covered the land with vermin and locusts and spread all over the calamities of distress, of misery and sore disease." (Which does put our current concerns about heated political rhetoric in context.)
This is a detailed professional history. It is well written but at times I bogged down in the political machinations of a complicated English scene or in some of the background digressions. On the other hand, it is a fascinating personal story of the tension between politics and friendship, and it is a vivid picture of England's political world during the American and French Revolutions.
June 13, 2026
I really enjoyed this book. That was the age of gentlemen politicians. It was expected that the gifted and upper-class men of society would lead out politically, so talented men like Fox and Burke ended up in politics. Yet they were accomplished men of letters. Burke was a successful author, and both were popular orators. Today, they might be authors and professors.
British politics of that time is fascinating, with "pocket" and "rotten" boroughs. If a man like Burke or Fox actually lost an election, there was always another district that would gladly have them. Of course, that didn't mean that they actually represented their district. Burke coyly informed one district, the #2 industrial city in the country, that he would be voting his conscience, not in their interests. I believe he was shortly turned out of office. But he was already a leading Whig, so partly leadership quickly got him a different district, and he probably didn't miss a day in the Commons.
My point is that today, we frequently bemoan the fact that it is usually not the talented and conscientious people who lead us politically. Most of our politicians are opportunists and carpet baggers. Talented people do not choose politics. We can have a long debate about whether that's a good thing or not. But back then, men of talent really did apply themselves to politics. Another fascinating debate would be whether or not they did a better job.
One area you can see that they did NOT do a good job was that they were politically naive. William Pitt the Younger was the king's man. And he was able to deliver for his majesty King George III because he spread political patronage around to guarantee support in the Commons. It seems Fox would not stoop to that. His arguments were self-evidently righteous and good. They should be approved on their own merits. Unfortunately, that's not how human nature works.
Also, it was commonly agreed that a good speaker didn't speak from prepared notes but lived by his wits and his improv oratory skills. A man like Fox could get away from that. But it also meant that Fox didn't plan ahead: he didn't have a legislative agenda to clarify the differences between the Whigs and the Tories (who supported the king). He had no agenda to accomplish specific, measurable goals that would advance Whig ideals. He just sat in opposition to anything Pitt wanted. A sitting target made it far easier for Pitt to outmaneuver him politically. So, gentlemen politicians like Burke and Fox were talented but not professional.
My take is that Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism... was a liberal. Seriously. He supported the downtrodden whomever or wherever they may be. Americans, Irish, Catholics, Indians (from the subcontinent) - it didn't matter. Anyone under the boot of the British crown could count on Burke for a good word. And yet, being a talented and disinterested party, he was thoroughly familiar with the French Revolution and saw exactly where it would lead - the Reign of Terror and Napoleon. Thus, he opposed it, unlike luminaries such as Fox and Jefferson. The violent destruction of society because the cause was so self-evidently righteous held no sway with Burke. Society is the way it is because those who came before made decisions that we should respect, and change should come via the methods legally set up for them to occur. Not because such change is simply popular for the moment. No mob rule in the Burkean view. I thoroughly subscribe to his views.
So read the book!
British politics of that time is fascinating, with "pocket" and "rotten" boroughs. If a man like Burke or Fox actually lost an election, there was always another district that would gladly have them. Of course, that didn't mean that they actually represented their district. Burke coyly informed one district, the #2 industrial city in the country, that he would be voting his conscience, not in their interests. I believe he was shortly turned out of office. But he was already a leading Whig, so partly leadership quickly got him a different district, and he probably didn't miss a day in the Commons.
My point is that today, we frequently bemoan the fact that it is usually not the talented and conscientious people who lead us politically. Most of our politicians are opportunists and carpet baggers. Talented people do not choose politics. We can have a long debate about whether that's a good thing or not. But back then, men of talent really did apply themselves to politics. Another fascinating debate would be whether or not they did a better job.
One area you can see that they did NOT do a good job was that they were politically naive. William Pitt the Younger was the king's man. And he was able to deliver for his majesty King George III because he spread political patronage around to guarantee support in the Commons. It seems Fox would not stoop to that. His arguments were self-evidently righteous and good. They should be approved on their own merits. Unfortunately, that's not how human nature works.
Also, it was commonly agreed that a good speaker didn't speak from prepared notes but lived by his wits and his improv oratory skills. A man like Fox could get away from that. But it also meant that Fox didn't plan ahead: he didn't have a legislative agenda to clarify the differences between the Whigs and the Tories (who supported the king). He had no agenda to accomplish specific, measurable goals that would advance Whig ideals. He just sat in opposition to anything Pitt wanted. A sitting target made it far easier for Pitt to outmaneuver him politically. So, gentlemen politicians like Burke and Fox were talented but not professional.
My take is that Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism... was a liberal. Seriously. He supported the downtrodden whomever or wherever they may be. Americans, Irish, Catholics, Indians (from the subcontinent) - it didn't matter. Anyone under the boot of the British crown could count on Burke for a good word. And yet, being a talented and disinterested party, he was thoroughly familiar with the French Revolution and saw exactly where it would lead - the Reign of Terror and Napoleon. Thus, he opposed it, unlike luminaries such as Fox and Jefferson. The violent destruction of society because the cause was so self-evidently righteous held no sway with Burke. Society is the way it is because those who came before made decisions that we should respect, and change should come via the methods legally set up for them to occur. Not because such change is simply popular for the moment. No mob rule in the Burkean view. I thoroughly subscribe to his views.
So read the book!
September 15, 2025
This is an amazing political memoir, but more than that, it’s a story of political divide, the nature of friendship and an insight into tumultuous events including tbh French Revolution and the American Civil war. I’m a UK based reader and to be honest, knew nothing about either man. James Grant brings both, very vividly to life in this amazing work of non fiction that often reads more like an adventure. Both were strong characters, from very different social and economic backgrounds and a friendship would have appeared unlikely considering that and their opposing popliteal views. The personal relationship of these two great speakers was fascinating and their grasp of financing at a global ,even was intriguing. I enjoy non fiction and this ticked every box for me; insight into two remarkable individuals at a po,Utica and personal level alongside an exploration of momentous times. Superbly narrated throughout, thoroughly enjoyable for a lay reader.
My thanks to the publisher and Netgalley for a review copy.
My thanks to the publisher and Netgalley for a review copy.
April 15, 2026
This book was bogged down by a lot of minutia about parliamentary procedure that obscured much of the larger world issues at stake. The book was much better when focused on their reactions to major world events such as the American Revolution.
May 30, 2026
I learned a lot from this book. It is not only a biography of the two gentlemen as described, but also a narrow discussion of the Commons debates on the American succession, the East India company, and the initial reaction to the French Revolution.
The fact that in both the American argument, and the initial French Revolution could find significant proponents in the House of Commons is enlightening.
The Hastings impeachment (East India Company) is hard to comprehend… as its known futility did not deter Burke from 5 and 9 day speeches. Some of the EIC’s activities are highlighted, with focus on the company’s peculiar financial standing as seen in Britain.
The language in this book is wonderful. Excerpts from both Burke’s and Fox’s speeches, along with the author’s eloquence, makes this an enjoyable read.
In all, the rhetoric described in this book, and the required learning and eloquence to produce it, give stark contrast to our current debates and politicking.
This review is for the audiobook. The actor is excellent, and expresses the various dialogs with well developed with good voicing.
The fact that in both the American argument, and the initial French Revolution could find significant proponents in the House of Commons is enlightening.
The Hastings impeachment (East India Company) is hard to comprehend… as its known futility did not deter Burke from 5 and 9 day speeches. Some of the EIC’s activities are highlighted, with focus on the company’s peculiar financial standing as seen in Britain.
The language in this book is wonderful. Excerpts from both Burke’s and Fox’s speeches, along with the author’s eloquence, makes this an enjoyable read.
In all, the rhetoric described in this book, and the required learning and eloquence to produce it, give stark contrast to our current debates and politicking.
This review is for the audiobook. The actor is excellent, and expresses the various dialogs with well developed with good voicing.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews