^{page 21 note 1} Lord George Germain was Secretary of State for the American Colonies. He was younger son of the Duke of Dorset, and was afterwards created Viscount Sackville.

^{page 21 note 2} Lord Sandwich, “Jemmy Twitcher,” was First Lord of the Admiralty. Walpole gives an account of these petitions in a letter to Sir Horace Mann, Feb. 6, 1783 : “One or two and twenty counties and two or three towns have voted petitions. But in Northamptonshire Lord Spencer was disappointed and a very moderate petition ordered. The same happened at Carlisle. At first the Court was struck dumb, but have begun to rally. Counter-protests have been signed in Hertford and Huntingdon shires, in Surrey and Sussex. Last Wednesday a meeting was summoned in Westminster Hall ; Charles Fry harangued the people finely and warmly; and not only a petition was voted but he was proposed for candidate for that city at the next election, and was accepted joyfully.”

^{page 22 note 1} This was the day appointed for Lord Shelburne's motion for a committee of both Houses to inquire into the public expenditure, of which he had given notice before the recess.

^{page 22 note 2} Lord Pembroke was at the same time dismissed from the Lord-Lieutenancy of Wiltshire, and the Duke of Richmond from that of Sussex.

^{page 23 note 1} In the Parliamentary History this part of Lord Carmarthen's speech is reported as follows :—“He could no longer give his support to a ministry which had after a series of repeated trials proved themselves pusillanimous, incapable, and corrupt, who had brought the nation to the brink of destruction, and still persisted to plunge it deeper into calamity and danger. They were the curse of this country, and he feared would proye its ruin. One of them from his deserved ignominy, and the other from his criminal ignorance and neglect [supposed to mean Lords Sandwich and North]: the former, when the talents and abilities were most wanting, driving almost every man of a certain description from the service by insult and bad treatment. These were the reasons which induced him to resign his place in the household.” He was answered by the Earl of Chesterfield, on which the Marquis of Carmarthen “restated his words and pointed more definitely at Lord Sandwich. Lord Sandwich then replied, and Lord Carmarthen refused to retract. Lord Rockingham, in his speech, took occasion to say that in the great meeting held at fork there were persons present in one room who possessed landed property to the amount of 800,000l. a year, and that no less than 9,000 gentlemen, clergy, and freeholders had signed the petition. The division was : Content, 55 ; Non-Content, 101.

^{page 23 note 2} Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick had just succeeded his father as Duke; had fonght as Prince Ferdinand at Hastenbeck and Crefeld. He married Princess Augusta of Wales, sister of George III. and was, therefore, a member of the royal family of England. He was wonnded at Jena, and died shortly afterwards, 1806. He was father of Qneen Caroline, consort of George IV.

^{page 24 note 1} Lord Aylesbury was Lord of the Bedchamber.

^{page 24 note 2} Lord Pelham had been Comptroller of the Household, and was now Keeper of the Great Wardrobe.

^{page 24 note 3} Lord Ashburnham had been .First Lord of the Bedchamber and Groom of the Stole.

^{page 24 note 4} Robert, Earl Nugent, was at this time Treasurer of Ireland; he died in 1788, and his honours passed to his son-in-law, the Marquis of Buckingham.

^{page 25 note 1} In Lord E. Eitzmaurice's Life of Lord Shelburne there is nothing to justify this suspicion, but two passages give a different explanation of the facts. Vol. ii. p. 135, note, Lord Kochford writes to Shelburne, June 23, 1768 : “Choiseul read to me a great part of Count Chatelet's letter, which was very long, in which he gave an account of the conference he had with your Lordship, and, by the tenour of his despatch, it appeared that he thought our alarms with regard to Corsica were quieted. Some parts of the letter the Due de Choiseul read to himself, and, after he had finished, he said, ‘Je vois avec plaisir que vous etes un peu adoucis sur cette affaire.’” To this Shelburne replied: “In the meantime I am to acquaint your Excellency that nothing could surprise His Majesty more than the idea mentioned by your Excellency, ‘que nous étions un pea adoucis sur cette affaire.’” Again, p. 139, Lord E. Fitzmaurice says: “Weymouth never ceased assuring the ambassadors of the Great Powers that nothing would induce England to go to war for Corsica.” These indiscreet utterances did not fail to reach the ears of the watchful Châtelet. He left M. Faurés in charge of the French embassy, and himself hurried over to Paris, to assure Choiseul that he could pursue his schemes in security. He received support from an unexpected quarter. “A great law lord,” it was Mansfield, “being then in Paris, declared, at one of the minister's tables, that the English Ministry was too weak, and the nation too wise, to enter into a war for tha sake of Corsica.“In a moment everything was changed.

^{page 26 note 1} Feb. 13,1734, a Bill was introduced “to prevent any Commissioned Officer, not above the rank of a Colonel of a Regiment, from being removed, unless by a Court-Martial, or by Address of either House of Parliament.” Smollett says of it: “The Duke of Bolton and Lord Cobham had been deprived of the regiments they commanded, because they refused to concur in every project of the administration. It was in consequence of their dismission that Lord Morpeth moved for a Bill to prevent any commission officer, not above the rank of colonel, from being removed, unless by a court-martial or by Address of either House of Parliament. Such an attack on the prerogative might have succeeded in the latter part of the reign of the first Charles, but at this juncture could not fail to miscarry, yet it was sustained with great vigour and address.”

^{page 26 note 2} Lord E. Fitzmaurice says (vol. i. p. 137) that this secret negotiation began Nov. 17, 1761, and was continued, with intervals, till May 22, 1763. There is a complete copy of the correspondence in the Landsdowne MSS.; partly in cypher.

^{page 27 note 1} On March 6,1780.

^{page 27 note 1} The division was—Content, 39; Non-Content, 92.

^{page 27 note 3} Lord Shelburne, complaining of “occasional rank,” said “he would ask what pretensions a Mr. Fullerton had to be appointed a lieutenant-colonel? This gentleman had never held any rank, or even was in the army before … … yet this clerk-in-office, this commis, contrary to all military establishment, contrary to all the spirit of the army, was now a lieutenant-colonel.” Col. Fullertcn, who was a Member of the House of Commons, resented being called a commis. They met in Hyde Park at 5 a.m. Lord Shelburne was slightly wounded. Walpole says that Shelburne did not call Fullerton a commis.

^{page 27 note 4} His plan for economical reform was introduced Feb. 11, 1780.

^{page 28 note 1} This debate took place on March 13. The Ministry were beaten by a majority of eight. For the motion, 207; Against it, 199.

^{page 28 note 2} This was carried, on April 6, by a majority of 18; 233 for, and 215 against, the motion.

^{page 29 note 1} This was rejected in the House of Lords, April 14, by a majority of 20; 61 against 41.

^{page 29 note 2} The so-called armed neutrality was initiated by Russia. It was a declaration made by maritime powers to protest against the right of searching neutral ships in time of war, which had been always claimed and exercised by England. Lord Shelburne went into the whole question in the House of Lords, June 1, 1780. In his speech he denounced the bullying and overbearing behaviour of the English against the Dutch, which had driven them into the arms of Russia.

^{page 30 note 1} Compare Fitzmaurice's Life of Shelburne, vol. iii. p. 101, where Col. Barreé is reported as saying to the Duke of Richmond, “My Lord, I love Burke, I admire him, even in his wanderings; but when these wanderings come to be adopted seriously and obstinately by men of far higher description than himself, they then become alarming indeed.”

^{page 30 note 2} Sir Joseph Yorke was English ambassador at the Hague.

^{page 30 note 3} The Bill was entitled “An Act for declaring and restoring the natural inalienable and equal rights of all the Commons of Great Britain (in fact, persons of insane mind and criminals incapacitated by law only excepted) to vote in the election of their representatives to Parliament; for regulating the mode and manner of such elections; for restoring Annual Parliaments; for giving an hereditary seat to the sixteen peers which shall be elected in Scotland; and for establishing more equitable regulations concerning the peerage of Scotland.” The Bill was thrown out without a division.

^{page 30 note 4} He was son of the third Duke of Gordon, and was now about thirty years old. It is said that whilst he was haranguing the mob, his cousin, General Gordon, said to him, “My Lord George, do you intend to bring your rascally adherents into the House of Commons? If you do, the first man of them that enters I will plunge my sword—not into his, but into your, body.” Another of his relations, General Grant, said, “For God's sake, Lord George! do not lead these poor people into any danger.”

^{page 31 note 1} An amusing account of this is given by Horace Walpole to the Countess of Ossory, Letters, vol. vii. p. 375, following: “The mob forced the Sardinian Minister's chapel, in Lincoln's-Inn-Fields, and gutted it. He saved nothing but the chalice, lost the silver lamps, &c. and the benches, being turned into the street, were fuel for a bonfire, with the blazing brands of which they set fire to the inside of the chapel, nor, till the Guards arrived, would suffer the engines to play. My cousin, J. Walpole, fetched poor Madam Cardon, who was ill, and guarded her in his house till three in the morning, when all was quiet.

“Old Haslang's chapel [in Golden Square] has undergone the same fate, all except the ordeal. They foimd stores of massbooks, and run tea.” Count Haslang had been Minister of Bavaria since 1740. He died in 1783, at the age of 83.

^{page 31 note 2} The Parliamentary History says (vol. xxi. p. 677) of the Duke of Richmond's speech, “His Grace again asserted that the Quebec Act was the cause of the discontent, and not the repeal of the Acts relative to Popery … The Quebec Act absolutely established the Popish religion in Canada, by sending a Popish Bishop there, and allowing every part of the exercise of that dangerous and intolerant religion.” Lord Shelburne concluded his speech by saying, “there were three subjects under discussion, the punishment of the rioters, the repeal of the Quebec Act, and the regulation of the police of Westminster. Take them up together, and there could be no doubt of producing all that some considerate politicians could wish for under the present circumstances.” The Bill for the government of Quebec received the Eoyal Assent in 1774. The Marquis of Rockingham opposed the immediate repeal of it.

^{page 32 note 1} For Annual Parliaments, &c.

^{page 32 note 2} Sunday, June 4.

^{page 32 note 3} In Leicester Fields.

^{page 32 note 4} Walpole says to Lady Ossory, Letters, vol. vii. p. 387: “Lord Rockingham has two hundred soldiers in his house, and is determined to defend it.” Lord Rockingham lived in Grosvenor Square.

^{page 33 note 1} North Mims, an estate bought from the Coningsbys by Sir Nicholas Hyde, through whose granddaughter it passed to Peregrine Osborne, Duke of Leeds. It was sold by them in 1799.

^{page 33 note 2} The cockpit of Whitehall Palace, after the great fire of 1697, was converted into the Privy Council Office.

^{page 34 note 1} John, tenth Earl of Westmoreland, now 21 years old, succeeded in 1774.

^{page 34 note 2} Sir Brownlow Oust, created first Lord Brownlow in 1776. Aged now 36.

^{page 34 note 3} Lord Carmarthen is reported to have opposed the continuance of the war with America.

^{page 34 note 4} Sir Fletcher Norton.

^{page 34 note 5} This was in the battle of Camden, fought August 15.

^{page 35 note 1} This difference of opinion is clearly brought out in a letter of Lord Rocking ham's, Feb. 28, 1780 (Lord Albemarle's Memoirs of Rocliingham, vol. i. p. 397): “Some persons, I know, by the expression of a more equal representation, mean little more than the abolishing what are called the rotten boroughs! Some of these persons think that these boroughs should be taken away from their possessors, without any compensation (as being unconstitutional); some would allow that the possessors should be compensated. Some persons think that the seats for these boroughs should be filled up by additional members from their respective counties; others think that, like Shoreham, these seats should be filled up by the voice of the persons resident within certain neighbouring districts. Others think that many of the great important towns of trade and manufacture, who have not, at present, their respective local representatives, should fill up the parliamentary vacant seats. It is endless, indeed, to state the variety of ideas which are now, as it were, afloat on these points.”

^{page 36 note 1} An account of an overture made of coalition in the summer of 1780 is to be found in Jeremy Bentham's works (Bowring), x. 102. It was given by Lord Shelburne to Mr. W. Pitt on Sunday, Sept. 16, 1781. The terms were. Lord North to be continued ; Lord Sandwich to be continued or compensated ; Keppel certainly not to come into his place; “that Charles Fox coukLnot be received, at least immediately, into any of the high and confidential offices, such as that of Secretary of State, but that as to any lucrative office out of the great line of business, such as that of Treasurer of the Navy, there would perhaps be no objection.” Lord Rockingham stood out for Keppel, and insisted that the Duke of Richmond and Charles Pox should be Secretaries of State. There was nothing said about Lord Shelburne. “Burke was not to have been neglected.” The demands on Lord Eockingham's side being such, no reply was given. Lord Rockingham was perhaps to have Ireland.

^{page 36 note 2} He died 1785. The letter to the Duke of Grafton had reference to a discharged servant of the Earl of Pomfret, named LangstafE, whom the Duke was supposed to have befriended. Horace Walpole says (vii. 458) : “Our old acquaintance, Lord Pomfret, whose madness has laid dormant for some time, is broken out again—I mean his madness is. … The Earl some years ago had some of these flippances, and used to call gentlemen out at the play-houses who he pretended had made faces at him.” And again (vii. 462) : “Lord Pomfret, after a week's imprisonment in the Tower, made his submission, has been reprimanded, and released on giving his honour—a madman's honour—not to repeat his offence.” In the course of the debate in the House of Lords only two precedents for a similar course were mentioned: one in 1663, in the case of a challenge sent by the Earl of Middlesex to the Earl of Bridgewater ; and one in 1690, between Lord Granville and Lord Keveton. The Duke of Grafton had been Secretary of State, First Lord of the Treasury, and Lord Privy Seal. He was now Chancellor of the University of Cambridge.

^{page 37 note 1} Duchess of Cumberland, wife of George III.'s brother. She had been Lady Anne Luttrell.

^{page 37 note 2} Brother of the third Duke of Marlborough, Member for Woodstock, and afterwards for the city of Oxford. He had been appointed a Commissioner for Trade in 1770. In 1782 he became a Vice-Treasurer for Ireland.

^{page 37 note 3} Archbishop of Armagh, created Lord Rokeby in 1777.

^{page 38 note 1} Delivered Jan. 25, 1781. The rupture with Holland arose out of the armed neutrality. Holland was always the battle-ground of rivalry between French and English influence. The division was 19 against 84.

^{page 38 note 2} The.first protest was signed by Richmond, Portland, Fitzwilliam, Harcourt, Ferrers, Rockingham, Devonshire, Pembroke, Coventry. The second by Wycombe (Shelburne), Camden, Richmond, Ferrers, Portland, Rockingham, Fitzwilliam, Pembroke.

^{page 38 note 3} John Macartney was knighted, and afterwards made a baronet in 1799.

^{page 38 note 4} Earl Harcourt was Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland from 1769 to 1777.