[Footnote 92:  Vol. ii., pp. 229-232.]

[Footnote 93:  It will be seen hereafter that this doctrine was admitted in the fullest degree by Sir Robert Peel in the winter of 1884, when he admitted that his acceptance of office made him alone responsible for the dismissal of Lord Melbourne, though, in fact, he was taken entirely by surprise by the King’s act, being in Italy at the time.]

[Footnote 94:  Lord John Russell, in his “Memorials of Fox” (ii., 253), affirms that “Lord Temple’s act was probably known to Pitt;” but Lord Macaulay, in his “Essay on Pitt” (p. 326), fully acquits Pitt of such knowledge, saying that “he could declare, with perfect truth, that, if unconstitutional machinations had been employed, he was no party to them.”]

[Footnote 95:  On Lord Effingham’s motion, in condemnation of some of the proceedings of the Commons, which was carried February 4, 1784, by 100 to 53.]

[Footnote 96:  “Parliamentary History,” xxiv., 383-385—­debate of January 20, 1784.]

[Footnote 97:  Ibid, p. 283—­January 12.]

[Footnote 98:  Ibid., pp. 251-257.]

[Footnote 99:  “Parliamentary History,” xxiv., 478—­February 2.]

[Footnote 100:  Ibid., p. 663.]

[Footnote 101:  “Parliamentary History,” xxiv., 687, 695, 699.]

[Footnote 102:  The numbers were 201 to 189.  The week before, on Mr. Powys’s motion for a united and efficient administration, the majority had been 20—­197 to 177.  On a motion made by Mr. Coke, February 3, the majority had been 24—­211 to 187.  At the beginning of the struggle the majorities had been far larger—­232 to 143 on Fox’s motion for a committee on the state of the nation, January 12.]

[Footnote 103:  191 to 190.]

[Footnote 104:  From December 19, when Pitt accepted office, to March 24, when the Parliament was dissolved.]

[Footnote 105:  “Memorials and Correspondence of C.J.  Fox,” by Earl Russell, ii., 229, 248.]

[Footnote 106:  Ibid., p. 280.]

[Footnote 107:  That of April, 1831, after the defeat of the Government on General Gascoyne’s amendment]

[Footnote 108:  Lord Macaulay, “Miscellaneous Essays,” ii., 330.]

[Footnote 109:  Lord Macaulay, essay on William Pitt.]

[Footnote 110:  Alison ("History of Europe,” xiii., 971) states the English force in the Netherlands in 1794 at 85,000 men.  Lord Stanhope calls the English at Minden 10,000 or 12,000.]

[Footnote 111:  An eminent living writer (Mr. Leeky, “History of England,” ii., 474) quotes with apparent approval another comparison between the father and son, made by Grattan, in the following words:  “The father was not, perhaps, so good a debater as his son, but was a much better orator, a greater scholar, and a far greater man.”  The first two phrases in this eulogy may, perhaps, balance one another; though, when Mr. Lecky admits that “Lord Chatham’s taste was far from