Notes: 

[Footnote 182:  L118,776,000.  Alison, c. lxxvi.]

[Footnote 183:  See Lord Malmesbury’s account of their first interview.—­Diaries of Lord Malmesbury, iii., 218.]

[Footnote 184:  “Parliamentary Debates,” series 2, ii., 632.]

[Footnote 185:  Mr. Brougham gave his opinion that if the Duke of York, or any other member of the royal family, had been named, it would have been offensive to the Queen; but the measure adopted he regarded as of a neutral character. (Mentioned by Lord Liverpool, “Life of Lord Liverpool,” iii., 55.)]

[Footnote 186:  “Minutes of Cabinet,” dated 10th and 14th February, 1820, forwarded the King by Lord Liverpool ("Life of Lord Liverpool,” iii., 35-88).]

[Footnote 187:  “Life of Sir J. Mackintosh,” by R.J.  Mackintosh, ii., 110, 116.]

[Footnote 188:  “Lives of the Chief-justices,” iii., 171.]

[Footnote 189:  In a letter on the subject to Lord Liverpool, the Duke goes the length of calling the proposed bill “an experiment which, should it fail, must entail the dreadful alternative of the entire ruin of the landed interests of the empire, with which he is decidedly of opinion that the nation must stand or fall.”—­Life of Lord Liverpool, iii., 434.]

[Footnote 190:  At one time it was the fashion with writers of the Liberal party to represent Lord Liverpool as led by Lord Castlereagh in the earlier, and by Canning in the later, part of his administration; but Lord Liverpool’s correspondence with both these ministers shows clearly that on every subject of foreign as well as of home policy he was the real guide and ruler of his cabinet.  Even the recognition of the independence of the South American provinces of Spain—­which is so often represented as exclusively the work of Canning—­the memorandum on the subject which Lord Liverpool drew up for the cabinet proves that the policy adopted was entirely his own, and that as such he adhered to it resolutely, in spite of the avowed disapproval of the Duke of Wellington and the known unwillingness of the King to sanction it; and it may be remarked (as he and Lord Castlereagh have sometime been described as favoring the Holy Alliance), that the concluding sentence of his letter to the Duke on the subject expresses his hostility, not only to that celebrated treaty, but to the policy which dictated and was embodied in it. (See Lord Liverpool’s memorandum for the cabinet and letter to the Duke of Wellington, December 8, 1824.)—­Life of Lord Liverpool, iii., 297-305.]

[Footnote 191:  See ante, p. 222.]

[Footnote 192:  “With much prudence or laudable disinterestedness,” says Hallam ("Constitutional History,” ii., 532).]

[Footnote 193:  The last time had been in 1790, when there had been a majority of 187 against it.—­Peel’s Memoirs, i., 99.]

[Footnote 194:  237 to 193.]

[Footnote 195:  “Peel’s Memoirs,” i., 68.]