^{page xxvii note 1} Parl. Deb., N.S., xvii. 451Google Scholar (2 May 1827).

^{page xxvii note 2} Parker, 's Peel, i. 460.Google Scholar

^{page xxviii note 1} Buckingham, , Memoirs of the Regency, i. 274Google Scholar; Moore, 's Journal and Correspondence, v. 307Google Scholar; Croker Papers, i. 401.Google Scholar

^{page xxix note 1} Parker, 's Peel, i. 452.Google Scholar

^{page xxix note 2} Ibid., i. 461.

^{page xxix note 3} Letters of Princess Lieven to Metternich, p. 362.Google Scholar

^{page xxix note 4} Ibid., p. 366.

^{page xxx note 1} Bagot, , Canning and his Friends, ii. 361.Google Scholar

^{page xxx note 2} Bathurst Papers, p. 627.Google Scholar

^{page xxx note 3} Parker, 's Peel, i. 452Google Scholar. Cf. Sir Walter Scott's Journal, 10 July 1827: “Lord Melville said that none of them suspected Canning's negotiations with the Whigs but the Duke of Wellington, who found it out through the ladies ten days before” (Journal, ii. 6).Google Scholar

^{page xxx note 4} Greville Diary, 31 07 1831.Google Scholar

^{page xxxi note 1} Stapleton said that the King's first impressions were to begin at once the formation of a new Administration (Stapleton MSS.—rough notes for his book).

^{page xxxi note 2} Stapleton said that Canning wrote to Knighton on 5 March, bitterly complaining of the “Treasury canvass against the Catholics” (Stapleton MSS.—rough notes).

^{page xxxii note 1} Parker, 's Peel, i. 454.Google Scholar

^{page xxxii note 2} Croker Papers, i. 363.Google Scholar

^{page xxxii note 3} Colchester Diary, iii. 466.Google Scholar

^{page xxxii note 4} Croker said that the Duke of Rutland sent six members to the House of Commons, the Duke of Newcastle five, Lord Falmouth three or four (Croker, i. 368, 371).Google Scholar

^{page xxxii note 5} Colchester Diary, iii. 467.Google Scholar

^{page xxxii note 6} W.N.D., iii. 611Google Scholar. In this letter the Duke of Buckingham did not throw out any suggestion regarding the premiership. Professor Temperley states that on the same day the Duke wrote to Bathurst, “in which letter he suggests that Bathurst will be Premier, and that he [Buckingham] will accept the Governor-Generalship of India” (Foreign Policy of Canning, p. 421Google Scholar). This, however, must be a mistake, for the only letter written by Buckingham to Bathurst at this time, preserved in volume xvii of the Bathurst MSS., is dated 26 February (No. 36).

^{page xxxiii note 1} The date is uncertain. Lord Colchester wrote on the 24th: “Saw Lord Falmouth, who understood from the Duke of Newcastle that he [the Duke of Newcastle] would probably go down to Windsor today.” On the 26th: “The Duke of Newcastle went down to the King at Windsor, yesterday.” And on the 27th: “Heard from the Duke of Newcastle a fuller account of his interview with the King at Windsor, on Saturday last” [i.e. the 24th] (Colchester Diary, iii. 472Google Scholar). The principal newspapers did not refer to the Duke's visit.

^{page xxxiii note 2} Ibid.

^{page xxxiii note 3} W.N.D., iii. 634Google Scholar. This is confirmed by the Duke of Newcastle himself, who, Lord Colchester reports, “told the King plainly that the support or opposition of himself, and of those for whom he was acting, would depend on the choice that the King should finally make in forming his Administration” (Colchester Diary, iii. 473).Google Scholar

^{page xxxv note 1} Colchester Diary, iii. 501Google Scholar (conversation with Colchester, 15 May).

^{page xxxv note 2} So did Wellington, who said that the choice of the Premier was the most important of all the acts which the Sovereign has to perform (W.N.D., iv. 5Google Scholar). Cf. Colchester Diary, iii. 501.Google Scholar

^{page xxxv note 3} George IV Corresp., No. 1315.

^{page xxxv note 4} The Duke of Rutland's letters show that he considered Wellington the fittest man for the Premiership, and say nothing about his suggestion of Bathurst. See p. 44 n. Londonderry said later that the Duke of Rutland was accompanied by his brother, but neither the Duke nor the newspaper references to his visit allude to his brother's presence. The Morning Chronicle, 12 April, quotes an interesting paragraph from the Globe: “… We have reason to believe that the Duke of Rutland, in his interview with his Majesty, did not assume the dictatorial tone which has been imputed to him. The Duke himself (we hear) distinctly denies that he told the King that he and his friends would not support an Administration of which Mr. Canning should be the head. His language was more courtly, and more consistent with his general character. He said that he would support any Administration which his Majesty might form.”

^{page xxxv note 5} Wellington later said the 2nd, but this was a slip.

^{page xxxvi note 1} Colchester Diary, iii. 487Google Scholar. Robinson said in the House of Lords on 2 May that he was never informed of this proposal.

^{page xxxvi note 2} Stapleton, , Canning and His Times, p. 589.Google Scholar

^{page xxxvi note 8} Parker, 's Peel, i. 485Google Scholar; No. 66.

^{page xxxvii note 1} Stapleton MSS.

^{page xxxvii note 2} Professor Temperley's article in E.H.R., 1930, p. 421.Google Scholar

^{page xxxvii note 3} No. 74.

^{page xxxviii note 1} Lord Mansfield eagerly urged his friends to give notice in the Lords of a similar motion in favour of a No-Popery Administration (Colchester Diary, iii. 472).Google Scholar

^{page xxxix note 1} T. G. B. Estcourt, too, told Sidmouth on 13 April that, according to report, 41 resignations had been sent in, and that more were expected (Sidmouth MSS.).

^{page xxxix note 2} Wellesley Papers, ii. 165.Google Scholar

^{page xxxix note 3} Foreign Policy of Canning, p. 523.Google Scholar

^{page xl note 1} Yonge, 's Liverpool, iii. 432, 435.Google Scholar

^{page xl note 2} W.N.D., iii. 464.Google Scholar

^{page xl note 3} Bathurst Papers, p. 616.Google Scholar

^{page xl note 4} Ibid., p. 630.

^{page xl note 5} Foreign Policy of Canning, p. 523.Google Scholar

^{page xl note 6} Parker, 's Peel, i. 453.Google Scholar

^{page xli note 1} Parker, 's Peel, i. 461.Google Scholar

^{page xli note 2} Ibid., i. 484.

^{page xli note 3} Ibid., i. 486. On 20 March Eldon told Lord Colchester “he had not heard one word respecting the Government to be formed, from any man amongst those with whom he might be supposed, upon such a subject, naturally and necessarily to have communication” (Colchester Diary, iii. 470).Google Scholar

^{page xli note 4} W.N.D., iii. 634.Google Scholar

^{page xlii note 1} Bagot, , Canning and His Friends, ii. 383.Google Scholar

^{page xlii note 2} Would the Duke have served under Castlereagh, a “Catholic,” had he lived? Castlereagh's brother, Lord Londonderry, evidently thought so in 1823 at any rate, for he then said that if it had not been for his brother's extraordinary loyalty to Lord Liverpool, he might have been Prime Minister on three separate occasions. One reason why Wellington rejected Robinson as Premier was that he knew he was quite unfitted for the post: and events soon proved he was right. And more than once in previous years the Duke had objected to “dummy” Premiers on principle. He had feared that Liverpool was developing into one under the all-powerful influence of Canning.

^{page xlii note 3} Croker Papers, i. 363.Google Scholar

^{page xlii note 4} ‘Parker, 's Peel, i. 452.Google Scholar

^{page xlii note 5} W.N.D., iv. 25.Google Scholar

^{page xliv note 1} Stapleton, , Canning and His Times, p. 585Google Scholar; No. 173.

^{page xlv note 1} SirWilson, R.'s Narrative of the Formation of Canning's Ministry, p. 8.Google Scholar

^{page xlvi note 1} George IV Corresp., No. 1400.

^{page xlvi note 2} The Times, it is interesting to note, said that the term leading in the Lords was most unconstitutional, and had “sprung up of late years” (25 April, in a leading article).

^{page xlvii note 1} Wellesley Papers, ii. 160.Google Scholar

^{page xlvii note 2} Wilson, 's Narrative, p. 25.Google Scholar

^{page xlix note 1} SirWilson, R.'s Narrative, p. 17.Google Scholar

^{page xlix note 2} Alison, , Lives of Lord Castlereagh and Sir Charles Stewart, iii. 250 n.Google Scholar

^{page li note 1} See p. 108, note.

^{page li note 2} Parker, 's Peel, i. 481Google Scholar; Add. MS. 40393, f. 202. This sentence was omitted by Parker.

^{page li note 2} Parl. Deb., N.S., xvii. 582.Google Scholar

^{page li note 3} Ibid., p. 758.

^{page li note 6} Ibid., p. 1034.

^{page lii note 1} Parl. Deb., N.S., xvii. 765.Google Scholar

^{page lii note 2} Ibid., p. 760.

^{page lii note 3} Bagot, , Canning and His Friends, ii. 403Google Scholar; Bagot MSS.

^{page liii note 1} Wellesley Papers, ii. 158.Google Scholar

^{page liii note 2} Bagot, , Canning and His Friends, ii. 408.Google Scholar

^{page liii note 3} Ibid., ii. 411.

^{page liii note 4} Ibid., ii. 411.