^{page 2 note 1} Professor Temperley states that these interviews took place on the 19th. (Foreign Policy of Canning, p. 417.)Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 2} John Backhouse was in charge of the consular department of the Foreign Office before 1827; in April 1827 he was appointed Permanent Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs.

^{page 3 note 1} Croker wrote to Lord Hertford on the 19th: “Peel is not come back, but will be in the House tonight. I believe that he, Canning and the King are all agreed, out of decency as well as policy, to take no step till Lord Liverpool is either better or worse: this sounds well, but it is a mere sound, for we know that they, and all the other parties, will take every step they can, and will endeavour to make good their respective views, tho' the final announcement: of the result may be delayed …” (Croker MSS.)

^{page 3 note 2} See W.N.D., iii. 589Google Scholar. The Duke of Buckingham had threatened to withdraw his support from the Government because Liverpool had declined to recommend him for the Governor-Generalship of India.

^{page 13 note 1} Endorsement: “All this refers to the putting off of Burdett's motion from the 1st to the 5th, which I desired might not be done on my account.—G.C.”

^{page 13 note 2} Littleton to Canning, 22 February, giving an account of a Whig party meeting (E.H.R., 04 1927, p. 202Google Scholar). Croker wrote to Lord Hertford on 17 March: “… I am afraid that the chances of keeping the Government together are less than I had hoped: the difficulties will not be of Canning's making. All that you heard of communication from Brookes, or to the Vice [sic], was unfounded—there has been no such thing!!! That is certain!” (Croker MSS.)

^{page 16 note 1} Lord Howard de Walden, Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. His father, Lord Seaford, was Canning's intimate friend.

^{page 18 note 1} A portion of this letter is in Parker, 's Peel, i. 450.Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 1} No. 100 Marine Parade, now the Royal Crescent Hotel. It was sold on 22 October 1827 for 4,000 guineas.

^{page 22 note 1} Lord Howard de Walden.

^{page 23 note 1} See No. 19.

^{page 23 note 2} Not until 1885 was there a precedent for the combination of the offices of First Lord of the Treasury and Foreign Secretary.

^{page 25 note 1} William Haldimand and Robert Torrens were elected on 17 June 1826, but the House of Commons amended the return on 23 February by substituting two anti-Catholics, Charles MacKinnon and Robert Adam Dundas.

^{page 25 note 2} As the result of another election petition, the House of Commons on 22 February substituted Lionel Talmash and Felix Thomas Talrnash for Richard Sharp and John Williams as members for Ilchester.

^{page 26 note 1} Part of this letter is paraphrased in Stapleton, iii. 304.

^{page 28 note 1} He did so.

^{page 31 note 1} This sentence is scored through, but it is just legible.

^{page 31 note 2} The 5th of March was a Monday.

^{page 32 note 1} “Billy” Holmes, the Tory Whip.

^{page 34 note 1} Since 1778, except during the years 1806–12, the office of Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, which the Sovereign regarded as a private piece of patronage, had always been given to the Prime Minister, and Lord Hawkesbury, as he then was, would have had it in 1806 as Prime Minister had he not declined the King's invitation to form a Government. The office had been worth sometimes £3,000, sometimes £4,000 a year gross, but Lord North said he had not received more than about £1,000 a year net (Parl. Hist., xx. 926Google Scholar). Lord Camden wrote to Wellington in August 1828, when Lord Liverpool's death was daily expected, “… Upon the idea that you may not be aware of some circumstances relative to the office of Warden of the Cinque Ports, I think it right to inform you, that although the salary was abolished in 1817, the office still exists, that a very trifling salary is annexed to it, but it gives the possession of Walmer Castle and the patronage of Dover and of Deal Castles, and I believe of two others, and also considerable influence in Dover and Sandwich …” (Wellington MSS.)

^{page 34 note 3} Evidently a slip for the 7th.

^{page 35 note 1} Lauderdale's motion on the 8th for the appointment of a Select Committee was agreed to. (Parl. Deb., N.S., xvi. 1020–33Google Scholar.) Bathurst took charge of the parliamentary business in the House of Lords which had devolved on Lord Liverpool.

^{page 35 note 2} Lady Liverpool's father, Charles Bagot (who assumed the surname of Chester), was Lord Bagot's uncle.

^{page 35 note 3} The Duke of Wellington's pencilled docket: “I have heard that the King had written to Lady Liverpool; but I did not hear the exact contents of the letter as here given.” The letter is endorsed by the Duke: “Commn from the King to Lady Liverpool. Observation of Mr Peel inclosed.”

^{page 36 note 1} Thursday was the 8th.

^{page 36 note 2} According to Canning, Lord Liverpool was scrupulously impartial in giving: away Government seats at the 1826 elections, “for of ten seats placed at his disposal, half were given to Protestants and half to Catholics.” That impartiality, added Canning, was not observed by the Prime Minister's subordinates. “I believe that … after his seizure, and at the moment when the Catholic question was brought on for discussion, no effort was left unestablished by those into whose hands the power of the Treasury fell, to influence the decision in the way in which it actually turned.” (Wellesley Papers, ii. 161.)Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 1} John Wilks, M.P. for Sudbury. He subsequently took the Chiltern Hundreds, and the succeeding by-election took place on 9 April 1828.

^{page 37 note 2} James Daly, M.P. for Galway County (d. 1847), was created Baron Dunsandle in the Irish peerage, in 1845. He voted for the Relief Bill in 1829.

^{page 38 note 1} “I still cling to my opinions,” he wrote again three days later, “but I don't like to be obstinate in these matters, or to stand aloof from my friends. If Ireland is in such a wretched state, it is more than ever the business of the Govt to take a decided line, and let us support or oppose their measures as we find them to be good or bad …” (Ibid., f. 315.)

^{page 39 note 1} He advocated the appointment of a Finance Committee of the House of Commons to inquire into the state of the national finances. (Life of Herries, i. 139–44.)Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 1} See No. 66. On the 21st Canning wrote to Knighton expressing a wish to see him the following morning. (Ann Arbor MSS.)

^{page 40 note 2} This debate is not reported in Hansard.

^{page 40 note 3} The state of the Ministry does not appear to have been alluded to in Parliament on Monday the 26th.

^{page 42 note 1} The letter is endorsed: “Lord Lansdowne in continuation of his letter and in comment upon the minatory parts of Brougham's 1st note.” See SirWilson, Robert's Narrative, pp. 4–10Google Scholar, for these Whig overtures to Canning.

^{page 42 note 2} See No. 66.

^{page 43 note 1} Windsor.

^{page 44 note 1} The Duke's letter does not support Professor Temperley's statement that the Duke suggested that Bathurst should be put at the head of an anti-Catholic Ministry. (Foreign Policy of Canning, p. 426Google Scholar.)

^{page 44 note 2} See Parl. Deb., N.S., xvii. 166Google Scholar (30 March), and No. 66.

^{page 45 note 1} This portion is scored out.

^{page 48 note 1} By Baring, 19 March; by Londonderry on the 20th. (Parl. Deb., N.S., xvi. 1268, 1280Google Scholar.)

^{page 49 note 1} The portion enclosed in square brackets is a marginal note.

^{page 53 note 1} He had given notice of a motion for an Address to the King, praying “that he might be graciously pleased to take into consideration, in the appointment of an Administration, the great importance of unanimity in any Cabinet on questions affecting the vital interests of the Empire.” Even his ultra Tory friends disapproved of his motion, and on Friday, 6 April, he was persuaded to withdraw it. (Parl. Deb., N.S., xvii. 280–2; 286Google Scholar.)

^{page 53 note 2} The Foreign Secretary's salary was £6,000, the First Lord of the Treasury's was £5,000. (Accounts and Papers, 1830–31, vii. 227.)Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 1} The King commanded Peel to see Canning and to ask him to serve under Wellington. Canning naturally refused to do so. (Stapleton, , p. 589.)Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 1} As Wellington complained of the tone and temper of Canning's letters of 10 and 11 April, Canning's mode of addressing the other Cabinet Ministers is here given.

^{page 61 note 1} According to Melville, all the Cabinet Ministers except Wellington, Peel, and possibly Eldon too, dined at Wynn's that evening. (Add. MS. 40317, f. 195. Melville to Peel, 30 April. [Part of the letter is in Parker, 's Peel, i. 488.])Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 1} Raikes was therefore wrong in saying that Manners-Sutton declined office “from his feelings on the Catholic question” (Raikes, , Journal, i. 89Google Scholar). Manners-Sutton evidently thought that his acceptance of the Home Secretaryship would destroy his prospects of a pension. See Nos. 192, 210, 226.

^{page 65 note 2} To appoint a “Protestant” Home Secretary.

^{page 66 note 1} To meet the King's wishes for a “Protestant” Irish Government, Canning at once set on foot plans to remove Wellesley from Ireland. He interviewed the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of the Court of Directors, and sounded them as to their willingness to appoint Wellesley Governor-General of India. But before their answer arrived (it was expected in about a week's time) Wellesley informed Canning that he was unwilling to return to India. (Wellesley Papers, ii. 153Google Scholar.)

^{page 66 note 2} This refers to Melville's resignation. The greater part of his letter is in Parker's Peel, but the following is there omitted: “I beg you to understand also that I have no desire unnecessarily to accelerate the period of my retirement, and that I am quite content to allow it to be regulated by your own convenience as to your official arrangements.” (Add. MS. 40317, f. 198.)

^{page 67 note 1} He was a Lord of the Bedchamber.

^{page 69 note 1} Canning resigned his seat for Newport, Isle of Wight, and was returned for Seaford on 20 April. His appointment as Chancellor of the Exchequer was not gazetted until the 24th. See No. 210.

^{page 77 note 1} That is, he was bound by his Coronation Oath to resist Catholic emancipation. Most of these points are not referred to in Londonderry's Memorandum.

^{page 78 note 1} Lord Duncannon was the Chief Opposition Whip.

^{page 80 note 1} See Bulwer, 's Palmerston, i. 189.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 1} The following marginal note was added to this entry, on 12 May: “It has been admitted by Mr Canning that he was at this time in possession of an overture of support from Mr Brougham, Sir Rob. Wilson, and some other members of Opposition, w^ch he did not disclose to any of his colleagues except Mr Peel.”

^{page 85 note 1} The following marginal note was added at this point: “Canning therefore prevailed on the King to send for Ld Bexley and press on him his retention of the Duchy. The audience was had yesterday, and the King prevailed.” [See No. 104.]

The real truth of the matter is revealed in one of Knighton's letters to Canning, dated “Monday morning”: “I think it right to mention to you that the King will not hear of the arrangement that I had proposed to you relative to the Duchy. His Majesty was violently displeased with me, and said that I had done great mischief to his (the King's views) by suggesting such a scheme! The King's mind is constantly at work on the subject, and seems determined, at all hazards, to have the Duchy (as his Majesty terms it) in his own hands. …” (Harewood MSS.)

This letter shows how inaccurate is the version of the affair given by Richard Bagot in a letter to his brother Sir Charles Bagot, printed in Bagot, 's Canning and his Friends, ii. 392.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 1} Lord Binning wrote to Littleton about the 16th saying that Anglesey was not to be in the Cabinet. (Hatherton MSS. Undated.)

^{page 94 note 1} Her husband, Lord Francis Leveson-Gower.

^{page 98 note 1} A portion of this letter is quoted in my Article, The Canningite Party. (Royal Hist. Soc., Trans., Fourth Series, xvii. 214.)

^{page 99 note 1} The Vice-Chancellor was perturbed by a report that the office of Master of the Rolls was to be given to William Courtenay. (Harewood MSS., Lord Carlisle to Canning, [18 April].)

^{page 102 note 1} Canning and Knighton.

^{page 102 note 2} The duel between Canning and Castlereagh in 1809.

^{page 103 note 1} For Lord Morley's readiness to accept the Netherlands Embassy, see Royal Hist. Soc., Trans., Fourth Series, xvii. 210.

^{page 108 note 1} Lord Hertford was sent on a special Mission to Russia in June to invest the Tsar with the Garter. Canning offered him the Mission in the autumn of 1826, but the change of Government made him hesitate to accept it. Groker wrote to him on 13 April: “I have given our conversation of yesterday the best consideration I could, and I own I cannot see the least reason why you should decline the Mission—on the contrary, I sincerely think that you cannot, or at least ought not, to do so. I put quite out of consideration your conduct, whatever it may be, towards Mr Canning's new Administration; and, whether you may vote with him, or with the Duke, I cannot see how that can affect your visit to the Emperor. The Mission was given to you by Lord Liverpool's Government, thro' Mr Canning indeed, but with the assent of his colleagues. On Lord Liverpool's illness, and before a step was taken towards an Administration, Mr Canning wrote to suggest to you that the circumstances were a little changed since you had accepted, and in order to prevent imputation or misconstruction, he put it to you whether you would have the affair then gazetted or not. It was then open to you to have said that ‘doubtful who might be Minister and unwilling to hold a Mission if you should happen not to approve the arrangement of the Government, you declined the appointment, or at least declined having it made public, till the new Minister should be declared.’ This, I say, was quite open to you; it was more, it was suggested to you by Mr Canning's own proceeding. You, however, thought that the Mission and the future arrangements of the Government were quite distinct, and you re-accepted it, rebus sic stantibus, and you desired it might be gazetted, in order to show that it was given and taken without any reference to what might happen as to [the] Ministry. How then can the arrangement or dis-arrangement of the Ministry affect a measure which was by your own desire gazetted, in order to avoid & obviate all such connexion of the matters ? … You might satisfy the delicacy of your own mind by offering to return the favor into Mr Canning's hands, if, under the new circumstances, he should wish to confide to another person…. But if he, either out of respect for the Emperor, or for consistency, or for any other reason, should not wish to avail himself of your offer, I hold that you are bound to execute your engagement, altho' that engagement binds you to nothing else…. Having thus performed my duty towards you in offering you my candid opinion on a point in which you have desired my intervention, let me give weight to that opinion by reminding you that I was no advocate originally for your acceptance of the Mission; that I gave you no opinion on the re-acceptance of it; that I neither had nor have any desire to lay you under obligations to Mr Canning; that until I went to him lately by your desire, I had not been, I believe for two years, alone in the same room with him; that my first political connexion was with the Duke of Wellington, and my nearest private friendship (after yourself) was Peel. I think therefore I am entitled to say that in the advice I now give you, I can have no object, no desire, but that your conduct should be clear and consistent and above all cavil. Observe that I do not mix politics with these considerations. You and Mr Canning agreed to throw them aside when the Mission was gazetted, but altho' you may, and perhaps ought to place the favor at the re-disposal of Mr Canning, I think that if he feels that it is for the good of the public service, and for the honor of the country that the reappointment should not be revoked, you are bound to go, and the more bound the more disagreeable it may be to you….” (Croker MSS.)

^{page 112 note 1} The Archbishop of York.

^{page 115 note 1} This and the following notes were written on the inside covers enclosing presumably the letters referred to in No. 166.

^{page 120 note 1} One of Lord Lansdowne's more serious mis-statements. The Duke of York told Liverpool that he had not consulted or communicated with any one on that occasion, and that no one had the least idea of the step he was taking. (Yonge, 's Liverpool, iii. 432.)Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 1} It is clear that Lord Lansdowne confused some of the dates.

^{page 128 note 1} Arbuthnot.

^{page 129 note 1} Vansittart, Lord Bexley.

^{page 129 note 2} The Home Office.

^{page 129 note 3} Hobhouse wrote to Sidmouth on the 21st: “I believe an offer of the Irish Government has been made to Lord Huntly.” (Ibid.)

^{page 130 note 1} Sir William Knighton.

^{page 134 note 1} Earnestly recommending moderation and temper. (W.N.D., iii. 654.)Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 1} For a pension. He had been Ambassador at Petersburg, 1825–6.

^{page 136 note 1} He wrote again, next day:“…: If I do not hear anything to the contrary from you, I shall consider your silence as giving me permission to proceed in my plan—a hopeless one I doubt not—but still, one which in justice to my family, I think I ought to try.” (Ibid.)

^{page 141 note 1} Parts of this letter are quoted in my Brougham and the Whig Party, p. 151Google Scholar; and in E.H.R., 04 1927, p. 208.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 2} Who provided him with a seat in Parliament.

^{page 141 note 3} The Duke of Devonshire.

^{page 142 note 1} To the Duke of Portland.

^{page 142 note 2} Who had returned to Bowood after the breakdown of the negotiations.

^{page 149 note 1} The portion enclosed in square brackets is a marginal addition.

^{page 152 note 1} The fifth Duke of Rutland was the great-grandson, Lord Manners the grandson, of the third Duke.

^{page 155 note 1} The text shows how considerably the letter was modified, either by Mrs. Canning or her husband, before it was actually despatched. The Harewood document is, of course, a draft. The dating of the two MSS. is most curious. Mrs. Canning's dates are not always clear, and what looks like 21, in the draft, may really be 20 (I have had no opportunity of checking this since I saw the MS. at Harewood House in 1934). The letter which her brother-in-law received is very clearly dated Friday, 18, but Friday was the 20th; and the letter is endorsed, the 20th. Moreover, Canning's letter to Dudley (No. 201) suggests that Mrs. Canning's letter to the Duke had already been sent—that is, the previous evening. I think, therefore, the 20th is the correct date.

^{page 178 note 1} On 24 April. Three days later Herries, the Secretary of the Treasury, wrote to T. Sewell, who, apparently, was Lord Yarborough's election agent: … “I have however to inform you that in consequence of an arrangement which it was not possible to make before the election of Mr. Lamb, he is now appointed to an office [the Irish Secretaryship] which will render his re-election necessary. I hope that the peculiar circumstances of the present occasion will satisfy Lord Yarborough and the Trustees that the trouble and inconvenience which may be occasioned by such an immediate re-election of Mr Lamb has been unavoidable and that they will therefore have no objection to it. The writ will be moved as soon as Parliament meets” (Herries MSS.). Herries wrote to Lord Yarborough on 7 May: “… I presume that it may on the whole be more satisfactory to your Lordship that another person should be returned on this new vacation of the seat for Newport than that Mr Lamb should have been re-elected …” (Ibid.). Lamb was returned for Bletchingley on 7 May.

^{page 185 note 1} His son.

^{page 191 note 1} Sturges-Bourne.

^{page 191 note 2} He had been thought of as a Lord of the Treasury. Herries wrote to T. Sewell on the 25th: “Since I saw you, an arrangement has been concluded by which Lord Binning, member for Yarmouth, will become a Lord of the Treasury. Mr Canning desires me to express his hope that Lord Yarborough and the Trustees will not object to the re-election of Lord Binning on this occasion. The writ will be moved as soon as Parliament meets again …” (Herries MSS.). And on the 27th: “Pray do me the favor of informing Lord Yarborough that there will be no occasion for Mr Canning availing himself of the offer to re-elect Lord Binning at present. His Lordship is not to receive the appointment proposed” (ibid.).

^{page 193 note 1} He was given a British peerage in January 1828.

^{page 198 note 1} Judge of the Admiralty Court.

^{page 199 note 1} Lord Howick, Earl Grey's son, was M.P. for Winchelsea, being returned by the influence of Lord Darlington, who supported the Coalition. Howick did not resign his seat.

^{page 201 note 1} Fremantle was Treasurer of the Household.

^{page 203 note 1} The letter was forwarded to Canning.

^{page 205 note 1} W. R. K. Douglas, a Junior Lord of the Admiralty, was the brother of the fifth Marquess of Queensberry, who had married a daughter of the third Duke of Buccleuch.

^{page 206 note 1} To which should be added the Morning Post, the Standard, the Watchman, the St. James's Chronicle and John Bull.

^{page 209 note 1} Lord Charles Henry Somerset Manners and Lord Robert William Manners.

^{page 210 note 1} William Bingham Baring, second Baron Ashburton. Baring received a peerage in 1835.

^{page 210 note 2} See Londonderry's speech in the House of Lords, 2 May (Parl. Deb., N.S., xvii. 485Google Scholar). The Duke repeated his advice on the 17th: “I earnesly recommend you to publish nothing excepting in general terms as stated the other day. If you do publish, every word in all the letters will be pulled to pieces, and in this sort of contest a gentlaman always suffers” (Londonderry MSS.).

^{page 211 note 1} This is confirmed by Stapleton. (Bagot, , Canning and his Friends, ii. 396.)Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 2} See Parl. Deb., N.S., xvii. 470.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 1} He was re-elected for Peterborough after his appointment as Attorney General, on 9 May.

^{page 218 note 1} Possibly his young son. Peter John Locke King (b. 1811).

^{page 222 note 1} On the 11th T. W. Beaumont asked Sturges-Bourne whether he considered his appointment only provisional. Receiving an uninforming reply, Beaumont said he should bring before the House a motion respecting the manner in which the Home Secretaryship and other offices were then held. (Part. Deb., N.S., xvii. 744.)Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 1} Sturges-Bourne, Lord Dudley, and the Duke of Portland.

^{page 230 note 1} For Denman's classical allusions in his speech in defence of Queen Caroline, see Arnould, 's Life of Denman, i. 171–3.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 1} Charles Dundas, M.P. for Berkshire, was created Baron Amesbury in 1832.

^{page 235 note 1} An English peerage.

^{page 235 note 2} Standish O'Grady, Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland.

^{page 236 note 1} Wellington's amendment to the Corn Bill, providing that no corn in bond should, be taken out of bond until the average price amounted to 66s., was carried by 78 to 74.

^{page 237 note 1} He voted against the Corn Bill.

^{page 240 note 1} William Courtenay, Clerk Assistant to the House of Lords since 1826, and previously a Canningite M.P.

^{page 242 note 1} Peniston Lamb, first Viscount Melbourne (1748–1828).

^{page 242 note 2} The ex-Chancellor, Lord Eldon.

^{page 243 note 1} Lord Westmorland.

^{page 247 note 1} Herries informed Lord Yarborough on 18 May that Canning wished to recommend Spencer Perceval, Urider-Secretary of State for the Home Department, for the vacancy occasioned at Newport by William Lamb's acceptance of office. “Mr Perceval,” he added, “is prepared to stand upon the same footing in all respects as Mr Lamb would have done in pursuance of the communication which took place with Mr Sewell when he was in London.” (Herries MSS.)

^{page 255 note 1} A portion of this letter is printed, very inaccurately and with many unspecified omissions, in Parker, 's Peel, i. 491–2.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 1} The letter was begun on the 10th; this portion was written on the 11th.

^{page 265 note 1} Lord Londonderry had written to Planta, then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, applying for a pension. Lord Liverpool, to whom Canning transmitted the application, endorsed it, in pencil, “This is too bad”; and the remark was communicated to The Times by someone at the Foreign Office. Two of the letters were quoted by Londonderry in the House of Lords on 26 June 1827. See p. 281.

^{page 266 note 1} Lord Carlisle wrote to Canning on 23 July: “In case you like to offer the Green Ribband to the Duke of Buccleugh, I merely mention that my father received it before he was of age.” “I think enough will be done for the Duke of Buccleugh without it,” replied Canning next day. (Harewood MSS.) Melville wrote again to Arbuthnot on 19 August: “… Canning wrote to me that under the circumstances mentioned in my letter to him as to the Lieutenancy of this county (Edinburgh) he should have no hesitation in advising the King to appoint the Duke of Buccleugh when he attained the proper age.” (Arbuthnot MSS.)

^{page 268 note 1} “As it is only right that you should know your friends and your enemies, I beg leave to inform you that much of the slander in prose and verse against your Administration which fills the Standard and other London newspapers is written by an unprincipled Irishman named MAGINN, who styles himself Doctor, who is the protegé and friend of Mr John Wilson Croker.* Doctor M. is also at the bottom of all the abuse poured out against you in Blackwood. I shall not give in my name but these facts are known to a certain circle and can be ascertained without difficulty.—I am. Sir, a Friend.” (Copy.)

* [Croker's endorsement]: “I hardly knew him & had no kind of intercourse with him. He was however a regular Doctor of Laws & a very clever fellow—tho' not very orderly in his way of life.” (Croker MSS.)

^{page 268 note 2} Canning caught cold again through sitting in a draught whilst dining with the Lord Chancellor at Wimbledon.

^{page 269 note 1} Brougham was now offered the £7,000 a year post of Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer, in succession to Sir William Alexander. See Nos. 355, 358. 364.

^{page 274 note 1} The following portion of the letter, as fair as “shabby baseness”, is in Parker, 's Peel, i. 492–3Google Scholar, except for the phrases which are enclosed in round brackets.

^{page 275 note 1} Treatise on the Law of Evidence, London, 1814.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 1} He was on the point of leaving England for a two months' continental holiday.

^{page 278 note 2} Lord Sidmouth's nephew. He was Chargé d'Affaires at Washington, 1823–5.