^{page 99 note 1} The sentences in parenthesis were inserted in smaller script, apparently after the original paper was prepared, or at least so appear in the transcript.

^{page 100 note 1} The sentences in parenthesis were inserted in smaller script, apparently after the original paper was prepared, or at least so appear in the transcript.

^{page 101 note 1} The sentences in parenthesis were inserted in smaller script, apparently after the original paper was prepared, or at least so appear in the transcript.

^{page 110 note 1} The title is Robinson's. This paper is explanatory of and supplementary to that framed at the conferences at the house of Dundas, mentioned above. The date of this document would seem to fall, therefore, after December 15, 1783, and parts of its contents seem to indicate that it was prepared previous to the accession of Pitt's administration to office, December 18, 1783.

^{page 111 note 1} George Rose, who became under Pitt Secretary to the Treasury, the position held under North for so long by Robinson.

^{page 111 note 2} The “change” repeatedly referred to is apparently the projected dismissal of the coalition ministry of Fox and North and the accession to power of Pitt and those who were working for the defeat of the East India Bill in the House of Lords.

^{page 114 note 1} Thomas Steele, for seven years after 1783 Rose's colleague as Secretary to the Treasury under Pitt.

^{page 115 note 1} Richard Atkinson, a friend of Robinson and one of the contractors who made profit in the American Revolution, his relations with the government being the subject of a parliamentary investigation. He was active in the negotiations preliminary to the accession of Pitt and in the East India Company, hence his participation in this election.

^{page 121 note 1} Obviously an error; see infra, p. 123Google Scholar n. The vote for Hood at the close of the poll, April 3, was 2185; the votes of Fox and Wray are correct.

^{page 123 note 1} Rose's information concerning the progress of the canvass in Westminster seems to have been extremely inaccurate. The state of the poll was published daily in the press. The Morning Chronicle of May 21, 1784, carried a tabulated list of the votes cast each of the forty days of the poll. At the end of the canvass the vote stood: Hood, 6694; Fox, 6234; Wray, 5988. At the close of the poll Saturday, April 6, the date of the information supposed to be contained in the above letter, the figures were : Hood, 3936; Fox, 3413 Wray, 3622.

^{page 124 note 1} Richard Atkinson, who had been beaten by a close vote in London by Alderman Sawbridge, had demanded a scrutiny.

^{page 125 note 1} This total is inaccurate. It should be 75, omitting entirely the seats of Lord Hertford, or 76 if one seat is included for him, or 78, if three seats are counted for him. The transcript indicates that on the original a “1” is superimposed on a “3,” with two lines drawn horizontally through the entire figure.

^{page 126 note 1} Apparently Barwell, one of the influential East India directors, agreed to bring in one member in addition to the one mentioned in list given above.

^{page 126 note 2} The second lists by Atkinson and Robinson are in a different column on the same page. Apparently Way was willing to spend as much as 1,500l., and Boehm was willing to purchase one seat and another to the amount of 1,500l.

^{page 127 note 1} The total number of Rose's list in this as in the above paper is stated inaccurately unless one of the men named had agreed to purchase two seats, of which there is no indication.

^{page 129 note 1} The names of Mason, Stuart, Colt, and Rodney are drawn through in ink.

^{page 129 note 2} The last three names are accredited to nobody. The italicized names of boroughs in this list appear in the transcript in pencil and are apparently so in the original. The “Query” is also in pencil where italicized.

^{page 130 note 1} A by-election earlier in 1788 in which Lord John Townshend, standing in the interest of the Whigs, successfully contested the election of Lord Hood, the administration candidate. The two parties compromised the constituency before the general election of 1790, each party agreeing to be contented with one seat.