No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
III. Rose and Canning in Opposition, 1806–1807
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
Shortly after the death of the Younger Pitt on 23 January 1806, his political heirs collected themselves into two principal groups. Lord Hawkesbury and Lord Castlereagh dominated one, and George Canning and George Rose were prominent in the other. The roots of this division stretched back to the interlude between the first and second Pitt Ministries, when Henry Addington, now Lord Sidmouth, had been Prime Minister. Some junior ministers in the first Pitt Government, such as Hawkesbury and Castlereagh, had taken Pitt's advice and accepted leading positions under Addington. Others, such as Canning and Rose, had refused to endorse Addington and were soon foremost among those who denounced his measures as insufficient. When Pitt formed his second Ministry, his separated friends, including the four mentioned above, came together and, though their union was none too stable, in part because of Canning's acute disappointment at being denied a major position, it did not disintegrate. Pitt's death, however, forced his friends from public office, and in their respective places succeeded the followers of Charles James Fox and Lord Grenville, who formed a government of ‘ All the Talents ’. This paper traces the reaction of Rose and Canning to the unfamiliar demands of opposition, especially strange in the absence of the self-assured guidance of their late esteemed and unquestioned leader.1
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971
References
1 For an account of Canning's dissatisfaction with his position as Treasurer of the Navy in the second Pitt Ministry, his uneasy relationship with Hawkesbury, his objection to Addington's entry into that Government, and his hopes, bolstered greatly by a promise of Pitt, for a Cabinet position, see Marshall, Dorothy, The Rise of George Canning (London, 1938), pp. 268–95.Google Scholar The most satisfactory survey, embodying both recent research and interpretation, of British politics during the first seven years of the nineteenth century is Professor Aspinall's, A. introduction to The Later Correspondence of George III (Cambridge, 1968), IV, ix–xliii.Google Scholar
2 Canning, to Canning, Joan, 25 Jan. 1806, Canning Papers, bundle 21/1Google Scholar; Canning, to Canning, Joan, 26 Jan. 1806Google Scholar, ibid. bundle 21/3; and Canning to Joan Canning, 28 Jan. 1806, ibid. bundle 21/4. I am indebted to the Earl of Harewood for permitting me to use the correspondence of Canning, which has been deposited in the Sheepscar Library at Leeds. On 24 January Lascelles gave notice of his intention to introduce a motion honouring Pitt, and on 27 January he proposed a public funeral and the erection of a monument. William Cartwright, member for Northamptonshire, on 3 February introduced a measure that would provide £40,000 for the discharging of Pitt's private debts (see Hansard, , Parliamentary Debates, 1st ser., vi, 30–1, 41–72 and 128–40). Cartwright was closely associated in politics with Canning. Lady Hester was the recipient of an annual pension of £1,200.Google Scholar
3 Canning, to Lowther, , 9 Feb. 1806, Canning Papers, bundle 34A/1.Google Scholar A printed version of this letter appears in H.M.C., , Thirteenth Report, pt. VII, The Manuscripts of the Earl of Lonsdale (hereafter cited as Lonsdale MSS) (London, 1893), p. 164.Google Scholar For confirmation of this account, see Canning, to Rose, George, 7 Feb. 1807. Canning Papers, bundle 72/26.Google Scholar
4 Canning, to Lowther, , 9 Feb. 1806Google Scholar, ibid. bundle 34A/1.
5 Malmesbury, to Canning, , 7 June 1806Google Scholar, ibid. bundle 63/24.
6 The Diaries and Correspondence of George Rose, ed. the Rev. Harcourt, Leveson Vernon (London, 1860), II, 262–5. This narration comes from Rose's diary, which I shall henceforth identify as Rose, Political Diary. The date of this entry is 22 Feb. 1806.Google Scholar
7 Rose, , Political Diary, 9 Feb. 1806Google Scholar, ibid. p. 248. At this time Rose refused to accept Sturges Bourne's story that Canning had been offered a seat in the Pitt Cabinet as Treasurer of the Navy. Testily, Rose dismissed this report as an attempt on Canning's part to gain ‘weight and consideration amongst Mr. Pitt's friends’, a stratagem that ‘would be more likely to drive people from him than to advance them to him’, ibid. p. 250.
8 Rose, , Political Diary, 10 Feb. 1806Google Scholar, ibid. p. 250. Gray, Dennis in his biography of Spencer Perceval (Manchester, 1963) devotes the sixth chapter to a general discussion of the Pittites in opposition. Though Gray, like Malmesbury, emphasizes the rivalry among Pitt's protégés, he gives little attention to Rose, who, despite age and a lack of transcendent qualities, still received respectful attention when he spoke on economic policy, including the budget.Google Scholar
9 Lowther, to Canning, , 20 Feb. 1806, Canning Papers, bundle 34A/4.Google Scholar
10 Canning, to Lowther, , 19 Feb. 1806Google Scholar, ibid. bundle 34A/3.
11 Canning, to Canning, Joan, 7 Mar. 1806Google Scholar, ibid. bundle 21/5.
12 Canning, to Canning, Joan, 10 Mar. 1806Google Scholar, ibid. bundle 21/6. As Gray points out, with the aid of Professor Aspinall's calculations, Canning was also courted because of his small yet formidable following. For the names of his adherents, see Gray, , Perceval, p. 63Google Scholar, footnote 3. For a review of the development of Canning's faction, see Aspinall, A., ‘The Canningite Party’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, fourth ser., xvii, 177–226.Google Scholar
13 Earl, of Essex, to Lowther, , 18 Mar. 1806, Lonsdale MSS, pp. 180–1.Google Scholar
14 Canning, to Canning, Joan, 8 June 1806Google Scholar, ibid. bundle 21/10.
15 Canning, to Canning, Joan, 16 June 1806Google Scholar, ibid. bundle 21/13.
16 Ibid.
17 Canning, to Canning, Joan, 18 June 1806Google Scholar, ibid. bundle 21/13.
18 Canning, to Canning, Joan, 20 June 1806Google Scholar, ibid. bundle 21/14.
19 Ibid. Scarcity of information makes any comment on Canning's estimates difficult, but they appear reasonably sound. According to the numbers recorded in division lists, attendance in the House of Commons was thin throughout the period during which the Ministry of All the Talents existed. On the vote on the Hampshire petition, taken on 13 Feb. 1807, the Pittites mustered 57 supporters. This was their maximum strength, though on the second reading of the American Intercourse Bill, 18 June 1806, they collected 54. In the former division the Government received 184 votes and in the latter 112. In the division on the Property Duty Bill on 12 May 1806, the opposition received 51 votes and the Ministry 129. As Gray, in his Perceval, pp. 72–3Google Scholar, suggests, Grenville fell because of the King's hostility, but not from the activity of the opposition. The figures presented above, however, confirm Canning's opinion that the Pittites had mounted an effective campaign that made the ministerial cause less attractive to the considerable body of uncommitted members (Hansard, , Parliamentary Debates, 1st ser., vii, 113Google Scholar; and ibid. viii, 729–30 and 787–8).
20 Ibid.
21 Ibid. In this letter Canning told of his growing effectiveness as a speaker, for ‘old Rose’ had praised his most recent speech ‘whether for eloquence or for business … [as] one of the best that he had ever heard’. Canning referred to his speech of 17 June during the second reading of the American Intercourse Bill (Hansard, , Parliamentary Debates, 1st ser., VII, 713–28).Google Scholar
22 Canning, to Grenville, , 1 July 1806, Canning Papers, bundle 63/33Google Scholar; and Grenville, to Canning, , 1 July 1806Google Scholar, ibid. bundle 63/32.
23 Canning, to Rose, , 7 July 1806, Rose Papers, B.M. Add. MS 42773, fos. 115–17.Google Scholar I wish to acknowledge the kindness of the officials of the British Museum in allowing me to quote from the correspondence of Rose in their custody. At the end of the parliamentary session Lowther suggested ‘the expediency of a Meeting or communication of some sort or other between the persons who thought alike upon the present state of things, & who had not yet communicated with each other, for the purpose of ascertaining each other's sentiments’. Among those attending the meeting, held at his town residence, on 4 July, were Lords Westmorland, Camden and Castlereagh, Canning, Long and Charles Yorke. Perceval could not come, and Rose was not invited. The latter had to be reassured that the real purpose of the meeting was to consider unified plans for the coming session, but not to assess any terms from Grenville (ibid.). Not all Pitties favoured such strategy, for Canning reported that Camden ‘… will not like it a bit - & I think will shirk being present. He is an empty, shabby fellow - not that he has, I really believe any views of personal advantage distinct from the party in general - but he wishes to be a sort of out-post, separate from the main body, & more accessible to the Enemy, thro’ which any offers, if any ever come, may be more likely to be made. This step will either strip him of that importance, if he agrees to it, or leave him more separate than he likes, if he refuses ‘(Canning, to Canning, Joan, n.d., Canning MSS, bundle 21/21. Probably written on 30 June 1806).Google Scholar
24 Canning, to Canning, Joan, 1 July 1806, Canning Papers, bundle 21/15.Google Scholar
25 Canning, to Canning, Joan, 5 July 1806Google Scholar, ibid. bundle 21/7.
26 Canning, to Canning, Joan. 7 July 1806Google Scholar, ibid. bundle 21/16.
27 Canning, to Canning, Joan, 23 July 1806Google Scholar, ibid. bundle 21/18. Since the end of June the Pittites had been in touch with the King, who obviously realized that as soon as the Ministry fumbled irretrievably he could turn to alternative arrangements (see Aspinall, , Later Correspondence, IV, xxxv–xxxvi).Google Scholar
28 Rose, to Pretyman, , 23 July 1806Google Scholar, Pretyman Papers, Ipswich. I am grateful to the Pretyman family for granting me permission to use the correspondence of George Pretyman, Bishop of Lincoln. His papers have been placed in the Ipswich and East Suffolk Record Office since I inspected them. Rose gave his views on Petty's budget on 21, 24 and 28 March 1806 (Hansard, , Parliamentary Debates, 1st ser., VII, 504–5, 525–6 and 564–86).Google Scholar
29 Pretyman, to Rose, , 6 Aug. 1806, Rose Papers, B.M. Add. MS 42773, fo. 51.Google Scholar
30 Rose, to Pretyman, , 8 Aug. 1806, Pretyman PapersGoogle Scholar, and also Rose, to Pretyman, , 8 Aug. 1806, Rose Papers, B.M. Add. MS 42773, fos. 54–5. The latter is a draft.Google Scholar
31 Rose, to Pretyman, , 8 Aug. 1806, Pretyman Papers.Google Scholar
32 Pretyman, to Rose, , 10 Aug. 1806, Rose Papers, B.M. Add. MS 42773, fo. 58.Google Scholar
33 Canning, to Rose, , 9, 10 Aug. 1806Google Scholar, ibid. fos. 119–21.
34 Rose, to Canning, , 10 Aug. 1806, Canning Papers, bundle 76/24.Google Scholar
35 Rose, to Pretyman, , 12 Aug. 1806Google Scholar, Pretyman Papers. For another copy, see Rose, to Pretyman, , 12 Aug. 1806Google Scholar, Rose Papers, B.M. Add. MS 42773, fo. 60; and Canning, to Rose, , 12 Aug. 1806Google Scholar, ibid. fos. 125–6.
36 Canning, to Rose, , 14 Aug. 1806Google Scholar, ibid. fos. 127–8.
37 Canning, to Rose, , 14 Aug. 1806, Canning Papers, bundle 76/15.Google Scholar
38 Ibid.
39 Pretyman, to Canning, , 15 Aug. 1806Google Scholar, ibid. bundle 34A/16; and Canning, to Pretyman, , 17 Aug. 1806Google Scholar, ibid. Copies of these letters are included in the Rose Papers, B.M. Add. MS 42773, fos. 137–8.
40 Rose, to Pretyman, , 15 Aug. 1806, Pretyman Papers. There is a copy of this letter in the Rose Papers, B.M. Add. MS 42772, fos. 62–3.Google Scholar
41 Canning, to Rose, , 26 Aug. 1806Google Scholar, ibid. Add. MS 42773, fo. 144.
42 Canning, to Rose, , 29 Aug. 1806Google Scholar, ibid. fos. 147–51.
43 Rose, to Canning, , 31 Aug. 1806Google Scholar, ibid. fo. 154; and also Rose, to Canning, , 30 Aug. 1806, Canning Papers, bundle 76/20.Google Scholar
44 Canning, to Rose, , 2 Sept. 1806, Rose Papers, B.M. Add. MS 42773, fo. 159.Google Scholar
45 Canning, to Rose, , 12 Sept. 1806Google Scholar, ibid. fo. 178.
46 Canning, to Rose, , 15 Sept. 1806Google Scholar, ibid. fo. 180.
47 Ibid.
48 Ibid. fos. 181–2.
49 Rose, to Canning, , 16 Sept. 1806Google Scholar, ibid. fo. 185.
50 Canning, to Lowther, , 26 Sept. 1806, Lonsdale MSS, pp. 200–1.Google Scholar
51 Lowther, to Grenville, , 2 Oct. 1806Google Scholar, ibid. pp. 211–12.
52 Lowther, to Canning, , 26 Oct. 1806Google Scholar, ibid. pp. 215–16.
53 Long, to Lowther, , 24 Oct. 1806Google Scholar, ibid. pp. 213–15.
54 Lowther, to Long, , 27 Oct. 1806Google Scholar, ibid. p. 216.
55 The estate at Cuffnells contained some 168 acres in 1840. This small acreage had been collected by purchasing copyholds. Obviously, Rose did not aspire to the position of a comfortably established country gentleman; instead he preferred the role of a successful ‘man of business’ whose political influence and that of government were inseparable. I am indebted to Mrs E. Cottrill, county archivist for Hampshire, for information on Cuffnells and on the Grenville estates in Hampshire. Though Rose's influence in Hampshire politics generally and in Christchurch and Southampton specifically came from his position as manager of the ministerial party under Pitt, it always had limits, for in 1804 Rose admitted to Pitt that ‘I had an Intention of asking you for the Employment of the Comptroller of the Customs at Kingston in Jamaica for the Brother of the Mayor of Southampton: I never yet solicited an Office out of the Town for any One connected with it, but I was strongly importuned by the above mentioned Magistrate last Year on behalf of his Brother whose Business falling off a good deal in London went out to Jamaica’ (Rose, to Pitt, , 26 Aug. 1804, Chatham Papers, P.R.O. 30/8–173Google Scholar). Yet six years later Rose complained to Perceval that ‘I have certainly not thought myself quite fairly dealt by in some Matters of Patronage; I expressed that to you long since respecting Southampton’, and Rose then complained that his nominee for a position worth £300 to £4,000 in Jamaica had been rejected for another (Rose, to Perceval, , 2 Sept. 1810, Rose MSS, 3975, National Library of Scotland). I am grateful to the authorities of the Public Record Office and the National Library of Scotland for the use of the Chatham Papers and the Rose MSS.Google Scholar
56 Note A, 25 Aug. 1806, Canning Papers, bundle 76/19A.
57 Rose, to Canning, , 28 Aug. 1806Google Scholar, ibid. bundle 76/18.
58 Note A, 25 Aug. 1806, ibid. bundle 76/19A.
59 Note B, 25 Aug. 1806, ibid. bundle 76/19B.
60 Canning, to Rose, , 2 Sept. 1806, Rose Papers, B.M. Add. MS 42773, fos. 160–1.Google Scholar
61 Rose, to Canning, , 6 Sept. 1806, Canning Papers, bundle 76/22.Google Scholar
62 Canning, to Rose, , 9 Sept. 1806, Rose Papers, B.M. Add. MS 42773, fos. 170–1.Google Scholar
63 Rose, to Canning, , 11 Sept. 1806Google Scholar, ibid. fos. 173–4.
64 Hampshire Chronicle, 17 Nov. 1806.
65 The Times, 17 Nov. 1806, and the Hampshire Chronicle, 17 Nov. 1806. Thistlewayte received 2,370, Herbert 2,318, Chute 1,944 and Mildmay 1,911. The election started on 11 November and ended on 16 November. The total electorate consisted of 6,000 qualified voters. The victory of the Government candidates was short-lived, for their opponents carefully prepared a counter-attack at the general election of 1807. On 6 May 1807, some 70 partisans of Chute and Mildmay met to rally support, and as many as 3,000 votes were grandly predicted secure. A short list of the participants identifies those Hampshire families that honoured the Pitt tradition as interpreted by Rose (Hampshire Chronicle, 11 May 1807). Thistlewayte declined to stand, but Herbert did and was nominated by Jervoise Clarke-Jervoise, long a stalwart Foxite Whig, who had been a county member from 1779 to 1790 and who now sat, as he had formerly, for Yarmouth on the Isle of Wight. According to the Hampshire Chronicle, ‘Mr. Herbert, in his address to the Freeholders, was very intemperate and personal… He passed great eulogiums on “All the Talents” of the late Administration, and pointed out the present as deficient in everything, and proceeded so far as to call them needy (as it was then understood, but it has since been explained as greedy) adventurers, and he accused them of having been already guilty of some actions for which he characterised them as “blood-thirsty Democrats.” His whole speech indeed betrayed symptoms of disappointment and despair.’ In reply Rose claimed that the new Ministers ‘were in no degree inferior to them in property, talents, or integrity’. After one day's polling, Mildmay and Chute had each received 547 votes but Herbert trailed with only 152 (Hampshire Chronicle, 18 May 1807). Herbert then withdrew.
66 Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, 1st ser., VIII, 684–9 and 747–88.Google Scholar Though mentioned in the debate, Grenville was not the ostensible target. Instead, William Freemantle was accused of requesting the Barrack Master General to exert the influence of his office to persuade favourable votes. Mildmay stated eloquently the issue in Hampshire: ‘There was no county of equal extent, population, and wealth, in which the government, independent of the interference complained of in the petition had so much influence in Hampshire. There was more of Church, collegiate, and Copyhold property, which gave no right to the elective franchise in that county, than in any other of equal extent, consequently there was less of freehold property and fewer electors. The interference of government, therefore, struck more effectually at the independence of the representation. There was also in that county one of the principal naval arsenals of the kingdom, the number of persons employed in which, that had freeholds, exceeded 400. These were persons, constantly, regularly, and exclusively employed by government in the docks, and subject to its controul. There was also in the neighbourhood of Portsmouth, an infinite variety of persons, who frequently employed by the navy board, the whole of whom could be controuled by the executive government’ (ibid. 750–1).
67 Rose, to Pretyman, , 18 Nov. 1806, Pretyman Papers.Google Scholar Calcraft was the son of the celebrated government contractor of the same name. Calcraft senior had purchased several estates in Dorset, and Rempston Hall had become the family seat. Atherley had property in Hampshire and Sussex. At Southampton he was an inveterate rival of Rose, and from 1806–7, 1812–18, and 1831–4 Atherley represented that constituency, where his brother was a banker. He was a friend of Fox and a staunch advocate of Whig principles (see Gentleman's Magazine pt. II (1844), 650).Google Scholar
68 Rose, to Pretyman, , 18 Nov. 1806, Pretyman Papers.Google Scholar
69 Pretyman, to Rose, , 4 Oct. 1806, Rose Papers, B.M. Add. MS 42773, fos. 66–7.Google Scholar
70 Mulgrave, to Lowther, , 30 Nov. 1806, Lonsdale MSS, 225–6.Google Scholar
71 Ward, to Lowther, , 23 Nov. 1806Google Scholar, ibid. pp. 221–2.
72 Harrowby, to Canning, , 7 Nov. 1806Google Scholar, Canning Papers, bundle 34A/15. Commenting on Grenville's advances to the Pittites, Camden also urged that only a comprehensive offer should be considered. Limited negotiations would only weaken the Pittite ranks (Camden, to Bathurst, , 10 12. 1806Google Scholar, H.M.C., , Report on the Manuscripts of Earl Bathurst (London, 1923), pp. 52–3).Google Scholar
73 Long, to William, Huskisson, 12 Jan. 1807, Huskisson Papers, B.M. Add. MS38737, fos. 183–4.Google Scholar The Pittite predicament was common knowledge. The leading Foxite newspaper, the Morning Chronicle, waspishly commented on the hopes of Pitt's friends: ‘Here, indeed, is the secret. Lord Grenville is the Rising Sun, whom their political idolateurs are prone to worship. Lord Grenville is now exempted from all the scurrility with which the whole of the Administration has been assailled by George Rose and the whole tribe’ (Morning Chronicle, 2 Aug. 1806). Estimates of the result of the general election vary. Several are given by Gray, in his Perceval, p. 68, footnote 4. Since political instability prevailed, party managers found great difficulty in making their appraisals.Google Scholar
74 Shortly after the session opened on 15 December, the Pittites began their attack on ministerial financial proposals. On 17, 21 and 23 January 1807, they criticized the estimates for the army and navy, and when Petty introduced his New Plan of Finance on 29 January, they continued their pressure. They vigorously maintained their attack during subsequent debates on 16, 19 and 26 February and 3 and 4 March (Hansard, , Parliamentary Debates, 1st ser., VIII, 453–63, 472–512, 535–49, 529–35, 564–600, 794–824, 921–30, 1070–3, 1004–13 and 1075–9).Google Scholar
75 Canning, to Canning, Joan, 7 Feb. 1807, Canning Papers, bundle 21/1.Google Scholar
76 Canning, to Canning, Joan, 10 Feb. 1807Google Scholar, ibid. bundle 22/2.
77 Canning, to Canning, Joan, 10 Feb. 1807Google Scholar, ibid. bundle 22/3.
78 Canning, to Canning, Joan, 27 Feb. 1807Google Scholar, ibid. bundle 22/7.
79 Ibid.
80 Ibid.
81 Ibid.
82 Canning, to Canning, Joan, 16 Feb. 1807Google Scholar, ibid. 22/5; and Canning, to Canning, Joan, 23 Feb. 1807Google Scholar, ibid. 22/6.
83 Canning, to Canning, Joan, 6 Mar. 1807Google Scholar, ibid. 22/8.
84 Canning to Joan Canning, ibid. 22/9. The date is missing, but Canning obviously wrote this letter sometime during the first two weeks of March.
85 Canning, to Canning, Joan, 6 Mar. 1807Google Scholar, ibid. 22/8.
86 Rose, to Pretyman, , 2 Jan. 1807, Pretyman Papers.Google Scholar
87 Temple, to Grenville, , 24 Feb. 1807Google Scholar, H.M.C., , Report on the Manuscripts of J. B. Fortescuse preserved at Dropmore, ix (London, 1910), 53.Google Scholar
88 Buckingham, to Grenville, , 19 Feb. 1807Google Scholar, ibid. p. 55.
89 In addition to the charges he delivered from the hustings at Winchester and his vigorous participation in the subsequent debate on the Hampshire petition, Rose had subjected Temple to a rigorous scrutiny on the terms of the American Intercourse Bill. Especially bitter was their exchange during the debate on this measure on 19 May 1806. Rose was sensitive on the economic welfare of the West Indies, where he had served briefly in the navy. His wife, moreover, came from a family associated with Dominica. Temple was Vice-President of the Board of Trade (see Gentleman's Magazine, pt. II (1819) 529Google Scholar; and Hansard, , Parliamentary Debates, 1st ser., VI, 834–9Google Scholar; and ibid. vii, 251–4, 336–47, 507–9, 608–10, 661–9 and 686–729).
90 Through his marriage in 1796 to Anne Elizabeth Brydges, the daughter and heiress of lames Brydges, the third and last Duke of Chandos, Temple acquired his Hampshire property, which amounted to 9,225 acres.
91 Canning to Joan Canning, Canning Papers, bundle 22/9. Sir Arthur Piggott was Attorney General, and Sir William Grant was Solicitor General. Morpeth was a Commissioner of the Board of Control.
92 Ibid.
93 Ibid.
94 Ibid.
95 Canning, to Canning, Joan, 11 Mar. 1807, Canning Papers, bundle 22/10.Google Scholar
96 Canning, to Canning, Joan, 12 Mar. 1807Google Scholar, ibid. 22/11.
97 Canning, to Canning, Joan, 14 Mar. 1807Google Scholar, ibid. 22/12.
98 Roberts, Michael, The Whig Party, 1807–1812 (London, 1939), pp. 16–18.Google Scholar On 5 March Howick had brought in a motion proposing to open all military and naval ranks to Roman Catholics (Hansard, , Parliamentary Debates, 1st ser., ix, 2–19).Google Scholar Rose and Canning remained on intimate terms until Canning left the Perceval Ministry in 1809. Rose refused to follow, and gradually a chill settled over their former friendship (see Rose, , Political Diary, 14–22 Sept. 1807, 368–90).Google Scholar Rose justified his decision on ‘the impossibility of my being a party to his [Canning's] breaking up of the Government on motives of personal ambition,–throwing the King, as far as depended upon him, on those who would be most likely to deal hard with him, to afford cause of triumph and exultation to the Jacobins, …’ (ibid. p. 378). Later Rose admitted that ‘I utterly dislike continuency in Office after Canning's Resignation, to which I had a strong Repugnance, but at the same time I could in no Degree reconcile to myself the Conduct [in which] he had persisted–My intention therefore was to resign and give the best Support I could without any Pledge whatever.’ Also Rose complained of Canning's growing coldness (Rose, to Bourne, Sturges, 28 Oct. 1809, Rose Papers, National Library of Scotland, Add. MS 3975, fos. 200–3Google Scholar). Rose's ‘ater feelings for Calming are revealed by Lord Liverpool's request for the use of the office of the Treasurer of the Navy, which Rose held from 1807 until his death, to attract additional support (Liverpool, to Rose, (?), 1812, Liverpool Papers, B.M. Add. MS 38248, fos. 287–9Google Scholar). A much distressed Rose protested and objected especially if ‘…it became a Question whether some Friend of Mr. Canning should have a better or worse Office ’ (Rose, to Rose, George Henry, 31 July 1812, Rose Papers, National Library of Scotland, Add. MS 3796, fos. 94–5Google Scholar). Pretyman drifted into the Grenville camp. In the autumn of 1808 Pretyman reproached Rose for indifferent treatment, thereupon both defended their respective positions (Pretyman, to Rose, , 29 Oct. 1808, Rose Papers, B.M. Add. MS 42773, fo. 74Google Scholar; Rose, to Pretyman, , 6 Nov. 1808Google Scholar, ibid. fos. 77–8; and Pretyman, to Rose, , 14 Nov. 1808Google Scholar, ibid. fos. 82–4).