¹ [Debret's] Parl[iamentary] Reg[ister], XII, 461–2.

2 Eden to Lord Northington, 22 December 1783 (B[ritish] M[useum] Add. MS. 33100, fo. 479); Fox to Northington, 22 December 1783 (Memorial and Correspondence of C. J. Fox, ed. Lord John Russell (1853), II, 224).

³ Grantham to Hardwicke, 22 December 1783 (B.M. Add. MS. 35621, fos. 284–5).

⁴ Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, [Memoirs of the] Court and Cabinets [ of George III] (1853), 1, 291.

⁵ Historical Memoirs of my own Time, ed. Wheatley, H. B. (1884), III, 199.Google Scholar

⁶ Life of Pitt(1861), I, 163–4.Google Scholar

⁷ Court and Cabinets, loc. cit.

⁸ Rosebery (Pitt, 1891, 45–6) depicted Temple retiring ‘in sullen magnificence’ to brood over his grievances at Stowe. J. Holland Rose (Pitt and National Revival, 1911, 152–3)Google Scholar noticed that, in spite of the supposed quarrel, Pitt had written to Temple on 23 December two ‘perfectly friendly’ letters (printed in Stanhope, Miscellanies, II (1872), 36–7: originals in Chevening MSS.)Google Scholar. He erroneously chose to conclude that the date of Temple's resignation must be late on the 23rd—ignoring both W. W. Grenville's announcement in the Commons on the 22nd and the fact that the second of Pitt's letters actually announced to Temple the appointments of his successors. Lord Ashbourne (Pitt, Some Chapters of his Life and Times, 1898, 39)Google Scholar avoided the problem by remarking: ‘The circumstances of his rapid retirement are involved in some mystery, but they are not worth enquiring into. He may have been too timid or too grasping.’ As late as 1939 Professor Barnes (George III and William Pitt, 1783—1806, 72–3) guardedly supposed the ‘ most likely’ explanation to be that Temple ‘ resigned in a huff when he was not given some honour—perhaps a dukedom—which he expected as a reward…’. Though puzzled by the conflict of evidence, he did not question the dating of Temple's letter in the Court and Cabinets. Dorothy Marshall (Eighteenth Century England, 1962, 515) follows Holland Rose.Google Scholar

⁹ Fox's Martyrs; the General Election of 1784’, Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc. 4th ser. XXI, 150 n.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Buckingham was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a second time from November 1787 to October 1789. His first Viceroyalty had been from July 1782 to April 1783.

¹¹ William Brabazon Ponsonby (1744–1806) was Joint Postmaster-General [Ireland] 1784–9. Hewas created Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly[I] in 1806. George Ponsonby (1755–1817) was Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer in Portland's administration (1782), a member of the Irish Revenue Board to 1789, Lord Chancellor of Ireland 1806–7, and leader of the Whig Opposition in the House of Commons 1808–17.

¹² Portland wrote to Earl Fitzwilliam on 11 September 1794 that Ireland was ‘a principal inducement for our accepting office’: Fitzwilliam told Windham (11 October) that ‘last July…the management of Ireland was distinctly given up to the care of the D. of P.’: and W. Ponsonby, in a memorandum of 1794, asserted that Portland had assured him that ‘the direction of Irish affairs should be entirely given up to him [Portland], for the purpose of enabling him to put an end to the system of government which then existed in Ireland, by nominating a Lord Lieutenant and putting the management of publick affairs into the hands of his friends there. He informed me that this arrangement for Ireland was his principal inducement to agree to Mr Pitt's proposal, and the sine qua non of his junction with him' (Fitzwilliam MSS. Sheffield City Library: quoted by permission of Earl Fitzwilliam and the trustees of the Fitzwilliam settled estates).

¹³ William Wentworth-Fitzwilliam (1748–1833), 2nd Earl Fitzwilliam, married (1) (1770) Charlotte(d. 1822), 2nd daughter of William (Ponsonby), 2nd Earl of Bessborough; (2) (1823) Louisa, widow of William Ponsonby, 1st Baron Ponsonby.

¹⁴ Historical MSS. Commission, Fortescue MSS, II (1894), 597–8.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Ibid. 633–4.

¹⁶ John Fitzgibbon (1749–1802), Irish Attorney-General 1783–9, Lord Chancellor of Ireland (as Baron Fitzgibbon) from 1789, Viscount 1793, Earl of Clare 1795.

¹⁷ Court and Cabinets, II, 312–17.Google Scholar

¹⁸ P.R.O., William Dacres Adams MSS.

¹⁹ 11, 653–4, there dated (20–25 December 1794). Buckingham in a letter to Grenville of 27 December, however, makes no reference to any letter from Pitt. Pitt, being too late for the post, sent his letter to Stowe by messenger, and Buckingham returned his answer by the same messenger on the 29th. Pitt's letter is therefore clearly Saturday, 28 December 1794. Buckingham's signature on his letter of the 29th as printed in the Court and Cabinets is given as ‘N.T’ (Nugent Temple), a form he would not have used after the grant of his Marquessate in 1784. After that date he often signed himself’ N.B.’ and the two have clearly been confused. Unfortunately I am informed by the Curator of MSS. at the Henry E. Huntington Library, California, that this letter is now missing from the Stowe MSS.

²⁰ Fortescue MSS, II, 655–6 and in, 2–4. In December 1800 the Marchioness of Buckingham was created Baroness Nugent of Carlanstown, Co. Westmeath, with a special remainder to her second son, Lord George Nugent-Grenville (1789–1850). He inherited the title in 1812 and it became extinct at his death.Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid. III, 12.

²² Fitzwilliam MSS., Northamptonshire Record Office.

²³ Fortescue MSS, III, 34.Google Scholar

²⁴ Carmarthen, dining at Temple's house on the evening of the 20th, Pitt being one of the company, observed that ‘the principal characters seemed remarkably thoughtful, and I apprehended something unpleasant had happened but could by no means devine what it was’. Carmarthen, however, did not join the Cabinet until the 23rd and too much should not be inferred from his remarks. Tomline states that the resignation was not decided on until the next evening (Political Memorandums of Francis, 5th Duke of Leeds, ed. Browning, O. (1884), 90–1Google Scholar; Tomline, G., Life of Pitt(3rd ed. 1821), 1, 233).Google Scholar

²⁵ J. Burgoyne to Thomas Pelham, 16 December 1783 (B.M. Add. MS. 33100, fos. 468–9). The debate is reported in Part. Reg. XIV, 59–69.Google Scholar

²⁶ Ibid. XII, 421.

²⁷ 22 December 1783: Ibid. 471.

²⁸ Tomline, I, 232, and Grantham to Hardwicke, 19 December 1783 (B.M. Add. MS. 35621, fos. 270–80).

²⁹ In fact only Pitt, Temple and Gower were sworn in on the 19th, but Thurlow and Howe had accepted office.

³⁰ Ibid. and Autobiography and Political Correspondence of Augustus Henry, 3rd Duke of Grafton, ed. Sir William Anson (1898), 385–7.

³¹ Lord, E.Fitzmaurice, , Life ofShelburne(1876), III, 407. Orde may have written’ desertion’, but if ‘ discretion’ is right his choice of words may suggest that the resignation was an act of policy.Google Scholar

³² Lord Northington wrote from Dublin on 29 December: ‘Have they used him in a military phrase, as the forlorn hope to attack the citadel and stand all the shots, and are they now going to send him to this country to get rid of him, where he is to be suffered to exercise his absurdity, intemperance and rashness?’ (B.M. Add. MS. 33100, fos. 512–15).

³³ Here they are in full (from Chevening MSS., printed in Stanhope, Miscellanies, loc. cit.): (1) ‘Tuesday [23 December 1783]. Mr Dear Lord, It has been decided still to try whether we can fill up the offices, and to take our chance, such as it is, in the House of Commons. What that is, the event must show us, if we succeed so far as to make an arrangement. I will call upon you the first moment I can. Ever, my dear Lord, Most affectionately yours, W. Pitt.’ (2) ‘Tuesday 5 o’clock. My Dear Lord, I called just now to tell you that we have taken the step of filling up the offices. Lord Sydney and Lord Carmarthen have taken the Seals, and the Duke of Rutland Privy Seal, for how many days or weeks remains to be seen. I wish extremely to see you, and will take my chance of calling again in the course of the evening. Ever most faithfully and affectionately yours, W. Pitt’.

³⁴ Rigby declared that on the news of the India Bill's defeat ‘ such a spirit in support of Fox’ appeared in the House ‘ that nothing can overcome in this Parliament, and who is the bold man [who] will advise its dissolution? (Hist. MSS. Commission, 10th Report, App. VI (Abergavenny MSS.), 63). Thomas Pelham, who, though he had accepted the Chief Secretaryship of Ireland in August 1783, had earlier written of his ‘ attachment to Pitt and dislike to the Coalition’, now declared: ‘ I trust none of my friends will press me to accept any offer if any should be made from these gentlemen... as I am to unlearn every syllable of the constitution of this country that I have learnt, to unsay everything I have said and to forget every principle I have maintained since I have had any opinion in politics before I could have any connexion with those who have so scandalously obtained their end and by such illegal at the same time indirect means’ (B.M. Add. MSS. 33128, fos. 258–9; 33100, fo. 526).

³⁵ ‘Of the 30 or 40 independent members,’ wrote Daniel Pulteney on 28 December, ‘ there are not ten who do not think of the £1000 or £2000 which it will cost them to be re-elected’ (Hist. MSS. Comm., Rutland MSS., III, 73). See also Tomline, 1, 241–2.Google Scholar

³⁶ Parl. Reg. XII, 474. For the reasons why a dissolution was further postponed after the Christmas recess, see Political Memorandums of the Duke of Leeds, 93–6.Google Scholar

³⁷ Life of Pitt(1821), 1, 232.Google Scholar

³⁸ Parl. Reg. XII, 613–14 (20 January 1784).Google Scholar

³⁹ Abergavenny MSS. 604 (B.M. photostat copies). Lord Fitzwilliam was informed that it was the general opinion in the Halifax district ‘ that Mr Fox was attempting to dethrone the king and make himself an Oliver Cromwell’ (R. Parker to Fitzwilliam, 26 April 1784: Fitzwilliam MSS., Northampton). For other evidence as to the force of public opinion in the elections, see Mrs George's article (op. cit.). Mrs George agrees that’ there seems no reason to dismiss Tomline's statement that it [Temple's resignation] was made to appease the public mind’.

⁴⁰ Court and Cabinets, 1, 218–19.Google Scholar

⁴¹ In the midst of their quarrel over Irish military patronage in 1789 the king thought fit to refer to Temple's ‘base conduct in 1784’—by which he must have meant December 1783 (12 April 1789: Chatham Papers). It is not, of course, to be inferred that Pitt shared his views.

⁴² Court and Cabinets, 1, 298.Google Scholar