¹ Parliamentary Papers of John Robinson, 1774–1784, ed. W. T. Laprade, 1922.

² “William Pitt and Westminster Elections,” American Hist. Rev., xviii, pp. 253–74.Google Scholar

³ “The investigation which has been made into the preparations, calculations, and attitude of John Robinson … proves that little, if any, consideration was given to the effect which the views of the electors on any of the public questions of the day might have on the election results. Interest was of much greater importance.” C. S. Emden. The People and the Constitution, 1933. P. 197.

^{page 134 note 1} A parliament “chosen by Lord North and occasionally filled by Mr. Fox.” Buckingham, Courts and Cabinets of George III, 1853, i., p. 304. For 1761 see Namier, England in the Age of the American Revolution, 1930, pp. 153 ff.

^{page 134 note 2} Cf. a letter from Newcastle to Lord Irwin, patron of the borough of Horsham, 11 June, 1747: “Upon all considerations it has been determinedto call a new Parliament immediately the Session is ended. The Nation is now in a good humour, no accident has yet happened to make them otherwise, since the happy extinction of the rebellion, and therefore I verily think we cannot fail of getting a good whig Parliament.” Quoted, Albery, Parliamentary History of Horsham, 1921, p. 88.

^{page 134 note 3} Porritt, Unreformed House of Commons, 1909, i, pp. 267 ff.

^{page 134 note 4} See below, p. 157. Wraxall, who is explicit, and remarkably wellinformed, about Robinson's services, is also emphatic as to the landslide character of the election. Memoirs, 1884, iii, pp. 236, 331–8.

^{page 135 note 1} Part. Hist., xvii, p. 134.

^{page 135 note 2} The Parliaments of England from George I to the Present Time, 3 vols., 1844–50.

^{page 135 note 3} “Public Opinion and the General Election of 1784,” Eng. Hist. Rev., xxxi, 1916, pp. 224–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 136 note 1} B.M. Add. MSS. 28,060, fl. 121–2.

^{page 136 note 2} Correspondence, ed. Ross, 1844, i, p. 165. See below, p. 167.

^{page 136 note 3} For instance, the by-election for Staffordshire in 1799. Private Corr. of Lord Granville Leveson Gower, 1917, i, pp. 242—4. An election at which Sir E. Impey was defeated for Stafford after violent electioneering is untraceable in Stooks Smith. See E. B. Impey, Memoirs of Sir Elijah Impey, 1846, p. 350. Wilberforce excused himself in 1806 to a correspondent on the ground that “a contested election for Yorkshire finds a candidate in abundant employment for tongue, legs, and pen.”But this election is in class III. Lascelles had withdrawn on account of his unpopularity with the clothiers. Life of Wilberforce, 1838, iii, p. 285.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 4} Ann, Reg., 1784, p. 147.

^{page 136 note 5} Life, i, p. 64.

^{page 136 note 6} Two Foxites disappeared from Leicester: Macnamara, the senior new member, was a strong Pittite; Charles Loraine Smith is known to history only as an amateur artist (for sporting subjects).

^{page 137 note 1} Cf.Namier, , The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III, i, pp. 196–7. A Yorkshire squire wrote to Carmarthen on the eve of Nomination Day: “I am endeavouring as much as I possibly can to make as respectable and numerous a meeting to-morrow in hopes that a Resignation may take place when the opposing party see themselves a second time in so pitifull a Minority.”Add. MSS. 28,060, fo. 121.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 2} See below, pp. 154–5.

^{page 137 note 3} See below, p. 148.

^{page 137 note 4} These figures are obtained from the annual Royal Kalendar (“Red Book”) in which the names of members who did not sit in the previous parliament are printed in italics.

^{page 138 note 1} C. S. Emden, op. cit., pp. 182, 197.

^{page 138 note 2} Cf. Burdett's election address of 1812, in which he speaks of “the hacknied style of congratulation and profession usual on occasions like the present” Patterson, M. W., Sir F. Burdett and his Times, 1931, i, p. 321.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 3} See Westminster election prints in , B.M.Catalogue of Political and Personal Satires, vi, 1938Google Scholar, and History of the Westminster Election, 1784. See also below, p. 153.

^{page 138 note 4} Cf. Holland, Lord, Memoirs of the Whig Party, ii, p. 226.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 1} Pol. Memoranda of Francis, 5th Duke of Leeds, ed. O. Browning, 1884, p. 99.

^{page 139 note 2} E.g. “The popularity acquired by the Monarch in consequence of this dismission was indeed so great as to efface all memory of former disagreements: and though originating in a cause merely accidental, and on the part of the Crown from a sudden and passionate resentment at a supposed invasion of the Prerogative, yet has it not suffered in the sequel any diminution: on the contrary, from an extraordinary concurrence of circumstances, the loyalty of the people has been elevated to a pitch of ardor which court flattery itself will scarcely hesitate to acknowledge at least commensurate with the merits of the Monarch.” Belsham, , Memoirs of the Reign of George III, 1796, iii, 352.Google Scholar Lord Holland calls George III in 1807 “long the most popular man in his dominions.” Memoirs of the Whig Party, ii, 226. See Nicholls, , Recollections and Reflections, 1820, i, 52. The absence of condemnation of the King's action, outside strict Party circles, is remarkable, e.g. Camden did not condemn (see below, pp. 142–3), Bishop Watson excused: “The King's interference … could not be excused on constitutional principles except by the attack which the Commons had made on the Prerogative by passing the Bill. If you will not admit the true principle of the Constitution, which is the exercise of the King's negative, you in a manner compel him to the use of his influence over Parliament, when he conceives either his prerogative to be attacked, or the safety of the country endangered or even his caprices restrained by their proceedings.” Anecdotes of the Life of Richard Watson ….,1817, p. 123. The very different judgment of modern historians (even Sir John Fortescue calls the King's action “absolutely unscrupulous,” British Statesmen of the Great War, 1911, p. 35) seems to derive from the fact that the contemporary interpretation of the patronage aspect of the India Bill (see below, pp. 141–7) has been forgotten. Cf. also p. 146, n.I.Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 1} Life, i, p. 64.

^{page 140 note 2} Caricatures and newspaper paragraphs support Pitt's own explanation of his failure to give office to Shelburne—popular prejudice: “at present it would not be much more alarming to many to bring Lord Bute forward.”Orde to Shelburne, 18 Dec, 1783. Fitzmaurice, Shelburne, 1876, iii, p. 412.

^{page 140 note 3} Cf. the French Ambassador to Vergennes, 30 March, 1783: “Le Ministre populaire (Monsieur Fox) est un etrange Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres; et lorsqu'il aura perdu sa popularity, ce qui s'achemine beaucoup, je ne sais ce qui lui restera.”Quoted, Fitzmaurice, Shelburne, 1912, ii, p. 279, n.

^{page 140 note 4} The importance of the support of the dissenters at elections was recognised by George III in 1772 (Corr. of George III, ed. Donne, i, p. 101), by Burke in 1789 (“A set of men powerful enough in many things, but most of all in elections.” Memorials and Corr. of Fox, ii, p. 360), by Lord Holland in 1807: “… the Dissenters, upon whom in a contest with the Crown, the Whigs must always rely.” Memoirs of the Whig Party, ii, pp. 27, 227.

^{page 141 note 1} Memoirs of Romilly, i, pp. 269–70 (21 March, 1783).

^{page 141 note 2} M. W. Stirling, Coke of Norfolk, i, p. 213.

^{page 141 note 3} Disney, Life of Jebb, 1787, i, pp. 191–2.

^{page 141 note 4} Wyvill Papers, iv, p. 362 (23 May, 1784).

^{page 141 note 5} Part. Hist., xxiv, p. 665 (Lord Mahon, quoting Fox).

^{page 142 note 6} Wraxall, Memoirs, 1884, iii, p. 182.

^{page 142 note 1} Twiss, Life of Eldon, 1844, i, p. 162.

^{page 142 note 2} Parl. Hist., xxiv, p. 744. See B.M. Catalogue of Political and Personal Satires, vi, 1938, No. 6473 (pp. 68–9).

^{page 142 note 3} ibid.., Vol. v, pp. 733–50, Vol. vi, pp. 1–130 passim, and History of the Westminster Election, 1784. It must be remembered that Cromwell had not as yet been rehabilitated. An election squib asks how Fox resembles him, and answers: “A republican who is in his heart so attached to monarchy as to despise every other form of government—a tyrant, a hypocrite, a notorious enemy to the constitution of his Country.” ibid.., P. 355.

^{page 143 note 1} H. S. Eeles, Lord Chancellor Camden, 1934, PP. 124–5.

^{page 143 note 2} Anecdotes of the Life of Richard Watson, Bishop of Llandaff, 1817, pp. 124–5.

^{page 144 note 1} Wyvill Papers, iv, p. 352.

^{page 144 note 2} ibid.., iv, p. 354.

^{page 144 note 3} ibid.., iv, p. 387.

^{page 144 note 4} Belsham, Memoirs of the Reign of George III, 1796, iii, pp. 347 ff.

^{page 145 note 1} Fox's Correspondence, ii, p. 208 (letter of 9 Sept., 1783).

^{page 145 note 2} This is not consistent with Fox's speech of 18 Nov. (Russell, Life of Fox, ii, pp. 31—2). Vacancies by death or resignation were to be filled by the King in Council. The Commissioners (at first styled Directors) could be dismissed only by an address from either or both Houses.

^{page 145 note 3} Letters, ed. Toynbee, xiii, p. 138 (30 March, 1784).

^{page 146 note 1} Fox, Memorials and Corr., ii, p. 218. Pulteney's view of the Bill is supported by Eden's correspondence: Loughborough to William Eden (n.d., c. Nov. 1783): “That curse of India will be the ruin first of the Administration and then of the Country … I have sent you the Paper which was circulated to us. You'll observe the seven Trustees are during good behaviour. That is a very favourite but a very difficult Point … I hold it too hazardous to try even if all the rest were safe. If it were carried it is a great Point, but for that reason I think it will fail.” (It was slightly modified, seep. 145, n. 2.) Add. MSS. 34, 410, fo. 305. Eden wrote to his brother Morton, 21 Nov., 1783: “Our East India Measure is a very trying one:—undoubtedly it is a very strong proposition and will either knock us down or establish us—I am much mistaken if it will not shew that we have the Confidence and support of at least two-thirds of the House, which is a sufficient Key to my creed as to present politics.” ibid.., fo. 296. In view of Fox's declared intention, on taking office in 1782, of reducing the power of the Crown, the alternative to Pulteney's interpretation of the Bill would seem to be reckless opportunism. (Cf. Hist. MSS. Corr., Carlisle MSS., pp. 599, 604, 623; Parl. Hist., xxii, p. 1252.)

^{page 146 note 2} Cf. the cardinal political obligation: faithfulness to connexion, illustrated (e.g.) by Yorke's distress at accepting the Chancellorship in 1770, and by Lord Holland's praise of Grenville for his faithfulness to connexion (i.e. in refusing to take office without Fox in 1804). Memoirs of the Whig Party, ii, p. 51.

^{page 146 note 3} The dedication of his Preface to Bellendenus (1787) is to tria lumina Anglorum, Fox, North and Burke.

^{page 147 note 1} Hist. MSS. Comm., Dartmouth MSS., in, 1896, p. 268 (23 Dec, 1784).

^{page 147 note 2} Parl. Hist., xxiii, 1402 (Dundas). Cf. below p. 152, n. 1.

^{page 147 note 3} Lond. Chron., 23 March, 1784; Morning Herald, same date. See also Stanhope and Gooch, Life of Charles, third Earl Stanhope, 1914, p. 59.

^{page 147 note 4} Memoirs of the Reign of George III, iii, 1796, p. 351.

^{page 147 note 5} Watson, op. cit., p. 128.

^{page 148 note 1} Memorials and Corr. of Fox, iii, p. 152.

^{page 148 note 2} Part. Hist., xvi, pp. 663, 665, etc. (9 Jan., 1770).

^{page 148 note 3} ibid.., xxiv, pp. 462–3 (2 Feb.).

^{page 148 note 4} ibid.., xxiv, pp. 575–6 (9 Feb.). The parliamentary sequel is interesting: Fox said, answering North: “When majorities acted wrong, he would both within that House, and out of it, declare his disapprobation of their conduct … but the noble lord pronounced it as the indispensable duty of a minister to hold the decision of that House in the strictest reverence.”ibid.., xviii, p. 1094.

^{page 149 note 1} ibid.., xxiv, p. 647.

^{page 149 note 2} B.M. Catalogue of Political and Personal Satires, vi, 1938, Nos. 6438, 6775, 6486, etc.

^{page 149 note 3} Parl. Hist., xxiv, p. 296 (12 Jan.).

^{page 149 note 4} ibid.., xxiv, p. 449 (29 Jan.).

^{page 149 note 5} Hist, of the Westminster Election ….,1784, p. 95.

^{page 150 note 1} The theory that it was because he wanted a dukedom (party gibes apart) seems to derive from a disgruntled letter dated 29 December, clearly relating to Ireland after the Regency crisis and consistent with letters of that date (1789) in the Dropmore Papers. It is printed in Buckingham's Courts and Cabinets of George, i, 291—3, and there attributed to 1783, an impossible date: Temple had then no connexion with Ireland.

^{page 150 note 2} For Pitt's uneasiness, see especially two letters of 23 Dec. to Temple, in Stanhope, Miscellanies, 2nd Series, 1872, pp. 36–7.

^{page 150 note 3} Tomline, Life of Pitt, p. 249; Parl. Hist., xxiv, p. 486.

^{page 150 note 4} Wyvill Papers, ii, pp. 340—1.

^{page 150 note 5} Full and authentic Account of the Proceedings in Westminster Hall, 1784, pp. 26—7. B.M. Catalogue df Pol. and Personal Satires, v, p. 119.

^{page 151 note 1} Anglo-Saxon Review, Sept. 1899, p. 73.

^{page 152 note 2} 1 “Lord S. made some efforts for an Address to the King to dismiss his present Ministry and take in the late, but was told by some of his friends that to be sure many of them would and must sign such a one, but on casting up the numbers privately there was two to one against such a thing, and that the County would be more strong against it, he judged well in Droping it.”Ewin to Lord Hardwicke, 19 March. Add. MSS. 35629, fo. 20–20b. (I am indebted to Miss H. M. Cam for this and other references to the Hardwicke Papers.) Yet Sandwich was all powerful in the town: “The interest of the Earl of Sandwich is so powerful, as always to return two members; and this he effects, not by weight of property for his lordship has but one house in the whole town, but by his popularity, and the obligations which he was enabled to confer upon some of his principal friends during his connexion with Lord North's Administration.” Oldfield, Hist, of Boroughs, 1794, i, pp. 319–20. In the county “the Duke of Manchester and Lord Sandwich always return the two members.” ibid.., i, p. 316.

^{page 152 note 2} Life of Wilberforce, i, pp. 50–64, 326; Stirling, A. M. W., Annals of a Yorkshire House, ii, pp. 191 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 1} Copy in B.M. 1890.e.22, fo. 33 (Banks Collection). See B.M. Catalogue, ut supra, vi, pp. 22—3; Morning Post, 6 April, 1784.

^{page 153 note 2} B.M. Catalogue, vi, Nos. 6417, 6469.

^{page 154 note 1} Cf. a letter of Windham, 3 May, 1796. Windham Papers, ii, p. 11. A comment on a by-election for Norwich is significant: “The contest, which at first promised to be merely a trial of strength between the friends of two most respectable country gentlemen, has now assumed a more important aspect, and seems to involve the great question … of the policy or impolicy of the war … “Morning Herald, 27 May, 1799. Sheridan, M.P. for Stafford, canvassed in 1799 for Lord Granville Leveson-Gower, who was standing for the county. Private Corr. of Lord G. Leveson-Gower, 1917, I, pp. 242–4.

^{page 154 note 2} Stirling, A. M. W., Coke of Norfolk … i, pp. 220—1.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 3} Gibbon, , Private Letters, ed. Prothero, , 1896, i, pp. 225 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 1} Stirling, A. M. W., Coke of Norfolk, i, p. 220.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 2} Gibbon, op. et loc. cit.

^{page 155 note 3} Journal of Lady Holland, ed. Ilchester, Lord, 1908, I, p. 100. Grey was returned in place of Lord Algernon Percy, who succeeded to a peerage.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 4} See for instance the letters of Cornwallis on the candidature of his son for Suffolk in 1796. Cornwallis Corr., 1859, ii, pp. 303 ff. A letter from George Osborne to Hawkesbury (Liverpool) about his son's candidature for Bedfordshire in 1794 is astonishingly regardless of political connexions. Add. MSS. 38,548, fo. 176.

^{page 155 note 5} Life of Wilberforce, ii, p. 133 (1795). See below, p. 168, n. 4.

^{page 156 note 1} This summary is based on Oldfield, Hist, of Boroughs, 1792 (2nd ed. 1794) and Representative History …, 1816, supplemented by the Wyvill Papers. For the Colchester election in 1784 cf. Hist. MSS. Comm., Rutland Papers, iii, p. 122.

^{page 156 note 2} Appealed to as a precedent at the Norfolk election in 1806. Poll for … Norfolk …, 1806.

^{page 156 note 3} B.M. Catalogue of Pol. and Personal Satires, v, 1935, Nos. 5700, 5701, 5708.

^{page 157 note 1} Corr. of George III, ed. Fortescue, v, pp. 465 ff.; Donne, Corr. of George III with Lord North, ii, pp. 425.

^{page 157 note 2} B.M. Catalogue, ut supra, vi, No. 6431, etc.; Robinson, Parliamentary Papers, pp. 54–5.

^{page 157 note 3} B.M. Catalogue, ut supra, vi, No. 6927 (27 Feb.).

^{page 158 note 1} Hist. MSS. Comm., 10th Report, App. vi. (Abergavenny Papers), p. 64. The Treasury State of the House given to Shelburne is in the Robinson Papers, pp. 43–8.

^{page 158 note 2} Wyvill Papers, iv., p. 382. Wyvill thought he had supported measures “highly dangerous to the Peace and Liberty of the Country.”

^{page 158 note 3} Robinson Papers, pp. 66–70. The names of the county members, characterised as Abroad, 111 can't attend, Pro, Hopeful, Doubtful, and Con, are given on pp. 51–2, but with the misleading page caption “the Parliamentary Election of 1780.” He expected Duncombe's Yorkshire colleague to be “Doubtful”

^{page 159 note 1} Rose, Pitt and Napoleon, p. 207. (Letter of George III to Pitt, 12 April; he expected Aubrey to relinquish to Lord Verney.)

^{page 159 note 2} Cf. Hist. MSS. Comm., Dropmore Papers, i, pp. 363, 590.

^{page 159 note 3} See below, p. 166, n. 3.

^{page 159 note 4} Op. cit., p. 68. Wilkes was popularly accused of a coalition with the King, see B.M. Catalogue, ut supra, vi, No. 6568.

^{page 160 note 1} op. cit., p. 69.

^{page 160 note 2} A. M. W. Stirling, Coke of Norfolk, i, pp. 221–9.

^{page 160 note 3} Rose, Pitt and Napoleon, p. 207.

^{page 160 note 4} Joshua Grigby was the “Association” (Reform) member for Suffolk. Wyvill Papers, iv, p. 407.

^{page 161 note 1} B.M. Add. MSS. 35,629, fo. 32 (letter of W. H. Ewin, 8 April).

^{page 161 note 2} ibid.., fo. 26 (letter of 2 April). Ewin writes, “I go with the stream, Pitt and Townshend of my own College.” See also Add. MSS. 35,629, fo. 211, and cf. above, p. 146 (Dr. Parr's letter). Pitt had contemplated contesting Cambridge University at the by-election caused by Mansfield's appointment as Solicitor-General (letter of 16 Nov., 1783). Hist. MSS. Comm., Lonsdale Papers, 1893, p. 140.

^{page 161 note 3} Cf. Malmesbury Diaries and Corr., ii, p. 65.

^{page 161 note 4} If Blackburne (of Hales, Lancashire) was the nephew of Bamber Gascoyne of whom Robinson wrote on 7 April, the victory was Pittite. Robinson Papers, p. 123.

^{page 162 note 1} Anglo-Saxon Review, 1899, ii, p. 76.

^{page 162 note 2} Robinson Papers, pp. 78, 117; Rose, Pitt and Napoleon, p. 206.

^{page 162 note 3} Gibbon, Private Letters, 1899, ii, pp. 100 f.

^{page 162 note 4} Laprade, “Public Opinion in the General Election of 1784,” Eng. Hist. Rev., 1913, pp. 224–37.

^{page 162 note 5} Memoirs, 1884, iii, p. 338.

^{page 163 note 1} Fox's Martyrs; Rose, Pitt and Napoleon, p. 206. Grafton was presumably pledged to Conway, the old member.

^{page 163 note 2} Chatham MSS. 137, 183, cited Laprade, “Public Opinion in the General Election of 1784,” Eng. Hist. Rev., 1913, pp. 224–37.

^{page 164 note 1} Robinson Papers, pp. 107, 124.

^{page 164 note 2} Twiss, Life of Eldon, i, p. 163.

^{page 164 note 3} Hist, of the Westminster Election …, 1784, p. 501.

^{page 165 note 1} Print by Rowlandson. B.M. Catalogue (ut supra), vi, No. 6474. Wyvill found it impossible in the winter of 1784–5 to get popular support by meetings and petitions for Pitt's Reform Bill. Wyvill Papers, iv, pp. 394–409. He attributed the defeat of the Bill to the influence of the aristocracy “for want of the general support of the people.” A Defence of Dr. Price …, 1792, p. x. Cf. below, p. 168, n. 4.

^{page 165 note 2} Letters, xiii, p. 41 n.

^{page 165 note 3} Anglo-Saxon Review, 1899, Sept., pp. 74 ff. B.M. Catalogue (ut supra), vi. No. 6493, etc.

^{page 165 note 4} Robinson Papers, p. 74.

^{page 166 note 1} Beavan, Aldermen of London, i, p. 281.

^{page 166 note 2} Hist. MSS. Comm., Rutland Papers, iii, pp. 84–5.

^{page 166 note 3} Memoirs, 1884, iii, p. 337. Cf. Robinson's account of his own electioneering in East Anglia. He wrote to Jenkinson from Harwich on 4 April: “ … I have been hard at work since the Proprietors' list has been fixed upon, for they delayed it so as to straiten me much in time: in the whole I have wrote or arranged about 220 Persons, having in number 260 Votes. I apprehend from the Treasury they will not stir much, but it was understood at our Meeting that I as an Individual should, and I have accordingly done so—I have been fortunately of more service to them here in the Neighbouring Contests than I could have conceived— Ipswich I clearly managed and carried for them by the weight of 42 Voters from hence—properly kept back, arranged, and at the last Moment declaring—Suffolk we assisted in, as also Sudbury—Colchester very substantially. And the People hereabouts nattered me by proposing to put me at the head of upwards of 100 Freeholders for the county of Essex as I wished…. The People here indeed behave with noble Attachment and Duty to our Sovereign and may be lead to any thing expressive of it—I like them more than before, they are so steady and firm to their principles.”Add. MSS. 38,567, folios 187–8.

^{page 166 note 4} Though he is sometimes said to have ceased writing for the Annual Register in 1780, there can be little doubt that he wrote or superintended the account of his quarrel with Fox in 1791, pp. 119 ff. Glenbervie was informed that it was “perfectly well known in the trade that he wrote the historical part to the end of the year 1792.” Diaries, ed. F. Bickley, 1928, i, p. 252. Windham had denied Burke's authorship. ibid.., i, p. 97.

^{page 167 note 1} Add. MSS. 38, 567, fo. 188.

^{page 167 note 2} Rose, Pitt and Napoleon, 1912, p. 207. Cf. Carmarthen: “The Election went far more favourably to Government than its most sanguine friends could have imagined.” Pol. Memoranda of the Duke of Leeds, ed. O. Browning, 1884, pp. 101–2.

^{page 167 note 3} Life of Wilberforce, i, p. 64.

^{page 167 note 4} Daniel Pulteney to the Duke of Rutland, 6 July, 1784. Hist. MSS. Comm., Rutland Papers, 1894, iii, p. 122.

^{page 168 note 1} Mr. Philips has recently shown that the East India interest was divided and not wholly Pittite as had been previously believed. “The East India ‘Interest’ and the English Government, 1783–4”, Trans, of the Royal Historical Society, 1937, Fourth Series, xx, pp. 83 ff.

^{page 168 note 2} Thomas Green, The Diary of a Lover of Literature, 1810, p. 113.

^{page 168 note 3} Alexander Carlyle, Autobiography, 1860, p. 532.

^{page 168 note 4} Cf. Wyvill's retrospective judgment on the crisis, influenced by his disapproval of the French War: “The danger apprehended from an oligarchical party in whose hands the immense patronage of India was to be placed, was indeed averted, but hence the Crown was enabled to lull the jealousy of the Public, gradually to recover a more extended influence than it had lost, and finally to obtain that decisive superiority which has annihilated Opposition, and while it preserved the forms has nearly destroyed the substance of the Constitution. The opposition of the public to this obnoxious measure was right and necessary; but their confidence in the new Minister of the Crown was unwary and excessive, and in the course of his long Administration it has been productive of fatal effects.” Wyvill Papers, iv, p. 361. Wilberforce records that owing to the crisis the Yorkshire Association lost sight of its original object—Reform—and stood for opposition to oligarchy in the persons of the great Whig lords, whose influence, combined with the cost of a contest in so large a county, had made Yorkshire the equivalent of a nomination borough. Life, i, PP 51–3. 56–7. Cf. above, p. 165, n. 1.