]
[Footnote 94: Lord John Russell, in his "Memorials of Fox" (ii., 253),
affirms that "Lord Temple's act was probably known to Pitt;" but Lord
Macaulay, in his "Essay on Pitt" (p. 326), fully acquits Pitt of such
knowledge, saying that "he could declare, with perfect truth, that, if
unconstitutional machinations had been employed, he was no party to
them."]
[Footnote 95: On Lord Effingham's motion, in condemnation of some of the
proceedings of the Commons, which was carried February 4, 1784, by 100
to 53.]
[Footnote 96: "Parliamentary History," xxiv., 383-385--debate of January
20, 1784.]
[Footnote 97: _Ibid_, p. 283--January 12.]
[Footnote 98: _Ibid_., pp. 251-257.]
[Footnote 99: "Parliamentary History," xxiv., 478--February 2.]
[Footnote 100: _Ibid_., p. 663.]
[Footnote 101: "Parliamentary History," xxiv., 687, 695, 699.]
[Footnote 102: The numbers were 201 to 189. The week before, on Mr.
Powys's motion for a united and efficient administration, the majority
had been 20--197 to 177. On a motion made by Mr. Coke, February 3, the
majority had been 24--211 to 187. At the beginning of the struggle the
majorities had been far larger--232 to 143 on Fox's motion for a
committee on the state of the nation, January 12.]
[Footnote 103: 191 to 190.]
[Footnote 104: From December 19, when Pitt accepted office, to March 24,
when the Parliament was dissolved.
Pages:
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257