[ [!-- Note Anchor 94 --][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.">[
[ [!-- Note Anchor 95 --][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.]
[ [!-- Note Anchor 96 --][Footnote 96: "Parliamentary History," xxiv., 383-385—debate of January 20, 1784.]
[ [!-- Note Anchor 97 --][Footnote 97: Ibid, p. 283—January 12.]
[ [!-- Note Anchor 98 --][Footnote 98: Ibid., pp. 251-257.]
[ [!-- Note Anchor 99 --][Footnote 99: "Parliamentary History," xxiv., 478—February 2.]
[ [!-- Note Anchor 100 --][Footnote 100: Ibid., p. 663.]
[ [!-- Note Anchor 101 --][Footnote 101: "Parliamentary History," xxiv., 687, 695, 699.]
[ [!-- Note Anchor 102 --][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.]
[ [!-- Note Anchor 103 --][Footnote 103: 191 to 190.]