[660] So thought the Duchess of Devonshire’s friends. Sichel, “Sheridan,” ii, 416.
[661] T. Moore, “Life of Sheridan,” ii, 42, 43; “Parl. Hist.,” xxvii, 730, 731.
[662] Lecky, v, 148.
[663] “Parl. Hist.,” xxvii, 705–13.
[664] Tomline, “Life of Pitt,” ii, 388–92. There is a copy of this in the Pretyman archives at Orwell Park.
[665] “Parl. Hist.,” xxvii, 732–47. The date is given wrongly as 1st December; it should be 16th December. So, too, on p. 778, are the numbers in the division, which should be: for Government, 268, Opposition, 204.
[666] Ibid., 678.
[667] “Parl. Hist.,” xxvii, 680. That Thurlow or his friends expected his dismissal, even late in the year 1789, appears from a letter of Pitt to George Rose contradicting a rumour to that effect (G. Rose, “Diaries,” i, 98, 99).
[668] W. Sichel, “Sheridan,” ii, 421–3. I cannot agree with Mr. Sichel (ibid., ii, 192) that the letter was Sheridan’s. The Duchess’s diary shows it to have been a joint production. For the so-called Prince’s letter see “Parl. Hist.,” xxvii, 909–912, or “Ann. Reg.” (1789), 298–302. For Pitt’s reply see Stanhope, ii, 18–20.
[669] “Parl. Hist.,” xxvii, 946–7. Able speeches on the Government side were made by the Speaker (Grenville) and the Solicitor-General, Sir John Scott, the future Lord Eldon. See Twiss, “Life of Lord Eldon,” i, ch. ix.