(814) It seems from the next letter, that this alludes to Charles Townshend.-C.

(815) Lord George and Lord Frederick.-E.

(816) Probably Messrs. Thomas Townshend, senior and junior, and Charles Townshend, a cousin of the great Charles Townshend’s, who sat with Sir Edward Walpole for North Yarmouth.-C.

(817) Colonel Charles Fitzroy, afterwards Lord Southampton.-E.

(818) John Morton, Esq. member for Abingdon, and chief-justice of Chester.-E.

(819) The following is Lord Temple’s account of this debate, in a letter of the 10th, to his sister, Lady Chatham:  “Inability and meanness are the characteristics of this whole proceeding,.  I shall pass over the very uninteresting parts of this matter, and relate only the phenomenon of Morton’s motion yesterday, seconded by Kynaston, without a speech, and thirded by the illustrious Sam Martin.  The speech of the first was dull, and of the latter very injudicious; saying that the House of Lords had passed a stigma on the Princess of Wales; disclaiming all knowledge of her wishes, but concluding, with a strong affirmative.  George Onslow opposed the motion, with very bad reasons; Lord Palmerston, with much better.  George Grenville seemed to convey, that the alteration made in the Lords was not without the King’s knowledge; but that, to be sure, in his opinion, such a testimony of zeal and affection which now manifested itself in the House of Commons in favour of his royal mother, could not but prove agreeable to his Majesty, and that therefore he should concur in it.  The Cocoa-tree have thus her Royal Highness to be regent; it is well they have not given us a king, if they have not; for many think Lord Bute is king.  No division:  many noes.”  Chatham Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 309.-E.

(820) It was, indeed, a black and scandalous intrigue, by which the character of the Sovereign’s mother, and the peace and comfort of the Royal Family, were thus made the counters with which contending factions played their game; and if we may believe Mr. Walpole himself, the motives which actuated those who attacked, and those who seemed to defend the Princess Dowager, were equally selfish and unworthy.-C.

(821) Probably Brook Forrester, Esq. of Lincoln’s Inn, member for Great Wenlock, a barrister-at-law.  See ante, p. 281, letter 191.-C.

(822) It certainly does seem, from the foregoing account of his own motives, that conscience had little to do with Mr. Walpole’s conduct on this affair:  as to his pledge, that Mr. Onslow would take a place before him, we must observe that it is not quite so generous as it may seem; for Mr. Walpole was already, by the provident care of his father, supplied with three sinecure places, and two rent-charges on two others, producing him altogether about 6300 pounds per annum.  See Quarterly Review, Vol. xxvii.  P. 198.-C.

(823) On the question for the third reading of the bill, the numbers were 150 and 24.-E.