It may, however, be remarked, as tending to throw some doubt on Mr.Grenville's statement, that Lord Campbell asserts that "Lord Mansfield, without entering into systematic opposition, had been much alienated from the court during Lord Rockingham's first administration."-- _Lives of the Chief-justices_, ii., 468.] [Footnote 92: Vol.ii., pp.

229-232.] [Footnote 93: It will be seen hereafter that this doctrine was admitted in the fullest degree by Sir Robert Peel in the winter of 1884, when he admitted that his acceptance of office made him alone responsible for the dismissal of Lord Melbourne, though, in fact, he was taken entirely by surprise by the King's act, being in Italy at the time.] [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.