[266] In a letter of explanation to Lady Chatham, written a fortnight after his interview with Mr. Pitt at Hampstead, Lord Temple admits that his separation from Mr. George Grenville was conditional upon “a public and general union of parties taking place.” This union had long been one of the great objects of Mr. Pitt’s ambition, but was at this time wholly impracticable, as Lord Temple well knew; and taken together with the proposal of Lord Lyttelton for President of the Council, the admission goes far to support Walpole’s statement, that Lord Temple had determined not to take office without his brother. Indeed the connections which Lord Temple had lately formed, and not less than the opinions he had expressed in Parliament, must have rendered his acceptance of Mr. Pitt’s overtures out of the question, unless, to use his own words, he had chosen “to be stuck into the Ministry as a great cypher at the head of the Treasury.”--(Chatham Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 468.)--E. [267] Nevertheless, had their former connection remained unbroken, Lord Temple might have again proved a valuable colleague to Mr. Pitt. The restless spirit and defective temper, that hurried him when in opposition into excesses so prejudicial to his character, had not prevented his identifying himself completely with Mr. Pitt while in office in all great questions of public policy, and though he had no claim to superior merit as a speaker, his knowledge of the world, fixedness of purpose, and close attention to the details of business, had often compensated for the absence of those qualities in Mr. Pitt. Above all, he was really loved and trusted by him, and through Lady Chatham’s intervention, had access to him when it was denied to every one else. Neither of them prospered after their separation, and Lord Temple had the mortification of finding himself alternately neglected, distrusted, and opposed by the associates of his earlier days during the remainder of his life.--E. [268] I had written _Pitt_ by mistake, and forget now whom Lord Temple pretended to have recommended. Most probably it was the Duke of Bedford. [269] A pamphlet in defence, or rather in praise, of the part taken by Lord Temple in those negotiations was soon afterwards published, under the title of “An Inquiry into the Conduct of a late Right Honourable Commoner.” It is justly described by Lord Chesterfield as “scurrilous and scandalous, and betraying private conversation.” It is believed to have been written by Mr. Humphry Cotes, but Lord Temple was suspected to have furnished the materials; and it probably is to this discreditable piece of revenge, more than to the other libels in which Lord Temple was concerned, that Lord Rockingham alluded when he noticed some years afterwards the objection of the Whigs to act under his Lordship.--E.