The City of London petitioning the House of Commons for more money for the new bridge at Blackfriars, Lord Strange, Elliot, and Rigby opposed, the latter saying rudely, that he did not know what obligations the King had to the City. Grenville, with more prudence, countenanced the petition and procured a gift of 7000_l._ Lord John Cavendish, impatient to fulfil his engagement, prevailed on Lord Rockingham to go to Hayes, and know if Mr. Pitt would come to town, or desired to have the motion on dismission of officers delayed any longer. Mr. Pitt’s language was now exceedingly altered, though he still highly condemned the dismission of Conway. The question, he said, touched near upon prerogative. It ought to have been brought on early in the session; was sorry to hear it had been reported that the question had been postponed on his account: himself had never advised to agitate it. Lord Rockingham even doubted, from his inexplicit conversation, whether, if he should appear in the House, he might not make the same declaration there--a new reason for alarming us that were averse to the motion. Lord Temple inquired after the result of the visit. Lord Rockingham declared himself less satisfied than ever with Mr. Pitt. Lord Temple assured him they were as well disposed as ever to the Opposition; but then dropped, that if the former designed arrangement had taken place, he did not believe it would have held six months. “Why?” said Lord Rockingham. “Because,” replied Lord Temple remarkably, “I believe the Duke of Devonshire, and others of you, never liked that the Treasury should be put into _my_ hands.” The Budget was opened by Grenville on the 29th of March, an occasion that generally produces applause to the Head of the Treasury, who must possess more lights on that subject than other men; and those lights strike the more forcibly, as the audience are little masters of such intricate details; and as the monied men, who alone feel the force or deficiency of the Minister’s arguments, are rarely endowed with eloquence, or even elocution. Yet Grenville, who valued himself on his knowledge of finance, and who, of all qualifications, wanted not redundancy of words, spoke but languidly and unsatisfactorily, chiefly pointing his very long speech against a pamphlet published by Hartley, on the State of the Nation. Himself, he said, would never punish any invectives _against himself_; yet he betrayed every symptom of soreness and malice. In very few years afterwards he used the same means with Hartley against the Administration; and, previous to a session of Parliament,[75] published, or countenanced, an invidious State of the Nation; but met with a far more severe and able return than he himself had made to Hartley.