[95] The incapacity of that Administration, on which I have said so much, has been laid open to the public, and confirmed by the Diary of Lord Melcombe, published in 1784. Lord Melcombe seems to have been ignorant of great part of the affair of Fawcett, and to have received little information on it but from the Princess or those most concerned to suppress the truth. Indeed his Diary is often obscure, and, as being written only with a view to himself, he seldom details or explains either debates or events, if he had nothing to do in them, or did not attend their commencement or conclusion in the House of Commons. Yet as far as it goes his Diary is most uncommonly authentic; and as it is so very disgraceful to himself we cannot doubt but he believed what he wrote to be true. Where he and I write on the same passages we shall be found to agree, though we never had any connection, were of very different principles, and received our information from as different sources. My whole account of the reign of George the Second was given about twenty years before I saw Lord Melcombe’s Diary, or knew it existed; nor did I ever see it till published. [96] Princess Amelie told me in October 1783 that the Duchess of Newcastle sent Lady Sophia Egerton to her, the Princess, to beg her to be for the execution of Admiral Byng; “They thought,” added the Princess, “that unless he was put to death, Lord Anson could not be at the head of the Admiralty; indeed,” added her Royal Highness, “I was already for it: the officers would never have fought if he had not been executed.” Am I in the wrong to speak of that act as shocking, when such means and arts were employed to take away a life, and for such a reason as the interest of Lord Anson? [97] The fourth Duke. [98] Burke’s Works, vol. ii. p. 340.--There is room for ascribing the severity of Walpole’s criticism on these passages to the application of which they are susceptible to the conduct of Conway. Burke is very likely to have had him in mind when he dwelt on the suspicion that necessarily attaches to politicians who separate themselves from men with whom they had always before acted, on grounds which do not come under the denomination of “leading principles in government.” In common with the leaders of Rockingham’s party, he deeply resented Conway’s refusal to break up the Ministry in 1767.--(See Burke’s Correspondence, vol. i. passim.)--E. [99] Cavendish’s report of this debate (vol. ii. p. 7) contains little beyond the speech of Governor Pownall, of which no doubt the worthy Governor was himself the reporter.--E.