Fullest manner in 1834, when, as will be seen hereafter, Sir Robert Peel admitted his entire
responsibility for the dismissal of Lord Melbourne by King William IV., though it was notorious that he was in Italy at the
time, and had not been consulted on the matter. But as yet such questions had not been as accurately examined as subsequent events caused them to be; and Wilkes's assertion of royal responsibility to this extent probably coincided with the
general feeling on the subject.[6] At all
events, the error contained in it, and the insinuation that due wisdom
and judgment had not been displayed in the appointment of Mr. G.
Grenville to the Treasury,
were not so derogatory to the legitimate authority and dignity of the crown as to make the writer
a fit subject for a criminal prosecution. But Mr. Grenville was of a bitter temper, never inclined to tolerate any stri ctures on his own judgment
or capacity, and fully imbued with the conviction that the first duty

of an Engl