(so far as Mr.
Fox is concerned) are unusually accurate.

52. Whatever might have been in our power at an early period, at this
day I see no remedy for what was done in 1784. I had no great hopes
even at the time. I was therefore very eager to record a remonstrance on
the journals of the House of Commons, as a caution against such a
popular delusion in times to come; and this I then feared, and now am
certain, is all that could be done. I know of no way of animadverting on
the crown. I know of no mode of calling to account the House of Lords,
who threw out the India Bill in a way not much to their credit. As
little, or rather less, am I able to coerce the people at large, who
behaved very unwisely and intemperately on that occasion. Mr. Pitt was
then accused, by me as well as others, of attempting to be minister
without enjoying the confidence of the House of Commons, though he did
enjoy the confidence of the crown. That House of Commons, whose
confidence he did not enjoy, unfortunately did not itself enjoy the
confidence (though we well deserved it) either of the crown or of the
public. For want of that confidence, the then House of Commons did not
survive the contest. Since that period Mr. Pitt has enjoyed the
confidence of the crown, and of the Lords, and _of the House of
Commons_, through two successive Parliaments; and I suspect that he has
ever since, and that he does still, enjoy as large a portion, at least,
of the confidence of the people without doors as his great rival. Before
whom, then, is Mr. Pitt to be impeached, and by whom? The more I
consider the matter, the more firmly I am convinced that the idea of
proscribing Mr. Pitt _indirectly_, when you cannot _directly punish_
him, is as chimerical a project, and as unjustifiable, as it would be to
have proscribed Lord North. For supposing that by indirect ways of
opposition, by opposition upon measures which do not relate to the
business of 1784, but which on other grounds might prove unpopular, you
were to drive him from his seat, this would be no example whatever of
punishment for the matters we charge as offences in 1784. On a cool and
dispassionate view of the affairs of this time and country, it appears
obvious to me that one or the other of those two great men, that is, Mr.
Pitt or Mr. Fox, must be minister. They are, I am sorry for it,
irreconcilable. Mr. Fox's conduct _in this session_ has rendered the
idea of his power a matter of serious alarm to ma