House, on which they can form a fair judgment; as the parties. accused have not had a fair trial, have not enjoyed the right of hearing the charges and meeting them by evidence and explanation; as the conclusions passed in the House are many of them drawn from accounts detailed, and difficult to be unravelled, which a committee can alone state with clearness and precision; as the appointment of such a committee, while it interposes little or no delay in the determination of this important subject, will enable the House to do justice at once to the country and to the parties accused. I shall conclude with moving, "That a select committee be appointed to consider the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry, and the documents therewith connected; that they examine the same, and report their opinion thereon to the House."

At the suggestion of Mr. Fox, who was desirous that the original motion should appear on the journals of the House, Mr. Pitt consented to shape his amendment in a different form; and, instead of the resolution he had proposed, he moved the previous question, intimating that, should that be carried, he should then move for the committee he had mentioned. The House at a late hour came to a division;

The numbers being thus equal, the Speaker gave his casting vote against Mr. Pitt's amendment. The original motion was then put and agreed to. The succeeding resolutions were afterwards put seriatim, and carried in the affirmative without interruption, until the eleventh; upon which Mr. Pitt moved an amendment to leave out the concluding words “has been guilty of a gross violation of the law, and a high breach of duty," and to insert the words" has acted contrary to the intentions of the said act.”

This amendment, after some discussion, was withdrawn; Mr. Pitt moving in its stead to insert after the words " for purposes of private interest or emolument," the words" to Mr. Trotter," because, he argued, there was no proof or confession that Lord Melville connived at the drawing out of the money for his own interest or emolument; nay, he had in hisletter denied it.

The words "as acknowledged by Lord Melville" were added to the amendment by Sir William Pulteney, and the motion thus amended was

read from the chair. The question being then put on the motion as it originally stood, the Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.

The two remaining resolutions were afterwards put and carried. *

May 6. 1805.

His Majesty's answer to the late resolutions of the House of Commons having been reported to the House, Mr. Whitbread moved, "that the answer be taken into consideration;" intimating his intention of afterwards moving an address to His Majesty, praying him to order the name of Lord Melville to be erased from the privy council, and to dismiss him from his presence for ever.

Mr. PITT:

Before, Sir, the motion is put from the chair, I think it necessary for me to make a very few observations, which appear to me of such a nature as will supersede the necessity of agitating the question at greater length, on the present occasion. When I interrupted the honourable gentleman †, it was for the purpose of saying, that I had a communication to make to the House, which might probably render his motion unnecessary; that communication is, Sir, that the object which the honourable gentleman has in view, is already accomplished. I have felt it my duty to advise the erasure of Lord Melville's name from the list of His Majesty's privy counsellors; His Majesty has acceded to this advice, and that erasure will, on the first day that a council is held, take place.

Having said thus much, I shall, with the permission of the House, say a few words on the circumstances under which I formerly resisted this proposition, and those under which I have felt myself bound to yield to it. The honourable gentleman has thought proper to allude to the discussion which took place on the day previous to the recess; and he says, that, on that occasion, I de

In a debate on a subsequent night, these resolutions were ordered to be laid before His Majesty by the whole House.

+ Mr. Whitbread.

clared that nothing then appeared to me which called for my advising His Majesty to erase the name of Lord Melville from the list of privy counsellors. I believe, Sir, it is in the recollection of the House, that a motion similar to that now brought forward, was produced by the honourable gentleman on the day to which he has alluded. On that occasion I did state that the motion appeared to me altogether unnecessary, since Lord Melville had resigned his official situation, and all prospect or hope of his return. to office was extinct, as long as the resolutions of the 8th of April remained in full force. Unless the House varied their decision, that determination was an insuperable bar to the noble lord's return to power. At that time it did not appear to me to be the sense of the House that such a motion should be persisted in, or that it was at all necessary after the resolutions of censure on a former evening. Many gentlemen who concurred in those resolutions, thought that the wound which had been inflicted, should not be aggravated by any unnecessary circumstances of severity; that when the justice of the public was satisfied, the feelings of the individual ought not to be outraged. Even several gentlemen on the other side of the House did not seem to wish that the motion should be pushed to a division. The motion was accordingly withdrawn, and in the room of it the House agreed to lay the resolutions before the throne, and to await the ultimate decision of His Majesty. By following this course, it was imagined, that the same result would be obtained without wounding the feelings of the noble lord, who was already sufficiently afflicted by the general decision of the House. This step, then, being taken, it did not strike me that it was at all expected that it was my duty especially to advise His Majesty to erase the name of Lord Melville from the list of his privy counsellors. If I had conceived this to be the general wish of the House, I should, unquestionably, have bowed to it; but not viewing the matter in this light, I did not conceive that I was bound to give the advice which the motion of the honourable gentleman is calculated to enforce. Since that time, however, in consequence of the notice of the honourable gentleman to renew his motion, I have felt it my duty to as

certain what is the prevailing feeling of gentlemen on the subject. I have had occasion to ascertain the sentiments of respectable gentlemen on both sides of the House, and seeing reason to believe that the step to which the motion of the honourable gentleman is directed, was considered expedient, I have, however reluctantly from private feeling, deemed it incumbent on me to propose the erasure of the noble lord's name from the list of privy counsellors. I confess, Sir, and I am not ashamed to confess it, that, whatever may be my deference to the House of Commons, and however anxious I may be to accede to their wishes, I certainly felt a deep and bitter pang in being compelled to be the instrument of rendering still more severe the punishment of the noble lord. This is a feeling of which I am not ashamed. It is a feeling which I will not, which I cannot erase from my bosom. It is a feeling which nothing but my conviction of the opinion of parliament, and my sense of public duty, could possibly have

overcome.

After what I have said, I trust the honourable gentleman will see the propriety of withdrawing his motion. Every public object is now obtained which the motion could accomplish, and I am sure the honourable gentleman has candour and humanity enough not to press a discussion, the only effect of which must be to wound the already severely afflicted feelings of an unfortunate individual.

Mr. Whitbread withdrew his motion.

May 13. 1805.

THE House having proceeded to the order of the day for taking into consideration the petition of the Roman Catholies of Ireland, and the petition being read by the clerk at the table,

Mr. Fox, in a speech of considerable length, moved, " that the petition should be referred to a committee of the whole House."

After the question had undergone much discussion, Mr. PITT, at a late

!

hour in the second night's debate, arose and expressed his sentiments as follows:

Differing, Sir, as I do, from the honourable gentleman who proposed this motion, and differing also in many respects from several of those who have opposed it, I feel it necessary to state shortly, but distinctly, the views, the motives, and the grounds upon which that difference of opinion is founded. But in doing this, I cannot refrain from expressing, in the first instance, the very great satisfaction I feel at the temper and the moderation with which the motion was introduced, and with which, for so many reasons, I am particularly desirous that the discussion should be conducted. Happy am I also, that the manner in which the subject has been introduced, has relieved me from the necessity of entering at large into those general principles and grounds which, when the question was discussed before, I felt myself compelled to do.

I observe with pleasure, that the application made by the petitioners has not been advanced as a claim of right, but of expediency. I observe, also, with equal pleasure, that the honourable gentleman has argued it upon that ground; not that I mean to infer that the honourable gentleman has abandoned the opinion he held upon that subject, but that in the application of the principles which have governed his conduct, he has thought proper to discuss the question upon the ground of expediency. That is the ground upon which I feel the measure ought alone to be discussed: for I cannot allow that, at any time, under any circumstances, or under any possible situation of affairs, it ought to be discussed or entertained as a claim or question of right. I, Sir, have never been one of those who have held that the term emancipation is, in the smallest degree, applicable to the repeal of the few remaining penal statutes to which the catholics are still liable. But, possibly, in my view of the grounds of expediency, I may think it to be much more contradistinguished from the question of right than the honourable gentleman does. He seems to consider that there is only a shade of difference between the expediency and the right; whereas my view of the difference is broad,