facility, except only the Duty upon Husbandry Horses, against which the landed gentlemen combined. On the 12th of March it was thrown out in a thin House by a small majority, the numbers being 76 against 73. Next day the Speaker, calling to see the Minister upon other business, mentioned this defeat. "I shall be prepared," said Pitt, "with another tax to supply its place, to be carried through before Easter, about which time the Subsidy question will be ready."

Ten days afterwards, accordingly, Pitt brought forward what he called his Supplemental Budget. He proposed a great variety of small Duties to the aggregate amount of 400,000l. a year, and these he carried without difficulty.

On the whole then, in the first two months and upwards of the Session, the course of business had been very triumphant for the Ministry. There had been many other debates besides those I have enumerated, as on the Army Estimates, and on a Bill to suspend still further the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland. In most of these Mr. Pitt had only scant assistance from his colleagues in the House of Commons; but his own speeches were very frequent, and maintained all their former ascendency.

Such exertions, however, could not be made without a heavy strain upon his health and strength. He had hoped for an interval at Easter to go and drink the waters at Bath. There, as the following letter shows, he was secure of a cordial welcome, and of two most intelligent companions.

"DEAR PITT,

Lord Harrowby to Mr. Pitt.

"6, Laura Place, Bath, March 31, 1805. Richard' that you

"I have just heard from cough and look ill, which I do not like at all; but I should have liked it much less if his intelligence were not accompanied with an intimation that you talk seriously of a long Easter Recess, and propose spending it at Bath. This is a most excellent project, I hope I may say resolution; and I trust you will not allow anything to divert you from it. If you do, you sin against your own conviction and experience; and must, I fear, suffer much and severe punishment in the latter part of the Session. That will not, I hope, be long; but it may be sufficiently troublesome to make it very important that you should be a giant refreshed.

"We shall remain here at least till the middle of Easter week, at the end of which a rendezvous with Wyatt will carry me into Staffordshire. I depend upon your making use of me in getting you a house, unless you can be satisfied with a bedroom, dressing-cabinet, and parlour, all on the ground floor, which would be at your service, without in the slightest degree cramping us, either till you can suit yourself, or (which would be much better) as long as we remain.

"Yours very sincerely,

"HARROWBY.

"Lady H. is angry with me for not saying how much pleasure it would give us to have you under our own roof, such as it is: as I tell her, que cela va sans dire.”

7 The Hon. Richard Ryder.

But Mr. Pitt had here once again to postpone the care of health to that of business. The House of Commons could make no long adjournment at Easter. Still less could the Minister leave town. He was now on the brink of a transaction beyond comparison the most painful to him personally of any in his public

career.

CHAPTER XLI.

1805.

Naval administration of Lord Melville-Tenth Report of the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry-Ministerial differences Whitbread's Resolutions Resignation of Lord Melville - Succeeded by Sir Charles Middleton - Discussions between Pitt and Lord Sidmouth - The King supports Pitt- The Tenth Report referred to a Select Committee - Lord Melville removed from the Privy Council - Revival of the Roman Catholic claims - Speeches of Grattan and Pitt — Diplomatic negotiations — Arrival of M. de Novosiltzoff in London -Treaty between Russia and England - Lord Melville impeached - Rejection of Whitbread's motion against Pitt-Final resignation of Lords Sidmouth and Buckinghamshire Ministerial arrange

LORD MELVILLE, at the head of the Admiralty, had evinced his usual sagacity and his usual vigour. He had found the stores and materials for the navy scattered by the improvident system of his immediate predecessor. Here is one instance of the consequences as related by himself in the House of Lords: "Let us see what was done by the late Board of Admiralty with respect to the building ships of the line from February, 1801, to May, 1804. In that period it appears that five ships of the line were ordered to be built in the King's yards, and two in the merchant yards. But when I inquired into the state of these five ships of the line so ordered to be built in the King's yards, I found that not

even the keel of any one of them had been laid down ; and the reason given for this delay was, that the ships could not be proceeded on without more materials and more hands." There was strange inconsistency too as well as strange improvidence. It appears that on the 29th of December, 1802, Lord St. Vincent had written, in his own hand, to Sir Andrew Hamond, with a sharp rebuke in not having bestirred himself more actively, as "urgent necessity" required, to enter into contracts for building some seventy-fours in the merchants' yards. Sir Andrew did bestir himself accordingly, when, to his great astonishment, only a fortnight afterwards, he received an Order from the Board of Admiralty, perhaps in Lord St. Vincent's temporary absence, telling him that the measure could on no account be allowed; that contracts were not to be made; that ships of the line were not to be built any where except in the King's yards!

It was now the part of Lord Melville to retrieve the errors of a most weak administrator, though victorious Admiral. He bought up in all directions materials of every kind, from timber down to hemp, for even hemp was wanting. He aroused a new activity in the works at the King's yards, and pending their revival, contracted for several seventy-four gun ships, to be built in the merchants' yards. The results of his naval administration, which began in May, 1804, were summed up by himself as follows, when he addressed the House of

1 Debate in the House of Lords on the Earl of Darnley's motion, May 24, 1805.