HISTORY OF EUROPE. : 15 
circumstances attending his return 
to office in 1804, deprived him of 
the support of the ablest and most 
respectable of his friends, and in his 
second administration he was re- 
dueed to shifts and difficulties to 
maintain his authority. The disas- 
trous termination of his last coali- 
tion against France, had lessened 
considerably, at the time of his 
death, the public confidence in his 
administration, but the general opi- 
nion of his merits and past services, 
was little, if at all, affected by these 
misfortuaes. 
We proceed, in the next place, to 
give an account of the public ho- 
nours rendered to his memory. 
On Monday, January 27, Mr. H. 
Lascelles moved, in the house of 
commons, ‘* That an humble ad- 
dress be presented to his majesty, 
that his majesty will be graciously 
pleased to give directions that the 
remains of the right honourable 
William Pitt be interred at the pub- 
lic expence, and that a monument 
be erected in the collegiate church 
of St. Peter, Westminster, to the 
‘memory of that excellent statesman, 
with an inscription expressive of the 
public sense of so great and irrepa- 
rable a loss; and to assure his ma- 
jesty, that this house will make 
good the expences attending the 
same.” 
This motion was seconded by the 
marquis of Titchfield, and supported 
by lord Lovaine, Mr. 1. H. Browne, 
Mr, H. Addington, sir R. Buxton, 
general ‘l’arleton, lord Temple, Mr. 
R. Ryder, Mr. Rose, lord Castle- 
reagh, and Mr. Wilberforce. It was 
opposed by lord Folkestone, Mr. 
William Smith, Mr. Pytches, the 
marquis of Douglas, Mr. Windham, 
Mr. G. Ponsonby, and Mr. Fox. 
The numbers on a division were, 
For Mr, Lascelles’ motion 258 
Against it . 89 
Majority : 169 
The chief arguments for the mo. 
tion, were the great merits, splendid 
talents, and important public ser- 
vices, of the eminent character to 
whom it related, and these points 
were illustrated at considerable 
length by some of the members who 
supported the motion. 
It was objected, on the other 
side, that it was not customary to 
confer public honours, unless where 
merit had been conjoined with suc- 
cess; and, it was urged that ne 
example, but one, could be found, 
where such honours had been cone 
ferred on a statesman, and in that 
instance (that of lord Chatham) the 
success as well as the merit was in- 
disputable. 
“lf [ were to divide (said Mr. 
Windham) the whole of the politi- 
eal life of the distinguished person 
here spoken of, into two distinct 
periods, one the period before the 
breaking out of the French revolu- 
tion, and the other the period sub- 
sequent to that event, and that 1 
were called to declare, that either 
separately, or both conjointly, were 
of a sort to call for the honours 
now proposed, or to justify the 
character ascribed in the resolution, 
of ‘© An excellent statesman,” I 
must say, “ No.” I have no wish 
to bring forward my opinion in that 
respect at the present moment, but 
when compelled to declare myself, 
I must say what I think: I cannot 
consent to pronounce an opinion 
different from what I think the true 
one, and thus to contribute to mis- 
lead 
