WHITBREAD. 
637 
bread cordially concurred; and in the year 1805, he distin¬ 
guished himself as the public accuser of Mr. Dundas, (created 
lord Melville) for malversations that had occurred, whilst 
he had occupied the post of treasurer of the navy. His 
charges against this nobleman were founded on a report of 
the commissioners of public accounts, from which it ap¬ 
peared that, during the exercise of his office, this noble lord 
had violated the law, by conniving at mal-practices and par¬ 
ticipating in unwarrantable emoluments; and that he was 
responsible for deficiencies amounting to 697,500/. These 
charges also implicated Messrs. Trotter, Wilson, and Sprott; 
and the former in particular, who was paymaster of the navy 
department under lord Melville, and had taken out large 
sums of money on his own private account. In the investi¬ 
gation of this business, it was discovered, that the sums 
officially deposited in the Bank had been withdrawn, lodged 
with private bankers, and applied to other purposes besides 
those that were properly naval. Mr. Whitbread founded on 
several facts which he stated, a variety of resolutions which 
impeached the fidelity and honour of his lordship. To his 
motion relative to this business, Mr. Pitt moved an amend¬ 
ment, which was negatived by a majority of one (217 to 
216), in consequence of the vote of the speaker. In conse¬ 
quence of these proceedings, the viscount resigned his office 
at the Admiralty-Board, and his name was expunged from 
the list of privy-counsellors. Upon the sudden demise of 
the premier, and a coalition between lord Grenville and Mr. 
Fox, the two latter came into office; and Mr. Erskine, being 
raised to the peerage, and appointed lord high chancellor, 
was destined to preside at lord Melville’s trial. This noble¬ 
man having made his defence within the bar of the house of 
commons, was replied to by the member for Bedford; and 
an impeachment being agreed upon, proceedings com¬ 
menced in Westminster-hall, April 29th, 1806. The result, 
after a short trial, was the acquittal of his lordship by a ma¬ 
jority, from all the charges alleged against him. Notwith¬ 
standing the unexpected termination of this trial, neither the 
friends nor the enemies of the supposed delinquent attached 
any blame to the public accuser; but he was allowed to 
have conducted the business assigned to him with a dignity 
and propriety suitable to its delicacy and importance. In 
the case of lord Melville, as well as in that of Mr. Pitt, he 
knew how to distinguish between the man and the minister; 
and to pay a just tribute to the talents and dispositions of 
the former, whilst he criminated and condemned the latter. 
Having differed with Mr. Pitt with regard to his political 
measures almost through the whole of his public life, he 
took the opportunity which the trial of lord Melville afford¬ 
ed him of paying a just tribute of respect to his abilities 
and virtues, when his premature death must have vindi¬ 
cated the eulogist from the slightest suspicion of insincerity 
and adulation. 
Of the new administration, he was a steady supporter; but 
though he had at an early period enlisted himself under the 
banners of Mr. Fox, and the earl Grey, his school-associate 
and brother-in-law, who was one of its distinguished mem¬ 
bers, he was their friend as ministers, not from personal and 
selfish motives, but from a conviction of his judgment that 
their principles and views were most favourable to the liberty 
and welfare of the British empire. Indeed he was regarded 
by many as an impracticable man, because in all great ques¬ 
tions he was influenced by principle more than by any pri¬ 
vate and party attachment. What were his sentiments of the 
coalition ministry, and what were the grounds of the sup¬ 
port which he afforded them, he had an opportunity of 
stating in the most explicit manner. At this time sir Francis 
Burdett offered himself a candidate for the county of Mid¬ 
dlesex, and transmitted a circular letter to Mr. W., who had 
voted for him twice before, soliciting his support. This letter 
contained reflections on the coalition ministry, which led the 
subject of this article to decline giving his vote for sir Francis, 
and also to express his sentiments of the coalescing parties, 
which had been severely censured. “ I have supported the 
present administration,” says Mr. W., “ from a conviction 
Vol. XXIV. No. 1662. 
that they were united upon principles of real public utility, 
and for the purpose of carrying into execution plans of great 
national improvement, both in our foreign and domestic 
circumstances; and I cannot abandon them, because in a 
situation more difficult than that in which any of their pre¬ 
decessors have ever stood, they have not been able to effect 
what I believe to have been nearest the hearts of them all— 
I mean a peace with France; seeing such a peace could not 
have been obtained on terms consistent with national hon¬ 
our, and because time bas not sufficed to mature and execute 
the schemes of internal improvement, which they have mani¬ 
fested their determination to pursue,” &c. Having stated 
some other opinions with regard to the union of parties, in 
which he seems to have disagreed with sir Francis, he con¬ 
cludes : “ These radical differences render it impossible for 
me to assist you in becoming a member of parliament. 
Different opinions may be maintained consistently with 
mutual and entire personal respect; such as I unfeignedly 
profess towards you. The determination you have taken to 
avoid the expense of conveyance and decorations so con¬ 
spicuous at your former elections, does you honour; and I 
wish such an example could be followed by all other can¬ 
didates,” &c. The publication of this correspondence threat¬ 
ened a very undesirable termination ; but it was happily pre¬ 
vented by the interposition of friends. 
During this period, Mr. Whitbread took an active part 
in public affairs, and distinguished himself on a variety of 
occasions, guarding on the one hand with vigilant jealousy 
against an undue exertion of the royal prerogative, and on 
the other against its infringement by the democratical part 
of the constitution. In February, 1807, he renewed his at¬ 
tention to the existing system of poor laws, as it was his wish 
and incessant endeavour to improve it, and in so doing to 
render the peasantry happier, better, and less dependent. 
It was also an object, which he conceived to be of essential 
importance, to controul the several branches of public ex¬ 
penditure, and thus to relieve the distresses of the country. 
Much depended, he well knew, on peace with France, and 
to this desideratum his views and efforts were constantly di¬ 
rected. But he was almost ready to despair of this desirable 
event “ from the awful moment that death closed the scene 
upon the enlightened statesman (Mr. Fox) who had first 
commenced the negociation.” When the Grenville admi¬ 
nistration was obliged to retire, and a new parliament was 
convoked by their successors, he published a spirited address 
to his constituents, in which he stated the measures which 
had been projected and wholly completed or commenced 
during the existence of the late ministry, and the part which 
he had taken in the deliberations of the preceding parliament, 
closing with these memorable words: “ I court your in¬ 
quiry, and if you are satisfied in the result of it, I hope for 
your votes in the present election. If you do me the honour 
again to return me, I shall indeed be proud of it, and I will 
again endeavour to do my duty.” The next important ob¬ 
ject of his attention was the education of the poor, as inti¬ 
mately connected with their morals and religion ; but unable 
to obtain a legislative sanction to his plan, he was under a 
necessity of recurring to individual exertions and private sub¬ 
scription. During the important debates that occurred in 
1809, with regard to the orders in council, he concurred 
with those who condemned this measure, and contributed 
first to their suspension, and at length to their utter discon¬ 
tinuance. With regard to the situation of Spain, he was 
one of those who censured the conduct of the French 
government, and who wished the natives to be stimulated to 
new exertions in behalf of the independence of their native 
country. “ In 1809,” says one of his biographers, « he 
took an active part in the inquiry and examination into the 
conduct of the royal duke who presided over the army, and 
although he found much to blame on that occasion, yet, at 
a future season, he seized the first opportunity to afford his 
testimony in behalf of his royal highness, whose administra¬ 
tion as commander-in-chief had contributed not a little to 
the happy and glorious termination of the late contest. 
6X That 
