Sir Edward does not appear to have taken any very great interest in the affairs of the House; but, on the 15th March, 1804, when an inquiry was moved for, respecting the naval defence of the country, with the view of censuring the administration of Earl St. Vincent; he, instead of contenting himself with a silent vote, delivered his opinion at considerable length, in favour of that nobleman. He rose in the debate immediately after the Hon. Admiral Berkeley, who had accused the Admiralty of negligence, and compared the armed vessels, which had been sent to the coast of France, to so many cockle-shells. The manner in which he treated the subject, rivetted the attention of the House, and drew forth the particular praise of Mr. Wilberforce, who followed him.
On the 23rd of the succeeding month, Sir Edward Pellew, who, on the renewal of the war, had been appointed to the Tonnant[1], of 80 guns, was promoted to the rank of Rear-Admiral of the White; and the important office of Commander-in-Chief in India happening to be vacant, he had the good fortune to be nominated as the successor of Admiral Rainier upon that station. He accordingly hoisted his flag in the Culloden, of 74 guns, and sailed thither in the course of the ensuing summer.
- ↑ In March 1803, when appointed to the Tonnant, Sir Edward Pellew advertised for a schoolmaster to instruct the young gentlemen of that ship; and as an inducement to a person of respectability to apply for the situation, offered to pay out of his own purse a yearly stipend of 50l. in addition to the salary allowed by government. It is the Compiler’s most anxious wish to avoid the imputation of adulation on this, as on every other occasion; but he cannot refrain from giving publicity to the following act of generosity on the part of Sir Edward Pellew, which was noticed in the ephemeral publications at the period when it occurred:– the wife of Rovere one of the French deputies banished to Cayenne, was taken on her passage by our officer. She had sold all her property in France for the purpose of joining her unhappy husband, and had with her 3000l. sterling. Sir Edward restored it to her, and paid his crew their share out of his own pocket.
dates, petitioned the House of Commons against Sir Edward’s return, alleging a breach of the treating act. Some actual payments, of three or four guineas a man, were proved; but as those appeared to have been made to non-resident voters, for the purpose of defraying their travelling expences, the committee, which had been appointed to try the merits of the election, determined that the sitting member had been duly elected.
