the Revolution therefore was justified, and therefore there did not appear to him so much danger from the supposed contagion of their example; to dread similar danger we should be in similar circumstances, which was nothing like the case. Why, then, should we shut the door against reform? Whenever he heard speeches on the dreadful situation of the French, (tolerably well exaggerated by the way, in the accounts we received of their calamities, and of the defectiveness of the present form of their governinent,) he always thought they preceded expressions of disapprobation of all reform in this country. If it was true that the people of this country felt grievances, and really wished for a parliamentary reform, they had a right to have it; if, on the contrary, there were no such grievances, nor any such wishes, his honourable friend was in the right to give this notice; it afforded time to inquire into the facts, and called on the public for attention to the object. At all events, it was proper that attention should be called to these things, and he believed it would turn out to be the general opinion, that a reform was wanting; for he believed it to be a principle which attended all human institutions, that unless they were amended, they would naturally become worse -that whatever was not improved must naturally degenerate.

He might be asked, Mr. Fox said, why his name was not in the list of the society for reform? His reason was, that though he saw great and enormous grievances, he did not see the remedy. Had his honourable friend consulted him, he should have hesitated before he recommended him to take the part he had taken; having, however, taken it, he could not see why the present period was improper for the discussion. The right honourable gentleman, he thought, had in his warmth out-run himself, when he held forth Great Britain as the only power exempted from despotism and anarchy, and in possession of undisturbed liberty. France, Mr. Fox said, had entirely changed a detestable government. Poland, he hoped the right honourable gentleman would not maintain, was under a despotism; and he would make a false statement if he asserted that America was not in the full enjoyment of liberty-a liberty which had produced justice, commerce, wealth, and prosperity. The world he believed to be rapidly improving in science, in knowledge, and in virtue; and as philosophy was spreading her light around every part of the globe, England alone, he hoped, would not remain without improvement, and enveloped in the darkness of bigotry. Our constitution he admired, and particularly that principle of it which admitted of every improvement being grafted upon it safely. The crown, Mr. Fox said, had

been curtailed of its prerogave, the Lords had had their privileges abridged, and the Commons, within his memory, had also had their privileges abridged; he saw no danger, therefore, in continued reform, and had no difficulty in declaring himself a friend to improvement of every kind. He concluded with observing, that he wished the public to know the real object of this notice, namely, to call their attention to the subject of a reform in the representation of the people in parliament.

In answer to what fell from Mr. Burke, who reprobated in vehement language the proposed reform,

Mr. Fox said, that he must explain, in a few words, three points on which the right honourable gentleman had misunderstood him. The first was not very material; it was, that though he had mentioned Mr. Paine's book as a libel on the constitution, he had not used the terms "infamous and seditious," which the right honourable gentleman applied to it. The next was, that when he had mentioned confidence, it was without any personal allusion to the right honourable gentleman opposite, but to the king's ministers for the time, conceiving the confidence of late so much required by the executive power as very unconstitutional and destructive. The third was, that he had not said that a parliamentary reform could be no remedy to existing grievances, but that he had heard of no specific mode of reform that he was convinced would be a proper remedy. Mr. Fox said, he had read but one of Mr. Paine's pamphlets, and that he did not approve it, and from what he had heard of the other, he was inclined to think, that he should not approve of that either; but he was not certain whether they had not done good, by leading men to consider of the constitution. In like manner the book of his right honourable friend, (Mr. Burke,) which he disliked as much as either of them, had, he believed, done some good, because, in his opinion, whatever led to a discussion of the subject must be of service.

ABUSES COMMITTED AT THE WESTMINSTER ELECTION
CONDUCT OF MR. ROSE.

May 8.

R. Fox moved, "That the petition of the electors of West

Mminster, presented on the 4th of April, praying an inquiry

into the reported interference of persons high in office in the election for Westminster, and into the alleged abuse of the excise and lottery laws, by a remission of penalties, &c. be read." It was ac

cordingly read by the clerk, and signed by upwards of one thousand electors. It stated the circumstances of the case, as they appeared against Mr. Rose in a trial between him and Mr. Smith, the publican, in Westminster, before Lord Kenyon and a special jury, in the court of king's bench; the abuses of the excise fine; the suffering a person of the name of Hoskins to avoid the penalty of the lottery, and get out of prison on sham bail, on undertaking to poll sixty persons for Lord Hood; the part which Mr. Rose was said to have taken in this business;-the whole, in the opinion of the petitioners, totally subversive of the rights of election, &c., praying that an inquiry might be had, and such steps taken, as to the justice of the House might seem meet.

Mr. Fox said, he should apprise the House, as concisely as he could, of the points on which he should submit the matter of the petition to them. It appeared to him, that this question was, in many views, a very important one. First, it was important that the people of this country should feel a general satisfaction with respect to the execution of the laws, particularly of laws which, to say the least of them, were in themselves hostile and oppressive, and their institution defensible only on the public principle of state necessity and safety. Secondly, it was important that the people should feel and be convinced that their representatives conducted themselves as they ought to do; especially that they took care to prevent the abuses of the law. And as to the abuses of the law, this was not the time for him to enter into general observations on the laws of excise, it was enough for him to say, that he had opposed their extension with as much, and as uniform, zeal and ardor, as the House `had lately thought it fitting and proper. With respect to the other part of the law alluded to in the petition, the lottery, he should only say, that this also was not a very popular one, and therefore the less fit to admit of abuse. The lottery, like the excise, was a measure arising out of state necessity, and therefore the public had a right to expect that the officers of the crown would

never suffer abuses to take place in it; and that whatever regulations were made to prevent the mischief, which would otherwise attend a lottery, should be punctually enforced. In this view of the case, it became highly material for the people of this country to have reason to think that this law, which became so necessary for the produce of the revenue, was faithfully applied to that purpose, and not for any unfair practices of election-influence and corruption.

It appeared, he said, on the face of the petition just read to the House, that there were the strongest grounds of suspecting that Mr. Rose, the secretary to the treasury, had made use of this law for election-influence and corruption. He should not blame an interference in the capacity of private individuals at an election; but when persons interfered openly in the character of servants of the government of this country, it was monstrous, and what the people should not suffer. It appeared also, that while Mr. Smith, the publican, acted for the servants of government at the election, the penalty of the excise, of which he had been convicted, was not levied; but when he changed that character of service into a claimant of a sum of money for his trouble, the penalty was levied on him. Were these mere assertions? Did the House require evidence of them? There was evidence, and that of the very best kind, the record of a court of justice: there was farther, and collateral evidence. An honourable member of that House, who represented the town of Liverpool, had given some information on the subject; he had given some account of a correspondence between Mr. Smith the publican and the honourable secretary to the treasury; therefore the House had enough, if they wished to consult evidence upon the subject, before they came to a vote for inquiry into the whole case.

But he had much more than this to urge. This was the conduct of Mr. Rose himself. When accused on a former

day, of these dishonourable practices, he rose for the purpose, as he said, of giving a complete account of the whole business, such as would satisfy every man in the House, that there was not the least colour or pretence for charging him with any of the practices imputed to him. But how did he do this? First he denied the truth of the charge, and then said he had refuted it; consequently, that there was no ground for inquiry. As a specimen of his accuracy, he was proved in the first and most material part to be totally mistaken. He said, with regard to the publican's petition, praying the excise fine might not be levied, that he did in that case what he always did in every other of that nature, and nothing more-transmitted it to the commissioners. But this was quite short of the fact; and when he was told "You yourself are accused besides

of sending a letter to two gentlemen of the excise, Mr. Vivian and another, and you have promoted a meeting between them and Mr. Smith, at the very time when this fine hung over his head, and the meeting actually took place-and that too at your own house." "Oh, yes," said he, "I recollect there was something of a meeting-I kept horses with Smith." That this meeting-at this time-in this place-between these parties-under these circumstances-might possibly be an innocent one, was what some very charitable man might be induced to hope; but when we knew that the right honourable gentleman had interfered on a former occasion in this very business, as well as in others, and that it had been so proved in a court of justice, the argument in this instance might be very much against him. But he would suppose, for the sake of argument, that although these things made the deepest impression upon him, they had no weight with others. He would then say, that none but a guilty man would shun an inquiry. An honest man would wish for and demand an inquiry, when once accused. The more particularly so, when it was on a subject connected with government. Indeed, he believed there was no instance whatever on the journals of parliament, where, in a case like this, an inquiry was refused. He remembered, he said, an inquiry having been called for in that House by Mr. Shove, which afterwards, instead of being shunned, was solicited by a relation of his, and was boldly met. Why? Because it was known that nothing could be proved upon the subject. But here the case was reversed. An inquiry was refused, because every thing could be proved upon the subject. There were other instances of inquiries in the course of the short time he had had the honour of forming a part of the administration of this country, and all he could say was, that he was happy none of them had been shunned or refused; he was glad that his honourable friends had acted as they had done.

The next head of this petition was that of the lottery; in which it was offered to be proved, in point of fact it was proved, that a person of the name of Hoskins had been charged with a penalty nnder the lottery act, and was in consequence of it a prisoner; that he applied to a person high in office for his discharge, stipulating that if his request was complied with, he would poll sixty votes for Lord Hood at the Westminster election; that the person to whom this offer was made did not think himself at liberty to conclude the bargain, but applied to the highest authority; this highest authority assented to the proposal, and this prisoner was accordingly discharged, through the medium of sham bail procured for that purpose. But the answer to this was: You do not name this