nswer the argument on which he has insisted, and
nothing be necessary to produce an inquiry but his approbation, I shall
not despair that this debate may be concluded according to the wishes of
the nation, that secret wickedness may be detected, and that our
posterity may be secured from any invasion of their liberty, by examples
of the vengeance of an injured people.

[The house divided.--The yeas went forth.--For the question, 242;
against it, 244: so that it passed in the negative, by a majority of
two.]

HOUSE OF LORDS, MAY 20, 1742.

Debate On A Motion For Indemnifying Evidence Relating To The Conduct Of
The Earl Of ORFORD.

The following debate having been produced by an occasion very uncommon
and important, it is necessary to give an account of such transactions
as may contribute to illustrate it.

The prime minister being driven out of the house of commons, by the
prevalence of those who, from their opposition to the measures of the
court, were termed the country party, it was proposed that a committee
should be appointed, "to inquire into the conduct of publick affairs, at
home and abroad, during the last twenty years;" but the motion was
rejected.

It was afterwards moved, "that a committee should be appointed to
inquire into the conduct of Robert, earl of ORFORD, during the last ten
years in which he was first commissioner of the treasury, and chancellor
and under treasurer of the exchequer," which was carried by 252 to 245.

A committee of one-and-twenty being chosen by ballot, and entering upon
the inquiry, called before them Mr. Gibbon, who declared himself agent
to J. Botteler, and said, that Botteler, being a candidate for Wendover,
and finding that no success was to be expected without five hundred
pounds, sent a friend to N. Paxton, with a letter, and that he saw him
return with a great number of papers, in which he said were bills for
five hundred pounds.

Botteler and his friend being examined, confirmed the testimony of
Gibbon; and Botteler added, that he sent to Paxton as an officer of the
treasury, acquainted with those who had the disposal of money; that his
claim to the favour which he asked arose from a disappointment in a
former election; that he never gave for the money any security or
acknowledgment, nor considered himself indebted for it to Paxton or any
other person.

Paxton being then examined, refused to return any answer to the question
of the committee, because the