160] 
possession had produced him such 
immense wealth, were mentioned 
on this occasion, as sufficient to 
satisfy the desires of any man that 
sought after either wealth or in- 
“fluence. The crown, it was al- 
leged, would be materially in- 
jured, were such a bill permitted 
to pass; and it deserved no other 
appellation than that of a job, to 
bring such a proposal into parlia- 
ment. 
The public was still more in- 
censed at this attempt to add to the 
opulence of an individual, who had 
acquired so much property at the 
expence of the nation. Such was 
the language of the generality. 
In consequence of this marked dis- 
approbation of the bill from so 
many persons, both in and out of 
parliament, it was withdrawn ; not, 
however, without an_ intimation 
that the general principle of the 
bill was, from its national utility, 
deserving of further consideration; 
and that the personality of the mo- 
tives, attributed to the measure 
proposed, ought not to prevent an 
attentive investigation of the mea- 
sure itself. 
It was again the fate of Mr. 
Rose, a few days after, to be in- 
volved in a complaint against mi- 
nistry, of a very serious nature. 
He had, in the course of the pre- 
ceding summer, been prosecuted 
in a court of Jaw, by a publican in 
Westininster, of the name of Smith. 
From some incidents in that trial, 
an application was made to the 
lower House, on the 13th of 
March, for an inquiry into the coa- 
duct of Mr. Rose. 
It was stated by Mr. Thomosn, 
who made the appeal, that from 
the evidence produced on that 
trial, Mr. Rose had unduly inter- 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 
1792. 
fered in the late election of a mem- 
ber for Westminster. Mr. Smith 
had been fined in fifty pounds for 
an offence against the excise laws; 
but for services donein the business 
of that election, part of that fine 
was remitted to him, through the 
intercession of Mr. Rose. In proof 
of this, Mr. Thomson mentioned 
the particulars of a conversation 
between Mr. Rose and that publi- 
can, who was employed by the 
former in that election; in consi-+ 
deration of which, a jury had given 
a verdict for him, to the full amount 
of his bill. 
Mr. Thomson enlarged, with 
great force of argument, on the 
heinousness of such a conduct ina 
Secretary of the Treasury, and on 
the injury the public must sustain 
from this employment of their mo- 
ney, in forwarding the very worst 
of corruption, the purchasing of 
men’s votes for the iniquitous pur- 
pose of packing a parliament. He 
moved, in consequence, that the 
House should resolve itself into a 
committee of the whole House, to 
enquire into the abuses of which 
persons in office had been guilty in 
the election of a member for West- 
minster, in the summer of 1788. 
This motion was supported by 
Mr, Lambton; who stated another 
transaction of the same nature.— 
One Hoskins being at that time in 
prison for trespassing against the 
being granted, he produced such 
individuals for his bail, that altho’ 
they came recommended by the 
solicitor, so wretched was their ap- 
pearance, that they were rejected, 
Means, 
