HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
‘Means, however, being found to 
get their bail accepted, Hoskins 
‘kept his promise, and procured 
sixty voters for Lord Hood: since 
which, no mention had been made 
of Hoskins or his bail. If such 
proceedings were connived at, said 
Mr. Lambton ; if the laws could be 
thus eluded or suspended at plea- 
sure by private individuals, to what 
end were they enacted? 
The defence made by Mr. Rose 
was, that Smith had been fined for 
brewing small beer for the use of 
his own family: the vestry of his 
parish had consented to remit their 
share of the penalty; but the Board, 
to which Mr. Rose had referred his 
petition, for a like indulgence, 
refused it: a sufficient proof, added 
Mr. Rose, how unavailing his own 
interposition had proved. 
It was acknowledged, at the same 
time, by Mr. Rose, that during the 
last general election, Smith had 
proposed to open his house; and 
informed him that be could disco- 
ver a great number of illegal votes 
at for Lord Townsend. On 
r. Rose’s assent, Smith detected 
the illegal voters, and applied for 
a reward to Mr. Rose, who referred 
him to Lord Hood’s committee: 
this not satisfying Smith, he sued 
Mr. Rose in a court of Jaw, and 
won his cause. 
This defence did not silence 
Mr. Rose’s antagonists. They 
produced a letter from that gentle- 
man to Smith, inviting him to his 
house, in order to meet Mr. Vivian, 
the solicitor to the excise, on the 
business in question:—a_ circum- 
stance, they insisted, that shewed 
that he had interested himself in 
this affair more than he was willing 
to acknowledge. 
_ As to the affair of Hoskins, he 
Vou. XXXXIV. 
[16) 
wasunder arrest for penalties, to the 
amount of 700 pounds, ‘The soli- 
citor to the lottery informed him, 
on his application, that higher autho- 
rity than his own must be resorted 
to for his deliverance. It was just, 
therefore, to enquire who was meant 
by his higher authority, which could 
thus controul the laws. 
The issue of this contest was, that 
Mr. Thomson’s appeal to the House 
was dismissed, on the ground that 
no direct accusation could in this 
business be brought against any 
public officer. 
These two subjects of parliamen- 
tary debate, though apparently of 
little moment in themselves, yet 
when the circumstances attending 
them were considered, appeared of 
much more importance to the pub- 
lic than many others, ostensibly of 
more consequence. ‘he manner 
in which the representatives of the 
nation obtained seats in the House, 
was doubtless an object of the most 
weighty consideration to the peo- 
ple at large. It behoved them to 
discover the means employed to 
impose upon them, and the in- 
trigues by which individuals were 
brought into parliament, who but 
for them would never have been 
elected. Those incidents were for 
that reason canvassed by the public 
with the utmost freedom of dis- 
course. Notwithstanding the com- 
munity was duly convinced that a 
multiplicity of base and underhand 
methods were usedin parliamentary 
elections, they were glad of an 
opportunity of pointing — their 
censure and indignation at those 
who had long been reputed some 
of the principal agents in those - 
fraudulent and scandalous proceed- 
ings. 
An object evidently deserving the 
[M] fullest 
