m0] ANNUAL REGISTER, 
question was: defended, was more 
dangerous than ‘even any applica 
tion of it could be thought impoli- 
tic. It arrogated to the minister a 
right to judge of the rextent as well 
as the mode: of public expenditure, 
and exalted: him into an absolute 
dictator. 
‘Sir William Pulteney declared 
hisopinion, that all the minister had 
said, on the necessity of the measure, 
could not do away. the doctrine that 
the house of commons had, consti- 
tutiondlly, the controul of the pub- 
lic purse; nor that it was the duty of 
the minister to submit the measure 
to the: house..of commons much 
sooner than he did. He had at- 
tended to all that the minister had 
said, but confessed that he did not, 
by, any means, think him: justified, 
from what had appeared in the dis- 
cussion of the subject. But an ho- 
nourable gentleman, on the other 
side of the;house, .had moved an a- 
mendmeut to the original; that a- 
mendment, in his opinion, although 
it came from: a gentleman who de- 
fended the minister, implied a de- 
gree *of censure in his conduct in 
this matter; and he was content with 
any censure, rather than not. have 
apy. Some. gentlemen seemed to 
think there was no blame to be at- 
tached) to ministers upon. this oc- 
casion: He» thought there was a 
great deal, and therefore that there 
should be» some mark set upon 
such conduct to denote the disap- 
probation. of the hotse. 
« Mr._ Wilberforce apprehended 
that a vote.of credit gave to minis- 
ters a. general discretion: but that 
the whole of their conduct was sub- 
ject to the revision of the house of 
commons. He defended the con- 
duct of the minister. 
». Mr. W. Smith remarked+that the 
1797. 
amendment, although introduced by 
the minister’s friend, conveyed con- 
siderable censure on the minister 5 
and, taking it in that light, he could 
not object to its adoption, although 
the conduct which had been pursu- 
ed, might deserve a stronger censure. 
Mr. alderman Curtis told the © 
house, that he had been that day at 
the common-hall, where, npon a 
shew of hands, a majority appeared 
in favour of the resolution to cen- 
sure the minister beforehand, and 
without any consideraticn of any 
defencehe might make. Buthehad 
told his constituents that he would 
not vote as they required, ‘to cen- 
sure the minister, till heheard his de- 
fence. With this he was fully satis- 
fied, as he knew that he should be, 
and therefore he would vote for the 
amendment. 
‘Mr. J. Nichols was afraid that he 
would’ not please any side of the 
house : for he considered thé motion 
as proposing too much, and the 
amendment too little. Perhaps a 
bill of indemnity might sound too 
harshly in the ears of ministers. A 
declaratory law, or ahy thing more 
palatable, might be’ passed. He 
wished Mr. Fox to’ withdraw his 
motion. And yet he thought it ne- 
cessary thatsome proceeding should 
take place, in order to prevent the 
establishment ‘of bad precedents, ~ 
‘Mr. Fox concluded a Jong’ yet 
animated reply to Mr. Pitt, by de- 
claring his conviction, that if the 
measure -that formed the subject of 
debate was not’ reprobated, he 
‘should think that man a hypocrite 
who pretended to see any distinction 
between this government and an 
absolute monarchy. He had made 
use, informer days, of strong opi- . 
nions; he did not retract one of them; 
he had-no hesitation, in saying that 
occasions 
