HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
answer tu the opinion delivered 
by his lordship. 
After an explanation from earl 
Carlisle, the chancellor proceeded 
to put the question. 
Lord Grenville then rose, and 
although he approved of the prin- 
ciple of the motion, requested that 
his noble friend would withdraw it, 
as the present was nota time to 
throw any embarrassment in the way 
of Government. He did not think 
the conduct of the present Govern- 
‘ment, wassuch as to inspire any 
confidence; to appearance, at least, 
their measures denoted weakness 
and irresolution: perhaps, how- 
ever, at a future time, they might 
be able to explain all those ap- 
parent inconsistencies; at present, 
as they had given no manner of in- 
formation, the house was not in a 
situation to judge; but, as they 
had been sufiered to go onso far in 
their own way, he thought this 
avould not be a proper time to stop 
them. . 
Lord Pelham, defended the con- 
duct of administration, which, he 
thought, fully possessed the confi- 
dence of parliament, and the coun- 
try. 
The earl of Carlisle, in conse- 
quence of the suggestion of lord 
Grenville, proposed to withdraw his 
motion. 
Lord Grenville denied, that 
ministers could fairly say, they had 
the confidence of parliament, unless 
they laid such information before 
parliament, as would enable it to 
form a correct judgment. 
The lord chancellor concluded 
the conyersation, by a defence of 
the conduct of ministers; who, he 
said, were only silent on points, 
that thar duty to their king and 
10% 
country, required that they should, 
be silent upon. 
The motion of the earl of Carlisle 
was then withdrawn. 
On the same day, in the hous¢ 
of commons, after lord Castlereagh’s 
resolutions, respecting the revenue 
of India, had been agreed to, 
Mr. Francis rose, for information ; 
he disclaimed having intended to ap- 
ply falsehood or fabricaton personal- 
ly to any of the directors: but, he 
must still consider the accounts 
presented to the house, false in 
their balances and results. The 
most important point on which he 
wished to be informed, was, whe+ 
ther the public-had at all guaran- 
teed the capital of the company, 
as they had the imperial loan ? 
Sir TheophilusMetcalfe defended 
the accounts, and the characters of 
the East india directors, who had 
presented them. He said, the 
guarantee, as it was called, was not 
a government guarantec, but a gua- 
rantee, regulated by the act of the 
31st cf the king. 
Mr. Johnstone, also found fault 
with the accounts, both for the 
present and the former years. 
Mr. W. Dundas and Mr. Wallace 
defended them. 
The following day, in the house 
of commons, there was some far- 
ther conversation, about the mili- 
tia officers’ bill. 
Mr. Bastard, Mr. Lascelles, and 
colonel Mitford, seemed to disap< 
prove of the clause, allowing the lord 
lieutenant to give Commissions to cei 
tain officers, without qualifications. 
Sir W. Geary said, that par- 
liament had proceeded, ‘step by 
step, to destroy the nature of this 
constitutional body ; he thought the 
present was the last step. 
Mr. 
