oices.

{1742}

Lord Limerick, not yet discouraged, made a motion on the twenty-third
day of March, for an inquiry into the conduct of Robert earl of Orford,
for the last ten years of his administration; and, after a sharp debate,
it was carried in the affirmative. The house resolved to choose a secret
committee by ballot; and in the meantime presented an address to the
king, assuring him of their fidelity, zeal, and affection.

Sir Robert Godschall having moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal
the act for septennial parliaments, he was seconded by sir John Barnard;
but warmly opposed by Mr. Pulteney and Mr. Sandys; and the question
passed in the negative. The committee of secrecy being chosen, began to
examine evidence, and Mr. Paxton, solicitor to the treasury, refusing to
answer such questions as were put to him, lord Limerick, chairman of the
committee, complained to the house of his obstinacy. He was first taken
into custody; and still persisting in his refusal, committed to Newgate.
Then his lordship moved, that leave should be given to bring in a
bill for indemnifying evidence against the earl of Orford; and it was
actually prepared by a decision of the majority. In the house of lords
it was vigorously opposed by lord Carteret, and as strenuously supported
by the duke of Argyle; but fell upon a division, by the weight of
superior numbers. Those members in the house of commons who heartily
wished the inquiry might be prosecuted, were extremely incensed at the
fate of this bill. A committee was appointed to search the journals of
the lords for precedents; their report being read, lord Strange, son to
the earl of Derby, moved for a resolution, "That the lords refusing
to concur with the commons of Great Britain, in an indemnification
necessary to the effectual carrying on the inquiry now depending in
parliament, is an obstruction to justice, and may prove fatal to the
liberties of this nation."--This motion, which was seconded by lord
Quarendon, son of the earl of Lichfield, gave rise to a warm debate;
and Mr. Sandys declaimed against it, as a step that would bring on an
immediate dissolution of the present form of government. It is really
amazing to see with what effrontery some men can shift their maxims, and
openly contradict the whole tenor of their former conduct. Mr. Sandys
did not pass uncensured: he sustained some severe sarcasms on his
apostacy from sir John Hinde Cotton, who refuted all his objecti