enquiries and prosecutions together, though they are perfectly distinct in their nature, and gentlemen will, I hope, upon this occasion attend carefully to the distinction. I shall grant, Sir, that a parliamentary prosecution, either by bill or impeachment. ought never to be carried on, but when it is evident that the criminal cannot be duly punished by any 'prosecution at common law; but a parliamentary enquiry may often be necessary, in order to procure a prosecution at common law, and sometimes in order to discover whether any crime has been committed or no, or what sort of crime it is that has been committed; and therefore I am convinced, that the frequency of such enquiries can never injure our constitution, but on the contrary will always contribute towards preserving it in its natural strength and vigour : nay, by our constitution it is the particular business of this House to enquire into every public grievance: we are the grand inquest of the nation; and as such, when there is but a suspicion that the public or the people have been injured or defrauded, we ought, we are in duty bound to enquire into the affair, and after enquiring we are then to determine what we are next to do. If we have upon that enquiry discovered that some flagrant crime has been committed, we are next to consider whether the criminal can be duly punished by a prosecution at common law; for if it appears that he cannot, we are then bound to proceed against him by impeachment, or by bill of pains and penalties. On the other hand, if there appears but a probability, that he may be convicted and sufficiently punished by a prosecution at common law, we ought to address his majesty to order his attorney general to prosecute; for I suppose every gentleman knows, that in all prosecutions at common law there must be a prosecutor, and that his majesty cannot order his attorney general to prosecute, until a discovery has been made by the Address of this House, the presentment of a grand jury, or the oath of some informer, that such a crime or offence has been committed.

Now, Sir, to apply what I have said to the affair at present under our consideration, the very argument made use of by the hon. gentleman who spoke last against our going into the enquiry proposed, is one of the strongest arguments that can be urged for our doing so. He was pleased to suggest, that if the receivers for the last lottery any way departed from the

directions of the act of parliament, and of those who appointed them, it may be supposed, that they did so without any fraudulent intent, but with a laudable design to serve the public, by encouraging people to come in and fill up the subscription: and indeed with regard to some of them, I am apt to believe there is good ground for this supposition. But this, Sir, is my chief reason for the enquiry proposed.. It is notoriously known, that the grievance which the legislature intended to prevent has, by an evasion of the law, been brought upon the nation by some persons or other. The grievance I mean is that of ingrossing a great number of the tickets, and then raising a spirit of gaming among the people, in order to extort money from them by way of premium upon the sale. This had been so often practised upon former lotteries, that the legislature resolved to prevent it upon the last, and for that purpose enacted, that no person should be allowed to subscribe for more than 20 tickets, and that the subscription should be open and free for every person that inclined to subscribe for that number. Therefore if the receivers took any methods to prevent the subscription being open and free, if they knowingly allowed any man to subscribe, or if any man did subscribe, for more than 20 tickets, it was a breach of the act, and consequently an offence; and if it was done with a fraudulent intent, to give a preference to friends, or to make a profit by the sale of tickets, it ought to be punished. But that this was done is manifest, from the thousands that were sold in Change-Alley soon after the subscription books were shut, and the high premium they were sold for.

It is therefore evident, Sir, that an of fence, and a fraudulent offence too, has been committed; and it is our business, it is our duty to discover, if we can, by whom. This we can only do by the enquiry proposed, and it is proposed in very proper terms, as it leaves room for our enquiring into the conduct of the subscribers, as well as the conduct of the receivers of the subscription. The offence is manifest, and that the people were thereby cheated out of large sums of money is notorious: if it were as manifest that all the receivers were concerned in this public fraud, or any way privy to the same, there would be no occasion for an enquiry: we might and ought to proceed directly to address his majesty to order them to be prosecuted; but as it is probable that some

of them had no concern in it, and possible that none of them had, we must go into an enquiry, in order to distinguish the innocent from the guilty: when we have done this, I hope, we shall not dispense justice by the lump, as was done in the year 1720, but acquit the innocent, and then make our vengeance fall with its full weight upon him or them that shall appear to be guilty. As it is so uncertain, Sir, who were the persons guilty of this fraudulent breach of an act of parliament and this malicious and deceitful imposition upon the public, I am really surprised to hear any gentleman suppose, that the guilty can be prosecuted or punished by any sort of proceeding at common law. There is no judge or magistrate, nor any court but the high court of parliament, that has power to make such an enquiry as may tend to discover who were the persons guilty; and should they be able to discover it, there is some room to doubt whether they have power to inflict an adequate punishment. I am equally surprised to hear it supposed, that those who were impowered to appoint the receivers, have any proper authority to make an effectual enquiry into their conduct. They had, indeed, a power to give orders, rules and directions to the managers, directors, and receivers of the lottery, and the managers, directors, and receivers were obliged to observe those orders, rules, and directions; but they have no power to enquire whether they did so or not, much less to punish them if they did not, and still less power, if possible, to call any witnesses before them, in order to examine whether the terms of the act, or the directions they had given, were duly complied with. Nay, the bond which they were impowered to take from the receivers, was not to be for a due performance of the terms of the act, or of the directions they should give, but only for the due answering and paying of the monies which the receivers should jointly or severally receive; so that even this bond cannot be deemed forfeited, or put in suit, if the monies have been duly answered and paid, which no one doubts but that they have.

I have said, Sir, that if the receivers did transgress the directions of the act, by knowingly admitting any person to subscribe for more than 20 tickets for his own benefit, it is possible to suppose, that they were induced to do so, by an apprehension that the subscription could not otherwise be filled up; but really such a

supposition is not very probable, as it is well known, that before the subscription books were opened, the lottery receipts sold at a premium in Change-Alley, so that no reasonable man could have any ground for such an apprehension. How these receipts came to make their appearance so early in Change-Alley, will of course come under the enquiry proposed; for if the receivers received any money, and gave receipts in a private manner, previous to the time appointed for opening the subscription books, it was acting contrary to the design of the act of parliament, which, if for any considerable sum, will have a very bad appearance, as it must be allowed to be a partial, and may have been a mercenary and corrupt sort of conduct, which it is so far from being in the power of any inferior court to detect, that, I fear, it will hardly be in the power of parliament.

Upon many accounts therefore, Sir, we must conclude, that the crime which has been committed, though in its nature a very heinous one, can neither be prosecuted nor adequately punished by means of any sort of prosecution at common law; and as it is very certain that a crime has been committed, and the public, as well as many private persons, very much injured, a parliamentary enquiry is become absolutely necessary. By this means, and by this alone, we may be able to punish the guilty, as well as justify, and wipe off all scandal from, the innocent; and we shall have this farther advantage, that we may from thence learn how to prevent any such practices in time to come; for whatever the hon. gentleman may pretend, I am far from thinking the thing impossi ble: even I, who am very little versed in public subscriptions, may be able to propose a method, in case we should ever have occasion for another, which, I hope, we never shall, whereby it will be rendered impossible to give an undue preference to ministers, clerks of offices, or either of their favourites; and equally impossible for a set of rich stock-jobbers to engross the whole, or the greatest part of the subscription. Therefore I shall most heartily join with my hon. friend in his motion. Mr. Henry Fox:

Sir; when I rise up to oppose or rather to wave the motion now under your consideration, I hope no gentleman will be so uncharitable as to suppose, that I am for screening the guilty, if there be any

such, or against their being punished in any such manner as may be consistent with our constitution. On the contrary, f it should appear, that any of the clerks appointed to be the receivers of the subscriptions to the last lottery have, with a corrupt and avaricious view, confederated with others to confine the subscription, which the legislature designed should be open and free, I think they deserve, and I hope they will meet with, a very severe punishment; but for that purpose I cannot think a parliamentary prosecution necessary, and consequently I cannot think it consistent with our constitution. The only two ends of a parliamentary enquiry which I have ever heard of, or can suppose, is to make it the foundation of an impeachment, or of a Bill of pains and penalties; and neither of these can be necessary upon the present occasion, nor do I believe that either is designed even by those who are the warmest advocates for this motion.

We all know, Sir, that this House by itself alone can neither judge nor punish. It is absolutely inconsistent with our constitution for us to attempt it: we never did attempt it but in that parliament which began in November 1640; and every one knows, that it not only brought great misery upon the nation, but ended in the total overthrow of our constitution, and the establishment of the very worst sort of arbitrary power. Therefore I hope never again to hear of the word delinquent, or any other new-coined term, that may furnish us with a pretence to judge of and punish offenders of any kind. Even a Bill of pains and penalties has always been deemed a sort of encroachment upon our constitution; and therefore such a method of trying and punishing should never be made use of, but when the public safety is in the utmost danger, and cannot otherwise be effectually secured; for should it once become frequent and common to take this method for detecting and punishing every supposed offence, by a factious party in the nation it might be made a handle for abolishing the monarchical part of our constitution, or by an ambitious and enterprizing prince, supported by a venal majority in this House, it might be made a handle for oppressing and ruining every man who dared to stand up for the liberties and privileges of the people. For this reason I cannot suppose it to be the design of any gentleman in this House, that a Bill of pains and penalties should be the conse

quence of the enquiry proposed, however heinous the crime may appear to be, which the receivers of the subscription for the last lottery, or any one or more of them, have been guilty of; for I am very sure, that it could not be of such a nature as to endanger the public safety, nor can the public safety be exposed to the least danger, should their crime remain unpunished as well as uninquired into. And much less can I suppose, that an impeachment is designed to be the consequence of the enquiry proposed; for no gentleman, surely, can suppose, that it would be consistent with the dignity of a British House of Commons to appear at the bar of the other House as the prosecutors of a little under clerk in one of our public offices.

Thus, Sir, as neither a Bill of pains and penalties nor an impeachment can be the end proposed by the motion now made to us, I can see no reason for our agreeing to it, nor can I see any use that can be made of a parliamentary enquiry, and therefore I do not think we should take up any part of our time with enquiring into an affair of so little consequence; for as to our learn ing from thence how the late act has been evaded, it is already publicly and perfectly known. I believe there is not a gentleman in this House, no nor a broker in ChangeAlley, who does not know, that the late act was evaded by the subscribers giving a name for every 20 tickets they intended to subscribe for; and if the hon. gentleman who spoke last, or any gentleman, should propose a method for preventing this practice, or for preventing its being possible to give an undue preference to ministers, clerks of offices, or either of their favourites, when we have occasion for another lottery, I am persuaded, the House will readily agree to it, unless it should evidently appear to be such a method as would render it impossible to get the subscription filled; and this, I fear, will be the case with every effectual method that can be proposed, unless you make the lottery more advantageous for the subscribers, and more burthensome upon the public, than any lottery we have had since the happy accession of our present royal family; for no lottery we have had since that fortunate period, ever cost the public so much as the lotteries generally did before that time.

As to what the hon. and learned gentleman was pleased to say about the subscription receipts that were sold at a premium

receivers of the subscription for the last lottery? And I hope no gentleman imagines, that we should address them to do so. Nay, we could not so much as address the king to order or direct them to do so; because even the crown itself has no power to issue any such order or direction, or to inflict any legal punishment upon them, should they refuse to obey.

But now, Sir, supposing that these two noble and learned lords should at your desire, and out of the respect they so deservedly have for you, voluntarily agree to join with you in making an enquiry into the conduct of these receivers, how could you enquire? You have no power to put | an oath to any one you call before you: you have no power to punish any one that shall refuse to come at your call; or that, when come, shall refuse to answer such questions as you may think necessary; or that shall appear to be guilty of falshood or prevarication, in the answers he is pleased to give. Under such a want of power, can it be supposed that you could enquire with any effect? Is it not certain, that the more criminal the offenders are, the less effectual your enquiry would be? Nor can this be answered by alleging, that all the persons you could have occasion to examine are officers employed under the crown, and consequently would be obliged not only to appear and answer, but to give a fair and full answer to every question, under the pain of being dismissed from their employments; for in order to come at the bottom of this affair, it appears necessary upon the very face of it, that several of the subscribers, and several brokers in Change-Alley, should be examined; and in the course of the enquiry it may be found, that it will be necessary to examine several other persons, none of whom will willingly appear, nor can any of them by you be subjected to any punishment for not appearing, or any other way compelled to appear.

It is therefore evident, Sir, that we can neither direct the enquiry which the hon. gentleman has been pleased to suggest, nor could it be carried on with any effect, without passing a new act of parliament for that purpose; and this, I am sure, would be of more dangerous consequence to our constitution than the parliamentary enquiry proposed; for I am really surprised to hear it pretended, that our doing what is properly the business of this House, and what every gentleman must allow to be one of the most necessary parts

of our duty, can ever be of any dangerous consequence to our constitution. That this House is the grand inquest of the nation, and consequently bound to enquire into every grievance complained of by the people, is so well known, and so generally confessed, that I am almost ashamed to repeat it. Enquiries ought therefore to be frequent, as every one knows that popular grievances are so; and consequently a prosecution, either by impeachment, or Bill of pains and penalties, is so far from being the only end of an enquiry, that it can very seldom be the consequence; for a grievance may often be removed or redressed without any prosecution at all: sometimes a parliamentary censure of persons or practices may be thought necessary; and generally speaking, an address to the king to order his attorney-general to prosecute, would be the consequence of our enquiries, were they as frequent as they ought to be: even prosecutions by impeachment, or bill of pains and penalties, when found absolutely necessary, would tend to the preservation of our constitution, by rendering parliaments dear to the people, were such prosecutions more frequently carried on than they are against the oppressors and plunderers of the people; for whilst the king preserves his right to dissolve the parliament when he pleases, no faction in parliament can ever encroach upon the crown; and as to a factious party in the nation, I do not know what the hon. gentleman means by it. I am very sure, that the majority of the nation will never be for overturning our constitution; and if the party should be so numerous as to be able, after two or three trials, to return always a majority against the administration, it could not be a factious, but a national party, whose demands the king ought to comply with, by altering his measures, and dismissing his ministers.

If ever this, Sir, should happen to be the case, I shall readily grant, that not only a parliamentary enquiry, but a prosecution by impeachment, or Bill of pains and penalties, might very probably become necessary against some of the ministers, and, perhaps, even against some of their under clerks; for whatever the hon. gentleman may think, I am far from being of opinion, that it is inconsistent with the dignity of a British House of Commons to appear at the bar of the other House as the prosecutors even of an under clerk in one of our public offices. On the con