The motion was made and seconded by the same people as before:  Mr. Pultney had been desired, but refused, yet spoke very warmly for it.  He declared, “that if they found any proofs against the earl, he would not engage in the prosecution;” and especially protested against resumptions of grants to his family, of which. he said, “there had been much talk, but they were what he would never come into, as being very illegal and unjust.”  The motion was quite personal against lord Orford, singly and by name, for his last ten years-the former question had been for twenty years, but as the rules of Parliament do not allow of repeating any individual motion in the same session of its rejection, and as ‘every’ evasion is allowed in this country, half the term was voted by the same House of Commons that had refused an inquiry into the whole; a sort of proof that every omne majus does not continere in se minus-but Houses of Commons can find out evasions to logical axioms, as well as to their own orders.  If they carry their list, my lord will be obliged to return from Houghton.

After the division.  Mr. Pultney(514) moved for an address to the King; to declare their resolution of standing by him, especially in assisting the Queen of Hungary-but I believe, after the loss of the question, he will not be in very good humour with this address.

I am now going to tell you what you, will not have expected-that a particular friend of yours opposed the motion, and it was the first time he ever spoke.  To keep you not in suspense, though you must have guessed, it was 220.(515) As the speech was very favourably heard, and has done him service, I prevailed with him to give me a copy-here it is:-

Mr. Speaker,(516)-I have always thought, Sir, that incapacity and inexperience must prejudice the cause they undertake to defend; and it has been diffidence of myself, not distrust of the cause, that has hitherto made me so silent upon a point on which I ought to have appeared so zealous.

“While the attempts for this inquiry were made in general terms, I should have thought it presumption in me to stand up and defend measures in which so many abler men have been engaged, and which, consequently, they could so much better support; but when the attack grows more personal, it grows my duty to oppose it more particularly, lest I be suspected of an ingratitude which my heart disdains.  But I think, Sir, I cannot be suspected of that, unless my not having abilities to defend my father can be construed into a desire not to defend him.

“My experience, Sir, is very small; I have never been conversant in business and politics, and have sat a very short time in this house -with so slight a fund, I must much mistrust my power to serve him-especially as in the short time I have sat here, I have seen that not his own knowledge, innocence, and eloquence, have been able to protect him against a powerful and determined party.  I have seen, since his retirement,