In April, Mr. Newnham, member for the city of London, gave notice that he should bring forward a motion, the intent of which was, "To address the king, in order to procure his approbation to relieve the Prince of Wales from all embarrassments of a _pecuniary_ nature," to which he hoped the House would _cordially_ agree. This announcement created much conversation, as well it might; and Mr. Newnham was earnestly solicited to withdraw his motion, lest its results should do injury to the state, and be productive of other inconvenience and mischief. The minister (Pitt) said, "_that if Mr. Newnham persevered in pressing his motion upon the notice of the House, he should be driven to make disclosures of circumstances, which otherwise he believed it to be his imperative duty to conceal_." Mr. Rolle (member for Devonshire) considered that an investigation of this matter involved many questions of consequence, which would affect both church and state. Messrs. Fox and Sheridan, with some other _private_ acquaintances of the prince, were bold in their language, and replied, that "the prince did not fear any investigation of his conduct; and that respect or indulgence, by an affected tenderness or studied ambiguity, would be disagreeable to the wishes and feelings of his royal highness!" A few days after this debate, Mr. Fox called the attention of the House to the strange and extraordinary language used by Mr. Rolle, saying, "that he presumed those remarks were made in reference to the base and malicious calumny which had been propagated out of doors by the enemies of the prince, in order to _depreciate_ his character, and injure him in the opinion of the country!" Mr. Rolle replied to this by saying that, "though the marriage could not have been accomplished under the formal sanction of the law, yet if it existed _as a fact_, it ought to be satisfactorily cleared up, lest the most alarming consequences should be the result." Mr. Fox, in reply, said, "that he not only denied the calumny in question, with respect to the effect of certain existing laws, but he also denied the _marriage in toto_," adding, "though he well knew the matter was illegal under every form of statute provided, yet he took that opportunity to assert, _it never did happen_." Mr. Rolle again asked, "Do you, Sir, speak from DIRECT OR INDIRECT AUTHORITY?" Mr. Fox replied, "FROM DIRECT AUTHORITY." The House was now anxious that Mr. Rolle should express his satisfaction; but he positively and determinately refused, "as he wished every member of the House to JUDGE for himself!" Now mark the result. Mr. Sheridan (the bottle-companion of the prince) rose and declared warmly, "that if Mr. Rolle would not be satisfied, or put the matter into some train for his further satisfaction, his opinion was, the House ought to resolve, that it was seditious and disloyal to propagate reports injurious to the prince." But notice Mr. Pitt's reply, who rose, and protested against an