Notwithstanding Yorke disculpated himself of not having seen the warrant, yet the Ministers protested that after Wilkes was taken up, Yorke had given his opinion that No. 45 was a libel, and had advised the commitment of him to the Tower. This was advising a man to knock down another, and then pleading that he had not seen the bludgeon. Lord North said, if a law was necessary, a partial resolution was trifling. By deferring this, they meant to introduce something much better.
Lord George Sackville said, it would only alarm the nation, to fling over the question the thin parliamentary veil of adjournment. When could a question of liberty be so properly taken up as under such a King? It was the time to lop such an excrescence. Lord North had promised much, but would perform nothing. The House of Commons singly cannot make law; but can declare upon it. He thanked God that on this question the whole body of lawyers was not on the side of power: that battery would be too much to stand. How came the Secretaries of State by this practice, but from the Star Chamber and Licensing Act? It had never been abused till now, for it had been exercised only against traitors. A discretionary power must always be at the peril of the Secretary that uses it. But he would therefore declare it illegal for a warning to them, and to show the people that they had a watchful House of Commons.
Nugent said, “Liberty rings round the House, and we may all be unanimously in the wrong.” “We are not likely to be unanimously wrong,” replied Conway, “nor rash, for nothing was ever so fully debated. The Ministers had narrowed the question to Wilkes, and then called it too narrow. The previous question would in effect be a negative. Wood had called for immediate decision. There had been issued but one warrant as extensive as this down to the time of Lord Townshend, and that had been in the reign of Charles the Second. He that gives a power of tyranny gives tyranny.” Hussey added, that the Licensing Act had been dropped because the Peers would not consent to let their houses be searched.
Lord Frederick Campbell said that in a fortnight’s time general warrants would be determined to be illegal; and then, what Secretary of State would dare to sign one? Lord Granby, declaring he thought them illegal because Lord Chief Justice Pratt had thought so, said, no Secretary of State after that opinion would venture to issue them.
Charles Townshend made a most capital speech, replete with argument, history, and law, though severe on the lawyers: a speech, like most of his, easier to be described than detailed. How great, he said, must be the talents of Norton, if the House heard him with patience, though comparing them to a drunken porter. Whether in the House or out of the House, Norton, he feared, would be fatal to the cause. He then gave the history of the Licensing Act, and read the resolution of the year 1675, drawn by Mr. Locke, and the report of Lord Chief Justice Vaughan of usage not constituting law. Had Norton lived in the age of ship-money, how he would have argued for putting off the decision of its being illegal! But it was become more necessary to alter this, because of the many precedents in its favour. He then gave a description of the warrant against Wilkes, and how long they had been before they applied it to him. He abhorred Wilkes, he said; and drew a severe picture of him, and another panegyrical of the great Whig Lords at the time of the Revolution, and of those at the accession of the present Royal Family. “But it seems,” continued he, “we are not to have a resolution, but a bill. The first time was always the best time; the natural mode the best mode. One advantage had been derived from Wilkes, he had stopped a growing evil. Nobody could think what thirty years more in abler hands would have done. This warrant without description of person might take up any man under any description of a libel. If the House did not come to some resolution, what dissatisfaction it must create. Mankind would learn that the lawyers were divided in their sentiments on the legality, and would be clamorous to have settled a point so important to the security of their persons, houses, and papers. But do not be wheedled by promises; who gives promises gives deceit.” He praised Mr. Pitt, and concluded with saying that this warrant was like an experiment in anatomy, which might be tried on a poor man. Wilkes is odious, cry the Ministers; commit him. If Parliament suffers it, you may strike at higher objects.
After several other speeches, Pitt said “this was not a warrant, but a delegation of magistracy, which the Crown could not give, and should Secretaries of State give it? The debate had been carried on without heat—indeed with too much coldness. Lawyers termed this warrant erroneous;—was that term harsh enough? Hear the language of Ministers and their agents: Carteret Webbe said he had settled Wilkes comfortably in the Tower with his shaving things! Then, they say, you need not pronounce this illegal; Secretaries of State will be sufficiently frightened; the Judges may or may not declare it illegal; and you shall have a law. I should be against such a law; it would be augmenting the power of the Crown by law. What will our constituents say if we do not ascertain their liberties? How do you know the Lords will agree to the bill? Not doing is doing.”
He was answered by Grenville and Sir John Philipps; but Lord Howe,[440] though a Lord of the Admiralty, spoke against the adjournment. Elliot said, if there must be a victim, they might have a hecatomb of Ministers who had signed such warrants. These warrants, it seemed, had stalked about unknown to Mr. Pitt, who had been Secretary of State, and to Mr. Yorke, Attorney-General.
Colonel Barré ridiculed Lord Barrington, Elliot, and Grenville, with much humour. “Lord Granby thinks,” added he, “that no Secretary of State will venture on these warrants after Pratt’s opinion; but Grenville says that opinion was undue, erroneous, and precipitate.” For himself, he esteemed the professors of the law, but detested the profession. Pratt he commended; and said, “shall France deride our languor when her Parliaments are making such strides towards liberty?”
At five in the morning the House divided, and the adjournment was carried by 232 against 218; a majority of only fourteen. The world expected that the Ministers would resign—at least endeavour to treat.[441]
The offensive behaviour of Norton in the preceding debate, brought out a story very characteristic of his unfeeling nature. When Dr. Hensey was condemned for treason in the last reign, Lord Mansfield asked Pratt, the Attorney-General, when he would have him executed? Pratt, struck with compassion, could not bring himself to fix the day. Lord Mansfield then asked Norton, who, turning to the prisoner, said, “Doctor, when will it be agreeable to you to be executed?”[442]