The immediate forerunner in Parliament of the repeal of the Stamp Act was significant. A resolution was introduced into the House of Lords, February 3, 1766, that the "king in Parliament has full power to bind the colonies and people of America in all cases whatsoever." The debate which followed showed what importance this American question had assumed in England; the expression of feeling was intense, the display of ability very great. Lord Camden and Lord Mansfield encountered each other; but the former, with the best of the argument, had much the worst of the division. One hundred and twenty-five peers voted for the resolution, only five against it. In the Commons, Pitt assailed the resolution, with no better success than had attended Camden. No one knew how many voted Nay, but it was "less than ten voices, some said five or four, some said but three."[20] Immediately after this assertion of a principle, the same Parliament prepared to set aside the only application of it which had ever been attempted. It was well understood that the repeal of the Stamp Act was close at hand. [Note 20: Bancroft, _Hist. U. S._ v. 417.] It was at this juncture that Franklin, who had been by no means idle during the long struggle, appeared as a witness in that examination which perhaps displayed his ability to better advantage than any other single act in his life. It was between February 3 and 13, 1766, that he and others were summoned to give testimony concerning the colonies at the bar of the House of Commons sitting in committee of the whole. The others have been forgotten, but his evidence never will be. The proceeding was striking; there were some of the cleverest and most experienced men in England to question him; no one of them singly was his match; but there were many of them, and they conducted an examination and a cross-examination both in one; that is to say, those who wished to turn a point against him might at any moment interpose with any question which might suddenly confuse or mislead him. But no man was ever better fitted than Franklin to play the part of a witness, and no record in politics or in law can compare with the report of his testimony. Some persons have endeavored to account for, which means of course to detract from, its extraordinary merit by saying that some of the questions and replies had been prearranged; but it does not appear that such prearrangement went further than that certain friendly interrogators had discussed the topics with him so as to be familiar with his views. Every lawyer does this with his witnesses. Nor can it be supposed that the admirable replies which he made to the enemies of America were otherwise than strictly impromptu. He had thorough knowledge of the subject; he was in perfect control of his head and his temper; his extraordinary faculty for clear and pithy statement never showed to better advantage; he was, as always, moderate and reasonable;