In her next letter to her husband Mrs. Montagu says-- “Emin dines with Lady Medows to-day, if joy can give appetite, he will make a good meal, for by the solicitation of Lady Yarmouth,[183] Mr. Pitt has received him, and promised to see what can be done for him, as great minds are akin. Mr. Pitt was much pleased with him. Emin repeated to me his discourse to Mr. Pitt, and it was full of Asiatick fire and figure--if it did not touch the man, it must the Orator. Mr. Pitt made him great compliments. I hope they will be realized, and they surely will if Lady Yarmouth continues her desire to serve him.” [183] Amelia S. de Walmoden, created 1740, Baroness Yarmouth, mistress of George II. [Page heading: EMIN JOINS MARLBOROUGH] Emin was sent to join the English army under the Duke of Marlborough in their attempted invasion of France at St. Malo, and wrote on June 11 to say that “Captain Howe had burnt 73 ships and from 10 to 16 guns, besides small vessels.” After this expedition, Emin joined the army with the King of Prussia. [Page heading: AFFAIRS IN PARLIAMENT] Writing to Dr. Stillingfleet on June 13, after alluding to the attack on St. Malo, Mrs. Montagu says-- “So much for war and war’s alarms; as to our civil occurences, they have been so boisterously carried I need not change the tone of my narrative; the Judges, the Lord Keeper, the Chief Justice, and the late Lord Chancellor gave their opinions against the Habeas Corpus bill.[184] Lord Temple, much in wrath, insulted the Judges in some of his questions; Lord Lyttelton warmly and sharply reproved him upon which words rose high, the House of Lords interfered. The last day of this bill, Lord Mansfield and Lord Hardwicke[185] spoke so full to the matter, even Tory Lords, and these most violent in their wishes for it, declared they were convinced the new bill was dangerous to liberty in many respects, in many absurd; so that had there been a division there would not have been four votes for it, but Mr. Pitt’s Party discreetly avoided a division. This affair has not set the legislative wisdom of the House of Commons in a very high light, but the great Mr. Beckford,[186] whom no argument can convince, no defeat make ashamed, nor mistake make diffident, did on the motion for a vote of credit stand up in the House of Commons and say he would not oppose that measure, as he had an opinion of the two Commoners in the administration, but in the Peers that composed it, he had no confidence, and ran in foul abuse of them and then ended with a severe censure of the House of Lords in general. Lord Royston[187] answered him that this was unparliamentary where personal, and indecent in regard to the House of Peers in general, to which Mr. Pitt answered with great heat that he was sorry to hear such language from a gentleman who was to be a Peer; he set forth the great importance and dignity of Mr. Beckford personally, and above all the dignity and importance