He was answered by Murray, the Solicitor-General,[133] a frequent antagonist of his, who had quickness and eloquence enough to defend or not to want the knowledge of the Law, of which he was master. He said, “There could be no hurt in omitting the words that conveyed any doubtful meaning; that the Bill was calculated against unlawful acts, such as force and usurpation, upon the foundation of former examples, particularly the disposition made by Henry the Eighth; that it was only a clause _in terrorem_; that there must be an overt act; that the House had already passed a sanction of the same nature in the marriage clause: but if these words were disliked, you might insert _unlawfully and without consent of Parliament_; and that the Regent would certainly not be included within the words.” Fox accepted the proposed words, but would have omitted _in order_, which would still leave the necessity of the overt act in full force. He insisted “that the clause affects nobody but those who assist the Regent in endeavouring the repeal of this Act, and consequently that she is tied up from innovating, while her Council are at liberty to attempt what farther usurpations they please upon hers and the royal authority. It is difficult to ascertain what her accomplices must or must not will and know, to include them within the penalty; that if she takes out letters-patent to be sole Regent, are the clerks who draw them to be subject to the præmunire? That it must be right to omit the words _in order_, since in the Solicitor’s opinion they were useless; in his, dangerous: but supposing they were still to remain, he could not help insisting on being told, what punishment there would be for him or any man who should attempt to cancel the Regency Bill without the connivance of the Regent?” The Solicitor replied, “That such act would be against the King, because he was in her hands; but that this provides against doing it _with_ her consent. That the words _in order_ were neither so unheard of, nor so formidable as was pretended; that the Coventry Act has the equivalent words _with intent_; and that the Mutiny Bill (brought in by Mr. Fox) has even the words _in order_. He owned that those words were inserted to prevent the connivance of the Regent from giving an air of legality to any attempts of innovation.” The Master of the Rolls said, “He could not point out words to describe the crime, but he thought _with intent_ preferable to _in order_.”