Fox asked, “If whether, as it was allowed that it would be lawful to attempt the repeal of the Act by parliamentary methods, the attempters would be guilty of a præmunire, if the Parliament should not concur for the repeal? But that as it was confessed by great lawyers that the crime could not be described, he desired to have it considered, whether it would not be more proper, more humane, and more sensible, to leave the punishment to the Judges?” Sir Richard Loyd said “That the words _in order_ were not dangerous, but that _advising_ was too vague, as it may be proper to give the Regent such advice; that if the word _promoting_ stood, he should wish to insert _unless to apply to Parliament_.” Fazakerley approved the addition of _without the consent of Parliament_. The Attorney said, “That _intent_ could only relate to the person, not to the concurrence; that he thought the words _Acts passed_ might be omitted, but that the lowest persons concurring knowingly to defeat the Act, ought to incur equal punishment.” Lord Strange said, “It must mean Acts of Parliament, for nothing else could set aside this:” and then he moved the amendments that had been proposed. Pitt said, “He imagined they were already agreed to; that he would have _Acts passed_ omitted, but liked _in order_: that he approved the addition of the word _unlawful_, but would omit _without consent of Parliament_, because it would be inviting applications to Parliament, and would make men turn their minds to get this Act repealed, though there was no doubt already, but that the Parliament could alter this settlement if it should please.” He then moved to leave out _Acts_, and was seconded by Fox. Fazakerley asked whether it would not be necessary to have a Commission of Regency if the Princess should be ill. Pitt then moved to insert _unlawfully_, and Fox yielded not to mention _without consent of Parliament_, and to let _in order_ stand. Lord Strange said, if he were to have the Princess’s ear, he would advise her to get this Act repealed. Fox moved for leaving out _concurring_. Old Horace Walpole argued for its remaining; and Sir William Yonge defended it as meaning no more than the three other words that accompanied it. Fox ridiculed him on his reverence for the sacredness of tautology, and said, that if all those words had the same meaning, he would leave out three of them. Pitt was for retaining the word, because it had once been inserted, and to omit it now, would be telling the people that they might concur. Thus at half-an-hour after ten at night, this inquisition clause, having dwindled into a grammatical dispute, was voted, with corrections more worthy of grammarians than a House of Commons, by 126 to 40; a few of Mr. Fox’s and the Duke of Bedford’s friends insisting upon a division, though the former would himself have acquiesced.