It is true, that on the debate it did appear that there were many and many precedents on both sides. Often had privilege protected a member--often it had not; but how did that happen to be the case? It happened, because there had been various cases in which the Crown was not concerned, but where the contest had lain between subject and subject; and in those instances the House had often determined different ways. But on the great case of the seven Bishops, in the reign of James the Second, Privilege of Parliament had been vindicated and secured. What would have become of those prelates if the Court had had this precedent of Wilkes to justify its violence? Even allowing that privilege were not inherent in members, but had been decided sometimes for, sometimes against them; was this a time--was this an instance, in which the House should have waived its pretensions? Was the blow it gave itself likely to be repaired? But let the preceding and subsequent conduct of this ductile and servile House of Commons tell its motives! The debates were not brilliant, but serious and solemn as the occasion required. Lord North[387] was the chief manager for the Court, supported by Norton, George Grenville, Morton,[388] and Elliot. Lord North’s mouthing and boisterous manner, his coarse figure, and rude untempered style, contributed to make the cause into which he had unnecessarily thrust himself appear still more odious. Pitt, Beckford, Legge, Sir George Saville, Sir William Baker, and James Grenville defended the Constitution. Much was said on the danger to which every man’s private papers were now exposed, and more on the injustice of hurrying on this decision, when Wilkes could not for his wound appear to defend himself, when he was prosecuting both the Secretaries of State and the messengers, and when he was to be tried himself for the libel. What court, what judge, what jury, but must be prejudiced by a decision of the House of Commons against him? This plea was glaring, was crying. The lawyers themselves many of them allowed it, and the debate took that turn; the Opposition endeavouring to stave off the question on Privilege, the courtiers insisting to bring it on. Charles Yorke begged for delay, but it was a delay of a few days; Eliab Harvey, though bred a Tory, pleaded for deferring their decision. Forester, a Scot devoted to the Duke of Bedford,[389] and reckoned no squeamish lawyer, spoke for procrastination, and voted against the Court. Wedderburne, another Scot, argued for farther time; and even old Wilbraham,[390] the Gamaliel of the Jacobites, could not digest such indecent hurry, for which he was much commended by Pitt; yet by seven in the evening the Court bore down all obstruction, and carried their point by 243 to 166; though Sir John Philipps and Benjamin Bathurst,[391] two high-prerogative men, were in the minority, with Glover, and four general officers--Conway, Sir John Griffin,[392]