A’Court,[393] and Honeywood.[394] It being, however, too late to commence the regular debate, it was adjourned till the next day. The 24th, a letter from Wilkes was presented, protesting against their proceedings, and promising on his honour to attend in his place as soon as possible. To this no regard was paid, Grenville moving for the orders of the day, and Rigby saying that Wilkes could not have written that letter but on misrepresentation of what had passed the day before. Hussey, the Queen’s Solicitor, a man of most fair life, unambitious, uninterested, candid in his conduct, and gracefully touching in his delivery, a great friend of Pratt, and lover of the Constitution, made an excellent speech in behalf of privilege and liberty. Charles Yorke, under the difficulties of disgusting his Whig friends and of serving a Court with which he was dissatisfied, explored all the sources of distinction and law subtleties, to defend his opinion against privilege; and spoke for two hours with great applause, as excellent in that branch of his profession. Pitt, near as long on the audaciousness of the Crown’s servants, and their contempt of Parliament; declaring that this proceeding was making a surrender from that day of every man’s liberty in the House to the discretion of the Secretary of State. Pitt was ill, and then went away. Norton indecently quoted a prosecution for perjury against Sir John Rushout,[395] the most ancient member of the House, then sitting at the end of the same bench. The old gentleman was stout and choleric: the prosecution had been on a case of election, and he had been acquitted. He rose with warmth, but with much propriety told his story; showed the prosecution had been instigated by Norton himself, to serve an election purpose; and, looking defiance at that attorney, said, “It was all owing to that _honest_ gentleman!--I hope I do not call him out of his name!” The shout of the House did justice on Norton.