Sir William Meredith consented to waive his demand of the information, though Beckford protested that he himself had never, as a justice of peace, granted a warrant without information on oath. Norton pleaded, that to grant it would instruct the accuser, Wilkes, in the defence of the accused Secretaries and Under-Secretaries of State; but T. Townshend urged that it had already appeared in the Court of Common Pleas, and in the ordinary newspapers. George Grenville[424] said that producing the warrant would engage the House to pronounce on the legality or illegality of it. Would the House declare that any papers might be seized? Would it declare that none might? Sir Anthony Abdy,[425] a lawyer attached to the Duke of Devonshire, said, a sight of the warrant was demanded as much for the excuse of such members of the House as had been concerned in it, as for blame; and General Conway added, that if the information was the defence of Wood and the others, how would it hurt them? But, said he, this matter is treated as too high for our inspection. I thought I lived in a free country. We have already chosen to give up our own privilege, and now are afraid to inquire on what grounds it is taken from us.[426] Nugent, Morton, Elliot, Wilbraham, Dr. Hay, Wood himself, Lord Frederick Campbell, Forester, Oswald,[427] Ellis, Lord North, and Sir John Glynn, debated the question for the Court, besides those I have mentioned; on the other side, Hewet,[428] King’s Sergeant, Mawbey, Lord George Sackville, Dowdeswell, Fitzherbert, Dempster, Charles Townshend, and Onslow; but the previous question was carried by 217 to 122. The next day the Cider Bill was compromised, and two shillings imposed instead of five. On the 9th, the day appointed for considering the Marriage Bill, Charles Yorke opposed going into Committee, and said Sir John Glynn should have stated objections, and proposed amendments; wished to have a bill brought in for that purpose. He talked of the wisdom and temper with which it had been carried through before: the truth of which may be seen in my former account of that bill. Rigby was for going into the Committee, his patron the Duke of Bedford having been, and continuing to be, its warm adversary. Lord Strange ridiculed ecclesiastical law, and frankly spoke of marriage as only legal cohabitation. George Grenville stayed away, and Lord Holland’s friends were for repealing the bill. The Opposition, to court the Yorkes, were against altering it; but it was carried by 157 to 79, for a Committee to re-examine it. It was then proposed to go into the Committee on that day sevennight: Charles Yorke and General Townshend for the Monday sevennight after. Charles Townshend, who had shone so brightly against the original bill, kept away; but it was carried for the Wednesday, by 70 to 39.