Mawbey then moved to adjourn, which was overruled by 208 to 184, and then the complaint being discharged, the House rose at half an hour after seven in the morning, the longest sitting on record, exceeding that on the Westminster Election, in 1742, and the last sitting on the Militia Bill, in 17--; but this latter was less a debate than the perseverance of a very few persons who sat till six in the morning to perfect that bill. The Court was strangely alarmed at this sudden rise of the Opposition, and set them roundly to oppose its progress, well knowing that when once the scale turns, it is difficult to secure even the venal, who hurry over to the side to which fortune seems inclining. Nor was much time given them to rally their forces, the great question coming on within four days. CHAPTER XXVI. Debates on the legality of General Warrants, and the conduct of Wilkes, continued.--Treatise entitled “Droit le Roi,” condemned by the Lords.--Wilkes found guilty of being the Author of “The North Briton” and the “Essay on Woman.” Feb. 17th the House went into the debate on the subject, _that a general warrant for seizing the author, printer, &c., of a seditious libel, is not legal_. Dr. Hay said it was evident this had been the practice, nor had the Courts below condemned it. He should, therefore, propose an amendment, that the question might be stated clearly and precisely. If that correction was agreed to, he intended to offer others that should condemn the whole practice of the secretary’s office. He then moved to add the word _treasonable_ after _seditious_; and then he would propose, he said, to subjoin the following sentence, _though such warrant hath been according to the practice of office, and has not been condemned by any courts of justice in which such warrants have been produced_. He was seconded by Wedderburne, who argued against taking up one particular warrant, half excusing that in question by saying, he would not affirm that practice makes law. Pitt ridiculed the Doctor and the Ministry for trying to perplex the question; but owning handsomely that he should like the question better if spread over the whole practice, and not confined to the single instance before them. If his own practice had been faulty, he was willing to bear his share of public blame. He called on the Ministers to show what was really the subject matter of the question: was it on _seditious_ libels? then do not cut and shuffle with our liberties by an epithet. We had seen the day when an epithet would defeat Magna Charta. Any other epithet of four syllables would throw dust in the eyes of members, as well as _treasonable_. But now, said he, they parry and _twist_, and I like it the better. I am glad that all the learned doctor’s abilities could produce was an epithet. But keep separate things separate in their nature. Vote the general question on _seditions_ first. We never desire to alter the practice in cases of high treason.