Charles Townshend made a most capital speech, replete with argument, history, and law, though severe on the lawyers: a speech, like most of his, easier to be described than detailed. How great, he said, must be the talents of Norton, if the House heard him with patience, though comparing them to a _drunken porter_. Whether in the House or out of the House, Norton, he feared, would be fatal to the cause. He then gave the history of the Licensing Act, and read the resolution of the year 1675, drawn by Mr. Locke, and the report of Lord Chief Justice Vaughan of usage not constituting law. Had Norton lived in the age of ship-money, how he would have argued for putting off the decision of its being illegal! But it was become more necessary to alter this, because of the many precedents in its favour. He then gave a description of the warrant against Wilkes, and how long they had been before they applied it to him. He abhorred Wilkes, he said; and drew a severe picture of him, and another panegyrical of the great Whig Lords at the time of the Revolution, and of those at the accession of the present Royal Family. “But it seems,” continued he, “we are not to have a resolution, but a bill. The first time was always the best time; the natural mode the best mode. One advantage had been derived from Wilkes, he had stopped a growing evil. Nobody could think what thirty years more in abler hands would have done. This warrant without description of person might take up any man under any description of a libel. If the House did not come to some resolution, what dissatisfaction it must create. Mankind would learn that the lawyers were divided in their sentiments on the legality, and would be clamorous to have settled a point so important to the security of their persons, houses, and papers. But do not be wheedled by promises; who gives promises gives deceit.” He praised Mr. Pitt, and concluded with saying that this warrant was like an experiment in anatomy, which might be tried on a poor man. Wilkes is odious, cry the Ministers; commit him. If Parliament suffers it, you may strike at higher objects. After several other speeches, Pitt said “this was not a warrant, but a delegation of magistracy, which the Crown could not give, and should Secretaries of State give it? The debate had been carried on without heat--indeed with too much coldness. Lawyers termed this warrant erroneous;--was that term harsh enough? Hear the language of Ministers and their agents: Carteret Webbe said he had settled Wilkes _comfortably_ in the Tower with his shaving things! Then, they say, you need not pronounce this illegal; Secretaries of State will be sufficiently frightened; the Judges may or may not declare it illegal; and you shall have a law. I should be against such a law; it would be augmenting the power of the Crown by law. What will our constituents say if we do not ascertain their liberties? How do you know the Lords will agree to the bill? Not doing is doing.”