treasonable libel, is actually depending before the courts of law; for this House do declare that a General Warrant for apprehending the authors, printers, or publishers of a libel, together with their papers, is not warranted by law, and is a high violation of the liberty of the subject.” It was requisite for me to state the words of this proposition and account for them; for standing as they do on the printed votes without a comment, what could posterity, or persons ignorant of parliamentary craft and proceedings, think of them? Would they believe such a proposition was seriously debated?--yet, as the votes never joke, could they avoid believing so? The fact, as I have said, was, that the Ministry, to load Sir William Meredith’s question with absurdity, made use of their power, as the majority, thus to amend the question, and forced the opponents to debate it thus hampered, or withdraw it; and even the latter could not be done without leave of the House, that is of the majority, who probably would not have granted that permission, that they might give a negative to the question thus loaded, instead of rejecting Sir W. Meredith’s plain question, which it would have been more unpopular to do. By the strict rules of the House they could even have obliged the debate to be pursued on the question only as amended; but, content with the certainty of rejecting it in their own way, they suffered the Opposition to argue on the simple state of the case, and the debate accordingly proceeded so. Lord Middleton asked if the Petition of Rights had not come in by declaration? and, with regard to the charge of delay, he said the plaintiffs could not afford to go on with the bill of exceptions, and then were accused of protracting; and, to justify the renewal of the question, he observed that Lord Coke says, “Many a good proposition had succeeded at last by being pursued year after year.” Sir W. Meredith said, he had omitted the word _seditious_, that the question might carry no reference to Wilkes, being calculated for the general and indefinite good of all. No epithets ought to be mixed with prosecutions, nor should a man be liable to be prosecuted as a traitor for having written a libel. No privilege held against treason; but the House ought not to be deprived of its members on a false charge of treason. Conway asked if Hay had been serious in his motion? did he mean his amendment should go out into the world on so important a question? It would be a mockery of Parliament. Grenville called him to order; but Conway persisted and said it would be a shameful proceeding. Wedderburn and the Solicitor-General again interrupted him; but he was supported by Sir George Saville and Onslow; and the Speaker declared there was nothing disorderly in Conway’s words. Dowdeswell said, Dr. Hay had argued on the whole question, therefore he would; but Lord Frederick Campbell endeavouring to fix the debate on the question as amended, Charles