Grenville then spoke his usual hour; and immediately after him Sir George Saville rose to take notice of most obnoxious words that had fallen from Dr. Hay in the beginning of the debate. I hear, said Saville, that _the Law of Government is superior to the Law of the Land_: such words are impeachable. Dr. Hay replied that _the Law of Government_ meant _the Law of Necessity_. This produced great warmth and calling to order, till at last Sir George Saville said he was glad the gentleman did not avow those words. Hay taxing Conway with want of temper, the latter replied, he believed those who had meant to hurt him, had hurt themselves more. Onslow offered to produce pamphlet for pamphlet written by the Administration: and then Hussey very ably and for fifty minutes discoursed against the arbitrary tenets set up by the Court and its lawyers; yet still with the candour and decency peculiar to him. The circumstances inserted in the amendment, he said, were not true. He doubted if ever the question could be determined in Westminster Hall. This was the first time that ever a _probable_ cause was pleaded in behalf of General Warrants. _New doctrines sprung up every day in Westminster Hall._ A number of points must be determined before that cause could be decided; as whether a Secretary of State is a Justice of Peace; whether his messenger is a constable; whether the reason assigned for the commitment was a probable cause, &c. Great difficulties, too, there were in contending with the Crown, and against its influence and its money, &c. He did not believe that the warrants would come before the Courts below. The predecessors of these Ministers had always compounded such prosecutions. The Justices in Ireland having imposed illegal oaths, the House had declared them illegal, but went no farther; excusing the Justices on the circumstances of the times: it was in King William’s reign. Lord Palmerston,[56] a young man of sense, and who spoke then for the first time, declared himself convinced by Hussey’s arguments. Rigby pronounced Lord Halifax’s intrenching himself within privilege, justifiable; for who knew what damages might be given against him?--and so far was true; juries could impose fines to the vastest amount; and as such fine became the property of the prosecutor, the Crown itself could not remit it. But what latent defects, therefore, were discovered by agitating these questions? A Secretary of State could commit a grievous injustice, and yet could avoid punishment, if sheltered by the privilege of his peerage. On the other hand, for a slight imprisonment, a jury, naturally partial to their equals, especially when oppressed, and as naturally averse to their superiors, can give damages to the amount of the defendant’s whole estate, without his being able to obtain redress from any quarter.