[156] The object of the motion was to repeal the clause which “protects such rights, titles, or claims, under any grants or letters patent from the Crown, as are prosecuted with effect, within a certain time therein (viz., in the Act) limited.” An able defence of Sir James Lowther was made by Lord North, and a still more able defence of the Duke of Portland by Dunning. The correctness of Walpole’s statement of the feelings of the Court is illustrated by the following extract from a letter of the King’s to Lord North: “11th February.--What has passed in the House of Commons this day is a fresh proof that truth, justice, and even honour are constantly to be given up when they relate to Sir James Lowther.”--(MS.)--The King’s indignation, however, was directed against what he conceived to be an encroachment on the prerogative of the Crown, and did not arise from any partiality for Sir James Lowther.--E. [157] Henry, first Duke of Newcastle of his family, and ninth Earl of Lincoln. He had separated himself from his uncle’s political friends on coming to the title. He died in 1794, aged seventy-four. The present Duke is his grandson.--E. [158] The House nevertheless afterwards decreed against Lord Anglesea.--E. [159] Cavendish’s Parliamentary Debates, vol. ii. p. 311.--The King saw the difficulties of this question, though he shared the prejudices of the day in a letter to Lord North of the 21st. He says, “I have much considered this affair of the printers, and in the strongest manner recommend that every caution should be used to prevent its becoming a serious business. It is highly necessary that this strange and lawless method of publishing debates should be put a stop to. But is not the House of Lords the best court to bring such miscreants before, as it can fine as well as imprison, and has broader shoulders to support the odium of so salutary a measure?”--(MS.)--It is easy to smile at the King’s indignation, but the publication of the debates was not more reasonable than the publication of the list of divisions, which many warm friends of constitutional liberty, even in the present day, were disposed to regard as highly objectionable.--E.