On January the 25th, the Commons went into a committee on the state of the nation, when Dowdeswell moved to resolve, that the House of Commons is bound to follow the laws of the land and the usage of Parliament, which is part thereof.[44] Conway said, this was a very needless declaration; it was a truism, and admitted by everybody; the House might as well vote that Magna Charta was the law of the land; but he supposed this was meant as a foundation for other questions, and therefore he called on Dowdeswell’s candour to state what he intended should follow. Dowdeswell refused; and therefore Lord North said, as he supposed the motion alluded to the case of Wilkes, he would add the words “and had been so followed in the case of the late election for the county of Middlesex.” Grenville said this was unfair; and that, in a complicated question, any member had a right to separate the parts, and call for each distinctly. Conway replied, that he had known questions made complicated on purpose to destroy them; and reminded Grenville of Dr. Hay’s and Wedderburne’s long and absurd addition to the question on general warrants, which did destroy that question. Wedderburne said, if the motion was a truism, was that a reason for not allowing it? Would any man begin to refuse paying a bill, by denying that two and two make four? He went into the law part of the question; and his position that there had been no question exactly in point, made great impression on the House, no man being a more acute or more accurate speaker. Young Charles Fox, of age but the day before, started up, and entirely confuted Wedderburne, even in law, producing a case decided in the courts below but the last year, and exactly similar to that of Wilkes. “The court,” he said, “had had no precedent, but had gone on analogy.” The House roared with applause. Sir W. Meredith said rudely, he wished Mr. Conway acted then with the same patriotic spirit that he had shown on general warrants, when he had gained the hearts of the nation. Conway replied with fire that he hoped his character was as good as ever, or as that gentleman’s. Had nobody any integrity but those who called themselves patriots? Lord Coke, the oracle of the law, quoted the case of Hall, in the reign of Henry the Eighth, and called it _the ancient usage of Parliament_. Selden and Maynard held the same doctrine. Who would dare to affirm, that those were not the greatest constitutional lawyers? What was set against them but two or three pamphlets (meaning those written by Dowdeswell and Meredith), ingenious, indeed, but were they of weight to be opposed to Coke, Selden, and Maynard? Sir William Meredith was unlucky in addressing his censure to Conway, who was in reality what Sir William wished or affected to be, a most conscientious man. Conway’s virtue was firm, and not to be shaken by interest or caprice. He persisted in uniform integrity, supported the Court when he thought it in the right, but disdained its temptations.