Lord Frederick Campbell, with much warmth, called on the House to vindicate Wood and Webbe, their accused members. Wood said he had done his duty, and hoped to be restored to the precise situation in which he had stood before the accusation. Sir W. Meredith said, Lord Chief Justice Keeling being accused, pleaded he had acted by precedent. The practice was censured before the person, as it is necessary to ascertain the crime ere the criminal can be condemned. Charles Yorke said he hoped to hear Keeling’s case read another day; and then moved to adjourn. Norton said he was willing to have the general case adjourned, but not the particular one of the accused. The debate took that turn of postponing the case of the warrants, but the Ministers insisted on disculpating the accused, Grenville particularly declaring for discharging the complaint of breach of privilege. Pitt replied, that if the second question should pass, it would be impossible entirely to acquit the accused. They could not be acquitted or condemned till the general question should be affirmed or condemned. If the warrant should be declared illegal, he would extenuate their behaviour as having acted by precedent. To this Wood, with much heat and arrogance replied, that he would not accept of being _excused_.
Wood,[430] originally a travelling tutor and excellent classic scholar, is well known from those beautiful and simple Essays prefixed to the editions of the _Ruins of Balbec and Palmyra_;[431] whither he had travelled with two[432] young gentlemen of fortune and curiosity. His taste and ingenuity had recommended him to Mr. Pitt for his private secretary when Minister; but the observance required by Pitt, and the pride, though dormant, of Wood, had been far from cementing their connection. Wood had then attached himself to the Duke of Bridgwater, and through him to the Bedford faction; but remaining in office when Mr. Pitt quitted, had, with too much readiness, complied with the orders of his new masters. His general behaviour was decent, as became his dependent situation; but his nature was hot, and veering to despotic.
Lord George Sackville told him that intentionally he had done right, but was not ready to say that he had done legally right. Lord Strange said he would not consent to postpone the acquittal of the accused. General Townshend desired to have the debate adjourned to Friday 17th, being obliged to give attendance on his father, who was dying. His brother Charles, more decently than the rest, said the questions were the same, and required the same discussion: he would not consent to divide them. In truth, there could be no thought of separating them but in compliment to Wood, for few could have any partiality for Webbe. Sir William Meredith and Sir George Saville, both candid men, had wished to avoid naming persons,--a respect detrimental in great national questions; for not only the multitude will more easily be led by names than by speculation and theory, but what Ministers will fear to offend, if censure only touches their practice, not their persons? It is to the honour of the persons who composed that Opposition that their delicacy frequently, nay, constantly, hurt their cause. Yet should that delicacy not be imitated. When the freedom of a nation is at stake, what chance has liberty, if opponents have scruples for Ministers who have none?