in his
own vindication, that he had been employed as counsel by the electors of
Westminster, and attended the scrutiny in that character; that after the
high-bailiff had, in the course of the last session, received the order
of the house to expedite the election, he hurried on the scrutiny with
such precipitation as, he apprehended, was unjust and prejudicial to his
clients; that, in this apprehension, he (Mr. Crowle) insisted upon the
high-bailiff's proceeding with more deliberation, and in so doing he
thought he did his duty to his employers. Some evidence being examined
against him, declared he had not only protracted the scrutiny, but also
spoken disrespectful words of the house of commons; he was therefore
reprimanded on his knees by the speaker, and discharged.

MR. MURRAY SENT PRISONER TO NEWGATE.

Mr Murray being charged with having uttered some threatening and
affrontive expressions, the house adjourned the consideration of this
affair for some days, at the expiration of which Mr. Murray was to be
heard by his counsel; but, in the meantime, they ordered him to be taken
into custody by the sergeant-at-arms attending the house. This step
however was not taken without a warm opposition by some of the most
sedate and intelligent members of the house, who considered it as a
cruel act of oppression. They observed, that in cases of breach of
privilege, no person complained of was ever taken into custody until
after he had been fully heard in his defence; that this was literally
prejudging the cause before it had been examined; and the oppression
was the greater, as the alleged offence consisted entirely of words, of
which no complaint or information had been made for above eight months
after the supposed offence had been committed; and, even then, not till
an accusation had been lodged against the informant, upon the trial of
which accusation the persons informed against might very probably be
the most material witnesses. They observed, that in one of the highest
offences which can be committed by words, namely, that of denying the
king's right to the crown, or renouncing the trinity, the information
must be brought in three or four days after the words are spoken; the
words must be proved to have been spoken maliciously, directly, and
advisedly, and the prosecution must commence in three months after the
information. These suggestions made no more impression than if they
had been uttered in a desert. Those who