men, having not lately looked into
the orders of the house, may mistake the tendency of the question; I,
therefore, move that the order may be read.

[The order being read by the clerk, he proceeded.]

It is evident, sir, that by the order now read, the serjeant at arms
attending on this house, may take into custody all strangers that shall
be found in the house or gallery while we are assembled; and that this
order is not always put in practice, must be attributed to the lenity of
the house. But that this order extends to past offences, and subjects
any man to imprisonment for having been present in some former day,
cannot be conceived. For how far may such a retrospect be extended? or
at what time, after having intruded into the house, can any man presume
to consider himself as exempt from the danger of imprisonment?

Our order, sir, only decrees present punishment for present offences,
and, therefore, the question asked by the honourable gentleman, may be
insisted on without scruple, and answered without hazard. Let then the
honourable gentlemen reserve their laudable zeal for our constitution
till it shall be invaded by more important occasions.

Mr. SANDYS replied:--Sir, what victory the honourable gentleman imagines
himself to have gained, or whence proceeds all his wantonness of
exultation, I am not able to discover. The question only relates to the
interpretation of one of our own orders, and is, therefore, not of the
highest importance; nor can his success, in so trivial a debate, entitle
him to great applause from others, or produce, in a person of his
abilities, any uncommon satisfaction to himself.

But, whatever may be the pleasure of the victory, it must, at least, be
gained before it can be celebrated; and it is by no means evident, that
he has yet any reason to assure himself of conquest.

His interpretation, sir, of the order, which he has so confidently laid
before the house, seems to me to have no foundation in reason or
justice; for if it be an offence against the house to be present at our
consultations, and that offence be justly punishable, why should any man
be exempt from a just censure by an accidental escape? or what makes the
difference between this crime and any other, that this alone must be
immediately punished, or immediately obliterated, and that a lucky
flight is equivalent to innocence?

It is surely, sir, more rational to believe, that the house may punish
any breach of its ord