The question of general warrants being again brought before him in the case of Wilkes v. Wood on 6 Dec. 1763, Pratt, in his charge to the jury, laid down the broad principle that they were contrary to the fundamental principles of the constitution; and in that of Leach v. Money, four days later, refused the defendants, who had arrested the plaintiff under a general warrant, the benefit of the Constables Indemnity Act, 24 George II, c. 4. In 1765 a bill of exceptions to this ruling was dismissed by the court of king's bench. In another case, that of Entick v. Carrington, argued before him upon a special verdict in Easter term 1764, and again in Michaelmas term 1765, he decided, after an exhaustive review of precedents, that the issuing of general warrants by secretaries of state was a usurpation which no prescription could justify. During the contest on the regency bill of 1765 he decided in the affirmative the much-controverted question whether the queen was naturalised by her marriage. Meanwhile Pratt had become almost as great a popular idol as Wilkes himself. The mayor and corporation of the city of London presented him with the freedom of the city in a gold box, and commissioned Reynolds to paint his portrait, which was hung in the Guildhall on 22 Feb. 1764. His portrait, full length, by Hudson, was hung in the Guildhall, Exeter, in February 1768. He also received gold boxes containing the freedom of the cities of Exeter and Norwich, and of the guild of merchants of the city of Dublin, besides the thanks of the sheriffs and commons and the freedom of the corporation of Barber-Surgeons of that city and of the corporation of Bath. In April 1766 the House of Commons passed resolutions condemnatory of the practice of issuing general warrants.
Meanwhile Pratt had been raised to the peerage by the title of Baron Camden of Camden Place in the county of Kent, 17 July 1765. He took his seat on 17 Dec. following, and made his maiden speech on the manifestations of disaffection which had been evoked in America by the passing of the Stamp Act, which statute he did not shrink from denouncing as a breach of the constitution. In a subsequent speech against the declaratory bill (which affirmed the absolute supremacy of parliament), he maintained that taxation without representation was sheer robbery. On both occasions, as afterwards on most political questions, he encountered the vehement opposition of Lord Mansfield.
On the formation of Chatham's second administration, Camden succeeded Northington on the woolsack, on 30 July 1766, receiving by way of compensation for the surrender of the chief-justiceship an allowance of 1,500l. over and above his salary, and the reversion of a tellership in the exchequer for his son. By the irony of fate, this great constitutionalist had only been a few weeks in office when he became responsible for a breach of the constitution of a kind peculiarly odious to the country, by reason of its association with the Stuart régime. The harvest failed almost entirely; and, to prevent a famine, the government, acting on Camden's advice, issued during the recess an order in council laying an embargo on the exportation of corn. This involved the suspension of the Corn Act, 11 George II, c. 22. On the meeting of parliament in the following November the ministry introduced, in the House of Commons, the bill of indemnity usual in such cases, but limited it in the first instance to their subordinates, nor did they frankly and fully acknowledge the illegality of the embargo in the preamble. In both respects the bill was amended, and, the amendments being made the subject of animated debate in both houses of parliament, the ministers took the high prerogatival line of defence. Camden in particular asserted the strict legality of the embargo, which he lightly characterised as ‘but forty days' tyranny at the outside.’ The manifest inconsistency of such an assumption of the tone of despotism by one who had distinguished himself as the asserter of popular rights was turned to excellent account by the opposition, led by Lord Mansfield; and even Junius, though ordinarily partial to Camden, admitted that on this occasion he had ‘overshot himself’ (Letters lix. and lx.).
No less inconsistent was Camden's retention of office notwithstanding his disapproval of the subsequent policy of his colleagues, both in regard to America and in the case of Wilkes. Finding them determined to proceed with the tea duties bill and the expulsion of the obnoxious demagogue from the House of Commons, he sought, after vainly protesting against these measures, to wash his hands of responsibility for them by absenting himself from the cabinet, and observing strict silence in the House of Lords while they were under discussion; nor did he throw off this reserve until Chatham's return to parliament. He then mustered up courage to support the vote of censure on the proceedings of the House of Commons in regard to Wilkes moved by Chatham as an amendment to the address on 9 Jan. 1770, but retained the great seal until (17 Jan.) it was taken from him and transferred to
