HOUSE OF LORDS, MAY 20, 1742. (continued 2)

It may be urged farther, my lords, that he cannot with great propriety be said to have no power, who sees the legislature crowded with men that are indebted to his favour for their rank and their fortunes.

Such a man may bid defiance to inquiry, with confidence produced by security very different from that of innocence; he may depend upon the secrecy of those whom he has, perhaps, chosen for no other virtue; he may know that common danger will unite them to him, and that they cannot abandon him without exposing themselves to the same censures.

These securities, my lords, the fortifications of the last retreat of wickedness, remain now to be broken, and the nation expects its fate from our determinations, which will either secure the liberties of our posterity from violation, by showing that no degree of power can shelter those who shall invade them, or that our constitution is arrived at this period, and that all struggles for its continuance will be vain.

Let us not, my lords, combine with the publick enemies, let us not give the nation reason to believe that this house is infected with the contagion of venality, that our honour is become an empty name, and that the examples of our ancestors have no other effect upon us than to raise the price of perfidy, and enable us to sell our country at a higher rate.

Let us remember, my lords, that power is supported by opinion, and that the reverence of the publick cannot be preserved but by rigid justice and active beneficence.

For this reason, I am far from granting that we ought to be cautious of charging those with crimes who have the honour of a seat amongst us. In my opinion, my lords, we ought to be watchful against the least suspicion of wickedness in our own body, we ought to eject pollution from our walls, and preserve that power for which some appear so anxious, by keeping our reputation pure and untainted.

It is, therefore, to little purpose objected, that there is no corpus delicti; for even, though it were true, yet while there is a corpus suspicionis, then inquiry ought to be made for our own honour, nor can either law or reason be pleaded against it.

I cannot, therefore, doubt, that your lordships will endeavour to do justice; that you will facilitate the production of oral evidence, lest all written proofs should be destroyed; that you will not despise the united petition of the whole people, of which I dread the consequence; nor reject the only expedient by which their fears may be dissipated, and their happiness secured.

Lord HARDWICKE spoke next, in the following manner:—My lords, after having, with an intention uninterrupted by any foreign considerations, and a mind intent only on the discovery of truth, examined every argument which has been urged on either side, I think it my duty to declare, that I have yet discovered no reason, which, in my opinion, ought to prevail upon us to ratify the bill that is now before us.

The noble lords who have defended it, appear to reason more upon maxims of policy, than rules of law, or principles of justice; and seem to imagine, that if they can prove it to be expedient, it is not necessary to show that it is equitable.

How far, my lords, they have succeeded in that argument which they have most laboured, I think it not necessary to examine, because I have hitherto accounted it an incontestable maxim, that whenever interest and virtue are in competition, virtue is always to be preferred.

The noble lord who spoke first in this debate, has proved the unreasonableness and illegality of the methods proposed in this bill, beyond the possibility of confutation; he has shown that they are inconsistent with the law, and-that the law is founded upon reason: he has proved, that the bill supposes a criminal previous to the crime, summons the man to a trial, and then inquires for what offence.

Nor has he, my lords, confined himself to a detection of the original defect, the uncertainty of any crime committed, but has proceeded to prove, that upon whatever supposition we proceed, the bill is unequitable, and of no other tendency than to multiply grievances, and establish a precedent of oppression.

For this purpose he has shown, that no evidence can be procured by this till, because all those who shall, upon the encouragement proposed in it, offer information, must be considered as hired witnesses, to whom no credit can be given, and who, therefore, ought not to be heard.

His lordship also proved, that we cannot pass this bill without diminishing our right, bestowing new powers upon the commons, confirming some of their claims which are most dubious, nor, by consequence, without violating the constitution.

To all these arguments, arguments drawn from the most important considerations, enforced by the strongest reasoning, and explained with the utmost perspicuity, what has been replied? How have any of his assertions been invalidated, or any of his reasons eluded? How has it been shown that there is any foundation for a criminal charge, that witnesses thus procured ought to be heard, or that our rights would not be made disputable by confirming the proceedings of the commons?

It has been answered by a noble lord, that though there is not corpus delicti, there is corpus suspicionis. What may be the force of this argument, I cannot say, because I am not ashamed to own, that I do not understand the meaning of the words. I very well understand what is meant by corpus delicti, and so does every other lord; it is universally known to mean the body of an offence; but as to the words corpus suspicionis, I do not comprehend what they mean: it is an expression, indeed, which I never before heard, and can signify, in my apprehension, nothing more than the body of a shadow, the substance of something which is itself nothing.

Such, my lords, is the principle of this bill, by the confession of its warmest and ablest advocates; it is a bill for summoning a person to a trial, against whom no crime is alleged, and against whom no witness will appear without a bribe.

For that those who should appear in consequence of this bill to offer their evidence, ought to be considered as bribed, will, surely, need no proof to those who consider, that bribes are not confined to money, and that every man who promotes his own interest by his deposition, is swearing, not for truth and justice, but for himself.

It may be urged, and it is, in my opinion, all that the most fruitful imagination can suggest in favour of this bill, that they are not required to accuse the earl of ORFORD, but to give in their evidence concerning his conduct, whether in his favour, or against him.

But this argument, my lords, however specious it may seem, will vanish of itself, if the bill be diligently considered, which is only to confer indemnity on those, who in the course of their evidence shall discover any of their own crimes; on those whose testimony shall tend to fix some charge of wickedness on the earl of ORFORD; for it cannot easily be imagined how those who appear in his favour, should be under a necessity of revealing any actions that require an indemnity.

Thus, my lords, it appears that the bill can produce no other effect than that of multiplying accusations, since it offers rewards only to those who are supposed to have been engaged in unjustifiable practices; and to procure witnesses by this method, is equally unjust as to propose a publick prize to be obtained by swearing against any of your lordships.

If witnesses are to be purchased, we ought, at least, to offer an equal price on each side, that though they may be induced by the reward to offer their depositions, they may not be tempted to accuse rather than to justify.

Should any private man, my lords, offer a reward to any that would give evidence against another, without specifying the crime of which he is accused, doubtless he would be considered by the laws of this nation, as a violator of the rights of society, an open slanderer, and a disturber of mankind; and would immediately, by an indictment or information, be obliged to make satisfaction to the community which he had offended, or to the person whom he had injured.

It has, my lords, I own, been asserted by the noble duke, that the publick has a right to every man's evidence, a maxim which in its proper sense cannot be denied. For it is undoubtedly true, that the publick has a right to all the assistance of every individual; but it is, my lords, upon such terms as have been established for the general advantage of all; on such terms as the majority of each society has prescribed. But, my lords, the majority of a society, which is the true definition of the publick, are equally obliged with the smaller number, or with individuals, to the observation of justice, and cannot, therefore, prescribe to different individuals different conditions. They cannot decree that treatment to be just with regard to one which they allow to be cruel with respect to another. The claims of the publick are founded, first upon right, which is invariable; and next upon the law, which, though mutable in its own nature, is, however, to be so far fixed, as that every man may know his own condition, his own property, and his own privileges, or it ceases in effect to be law, it ceases to be the rule of government, or the measure of conduct.

In the present case, my lords, the publick has not a right to hire evidence, because the publick has hitherto subsisted upon this condition, among others, that no man shall swear in his own cause. The publick has not a right to require from any man that he should betray himself, because every man may plead that he is exempted from that demand by the publick faith.

Thus, my lords, the right of the publick is only that right which the publick has established by law, and confirmed by continual claims; nor is the claim of the publick from individuals to be extended beyond its known bounds, except in times of general distress, where a few must necessarily suffer for the preservation of the rest.

This necessity is, indeed, now urged; but surely it ought to be shown, that the present circumstances of affairs differ from those of any former age, before it can with any propriety he asserted, that measures are now necessary, which no other distresses, however urgent, or provocations, however flagrant, have hitherto produced. It ought to be proved, that wickedness had discovered some new shelter from justice, before new engines are invented to force it from its retreat, and new powers applied to drag it out to punishment.

The nation has subsisted, my lords, so many centuries; has often recovered from the lingering disease of inward corruption, and repelled the shocks of outward violence; it has often been endangered by corrupt counsels, and wicked machinations, and surmounted them by the force of its established laws, without the assistance of temporary expedients; at least without expedients like this, which neither law nor justice can support, and which would in itself be a more atrocious grievance than those, if they were real, which it is intended to punish, and might produce far greater evils than those which are imputed to him, against whom it is projected.

It has, indeed, my lords, been mentioned by a noble lord, in much softer language, as a method only of making an inquiry possible. The possibility of an inquiry, my lords, is a very remote and inoffensive idea; but names will not change the nature of the things to which they are applied. The bill is, in my opinion, calculated to make a defence impossible, to deprive innocence of its guard, and to let loose oppression and perjury upon the world. It is a bill to dazzle the wicked with a prospect of security, and to incite them to purchase an indemnity for one crime, by the perpetration of another. It is a bill to confound the notions of right and wrong, to violate the essence of our constitution, and to leave us without any certain security for our properties, or rule for our actions.

Nor are the particular parts less defective than the general foundation; for it is full of ambiguous promises, vague ideas, and indeterminate expressions, of which some have been already particularized by the noble lords that have spoken on this occasion, whose observations I shall not repeat, nor endeavour to improve; but cannot forbear proposing to the advocates for the bill one sentence, that it may be explained by them, and that at least we may not pass what we do not understand.

In the inquiry into the conduct of the earl of ORFORD, every man, as we have already seen, is invited to bring his evidence, and to procure an indemnity, by answering such questions as shall be asked, touching or concerning the said inquiry, or relative thereto. What is to be understood by this last sentence, I would willingly be informed; I would hear how far the relation to the inquiry is designed to be extended, with what other inquiries it is to be complicated, and where the chain of interrogatories is to have an end.

When an evidence appears before the committee, how can he be certain that the questions asked are relative to the inquiry? How can he be certain that they are such as he may procure an indemnity by resolving? Or whether they are not unconnected with the principal question, and therefore insidious and dangerous? And to what power must he appeal, if he should be prosecuted afterwards upon his own confession, on pretence that it was not relative to the inquiry?

Expressions like these, my lords, if they are not the effects of malicious hurry, and negligent animosity, must be intended to vest the committee with absolute authority, with the award of life and death, by leaving to them the liberty to explain the statute at their own pleasure, to contract or enlarge the relation to the controversy, to inquire without bounds, and judge without control.

Thus, my lords, I have laid before you my opinion of this bill without any partial regard, without exaggerating the ill consequences that may be feared from it, or endeavouring to elude any reasoning by which it has been defended. I have endeavoured to pursue the arguments of the noble lord who spoke first, and to show that it is founded upon false notions of criminal justice, that it proposes irrational and illegal methods of trial, that it will produce consequences fatal to our constitution, and establish a precedent of oppression.

I have endeavoured, in examining the arguments by which the bill has been defended, to show that the rights of the publick are ascertained, and that the power of the majority is to be limited by moral considerations; and to prove, in discussing its particular parts, that it is inaccurate, indeterminate, and unintelligible.

What effects my inquiry may have had upon your lordships, yourselves only can tell; for my part, the necessity of dwelling so long upon the question, has added new strength to my conviction; and so clearly do I now see the danger and injustice of a law like this, that though I do not imagine myself indued with any peculiar degree of heroism, I believe, that if I were condemned to a choice so disagreeable, I should more willingly suffer by such a bill passed in my own case, than consent to pass it in that of another.

The duke of ARGYLE replied to the following effect:—My lords, I am not yet able to discover that the bill now before us is either illegal or absurd, that its interpretation is doubtful, or its probable consequences dangerous.

The indisputable maxim, that the publick has a right to every man's evidence, has been explained away with much labour, and with more art than a good cause can often require. We have been told of publick contracts, of the rights of society with regard to individuals, and the privileges of individuals with respect to society; we have had one term opposed to another, only to amuse our attention; and law, reason, and sophistry have been mingled, till common sense was lost in the confusion.

But, my lords, it is easy to disentangle all this perplexity of ideas, and to set truth free from the shackles of sophistry, by observing that it is, in all civilized nations of the world, one of the first principles of the constitution, that the publick has a right, always reserved, of having recourse to extraordinary methods of proceeding, when the happiness of the community appears not sufficiently secured by the known laws.

Laws may, by those who have made the study and explanation of them the employment of their lives, be esteemed as the great standard of right; they may be habitually reverenced, and considered as sacred in their own nature, without regard to the end which they are designed to produce.

But others, my lords, whose minds operate without any impediment from education, will easily discover, that laws are to be regarded only for their use; that the power which made them only for the publick advantage ought to alter or annul them, when they are no longer serviceable, or when they obstruct those effects which they were intended to promote.

I will, therefore, my lords, still assert, that the publick has a right to every man's evidence; and that to reject any bill which can have no other consequence than that of enabling the nation to assert its claim, to reconcile one principle of law with another, and to deprive villany of an evasion which may always be used, is to deny justice to an oppressed people, and to concur in the ruin of our country.

And farther, my lords, I confidently affirm it has not been proved, that this bill can endanger any but the guilty; nor has it been shown that it is drawn up for any other purpose than that which the noble lord mentioned, of hindering an inquiry from being impossible; it may, therefore, justly be required from those who affect, on this occasion, so much tenderness for liberty, so many suspicions of remote designs, and so much zeal for our constitution, to demonstrate, that either an inquiry may be carried on by other means, or that an inquiry is itself superfluous or improper.

Though none of those who have spoken against the bill have been willing to expose themselves to universal indignation, by declaring that they would gladly obstruct the progress of the inquiry; that they designed to throw a mist over the publick affairs, and to conceal from the people the causes of their misery; and though I have no right to charge those who differ from me in opinion, with intentions, which, as they do not avow them, cannot be proved; this, however, I will not fear to affirm, that those who are for rejecting this method of inquiry, would consult their honour by proposing some other equally efficacious; lest it should be thought; by such as have not any opportunities of knowing their superiority to temptations, that they are influenced by some motives which they are not willing to own, and that they are, in secret, enemies to the inquiry, though, in publick, they only condemn the method of pursuing it.

The duke of NEWCASTLE next rose, and spoke to this effect:—My lords, the arguments which have been produced in defence of the bill before us, however those who offer them may be influenced by them, have made, hitherto, very little impression upon me; my opinion of the impropriety and illegality of this new method of prosecution, still continues the same; nor can it be expected that I should alter it, till those reasons have been answered which have been offered by the noble lord who spoke first in the debate.

The advocates for the bill seem, indeed, conscious of the insufficiency of their arguments, and have, therefore, added motives of another kind; they have informed us, that our power subsists upon our reputation, and that our reputation can only be preserved by concurring in the measures recommended by the commons; they have insinuated to us, that he who obstructs this bill, will be thought desirous to obstruct the inquiry, to conspire the ruin of his country, and to act in confederacy with publick robbers.

But, my lords, whether the nation is really exasperated to such a degree as is represented, whether it is the general opinion of mankind that the publick affairs have been unfaithfully administered, and whether this bill has been dictated by a desire of publick justice, or of private revenge, I have not thought it necessary to inquire; having long learned to act in consequence of my own conviction, not of the opinions of others, at least, not of those who determine upon questions which they cannot understand, and judge without having ever obtained an opportunity of examining.

Such, my lords, must be the opinions of the people upon questions of policy, opinions not formed by reflection, but adopted from those whom they sometimes, with very little reason, imagine nearer spectators of the government than themselves, and in whom they place an implicit confidence, on account of some casual act of popularity.

I shall not, therefore, think the demands of the people a rule of conduct, nor shall ever fear to incur their resentment in the prosecution of their interest. I shall never flatter their passions to obtain their favour, or gratify their revenge for fear of their contempt. The inconstancy, my lords, of publick applause, all of us have observed, and many of us have experienced; and we know that it is very far from being always the reward of merit. We know that the brightest character may be easily darkened by calumny; that those who are labouring for the welfare of the publick, may be easily represented as traitors and oppressors; and that the people may quickly be persuaded to join in the accusation.

That the people, however deceived, have a right to accuse whomsoever they suspect, and that their accusation ought to be heard, I do not deny; but surely, my lords, the opinion of the people is not such a proof of guilt as will justify a method of prosecution never known before, or give us a right to throw down the barriers of liberty, and punish by power those whom we cannot convict by law.

Let any of your lordships suppose himself by some accident exposed to the temporary malice of the populace, let him imagine his enemies inflaming them to a demand of a prosecution, and then proposing that he should be deprived of the common methods of defence, and that evidence should be hired against him, lest the publick should be disappointed, and he will quickly discover the unreasonableness of this bill.

I suppose no man will deny, that methods of prosecution introduced on one occasion, may be practised on another; and that in the natural rotations of power, the same means may be used for very different ends. Nothing is more probable, my lords, if a bill of this kind should be ever passed, in compliance with the clamours of the people, to punish ministers, and to awe the court, than that it may in time, if a wicked minister should arise, be made a precedent for measures by which the court may intimidate the champions of the people; by which those may be pursued to destruction, who have been guilty of no other crime than that of serving their country in a manner which those who are ignorant of the circumstances of affairs, happen to disapprove.

The measures now proposed, my lords, are, therefore, to be rejected, because it is evident that they will establish a precedent, by which virtue may at any time be oppressed, but which can be very seldom necessary for the detection of wickedness; since there is no probability that it will often happen, that a man really guilty of enormous crimes can secure himself from discovery, or connect others with him in such a manner, that they cannot impeach him without betraying themselves.

But, my lords, whenever virtue is to be persecuted, whenever false accusations are to be promoted, this method is incontestably useful; for no reward can so efficaciously prevail upon men who languish in daily fear of publick justice, as a grant of impunity.

It may be urged, my lords, I own, that all inquiries into futurity are idle speculations; that the expedient proposed is proper on the present occasion, and that no methods of justice are to be allowed, if the possibility of applying them to bad purposes, is a sufficient reason for rejecting them.

But to this, my lords, it may be answered with equal reason, that every process of law is likewise, in some degree, defective; that the complications of circumstances are variable without end, and, therefore, cannot be comprised in any certain rule; and that we must have no established method of justice, if we cannot be content with such as may possibly be sometimes eluded.

And, my lords, it may be observed farther, that scarcely any practice can be conceived, however generally unreasonable and unjust, which may not be sometimes equitable and proper; and that if we are to lay aside all regard to futurity, and act merely with regard to the present exigence, it may be often proper to violate every part of our constitution. This house may sometimes have rejected bills beneficial to the nation; and if this reasoning be allowed, it might have been wise and just in the commons and the emperour to have suspended our authority by force, to have voted us useless on that occasion, and have passed the law without our concurrence.

With regard to the establishment of criminal prosecutions, as well as to our civil rights, we are, my lords, to consider what is, upon the whole, most for the advantage of the publick; we are not to admit practices which may be sometimes useful, but may be often pernicious, and which suppose men better or wiser than they are. We do not grant absolute power to a wise and moderate prince, because his successours may inherit his power without his virtues; we are not to trust or allow new methods of prosecution upon an occasion on which they may seem useful, because they may be employed to purposes very different from those for which they were introduced.

Thus, my lords, I have shown the impropriety of the bill now before us, upon the most favourable supposition that can possibly be made; a supposition of the guilt of the noble person against whom it is contrived. And surely, my lords, what cannot even in that case be approved, must, if we suppose him innocent, be detested.

That he is really innocent, my lords, that he is only blackened by calumny, and pursued by resentment, cannot be more strongly proved than by the necessity to which his enemies are reduced, of using expedients never heard of in this nation before, to procure accusations against him; expedients which they cannot show to have been at any time necessary for the punishment of a man really wicked, and which, by bringing guilt and innocence into the same danger, leave us at liberty to imagine, that he is clear from the crimes imputed to him, even in the opinion of those who pursue him with the fiercest resentment, and the loudest clamours.

It may well be imagined, my lords, that those whom he has so long defeated by his abilities, see themselves now baffled by his innocence; and that they only now persecute his character, to hide the true reason for which they formerly attacked his power.

I hope, my lords, I shall be easily forgiven for observing, that this is a testimony of uncorrupted greatness, more illustrious than any former minister has ever obtained; for when was it known, my lords, that after a continuance of power for twenty years, any man, when his conduct became the subject of publick examination, was without accusers?

I cannot, for my part, but congratulate the noble person upon his triumph over malice; malice assisted by subtilty and experience, by wealth and power, which is at length obliged to confess its impotence, to call upon us to assist it with new laws, to enable it to offer a reward for evidence against him, and throw down the boundaries of natural justice, that he may be harassed, censured, and oppressed, upon whom it cannot be proved that he ever deviated from the law, or employed his power for any other end than the promotion of the publick happiness.

Had the officers of the crown, my lords, when his influence was represented so great, and his dominion so absolute, projected any such measures for his defence; had they proposed to silence his opponents by calling them to a trial, and offered a stated price for accusations against them, how loudly would they have been charged with the most flagrant violation of the laws, and the most open disregard of the rights of nature; with how much vehemence would it have been urged, that they were intoxicated with their success, and that in the full security of power they thought themselves entitled to neglect the great distinctions of right and wrong, and determined to employ the law for the completion of those purposes, in which justice would give them no assistance.

I doubt not that your lordships will easily perceive, that this censure is equally just in either case; that you will not allow any man to be prosecuted by methods which he ought not to have used in his own case; that you will not expose any man to hardships, from which every other member of the community is exempt; that you will not suffer any man to be tried by hired evidence; and that you will not condemn him whom the law acquits.

Lord BATHURST spoke next, in substance as follows:—My lords, the question under our consideration has been so long and so accurately debated, that little can be added to the arguments on either side; and therefore, though I think it necessary on so important an occasion, to make a solemn declaration of my opinion, I shall endeavour to support it, not so much by any arguments of my own, as by a recapitulation and comparison of those which have been already heard by your lordships.

It has not been denied, that the punishment of crimes is absolutely necessary to the publick security; and as it is evident, that crimes cannot be punished unless they are detected, it must be allowed, that the discovery of wicked measures ought to be, in a very great degree, the care of those who are intrusted with the government of the nation; nor can they better discharge their trust, than by defeating the artifices of intrigue, and blocking up the retreats of guilt.

This, likewise, my lords, is admitted with such restrictions as seem intended to preclude any advantage that might be drawn from the appearance of a concession; for it is urged, that guilt is not to be detected by any methods which are not just, and that no methods are just which are not usual.

The first position, my lords, I have no intention to controvert; as it is not to violate justice, but to preserve it from violation, that this bill has been projected or defended. But, my lords, it is to be observed, that they who so warmly recommend the strictest adherence to justice, seem not fully to understand the duty which they urge. To do justice, my lords, is to act with impartiality, to banish from the mind all regard to personal motives, and to consider every question in its whole extent, without suffering the attention to be restrained to particular circumstances, or the judgment to be obstructed by partial affection.

This rule, my lords, seems not to have been very carefully observed, by the most vehement advocates for justice in the case before us; for they appear not to be solicitous that any should receive justice, but the person mentioned in the bill; they do not remember, that the publick has cried out for justice more than twenty years; for justice, which has not yet been obtained, and which can be obtained only by the method now proposed.

It is necessary, my lords, for those who are so watchful against the breach of justice, to prove that any means can be unjust which have no other tendency than the detection of wickedness, of wickedness too artful or too powerful to be punished by the common rules of law.

The introduction of new methods of prosecution, is the natural consequence of new schemes of villany, or new arts of evasion; nor is it necessary that precedents should be produced, when the wisdom of the legislature concurs in acknowledging the necessity of extraordinary measures. Though our constitution is in the highest degree excellent, I never yet heard that it was perfect, and whatever is not perfect may be improved. Our laws, however wise, are yet the contrivance of human policy; and why should we despair of adding somewhat to that which we inherit from our ancestors? Why should we imagine, that they anticipated every contingency, and left nothing for succeeding ages?

I think, my lords, with the highest regard both of our laws, and those by whom they were enacted, but I look with no less veneration on this illustrious assembly; I believe your lordships equal to your progenitors in abilities; and therefore, since you cannot but outgo them in experience, am confident that you may make improvements in the fabrick which they have erected; that you may adorn it with new beauties, or strengthen it with new supports.

It cannot, at least, be denied, that your lordships have all the power of your ancestors; and since every law was once new, it is certain they were far from imagining that there was always a necessity of inquiring after precedents. If the argument drawn from the want of precedents be now of any force, let it be proved that its force was less in any former reign; and let it be considered how our government could have attained its present excellence, had this house, instead of applying to every grievance its proper remedy, been amused with turning over journals, and looking upon every new emergence for precedents, of which it is certain that there must have been a time in which they were not to be found.

In all regulations established by the legislature, it is sufficient that they do not produce confusion by being inconsistent with former laws, that they unite easily with our constitution, and do not tend to the embarrassment of the machine of government. This consideration, my lords, has been in a very remarkable manner regarded by those who drew up the bill before us; a bill of which the noble duke has proved, that it will be so far from perplexing our judicial proceedings, that it will reconcile the law to itself, and free us from the necessity of obeying one precept by the neglect of another.

The arguments of the noble duke are such as, in my opinion, cannot be answered, or heard impartially without conviction. The maxims quoted by him are each of them incontestably true; they are, on this occasion, incompatible; and this is the only method by which they can be reconciled.

Nor has he only shown the propriety of the bill by irrefragable reasons, but has proved, likewise, that it is consistent, not only with the constitution of our government, but with the practice of our ancestors; he has shown, that it may be supported not only by reason, but by bills of the same kind, enacted on occasions of far less importance.

He has proved, my lords, all that the most scrupulous inquirer can wish; he has made it evident, that the bill would be proper, though it were unprecedented; he has produced many precedents in support of it, and has thereby evinced, that the only present question is, whether it is just? To the precedents alleged by him, it has been objected, that they differ in some particulars. But when, my lords, did any two actions, however common, agree in every circumstance? Relations may be complicated without end, and every new complication produces new appearances, which, however, are always to be disregarded, while the constituent principles remain unvaried.

If we consider the difficulties in which the opponents of the bill have involved themselves, it will not be easy to think well of a cause, which gives birth to such wild assertions, and extravagant opinions. They have first, by requiring precedents, determined, that our constitution must be henceforward for ever at a stand; and then, by declaring that no precedents are of any weight, in which every circumstance is not parallel to the case in debate, have debarred us from the repetition of any occasional law; they have declared, almost in plain terms, themselves useless, and destroyed that authority at once, which they seem so much afraid of communicating to the commons.

But, by none of their arts of subtle distinction, my lords, have they been able to evade the argument which arises from the conformity of this bill to the common practice of our courts; an argument, which has produced no other answer than loud declamations; against the indecency of comparing with pickpockets and highwaymen, a noble person, a minister of acknowledged merit, long graced with the favour of his sovereign, and long invested with the highest trust.

I, my lords, am very far from pleasing myself with licentious or indecent language; I am far from envying any man that exaltation which he obtains either by good or by bad actions; and have no inclination of levelling the person, whose conduct I desire to see examined, with the profligate or infamous. Yet I cannot forbear to observe, that high rank is an aggravation of villany; that to have enjoyed the favour of his sovereign, is no defence of him that has abused it; and that high trust is an honour only to that man, who, when he lays down his office, dares stand an inquiry.

Had there been no precedent in our judicial proceedings, my lords, which bore any resemblance to this bill, there would not from thence have arisen any just objection. Common proceedings are established for common occasions; and it seems to have been the principle of our ancestors, that it is better to give ten guilty persons an opportunity of escaping justice, than to punish one innocent person by an unjust sentence. A principle which, perhaps, might not be erroneous in common cases, in which only one individual was injured by another, or when the trial was, by the law, committed to a common jury, who might easily be misled.

They might likewise imagine, my lords, that a criminal, encouraged by a fortunate escape to a repetition of his guilt, would undoubtedly some time fall into the hands of the law, though not extended on purpose to seize him; and, therefore, they constituted their proceedings in such a manner, that innocence might at least not be entrapped, though guilt should sometimes gain a reprieve.

But in the present case, my lords, every circumstance requires a different conduct. By the crimes which this bill is intended to detect, not single persons, or private families, but whole nations, and all orders of men have long been injured and oppressed; and oppressed with such success, that the criminal has no temptation to renew his practices; nor is there any danger of an erroneous sentence, because the trial will be heard by this house, by persons whose integrity sets them above corruption, and whose wisdom will not be deceived by false appearances.

This consideration, my lords, affords an unanswerable reply to those who represent the bill as ill-concerted, because the evidence to be procured by it, is the testimony of men, partners, by their own confession, in the crimes which they reveal.

Every court, my lords, examines the credibility of a witness; and the known corruption of these men may be properly pleaded at the trial, where your lordships will balance every circumstance with your known impartiality, and examine how far every assertion is invalidated by the character of the witness, and how far it is confirmed by a corroboratory concurrence of known events, or supported by other testimonies not liable to the same exception.

Thus, my lords, it may be observed how quickly the clouds are dispersed with which interest or perverseness have endeavoured to obscure the truth, and how easily the strongest objections which the greatest abilities could raise against this bill are confuted, or how apparently, when they are closely examined, they confute themselves.

One of the objections that requires no answer is that which has been raised with regard to the extent of the indemnity offered in the bill, which, in the opinion of those that opposed it, ought to be restrained to particular persons. But that it is chiefly, if not solely, intended to be applied to those who have refused to answer the questions of the committee, I believe every lord in this house is fully convinced; it was, however, necessary to draw it up in general terms, lest other artifices might have been employed, and lest, by pointing out particular persons, opportunity might have been given to deprive the publick of their evidence, by prevailing upon them to withdraw.

The bill was justly styled, by a noble lord, a bill to prevent an inquiry from being impossible. The difficulty of inquiries for the publick is well known; and the difficulty arises chiefly from the inability of the people to reward their advocates, or their evidence. The state of the court, my lords, is very different; the crown can not only pardon, but advance those that have, on any occasion, promoted its interest; and I hope it will not be too much power to be for once granted to the people, if they are empowered to throw a simple indemnification into the balance, and try whether with the slight addition of truth, and reason, and justice, it will be able to weigh down titles, and wealth, and power.

It has been urged, that there is danger lest this bill should become a precedent. I hope, my lords, the same occasion will not often happen; and whenever it shall hereafter occur, the precedent of passing the bill will be much less dangerous than that of rejecting it.

I hope it is not necessary to say more on this occasion; yet I cannot forbear to remind some lords of the fatal consequences which at critical conjunctures they have often dreaded, or appeared to dread, from a disagreement of this house with the commons. At this time, in which the nation is engaged in war, when the whole continent is one general scene of discord and confusion; when the wisest counsels, the firmest unanimity, and the most vigorous measures are apparently necessary, it might not be improper to reflect, how unseasonably we shall irritate the commons by rejecting this bill, and how justly we shall exasperate the people, by showing them that their complaints and remonstrances are of no weight; that they must expect the redress of their grievances from some other power; and that we prefer the impunity of one man to the happiness and safety of the publick.

Lord ISLAY spoke next to the following purpose:—My lords, as there has in this debate been very frequent mention of extraordinary cases, of new modes of wickedness, which require new forms of procedure, and new arts of eluding justice, which make new methods of prosecution necessary, I cannot forbear to lay before your lordships my sentiments on this question; sentiments not so much formed by reflection as impressed by experience, and which I owe not to any superiour degree of penetration into future events, but to subsequent discoveries of my own errours.

I have observed, my lords, that in every collision of parties, that occasion on which their passions are inflamed, is always termed an extraordinary conjuncture, an important crisis of affairs, either because men affect to talk in strong terms of the business in which they are engaged, for the sake of aggrandizing themselves in their own opinion and that of the world, or because the present object appears greatest to their sight by intercepting others, and that is imagined by them to be really most important in itself, by which their own pleasure is most affected.

On these extraordinary occasions, my lords, the victorious have always endeavoured to secure their conquest, and to gratify their passions by new laws, by laws, even in the opinion of those by whom they are promoted, only justifiable by the present exigence. And no sooner has a new rotation of affairs given the superiority to another party, than another law, equally unreasonable and equally new, is found equally necessary for a contrary purpose. Thus is our constitution violated by both, under the pretence of securing it from the attack of each other, and lasting evils have been admitted for the sake of averting a temporary danger.

I have been too long acquainted with mankind to charge any party with insincerity in their conduct, or to accuse them of affecting to represent their disputes as more momentous than they appeared to their own eyes. I know, my lords, how highly every man learns to value that which he has long contended for, and how easily every man prevails upon himself to believe the security of the publick complicated with his own. I have no other intention in these remarks, than to show how men are betrayed into a concurrence in measures, of which, when the ardour of opposition has subsided, and the imaginary danger is past, they have very seldom failed to repent.

I do not remember, my lords, any deviation from the established order of our constitution, which has not afterwards produced remorse in those that advised it. I have known many endeavour to obviate the evils that might be produced by the precedents which they have contributed to establish, by publick declarations of their repentance, and acknowledgments of their errour; and, for my part, I take this opportunity of declaring, that though I have more than once promoted extraordinary bills, I do not recollect one which I would not now oppose, nor one of which experience has not shown me, that the danger is greater than the benefit.

I have learned, at length, my lords, that our constitution has been so formed by the wisdom of our ancestors, that it is able to protect itself by its own powers, without any assistance from temporary expedients, which, like some kinds of medicines in the human body, may give it the appearance of uncommon vigour, but which, in secret, prey upon its noblest parts, and hurry it to a sudden decay.

But none of all the measures into which I have seen parties precipitated by acrimony and impetuosity, have I known parallel to the bill which is now defended in this house; a bill which I hope we shall have reason to term the wildest effort of misguided zeal, and the most absurd project that the enthusiasm of faction ever produced.

The particular clauses of this bill have been already examined with great acuteness and penetration, and have all been shown to be absurd or useless. I shall, therefore, only add this observation, that the indemnification, however liberally offered, will be wholly, at the disposal of those who shall receive the examinations, by whom, when such discoveries are not made as they may happen to expect, the witnesses may be charged with reserve and insincerity, and be prosecuted for those crimes which could never have been known but by their own confession.

It is not impossible, but that if the bait of indemnification shall be found insufficient to produce testimonies against the noble person, a bill of pains and penalties may be attempted, to terrify those who are too wise to be ensnared by specious promises; for what may not be expected from those who have already sent their fellow-subjects to prison, only for refusing to accuse themselves?

Nor can I discover, my lords, how the most abandoned villains will be hindered from procuring indemnity by perjury, or what shall exclude a conspirator against the life and government of his majesty from pardon, if he swears, that in a plot for setting the pretender on the throne, he was assisted by the counsels of the earl of ORFORD.

It has, indeed, been in some degree granted, that the bill requires some amendment, by proposing that the necessary alterations may be made to such parts of it as shall appear defective to the committee, which would, indeed, be highly expedient, if only some particular clauses were exceptionable; but, my lords, the intention of the bill is cruel and oppressive; the measures by which that intention is promoted are contrary to law, and without precedent; and the original principle is false, as it supposes a criminal previous to the crime.

It is urged as the most pressing argument by the advocates for the bill, that it ought to be passed to gratify the people. I know not, my lords, upon what principles those who plead so earnestly for rigid justice, can endeavour to influence our decisions by any other motives; or why they think it more equitable to sacrifice any man to the resentment of the people, than to the malice of any single person; nor can conceive why it should be thought less criminal to sell our voices for popularity than for preferment.

As this is, therefore, my lords, a bill contrary to all former laws, and inconsistent with itself; as it only tends to produce a bad end by bad means, and violates the constitution not to relieve, but to oppress; as the parts, singly considered, are defective, and the whole grounded upon a false principle; it neither requires any longer debate, nor deserves any farther consideration; it is rather to be detested than criticised, and to be rejected without any superfluous attempt for its amendment.

[The aforementioned lords were all who spoke in this debate. The question being then put, Whether the bill should be committed? It passed in the negative.

Content 47, Proxies 10.—57. Not content 92, Proxies 17.—109.

But a protest was entered on this occasion, signed by twenty-eight lords; the former part of it was drawn from the speech of the duke of ARGYLE, and the latter part of it from that of lord CARTERET.]