We shall, my lords, if we add our sanction to this bill, discover when any man’s accusation is prompted by his interest, as we might know whether it was dictated by his malice.

It has been asked also, how any man can ascertain his claim to the indemnity?  To which it may be easily replied, that by giving his evidence he acquires a right, till that evidence shall be proved to be false.

The noble lord who spoke some time ago, and whose abilities and qualities are such, that I cannot but esteem and admire him, even when conviction obliges me to oppose him, has proposed a case in which he seems to imagine that a murderer might secure himself from punishment, by connecting his crime with some transaction in which the earl of ORFORD should be interested.  This case, my lords, is sufficiently improbable, nor is it easy to mention any method of trial in which some inconvenience may not be produced, in the indefinite complications of circumstances, and unforeseen relations of events.  It is known to have happened once, and cannot be known not to have happened often, that a person accused of murder, was tried by a jury of which the real murderer was one.  Will not this then be an argument against the great privilege of the natives of this empire, a trial by their equals?

But, my lords, I am of opinion that the murderer would not be indemnified by this bill, since he did not commit the crime by the direction of the person whom he is supposed to accuse; nor would it have any necessary connexion with his conduct, but might be suppressed in the accusation, without any diminution of the force of the evidence.  A man will not be suffered to introduce his accusation with an account of all the villanies of his whole life, but will be required to confine his testimony to the affair upon which he is examined.

The committee, my lords, will distinguish between the crimes perpetrated by the direction of the earl of ORFORD, and those of another kind.  And should an enormous criminal give such evidence, as the noble lord was pleased to suppose, he may be indemnified for the bribery, but will be hanged for the murder, notwithstanding any thing in this bill to the contrary.

It has been insisted on by the noble lords, who have spoke against the bill, that no crime is proved, and, therefore, there is no foundation for it.  But, my lords, I have always thought that the profusion of the publick money was a crime, and there is evidently a very large sum expended, of which no account has been given; and, what more nearly relates to the present question, of which no account has ever been demanded.

On this occasion, my lords, an assertion has been alleged, which no personal regard shall ever prevail upon me to hear without disputing it, since I think it is of the most dangerous tendency, and unsupported by reason or by law.  It is alleged, my lords, that the civil list is not to be considered as publick money, and that the nation has, therefore, no claim to inquire how it is distributed; that it is given to support the dignity of the crown, and that only his majesty can ask the reason of any failures in the accounts of it.