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?