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