s never read to supply his testimony. The dispute
between the lawyers on this subject gave rise to a very violent debate
among the members of the house. Sir Edward Seymour, sir Richard Temple,
Mr. Harley, Mr. Harcourt, Mr. Manly, sir Christopher Musgrave, and all
the leaders of the tory party, argued against the hardship and injustice
of admitting this information as an evidence. They demonstrated that it
would be a step contrary to the practice of all courts of judicature,
repugnant to the common notions of justice and humanity, diametrically
opposite to the last act for regulating trials in cases of high treason,
and of dangerous consequences to the lives and liberties of the people.
On the other hand, lord Cutts, sir Thomas Lyttleton, Mr. Montague, Mr.
Smith of the treasury, and Trevor the attorney-general, affirmed that
the house was not bound by any form of law whatsoever; that this was
an extraordinary case in which the safety of the government was deeply
concerned; that though the common law might require two evidences in
cases of treason, the house had a power of deviating from those rules
in extraordinary cases; that there was no reason to doubt of sir John
Fenwick's being concerned in the conspiracy; that he or his friends had
tampered with Porter; and that there were strong presumptions to believe
the same practices had induced Goodman to abscond. In a word, the
tories, either from party or patriotism, strenuously asserted the cause
of liberty and humanity by those very arguments which had been used
against them in the former reigns; while the wings, with equal
violence and more success, espoused the dictates of arbitrary power and
oppression, in the face of their former principles, with which they
were now upbraided. At length the question was put, whether or not
the information of Goodman should be read? and was carried in the
affirmative by a majority of seventy-three voices. Then two of the grand
jury who had found the indictment, recited the evidence which had been
given to them by Porter and Goodman; lastly, the king's counsel insisted
upon producing the record of Cooke's conviction, as he had been tried
for the same conspiracy. The prisoner's counsel objected, that if such
evidence was admitted, the trial of one person in the same company would
be the trial of all; and it could not be expected that they who came to
defend sir John Fenwick only, should be prepared to answer the charge
against Cooke. This