It appears, my lords, evident to me, that every man has a right to be tried by the known laws of his country; that no man can be justly punished by a law made after the commission of a fact, because he then suffers by a law, against which he never transgressed; nor is any man to be prosecuted by methods invented only to facilitate his condemnation, because he ought to be acquitted, however guilty he may be supposed, whom the established rules of justice cannot convict. The law, my lords, is the measure of political, as conscience of moral right; and he that breaks no law, may indeed be criminal, but is not punishable. The law likewise prescribes the method of prosecuting guilt; and as we, by omitting any crime in our laws, disable ourselves from punishing it, however publick or flagrant, so by regulating the process in our courts of justice, we give security to that guilt, which by that process cannot be detected.

The truth of this assertion, my lords, however paradoxical it may perhaps appear, will become evident, if we suppose a man brought to the bar whose guilt was unquestionable, though it could not be legally proved, because all those were dead who might have appeared against him. It is certain that his good fortune would give him no claim to pardon, and yet he could not be convicted, unless we suppose him weak enough to accuse himself. In this case, my lords, it is not impossible, that some might be prompted by their zeal to propose, that the foreign methods of justice might be introduced, and the rack employed to extort, from his own mouth, a confession of those crimes of which every one believed him guilty.

With what horrour, my lords, such a proposal would be heard, how loudly it would be censured, and how universally rejected, I need not say; but must observe, that, in my opinion, the detestation would arise principally from a sense of the injustice of exposing any man to peculiar hardships, and distinguishing him to his disadvantage from the rest of the community.

It will, my lords, not be easy to prove, that it is less agreeable to justice to oblige a man to accuse himself, than to make use of extraordinary methods of procuring evidence against him; because the barriers of security which the law has fixed are equally broken in either case, and the accused is exposed to dangers, from which he had reason to believe himself sheltered by the constitution of his country.

This argument, my lords, I have mentioned, without endeavouring to evince the innocence of the person whom this bill immediately regards; because the intent of it is to show, that no man is to be deprived of the common benefits of the constitution, and that the guilty have a right to all the advantages which the law allows them. For guilt is never to be supposed till it is proved, and it is therefore never to be proved by new methods, merely because it is supposed.

That the method of procuring evidence now proposed, is new, my lords, I think it no temerity to conclude; because the noble lords who have endeavoured to defend it, have produced no instance of a parallel practice, and their knowledge and acuteness is such, that they can only have failed to discover them, because they are indeed nowhere to be found.

In the case of bribery, my lords, the person accused has the privilege, if he be innocent, of prosecuting his accuser for perjury, and is therefore in less danger of being harassed by a false indictment. But, my lords, this is not the only difference between the two cases; for he that discovers a bribe received by himself, has no motives of interest to prompt his evidence; he is only secured from suffering by his own discovery, and might have been equally safe by silence and secrecy; since the law supposes the crime out of the reach of detection, otherwise than by the confession of the criminal.

But far different, my lords, are the circumstances of those who are now invited to throng the courts of justice, and stun us with depositions and discoveries. They are men supposed criminal by the indemnity which is offered them; and by the nature of their crimes it is made at least probable, that they are in daily hazard of discovery and punishment; from which they are summoned to set themselves free for ever, by accusing a man of whom it has not been yet proved that he can legally be called to a trial.

Thus, my lords, in the law which the noble duke has mentioned as a precedent for this bill, the accuser is only placed in a kind of equilibrium, equally secure from punishment, by silence or by information, in hope that the love of truth and justice will turn the balance; in the bill now before us the witness is in continual danger by withholding his evidence, and is restored to perfect safety by becoming an accuser, and from making discoveries, whether true or false, has every thing to hope and nothing to fear.

The necessity of punishing wickedness has been urged with great strength; it has been unanswerably shown, by the advocates for this bill, that vindictive justice is of the highest importance to the happiness of the publick, and that those who may be injured with impunity, are, in reality, denied the benefits of society, and can be said to live in the state of uncivilized nature, in which the strong must prey upon the weak.

This, my lords, has been urged with all the appearance of conviction and sincerity, and yet has been urged by those who are providing a shelter for the most enormous villanies, and enabling men who have violated every precept of law and virtue, to bid defiance to justice, and to sit at ease in the enjoyment of their acquisitions.

And what, my lords, is the condition, upon which wickedness is to be set free from terrour, upon which national justice is to be disarmed, and the betrayers of publick counsels, or the plunderers of publick treasure, qualified for new trusts, and set on a level with untainted fidelity? A condition, my lords, which wretches like these will very readily accept, the easy terms of information and of perjury. They are required only to give evidence against a man marked out for destruction, and the guilt of partaking in his crimes is to be effaced by the merit of concurring in his ruin.

It has, indeed, been a method of detection, frequently employed against housebreakers and highwaymen, to proclaim a pardon for him that shall convict his accomplices; but surely, my lords, this practice will not, in the present question, be mentioned as a precedent. Surely it will not be thought equitable to level with felons, and with thieves, a person distinguished by his rank, his employments, his abilities, and his services; a person, whose loyalty to his sovereign has never been called in question, and whose fidelity to his country has at least never been disproved.

These are measures, my lords, which I hope your lordships will never concur to promote; measures not supported either by law or justice, or enforced by any exigence of affairs, but dictated by persecution, malice, and revenge; measures by which the guilty and the innocent may be destroyed with equal facility, and which must, therefore, tend to encourage wickedness as they destroy the security of virtue.

Lord CARTERET then rose, and spoke to the following effect:—My lords, I have so long honoured the abilities, and so often concurred with the opinion of the noble lord who began the debate, that I cannot, without unusual concern, rise up now to speak in opposition to him; nor could any other principle support me under the apparent disadvantage of a contest so unequal, but the consciousness of upright intentions, and the concurrence of the whole nation.

I cannot but consider myself, on this occasion, my lords, as the advocate of the people of Britain, who, after continued oppressions, losses, and indignities, after having been plundered and ridiculed, harassed and insulted for complaining, have at length flattered themselves that they should have an opportunity of appealing to our bar for justice, and of securing themselves from future injuries, by the punishment of those that had so long triumphed in their guilt, proclaimed their defiance of justice, and declared that the laws were made only for their security.

The expectations of the people have been frustrated by the unexpected obstinacy of the agents of wickedness, by a plea that was never made use of for the same purpose before, against which the known laws of the nation have provided no remedy, and which your lordships are, therefore, now called upon to overthrow.

That the nation calls loudly for an inquiry, that the misapplication of the publick treasure is universally suspected, and that the person mentioned in the bill is believed to be the chief author of that misapplication; that at least those who have squandered it, have acted by his authority, and been admitted to trust by his recommendation, and that he is, therefore, accountable to the publick for their conduct, I shall suppose, cannot be denied.

The nation, my lords, has a right to be gratified in their demands of an inquiry, whatever be the foundation of their suspicions; since it is manifest that it can produce no other effects than those of giving new lustre to innocence, and quieting the clamours of the people, if it should be found that the government has been administered with honesty and ability; and it is not less evident that, if the general opinion is well grounded, if our interest has been betrayed, and that money employed only to corrupt the nation which was raised for the defence of it, the severest punishment ought to be inflicted, that all future ministers may be deterred from the same crimes by exemplary vengeance.

Thus, my lords, an inquiry appears, upon every supposition, useful and necessary; but I cannot comprehend how it can be prosecuted by any other method, than that of proposing an indemnity to those who shall make discoveries. Every wicked measure, my lords, must involve in guilt all who are engaged in it; and how easily it may be concealed from every other person, may be shown by an example of a crime, which no man will deny to have sometimes existed, and which, in the opinion of most, is not very uncommon in this age.

It will be allowed, at least, that on some occasions, when a favourite begins to totter, when strong objections are raised against the continuance of a standing army, when a convention requires the ratification of the legislature, or some fatal address is proposed to be presented to the crown, a pecuniary reward may sometimes be offered, and though that, indeed, be a supposition more difficult to be admitted, sometimes, however rarely, accepted.

In this case, my lords, none but he that gives, and he that receives the bribe can be conscious of it; at most, we can only suppose an intervening agent to have any knowledge of it; and if even he is admitted to the secret, so as to be able to make a legal discovery, there must be some defect of cunning in the principals. Let us consider from which of these any discovery can be probably expected, or what reason can be alleged, for which either should expose himself to punishment for the sake of ruining his associates.

It is, therefore, my lords, plain, from this instance, that without the confession of some guilty person, no discovery can be made of those crimes which are most detrimental to our happiness, and most dangerous to our liberties. It is apparent that no man will discover his own guilt; while there remains any danger of suffering by his confession, it is certain that such crimes will be committed, if they are not discouraged by the fear of punishment, and it cannot, therefore, be denied that a proclamation of indemnity is necessary to their detection.

This, my lords, is not, as it has been alleged, a method unknown to our constitution, as every man that reads the common papers will easily discover. I doubt if there has been, for many years, a single month in which some reward, as well as indemnity, has not been promised to any man, who, having been engaged in a robbery, would discover his confederates; and surely a method that is daily practised for the security of private property, may be very rationally and justly adopted by the legislature for the preservation of the happiness and the property of the publick.

The punishment of wickedness, my lords, is undoubtedly one of the essential parts of good government, and, in reality, the chief purpose for which society is instituted; for how will that society in which any individual may be plundered, enslaved, and murdered, without redress and without punishment, differ from the state of corrupt nature, in which the strongest must be absolute, and right and power always the same?

That constitution, therefore, which has not provided for the punishment, and previously for the discovery of guilt, is so far in a state of imperfection, and requires to be strengthened by new provisions. This, my lords, is far from being our state, for we have in our hands a method of detecting the most powerful criminals, a method in itself agreeable to reason, recommended by the practice of our predecessors, and now approved, once more, by the sanction of one of the branches of the legislature.

The objections which have, on this occasion, been made against it, are such as no law can escape, and which, therefore, can have no weight; and it is no small confirmation of the expediency of it, that they by whom it has been opposed have not been able to attack it with stronger reasons, from which, if we consider their abilities, we shall be convinced, that nothing has secured it but the power of truth.

It is inquired, by the noble lord, how we shall distinguish true from false evidence; to which it may be very readily answered, that we shall distinguish them by the same means as on any other occasion, by comparing the allegations, and considering how every witness agrees with others and with himself, how far his assertions are in themselves probable, how they are confirmed or weakened by known circumstances, and how far they are invalidated by the contrary evidence.

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.

I have, on the contrary, my lords, hitherto understood, that all was publick money which was given by the publick. The present condition of the crown is very different from that of our ancient monarchs, who supported their dignity by their own estates. I admit, my lords, that they might at pleasure contract or enlarge their expenses, mortgage or alienate their lands, or bestow presents and pensions without control.

It is, indeed, expressed in the act, that the grants of the civil list are without account, by which I have hitherto understood only that the sum total is exempt from account; not that the ministers have a right to employ the civil list to such purposes as they shall think most conducive to their private views. For if it should be granted, not only that the nation has no right to know how the whole is expended, which is the utmost that can be allowed, or to direct the application of any part of it, which is very disputable, yet it certainly has a claim to direct in what manner it shall not be applied, and to provide that boroughs are not corrupted under pretence of promoting the dignity of the crown.

The corruption of boroughs, my lords, is one of the greatest crimes of which any man under our constitution is capable; it is to corrupt, at once, the fountain and the stream of government, to poison the whole nation at once, and to make the people wicked, that they may infect the house of commons with wicked representatives.