But, my lords, none of these circumstances can be now alleged; for there
is no certainty of any crime committed, nor any appearance of
consciousness or fear in the person accused, who sets his enemies at
defiance in full security, and declines no legal trial of his past
actions; of which it ought to be observed, that they have, by the nature
of his employments, been so publick, that they may easily be examined
without recourse to a new law to facilitate discoveries.

The bill, therefore, is, my lords, at least unnecessary, and an
innovation not necessary ought always to be rejected, because no man can
foresee all the consequences of new measures, or can know what evils
they may create, or what subsequent changes they may introduce. The
alteration of one part of a system naturally requires the alteration of
another.

But, my lords, that there is no necessity for this law now proposed, is
not the strongest argument that may be brought against it, for there is
in reality a necessity that it should be rejected. Justice and humanity
are necessarily to be supported, without which no society can subsist,
nor the life or property of any man be enjoyed with security: and
neither justice nor humanity can truly be said to reside, where a law
like this has met with approbation.

My lords, to prosecute any man by such methods, is to overbear him by
the violence of power, to take from him all the securities of innocence,
and divest him of all the means of self-defence. It is to hire against
him those whose testimonies ought not to be admitted, if they were
voluntarily produced, and of which, surely, nothing will be farther
necessary to annihilate the validity, than to observe that they are the