therefore, be liable to more fallacies and evasions than can be
immediately enumerated or detected. For how can any one prove that he
has a claim to the indemnity? He may, indeed, make some discoveries, but
whether he does not conceal something, who can determine? May not such
reserves be suspected, when his answers shall not satisfy the
expectations of his interrogators? And may not that suspicion deprive
him of the benefit of the act? May not a man, from want of memory, or
presence of mind, omit something at his examination which he may appear
afterwards to have known? And since no human being has the power of
distinguishing exactly between faults and frailties, may not the defect
of his memory be charged on him as a criminal suppression of a known
fact? And may not he be left to suffer the consequences of his own
confession? Will not the bill give an apparent opportunity for
partiality? And will not life and death, liberty and imprisonment, be
placed in the hands of a committee of the commons? May they not be
easily satisfied with informations of one man, and incessantly press
another to farther discoveries? May they not call some men, notoriously
criminal, to examination, only to secure them from punishment, and set
them out of the reach of justice; and extort from others such answers as
may best promote their views, by declaring themselves unsatisfied with
the extent of their testimony? And will not this be an extortion of
evidence equivalent to the methods practised in the most despotick
governments, and the most barbarous nations?

It has always been the praise of this house to pay an equal regard to
justice and to mercy, and to follow, without partiality, the direction
of reason, and the light of truth; and how consistently with this
character, which it ought to be our highest ambition to maintain, we can
ratify the present bill, your lordships are this day to consider. It is
to be inquired, whether to suppose a man guilty, only because some guilt