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?