Whoever attentively and impartially studies the report of the debates will be of opinion that, on many points which were discussed at great length and with great animation, the Whigs had a decided superiority in argument, but that on the main question the Tories were in the right.

It was true that the crime of high treason was brought home to Fenwick by proofs which could leave no doubt on the mind of any man of common sense, and would have been brought home to him according to the strict rules of law, if he had not, by committing another crime, eluded the justice of the ordinary tribunals.  It was true that he had, in the very act of professing repentance and imploring mercy, added a new offence to his former offences, that, while pretending to make a perfectly ingenuous confession, he had, with cunning malice, concealed every thing which it was for the interest of the government that he should divulge, and proclaimed every thing which it was for the interest of the government to bury in silence.  It was a great evil that he should be beyond the reach of punishment; it was plain that he could be reached only by a bill of pains and penalties; and it could not be denied, either that many such bills had passed, or that no such bill had ever passed in a clearer case of guilt or after a fairer hearing.

All these propositions the Whigs seem to have fully established.  They had also a decided advantage in the dispute about the rule which requires two witnesses in cases of high treason.  The truth is that the rule is absurd.  It is impossible to understand why the evidence which would be sufficient to prove that a man has fired at one of his fellow subjects should not be sufficient to prove that he has fired at his Sovereign.  It can by no means be laid down as a general maxim that the assertion of two witnesses is more convincing to the mind than the assertion of one witness.  The story told by one witness may be in itself probable.  The story told by two witnesses may be extravagant.  The story told by one witness may be uncontradicted.  The story told by two witnesses may be contradicted by four witnesses.  The story told by one witness may be corroborated by a crowd of circumstances.  The story told by two witnesses may have no such corroboration.  The one witness may be Tillotson or Ken.  The two witnesses may be Oates and Bedloe.

The chiefs of the Tory party, however, vehemently maintained that the law which required two witnesses was of universal and eternal obligation, part of the law of nature, part of the law of God.  Seymour quoted the book of Numbers and the book of Deuteronomy to prove that no man ought to be condemned to death by the mouth of a single witness.  “Caiaphas and his Sanhedrim,” said Harley, “were ready enough to set up the plea of expediency for a violation of justice; they said,—­and we have heard such things said,—­’We must slay this man, or the Romans will come and take away our place and nation.’  Yet even Caiaphas