The arguments of the noble duke are such as, in my opinion, cannot be answered, or heard impartially without conviction. The maxims quoted by him are each of them incontestably true; they are, on this occasion, incompatible; and this is the only method by which they can be reconciled. Nor has he only shown the propriety of the bill by irrefragable reasons, but has proved, likewise, that it is consistent, not only with the constitution of our government, but with the practice of our ancestors; he has shown, that it may be supported not only by reason, but by bills of the same kind, enacted on occasions of far less importance. He has proved, my lords, all that the most scrupulous inquirer can wish; he has made it evident, that the bill would be proper, though it were unprecedented; he has produced many precedents in support of it, and has thereby evinced, that the only present question is, whether it is just? To the precedents alleged by him, it has been objected, that they differ in some particulars. But when, my lords, did any two actions, however common, agree in every circumstance? Relations may be complicated without end, and every new complication produces new appearances, which, however, are always to be disregarded, while the constituent principles remain unvaried. If we consider the difficulties in which the opponents of the bill have involved themselves, it will not be easy to think well of a cause, which gives birth to such wild assertions, and extravagant opinions. They have first, by requiring precedents, determined, that our constitution must be henceforward for ever at a stand; and then, by declaring that no precedents are of any weight, in which every circumstance is not parallel to the case in debate, have debarred us from the repetition of any occasional law; they have declared, almost in plain terms, themselves useless, and destroyed that authority at once, which they seem so much afraid of communicating to the commons. But, by none of their arts of subtle distinction, my lords, have they been able to evade the argument which arises from the conformity of this bill to the common practice of our courts; an argument, which has produced no other answer than loud declamations; against the indecency of comparing with pickpockets and highwaymen, a noble person, a minister of acknowledged merit, long graced with the favour of his sovereign, and long invested with the highest trust.