His lordship also proved, that we cannot pass this bill without diminishing our right, bestowing new powers upon the commons, confirming some of their claims which are most dubious, nor, by consequence, without violating the constitution. To all these arguments, arguments drawn from the most important considerations, enforced by the strongest reasoning, and explained with the utmost perspicuity, what has been replied? How have any of his assertions been invalidated, or any of his reasons eluded? How has it been shown that there is any foundation for a criminal charge, that witnesses thus procured ought to be heard, or that our rights would not be made disputable by confirming the proceedings of the commons? It has been answered by a noble lord, that though there is not _corpus delicti_, there is _corpus suspicionis_. What may be the force of this argument, I cannot say, because I am not ashamed to own, that I do not understand the meaning of the words. I very well understand what is meant by _corpus delicti,_ and so does every other lord; it is universally known to mean the _body of an offence;_ but as to the words _corpus suspicionis,_ I do not comprehend what they mean: it is an expression, indeed, which I never before heard, and can signify, in my apprehension, nothing more than the _body of a shadow,_ the substance of something which is itself nothing. Such, my lords, is the principle of this bill, by the confession of its warmest and ablest advocates; it is a bill for summoning a person to a trial, against whom no crime is alleged, and against whom no witness will appear without a bribe. For that those who should appear in consequence of this bill to offer their evidence, ought to be considered as bribed, will, surely, need no proof to those who consider, that bribes are not confined to money, and that every man who promotes his own interest by his deposition, is swearing, not for truth and justice, but for himself. It may be urged, and it is, in my opinion, all that the most fruitful imagination can suggest in favour of this bill, that they are not required to accuse the earl of ORFORD, but to give in their evidence concerning his conduct, whether in his favour, or against him. But this argument, my lords, however specious it may seem, will vanish of itself, if the bill be diligently considered, which is only to confer indemnity on those, who in the course of their evidence shall discover any of their own crimes; on those whose testimony shall tend to fix some charge of wickedness on the earl of ORFORD; for it cannot easily be imagined how those who appear in his favour, should be under a necessity of revealing any actions that require an indemnity.