Sir J.Powis and sir Bartholomew Shower, the prisoner's counsel, warmly opposed this proposal; they affirmed that a deposition taken when the party affected by it was not present to cross-examine the deposer, could not be admitted in a case of five shillings value; that though the house was not bound by the rules of inferior courts, it was nevertheless bound by the eternal and unalterable rules of justice; that no evidence, according to the rules of law, could be admitted in such a case but that of living witnesses; and that the examination of a person who is absent was never read to supply his testimony.

The dispute between the lawyers on this subject gave rise to a very violent debate among the members of the house.

Sir Edward Seymour, sir Richard Temple, Mr.Harley, Mr.Harcourt, Mr.Manly, sir Christopher Musgrave, and all the leaders of the tory party, argued against the hardship and injustice of admitting this information as an evidence.

They demonstrated that it would be a step contrary to the practice of all courts of judicature, repugnant to the common notions of justice and humanity, diametrically opposite to the last act for regulating trials in cases of high treason, and of dangerous consequences to the lives and liberties of the people.
On the other hand, lord Cutts, sir Thomas Lyttleton, Mr.Montague, Mr.
Smith of the treasury, and Trevor the attorney-general, affirmed that the house was not bound by any form of law whatsoever; that this was an extraordinary case in which the safety of the government was deeply concerned; that though the common law might require two evidences in cases of treason, the house had a power of deviating from those rules in extraordinary cases; that there was no reason to doubt of sir John Fenwick's being concerned in the conspiracy; that he or his friends had tampered with Porter; and that there were strong presumptions to believe the same practices had induced Goodman to abscond.

In a word, the tories, either from party or patriotism, strenuously asserted the cause of liberty and humanity by those very arguments which had been used against them in the former reigns; while the wings, with equal violence and more success, espoused the dictates of arbitrary power and oppression, in the face of their former principles, with which they were now upbraided.