Let us therefore reflect upon the possibility of a parliament debauched by the arts of corruption into servile compliance with the designs of an arbitrary prince, and tremble for the consequence.

The debate being finished, the prisoner was, at the desire of admiral Russel, questioned with regard to the imputations he had fixed upon that gentleman and others from hearsay; but he desired to be excused on account of the risk he ran while under a double prosecution, if any thing which should escape him might be turned to his prejudice.
After he was removed from the bar, Mr.Vernon, at the desire of the house, recapitulated the arts and practices of sir John Fenwick and his friends to procrastinate the trial.

The bill was read a second time; and the speaker asking, If the question should be put for its being committed?
the house was immediately kindled into a new flame of contention.

Hawles, the solicitor-general, affirmed that the house in the present case should act both as judge and jury.

Mr.Harcourt said he knew of no trial for treason but what was confirmed by _Magna Charta_, by a jury, the birthright and darling privilege of an Englishman, or _per legem terrae_, which includes impeachments in parliament; that it was a strange trial where the person accused had a chance to be hanged, but none to be saved; that he never heard of a juryman who was not on his oath, nor of a judge who had not power to examine witnesses upon oath, and who was not empowered to save the innocent as well as to condemn the guilty.