Sir Thomas Lyttleton was of opinion that the parliament ought not to stand upon little niceties and forms of other courts when the government was at stake.

Mr.Howe asserted that to do a thing of this nature, because the parliament had power to do it, was a strange way of reasoning; that what was justice and equity at Westminster-hall, was justice and equity every where; that one bad precedent in parliament was of worse consequence than an hundred in Westminster-hall, because personal or private injuries did not foreclose the claims of original right; whereas the parliament could ruin the nation beyond redemption, because it could establish tyranny by law.

Sir Richard Temple, in arguing against the bill, observed that the power of parliament is to make any law, but the jurisdiction of parliament is to govern itself by the law; to make a law, therefore, against all the laws in England was the _ultimum remedium et pessimum_, never to be used but in case of absolute necessity.

He affirmed that by this precedent the house overthrew all the laws of England; first, in condemning a man upon one witness; secondly, in passing an act without any trial.

The commons never did nor can assume a jurisdiction of trying any person: they may for their own information hear what can be offered; but it is not a trial where witnesses are not upon oath.