Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/297

 252

but he had managed to evade arrest, and in concealment his fertile brain conceived a plan to escape the fate of his friends. Tsvo witnessess were necessary to convict him. It had already appeared at the trial of his accomplices that there were in fact only two persons, Porter and Goodman, who could prove his guilt. Fenwick was safe, therefore, if he could put either of these men out of the way. He first attempted to per suade Porter to abscond, but was unsuccess ful. Porter and Goodman appeared against him before the grand jury, and he was in dicted for high treason. After an unsuccess ful attempt to escape to France, Fenwick was safely lodged in the Tower. Cunningly inducing delay by meaningless confessions, he managed to communicate with his friends, vho now exerted every nerve to get Good man out of the way. The latter was finally cornered by Fenwick 's desperate emissaries, and offered the choice between absconding and receiving an annuity of £500, or having his throat cut on the spot. He was not long in deciding, and was promptly escorted to France. When, therefore, the government was ready to proceed with Fenwick's trial, they discovered to their consternation that it was too late. But the government was determined that Fenwick should not escape the consequences of his great crime merely because he had added to it the offense of bribing witnesses to suppress the evidence of his guilt. It was decided to proceed against him by an act of attainder. On the hearing on this bill, which lasted three days. Fen wick was represented by counsel. Porter testified to the treasonable conspiracy. By testimony which would have been inadmissi ble in a court of law, the plan and purpose of Goodman's disappearance were made plain. Goodman's sworn confession was put in evi dence. Some of the grani jurymen who had found the indictment against Fenwick testi fied to Goodman's statement before them, and their testimony was supported by the

evidence of jurymen who had convicted an other conspirator. This was the case before the House. The long debate that followed was one of the ablest discussions to be found in Parliamentary records. Every man of note took part, but the brunt of the argu ment was sustained by Cowper and Mon tague for the Whigs, and by Harcourt and Seymour among the Tories. The two-wit ness rule in treason cases was elaborately discussed. The Tory orators claimed for it an eternal obligation; it was part of the law of nature and of God. "Caiaphas and his Sanhedrim were ready enough to set up the plea of expediency for a violation of justice; they said—and we have heard such things said—'We must slay this man, or the Ro mans will come and take away our place and nation.' Yet even Caiaphas and his San hedrim, in that foulest act of judicial murder, did not venture to set?side the sacred law which required two witnesses.'' "An eter nal law!" replied Montague. "Where was this eternal law before the reign of Edward the Sixth? Where is it now, except in statutes which relate only to one very small class of offenses? If these texts from the Pentateuch and these precedents from the practice of the Sanhedrim prove anything, they prove the whole criminal jurisprudence or the realm to be a mass of injustice and impiety. One witness is sufficient to convict a murderer, a burglar, a highwayman, an incendiary, a ravisher. Nay, there are cases of high treason in which only one witness is required. One witness can send to Tyburn a gang of clippers and coiners. Are you, then, prepared to say that the whole law of evidence, according to which men have dur ing ages been tried in this country for of fences against life and property, is vicious and ought to be remodelled? If you shrink from saying this, you must admit that we are now proposing to dispense, not with a divine ordinance of universal and perpetual obli gation, but simply with an English rule of