They contended, that it was insufficient, defective, and contradictory; that it was _ex parte_ evidence; that it had been manufactured by ministers; that it was founded chiefly on hearsay, and that the greatest part of it was false; that it had undergone no cross-examination; that it was unconstitutional; and that, if they admitted it, they would establish a dangerous precedent, and abandon their rights.

It was urged on the other hand by Mr.Courtenay, that it could not be _ex parte_ evidence, because it contained testimony on both sides of the question.

The circumstance also of its being contradictory, which had been alleged against it, proved that it was the result of an impartial examination.

Mr.Fox observed, that it was perfectly admissible.
He called upon those, who took the other side of the question, to say why, if it was really inadmissible, they had not opposed it at first.

It had now been a long time on the table, and no fault had been found with it.
The truth was, it did not suit them, and they were determined by a side-wind as it were to put an end to the inquiry.