Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 603.0

529US2

Unit: $U52

[09-26-01 10:36:40] PAGES PGT: OPIN

528

CARMELL v. TEXAS

Opinion of the Court

180, 194. Though his contrived ploy for leniency was un-
successful in that respect, it proved successful in another:
during the delay, Fenwick’s wife had succeeded in bribing
Goodman, the other witness against him, to leave the coun-
try.

Id., at 194–195.16

Without a second witness, Fenwick could not be con-
victed of high treason under the statute mentioned earlier.
For all his plotting, however, Fenwick was not to escape.
After Goodman’s absence was discovered, the House of
Commons met and introduced a bill of attainder against
Fenwick to correct the situation produced by the combi-
nation of bribery and the two-witness law.
Id., at 198–199.
A lengthy debate ensued, during which the Members repeat-
edly discussed whether the two-witness rule should apply.17
Ultimately, the bill passed by a close vote of 189 to 156,
id., at 210, notwithstanding the objections of Members who
(foreshadowing Calder’s fourth category) complained that
Fenwick was being attainted “upon less Evidence” than

16 This time, Fenwick’s wife handled the bribe with a deftness lacking
in the ﬁrst attempt. Not only was Goodman (popularly called “Scum
Goodman,” see 9 Macaulay 32) an easier target, but Lady Fenwick’s agent
gave Goodman an offer he couldn’t refuse: abscond and be rewarded, or
Id., at 195. Goodman’s instinct for self-
have his throat cut on the spot.
preservation prevailed, and the agent never parted company with him
until they both safely reached France.

Ibid.

17 See, e. g., The Proceedings Against Sir John Fenwick Upon a Bill
of Attainder for High Treason 40 (1702) (hereinafter Proceedings) (“ ’Tis
Extraordinary that you bring Sir John Fenwick, here to Answer for Trea-
son, when . . . you have but one Witness to that Treason . . . . Treason
be not Treason unless it be proved by two Witnesses . . .”); id., at 103
(“It hath been objected, That there ought to be two Witnesses, by the
late Statute”); id., at 227 (“I do take it to be part of the Law of the Land,
That no Man should be condemned for Treason without two Witnesses”);
id., at 256–257 (“[I]f we sit here to Judge, we sit to Judge him according
to the Law of England . . . . Will you set up a Judgment . . . upon one
Witness, when the Law says you shall have two; and after all, say ’tis a
reasonable Proceeding?”).