The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1820-07-15 00:00:00

bat wonlol it not look like hypocrisy ? " We would
give yop the indulgence yqu seek,- bat we sae tied
down-the. precedent will be injurious. Alas ! it is
great hardship upon you, but we most not consider
you alone ; if we deviated in your case, we should
establish a precedent for all." When they talked
' in this manner of the danger and the evil of prece-
' dents, what must be thought of their own coma in
the Bill now on their table)? Did not their proceeding
confound all the ordinary practiersofjoirispruilence ?
Heathen could they turn round upon the accused,
and make the shiftiest allasioil to adherence to
title? Of what role did the Noble Lards talk ? by
what title were they hound ? If they leavithe rule,
let it hear the trot iii capitation—let it' have sense
oust reason with it, and conneziun with the priori-
odes of justice. It was wisely said, he believed by
Lord liacosi—(the Wisdom of the saying at least
induced him to attribute it to that great men)—
" That the rules and forrus of law were like the
rhind sod bark of a tree, which though not a part
of it, or of the same substance, yet nourished :nod
protected it from the ,weather.' Where were then
Mae rules and forms ? He might be told that their
priweeding was founded on the necessity of the case
—(Hear)—and superseded all forms. Let that be
fairly admitted, and let them hear no more of forms
and principles, when both alike were banished from
their consideration. With respect to what bad fallen
from the Noble and Learned Lord, out the subject
of any grumbling abont j„he statute for high treason
ordering a lilt of witnesses, he (Lord H.) could
not, much as he revered the Whig.. and strong as
was his bias in their favour, give him the credit of
Use enactment. It was in fact a Tory Act; what-
ever other faults or political sins the Tories had to
answer for, they were free from that. There were
gloomy curious circumstances connected with the
history of that Act. It had early passed the House
of Commons, but was rejected, by.the Lord.; they
rejected it for two reasons—one was because it had a
clause for trying Peers by a Commission nut of
their House, instead of by themselves is it.
It was remarkable that this Act, which gave an in-
sliviolual charged with high treason a right to de-
strand a list of the witness. 4• against him, expressly
excepted Pediment itself from being entitled to
make this demand in cases of impeachment. The
AVAJI.4II why it was grauted to 14 person accused of
high treason was, that the law, with its usual ten-
alerness for the liberty of the subject, considered
that all the influence and, authority of power was
arrayed in prarcutimis for that crime, and that,
therefore, it was necessary to arm the sultject
with a tenfold shield for hi. protection. The
very saute principle of protecting the week
against the strong, governed the resson why the
vaine power of denian4g a list of witnesses
was not given in C:411411 of inoperwhasetit ; for there,
as the object of prosecution was supposed to
lie fenced Bound by the armour of power, lie was
slivested of that shield which the law with so much
considerate propriety reserved for the uoequal corn-
'bat of the strong with the powerless, The Noble
I,onl then proceeded with great force to urge the m -
E...pity of their Lordshipsidopting this motion. They
should remember that they were now sitting oft an
extrisorolinery and anomalous case of criminal equity.
The Noble Earl said. that in the case of high
treason alone, a list of witnesses was conceded ;
was this so, in fact ? In Scotland, if lie was rightly
iooformed, the practice was general ; it was so also
in England, by endorsing bills of indictments ; it
was so, -if not de jare, at least de facto. Was
there one case in one thousand, nay. in ten thou-
sand, where the party was brought to trial without
having had. in one way or another, that infor-
mation which is now denied the illostrioa pr 41014.
age who is the object of their investigation ? 11' hen
the Noble and Learned Lord said he would cast
aside all precedents before the Revolution, he said
Right, for site precedents of bed times and
ambitious men were little calculated in cooler times
lo invite imitators. But he would ask that Noble
Lord, to show him, since the year 1688, two cases
in the pa. hamentery history of England (nut to
say of Ireland), where the precedent of one was
considered the guide of the other. lie conjured
their Lordships, as they valued the dignity and im-
partiality of their proceedings—as they tuteixted them
to infliterice and be felt by the public, to admit the
present rrquest,which was so well calculated to secure
fur their decision confidence and public acquiescence.
There was, he said, reason to think, that in the
case of the impeachment of the Earl of Bristol,
• King Charles the First, then Prince of Wales, was
.;. in leave with the Duke of Buckingham. For
James then said, .4 Sternly (his familiar appellation
of the Duke), you are preparing a rod for your own
back ; and you, Charles (to his son), will live to
• repent sanctioning such a measure."—Bills of Pains
and Penalties proceeded frequrntly on the ground
of the necessity of dispatch, and still oftener be-
! cause the parties left the kingdom ; but this pro-
ceeding was instituted because her Majesty had
not left the kingdom. In conclusion, the Noble
Lord begged their Lordships to recollect, that ibis
was an 141104411111111111 paceetlisog, and that, therefore,
they ought not to bind themselves down by strict
Precedeid, hut at every step of the business to act
accordion( to the reason and justice of the case.
Lor.f ELLENBOROUGH wed. he could not con-
nive that their Lordships ought to proceed with-
nut the light of precedent to guide them. Ile
would grant that Bills hf Pains and Prattles were
not ordinary modes of proceeding, but hr must deny
that there were not precedents fur that mode. He
was willing to grant to her Majesty every facility.
:,vrery nilvhsitage that could be granted 10 ally oilier
-soi'opr i ; but her Majesty asked for more thou that.
‘llll.i 11:11re he was not wilting to grant. . lie would
not grain what was contrary to the practice of Par.
liimenr.....contrary to the principle a the.cusamois
la re —sod was sucked only morel ird, us to cases
of high tree by that Act of Parliement which
1144.h-emi so frequently alluded to that evening.,
ttrolfeseed that he could not in this cpse
tlnnL whm, ;11(mItt induce the Howie. to violate
torn. tw.liieriry mode of proceeding, and he conceit,-
Col it oas toispowsible to loose takes) nny,.course more..,
faVuarahte tai her Mejesty thou the owe *lnch had•
been eiblitrit. limit their L,ordahips viet* AoI tar'
couintei *fiat course would vise fivourattfre
'tV tier'
Alaje.ty, or what Petite Crownl butcher were
endeavour to discover the must 'effectaal swat ;here;
vote} to jonoter..—/NAM, hats hetir's/r'lk wof 1!!l
groinnis that he would give 'hileiroliv, 39 tilr
ci aim. Itir Noble Lord.' Ha could not coosidee
0, it t et Alajestj'a demand of aisigiediattly proceeds