The Sun.
London, England, 1820-09-08 00:00:00

THE QUEEN.

HOUSE OF LORDs-(THIS DAY.)

Prayers were read by the Bishop of BRISTOL.
The House was then called over, which began at
half past eleven, and ended at ten minutes to
twelve.
A Petition was presented by the Earl of
DERBY, relative to the poor rates in Manchester.
It prayed also for an alteration in the Corn
Laws ; it was referred to the Committee on Fo-
reign Trade.
The LORD CHANCELLOR called on her Ma-
jesty's Counsel to state how they intended to
proceed.
Mr. BROUGHAM expressed a wish to proceed
forthwith.

The Lonn CHANCELLOR.—DO you mean mere-
ly to state your case, or to proceed to the calli,,z;
of evidence after that.
Mr: BROUGHAM wished,to call evidence, but
some of his witnesses were not in the Country.
The Loan. CHANCELLOR observed, that some
of their Lordships could not attend any longer.
The Earl -of LAUDERDALE moved that Counsel
should withdraw. ,
Lord ERSKINE thought, that ,the request of
Counsel ought to be attended to, and that they
might he allowed to call or not such witnesses 'as
they might think best for the line of defence they
meant to adopt. In other Courts, the Counsel
had always a right to decide when they would
bring on a cause, but when the cause was once
begun, the defendant was bound then to pro-
ceed. This being the case, be humbly sub-
mitted, that their Lordships ought to allow the
Counsel to take their own course. If their
Lordships would reflect, they would see that sup-
posing the Queen's Counsel suspended the cross-
examination, it made no difference. The Learned
Counsel for the Queen wished to be heard, as
the whole evidence against the Queen had been
gone into, and was well known-in the world. It
would be utterly impossible to have the evidence
for her given now. If they intended now to pro-
ceed, why had the Solicitor been permitted to sum
up ? Were they therefore to adjourn for two months
and offer no answer to the Solicitor General, when

the Counsel ,for the accused now wished to be
heard in order to efface the impressions which
had been made ? lle contended that •no such
question should be put to the Counsel for the
Queen, as to whether he meant to call wit-
nesses or not. Was the evidence. to be al-
lowed to ,go out mutilated? Why was the
Court to have the evidence divided, into two
parts? Surely this could, not be for the
benefit of the accused. But on the other
hand if the evidence could receive no answer,
yet still he wished the refutation to go along
with the accusation. The Learned Counsel had
a right to call upon their Lordships to pause be-
fore an impression was made on their minds, and
it would' be improper for their. Lordships to say
that they would not hear him.
,
The Earl of LAUDERDALE stated, that the
question before their Lordships was, whether her
Majesty's Counsel should be allowed to open their
case. He contended, that if their Lordships
chose to adjourn at all they ought to do it,for even
with regard to the Queen, the adjournment was
in compliance with the wishes and interest of
her Majesty. He believed that no man in
that House, although he had formed an opinion,
did not wish to suspend giving that opinion
till the whole of the case was closed. Would
they then allow the arguments of Counsel to
stand for two months unsupported by facts,
and thus make them not only the Counsel,
but the sole witness for the Queen ? Suppose
the evidence did not support the Counsel's
speech, was the speech of the Learned Gen
tleman to be permitted to circulate ? The
obvious duty of their Lordships was to wait
to see whether the evidence applied directly
to the case. There never was such an adjourn-
ment beard of, much less had any one
been ever made to a Court. Besides, he
wanted to know how her Majesty's Counsel could
have mistaken the period for adjourning. Either
the Learned Counsel must have forgot the evi-
dence, or they wished by opening their case to
fish for evidence, and therefore prejudice the
public mind.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that he could
not agree to the proposal of his Noble and Learn-
ed Friend (Lord Erskine), but he concurred in
the opinion, that Counsel could not be called upon
to account as to their conduct in calling or not
calling witnesses. In opening their case, Coun-
sel were pledged to proceed in a certain course
in order to bring the matter to issue.
Earl GREY supported the proposal of Lord
Erskine.—[Left speaking.]

THEATRICAL REGISTER.
Performed Last Night.
THEATRE ROYAL, DRURY LANE.—Venice Preserved: JafEer,
Mr. Kean. After which, High Notions.
Tuaavaa ROYAL, HATAtAituET.-1)..g. Days in Bond-street.
After which, Bombastos Furioso. To 'Which was added,
Exit by Nlistalie.
Tr-maim Royal., F.Nctrsrt OrttnA Tionsm.—The Baron de
Trenck. After which, '1 he Vampire.

PRICE OF STOCKS
THIS DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK.

India Bonds
II Ex. Bills, 2d... Is. Ss. Is. pr
s per et. Navy Ann..... 103h4 Omn►um I dis
Inip. 3 Cont. Ann... 674 Cons. for Account 681

3 per Cent. Cons. 67i T,;,

MAILS.
ARRTVEI,-1 Dublin, I Waterford, 1 Holland, 1 Hainblirgh
DuE—l Waterford, 1 aottenburgli, 1 Lisbon, I Haniburgb

IVOI-1 WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE TO-MORROW.
Morning. 6 niimnits after 3.—Evening. 19 minutes atter $.

THE SUN.

00r,Elf QOl3 DICERL•' FALSUM 4UDEAT.I

LONDON,
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1820.

The Trial which has so deeply agitated the
Country has now arrived at a point which pro-
mises at least some suspension of a subject so uni-