The Sun.
London, England, 1820-07-12 00:00:00

PETITION FROM THE QUEEN•

Lord AICKI IND said he Petition to pre-
sent to' their Lordships. It was on the part of
her Majesty. Tie would move that it be now
read, Nviil a view to postponing its consideration
till Friday, when a motion from a Noble and
Learned Lord, relative to the subject and prayer
of the-1344km' ~.stood upon order. The Petition
was then :read by the "Clerk., and appeared as
follows :--

• " CAROLINE REGINA, •
'"To the Lords .Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament as-

sernbled.

"-The QueetThaving,receired information that the House

hods .Itare.appoirited the second reading of a Bill for the
.•—•.fgractatim and:..Divoree of h.er• Majesty fur 'Thursday, the
3;th August next, and as it is necessary and expedient for
her defence, lhatshcslionld be furnished with a list of the
• —WiTlA;74se4' to he :produced against her, the 'Queen desires
• int list may ireT-forthwith.ldefirt red to, tier Majesty's Attor-

uep,Gracral." '
The Earl of LA:LiDERDALE suggested, that if a
Comulitt(!e to search for precedents, as was men-

I%!

tioned On a former evening, should be aeerned
advisable, it would be proper their inquiries
should be directed not to the particuPir point in
question. merely, but should include the whole
of the proceedings, with a view principally of
rendering the matter clear,'and to show it to the
public that-they had proceeded 'with the utmost
deliberation and caution with respect to the inlit

.portant procedure in queStion: -
The Earl of LIVERPOOL mid, he had' no objec-
tion to the appointment of a=Comniiftee; but as it
would be essential to have a report respecting
any precedents for the. communication of a list of
witnesses before Friday, when -the question was
to be discussed, he thought it desirable that the
Committee should be confined to that point, at
least, in the first instance, and then they might
consider the means of enforcing attendance.
. Lord IIoTAAND objected to the appointment
of a Committeee upon such' terms ; it was in
reality nothing to the purpose. to report upon the
mere point of communicating or dot a list of wit-
nesses, unless
_they had before them the nature
and description of the precedents referred to ;
such-a rep,9,rt, he could easily anticipate, might
be in some respects deeply humiliating to the
House, but it was most essential to
.a correct
view of the question, that the precedents them-
selves should be reported, in order that the
House, might be enabled to- judge of what weight
was dt4 to-them: After all, however, a search
for—precedents could have •. little- or no bearing
upon the present case. Bills of Pakns and Pe-
nalties being, if he might use the expression, a
sort of criminal equity, in which the forms and
usages of Parliament wete in a great degree set
aside ; and, therefore, every case of that descrip-
tion would. be consiclered_with.regard to its own
bearings, and with little reference to any other
case of a similat tendency. lie contended, there-,
fore, that they ought to look to the substantial
justice of the case.
The Earl of LIN-unroof, urged the extreme
inconvenience of such an extensive. inquiry, and
its uselessness as to the point irnmediately under
inquiry,- respecting which the only good _that
could be derived would be, if a Committee was
tliought- necessary, a Report without delay. .

'Pie Earl of Ijsuo-nan-,11,n ,warded his:motion
for a ,search into preedents of Bills of;Attainder
and Bills of Pains and Penalties, with re:spect to
the communication to the accused of a list of.
witnesses.

The Earl BATHURST. moved to insert in the
motion of Impeachment" as the case would be
.still stronger, if it should be found that in cases
of impeachment, as well as the-others;, as, in
fact, hi all the judicial proceedings of the House,
there was no instance of the communication to
the accused of .alist of witnesses.,

Lord. HOLLAND opposed the amendment, upon
.the same principle that he objected to the origi-
nal motion. The Report might probably be,
that there were no , instances of. the communica-
tion of a list of witnesses ; but still this would
make no difference with a view to the considera-
tion of the present case. In all cases of the
description alluded to, the House would.sbe guided
by the. peculiar circumstances of each case ; and
whatever precedents there were, they could'only
be taken with reference to all the circumstances.
that accompanied each of them, and in each were'
different. . Thus, therefore, he came to the tune
point—that the House ought to be guided' by the
substantial justice of the case, which in his opi-
nion, under all the circumstances (without mean-
ing now to anticipate the' debate of Friday,) in
the present instance, led, irresistibly to the con-
clusion, that .a list of witnesses ought to be com-
municated to the Queen.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE observed, Mat what 7
ever might be the Report of the Committee, it
would still be open to the Muse to adopt what-
ever course, in the present case, their:Lordships
might deem expedient; but it would be satisfac-
tory to know what course had Veen adopted by
the House upon former occasions, .. •
Lord AUCKLAzip thought the,, motion useless,
as to any view to their proceeding in the present
instance, in which they ought solely to be guided
by the substantial justice of the case. ,
Their Lordships , then divided on the amend-
ment as follows ; •
Contelitsc is---Non-Contents, 10—Majority, 8.

_ . ..
After which the original motion was. agreed to,
and. the -House adjourned. . ' • ,

HOUSE OF COMMONS.