The Sun.
London, England, 1820-07-15 00:00:00

could not call one witness, the best:he might have
to produce, who was not so specified. Were a
fact done with the knowledge of fifty pers'Onsf
not_ one of these could he call, thongh it was fm=
possihe he coUldloresee baseness ailti perjury on
.the paNti, of ..witnesses on the other side. if his
Noble Friend, titughlme of the Jnos
tured men liVing, had been 'Attorney-General in
such circumstances,' he'wotild have grumbled
much more than himself, if 'so restricted; But.
the laW was cltar and pdgitive upon the
amino man's Opinion Should go to destroy it ; but
when his Noble. Friend, by a parity of law, was
. placed in such a situation, he-found the absolute
necessity of departing from it, as he argued- it was
improper to withhold a -list of the witnessess
which, according to the statute, could nut be far-
nished, If , the-wisdom of ages never adopted a
, clear and strut course, would they, in consider-
ing a case like the present, deliberately depart
from it ? With respect to the practice of the
Courts below, however partial he might be to
those of their Lordships' llonse,' -it could not be
assimilated to then/. The 'Legislature alone was
competent to apply a statute to the proceedings
of Parliament. The statute of William enjoined
no such thing as the communication of a list of
-witnesses ;' and he would ask his Noble Friend,
what would . beecime of the Administration of
Justite, either in chit or criminal matters, if such
a list of witnesses were to be given preirious to the
commencement of investigation ?. When just causes
of delay Were shewn,. delay was alwayS granted.
With respect to the particular case referred to,
on account of the illukriotis rank: of the person
accused, which his Noble Friend seemed to think
constituted a "ground of exception, he would ask,
how could such exception be made with safety to
the general Administration of J ustice ? It there-
fore appeared tohim, under all the circumstances
of the case, that the nnestion ought to be thus
considered, whether they would sacrifice the
principle that governs the general Administration
of Justice ; (and insuch a case he really believed
a great essential principle would be so sacrificed),
or, follow that course which the long established
law clearly prescribed ? If they would not say
that they should govern themselves by the strict
principles of known law and justice, then they
should agree with the motion ; but on the con-
trary, if-, they felt they ought to govern them-
selves by these' rules and principles, then their
Lordships would feel it their duty (as he strongly
felt it to be his), to give the motion a decided

negative. s •
The Marquess of 'LANA)OWN thought the ar-
guments of his Noble and Learned Friend upon
the_ case conclusive and unanswerable ; , for his
part, he thought the motion required no Mote
than that which was called for by-the strict jus-
tice of the 'case. The present question should •
be considered abstractedly from all party feeling
whatever, and he deprecated any thing that
would appear to cast a slur upon their Lordships'.
proceedings. Upon the •subject of precedents,
he thought those adduced,had, no reference to,
nor did they throw any light upon the present
case ; it contained no satisfaitory information upon
the subject. The present-was a case, which,-in-
volving a Bill of Pains and Penalties, ought the
least of all-others to be regulated by_ precedent. I
One of the divisiOns of his Noble Friend's mo-
tion removed; he thought, the only, plausible ob-
jection that could be urged against it. Nothing
was collected from a reference to foi-net Bills of
Pains and Penalties which. was laid before the
House ; if so, they might
.have had a regular
stream of justice flowing and increasing itself by
the force of example and precedent. In another
point of view, Bills of the kind were the least to
be affected by considerations of precedent.
What did that luminous-commentator, Mr. Sets=
• tiee Blackstone, say upon the subject ? He sans,
c 4 I speak of them (Bills of Pains and Penalties);
they are, enacted, pro maul, subject to la v, and
can be referable to no li* _Whatever." Where
was the laviyer who attempted to controvert this
doctrine ? No ,map, even in this age of book-
making, had attempted to -controvert it. The
House, he contended, eras at full liberty,to in-
quire what course would be the most .consonant
with the adininistering principles of justice. Look=
ins at the particular circumstances of the case,
the immense difficulty the accused party had to
struggle with should be considered. And again,
he might say it was their duty to follow that
course the most conducive to the substantive ends
of justice. Refbrring to the wording of his Noble
Friend's motion, he agreed that it could.not OM,
sistently,yith justice or reason be rejected by
the House. It would go to prevent , any inter-
ruptien of-the proceedings when once begun ; and
on that ground he would appeal -to -the Noble
Lord on the Woolsack, or to any. other Jittlge izil
the country, if such an advantage -was not to he
-expected from . it. Indeed, without such a clear
course being adopted, the proceedings were liable
to be obstructed from either side, the accusers or
the accused, and then the uniform course of kis.;
• rice their Lordships' peoc.e.edings may be dis:-
turbed. In granting the list of witnesses, he con-
. tended their Lordships would do nothing militat- •
in g against the soleMn, sacred principles of prac-
tice which, from the high nature of their func-
tions, they were bound to proceed upon. NM'
would they be proceeding contrary to the At
of King William, which had been already cited,
in giving the accused all the benefit that could
be derived from such an indulgence. 'They
could, in conformity with that Act, Call new wit-
nesses if they should see occasion, to hear upon
new points. In acceding to the motion of the
Noble and Learned. Lord, they were not depart-
ing from any precedent; for it was acknowledged
on all hands that the present occasion could ad,-
' nut of no precedent, and it was, to him clear,
that by following that _course they would avoid
a n.ttch greater calarnity and, evil---they would
avoid the interruption which must arise in the
midst of the proceedings ; as it was allowed by
the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Liverpool) that
,delay might without heSitation be granted, on
Occasion being shown. What could be more con-
trary to the ordinary rules of justice and more
inconvenient, than a delay of from two to three