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

5~

e prO'

iili OS'

sisters
they
N.fikkeus e 4
The
e con-
It had

irn•
asthae-
nvass•
dships
e
of .the
the in:
woala
hen to
while
st ndsli
13e‘
Le en&
to deal
ive hil
earned:

ques4'
beell
lan 011
is owil
u►:der
esitate

:Strioti*

LOra7
e With
!s tlrla
:Ni. ar►a

agoe
111-1 t
Ens

$

to which Noble Lord ,
.side had
's- 'n.n.the opposite . ,
ginvteothis, icias wrong, for unleSs ir frill` Mt was
Idded,.°rthi witnesses Were • afterWards-
e eatTifeYclnoef the list,
.ald he to deceive the' Acctiset..—
•instead of assisting',
1 (Hear.)—
•"°ble Lords had also characterized the course
adopted • the present instance as unmerciful,
and contendedthat-it would haVe. been less.o.eb-.
3eCtionable had the matter originated with the
Commons, by'But he
way of impeachment.
of
w_t„..
*Ould ask. whether in that case a list
noti ;
"esses could have been granted ? It could
case,
fo snot only could the Commons in that
brouffht new witnesses', but ni.
...w charges,
also '
this was the course
against her Majesty—and
contendedopposed for by Noble Lords wio
the
He1e1),..--in every
present proceeding.----( et
accede. to.
,tP3int of view it would he wrong to
of
li_dis motion, as it would tend to para:lyse some
possessed 1
'ePecilliar fin-talons which that House
.0
over . .
-very other tribune .
1 `They "Avould give p
that _
.beyond what
oth •matters, Fewer of probing into
singular
ad` er tribunals possessed,, which was ofl
antage.. Even were they' td" wive tie list' of
veille;
one there;
1. --esses, though it.weni. a -coinplete 5. ,
,;(141(1 Stilt arise circumstances for
.delay, fheY
what-.
°old therefore get rid of no inconvenience . _ .
", neither
ever, and he hoped, he ivad'stew.i. that. .
Pre
tied upon
the cedent nor the ends. of justice Ca.e
till. to accede to this motion. The question.,
ti."Qte was, as. it would oliviatena inconve-
advantaffe
li'ence to themielves, and confer
no
contrary,
bP"-the accused ; who would/ °3 Yan loa erf .-t l'-'t b in.- ,riven,subjected to
be
he en P g'
e ' m t a ed_woulu they
~,,._
.4nared,deceived, and he r Y...
affecting the
give la to a proposition, which, by
would be
:Itnesses in the way he had described,i.
Lordships
;11tiaCt Of ilrlinStie ? lie pat it tellyien. .to be ex-
ether the,elforts of the Crown I" ere d
Piroased to the advantage
popular aamour, where no at y
con-
ttall t°, be gained by. it---(llear 1—
~ Y 5 let it
-.le acc•usation .?foirth ; and
be fairly set
sifted "leo lot tlie ci„
of the witAesoe§ be
to the aractee .
Lord
bottom .---
(Cheers.)
Lord noL
that the
noble r . LAN° began - by observing ,
k n admitted that
tiler `4°l-d who had just spo -e ,
which the
e"8 no Precedent nor preset rule by i
Igor."-` case could be
Noble
guided. The .
d into an am-
),,, ,5 at the same time, I,7.anc'he of the
If,tla4ted et on the administration
otime
attice of the country. But at the
.samto
_1.....
tish he was pa -tug. his tribute of praise
deviationlei' I
great
trst j.tutire, he was proposing a
nattering.
4.,11,1t let not Noble Lords,' lay the -
t British ins-
ction -t
. ''- h' was AO
lite. . 0 their sonls—t is
Pool) said
llow was, it the No--!
hi lord Liver-
(,Lord.
• to a person who was
Law
4104
situ-
Court so extraordinarY that the common
the ordinary
tour s could ilet. reach: her, nor
that 44 we
krt'e,c'f Parlia,mentArY. proceedings,
deviate from all
tti, k)(!liged in this case to
Prznci justice, asknown in. civilized
eoailt yles of
inries :e.
Re might hold this
relax a little
iii l'irtlYl he was met by a request to .
says,
C,
it
is rSICOII.rSe,Ive then turns. round .41:td • •....•.-
hut w'e are
dIY a (treat hardship upon yOll5 ,-. • ~
btilin-
h do otherwise,
Y Vrecedent---we cairn°,
tad the,
rNoble Lord, at
thQe. were the ieords o -the
.a''lle
tier'elliat.he was declaring that the cape
hula
admit of nceprecedent•not at
Were they
ailed same ti 110
inquest,
Party; judge, jury, grand
0,
bei e 'et'Y' thin,' a HOW then could they talk I
fig
b411(1
b . ?ik- ' situated would
say, tic wh . Y rule - —.person so ._
~
Ile th 3, what is the meaning' of these rules i ikrtd °tight it was said somewhere, the forms
that
c.„
kf rules of Law were like the rind and bark
el
.. ree...whichalthouah not part of the sulaSt)rcit;
4_0.01'. contributing to its 'aliMent, was useful
hen
Thitecting it from the inclemency of the
weaiVith
ks s "'se stood upon its own necessity. r
of a
listPect to the A
-I-Ct providing for the delivery
be
°l' Witnesses. to the accused, it would4froin
tose!vetl, it excepted Parliament itself
respect.---
Italnig within its provisions in this resPl
tiv was au indulgen'ee which was always Other
.I,al_ll not only in Se,otland, bat in man other
did bor,s of Europe.; and. the request for it
the
i\lt therefore at,iiiir quite §6 preposterous tts.
e.
tilble 'Lord
, upposite would. have theni believe.
the "acting this indulgence, it was done
_hun
to
stracrsuPposition that the person accused nd,er ;
iim'tg„sle 'lll4 contend. with the arm of
Po
Britain
tlir,w7Fet.ore the Legislature of Great
shield. The reason Darn °vr it this teiitold • of
aine
ch-
mpea
ra,nt
wet being ekoepted,*as, that I
pow: were sulipoSed to be 4onerally against
ag
that
only-r; The Noble Lord (Liverpool) said,were
oily tit 'cases of treason the prosecutors
It
law
11 'Clgive list of witnesses.
c'w
' 41Pe
e to
a
o, was it, however., by practice ? 0
..
it-
-4 .'e tOrd h- tin • cash out of aNI
. rtd-..._ _ fiay,, t a one
of -tea
thoo,it7,nt of a thOusalid, or even out
PersOLl,'',--='it ever happened that any accused
neeesva.- lid it
to defend themselves with so little.t
hern'a-r!,,k, nowledffe of the witnesses agas
the -a-l'uls Illustrious Lady ? In practice thend
ttar tie-ri°-IgY view' in favour of his Noble and
eferel;,-- -eriend.
.In point of policy,with even
.d._.. th„,. 'ce to the popular clamour, he tho.aeht
Ilekiaeaßlit to grant the last, sq long as it did not
14 ~ t the purposes of justice. The procee I
itself •,..,
it was
4' neC sNii inhered from all ordinary forms, 1 -
gott e ate rei, and could not be made .a.oa o
44 to
1.1 any other. When the Bill went from
Ivoua°.,use down to the Commons, , the accused
oral,- have the advantage of knowing; the names
fll
be,, all the witnesseS, and could then take the u coaeint of cross-examination. The House
the
4ecoPficlls Was, no doubt, more favourable f"
tlict,,se,u' than that House. Ilut then he entreated..
Lord' L'°rdshiPs, for the sake of the 11 "se of
post s) for their own sakes, for the opitiion?
not eiritYs let it not he 'said that the accused slid
other 'aye as good a case at their Bar as in any gra
t, Place. This. Could. not be done without
.14 nee, a ~
w„4'' list of witnesses. In conclusion, lie
led their, of
to consider well the
the'sP lolportance whilll attached to the exer-
.s._
traora, their discretion in.this anomalous and C.
y 'lrtary case.
A.,0, ‘
u
ttllt ELLI:NBOROUGII said, he rose with difil-
'4i,tY,o4 the present question. The present was
4ii,a°l,lY a 11.9.velprogeediwg,,hnt he did not coo-
tkti.e_ it one on which,thev Ought to deviate' from
r.establishied. rules, of proceeding lie was
i '

iv Min-, to grant to. her Majesty every facility
;ranted to any individual similarly placed since
the Revolution. But the Queen asked more; and

More he would not grant; because it Would be a
detiiation, not only from the established rules. of
Parliament, but; from the established Jules of law;
except in cases of high treason. Was there any
thing in her Majesty's case different front those
other Bills of Pains and Penalties, which could in=
duce them to depart from their usual course ? He
thought not. No course more. favourable -to her Ma-
jesty could have been adopted consistently with the
principles of the Constitution. They were not to
look to what was favourable to her Majesty so much
as to what was most likely to lead them to the
straight forward road to justice. It was because
he entertained this feeling- that he would give his
hive to the. motion.- Let their Lordships
consider the nature of the motion. Let them also
consider what the last, request of her Majesty
was. Supposing that the present motion were
carried, of what use Would a list of witnesses be
Ito the Queen, if
.the inquiry,- was to be proceeded
in within, twenty-four hours ? How was her Ma-
jesty to make herself acquainted with the habits
or characters of those who were to give evidence

against her ? The presence of the judges being
necessary, the inquiry was postponed to the 17th
of Auffust; but even so, how, by any diligence
on the part of her Majesty or her advisers,
,could any efficient inquiry be matte respecting
khose witnesses before that period ? In fact,

;kis demand: was made more for popular ef-

feet, than with any view of benefiting by it.
But, supposing that the list of witnesses was
granted, how was it possible to make out the list
of names so as to avoid a misnomer; and that

would be' made use of as a ground of4still further

delay. He thought it would be impossible so to
describe the witnesses as to enable one-half of
them to be called. They ought not to be misled

by public reeling, nor ought-they to mislead that
feeling. This was, of all cases, one in which

the witnesses ought to be brought forward un-
awed and unbiassed. -Let her Majesty-have a
fair, opportunity of disproving the charges against
her, but first let them have the evidence upon
record, let them know the nature.of the accusa-
tion, and- then let her. Majesty. have a full and
ample opportunity of rebutting it. Upon these
grounds he opposed the •motion. •
Lord HOLLAND did not know whether the
Noble -13aron (Ellenborough) alluded to him, or
to his Noble Friend (Erskine) in his observation,
that this question was started with a view to po-
pular feeling. If he did allude to either, he
floitld-tell the Noble Baron .he was much mis-
taken. But if he alluded not to them, but to the
Illustrious Personage more immediately concern-
ed, he (Lord Holland) did not envy those feel-
in4s which could impute motives of which there
was no proof, and which were not warranted by
any part of that Royal Personage's conduct,
(Hear, hear I)
Lord ELLENBOROUGH, in explanation, dis-
claimed any imputation either on the Noble
Lords or • her Majesty, in-what had fallen from
41m. _ _

• Lord HOLLAND expressed himself satisfied
with the Noble Lord's explanation.
Lord BUTE thought this particular case could
n.ot be legislated, upon any preceding case what-
ever. tie did not see how this Bill, although
called a Bill of Pains and Penalk;es, differed
froth a common Bill of Divorce. He did not ad-
mit the remark Of 010 Nobit Lord who 'spoke
last,. on the inconsistency of her Majesty's de-
manding- a list of witnesses, and at the same-time •
calling tipon them to proceed in twenty-four
hours ; for it was clear in his opinion, that if
these svitiv,,sses were able to prove any thing at
all, her. Majesty must of neicessitylnow • some-
thing of them. Although their Lordships might
be legislating consistently with the law of Eng-,
land, in refusing the list of witnesses, they ought
to bear in mind that they s 4 ere doing an injtistice.
by the law Of 'Scotland, The' Noble Lord con-
cluded by declaring his intention to vote in
fa,vour of the motion before the House.
Lord BEidIAVEN said, he could' not give his
vote on this occasion without making a few ob-
'servations. They were about to pass a law which
would deprive her Majesty of rights which 'she
would otherwise
.possess. In such a case it was
their. Lordship's- duty to afford her every oppor-
tunity of conducting her defence. Her Majesty,
asked no-more than that which, according to the
laws of one part of the British dominions, was
allowed to every subjec4 and to which she was
entitled. Ile could not help expressing. his sur-
prise, at hearing certain Noble Lords opposite,
and who owed so much to the people, raise their
voices against what they called " popular cla,
mour ;" to hear them exclaim, the people mean
to trample on us, to direct us, and so on. He
remembered the. time, to use the words of the

Poet,---
When Europe bowed beneath the Yoke,
And Austria bent and Prusiia brOke,
And the firm liusiiian't purpose brave, s" •
Was bartered by a,ttmorf.us share."
At such a period as' this, the .Noble Lords who
now decried popularleeling, called far and found
their best resource in the people. .The Noble
Lord ,concluded by gating, that he was determin-:
ed to support the motion.
Lord ELLENBOItOUGH explained.
The Earl of CARNARVON objected at consi-
derable length to the measure against her Majesty
generally. The .very preamble of the MI, he
contended, contained a bundle of nonsense, which
had nothing to do with the main ground of charge,
which was that of an adulterous connexion. Did
they really mean to found On the evidence about
to be produced a substantive charge of adultery ?
The-charge was mixed up, as if for the sake of ag-
gravation, in the. Bill of Pains and Penalties, with
circumstances not connected with the charge,
such. as her Majesty- taking the relations of
the accomplice of her crimes into her service as
menial and confidential-servants—her disgraceful
familiarity. with these parties. Was- this a
crime.? Lastly, it was alledged an adulterous
intercourse existed- between him and her Majesty.
Now what was intended by these words ?. Was
it that adultery had been committed ? If not, it

was. a delusion practised on the public,* and it
would be as absurd to proceed against tier in this
way to punish her, aS to hatig, a Man for treason,
who had been convicted of trea.Sofiable practices
not this a mode of involv-
ing the question in intricacy: and difficulty ? The
House should reqUire something more definite, be-
fore their Lordships would go• into the charge.
The public he well knew would require• some-
thing more specific in the nature of the charge,
and if there were no other ground of objection
urget against the mode in which their Lordships
were now proceeding he should think this alone
sufficient to determine his vote in favour of the
motion of his Noble Friend.

Lord L %.CTDERDALE said, that, after one of the
ablest speeches ever heard in that place from the
Noble Lord on the cross-bench (EllenborGag'lt),

it would be a proof of bad taste in him to go at
any length into the discussion. His vote should
be given. on the ground of substantial justice ;.
and he should consider not the extraneous argu-
ments that had been urged, but whether, by.fur-
nishing the list-moved for, their. Lordships would
not be defeating the ends of justice.---(Hear !)
'Whether they looked to the accuser or the ac.
cased,, no sound reason could be advanced insup-
port of the motion. It could be of no advantage
to either party, nor to the public interest. Even
suppose a list were ordered, the prosecutors (if
inclined to evade it) could not be bound to name
all their witnesses, and thus the Defendant might
he misled to meet a weak charge, while the prin-
cipal accusations were otherwise and better sup-
ported. On the other hand, such a list would
furnish the accused with opportunity for tamper-
ing with the witnesses-, against which their Lord-
ships ought especially to guard, after what they
had. witnessed in this respect. To what had
happened he would not more pointedly refer,
but he must say, that the national character had
been disgraced by it; and that, to prevent the
possibility of a still greater forfeiture of honour,
they were bound to resist this application. ,
. Lord EasKrNi shortly replied. His Lordship
insisted on the excellency of the Act of 'William,
and on the conclusiveness of the reasoning he had
founded upon it 7 which, he contended, had not been
answered in one point. His Lordship then referred
to the practice on the law of treason, in which he
had had so much experience, affirming that it
never had yielded to clamour but had admirably
protected the liberties of the subject. Clamour
now, as then, had nothing to do with the matter;
it was not popular clamour, but popular feeling,
and the only way to put it down was to act justly.
He quoted the cases of Lord G. Gordon and of
Hatfield to shew the superiority of the law in
question, and observed, that the latter had been

translated into every European language, and
been noticed in all with the highest encomiums
on British jurisprudence, Madame de Stael had
embodied this praise in the happiest language.---
But the Noble Earl (Liverpool) had said this
was a Tory Act. It was So, and it was one
among numerous other instances that God had
made no animal so worthless that it did not do
some good.----(A laugh.)----Their Lordships
might, if- they pleased, refuse this list because
they were supreme, but he trusted they would
grant it because they were just
Contents
• Not Contents
Majority ntr,ainst the Motion
After which the House adjourned at half-past
ten o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

YPE. CLAIMS.

411

Mr. IRVING presented the Report of the Corn-
mittee on the Guadaloupe Claims.---Ordered to
be printed.
DAUGHTER OF THE LATE PUKE OF CUMBERLAND.

Mr: MOOll presented a Petition from
Olivia Serres. The Petitioner stated herself to
be the-legitimate daughte'r of the late Duke of
Cumberland; she asserted that she possessed a
document to prove the solemnization of a mar-
riage between her mother (who was Julia Wil-
mot, the daughter of the late Dr. Wilmot) and
the late Duke of Cumberland, the brother of his
late Majesty, in the year 1767. The Duke of
Cumberland had subsequently married another
Lady, on account of which his marriage with the
Petitioner's mother was concealed. From this
cause the Petitioner, who was born in 1772, had
been deprived of property which should have
descended to her. She stated that she, possessed
a document with the sign manual of his late Ma-
jesty, acknowledging 'the validity of .the mart
riage of her mother.---The Petition was laid on
the Table.

. NIISTI EPRECENTATION.
Lord A. HAMILTON took occasion to say, that what he
had said,last night respecting Sir P. .Nlurray, was mis".tated
in Tke Morning Chronicle. He now repeated, that he hail
nevever accused Sir P. Murray of giving up a claim to the re
presentation of Perthshire, in order to get office, and, in fact,
that he had not made such an assertio►► respecting any candi-
date on any occation whatever.
The Donaghadee Harbour Bill was read a third time and
passed.