The Sun.
London, England, 1820-08-28 00:00:00

1- I'tte,

'ast st.--,rs from King.ston Jamaica, of the 11th
-‘p that General DEVEREUX arrived there
(.11 P.,18t, from Margaritta—He
a I; t,
but her signals not being answered,_.n
sailed to Rio
for Prc'ekeded to Kingston for the purpose of
41ation
14rw; if°llovving is an extract of a letter from_
rer,''en dated the 24th instant :—" A I°7.
rti,"l" was sent down here yesterday by the. fo,
under the care of Mr. KAY, s
ti L-ic:sittg,er. lie was sent on board the Earl of
f cr Packet ; not allowed any communicah-
-44,4 „tarn the shore : and the packet sailed wit
'ills morning for Cuxhaven."

PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF LORDS, SATURDAY, Atld. '26:

THE QUEEN.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat at with.:
in five minutes of ten, and the Bishop of WIN-
CHESTER read prayers.
At a quarter past ten Counsel were called in.
Charles Curstein, a German Interpreter for the
Queen, was then sworn.
The Interpreter, who attended yesterday for
the King, again attended this day.
The last question and answer were then read.
Barbara Crantz, the witness of yesterday, was
then examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—
The last answer was, " the Princess had got up,
and,l had retired."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—Q. The witness
stated, that she saw the Princess sitting on Ber-
gami's bed ; what happened after you saw her
sitting there ?—A. 1 saw the Princess sitting on
the bed, and afterwards I withdrew.
Before you withdrew what did you see ?—I
saw that she jumped up, I withdrew, and was
frightened.
I understand that you saw the Princess sitting
on Bergami's bed. Describe what happened af-
terwards

Interpreter—She asks if you mean during that
same evening ? Yes ;at that very time.-1 saw
the Princess on the bed, and I withdrew.
Before you withdrew, what did the Princess
do ; did she continue to sit on the bed, or what
happened ?—She saw the Princess jump up. She
then withdrew, for she was frightened.
Some difficulty arose here as to whom the wit-
ness meant to describe as being frightened. It
appeared that she meant to say that she herself
was frightened.
The LORD CHANCELLOR directed the Inter-
preter to give the. witness's own words, and be
careful when she said " /," not to render it "she."

I understand witness to state that she then
withdrew ?—Yes.

A Noble Peer desired the, Interpreter to put
the questions to the witness in the first person
singular, and not in the third person.
Did you make up the bed in No. 12, Berga-
mi's room ?—Yes.

Did you at any time, when making the bed,
discover any thing on the bed ?—On the bed.
On, or in the bed ?—ln the bed I have found
a cloak.

Did the cloak appear to belong to a female ?
Probably : because behind it had a kind of capot
or hood.

What did you do with it aft(rwards?—As
I took it out, I placed it asunder ' I unfolded it.
IVhat time of the day was it when you found
the cloak ?—lt was in the morning when I made
the bed.

Describe the cloak a little more particularly ?
It was of silk ; the colour grey.

Did you afterwards see any one wearing that
cloak ?—The servant had taken it out of my hand.
Did you see any body wear that cloak after-
wards ?—I saw a cloak. on the Princess the next
day; but I cannot swear that it was the same.
Was it a cloak of a similar description to that
which she had found iu the bed ?—Yes ; it was
of the same colour.

You say it was of the same colour; do you
know whether it was of the same substance—was
it silk ?--It was silk.

Had the cloak which the Princess wore a capot
or hood, like that found in the bed ?—Yes; it had
such a hood.

[The examination here became such as we can-
not give. It related to the appearance of the
bed in which her Royal Highness slept. The
witness was much affected at Mutt compelled to
give this sort of evidence. The Interpreter an-
nounced to the House that she was crying, and
appeared about to faint. Some of their Lord-
ships desired that she might be supplied with a
glass of water, while others called for a chair,
that she might sit till she had recovered herself.]
When the witness had somewhat recovered, the
examination in chief was continued.
Did you at any time, in making up the bed, ob-
serve any thing else on the sheets, or any other
part of the bed ?—The interpreter observed that
the witness, in her answer, made use of a word
which he could not express in English without
being permitted to ask the witness to explain.
He was permitted to ask an explanation of the
witness, and he gave the answer thus : G 4 When
1 once made the bed, I saw the sheets that they
were vasted" (a German word explained by wit-
ness to mean that they were in disorder). Mr.
Brougham desired his interpreter to explain the
word. Curstein, the Queen's interpreter, ex-
plained it wasted. The adjective (wasted) is
derived from a substantive meaning a desert.
The Attorney-General asked the other interpre-
ter, Goulterman, what he meant by the word
vasted, and desired him to translate it literally.
This interpreter said he was rather at a loss to
explain. The interpreter (Curstein) then said,
that from the explanation of the witness, she
meant to say that the sheets were stained. The
Chancellor desired to know if all the parties
were agreed as to the interpretation, and if so,
to give the answer word for word. The inter-
preter Curstein theft said, that the witness was
first at a loss to say what she meant, but that she
afterwards explained herself by saying that the
sheets were stained.—(Cries of Go on, go
The Attorney-General desired the interpreter
to attend, and be proceeded with the examina-
tion. What sort of stains were they ? [ln this
place we must decline giving the answer, and one
or two of the subsequent questions and answers.
The witness was much affected by the delicacy
of her situation, and the examination was inter-
rupted by her crying. A glass of water was
given her, and some Peers desired that she
should have a chair. The witness was then
asked, What was the colour or appearance to
you of those spots on the bed of Bergami ? The
witness, still crying, hesitated, and in a faint
voice said, " You will pardon me." The ques-
tion was necessarily pressed, but we must decline

• -• • t titt'ti • that giving the iiiiSWer, except y g w s
of such a nature as is considered amply sufficient
in the Courts below td substantiate the charge of
the criminal act.]
The examination having been coneluded,
BlidUGliAM observed to their Lordships
that, he took it for granted, according to the un-
derstanding that had existed with respect to the
evidence, that he 'should have an opportunity of
cross,eiatnining all the 'witnesses on a future
occasion.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that such an ar-
rangetnent would be contrary to the rules of evi-
dence which existed in the Courts of West-
minster.

Mr. BROUGHAM said, that the irregularity al-
luded to necessarily arose from the radial of the
list of witnesses. his object in addressing their
Lordships was, that he might be enabled, after,
the exathinatiOn in chief of the witnesses, to cross-
examine them as fully as the circumstances would
permit, and, at a subsequent time, to proceed
with the cross-examination on such points as he
had it not now in his power to bring forward.
Mr. DE MAN said, that he also had an impor-
tant request to make with respect td the exami-
nation of the first witness (Majocci), but it Would
be affected by the arrangement to which his
Learned Friend had adverted:

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, the Learned
Counsel were not to conclude that any rule had
been made to the effect of calling up witnesses
for a second examination. Ile could not see any
thing more irregular than cross-examining wit-
nesses more than, once.

Mr. BROUGHAM admitted the irregularity of
the proceeding ; but pleaded .the peculiar cir-
cumstances which distinguished this cast from
any other, in justification of the request to de-
part from the usual rule of practice. Their
Lordships had given no information as to the
situation or residences of any of the witnesses ;
no instruction pointing out a convenient certainty
of time, or a convenient peculiarity of place, when
or where the alleged facts had taken place. The
plan he had laid down for himself, in consequence
of this denial of such necessary information, vt-as
not to examine the witnesses at once, as it were,
unico contextu ; but to confine his cross-examina-
tion, at first, to those points which arose obvious-
ly out of the direct examination, leaving it to a
future period to avail himself of his own sources
of information. He should now proceed to the
cross-examination of the witness as to what im-
mediately suggested itself to him in consequence
of the examinatio❑ in chief.

The LORD CHANCELLOR permitted the cross-
examination to proceed, but intimated that their
Lordships were not bound by any rule, such as
had been argued for by the Learned Counsel.
His Lordship, at the same time, recommended
that the cross-examination should be deferred
until the Queen should be prepared for her de-
fence.

The witness was then cross-examined by Mr
BROUGHAM, and the Queen's Interpreter tram
slated the evidence.

How long is it since you were chamber-maid
at the inn ?—A year and three quarters.
Were you married at that time ?—No.
Did you marry after you left the inn ?—Yes.
What were you before you were chamber-maid
at the inn ?—I had served before.
Where ?—At Bagherten, a little village.
In what service were you ?—Chamber-maid at
the Hotel.

Were you in any other family as a servant ?-- Yes.
In what family ?—ln several families.
Name one of them ? Marvais.
What is Marvais ?--Landlord of an inn.
Were you chamber-maid there i—Yes.
How long ?—Half a year.
Where did Marvais live ?—At Bagherten, a
small village.
Who with beside ?—ln the establishment of the
Duke of Baden.
Were you servant before that ?—.l came to that
place on leaving my father's house ; on leaving
school.

Did you ever live in any other capacity but as
a servant ?—I was going to say I was in another
place half a year.
In what place ?—At Carlsruhe.
Who with ?—Schnarval.
What is he ?—A landlord,
Were you chamber-maid there ?—No, house-
maid.
What are the duties of that situation ?-1
cleaned the public rooms in the inn.
Have you lived in any other situation but those
you have mentioned ?—None.
Lord ELLEN BO ROUGH here remarked, that as
the two Interpreters sometimes differed in their
translations of the answers, one giving them much
fuller than the other, he wished to know which
of then, was inserted in the Minutes.
Mr. GURNEY, the short-hand writer, said, both
the answers were inserted.
The Bishop of PETERnououcu made some
observations on the different interpretations that
were given.
Mr. BROUGIIAM resumed the examination.
How long have you been here ?—Two days
and three weeks. •
Who did you come over with ?—With the
Courier.
Who carte over with you ?—Reissner.
Anybody else ?—Yes, 1 took my brother with
me, for I did not like to come alone.
What is the name of your brother ?—rrederic
Kleinbech.
How old is your brother ?—I do not know ex-
actly, about twenty-eight years of age.
Who paid your expenses in coming over ?—I
do not know ; the Courier paid in travelling.
Who asked you to come over ?—At Carlsruhe,
our Minister, M. Bevstadt.
Did any other person speak to you on the
subject ?—When I was with him I saw nobody
else.
Has any other Minister or Ambassador spoken
to you on the subject ?—Yes, M. de Qalling.
'What is be ?—I don't know.
Did any other person speak to you on this bu-

sineis' =YensArnbastaddt fit iYittitsiiniri

while I was still at the Inn.

Atiyht‘dy else ydo iteden.
What is 111: Von kedtifilL—Thet toictstne he

was Ambassador of
Where did he live in Cat.lsruhe Heed at
a of the name,
Did lie live any *here else ?-.-I cannot say.
Did he often cottth to the iiiri Whereqou were
chambermaid ?—f fiever saw him at thAi

Did lie examine ydii on this tibject ?
Grimm asked me first; • ;1:

Where was that ?—At Wirtembefr.
Did you leave Carlsruhe to gOdany
his busitiBS before you came here ?—Yes.
Were ydii eir6r at Vienna ?-ISTo.
Did you ever see Colonel Broven
Major Deering dd not know what *'as did
uame of the Gentlediah where,l has.

At what place ?—At IlanoYer:
When did you go to II atimrer was on leay.;-
ing the Post him I was called to go there.
Who called you to go there ?—M. Von Reden:
Ho* long did ydu remain at Hanover on this
occasion ?—Six or seven days, I can't say exactly:
Were you examined there on this " suhjept
They asked me whether 1 had seen- such 0.4
such things:
What did you get for going there ?--LLA knari
sum for the time I had lost.

How much cannot say ; it was very little:
Then it will be the easier reiriethhered ?

About 16 or 18 ducats ; each ducat makes five-
florins. (flte'whole suiri is abotit 41. English
currency. .
What wages did have
had tWelve .florins each; but we reckoned most
on perquisites; • , ;•
Did anybody 6156 give you.'-atiy 'thing for gOinig,.—
there I receited nothing else.
I chi not ask time or place ; but have you re=
ceived litiythitig girice ha -e been fetched:
to go to Frankfort. • _

Who fetched yoti td Frarikiprt ?—The valet
de chatnbre of the Hanoverian Minigter.

How long did you reiriain at Frankfort ?—Four
or five da•:s. .
Were you examined there ?—They Asked me
what I had seen, and I told them the same.
As yOti told here ?—Yes, the same thing as I
stated here. •

What did they give you at frankfort ?—Tvvelye
or fourteen ducats.

Have yott received any thing. else since :—No;
except from the Gentleman who fetched me front
the post inn.
The courier ?—No, I do not kitow who he was';
he was a stfanger:
What did he give you ?--11-0 caused me twice
to call on him, and said I mtist gcvto London. I -
did not want to go, but he said I should be forced
to go.
Did he give you any thing ?--Yes, a ducat for
my trouble.

Did he give yoii any more %---Only the second.

time,

Did he give ydu nothing snore?
The Earl of LAUDERDALE rose and interrupted:
the cross-examination, Which he contended had
gone much too far. A Counsel 'should be per-
mitted to elicit facts by cross-examination, Which
might afterwards enable him to impeach the cre.,'
dibility of the witness.
The LORD CHANCELLOR agreed with the
Noble Lord who had just spoken, that the Cross-
examination had gone very far indeed. It was
not right that a Counsel should ransack the whole
life of a witness merely to find some act or -cir
cumstance in it, which might enable him at a fu-
ture period to impeach the credibility of -that'
witness. It was irregular and highly improper.
The House is, in this point, very singularly- situ=
ated ; for their Lordships must hear all the ex=
aininations and cross-examinations before one- of
them is allowed to ask a question. This was, in
fact, an injustice to both parties.
MIN BROUGHAM resumed—l wish this question

to be put to the witness, " Whether her brother
was ever promised any thing ?)"—(No, no ! from
several parts of the House.)
The question was not allowed to be put.
Mr. BROUGHAM-The next question I would
propose to her is, " Where are you now
(No, no! from several of their Lordships.)
The Duke of 11Amtvrox was of opinion that

the question was a necessary consequence of the
refusal of their Lordships to give, in the first in-
stance, a list of the witnesses and their places of
residence.

Lord SIDMOUTII thought, that the answers t 0..,
the first three questions, put by the Counsel for
the What is your name What are'''.
you ?'—Where do 'ou live ?'—constituted the
list required, and that no further qttestions were
necessary on that head.

The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to impress tut

he minds of the Counsel on both sides, that the

Ilouse was sincerely and conscientiously endea.,,
vouriug to do justice in the case ; and that they
ought to be careful not to press any question
upon it which they did not believe absohitely
necessary, and within the limits prescribed.
Counsel should repose in the honour of. the
House, and the House would repose in the ho-
nour of the Counsel.
Lord DoNoucumoat thought that the House.
had fallen into great error in the course .of these
proceedings. The House felt that it had done
so. The Noble and Learned Lord on the \\Tool-.
sack had admitted, that they had done what 'had,
better not be repeated. In the examination of:
Majocci, the cross-examination had been allowed
to go to. a length highly improper.—(Order,.
order !).
Lord Grey thought the Noble Lord ought to
confine himself to the propriety of allow lug the%
question to be put, which was now proposed by
Mr. Brougham.
Lord .DoNourinuoat: could not see how he
was out of order. The Noble and Learizk'd Lord
I-on the Woolsack had been allowed to :;ay the
same thing, and had not been called to order.
His Lordship was glad that the House ..f,.aw and
felt their error ; he thought the irregularity into
which the House had fallen,--that their facility.


•
, .
might possibly have 'been, the c:ausci off much are-
sularity cut of doors—might possibly have been
tt'l cause of great injury elsewhet. -
.Lot;ll,EttSitt-Nv„ tlxought that the utmost indul-
• ~
ggence should be given to .the Counsel for her
Majesty,:because the Honse conld not put them
in.the sante' .situation now in which they would.
have .beenirhad.they, .as in a case of,lligh Trea-
son, :been. previously furnished with a list of the
witnesses, their professions, and their places of,
residence. 'lje.thought that whatever regarded
the credibilitY of,. the vvitnesses should be matter
of futuFe.cross-exarnin4tiou; Init that every ques-
tion ought now. to be admitted. which, was prepa-
ratorily, requisite ..to•enable the, Counsel for her
Majesty to make the neces3ary inquiries into that
credibility. .". . . •
Lord LI REY thought the question proposed did
not.oomp..within the limits Prescribed by -their
Lordships. - •
.-TIWA.ARD CIIANCELI.O,It took the sense of the
House on.allawiug the question to be put.:—The
non-contents had .it by .a great majority.
Mr. gaol:Guam professed his inability to un-
der stand-- , .
loin CitaxcELLort.--Mr. Brougham,. the
House cannot permit-Counsel to observe on what
they have done. You may propose another ques-
tion,. and the. House. will hear you on the pro-
priety. of its being .put:
Mr...BuoutaLts.,---We 'wish for nothing More
than..thatthe House. will hear ,us in.support of
and decide on the merits of each question we
put: We only object with all humility, against
being :bound.by any general rule on the subject
which we do not, and cannot, with all- the appli-
cation of our.ntinds to. the snhiect, understand.
'The next question Vpropose should be put to the
itness
Where dO .yau, live at: present in London ?
(MUrmurs throughout the House.); .
effect of allowing the question
to be put and..ariswered,, Willrbeto hold the wit-
ne4s,iout to the.popular indignation.
'the ATTOIIN EY-GENERA , irny
Lords,, to. make- a siagl,observation on, the course
now about to be. ad.opteiL I understood your
Lordships to have distinctly stated,, at the ,out:-
set Of the proceedings,- in case my Learned
Friends, who.,:are.Counsel for her, *Majesty, shall
offer to your Lordships sufficient grounds for hay,
in -'this witness, or any other in the same
.cir-
-9.4n25tan..ce5.,.. only cross-examined. in- part, that
they should be at liberty so to do, but not to ex-
ceed. some: reasonable and certain limits. "hit
the rule now applied for is not that it shall be li-
tnited in. this.rnanner, but .that the, cross-exami-
nation. of all. the, witnesses shall only -take place
in.. part,, until. the examination in chief shall have
been completed; Surely your Lordships will not
give,my:Learned Friends such an, election. If
such a course be adopted, I have 'no hesitation in
saying_ it- will be subversive of
.the .first , and
best interests of public justice, and laying down
a bad precedent in.all.future proceedings-of this
nature. ..What is the hardship complained of on
the. other .side ? Why, that they have not had a
list-of witnesses.: But,your Lordships have re-
lieved them..frora that diflicu Ity ; you. have allow-
, id them to. cross,examine. and, before the.
Bill closs they may be re-examined 'twain.—
. *
(Withdraw.. .Order. Go. on.) . .
Easmsz,---IVILY,does not the Interpre-
ter giVe the viitness.'s answer,?
The Loan CliaNeEt.aoa.—Because the House
objects to _the.question..b.
Lord Livxneo.o.r...—Does the Attorney-G cue-
Tel .object.ta the qiestion.
-The. kribitNEY.,G EN AL7-4 do object to-it,
my Lords: This is, perhaps, the most important
questi9 that has yet occurred.; Unless my
Learned Friends now cross-examine, the Witness,
hew are .we:tO proceed.! . Am I to lay the whole
of the evidence in,support of the Bill before your
Lordships, . and .that before there is any cross-
examination at the other side ! Why, my Lords,
s;tich, a proceeding was never heard of, in any
Other Court of Justice. Is the cross-examination
to proceed_inthis,.manner by piece-meal ? If it
be, I shall: be. shut out from offering 'any expla-
nation as to circumstanceS disclosed by the wit-
ness that may: be, even necessary : and it will be
impossihle foryour Lordships, to place those.who
are to support the 'Bill in the situation- in which
they. ought to. be plat',ed. Why, my Lords, until
the whole of the cross-examination and, the re-
examination be 'closed, there can be no summing
up .by Counsel— .They now :cross-examine in
part—again they Cross-examine in another part,
and when or where is this to end ? Let Ahern
either now proceed to the cross-examination of
the witness, or defer it till the whole of the evi-
dence in chief be closed ;- but they should not
have the eledion.they,are requiring. They are
placed in no difficulties. at 'the other side, but
-what your Lordships have agreed to relieve them
from. Your. Lordships'.rules are foUnded in jusL
tice, but while. you deal out justice to one side,
I hope your Lordships will not forget what is
dtie on the other, and not place- the parties in
support of:this Bill in such a situation as no per-
sons were ever placed .in before. I hope, my
Lords, the rule your Lordships have laid down
will, be continued,-aud.that you will oblige them
to proceed with their, crOss-eXarninatiou on the
•othet side, with the permission-of again cross-
eiaminiug, if they lay proper grounds before
your Lordships...
• , Lord Dans.LEY.Nothing has been said of the
impropriety, of putting this question.
, Mr.. BILOUGHAM.—I shall confine myself to the
.simple question before yont"Lordships, and Shall
not presume.; to , dispute the -rule 'you have laid
down, The only.-qhestion I have
.now to con-
tend for is, shall or shall not iny-questi'ou pt
and answered:?- _ _

Here the Learned Judges seemed in consul
tation, and after a pails?,
Mr. IlitouanAm resumed. • The question be
fore your Lordships, and the • only question
Which must be firSt disposed of according to the
practice of all other Courk is, whether I am
at liberty to ask this witness where she now
fives ? The Attorney-General objects to "this,
And his ground of objection is, that I ought to

put not only this, but all the other questions
which I might put.- ins arguinent is riot direct
ed against this question, but that I don't put all
the.questions in my power to ask. But I won't
argue this before your Lordships. I am not
called upon to do so. Your Lordships have put
me to my electionrand I have made it, and with-
in the narrow limits chalked out to me I shall
proceed to the cross-examivation of the witnesses.
•I'don't argue against the rule, as laid. down by
your Lordships, but I am quite sure) Our Lord-
ships could not think of laying doWn any rule
thrit would bind me one way now, and another
way in a few minutes. You cannot all of a sud-
den change your rules ; I cannot for a moment
imagine you would do any thing so monstrous.
My question now is, where does this witness now
live ?

Several NoblePtEas.—ln England.
•.: Mr. gam:du ANl—Yes : where does the wit-
ness. now live in England -?
In a case of high trea-
son we could have had all this in the list of ivit-
nesses ; we could have had Barbara Crantz, for-
merly of Carlsruhe, and now of such a place, and
such a parish, in London or Middlesex, or where-
ever she might reside.
The LORD CtIANCELLOR.--7-4 feel a great diffi-
culty on. this, not on account of the importance of
the present question, but as 'to the conseqUences
likely to result from permitting such ainode of pro-
cedure: W ith reference to a former Opinion, if I am
not out of order in mentioning it, T have to say cir-
cumstances-have since arisen that have led consider-
ably to alter it.—(llear.),---For myself I object-
ed to the last question being put, and on the. same
grounds I now Object to 'this. If a list of wit-'
nesses had been given, the Counsel could not ask
this witness, " 'Where she now lives," unless:
he proceeded to the whole of his crols-examina
tion. The question cannot now be asked with-
out going :through the cross-examination: If this
House has really adopted the right mode,
for God's sake
.abide by -it. But if it would
be doing injustice to one of the parties,
and to that one most interested, 'do not
let any notions of inconsistency prevent your
retracing your steps—k(hear, hear o—and do
what is right. It is clear that at present the
Counsel for the prosecution cannot be called -on
to re-examine; and I apprehend your Lordships
cannot call for the summing up until the whole
of the cross-examination an the Fe-examination
be gone through. I go further and say, when
the cross-examination 'is deferred; the re-exami-
nation must be deferred. Your .Lordships must
lay down some-rule beyond
..which you will not
go, as.-to what may be the. safest limit you will
determine -as to the cross-examination of wit=
nesse's, but that it should go 'so far as it has :done
this day, would produce a practice most mis-
chievous to the ends-of justice.
Lord GRENvim.E.—Before proceeding further
in this case of the most extreme importance, I
think it: absolutely necessary: to take into our
most serious consideration the question that has
now arisen. On this most important and auxi-
ous inquiry, we, should look to the question of
the cross-examination of witnesses, and if any
rule has been -suddenly or hastily laid down,
to revise and amend it RS soowas possible. The
difficulties, my Lords,, arising out .of our pre-
sent situation are innumerable. When you have
examined all the witnesses in .support of the
charge—after every question has. been put, can
your Lordships proceed in the ordinary way ?
Can you call upon the Counsel to sum up
the case, they not knowing what might yet ap:
pear from a second cross-examination, of their
witnesses ? It-therefore, -my Lords, appears to
me of the last importance„ that we should con-
sider this very important Point seriously, that we
should then .lay -down a strict., inflexible, inva-
riable line of'proceeding. Lords, adverting
to-the partial cross-examination 'of witnesses by
the Counsel for • the defence, there was in my
mind great weight in what was urged by .the
Counsel who made the objection. It would throw
infinite difficulties in the way, 'if' your LordshipS
were to admit the examination of all the witnesses
in chief without allowing any 'addition to those
witnesses, in consequence of what might arise out
of the cross-examination. See, my Lords, the
length to which this would carry you. Your Lord-
shipsmust not only defer the cross-examination to
4 future period,but you must reserve to the Coun-
sel for the Bill a similar right to call new witnesses,
in consequence of the cross-examination.NyLords,
the adjournment of this day will give us one day,
of considering whether we cannot lay down a clear
and distinct rule by which to guide our proceed-
ings on this important subject. Unless this be
done now, we shall fmd,that day by day, and
hour by hour,,we shall.fiud ourselves involved in
new and inextricable difficulties. I would ven-
ture then to suggest the propriety of turning your
Lordships' thoughts to this point at once, and of
deferring all other business until it is decided,
should therefore suggest that Counsel be order-
ed to withdraw.

Lord ItEoLsnim—Mv Lords, any proceed-
ings which your Lordships may adopt on this
occasion will become; a_precedent, and, will be-
come a part of the future bir and usage of Parr
liamvnts--it will apply. tocasesi to Bills of Pains
and Penalties, and, in short, to all cases.bearing
any relation to the present Bill. Your Lord-
ships ought to pause therefore before you de-
part from the ordinary course of prOceedog.
I.f. your Lordships come to.any resolution on the
subject, it should be so shaped as to apply. to
.the pectiliar -case before you, and not • to any
other. My, Lords, I apprehend great danger and;
difficulty from the course of proceeding proposed
to be adopted. Any departure from the usual
course of Courts of Justice must at all times be
attended with dilliCulty. It was at first arranged
that there should be a departure from that course,
andnow your, Lordships are called upon to make
,that departure a.geilerarrtile.- NoW, my Lords,
Iconsider.the case,,,to be this. The
.witnesses in
this case are perSoris:Coming from different places;
and .respecting whoin the COunSel . for the d'6.
fence, are uPable to Make those inquiries which
could be in. aile-re4ectiiig-perkmSreSidhig in this
country. In cases of treason, a list of wit..

nesses is allowed ; _this gives the a.ccLued an
opportunity to inquire into their habits tyntkohat
racters. Ills not being. the case on the pre-
Sent Bill, time is to be allowed' to the accused
to make the necessary inquiries. But, my Lords,
consider what the consequences of the pro-
posed proceeding would be. Your Ldrdships
are aware that nothing is more impOrtant to the •
ends of justice than that the cross-exarnination
should fallow the examination id thief, while the
subject is fully before the 'witness, and his mind
is freSli in the recollectiOn Of the facts: -Vet it is
now proposed to pOstpoue the
,cross-eKamitiatiott
of all the evidence for the Bill, until the Coune.l
for the defence shall think fit that that cross-ex-
arnination should take place. This is contrary
to the acknowledged praCtic'e of the courts of jus-.
tice ; .and, it will be impossible to form an opi-
nion upon a case so conducted, with the same eel.,
thinty as if we proceeded in the ordinary way.
Whether it be important that some of the wit-
nesses Should be re-ex.arnined, I'Sa very 'different
question.- But I aSk,i-ny Lords, Whether there
ever has been a case in which the croSs-exaMitta,
tion ivaS postponed to an indefinite period ? See,
my Lords, .;the 'diflicalty this would
,impose -do
the Counsel-for the Bill., I know not how the
sin-inning up could be 'With propriety laid before
your Lordships under such circumstances, be-
cause Counsel could not know the circumstances
which would come out in the cross-examination.i
If your Lordships do depart from the 'usual
course,' and 'I am of opinioti that you ought not,
but if you do,, it ought to be by an express reso-.
;lotion of the House, so framed that it should-not
be brought into .a precedent. Any advantage
allowed to one side must be equally extended to
the other; and this will certainly prodnce innu-
merable difficulties, as well as much delay.
Lord ERSKINE next addressed their Lordships,
bitt in so low a tone as to lie for some time in-
audible below' the bar. agreed with his Noble
Pi:iend, that many difficulties' arose in•a case like
thiS, where the witnesses Were in .different pahs
of the world, and when their resiC:ences Could not
be exactly 'aScertaitied, He 'would allow the
postponement of the•Cross-ekaMination ; but he
would allow' the other party to call additional
witnesses' also. He hadt6Ternind their Lordships
that they had taken no steps. to prevent the daily
publication of the evidente. That evidence, un-
sifted as it was, had been allowed to go forth to the
world, and was it possible•that this wonld hot bias
the minds of the public,if not of their Lordships? He
agreed with his .Noble Friend that it. was of im-
portance to have the erOssLekarnination follow
the examination in chief without delay, and that
the evidenCe ought to be .at once cOinplete, on
both sides. All he 'desired was to be placed in
'a 'situation 'to decide impartially on the Case.
Notwithstanding the very clear and able' manner
in which his Noble Friend on the 'Woolsack had
delivered' his -opinion on:. the subject,` 'yet he
hoped that though there was-no motion before
the house, his Noble Friend below him (Lord
Grenville) would make 'one, in order to pre ..ent.
their Lordships from being' involved in the diffi-
culties with which they were threatened, and
from which, if once entangled, it would be' im-
possible to extricate theMSeives.
Lord LIVERPOOL—I understand the wish of
the Noble Baron to. bey'to take this clay to con-
sider some measure by which .many difficulties
may be avoided innur. future -proceedings.. To
this I. do not:object ;- but I wish,. before the mo-
tion is made,
.to say a few words. in reply to the
Noble Lord, who spoke last, as ,well as to the
Noble ,Lord- (Grenville) under him. I cannot, I
confess, consider that .the difficulties attending
this proceeding are so great as they -have been
represented to be. -The motion alluded to re-
specting the list of witnesses, would; if granted
hi this case, 'have been inconsistent with the ends
of. justice. In the lower Courts, the accuser is
one party, the defendant is another : the course
of proceeding is definite. The instances in which
the Court may interfere -are Clearly mark-
ed out. What is the • case here ? After
the accuser and defendant : have stated
their case, there exists in your Lordships
an unlimited power to examine . not only
in chief, as the Counsel on One side do, but also
to cross-examine every witness. In short, you
possess every power of inquiry kno:vn t , our
Courts of Justice. But this is not all ; for it is
competent for the' Members of this Ho t•e to call
back a witness whom they may think material.
And even on .any point of the case- which the
Counsel on either- side have omitted to examine
theVtitness upon; it is in the power of this House
to call the witness again, and examine him or' tier
to any of the facts.. I do not see, therefore how
,
it is possible to assimilate the proceedings,of this
Ifouse to those of (Alm. Courts of Justice. If this
crime had been committed in England the greater
part of the difficulties which now embarrass your
proceedings would vanish ; because only a delay
s mast could -be necessary for the
of 'a few day
parties on either side to
.Set themselves right.
Out the difficulties here' arise from, the crime al-
leged having been committed abroad'; • and, there-
fore, delays in adducing the testimony Must ne-
cessarily arise frOm the very nature of the case.
If the crime had been committed in England; and
not high treason, and that the counsel on the
.part of the defendant should ask for a short
delay, I am sure your Lordships would not feel
. disposed to 'refuse any reasonable indulgence of
that sort upon 'a fair cause being shown. And
f say that in cases of iMpeachinents or at-
tainder, or in Bills of Pains and Penalties, your
LOrdships would not refuse a short delay for
the purpose of procuring any testimony which
might require but a few days at most. But in
, this case there must be disadvantage and incon-
venience, and. much longer, delay must arise out
of the special circumstances' of the case, and I
do say, that if the list of' witnesses had been
granted, though the inconvenience might be less-
ened, I do net see how' it could be entirely re-
moved. • In every fermer case the counsel had an
opportunity 'of cross examining the witnesses
fully,; and tho Ugh. a re=examination has taken
PlaCe, yet, if a SpecialcaSe Was made out to them,
that it was necessary for the ends of impartial

justice, that- a Witness shotilci fecalled, it Plight
to be competent for a-Counsel to propose, and your
Lordships-ought nut to refusesuch ona reasonable'
case being made out, to have a witness called back'
But, here the question is, whether there shall bee
power vested in Counsel to make his option to close
his cross-ekarniiiktion before he has gone to the
full extent with a view to resume it at another
time. Your TiOrdships, no doubt, would, upon
fair ground beitig shewn, allow a particular wit'
ness to. be bilinght back in a particular case ; bet
if in the cot,itSe of examination a number of wit;
netsds should be brought back again, you Cann(/
call on the Counsel for the prosecution to subup his case until the cross-examination has MI/
taken: place. 'Phis iss-a point which 1 take tP 1)6
perfectly clear, and therefore I will move tha,ti
the conSideration of this case be deferred tint'
Monday morning next, then to receive pot
Lordships' decision.
Lord GaElsvar.El entirely agree with tbe
-Noble Earl that the difficulty here arises fr.t°
the peculiar nature of the case itself ; brit the,
reason why I venture to call on your Lordship'
attention is, that I feel the necessity for voer'
Lordships to fix some permanent rule froin
you shall not hereafter be .called on to
.depart'
I think, therefore, that what is most desirable •
the -present moment is, that we should turn oer
minds to consider the subject maturely, awl n':
express any opinion, until we have first called
the 'Counsel to state what departure they 1.0
to be adopted in this case from the roar',
`of examination usual in other Courts .of 30'
tice ; :to hear .their arguments on ;both ,siO4'
and then to come to a fixed and definite rule
not 'to be _departed from afterwards. .No Ole
• should be , adopted which could exclude the
. great principle of justice itself. No rule, the'
fore, can. be made by your Lordships,, which PI
may not he induced to vary upon a special a 5,
strong.ground- being made out to show that 0.1
such variation the ends of justice willbebesl
promoted. But your Lordships will do we
to- take: as-nearly. as : poisible for your :guidao
the mode of proceediug established in our cooly°
'of- Law ; for there is no principle so satisf3cr
tory to those who are called on to- adminisfOt
the justice of the country in those Courts, as tt's,
they have fixed -and established rules Of proceed
:ing ; and that they have not on any„occoion..°;
go over a whole ocean of argument, iu search e'
rules.and principles-.upon which to act. ,Ir4tre.
fore it is: my purpose to induce your LordshiP'
tolvtlopt some fixed and' definite rule in this cils`i:
by which.ta guide your proceedings; And,. will
this view, I shall vote for adjourning the llou'o
now, in order to give. time for: Noble Lords t
consider the subject maturely before MondaY.,o
The LORD cHANCELLOH consulted With t'j
Judges, and said it was their:opinion that,
Mr. 'Broti,gharn been furnished -with a list as
case of high treason, he could not have been f';
lowed to put the onestien proposed,,, unless
went through with the whole of his cross-exatill;)
nation. After a debate, a motion was put ire'
the Woolsack, " That the Counsel be called'
and that.the Counsel against the. Bill be recine;
ed to state whether any, and what departure freo
the usual- course of examination 'they consider tt
be necessary to- meet-the justice 'of-- the prese%
Case ; that her-Majesty's Counsel be.heard
the prOpriety of such departure from,that coqo`'e
and that the CoUnsel in favour of the JBill,1)
heard against the arguments of the opplls
Counsel."
Upon the Counsel. being called in, --11„r;
Baouoti.tm addressed theJlouse,. and said, tl';1
he--was bound; at all tiines, by- his prolessioer
responsibility, to state that which-would be c‘j,
duciye to the interest of his:client.. TheirlAlr,,
ships would see the hardship that was impo,l
upon him; being called upon in a moment, 0,11,,
without having any opportunity' of consult,'loi
his Learned Brothers, and of availing
.himselt 6,
their superior wisdom, before he made, his e-le,
tion. If now for the first time their Lordsl„,
began to perceive the sad -eousequendes of
bi
decision preViously come to-if they now beg/
to discover the necessity of. retreading their steFe,
The Earl 'of LIERPOO.I. said,. the I fouse'."6o,
ready to bear the argument of the Learned C°:_ge
sel then if he chose to go into it ; but if it Iktrbe
his intention to. ask for delay,. he thought
Learned Gentleman was at that moment orcii!ij
ing their Lordships' time unnecessarily, as it cgetto
not be for. 'their co:we'll:owe . that they 00ef
hear: half the argument 'then, and-hive the 0".
half reserved for Monday.
rPIV
Mr. BROUGHAM said, that he was Ire, I,lr
stating the difficulty. in which he was placeutid
their Lordships. He would,- however, reg

delay.
The'proceedings wer, adjourned to -M°4ll.
(this day.)

for
A shilling subscription has been proposed:a be
the purpose of purchasing a piece of plate -a in
presented to the QUEEN. This is annouac,reooo
large posting bills,and that Mr. AldermatilY
is the Treasurer. t
On Thuvsday the Brilomari, to moan
guns, was laU i hed at Portsmouth.

81-I{'l'll'. Cr' ~.of I
At Will: -place, Ftr;:ham, the Lady of Charles i
Eq.. of a .1-.lghter. WilliO
On Satir -:- y last. inWimpoic-street, the Lady of
Johnstone, Esv of a eanghter. •

11A11111E1). el r
4411;
At Paris, on the 19th inst. at -int Hotel of hi' `",s„c. Ste.of
the British Ambassador, Mr. Wil!iam.B. Lees, of ''',titer
yard, Lipner 'Chantey-street, to ElixaLeth, only 13",
the I;it r• Mr. Geoige Alerman. of the former ritY. ' •
1)1E1).
• of I°tl°'
On Wednesday, the 2 Id inst. Harriet, the ,x)•- r
niei Wells, Esq. of Pieere!'eld,Nlotimouthshire• 95th Y::,•
(In Thursday evening, •in,.Cadoati place,. in tiiceeelC
of his age, .Georr.t. St aitiforilt. E-q. of TrinitY C teflt
bridtfe,'eldest. son Of Richard Stainforth. 17,4 - 133 r
L:st he at Liverpool; after a few days L
%kite of Sir William 'Barton. pa r
At hit h(itlte it Berkeley-sqoare, Thomas .-.l"'e
e'
9.0 O,'„A• •
LONDON: Printed hy.l. B. CARSTAMS, by •
Ornoind-street: (,)m-nni-ssittaie; .and lish Ti 0,10,1
StIIIPPS, of - 02
Oifice, No. 1 StrandSonth where
Ativeitise streetnico",
Utters, &c. (post-paid.) must aldressed.