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

Of et rmocz magnitude. Tits evidence had gone farth-to,lhc:
world. But it was said that the cross-examination had. gone
forth also. This however did not remedy the evil."''Fro•its`'"
the list of the witnesses hiring withheld, her Nlajesty74 Coun-
sel up to the day of trial knew little or nothing of the wit-
nesses that were to be produced, and were therefore preelud;'
eti from making, the inquiries respecting them
which nould
otherwise bare •teen made, aid thus the cross-examinations
had nut that importance which might otherwiS'e have he- -
lotied to them. -They were .now placed between two evils:
his choice should certainly be the least, and that which to
bituself appeared most consonant to the spirit of English law
and'Euglish justice. If embarrassments there were, he w•ottld
throw them rather upon the accuser than Abe accused. It was
by the Bill of Pains and Penalties ; by a proceeding So alio.;
malous, that their Lordships were brought into their present
difficulty —(Hoar, hear !;—.l Noble Lord had quoted the case
of Lord Falkland, tried oetore Lord Ellenborough. kie, too,.
would refer to that case, and it would be Varnd it was directly
contrary to the interetree drawn trims it. The case for the
proiecution was ciosetl at six o'clock;. at so late an hour, the
Counsel fur the defendant (now Mr. Justice Best) required
time for the &rem e ; hot the learned Judge insisted on the
Counsel going oil with it immediately; he coninieliced forth-
with, but did not Proceed to the end of the cause, and au ad-
journment actually did ',the place before any witnesses were
called. His Lordship concluded by declaring that, since he
had a seat in that House, he never 'gave a vote with more
pleasure or sincerity than he would vote that the Counsel for
her Majesty should have the advantage they sought for, and.
whichOte contended, on the principles of justice, could not be

denied them.
. The Earl of LIVERPOOL -admitted .the principle stated
by the lholde Earl who had just sat that if either party
was to possess an advantage in this case, it ought to be the
accused; but their Lordships ought to consider the compara-
tive; inconveniences. Whatever disadvantages her Majesty
might ;offer by the charges bring suffered to go forth fur two
months uncohtradicted, these were oot
.be compared to that
of adopting the other course proposed by the Noble Lord op
polite; and he would never hear the- charge that these dith•
eeltieeleut been brought by their Lordships upon themselves
without endeavouring to repel it. As to the proceediog by a
Bill of Pains and Penalties, he would contend, that so far as
related to her Majesty, it was decidedly preferable to a trial
by Impeaihnient. In the case of the latter, theheial wools)
have besm nt fhe Commons, net on oath—on ex-parte state-
Mem s—no cross-examination—no evidence to- cowl-edict ite-
11,y, the evidence would have beets much stronger, hecouse
it
would siot'have been on oath. There would then have been
no list of witnesses, no specification of time and place,-of
whicirso touch had been said; and the evidence would have
gone forth for weeks or mouths nneontradicteth His Lordship
proceededeo vindicate the course that had been adopted, and
to defend the refusal of a list of witnesses. When an option
sees granted to the Counsel for her Majesty to have a delay
for the iletrnce, he believed there was not a Noble Lord
in
that House who understood that the delay wastto• he in the
middle Of the defence; but that when the case for the prose-
cution was concloded, thee the delay would he granted. But
what was now asked ? Why, a delay in the course of the de-
fence, at a moment when the (helmet for the Queen desired
it. A Noble and Learned Land, for whose opinions and ex•
perience he had the greatest lespect, had askhd What .right
the Solicitor-General had to sum up. ' The moment
the
Learned Counsel for the Queen said he had no further cross-
( xamioation, the Solicitor-General was bound to sum up
The House had heard a deal about eross•examination of wit-
nesses. His. Lordship was desirous of saying, a few words on
that subject. On a former stay the Learned Counsel had
the {sower of adjourning the cross-examination, and it was
not too hard to suppose they bad made au option beneficial
to- the illustrious person for whoni they were concerted. It
was nut unfair to presume they had waived the cross-exami-
nation, because thejesuppored it was•ho longer necessary.—
The Noble Earl did not denyehete in this case there 'might
have been witnesses introduced to the Bar'esinesel had never
heard of; 'but it was impossible•to -read the preamble of
the Bill without drawing an inference that such witnesses
would be called. His Lordship then came to the main part
of the question, nanielve-whisther there'was any compariou at
all, between the inconvenience arising to her Majesty by de-
lay; and the inconvenience to the course of public justice
which must arise by allowing the proceeding to be interrupt-
ed •in the meddled the defence ? The Noble kart did not
wish to throw any imputation on the Learned Counsel. He
believed they would be actuated by a sense of duty only, but
they isert.theinterest of an illustrious.person inhheir,hands,
and they would look at every object as.it bad that bearing.
The Noble Earl added, that he bad a right to argue not on
the honourable character of any individual, but whet might
happen.. The evidence iu support of the accusation lied been
called... Witnesses hail been' examined, cross-examined, re-
exemieed, stud examined by their Lordships. The ex-parte
evidence basthseen received and summed up, so that the, House
hah.before tlietrethe complete case of accusa.ion, and the reie
dethe in support of it. lie did not mean •to saY•the case by
remaining unanswered two or three' months, might net fur-
nish obshrsettions 'fairly arising out of that delay, hut the
true view of the subject was thish Their Lordships knew the
whole accusation, and the evidence by which it was support-
ed. Ile might ask what would be the consequence if they
agreed to the application ? The Learned Counsel might
open-the case on false information, which they bad no
means to peace. • They might have an imaginary case,
totally without foundation. What would then 'be the situa-
tion of. the parties, and what comparison was there between
the two cases ? A statement conveying a false description,
would go out without any proof whatever in one case, and a
statement supported by-evidence in the other.' He could not
see any comparison'betvicen the two cases. The Noble Earl
was not called. on to say what was the iuconvenieuce on one
side inure than smother, but what seas the course of justice
and injustice. He could not conceive any course more un-
just and dangerous, than that of stopping in the-middle of a
defence. f 1 Noble Lord had said, he did not know whether
rhitectlsot not,that the Learned Counsel ought to be allowed,
as a matter of right, to adjourn at the end of his statement,
anal the Noble Lord had also said he shhuld not object to ad-
journ at the end of such statement. The Noble Lord bad
supposed these who conducted the accusation, had received
similar .i»dulgence; belt independent of the inconvenience
which most arise from dividing the defences—was there no
difference in the two-cases ? One went out supported by evi-
dence; the other was to go forth • without fitly evidence. It
was not proper that the statement for the defence shsitild re-
main without -the evidence being -produced, because the
evideuce alight not support the statement. 'The truth was,
the more they grappled with the question, the more were
they embarrassed. •He knew nothine of the 'case without the
evidence, but the Noble Eatl said it ought to be taken toge-
ther. The House might find it inconvenient to stop, but under
the peculiar circumstances of the case a division of it could
not be admitted. If they once consented to a separation of a
defence where were they to stop ? What boundary crenld they
find ? It was impossible to divide it. He did not conceal
there was not hardship and inconvenience, but the incon-
venience would have been greater if impeachment had
been adopted. 'they could not divide the defence; They
could not divide the accusation. The House must- take
the whole together. The Learned Counsel at the bar was
entitled to hit option whether he would then adjourn or
•conclude his defence. If he should ask for a few a days to ar-
range his evidence he ought to have it ; then he should go
hu, and complete his s!.fence. If on the other hand telonger
adjoyrement was desiard, he was entitled to the indulgence,
but be (Lord Liverpool) was satisfied, from strict cousidera-
riots of the subject, that no course could' be so inconsistent
and dangerous to all the ptinciples of justice as a division of
the case. •
The Marquess of LANSDOWN wished, before he offered
any opinion oo the subject, to know the question before the
House. As far as he understood, there was no proposition
bhhtle them. either for adjournment or proceeding. •
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, he understood there was
a motion before the House for calling in CousiSel. That not
being the case, his Lordship proposed the following tnetion,
which was put immediately from the Woolsack :—" That.
Counsel Silotlid be called its, and informed, that if they pro.:
ceeded to state the case for her Majesty, they most at the
. close of tine statement produce the whole of the evidence for
the defence; but thet the House would on the other hand
agree to adjourn for any reasonable time which might be ne-
cessary, its order to enable them .to proceed With their evi-
dence, if they postponed their defence to a fetare day."
The Marquis of. LANSDOWN said, hhonderstood, fur the
first time, the proposition before the House, a proposition
which did not arise oust of any application from Counsel, for
'no such application had been made, but amounting to a
rectien to the Counsel, originating with the House. He
was. pot so Well acquainted with the "practice of the Omits
helots/4e the Noble Lords in whose presence be.was speak,
logs tspt "use must: be allowed to state, that, as far as he
' washisforessede a fuore unusual proceeding had never been
reehenmeuded in a Court of Judicature. He would go fur-
Akre and say, that if her Majesty's" Counsel were to state
twhih,
ai he .would enter into t) engagehtent—that
lite would reserve 'hisneelf open• for his client to make any
fitiiter‘he circumstances, he might think
necessary, he would- do-tnitnore-thau he was bouud to do in
common jostieeho his client, and he believed that there was
no Counsel Whf had ever appeared at that bar who wield not
feel it iiis duty to reject on the moment Such a proposal as the
PregeM- WO it not a most exttaordiaary thing fur any
• Court to obstruct their 'Ovid proceeding, fOr the purpose of