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

opening a treaty, and conci tiding a bargain with the Counsel?
sVhat was it they purposed to do? To enter into an engage-
Mein that the Counsel at their Bar should be ready to fol-
low,arp, their statements by evidoice immediately, arid that,
in no case, and under no-cietninstances, he should make
any itipPlication to' the 'loose which the interests of his
client might require. In addition to this It was proposed
that the House should hind itself, es a return for the'
concession; to .say that they would listen to no applica•
tioni that thali would shot themselves_ up. froth. all ap-
proach, and shut Mir,. ears agiNt justice. Shill was the
ext rirordi,astry-triaty•bet eir en the,JutlONan ktv taeplisttnd.the
Counsel at the bar. He could not concur io ntalying• any
pledge that would .amouut.to an abandonment of his own
duty. Agreeing as he did with his Noble Friend, that while
they were navigating a sea without chart or compass, it was
impossible they could feel themselves fsee from danger, he
felt all these dangers would be increased byadopting the course
now proposed'. 'lf arty such interposition was contemplated
on the 'part of the Honse,.it was incumbent on those who.
Meditated the proposal, to have made it before the Soli-
eituir-General had summed no on the other side. What
was the object of summing up? His Noble Friend (Earl'
Laoderdale) the Noble Earl at' the head of the Treasury,
and the Noble Lord on the Woolsack, had all expressed a
wish' that the evidence already giver% at the Bar should be
allowed to make no impression on their Lordships' minds.—
Bor, though they ad witted that any interruption oft he evidence
was an evil,flas in common candour they could, not deny, they
were not only willing that the evidence should stand in its
present shape against her Majesty, but had permitted the
SolicitOr-General to wale his comments, lifter having pre-
determined to adjourn, when the case for the Bill was closed.
What then, he would ask, was the object of summing up?
to give a bias to t heir minds, to point out the strong parts of
Ilse evidence, and collect the whole into a focus against her
Majesty. Feeling.and foreseeing the necessity of an adjourn-
ment, they had done this, though they knew that the Solidi-
tor-General could have summed up afterwards as well as now,
and that .his cause could receive no injury from delay, the
'evideOce being now before their Lordships. After the evi-
dence, and after the comments -upon that evidence, were they
to told that the present was the fit moment to adjourn, even
without the couuterhalance of a singlecomment tot the other
aide ? He admired tbe candour of his Noble Friend in many'
instances,„ hut it struck, him as rather extraordinary that he
shoold say the present situation of the case afforded the best
opportunity for adjournment, as it left matters irl the most,
era! balance. In ,what did that equality consist ? Was it
equiality to allow the whole evidence to be sworn upon
one side, -.and comments to be made on that evidence, in
order to work, it, up to the highest effect ? —Was that a
moment to be fixed upon for suspending the proceeding on
the ground of a favourable equality? Was that the best
and safest tuouaent to select, when one party had all the
advantage ? Al ,Noble .Earl haul cautioned• them against
the injustice of permitting part of the evidence to be brought
forward ; but there was no intention, as he understood,
to make such a proposal.. All that the Counsel wanted was
the advantage of a speech, to counteract the prejudice
created by a speech accompanied with evidence: The Niible
Lord had said, that no case would lyearsuch a proceeding.—
What an opinion the Noble Lords must have of the case!
The Solicitor-General had produced his evidence and made
his speech, but if, after all that, some comment was tacked
to the case, in the opinion of the Noble Lord there' was an
end of all: He would ittlansit; aehrther• it was most fair to
the public, or most.fair to themselves, to allow the evi-
dence and comments to go forth without even an obseiva-
tion on the other side,. to shoe. in 'what respects it., was
valuable, for that was all they desired. He ridiculed' the
idea, that the Counsel for the .Queen would venture upon
statements which they could not prove in evidence. What-
e,ver temporary advantage they might derive would be
more than counterbalanced by the subsequent haw, of
the evidence, and they would forget their duty to their
client. On the contrary, he thought it more reasonable
to conclude, that the Counsel would make a statement. More
lithited than their evidence wool d justify, in the apprehension
that the difficulties with which they were surrounded, 'might
interfere with their case. He would himself object to a pitr-
tial proving of the evidence,but none of the inconveniences
to be apprehended from such a privilege were applicable to
the mere permission to make an opening statement. If there
was to be any leaning on one side-or another, that leaning
ought to be to the accused party. ' 1f there was any doubt in
their Lordships' minds on the subject, they ought to find the
detesmination,cif that doubt in the recollection of what the
accdsed'pariy had before suffered by the proceeding of their
Lordships.' Ile gave his negative to the motion.
Earrof dARNARVON attributed the difficulties under
which the Noble Lords were placed, to the refusal to, grant a
specification'! the charges. 'Ellafiefusal was, in his Lordship's
opinion, a departure from the principles of justice. The House
hadaocansider what wouldbe a remedy. The proposatof the
Queen's Counsel would net be acceded to. It would not he a
It Was possible, that from the ignorance in whichthey
represented 1 bcrnselves to he, the Counsel for her Majesty might
in their defence advance assertions which could not afterwards
be supported by evidence. Had it not already been said, that
a great and foul conspiracy had been entered into, and that
all the evidence lAid before the House was the produce of it.
Would their Lordships allow suet) a defence to lae made, add
then aoKer two or three months to elapsetefore any evidence
wass-produced- in itaisupport ? •Would they depart from that
great principle of law and justice, that when a charge was
made, the evidence should he produced with the least possible
delay? In the present 'case, it was important that the
Counsel for her Majesty, if they made their statement, should
immediately go on with their evidence, or if all was not
ready, with that part of it which was, that no unfounded
libel might he circulated for months, uncontradicted and ins-
!timely, and that no individual should be able,' ambiguas
.spar:; ere .roces.
The LORD CHANCELLOR explained that ,it was gene-
rally understood whets a Counsel proposed to sake a state,-
went, that be was eerfectly ready to go on wills his proofs.
This was the ordinary mode of proceeding; but he did not
mean to shut out those exceptions, which it might be necessa-
ry to allow, and for whichio many cases application bad been
made.

-Lord CALTHORPE believes) that nothing commanded more
confidence and admiratiOn 'than the mode in which justice was
administered in the Courts below. Yet, if he understood the
ground• on which applications had been made fur the opinion
of the Judges, it was that although entitled to the highest
respect, they were only to be received subject to the discre-
tion of the House. This had been exemplified by the un-
bOunded extent of cross-examination which the House had
thought fit to grant to her Majesty's Counsel, as equivalent
for the refusal of a list of witnesses. Now considering how
moderately the Queen's Counsel bad used the privilege al-
Itiwed them, he thought the House could not with propriety
reftsse them the present indulgence. In order, however, that
it should not he turned. into a precedent, it should be re-
corded on their Journals that it Was'granted under the special
circumstances of the case. Amongst other special circum-
stances in this case, he must, undoubtedly, place the refusal
of' a list of witnesses. Her Majesty's Counsel would not
hay, been' deprived of that advantage, if impeachment had
.been the mode adopted; the loss which they had incurred
through the determination'of the House gave them a claim
di,* it; and it would be hardly fair to refuse them the in-
(talgence which they now ruCilleSted. As to the use which
Osiflit be made of that indulgence by the Counsel, be did
numisiink that was a fit consideration for their Lordships.—
(war, hear, hear!)—He would say this much, however,
thathe" could never bring himself to believe that the Attorney-
General for her Majesty would so far compromise his charac-
ter as to sink, in the -attributes of an Advocate for the
Quern, the higher claims which pliblic justice had on his
loMour and discretion. He was sure that the Learned Gen-
tkman would receive such an indulgence as an important
trust committed to him by the House, for which he would he
responsible, not-merely to her Majesty, but to the House and
•to•the Public, for whom the House acted.
• Lr,r(l REDF.SDA LE was thoroughly persuaded that it was
• essential some proceeding should have been instituted. It
woad have been impossible otherwise that the minds of this
country and of all Europe should have been satisfied. With
this impression upon his mind, he had considered with much
anxiety and care what course of proceedings ought to be
adopted. The House were upon this subject to act upon the
law, and not to make any new law. The'course its which the
Queen's Counsel wished to proceed, was in violation of such
authority as the house was hound to follow. The defence of
the Queen could be made in the shape of evidence alone by the
la 0•: a'nd was it in this case to rest. upon the mere assertions
of.shose.whu were in no way responsible? He concluded with
declaring it to be,his, opinion, that the Counsel fur her Ma-
jesty could oot, with propriety, go on with the defence before
the Adjournment.
Lord- DARNLEY could not but attach very great import-
ance to-the statement of inconveniences made by Nohle Lords
whnwt!re adverse to the prOpOsitions of the Queen's Coun-
sel; but, after balancing the inconveniences with the con-
veniences, he had made up his mind that it would be the pre-
ferable course to permit Counsel to proceed as they seemed
disposed, as this was not an-ordinary judicial case. He did
not know upon what principle the House could refuse the
Queen's Counsel the power of dividing the evidence for the
• , defence, when they bad granted them the power of dividing
tbetross-examination, Lie could not brlp expressing his re-