The Sun.
London, England, 1820-08-23 00:00:00

LONDON JOU ItNALS.
(DAILY EXTRACTS.]

-.411..---

FROM THE MORNING PAPERS.

[Morning Post.]
TRIM,. OF THE QUEEN.-Yesterday the con-
clusion of the examination of Theodore .11(docci,
the first witness in support of the preamble to
the Bill in the Lords, and his cross-examination
by Mr. 13rougham, which was not finished, lasted
till very near five o'clock, to which hour, after
some discussion, it was agreed the House should
sit during the remainder of this important in-
quiry. When only one witness is examined this
is an exhausting task, but Counsel, Witnesses,
and Interpreters will cheerfully submit to fa-
tigue, when they see their Lordshps make such a
sacrifice of their time. It is perhaps questionable,
however, how far the physical force of man can
supply this prolonged attention, and meet this
exigent demand. Some debate arose on the fre-
quent reply of Majocci, " Questo non mi recordo,"
strictly translated, " This Ido not remember;"
but, as it appears to us, in many instances mean-
ing that he could not answer the question, did
not uwderstand it, or was at a loss for definite
ideas. By reading the examination it will occur
to the public, that in some instances it was im-
possible that the want of lnemory could be the
intended purport of the witness's words. As we
yesterday remarked upon her Majesty's abrupt
departure, so have we now to notice her Coun-
sel's mode of putting his questions. Highly ap-
preciating the zeal of the advocate, and giving
full latitude to that course, whose object is to
weaken the proof against the accused, it may be
thought that the Learned Gentleman went quite
as far as was proper in his skilful operations for
sifting the evidence,and in availing himself of the
handsome manner in which the whole Peers of Great
Britain surrendered their time into his hands, on
the assurance that he had arrived at a critical and
most vital part of his duty. We confess that to
us the questions after that period appear to be of
• less consequence than any which preceded them.—
Mr. Brougham and some of the Party Scribes
.affect to complain that the publication of the
proceedings in this case has not been prohibited.
If this were done in hostility to the Queen and
her friends, it would certainly be a very harsh
proceeding, after the singular display of modera-
tion which they have made ever since the Queen
came to England, and after the great anxiety
which her Majesty and her Advisers, legal and
illegal, have evinced to guard against the ques-
tion being prejudged. Of course the Party could
not expect that so uncourteous a return would be
made for that dignified and affecting offspring of
suffering innocence, which the organ of that
Party but one little week ago politely called
" a Manifesto,"—" a manifesto," it might have
added, surpassing in boisterous scurrility and
mischievous tendency, any thing that Queen Isa-
bella, wife of Edward 11. and Catherine 11. of
Russia, have left behind them for the edification
of posterity, When, however, the Party writers
tell us, that the Government interdicted, pend-
ing the trials, the publication of evidence in mat-
ters of sedition, we must say first, that we do
not immediately recollect any thing of the kind ;
and in the next place we must remark, that we
do not know that the House of Lords has ever
been bound by the rules laid down by the
Judges in the inferior Courts of Justice. We
would further remark, that the Judges are not
the Government; but the evil we have no* to com-
plain of, in the publication of the evidence, we
think may easily be traced to those who are the
first to complain of it. When we recollect how
feelingly they pourtayed the evils to which the
late Mr. 7'histlewood and his worthy friends were
subjected, through the restriction put on the
publication of the evidence given on the trials
for High Treason—when we recall how clearly
they pointed out the manifold advantages that
would result from giving all that transpired
immediately to the world ; and when they told
us how likely such a course was to call forth
witnesses who might contradict what had been
urged against the individual on tr;al, we felt half
convinced by their arguments, and think it pro-
bable that the Government, wholly convinced
by them, were determined that her Majesty
should be the first to profit by that conviction.
—This we guess to be the case; but the Party
writers will spew us perhaps, that what has been
done and what has been doing is base partiality
—that the publication of the evidence lately
given .at the Old Bailey was interdicted to favour
'rhistlewood and his accomplices, and that it is
w permitted, to injure the Queen.

{lllorning Chronicle.]
Iv the present early stage of the Proceedings
against the Queen, no rational opinion can be
formed as to the result.—Our Readers will, no
doubt, remark the difference that exists between
the clear recollection of the most minute circum-
stances that the first witness exhibited on his ex-
amination in chief, and his Non mi recordo, in his
answer to almost every question of Mr. Brougham,
ou his cross-examination.

[Morning herald.]
We need hardly direct the attention of the
reader to the continuation of the evidence in Our
paper of this day. It is of the deepest impor-
tance. It is not our business, 'or rather indeed,
it would be the grossest impropriety to suggest
any inference, or make any observation. W do
nut agree with some of our cotemporaries, who
censure the Ministers for not prohibiting the pub-
lication of the statement and evidence. In the
first place, it is likely, that if the prohibition had
been issued, blame would be imputed to the
same quarter which is 110 W charged with disre-
garding the interests of justice, in allowing the
free publication. In the second place, it strikes
us, that it will not in the 'cast prejudice the case
of the Queen.—The evidence given before not
only the Peers, and the Counsel, &c. on both
sides, but before one hundred strangers also, must
have gone abroad in a doubtful state.