The Sun.
London, England, 1820-07-11 00:00:00

stantial justice should be done, ar4d this he con-
tended could only be done by communicating the
substance 'of the depositions to the accused:
Lord ERSICIIIE...M -Lords, much as I ,always
desire to hear my Noble
_Frielid on the right,
a:in not sare_A should- have glien way to, hhn, if
I had not expected it would have been more. to
_the matter MONT before us. He. sa.y.s_that_we have
two characters, that of hereditary . Counsellors',
and Legislators also, and that if looking at the
evidence secretly in the former character, dis-
qualified us for sitting in judgment on it aft&-
wards, no such Parliamentary jurisdiction should
haVe ever existed ; but to.that it can be only an-
swered, (and I am delivering no opinion on. the
point), di& if looking at the evidence' secretly,
affects the judgment, as it is impossible to change
the nature of .the human mind, the practice of
the Constitution should be altered. But that is
not the question.now—the Committee has made
its Report---a Bill has been brought in---it has
been read a first time, and the 17th of August
has been appointed for the second reading, and
the only matter to be considered at present is,
how we are .to deal with it most consistently with
the honour and-character of the house, with the
clearest safety to the accused, and in a
,manner
the rnoFt congenial to the feelings of an enlight-
ened people. My Lords, the proceeding is so
rare, Or rather so anomalous, that it may be
.fictitt to find a precedent that may exactly apply:
to it ; but I wish to lay aside precedont
;ether for a more satisfactory rule of decision,.
viz. for that mode of proceeding which is the most
analogous to the general principles of
.our Crimi-
nal Lai;, m a case the nearest to the present, and
which will hold the scales of justice the most even
between the accuser and the accUsed.. Your
Lordships must anticipate that excellent Statute of
King. William for the protection of per Sons ac-
cused of High Treason, which gives to the accus-
ed, even before the Court is opened, a copy of
the indictment, and a list of all the witnesses
who are to be examined for the Crown. What

is the principle of this admirable law which thus
bestowS a privilege which in ordinary cases is
denied? It is, my Lords, because in such a case
the prisoner has not to contend with an equal
accuser, or with equal securities against justice.
It is because he is to contend with mighty power,
which is wisely vested by the law, but which'de-
mands a balance; and he is therefore covered
all.-,oVer with the armour of the Jaw. Now
was there ever a ease more clearly of this de-
scription ? Ido ndt mean to speak invidiously,
or to make any charges ; but only to point out
the situation of the Illdstrious Accused. She
has to c.ontendagainst the Crown and its Minis-
.ters, and against- all the powers and influences
they possess. - In such
.a case, my-Lords, putting
all right' or
.precedent :out of - the
.qtiestion, I
would most earnestly advise . your.. Lordships to
give the list of 'the witnesses,unleSs yein can shew
Me who offered *You this advice, 'tin:t by doing
so-you would disturb the balance of justice, and;
confer a power to weaken and disappoint the ac-
cusation, however just. Shew me this and L
ani silent, but you cannot show this without
being.' prepared to repeal 'the Statute of King
William, because I ask even less than by that
Statute is compulsOry off the 'Crown. After the
list of-the witnesses in a case 2f MO treason has
been delivered, though a fatal omission is after-
wards discovered, it cannot be repaired ; and the
witnesses; though by accident omitted, cannot be
examined ; but in a case so anamolous; and where
there 6410 law to demand.such proceeding; it ought
not to be required ; but what objection then re-
mains to a list of those that have at present been
determined on? The Noble Earl has said that
he should prefer a proceeding without interrup-
tion, but that if the illustrious accused, after the
witnesses for the Bill had been examined, should
desire- time to contradict them, God forbid it
should be refused; but that indulgence might
come too late. The list of the. witnesses is given,
not merely that those for the Crown may be con-
tradicted, but that,'under cross-examination, if
they are false witnesses, they may be made to
contradict themselves. My Lords; I pray you
to consider this....-The 'Noble Earl has said that
the question is not closed, and that it may be
reconsidered. It appears to me to 'deserve re-
consideration. We are placed in the view of the
publics -and I- know we shall fulfil our duty: The
judicial character of the Honse of Lords supports'
all -the other tribunals of justice, and the attend-
ance of the . Judge's would be of no value here
unless our . superior character were held sacred
by the people, -which I hope and trust they ever
will be. My LOrdS, have not made these ob-
seivatiOns from any desire to disappoint or ob-
struct.
the course we are engaged in. When the
Court assembles I will do my duty, as if all the
angels in heaven were taking notes of whatever
paSsed through my mind on the subject ;. but I
- wish 'to •be placed -in a' situation in which I can
do this duty' with safety.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave the Noble and
Learned Lord credit for the 'profession he had
made of keeping, his mind free from all bias on
- this important subject, and wished to God that
the same rule of justice had 'been attended to
both in the House and out of it. In the House
it- certainly was attended to, hut out Of the House
• it was quite Shocking to see hoW much it was
.neglected. The Noble and Learned Lord had
stated no analogy, except the case of Iligh Trea-
son, Old' even that he must give up on looking at
the circumstances which established the distinc-
tion between them. .''Hoiv did 'the law now stand
with respect to High Treason ? lie remembered
in the course of his- professional life, furnishing
to persens accused, a list of two hundred persons
and upwards who were to be examined as wit-
nesses, for the law,' as it then stood, and now
stands, no
person could examined whose name
was not inserted in the list of witnesses., The
consequence to be apprehended, therefore was
this, that if a witness for the-defendant swore that
their Lordships had all attended the treasonable
meeting, not
.one of them' could be Called to
contradict the , witness, if ' his -name was not in
the list. That was not the case in such a pro-
ceeding as the present, so that the analogy must