The Sun.
London, England, 1820-10-23 00:00:00

TIIE QUEEN.

Mr. BROUGHAM said he wished to take this
opportunity to-offer sonde evidenCe to tine, llou~e,
which he must premise was rather of -an unusual
'kind, and would not he allowed on an' ordinary
trial, but the present was not such .a trial, and
therefore, on account of the statements in the
preamble .of the Bill; he hoped their
_Lordships
would consent tohearbbn. It was stated in that
preamble that not only had the queen so conducted
herself- as to authorise the introduction, of it ;
but it was averred that she had thereby brought
great Scandal on his. Majesty, and also on his .King-
dom, whiCh rendered the measure neCessary,.
Conceiving this charge to relate to the demeanour
of her Royal HighneSs in foreign States,. which
had brought dishonour on the Crown and. tainted
the reputation of the Kingdom in the estimation
of foreign Courts, be considered be ought to be
allox4d to disprove this accusation. k'roM the
evidence he held in his hand, which was The
4ustrian Gazette; published at. Trieste,, he was
prepared to slew that the Princess was 'spoken
of aciording to her splendid rank; that she had
arrived at Trieste at mid-day, where she was. re-
ceived with honour ; and that she left Trieste at
five. 'o'clock the following day, amidst those dis-
tinetions due to her elevated rank. These cir-
cumstances would shew'.primafa,cie.that she was
quite innocent of bringing that dishonour on'this
.Country.which was charged on her Royal High-
ness in the allegationS of the Bill. It would
spew also that she arrived in Trieste at twelve

o'clock on the morning of the 15th, and left it
at five o'clock in the afternoon of the 16th.

The ATTORNEY-G 1 NERAL said, that the Learn-
ed Counsel had not the. shadow of right to offer
such matter in evidence, and it was palpable
what etre' ct was intended to be produced by it.
Would they receive the testimony of Newspapers
as evidence iu any Court If
.he himself was not
permitted to tender such evidence against the
Queen, and he,was quite certain he was not at
liberty to do any such thing, how could Mr.
Brougham, he would ask, be allowed to tender
it on the other side?
The SOLICITOR-GgxEnAr. bad no occasion to
follow his Learned Friend, in order to enforce
the objection he had so unanswerably made. it
was evident, the only object of Mr. Brougham,
ie offering the Paper to the House, was to verify
the time of her Royal Highness's arrival at
Trieste, and this object was so palpable,, that he
scarcely knew what expression to apply to it.
The attempt was, collaterally and incidentally, to
make a certain_ impression on their Lordships'
'minds.

..Mr. BROUGHAM, on the other side, admitted
that the Paper in question was no evidence if pro-
duced in Court, but the case was very different
here. In every Court of Justice he should have
piassessed those advantages which were unavail-
able to him in the present case; he could have
attended a Grand Jury,and objected to the. Bill;
he could afterwards, in open court, have chal-
lenged the Jurors, and objected to the pro-
secutors. So situated he could distinctly have said
none of the parties should be allowed both to sit
and vote in their own case. He did not know,
even, at this period, how far.their Lordships might
be inclined to open to him, and if their Lordships
.could consent to this, and convert the House at
once into a.Court of Justice; and if the Attorney-
. Gen. would consent to it, he himself would be quite
satisfied and withdraw the paper at once. But
when such anomalies had been allowed as against
the defendant, it , was necessary to rebut them
.by anomalies in disfavour of the prosecution ;
and,, therefore, he hoped that as one anomaly led
to another, their` Lordships would allow him this:
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, after a pause, that
he had to inform the Learned Counsel, that the
Paper he tendered in evidence, could not be re-
.ceived by the House.