Star.
London, England, 1820-07-15 00:00:00

• Counsel were fully heard in the Scots Cause, " The Duke of
Roxburgh v. Roberton."—Judgment postponed till Alonday.
• Lord HOLLAND presented a Petition .from James Fer-
guson as the Inventor of a Plan to render Bank Notes difficult
of imitation,. and praying to be heard by Couniel against, the
Bill for the prevention of Bank Note Forgeries, now on their
Lordships table.—The Petition was read, and ordered to be re.
ferred to the Committee.—His Lordship observed, that a Peti-
tion with a similar prayer was presented on the preceding even-
iug ; lie was not particularly acquainted with the circumstances,
nor did he know what their Lordships would determine but if
the person from whom the former Petition tame shonld be
heard by Counsel, he would move, that the prayer of the Peti-
tion, which he had just presented, should be spoken to by Coun-
sel :Iso.
Lord HOLLAND presented a Petition signed by several
Dissenters of the three denominations, praying the repeal of
certain laws which affect them with civil disabilities on account
of their religious tenets. The Petition stated, that these laws
deptivcd the Petitioners of their natural• rights, involving the
must sacred duties, and interfered with principles which ought
not to come under the cognizance of any human tribunal. It
adverted to the liberal character of the reign of his late Ma-
jesty, which had gone far to emancipate religion from civil
thraldom, while much remained yet to be done by pursuing the
same spirit of` an ameliorating policy. It urged the well-known
loyalty of the Petitioners and habitual attachment to the Throne
and Constitution; who, notwithstanding, were ineligible to cer-
tain offices by the operation of main. laws, from which, it was
true, they were relieved by an Annual Indemnity Act, which
might be said to be a virtual repeal of those laws, but which
laws it would be more wise and magnanimous to repeal in due
font), and thereby afford the Petitioners, instead of A precarious
tolerance, a constitutional security. It was also stated, that the
Petitioners were ready to concur in any just security on their
part in order to be restored to their station in society, and to the
legal enjoyment of their rights as subjects of the realm.—The
Petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Lord GROSVENOR presented a l'etition from certain Per-
sons now under sentence of iniprisonment, in the Jail of Lan-
caster. The Petitioners complained of various hardships and
unnecessary privations enforced upon them, from the time that
they were fitst committed upon a charge of High Treason,
which was afterwards abandoned, until the present hour, in
which they are confined on a conviction for misdemeanour. It
stated, also, that the Illagistrates had subjected them to the
treatment of felons, insisting upon their working in felons' dress,
and upon their refusal, withdrawing their allowance, and Peti-
tioners, therefore, prayed for relief against such unconstitutional
infliction.—The Petition was ordered to lie on thb table.
Lord LAUDERDALE presented a Petition from certain
Calico Printers in the neighbourhood of London, praying that
the Calico Printers' Bill might speedily pass into a law.—The
Petition was ordered to lie on the table.
On the motion of Lord DA RNL EY, the Order was dis-
charged to oblige the King's Stationer of Ireland to produce a
copy of his Patent.
The Portpatrick and Donaehadee Harbour Bill, and the
Saving Banks Bill were committed.
Pellew's Divorce Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Royal Family Bill, the Militia Bill. and several others,
were read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.
The Deceased Marines Relations Bill, and others, passed
through Committers, and were reported without amendment.
On the motion of Lord Viscount SIDMOUTH, the Allen
Bill was ordered to be read a second tune on Tuesday—the
, Lords to be summoned.

On the committal of the East India Volunteers Fill,
Lord GROSVENOR expressed his approbation of tbe em-
ployment of a Volunteer Force in preference to enormous Mili-
tary Establishments; and took occasion to explain a misconcep-
tion which bad gone abroad relative to his observations on a for-
mer night upon the dissatisfaction among the Guards.
THE QUEEN.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY brought up the Report of
the Committee appointed by their Lordships to search for pee-
-1 cedents, on the subject of communicating a List of Witnesses
in cases of Bills of Attainder, Bills of Pains and Penalties, and
cases Impeachment. The Report was read by the tit,
and stated, that their Lordships Committee had searched for
precedents in the above-mentioned cases, from the earliest pe-
riods to the present time ; and among the numerous precedents
which they bad examined, they had tounikbut two, and those
in cases of Impeachment, which were applicable to the matter
in consideration. The first of these was entered on the 30th of
May, 1621, and was the case of Sir John Bennet, Judge of the
Prerogative Court of the Province of Canterbury, who was im-
peached for mal-practices in his office, which bad been inquired
into by a Committee, consisting of he Earl of Huntingdon,
and others. The accused humbly represented, that the parti-
culars of his answers to the charges against him, extended
through the whole course of nineteen years, in which he had
been Judge of the Prerogative Court, and he therefore prayed
for a copy of the Charges, liberty to be heard by Counsel, and
the names of the witnesses against him. Their Lordships took
his prayer into consideration, and allowed him access to Par-
liament, by Counsel, and liberty to examine witnesses eon jute;
but the names of the witneses were not given him. The other
precedent was that of the Earl of Strafford, who was im-
peached by the Commons of Iligh Crimes and Misdemeanours.
His Lordship prayed to be heard by Counsel, to be allowed
warrants,cto produce witnesses on his own part, and to have
delivered to him the names of the witnesses against him: the
House of L.rds declined giving an answer -until they should
have heard the answer of the Commons. The Earl of Straf-
ford petitioned, and eventually it was signified to him by the
Chancellor, that in matters of fact he could not have Counsel,
but in matters of law he might. He was also informed, that
he might have warrants to compel the attendance of such wit-
nesses, on his own part, as were unwilling to appear, but the
list of is itnesses was refused.

lb Report having been ordered to be laid on tie table,
Lord ERSKINE said—" My Lords, having on a
former occasion stated nit opinion to the House, that
in the unhappy case respecting which we are called
upon to legislate, a list of the witnesses in support
of the accusation, ought to be communicated to the '
Queen, and having also stated the grounds upon
which I had formed that opinion, I shall now trouble
your Lordships with but a very few words upon the
question. This is a ditninal charge against the
Queen, as, if it is not, I should like tb be informed
what it is. The Bill charges her Majesty with inde-
cent familiarity, adulterous intercourse, Ecc. with
Pergarni or Beiganri, but without specifying time or
place. Thus, from the year 1814., when her Majesty
quitted this country, to 1820, during which period
this lilustrious Personage travelled to a variety of
, places, the charges extend over the whole of that
I period, and during the whole progress of pier dif-
ferent jouinies, without any point of time, or any
place being fixed upon for her Majesty to be ac-
quainted with the nature of the proof, or the time or
place to which it is to apply. It was well observed,
upon a former occasion, by my Noble Friend (Earl
Grey), who deservedly stands high in estimation,
that if her Majesty were furnished with a list of the
witnesses against her, she might then be enabled to
seed for. witnesses, in order to rebut the 'charges, or
to obtain the means, from a kaowledge,of the cha-
racter or situatiqn of the witnesses against her, of
cross-examining them, and thus to make them bear
witness against themselves, if it should tura out that

they had been ,stating. falsehoods, that the proceed-
ings raisin- go 'On- de diens direr ; but that if a list of
the witnesses was denied, then her Majesty would,
after the eumination of the witnesses kr the accu-
sation, naturally require delay, in order to prepare
her meats' of defence, and thus a considerable and
most inconvenient interruption in the p
must unavoidably take place. In this I mostentire -
agree, satisfied as I am, that the most effectual mode
of going on with the proceedings without delay.
would be to grant to her Majesty a list of the wit.-
nesses against her. If we look to the analogies beat-
ing upon this case, we shall find that all the reason-
ing that applies to the excellent statute of Wiliam_
applies with still more force to the case of the
. Queen. What was the object of that statute ? To
interpose between the weakness' of the individual ac-
cused of High Treason, and the power and influence
arrayed against him, and to shield him, by every
possible means, against any undue exercise of that
power or, influence. In the first place, the indkt-
ment for Pligh Treason must be drawn with the ut-
most pAigularity, stating the specific overt acts al-'
itsged the prisoner,- with the day and place
on and at which it was done; and thus' the prisoner
has the means, without difficulty, of meeting each
specific charge against him. Ile has then a list of
the jurors who are to try him, and whom, as it might
in some cases endanger his life to state his reasons
for challenging them, he has the liberty of chal-
lenging to a certain extent peremptorily and he has
also furnished him a list of the witnesses who are to
be examined against him. All these securities are
afforded to a prisoner in such a situation, by this ad-
mirable Statute, which has sometimes been carped
at and nibbled at, but which has now, for nearly a
century and a quarter, been in operation; and has
raised, in the highest degree, the character of Bri-
tish justice. With all these safeguards and securi-
ties for a person under accusation in the ordinary
course of law, surely your Lordships will not refuse
to this Illustrious Lady those facilities which are ab,
solutely necessary to her defence? How is it possi-
ble to cross-examine the witnesses against her with
any effect, unless there is themeans of knowing who
they are, and what was their former life? F.very
one acquainted with the proceedings in Courts of
Law, knows how much depends upon cross-exami-
nation of the witnesses for the prosecution, in order
to elicit from that cross-examination the falsehood

of their statements, if falsehood there be. It is far
from my intention to impute falsehood to the wit-
nesses to be examined against the Queen, nor have I
any bias upon this question. It is the very excellence
of that profession of which I have been so long a
member, to remove from the mind any disposition
to bias upon questions for adjudication, and to give
it that tone of impartiality to weigh and decide justly
upon the circum;tances of every case. It is in this
spirit that I call upon your Lordships to do what I
consider to be substantial justice—to give to the
Queen a list of the witnesses against her. Observe
in what a situation her Majesty is placed by the alle-
gations in the preamble of this Bill. Witnesset may
be called to prove circumstances occurring in 1815,
1816, 1817, 1818, or 1819, and how is it possibly
for her Majesty-to anticipate to what period, or -to
what place the witnesses are to be called upon to give
evidence, unless a list of them is furnished to her, to
enable her to obtain information respecting them ?
If you refuse the list, her Majesty will, •of course,
be entitled to a delay, after the examination of the
witnesses against her is gone through, in order to
prepare the means of her defence. And then in what
a situation is this Illustrious Lady placed, as well as
your Lordships? Charges against her are sworn to,
and go forth to the Public, exciting a prejudice
against her, and which, after all, may turn out to
be false. But in what a situation are your Lordships
placed in the meantime? In Courts of Law, if a
trial is adjourned from day to day, the Jury is either
locked up, or required to pledge themselves that
they will not communicate with any human being
upon the subject of the trial. Will your Lordships
consent to be locked up during the interval between
the conclusion of the evidence against the Queen,
and the commencement of her Majesty's defence ?

But will knot be a great evil, -that so-long an inter-
val should elapse between the accusation and the de-
fence, whilst charges against her Majesty, supported
it may be, by false evidence (for bow is it to be
known, unless there exist the means of cross-exami-
nation, arising out of a previous knowledge of the
witnesses?), are making their way amongst the Pub-
lic, and perhaps totally destroying her Majesty's re-
putation in public opinion? This is a state of things
which ought net to exist, but which can only be,pre-
vented by giving her Majesty a list of the witnesses
\mainst her. It may be answered, that a Court of
Parliament is not a Coprt of Law, that the forms are
necessarily and unavoidably different, and that, were
my doctrine to prevail, no trial could take place at
all in Parliament. But I contend, you ought to take
especial cart, not only that your forms are not used
to the perversion of justice, but that every means is
adopted to prevent any perversion of justice. Let
your Lordships only look at the allegations in this
Bill, and consider the difficulties in which this Illus-
trious Lady must be involved, in endeavouring to
shape her defence without the possibility of knowing
what specific acts are to be attempted to be proved
against her, and this arising from the very nature of
the.allegations, spread over, as they are, a space of
several years, and embracing a number of places at
a considerable distance from each other. Were the
adultery charged to be committed with any foreign
Prince or person of high disti.ction, it might be
known with some certainty in what way the charge
could best be met ; but here, from the very condition
of the party with whom the offence is alleged to have
been committed, from the vague nature of the alle-
gations, and the want of any point of time Lein
hard, it is next to impossible to know what the na-
ture of the proof is that is to be addeced. If we look


.

'I

to the proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts With
regard to divorce, we shall find that the utmost pree
cision is required in the libel in setting forth dates
and places, and that it may be easily known to the
party sued what the nature of the evidence is that-is
to be adduced ; but even then a divorce is only pro-
nounced a areassa et Moro, and a divorce a vincula
stalvinionii can only be obtained in this House after
an action, a verdict in a Court of Law (except in a
few cases where it cannot take place), and then the
examination of witueses openly at the Bar of this
House, subject to cross-examination by the adverse
party, who are in full possession of all the points they
,are to be called on to prove. Thus we have every ana-
logy ii' favour of giving this Illustrious Lady a list of
the witnesses against her ; and this more particularly
applies, when we consider the vague and indefinite
nature of the charges alleged against her in this Bill.
The indecent familiarities alluded to in the charges,
are said to have taken place at various times and in
different places, and this renders it the more neces-
sary that the Illustrious Person accused should be in-
formed of th'e particulars. But when, in addition to
this, your Lordships reflect on the pains that have
been taken to collect the evidence against the Queen,
you will have another argument to sliew, the neZesa
sity of supplying all the means that can be required
to make a proper defence. Another strong circum-
stance will be found in the nature of the penalties to
which she is exposed by this proceeding—the penal-
ties are degradation and divorce; and I say, my.
Lords, that the party accused becomes entitled to
your consideration, when you reflect upon the seve-
rity of those penalties, combined with the numerous
difficulties against which she has to contend. Let it
be remembered, my Lords, that we stand above all
other countries in the administration of justice; and
while we reflect on this,. let us take care that we shall
not be found asleep on our 'posts, instead of exer-
cising the vigilance of sentinels to .protect the repu-
tation we have gained. Let us stand by the princi-
ples of ancient times, by the principles of the Revo-
lution, and by the Statute of king iN illiam, and in
doing so, let, us grant what is asked in the, present
case by the party which stands in that situation to
which no fair indulgence ought to be denied. His
Lordship concluded by moling three Resolutions to
the following effict
" 1. That a list of the witnesses should be furnished forthwith
to her Majesty's legal advisers.
" 2. That the delivery of such list should not exclude the.
House from the right of examining other witnesses, if necesaary,
not mimed in the list.

14 3. That copies of the depositions should also be furnished."
The LORD CHANCELLOR then quitted the
Woolsack, and addressed their Lordship.. Ale as-
sured their Lordships that never, in the whole course
of his life, did he engage in a case which, .upihn
many accounts, was to him so painful and embarrass-
ing. Disagreeable, however, as the duty was, he
was bound by what he owed to their Lordships, by
what he owed to the Constitution, and by the reve-
rence which he entertained for the due administra-
tion of justice, to obey the dictates of that duty, no
matter what consequences his conduct might tend to
bring about. He was very unwilling- to advert to
all that had passed with respect to this matter—be
svnuld"consider the attempt to establish an analogy
between this case and one of High Treason, as aban-
doned—and all arghments which might be inciden-
tally put forward with a view to revive this point,
be would consider as haying gone for nothing. Even
'the Report which had been just made to their Lord.
ships, -he would not advert to, because, whateier
might be the effect of the inquin es of the Committee
after precedents, he was never of opinion, that in
order to direct the course of the administration of
justice in the present times, we should refer to those
days when accused persons were not allowed the
opportunity of defending themselves, either as to
the law or the fact of the case on which they stood
charged. It must be perfectly obvious, that to at-
tempt to trace precedents in such times, which, nay
to govern the proceedings of modern days, was a
course against which every sound principle•of Bri-
tish law and reason revoked. It was exceedingly
true, that the object of the present charge requires
every attention which it was in the power of the ac-
cusing, party to bestow—but the principles of justice
must be rigidly pursued. He was sorry, he regret-
ted sincerely, to see attempts made to establish a
distinction between this and all 'other case' of cri-
minal accusations? in virtue of the station of the
Illustrious Defendant. We were all equal in the
eye of the law, and it was the proudest character-
istic of British law, that the meanest wretch who
was placed before the bar of a Couit of Justice, was
equally entitled to its tenderness as the highest sub-
ject of the realm—they must consider that
" The pour beetle that we tread upt.l).
In corp'ral snirtance, feels a pang as great
As when a lino dies !"
But (observed his Lordship) coming immediately to the
point under consideration, no man could deny, that
when a list of witnesses was given to a defendant,
that defendant had acquired a very great advantage,
and in many 'cases-it was a fair advantage, in order
to enable the Counsel to cross-examine the witnesses;
but at the same time it could not be left out of .the
consideration, that it was possible for the Conrad,
by obtaining a previous knowledge of the witnesses
names and residence, completely to blast their evi-'
deuce—reduce it to ashes—and that too 'merely by
a cross-examination ; but in the consideration of the
course which justice pointed out for the adoption of
t& Lordships, they were to calculate first of all,
whether or not a particular mischief was to be en-
dured, in order that a• general mischief might not
be effected—whether or not, in order to accom-
modate a 'particular case, 4 general rule wits to be
established, 'according to which it was impossible
that justice could be administered in general. cases.
—With respect to the situation to which the Noble
and Learned Lord had adverted, he (the Lord Chan-
cellor) was not prepared to admit the imputation of

: . so

:,