Star.
London, England, 1820-08-29 00:00:00

TUgSpAY," MN; UST 21, I€l2o.

MR. MALTHUS. •
THE NEW MONTHLY MAGAZINE, of SEP-
TEMBER 1, will contain, among many other interesting
Papers, Mr. Say's Letters to Mr. Malthus on various subjects
of Political Economy, and particularly on the read Causes of
the present Stagnation of Commerce.

TO-MO It ROW.
ONLY 5,600 TICKETS-EACH TO BE DRAWN
SINGLY.

%IWO PRIZES of £2o,ooo—Twenty-eight other
.1 Capitals—Ml Sterling Money—£ll,2oo in Extra Prizes—
In One Day, 10-MOiltOW.
Tickets and Shares are selling by J. and J. SIVEWRIG I rr,
37, Cornhill ; 11, Holborn; 38, Haymarket; and 141, Oxford-
street. London, who sold, in the last Lottery, 9,814, £20,000--
£lo,ooo—with many minor Capitals of ,C5OO, £ 00, &c.
and by the Agents in the Country, of whom Schemes, with full
particulars, way be had gratis.

Fl7Oll, ,Stock Broker, 2, CORNIIILL, begs leave
to inform his Friends, Tickets and Shares for the New
Lottery are now on Sale at his Office. Thc4lew Features of the
present Lottery are so favourable to Purchasers, that EYTON
has not the least doubt there wiU be a scarcity before TO-
MORROW, on which Day the LOTTERY commences and
finishes. There are no Classes, all Sterling Money, no reserve
of Tickets by the Contractor, as in former Lotteries; every
Number put into the Wheel, so that every Ticket will decide
its own fate, and no other. Thirty Prizes of £20,000,
£3OO, £2OO, all in One Day.

A R ROLL, having fulfilled his duty by laying a
fadl,fair, and coczp:rde statement of the Scheme before the
Public, has now only most respectfully to solicit•those Persons
who intend to purchase in the present Lottery, will bear in
mind the great Success that has attended his Offices, No. 19,
Cot shill ; and 26, Oxford-street.
_ _ _

CARROLL Shared and Sold all the following CAPITALS in
the very Last Lottery, viz.
No. 18,775, Prize of 1.30,000 !

3,756 £5OO 2,409......... £2OO 13,196 £2OO
7,C71 ..... .. £3OO 4,308 £2OO 14,857 £2oo
17,254 ..... ... £3OO 9,509 £2oo 18,775 £2OO
85 1200 10,830 £2OO Money & Consols.
1,159.....—.. £2OO 12,409 i.200
Being a greater Amount than any other Office In the
United Kingdom,
will be all Drawn TO-MORROW.

The LOTTER'

TRIAL OF THE QUEEN.

TENTH DAY-IN CONTINUATION.
HOUSE OF LORDS, AUGUST 211.

Lord GREY said it was a question whether it was not in-
cumbent upon their Lordships to drop the proceedings alto-
gether—(Hear, hear).—lf he understood the proposal of those,
who had instituted the proceedings, it was that the House
should no longer allow her Majesty's Counsel that latitude
which they had pledged themselves to sanction; and that if,
after an examination and cross-examination, it should appear
that facts arose which it would be necessary to elucidate or
contradict, no opportunity should be afforded for accom-
plishing that very important object—(Hear, hear).—He had
supposed that the peculiar difficulties in which her Majesty
was placed, by the bringing forward against her a number of
vague and indefinite charges, and by refusing her the list of
winterises, would have been in some degree compensated for,
by granting her Counsel the power of crosseexaminine the evi-
dence against her, under circumstances that would leave no
cause of complaint. If, after having assured the Queen's Coun-
sel of this indulgence, some reasons arose for restraining their
power, he would advise their Lordships to consider well be-
fore they wculd withdraw the privilege of the queen's Counsel,
and hear them urge their arguments against such a proceeding.
It was not his intention to go back to the arguments up.on the
propriety of granting a li4t of witnesses; he should merely allude
to them, for the purposes of elucidation. Ile 'Assented that the
House had not adopted the advice of his Noble Friend (Lord
Erskine). If they had done ep, those difficulties which now
presented themselves would N.o longer exist, and, the considers.
Con of the present question, calculated as it was to protract the
proceedings, would have been rendered wholly unnecessary.—
He (Duel Grey) was the first who had proposed to their Lord-
ships to grant a particular specification of the charges and of the
witnesses, and he would ask their Lordships to consider whether
there was an example upon record of a person, he had almost
said a criminal, having been charged with a number of acts:
wi•hout a specification of those charges? This was a departure
from the ordinary course of justice altogether, as he had before
expressed himself, but the house had thought otherwise. He did
not arraign the judgment of the House ; but when he was told
that the granting those advantages which were granted upon all
other caers,were contrary to all precedent, he must dissent from it.
It was argued, that if the imputed offence had been committed
in England, the charge would have been one of high treason.
How then would her Majesty have been proceeded against?
She would have had, by law, a specification of the charges, a
list of witnesses, and all other advantages which were now de-
nied to her. If she had been proceeded against in the other
road, that of divorce, a course stated to be equally unmain-
tainable with that of proceeding against her upon a charge of
high treason, as the King being Head of the Church, was not
amenable to the Ecclesiastical Courts, what would have taken
place? She then would be furnished with a distinct specifica-
tion of charges, a list of witnesses, and as much time for taking
full advantage of all those privileges as was necessary for the
completion of the case. Besides, if any new matter came out in
the course of the investigation, she would be allowed to doun-
terplead, and to call witnesses to support her argument.—(Hear).
Was it then asking too much to request that her Counsel should
be permitted to cross-examine, under such circumstances as
would in some degree compensete for the refusal of those ad-
vantages? Certainly not. It had been,distiactly stated by their
Lordships that her Majesty shoulu have an equivalent for those
advantages, and could the)' with propriety refuse that which
was the only thing that could answer the purposes of en equivae
ient. :Is to a precedent upon velsich the person charged could
be strewn to be entitled to a spectlicetion of the charges and a
list of witnesses, the cese of the Dechess of Norfolk, which had
been cited at their Lordships' bar, furnished our of great force.
A divorce having been applied for in that I Icuse without any I
erevioue proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Court, a specification
of the charges was applied for and übtsired. A hat of wit-
nesses was also applied for and obtained—(llene, hear).—
Those advantages had been granted upon the special ground of
the peculiar circumstances in which the Duchess was said to
stand ; and the I louse thought fit to grant, without hesitation,
that which they now deuied to the queen of England. Nay,
even a preliminary examination of the witnesses, for the purpose
of ascertaining their places of residence and other important par-
tit:tilers, was permitted. It was not his wish to arraign the de-
ci,ion of their Lordships, hut having adopted a course by which
the Queen would be furneled with an equivalent for the advan-
sages granted to everybody else, they were bottod to consider

well whether they shrink' take away from her Maie,ty's Counsel
the privileges which they had promised? He had understood
that a reservation Of cross-examination was to be made. He was
aware of the numerous inconveniencies resulting from this course,
but these inconveniencies amounted to nothing when put in com-
parison with the injury that must result from a dcroul of those
privileges. There was but one of three courses to be adopted.—
The first was to abandon the proceedings altogether. The se-
cond wa4 to correct the error into which they had Arcady
by furnishing a Do of witnesses, and a specification of charges,
and the third was to do. that which they had engaged to da, by
allowing the ptesent Counsel to reserve a cross-examination fir
a subsequent period. He knew that an accumulation of diffi-
culties must necessarily arise out of the last course, but if
one of the three were not adopted, a severe wound would
be inticted upon the. character of that House. The question
upon which they were now engaged was one upon which
the public opinion .ought to have an influence. The cha-
racter of that House had suffered already in the public opinion,
and how much more would it suffer if their Lordships consented
to depart from their rule at the suggestion of the Counsel for
the Crown?

We understood Lord Eases* then to move, that Counsel
should be calked in.

Lord RE NV I LLE said, it was not necessary to make any
positive rule to allow the Counsel for the Crown to call a witness
a second time, if any new fact or circumstance arose which
wouki render such second examination to the interest of their
client, since this would be granted in every• Court of Justice,
and much more so in that House, which would grant, without
reserve and without restriction, liberty for the Counsel to bring
every circumstance forward favourable to the defence. The re-
examination of a witness had already been found of great im-
portance; but on Saturday their Lordship* had adopted a course
of proceeding that did not extend but limited the right of defence
They had interrupted Counsel in asking a question, which, if
cross-examination was at all to be allowed, he certainly bad a
right to put. But in that interruption their Lordships looked
to the effect the question might have on a future cross-exami-
nation. Thrill. Lordships; had, unfortunately, set the example
of limiting and restricting the cross-examination for the defence,
and had thus violated a rule they had laid down but an hour
'before. Their Lordships had interrupted the Counsel in a
question which, according to the rules of law and the prin-
ciples of justice, ought to have been permitted—(Hr r, hear).—
Their Lordships had now nothing to du but to recur to the
course they first adopted, which was, not to 'reetraie the Coun-
sel from putting any question which he considered of import-
ance to the interests of his client ; and as, from a list of witnesses
having been refused, his knowledge of each witness must be ins-
perfect, he should afterwards be allowed to again cross-exa-
mine any witness that he thought necessary to be re-exa-
mined. Their Lordships ought to listen with the most favoura-
ble ear, and to give greater latitude than in ordinary cases.—
If they proceeded any further in their proceedings, this ought to
be the course they should adopt. The only question now was,
what was to be communicated to Counsel when they were
called in? If their Lordships adopted any rule of proceeding
which the 'Counsel thought injurious to their client, they must
hear that tounsei. Their Lordships, on Saturday, had acted
wrong its asking Counsel what deviation they wished from the
ordinary course of examination? for was it ever knoe:ri that any
Court of Justice, much leas the High Court of Parliament, ap-
plied t.) Counsel for advice. Their Lordships should adopt their
own plan, and, if objectionable, hear Counsel against it.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL rose to correct an error into
which the Noble Marquis (Jeansclown) had fallen. Whets ha
(Lord Liverpool) wished to offer an equivalent to her Majesty's
Counsel for any disadvantage under which they supposed they
laboured, by not having a list of witnesses, au adjourned cross-
examination was never contemplated; but that if new facts or
new circumstances rendered it necessary, the House would feel
no hesitation in allowing witnesses to be re-examined. He
%elated particularly to impress on their Lordships, that there
was no understanding in the mind of any individual, or its the
House collectively, to allow an adjourned cross-examination.
Earl G REY did understand that the equivalent to the defence
for not giving a list of witnesses was, that the Counsel should
choose their own time for the cross-examination; that is, either
to make it immediately after the examination in chief, or to be
deterred altogether.

Lord ItEi)ESDALE made some remarks, which were in-
audible below the Bar.

The LORD CHANCELLOR was proceeding to put tke
Resolution, when

The Earl of LIVERPOOL wished it to be understood, that
it was only on some new fa. t or circumstance arising that the
Counsel for the defence should be entitled to apply for a new
examination of any witness.
A long desultory debate ensued as to the form of the commu-
nication to be made to the Counsel; the speakers were Lord
Exonsosxx, Lord LAUDERDALE, Lord Dowoucauoax, Marquis
of Lassoows, Earl Rossini, Lord Lrrintroox, Lord Ensxurr,
Lord CALLNARVON, and Lord ELLEN11011,01;01i. It was finally
ordered that Counsel should be called in.

Counsel having presented themselves at the Bar,
The LORD CHANCELLOR stated, that he bad it in com-
mand from the House to inform them, that it having been pro-
posed that the House should discharge the Order made on Sa.
turday, for hearing them on the mode of proceeding which was
then adopted, and that the Counsel for her Majesty should now
proceed with the cross-examination of the witness last before
the House in the usual way; under this understanding that they
might afterwards apply to have the witness re-examined in con-
sequence of any facts and circumstances coming to their know-
ledge not presently known. 1-lis Lordship had it now also in
command from the House to say, that if the Counsel for the in-
terests of her Majesty had any objections to make to this course
of proceeding, the House were ready to hear them.
Mr. BROUGHAM now commenced one of the most eloquent
and argumentative speeches which has yet been made in support
of the case for the Queen. The Learned,Counsel said, that he
might have felt under some difficulty had he been called upon to
state any course of proceeding which was less-objectionable or
liable to fewer exceptions than that now proposed to be followed
by their Lordships; but that the difficulty was not great when
he was called upon to say whether any objections existed to that
course of proceeding, and whakthose objections were. Ile would
first of all beg leave to say, on the part of her Majesty's Counsel,
in vindication of their interposing any objection at all, that what-
ever difficulty existed in the case, the dculty was none of their
making. Whatever difficulties there were, be they many or few—
whatever obstacles now presented themselves, be they great or
small, or even altogether insurmountable—they did not arise
from any fault on the part of her Majesty's advisers. The
party patronizing the Bill—his Majesty s Attortr-y-general—
had had his own way in everything. The Counsel for her
Majesty had made made many objections to the course
of proceeding followed, but it had always seemed good
to the wisdom and justice of their Lordships to rejeet.every
suggestion of theirs, and to adopt the course proposed by their
opponents. If, after having done so, the lIous: found themselves
in any difficulty, he was entitled to say, that that difficulty had
arisen from re;ecting the supplications made on the part of her
Majesty ; and this it was which formed tire strongest reason
' he could possibly urge against the course of proceeding now pro-
', posed to be followed. It was a most cogent reason why an ex-
traordivary ludo:gene': should be granted to the Counsel for
her Majesty, that they had been thwarted in every attempt
they had made to obtain whatever was ordinarily allowed
in all cases, whether civil or crimileal--(licar, hear, hear).—
They had been denied what was Anted in every ease, and
therefore it was that they claimed indulgencies which were
called for in no other case. Their Lordships had refused a list
of witnesses without her Majesty's Counsel ever having been
• heard in support of the demand fur it—the decision was made
on a motion by one of their Lordships own number. - But
what was still more extraordinary, their Lordships had refused
a specification of the places where the alleged acts oteriminality
; had taken plade. Li a case of High Treason the indictment
I *mild have stated the county where it would be proved the
crime was committed; but here the rpm; was spread over
j three quarter:, of the globe—Europe, Asia, and Africa! In
some one or other of the empires, kingdoms, provinces, cities,
ports, town% countries, inhabited and uninhabited, wiltkernanws,

PUP !"-‘1•:' N-PENCE.

rivers, seas, &c. of the said three quarters of the earth.—
This it was which formed the t.east extraordinary of all the pe-
culiarities in this extraordinary proceedi..e. The party accused
knows nut when or where the crime with which she is charged is
allcrid to have been committed. This was tile defence of Inno-
cence, not of guilt. If there were gniat, a knowledge of the
' places might exist, and, of course., an ide.t of the pm-tinder na-
ture of the charges would suggest itself. But because the ac-
cused was not in those places, and because she was innocent,
no judgment could be formed as to the persons of the wito
nessee or the places of which they spoke. Upon the second de.
mand their Lordships had also decided without hearing Counsel ;
and, notwithstanding that peculiarity of her Majesty's situation,
and the difficulties which the Bill of Pains and Penalties heaped
upon her, the advantages granted to others were denied to her.
Fier Neje:ova: Counsel had ventured to conclude that they had
oloained the meining of their Lord:hips' order; that in lieu of
the advantages denied they were to have certain advantages
peculiar to the case, t:evi:vd l.y the wisdom and justice of their
Lerdships, to meet the diffieulties in which their Lordships'
justice and wisdom had placed her. It was little thought
by her Majesty's Counsel, that when those advantages came to
be sifted, they would be found to be the common advantages
allowed in all Courts of Justice, as matter of indisputable right
It was little dreamt that the comfort her Majesty was to have
tinder her first disappointment was all to be taken away by a re-
fusel of everything. After having made such assurances, would
they depart from that rule which they bid promised to be it:flu-
enced by if the Queen's situation was without all parallel in
any judicial proceedings that ever were known to have existed?
Then, it was equally unprecedented to deny her the only means
of defence. In the case of the Duchess of Norfolk, all the ad-
vantages here denied were granted. The Duke was called upon
to state the particular periods and places when and where the
acts were said to have been committed. The use of the
Duchess of Norfolk was one of barren interest. Iler Proctor
attended at the Bar. On the 14th January an order was made by
their Lordships; upon the Duke to specify the places and witnesses.
On the 16th, the specification was objected to, as of to;, general
a nature. The same day the objection was answered, and a
more particular specification ordered. When the examination
proceeded, the Proctor of the Duchess appeared before their
Lordships, who, at his suggestion, delayed the examination in
chief three days to obtain materials for a cross-examination-
This great leading case was that to which their Lordships
should look for a guidance in their proceedings. To say that it
was no authority was childish sporting. Upon that famous case,
three or four witnesses swore directly to the fart of adultery;
but, notwithstanding those depositions (so material was the
cross-examination, not one word of which could have been
given, except a specification of witnesses had been supplied, the
evidence was discredited, and t heir Lordships threw out the Bill).
How monstrous and crying an injustice was it to pretead to
found a denial of the advantages sought for upon the practice of
the Courts of Law? Such was the wiy in whe.h they were de-
sired to look into the Courts of Westminster. In ordinary cases,
examinations never remained unquestioned, and should this case
furnish a solitary instance of the permission of that !louse to let
the evidence remain unexamined to a canyti.i,oht perit,d, for
the purpose of beirg digested ? Was the evidence to go forth
to the Public basely and malignantly misrepresented ? Sup-
pose a witness goes through a fair examination, such as we
may say the first witness tiatlerwent, yet under what stalking
slisadv.unag -e shies a Counsel labour in the cross-examination,
who, until that moment, was ignorant of his existeace., name
place of reaidenen or the facts that he was culled on to prove.
If their Lordships had allowed a list of witnesses, and I
specification of the places where the crime was alleged to
have been committed, and had granted the two months'
delay asked by the Ceunsel for her Majesty, instead of suf-
ferieg the charges to ga forth, then they (the Counsel) would
have had no diffirul:y, nor would they have asked for any
delay. To their Lordships, however, it seemed good to do
otherwhe. It was, i eh cd, extren-.ely easy for Noble Leeds to
say, do as in Courts of Law, and to assert that it would
he wrong to allow any breathing-time for the defence; but
they should also consider how totally different these proceedings
were fiom these in the lower Courts of Justice. Did Noble
Lords believe that there was such virtue in Counsel, or such
magic in the dress they wore, that the moment a witness comes
and states anything, the Counsel may be enabled from his ap-
pearance to know what he is, or whether he speaks the truth
not?tar One serious injury in the present case was, thet ail the
examinations on one side were permitted to go forth and poison
the public mind, and that the Judges in this tribunal mixed in►
finitely more with the Public than in ordinary cases. " Suppose,
mid the Learned Counsel, that a month hence it is discovered
-that A B, a witness, has received a sum of money for swearing
against.the Queen, nay, that the condition of his receiving that
sum was the conviction of her Majesty, and Learned Lords
know how important it would be to prove such a fact, yet I
cannot do this, according to law, until I have cross-examined
the witness. I ask hint, dal you receive so and so? If be confesses.
I gain my point ; if he denies it, then I bring forward my proof."
The Learned Gentleman continued.—There were numberless
ways to impeach the credibility of a witness, and among them
that of counter-deeffiretions was very important. He appealed
to those accustomed to be in the Courts of Law, hew many
counter-declarations had been elicited by a sifting cross-exami-
nation ; but he was to be fettered here to cror-enunining a wit-
ness of whom he knew nothing, and then not to have any op-
portunity of examining him after, unless he came before their
Lordships, asked a hearing, and stated wleat he meant to
prove. His Learned Friends oe the opposite side, although
they appeared here for nobode, would not fail seizing the
advantages of which they woad thus become possessed:—
Was it ever known, since we had just Judges and bold Counsel,
that the nature of a cross-examination should be stated before it
commenced ? If so, it was a mockery to call it a cross-exa-
mination : it was asking fur a permission which he (the Counsel)
would disdain to accept as a favour, but demand as a right from
a Court of Justice; and yet their Loid:hips appealed to' those
Courts where no Judge would date to refuse it. The Learned-
Counsel said, the astonishment of him self, and those who were
engaged with him, was as great as their disappointment, that
all the favourable anticipation raised by thsir Lordships :haunt be
nothing—that the cup et hops should be dashed from their lips—
that they should labour under greater doedvantars than ever.
Their Lordships compelled them to hear wi nesses on subjects
Of which they were ignorant, and facts elk eed to have been com-
mitted all over the globe. When the House had come to this
ill-omened situation, dee Counsel for the Qtecn were allowed to
State their objections to the proceeding. 'hat Learned Counsel
concluded a speech replete with force and elegance by imploring
their Lordships to pause before they plunged tutu any new
difficulty.
Mr. DENMAN rose, and with much eloquence protested, as
Counsel for the Illustrious accused, against a course of proceed-
lag which tended to make her Majesty's Coursel parties against
her, and to deprive her of the legitimate grounds of dte'ence.—
Ile contended that there was no security for the Qiteit—no se-
curity for the meanest subject—no security fcr any individual
iu that august assembly, it a person charged with as offerer
should be deprived of the right of a free, full. uarestricted, no.
shackled cross examination ; for it was on that the innocence of
the accused often materially depended—(Hean hear, hear).—
If they were deprived of the means of sifting the evidence, not
in a particular way, but freely and fully, when furnished with
the means of doing so, the life of every man would be at the
mercy of any infamous suborned wretch that alight be brought
to swear against Mtn. It was on legal points, and dry techni-
calities, that he was speaking; but he would appea) to their
Lordships, and caution them to beware how they laid down
rules from which they must afterwards depart; and to be-
ware how they stripped an unfortunate accused of all means
of defending themselves from an attack.—( Hear, hear, hear
Here the Learned. Counsel stated the great advantages whist
a person accused of High Treason possessed over her Majesty.
There a list of witnesses was furnished, their residence men-
tioned, and the facts charged made specifically. There no: a
single witness could be examined except those contained in that
I list. Ile need not state hose tar this differed from the press a;
case. He appealed to tack Lordships, if any one of them, er
their relatives, were accused of a crime at which the mind re-
Oohs, stated to have been committed la Egypt or Grecc,,, what