Star.
London, England, 1820-07-12 00:00:00

..

ti

marked upon the precedent cited by the Earl of Li-
verpool on the preceding evening, in the case of At-'
terbury, Bishop of Rochester, and contended, that
by taking into view the whole of the proceedings in
that case, the particular point ought not to have
the force of precedent. The Noble Earl had told
them that Atterbury had applied for copies of cer-
tain depositions, but had been refined ; but then it
was necessary to keep in view that the defendant,
with respect to the proceeding against him. stood in
the situation of having the whole mass of evidence
before him for which he applied, because the Bill
Lad gone through the Commons, and it was not
likely that new Papers had been brought up. It was
therefore necessary that the whole of the proceedings
should be known, if any were, that the House might
know how far a single point was applicable. The
examination of precedents ought, if worth anything,
to be comi.lete. The Hotise would not be dealing
fairly by itself, if it allowed a citation of precedent
which would be so confined as to deprive Noble
Lords of the means of ascertaining the real value
of the case from which the partial information was
extracted. He must therefore give his vote against
the motion.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL urged the extreme in-
convenience of such au extensive inquiry, and its
uselessness as to the point immediately under inquiry,
respecting which, the only
,good that could be de-
rived would he, if a Committee was thought neces-
sary, a Report without delay.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE worded his motion,
for a search into precedents of Bills of Attainder and
Bills of Pains and Penalties, with respect to the com-
munication to the accused of a list of witnesses.

The Earl BATHURST moved to insert in the
motion " of Impeachments." as the case would be
still stronger, if it should be found that in cases of
Impeachment, as well as the others, as, in fact, in
all the judicial proceedings of the House there was
no instance of the communication to the accused of
a list of witnesses.

Loid HOLLAND opposed the Amendment, upon
the same principle that he objected to the original
The Report might probably be, that there
were no instances of the communication of a list. of
witnesses ; but still this would make no difference
with a view to the consideration of the present case.
In all cases of the description ;dluded to, the House
would be guided by the peculiar circumstances of
each case; and whatever precedents there were, they
could only be taken with reference to all the circum-
stances that accompanied each of them, and in each
were different. Thus, therefore, he came to the
same point—that the House ought to be guided by
the substantial justice of the case, which, in his opi-
nion, under all the circumstances (without meaning
now to anticipate the debate of Friday), in the pre-
sent instance, led irresistibly to the conclusion, that
a list of witnesses ought to be communicated to the
Queen—(Heur, bear).,
The Earl of; '-LAUDERDALE observed, that
whatever might be the Report of the Committee, it.'
would still be open to the House to adopt whatever
course, in the present case, their Lordships might 1
deem expedient; but it would be satisfactory to
know what course had been adopted by the House
upon former occasions.
Lord AUCKLAND agreed with his Noble Friend
near him-(Lord Holland) in his view of the question,
and would vote against the motion. He was sure
their Lordships wished to do substantial justice, but
they should not have commenced in a manner un-
precedented and anomalous, and then look for pre-
cedent. It was necessary that every information
should be given to her Majesty which could serve
to her defence ; an.l the means of information could
not be complete unless a list of witnesses was com-
municated—(Wear, hear).—Their Lordships ought
either to have one regular and preciSe mode of pro-
ceeding, which they could all understand and be
bound by, or else they should be guided by the cir-
cumstances of the case, considering only how far the
proceeding applied to them was compatible with the
Spirit of just investigation.
The question was then put upon the motion, as
amended, when the numbers appeared to be—Con-
tents, 18—No Contents, 10--Majority, 8.
Their 1•01 dsh ips then forwarded the remaining Bills
upon the table, and adjourned till to-morrow.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
. Colonel WODEHOUSE brought up the Report of the Se-
lect Committee appointed to inquire into the merits of a Pe-
tition. complaining of an undue Election for the Borough of
Grantham, which stated, that James Hughes, Esq. was not
duly returned.
The Sex.sxxo was directed to issue a new Writ accordingly
for that Borough.
Colonel WODEHOUSE then brought up a special Report
from the same Committee, which stated, that James Hughes,
Esq. had been found guilty of treating, and had given several
sums of money to voters, by way of indemnity for expenses,
which incapacitated him, according to the Statute of William
111. from serving in Parliament, such a practice being subver-
sive of the freedom of election.

Dr. PHI LLIMORE gave notice of a Resolution on the Re-
pc+rt, tor to-morrow (this day).
Sir JA3117.S MAGKIS'fOSII presented a Petition from
Mr. Robert Gourlay, a Scotch Gentleman, who had for some
time been settled in the province of Upper Canada, complaining
that be had been imprisoned and otherwise oppressed, because
he had not immediately conformed with an order for the re-
moval of strangers from the country at the will of the Autho-
ri:ies. The Petition prayed for redress generally ; and the Ho-
noorable and Learned Member observed, that he would pro-
bahly take some future occasion to CA the attention of the
I louse to some of the allegations it contained.—Ordered to lie
on the table.

Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH, in moving for the printing
of the Petition presented in the course of the last Sessiou-froin
Mr. Darell, relative to certain Claims on the East India Com-
pany, expressed his hope that the subject would be taken into
consideration in the pauper quarter. The Balms of Mr. Darell
were such as deserved to meet with due attention from the East
.India Company.
Loral BINNING said, that the subject was not lost sight of;
it was now ender consideration.—Motion agreed to.
Mr. BEN NETT complained of a misrepresentation in the
3funtias prorsiefe, of the speech delivered on the preceding
night by the Honourabk Member fur Cork (Mr. Hutchinson),
relative to the opthahnic cures in the Army. The Honourable
member said, that what he had uttered on the subject was en-
tirely InkrePriseatedi as adverted to in the speech in question,
not one word of vrislch was true.
lIIMACH 01 PRIVILIIGE.
Mr. MARTIN (of Galvray) was sorry to take up the time
of the House with a matter that was personal to himself, but
he felt it to be necessary on this occasion. On a former day he
had noticed a breach of privilege which had taken place. At
that time the Gentleman who had undertaken to report what
he said, had put his speech in such a manner that it appeared
quite ridiculous. He was asked by the Speaker if he proposed
to make any motion on the subject? Ills answer was •' No;
but ho hoped the raper would do him the honour nos-to men-
tion luta again.' Afterwards he had seen the Reporter, and on