Star.
London, England, 1820-07-25 00:00:00

%

9 their Lordships should consider in what situation the
affair ln question stood, or was placed, with respect
to the House. A Bill was bionght in by a Member
~of the House, and her Counsel almost immediately
desired that their Lordships would agree with the
same forthwith, and without an interval of even two:
days. The House, however, Betided' according to
the true dictates of substantial justice, so far comply-
ing with her Majesty's wish as to agree to bring on
the measure as soon as they could hope for some at-
tendaoce on the part of the Learned Judges. The 17th
of August was fixed upon as the earliest day they
could be expected, or that the House could go on
consistently with the principles of substantial justice.
He would ask, if they hail literally complied with her
Majesty's wish at the time, how could what she now
required be answered ? He stated this merely to
shew an additional difference between the present
and other cases which were alluded to. Let Noble
Lords look at the preamble of the Bill; they would sec
it actually charged her Majesty with a "continued"
adulterous intercourse, therefore it was from necessity
the charge itself took in so long an interval of time.
The generality of the nature of the charge then pre-
cluded such an indulgence as was required, and ren-
dered it in a manner impracticable. With respect to
a long interval between the charge and the defence,
there could scarcely, he thought, be a greater advan-
tage for the party accused, in not having t 6 enter
upon the defence immediately. Of this, however,
there were instances in other cases before that House.
In the Courts below it was, until lately, the practice
for Juries never to separate until they had come to
their wcision. The separation of the Jury was, an
evil in itself, and it would be better to go on at once.
But when, from the nature and necessity of the case,
the separation is fairly preferable or unavoidable, a
different principle was acted upon, and then, it was
not of much importance whether the separation was
for a longer or a shorter interval. They well knew
of cases before Parliament going on for years, with
long intervals of separation, their judgments being
necessarily suspended for the time, and this further
'sheaved the vast difference between proceedings be-
fore Parliament and in the Courts below. The ques-
tion was, whether they should extend to the accused
greater advantages here than she would have in the
Courts below ; and whether, when the interval which
she must have for her defence was considered, they
could, under such circumstances, grant what is now
required? For his part, he never recollected any
instance, even in cases of Divorce Bills : and, with
respect to what was said.of the case being previously
proved in Doctors' Corbmons, he answered, that
whatever might have taken place in those Courts,
their Lordships alway required satisfactory evidence
at their own Bar, and upon which alone they founded
their decision. Taking the whey together, and when
he considered what they had been called upon by her
Majesty's Counsel to do, he saw nothing in the pre-
sent circumstances of the case that should induce the:
House to agree to what was now required. GOD for-
bid they should do anything contrary to what sub-
stantial justice called for. He was willing to afford
every fair advantage to the accused, and that where
any doubts may exist, they should operate on theside
of humanity.
Lord KING thought sufficient time should be al-
lowed, though it was not very easy to draw the
balance. They should rise superior to prejudices.-.-
In trying the Illustrious Accused, under the peculiar
circumstances of the case, perhaps they should ex-
tend some degree of extraordinary indulgence to her,
as they were not restricted by such rules as the Courts
below. A list of the witnesses should, perhaps, be
communicated, for they should avoid even all ap-
pearance of injustice. They should hesitate ere they
refused that which may be generally thought a rea-
sonable demand, nor avoid doing that which their
better feelings may dictate.,. He felt they must do
justice to the Illustrious Accused, and most ear-
nestly hoped they would never see another instance
of the kind.

Earl BATHURST argued,that on the same grounds
on which their Lordships declined acquiescing in the
prayer of the former Petition, their Lordships were
called upon to decline the application in the present
instance; and he entertained strong doubts, whether,
if they were called upon to specify the precise place
wherein the alleged adultery was committed, it would
not tend to limit and shackle the course of the in-
quiry, and they could hardly, he thought, bring
themselves to do that which would preclude evidence,
from being brought as to the general conduct of the
accused. No information, no advantage, could re-
sult to the accused from knowing it was at Milan,
or some other place, the offence charged was com-
mitted? Upon the whole, it would be better for the
defence, if the denied information were withheld.—
Notwithstanding the solicitude recently expressed for
a speedy invesugation, they now called for infor-
mation for the purpose of obtaining "evidence from
all those places, and her Majesty's Advocates talked
of the 17th of August as too near a day, as if it
could be meant that her Majesty was to make her
defence on that day.
Lord ERSKINE was desirous of re-stating shortly
his reasons for wishing that Counsel should& heard.
The Noble Earl had observed that there was no ana-
logy between this case and ordinary judicial pro-
ceedings. Nothing indeed could be clearer than that
principle of our law which required, both in treason
and felony, that the person accused should know
precisely what the charge against hin-. was. He did
not complain merely that this proceeding was ano-
malous; nor did he with to bind down Parliament
to the rules obseried in Courts of subordinate ju-
risdiction; but he thought that they would act
wisely in drawing their proceedings as neat as pos-
sible to those rules. The Noble Earl had asked, of
what advantage this concession could be to the
Queen?—to which he (Lord Erskine) replied, that
she was the proper judge of that; and that such a
doctrine as that maintained by the Noble Earl would
be heard with disgust in every Court of law. The
true question was, whether any injustice would be
done by conceding. this indulgence ? whether the
case for the accusation would at all suffer by it ?
In ordinary cases of divorce, it was open to the party
to reexamine all witnesses who might be produced
for the plaintiff. But in the present instance a great
difficulty would occur in this respect. Would it be
possible, after the interval which was to be allowed,
to callgisack, and to subject to re-examination, the
witnesses brought forward in support of the charge ?
Hue was a period of sir years, upon sakish age-