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

14-
a

being a grumbler, if
.he might so express himself,
against it. He would state to their Lordships the'
sentiments of a great lawyer, and a Whig besides,
.11fir. Justice Foster, with respect to this Statuto;—
" The Statute (he said), whatever might be its be-
nefits in particular rases, works great injustice."—
The Noble and Learned Lord (Erskine), indeed, ad-
• mined the justice of this opinion, in the Resolutions
sthich lie had submitted to their Lordships. Upon
the occasionsin which he (the Lord Chaneator) had
to engage in cases of iligh Treason, on the part of
the prosecution, he must say that he found it very
difficult to do his duty, regard being had to that
Statute. When -called upon, in the course of his'
duty, to urge a prosecution for 'Treason, he had first
of all to recollect that there was a Statute in forge
which required of him to furnish to the defendant-a
list of the witnesses to be called in order to substan-
tiate the charge. If it happened, however, that, in
the name of one witness in the list, he had substi-
tuted the letter A for the letter 0, though that wit-
ness was the most ipiportant, and, indeed, the main.
one, upon whose evidence the whole case rested—still
he could not be called, in consequence of this mis-
arrangement of the letters of bis name. It therefore
became the business of the Attorney-General, not -
only to foresee and provide against all probable de-
fects, but also against those which, by human possi-
bility, might occur. From the experience which he
had had, and from the consideration of the facility of
such an occurrence, he knew.that it was possible that
a successful defence might be made in cases where a
true defence could not be established ; for although
the defence which was imposed upon the Court and
the Jury might he known to half the individuals pre-
sent to be a tissue of falsehood, yet if the conductor
of the prosecution, could not have foreseen the nature
of the proceeding, he could not call a single witness
to contradict the take evidence which had been then
adduced. With all these inconveniencies flowing
from the Statute, he must yet be permitted to say,
that he would not part with it; and had the Noble,
and, he would be permitted to say, the Learned Lord
near him (Lord Holland), been in the situation to ex-
perience the injuries which the Statute sometimes in-
flicted upon justice, he would undertake to say, that
that Noble Lord, who was as good-natured and as
kind a man asllthere was in the world, would be
much more inclined to grumble than he (the Lord
Chancellor) had been in the course of his office.—
However, as he had stated before, with all its incon-
vertiencies, all its injuries, all its abuses before him, he
would still say—" This is the law as it stands, and
fit it has stood—it is consonant to the opinions and
feelings of the People, .let it not be disturbed:—
But it was remarkable, in the whole argument of his
Noble and Learned Friend who moved the Resolu-
tions, that he was compelled to dissent from the pro-
priety of the doctrine of that Statute itself, for he
had said in his second Res.olution, " True, the law
says, you must furnish a list of the witnesses in pro-
, oeedings for High TreasOn; but stigmatize those
proceedings by adopting this Resolution, because it
is obviously unjust nct to allow 'other witnesses to be

called. than those vs lu.se names appeared in the fur-
'tiled list, which the Statute does not permit." The
case betnre their Lordships was to be governed
wholly by the principles of ordinary justice and its
rules, since it was found that a course, by which
their Lordships were to be governed in their proceed-
ings, was left unprovidcd for by the wisdom of their
ancestors. And here he should beg to recur to the Re-
solutions of the Noble and Learned Lord. He (Lord
Erskine) had pressed their Lordships to assimilate
their proceedings as much as possible to those of the
*Courts below. lie (the Lord Chancellor) concurred
in the sentiment ; the more their Lordships proceed-I
ings, were likened to those of the Courtathe more
partial would he be found to them. But in acknow-
ledging this opinion, would he agree that Parliament
should divest itself of its peculiar functions ? and the
necessary absence of which in the Courts below was
sometimes found an obstacle to the complete fulfil-
ment of the ends of justice there. Their Lordships
would here remark, that when the Statute of Wil-
liam passed, no provision was annexed extending its
operations to Parliamentary proceedings—nay, Par-
liament went farther :: for by one of their Acts (the
Act of :nth George H.) they declared, not in ex-
pression, but in substance, that the assimilation be-
tween the proceedings in Parliament, and those of
Gouts of Justice, should go no farther than a per-
mission to the defendant to be heard by Counsel a> to
the law and the fact of the charge against him. No
mention of indirect allusions ever was made in the
granting a list of witnesses; and here he would ask
of the Noble and Learned Lord, than-whom no man
was more intimately acquainted with the proceedings
in the Courts of Law, what would become of the civil
and 'criminal administration of justice, if it was adopted
as a general rule to prevail in all cases of ci iminal and
civil process, that a list of the witnesses under the con-
ditions annexed to it in cases of High Treason, should
be furnished on both sides, each to 'the adversary?—
No man was better calculated, from his long experi-
ence and his penetration, to determine the extent of
mischief which such a regulation would introduce.
The reason why the rule was not extended to all cases
of accusation was this—that it could not be allowed
with safety to prevail in such cases. The Noble and
Learned Lord, admitting in effect this principle,
asked of their Lordships to make an exception of the
present case—but why, upon what grounds, or what
pretence, the Noble and Learned Lord had not stated.
The Noble and Learned Lord had spoken of the Mi-
lan Commission. Of that proceeding, however, he
would say nothing; but he felt that it would not be
denied, and particularly by the Noble and Learned
Lord, that an ex-parte inquiry might sometimes be
the means of averting a most painful course of inves-
tigation. The Noble and Learned Lord had argued
as if this case might have been carried on more pro-
perly in the Ecclesiastical Court. Upon what grounds
the Noble Lord might have wished that the Supreme
Ordinary of that Court should stand by the accused,
when clothed in a white sheet, he was not able to
say ; neither could he see by what possible course the
present case could be brcught into, or confined to the
jurisdiction of than Court. The question for their
Lordships consideration was this--would they sacri-
fice a principle which had prevailed in the general
administration of justice in Courts, and in the uni-
versal administration of it in Parliament ? It was
the Arm conviction, that a greats principle would be
sari by agoeciug to the Woos of the Noble I

Lord; that Indottisl him,- with whatever .
gift whatever pails of mind, to vobs against
Nreituis of LANSDOWNsaiid, het ad.
the House. ihat eveninf with its impressionr
of the aissolatifins, derived from a Alin coo!
of the case; and this impression, he owned,
confirmed, by one of the orstable and-convincing,
the most calm and' dispassionate speeches he
over heard within the walls of Parliament. He was
glad that the notice of this motion arose out of a
conversation in that House en a former night, and ,
.not upon the application of her Majesty; and he was'
of opinion, that.not only justice to the accused, but
a regard for the accusing party, required that their
Lordships shoald agree to the claim which his Noble
and Learned Friend had put forward that night. The
oase was considered upon two points, precedent and
'analogy. With respect to the first, he believed the
case did not admit of any precedent ; for the Noble
Lord opposite had stated, with great candour, that
the proceeding was not to be guy:.. tied by precedent,
but that their Lordships were about to erect a prefe-
dent, and found a law. If it was a case to bego-
verned by precedent, I e (the Marquis of Lansdown)
wished to know *here was there a precedent for
such a proceeding as the introduction of a Bill of
Pains and Penalties, upon the Report of a Committee
of Inquiry? Had those whp spoke of precedent been
aware that they had violated all analogy? And
would they now, after committing themselves to a
perilous and tempestuous sea, call on their Lordships
to attach themselves to these landmarks, which, by
the recommendation of those very advisers, had been
originally abandoned? Were their Lordships' pro-
ceedings in consonance with those rights, those regu-
lations and guards. which the wisdom and patriotism
of their ancestors had provided to secure the freedom
of the subject? Did they resemble any Tribunal
known to the Laws and Constitution of the country?
If, indeed, they could chew a stream of clear prece-
dent, issaing from the fountain of some constitutional
principle, and enriching itself in its course by the de-
terminations of succeeding authorities, he would ask
of their Lordships to admit it as the iule of their
proceeding. But when he saw that amongst the
cases which had been brought forward as approich-
ing to a connexion with the present—some few had
been justifiable cases, and these justifiable on their
peculiar merits only--when he saw this, was it pos-
sible for.him to say that their Lordship's were to draw
from such cases a rule to influence their present pro-
ceedings? All great writers had united in saying
that Bills of Pains. and Petelties were to be intro-
duced only in extreme circumstances. Sir William'
Blackstone, the imitistrions and philosophic searcher
into Nair system of law, the moment he came to men-
tion Bills ( f Paris and Penalties, exclaimed—"l
speak not of theM ; they'are, pro re nata, subject to
no laws, and referable to no laws: '—(l.frar, heart)
11 here was there a• digest 'of the laws upon this
branch of proceeding? Where, iti this book-making,
age, was the lawyer that thought proper to impose a'
volume upon this subject on the student, in addition
to the immense matter upon which his industry was,
to be exercised? And why ?—Because such prow
ceedings arose out of circumstances which no inge-
nuity could foresee, and the repetition of which was
wholly out of the range of probability. In sport, it
would be just as prudent and as useful to attempt to
prescribe a path in the Heavens, in which all the co,
(nets that were to appeal. in future time were to coo-.
fine their course, as to say in what manner, by what
principles, and subject to what rules, the proceedings
in such cases were to be conducted. He supported the
Resolutions of his Noble and Learned Friend, upon
three considerations :—first, that the ends of justice
would be best secured by adopting them; secondly,
that it would famish the means of conducting the
proceedings with the greatest dispatch ; and, thirdly,
that it fuinished the greatest convenience to the Tri-
bunal conducting the' proceeding.—As to the first
point, he was confident that if' the ConcessiOn•which.
was now sought forleece withheld, a great interrep.
Lion should take placeuitte proceeding, to the ma-
nifest prejudice of the. defendant's case—an *occur;
rencp which was unifornily reprobated by the Bench.
And here he would be& leaye to remind their Lord-
ships, that a delay taking place between the period
of die accusation and the defence, may create a pre-
judice, not to the 'defendant but to her adversary,
particularly in the present state of the public mind;
becausi., although the charges might be made public,
and openly discussed, yet the resolute assertion on
the part of her Majesty's friends, of her capability to
overturn all the charges, may be pretty generally be-
lieved, and thus a prejudice dangerous to justice
might be produced. He was at a loss to know how
it would be inconvenient to have this list produced ;
since on the back of summonses the names of wit-
nesses were set forth very frequently ? Ile could not
agree with the Noble Lord on the Woolsack, in
thinking that the second Resolution of his Noble and
Learned Friend was at all injurious to the principle
of the Act of William. He wished that a list of the
witnesses should be furnished, together with a state-
ment of the specific chairs against her. This Voul.
enable her to proceed with her defence with regula-
rity—whereas, if the advantage were withheld, and
that she came to the knowledge of die charges and
the names of the witnesses only at the time of acou-
sation, it would be in all probability necessary for her
Majesty to apply for a delay of two or three months,
in order.to enable her to make out her defence; and
he begged to ask their Lordships, would not the si:
tuation of her Majesty, under such circumstances,
be much mere contrary to all precedent—to all ana-
logy, though a course, however inconvenient, that
would produce delay—that would leave the case of
her Majesty, or that of her adversaries, to be•preju-
diced, and would render more difficdlt the final con-
clusion of the proceedings ?
Lord LIVERPOOL said, there were few questioas
of this description on which he bad bees more anxious
to deliver his sentiments than on this; because he
must know but little of his own feelings,
.or of the
character of the question under deliberation, if he
could be induced to hesitate ono moment, after the
appeal of the Illustrious Personage, or of the Noble
and Learned Lord (Erskine). He was ready to agree'
with that Learned. Lord, that a Bill. of Pains and
Penalties was agairist all the ordinary rules and prin-
ciples of law. He was also ready to agree with him.
,that in the present case they'ought to proceed, not
by precedent, but by'lhe forms and principles of
substantial justice. But at the same thine he would
contend that it was tight for them to know how the

he had

-

cedents necessary ingredient .
discover if any light could be Lad in their proceed.
ing; and it was on these grounds that he had-seri
ported the motion of a Noble Lord for a search for
precedents. He was ready to admit with the Noble
Lord, however, that the present case would admit
of no precedents ; and that if it were consistent with
substantial justice, a list of witnesses ought to be
granted—(fiear, hear, hear).—There was one point
of the speech of the Noble and Learned Lord,
wherein he contended that. there was a sort of ana-
logy between this case and cases of High Treason,
and. wherein he stated all the advantages which,
under the Act of King William, were given to the
party accused, in granting a list of the witnesses, on
which he was desirous of saying a few words.—
The Learned Lord said he knew there were some
persons who grumbled a little about this Statute of
King William. Now he would say, although his
opinion was that great inconvenience was incurred
under that Statnte, and he doubted whether the
justice it afforded in some instances was equal to
the inconvenience it occasioned in others, that he
would not meddle with that Statute—(Hear, hear).
He had seen justice, in some instances, done under
it both to the Crown and to the accused ; and on
that account, as well as on account of its long
standing, he was unwilling to interfere with it.—
But nevertheless, the principle upon which it had
been founded was always matter of doubt—not
amongst the Jacobites only, but amongst the greatest
Whigs, and mast constitutional Lawyers. The same
doubt prevailed with respect to the 7th Ann ; which,
whether intioduced as an act of justice Or an act of
mercy, enacted that the practice of giving a list of
witnesses was not to be force till after the decease
of the Pretender, so that this Act was a dead letter
on the statute book for upwards of seven years. The
case of Lord George Gordon, lie believed, was the
first in which it was acted upon. The Noble mid
Learned Lord (Lord Erskine)'had alluded. to the
greatest Constitutional Lawyer—one whci had been
most disposed to favour liberty ; and what, he would"
ask, were his sentiments on the subject of furnishing
the prisoner with a list of witnesses?. He said, whilst
it had one advantage in it, it was calculated' to serve
many bad purposes. The purposes he alluded-te
'a ere obvious, and was this_ single adeaetage to weigh
against the innumerable bad purposes? The accused'
was allowed a list of ail the witnesses against him,
whilst the Crown had none on the contrary side; and
therefore, whatever perjtirk- was brought forward by
the accused, it was not possible that the Crown could
be prepared to controvert it. In drawing the ane.
logy between the present case and cases of high trea-
sos, he could only say, that however degradation
might, to a feeling miud, be more than death, still it
was not so in legislation. He would say,-that except
in cases of treason, the giving a list of witnesses, was
open to many exceptions. It might give the accused
the power of bringing a false case ; it gave him also
the power to act by intimidation. It might be the
means of stopping Justice in her course—of preitnt-
ing their being able to bring their witnesses fair and
free into Court—(Hear, hear). CM the other hand,
some consideration was so be given to the popular
clamour and prejudice which might be stirred up so,
,as to weigh against the accuser. Let those who did
not think the law of this country sufficiently tender
towards criminals, look at the tribunals of foreign
countries, and having seen the spirit of their law,
they might then turn their regards upon their own
country, and pronounce upon its attributes. They
might then pronounce on those laws which are the
admiration of all foreign countries, and of every
great writer ; under which we had prospered, and
which he would therefore stand by—(Hear). He-now
came to app)Tthe law to this case, and those princi:.
pies ib particular, on which there was now a ques-
tion ; and he was prepared to say on this point, that
the very mode in which Noble Lords on the opposite
side had put this, was wrong; for unless a full list
was given, or if any new witnesses were afterwards
added, the effect of the list, • instead of assisting,
would he to deceive the accused—(lleaY, hear).—
Noble Lords had also characterized the course
adopted in the present instance as unmerciful, and
contended that it would have been less objectionable
had the matter originated with the Commons, by
way of impeachment. But he would ask, whether:
in that case a list of witnesses could have been
granted ? It could not.; for net only could the Com-
mons in that case, have brought new witnesses, but
new charges also against her Majesty—and this was
the course contended for by Noble -Lords who op-
posed the present proceedings—(Hear, hear, hear).—
In every point-of view it would be wrong to accede
to this motion, as it would tend to paralyse some of
'the peculiar -functions which that House possessed
over every other tribunal. They would give up that
power of probing into matters beyond what other
tribunals possessed, which was of singular advan-
tage. Even were they to give the list of witnesses,
though it were a complete one, there would still
'arise circumstances for delay. They would therefore
get rid of no inconvenience whatever, and he hoped
be had shewri that neither precedent nor the ends of
justice called upon them to accede to this motion.
The question therefore was, as it would obviate no
inconvenience to themselves, and confer no advan-
tage upon the accused, who would, on the contrary,
by an imperfect list being given, be subjected to be
ensnared, deceived, and betrayed—would they give
in to a proposition, which, by affecting the witnesses
in the way he had described, would be an act of in-
justice? He put it to their Lordships whether the
efforts of the Crown were to be exposed to the po-
pular clamour, where no advantage was to be gained
by it ? (Heat, hear)—on the contrary, let the accusa-
tion be fairly set forth ; and then let the character of
the witnesses be sifted to the bottom--(Cheers).
Lord HOLLAND said, the Noble Lord had dis-
tinctly admitted that the present case was.not one in
which they ought to be guided by precedent- lone.
He said that precedent was an ingredient, bat that
their Lordships were bound to proceed so as to admi-
nister substantial justice. How far that fair and li-
beral concession wai consistent with the zest of the
speech of the Noisip Lotd, he was at a kiss to deter

e were not, it seemed, to regard the prin.
down for them—and sure he was, that the
which they were about to establish ought
looked upon av a rule for future proceed-
Noble Lord argited, that rules and pre-
ere not binding on their Lordships; but if
precedents long established as the shield of
and the protection of the accused, applied
to the present, proceeding, he saw' no reason why
they should be departed from, because he saw no
reason why this Illustrious Lady should be deprived
of theaordinary redress of an ordinary individual.—
The Noble Ls-rd had pronounced an eloquent eulo-
tehaedminiintisutrpataisontheofadpiubhrlaictijiztoefcefoinredigritsr
served the 'praise so eloquently bestowed upon it :.
nategia.uuimnotnrs,7;and he (Lord Holland) admitted that it dee
but, however animated the eulogiums of the Noble
Lord, he could not held thinking that they Were :net
of place; for while the Noble Lord held up to tie:
admiration of their Lordships the administration of
the justice of this country, he called upon tem tee
deviate from its spirit, and to depart from its equitae-
ble regulations—(flear, hear)—for this proceediee
was an exception to the general rule of justice, eel
also to the law of Parliament. The Noble Lo:d
shad very truly pointed out the necessity of a strict
adherence- to precedent; but the present was an ex-
ception to that principle. The present case was
complete anomaly : and it was a solecism to say,
that in considering it, their Lordships were to be
guided by the principles which belonged to other
cases. Their Lordships now said to the accused-
-" Your high birth and rank place you beyond the
reach of common Tribunals; and there is no other
Tribunal before which you can appear but this."—
Then, upon an application being made t their Lord-
ships, on behalf of her Majesty, for a particular in-
dulgence, they turn round and say--" We would
willingly grant you what y..: ask for; but we cannot
do se, because we are tied down by precedent
(Hear, hear)s—Yet they were at the very same time
departing from all rule and precedent. They we, e
'acting the parts of Accusers, Jurors, and Judges, and
at the same time they were bound down by rule and
precedent ! An eminent author, he believed it wes
Lord Bacon,- had said, that the rules and forms "f-
-law were like the bark and rind of a tree; for Chit
although they-did not form any part of the timber
of-that tree, they were the channels through which it
received' its nutriment, and they. protected it from
the wind and weather. But here the protecting forms
of the law, which were-so neeeseiry for the due ad-
ministration of 'justice, were entirely taken away.
They had before them a strange and anomalous case,
and the Illustrious Person who was the subject of it
was placed in a most extraordinary situation. The
Noble Lord hadsaid, that a case of Treason was the
only one in which an accused party was ever fur-
reshed with a list of the witnesses; but would the
Noble Lord say that a case of Treason was the only
one in which an accused person was able to learn the
names of the witnesses? There was not one case its
one himdred in which an accused party tame to the-
bar of a Court of Justice with so little knowledge of
the charge against her, or the case itself, as the Queen.
When persons were taken before a Magistrate, they
heard the accusation against them ; they saw the
witnesses, and knew bow to be on their guard against
them ; but there was no such advantage here. The
Noble Lord had observed, that the prosecuting party
were not compelled to confine themselves to those
witnesses. Bet he (Lord Holland) contended, that
the most important part of the evidence intended to
be brought forward against any person committed
for trial by a Magistrate, was known to such person
long before his trial, so that he had every possible
means to prepare for a defence. The Noble and
Learned Lord on the Woolsack, who seemed to have
made himself a champion between the Courts of
Law and the Parliament, had stated that Parliament
was not to be bound down lay the rules.of the Courts.
He (Lord Holland) fully agreed with him in that doc-
trine; and would maintain, that on that very account
their Lordships ought, in the. present case, to exer-
cise a discretion of their own, according to the prin-
ciples of reason and justice., ,and-sot follow the rules
or precedents of any Law Courts. If their Lord-
ships resolved to proceed according-, to law, let tee
accused party have all the advantages of lasi ; but
if they meant to proceed. according. to the exercise
of their discretion, let -them exercise it in an equi-
table manner, without looking to what were the rules
observed in Courts of Law,--(Hear, hear, hear).—
He wished that the Noble Lord had stated accurately
on what precedent it was that he acted ? Let him
point out any case that had ever occurred before,
and say, whether it bore any resemblance to the pre-
sent : No—he could not do so ; and, of course, this
was one upon which discretion alone was to be exer-
cised. In point of justice, they were bound to grant
what her Majesty now requested ; they were also
bound to do it in point of policy : he did not mean
the policy of :gratifying popular clamour. The Noble
Lord had said, that the House of Commons would
have a right to produce fresh witnesses ; but, how-
ever extraordinary the power of the House. of Com-
mons was, yet, when the case came before them, they
*odd know the-witnesses and the general complexion
'of the case. Therefore, in point of policy, he wished
'them to consider, for their own satisfaction, and for
their character's sake, hew differen* the case would-
come forward in the House of Commons; for there
the accused would have the advantage of knowing
all the evidence on the second trial, which should
come on there. Then the House of Commons
would have the advantage of a .better and fairer
case to try ;. and he begged that their Lordships
would not, by concealing the names of the witnesses,
deprive themselves of a similar advantage, but come
an the trial of the case free from all objections.--
As to Bills of Pains and Penalties, so far from
making for the Noble Earl (Liverpool's) argument for
delay between the accusation and defence, it shewe'l
that such measures proceeded from the necessity of
dispatch. In many cases the adoption of such a
Measure arose from a fear of the parties escaping the
hands of justicee, or from their having escaped beyond
the immediate reach of the law. -The Noble Lord
apologized for having occupied so much of their
Lordships' time. He should only fatigue the House,
if he attempted again to prove what had been so sa-
tisfactorife proved by his Noble Friend (Lord Erskine).
He should therefore sit down with stating, that he
gave his most cordial support to-the motion.
Lard ELLENBOROUGH said, he rose with dit:

eluctance, precesTeattltoed after the Bill had beet- !mod minty They
t them the table;
.Bepposing it had happeeedtliat thls *pre- afles laid do
id entered' cedenta panted Oh* wey-4frat-they :wen' in, precedent wh
in favour favour'. of b list of wftnesher biting granted, he *add not to be lot
sideration ask their-Pirdships *bed* it wouki havelieen amyl ingt. The N
was fully for diets to have rejected the requtit 'cif stleltft list? cedepts were
evincing, Hicontended, therefore, that theAnowledge of 'pre- rules and pre
s he had cedents was a necessary ingredient in the case; to innocence, an

r e.

C~~ ~

\

4-1."
• C

cults on the :present question. The present was
certainly a novel proceeding, but he did norconceive
it one in which they ought to deviate from their
established rules of proceeding. He was willing to
grant to her Majesty every facility granted to any
individual similarly placed since the Revolution.—
But the Queen asked more, and more he would not .
grant, because it would be a deviation, not only
from the established rules of Parliament, but from
the established rules of law, except in cases of High
Treason. Was there anything in her Majesty's case
different from those other ,Bills of Pains and Penal-
ties, which could induce them to depart from their
Usual course? He thought not. No course more
favourable to her Majesty could have been adopted
consistently with the principles of the Constitution.
—They were not to look to what was favourable to
her Majesty, so much as to what was most likely to
lead them to the straight forward road to justice.-
1: was because he entertained this feeling that he
would give his negative to the motion. Let their
Lordships consider the nature of the motion. Let
them also consider what the last request of her Ma-
jecty was. Supposing that the present motion were
carried, of what use would a list of witnesses be to
the Queen; if the inquiry was to be proceeded in
within twenty-four hours ?—(llcar, hear, hear).—
How was her Majesty to make herself acquainted
with the habits or characte:rs of those who were to
give evidence against her ? The presence of the
Judges being necessary, the inquiry was postponed
to the 17th of August ; but even so, how, by any di-
ligence on the part of her Majesty or her advisers,
could any efficient inquiry be made re: ecting those
witnesses before that petiod? In fact, this demand
was made more for popular effect, than with any
view of benefiting by it. But, supposing that the list
of wituessei was granted, how was it possible to make
out the list of names so as to avoid a misnomer ? and
that would be made use of as a ground of still further
delay. He thought it would be impossible so to de-
scribe the witnesses as to enable one-half of them
to be called. They ought not to be misled by pub-
lic feeling, nor ought they to mislead that feeling.—
This was, of all cases, one in which the witnesses
ought to be broup,ht forward unawed and unbiassed.
Let her Majesty have a fair opportu:iity of disproving
the charges against her. but first let them have the
evidence upon record, let them know the nature of
the accusation, and then let her Majesty have a full
and ample opportunity cf rebutting it. Upon these
grounds he opposed the motion.

Lord HOLLAND could not.understand what the
Noble Lord meant by talking, as ho had done, about
popular effect and popular clamour—(Hear, hear).
*4 It," continued Lord Holland, “ the Noble Lord
alludes either to me or to my, Noble and Learned
friend who has brought forward the motion, I fling
b.o.k the imputation with scorn l--.(Loud eheeriag)—
ail,' will tell him, that it is a most unparliamentary
proceeding to attribute improper motives to any No-
ble Lord—(Load cheeriag). lf, however, he alludes
to the Illustrioui Individual whose case is now before
the House, I tell him that I do not envy the feelings
r.or admire the charity of that person who can im-
pute motives which he cannot know, and which it
impossible for him to prove, to a party labouring
under such heavy charges as the Illustrious Per-
sonnge to whom he alludes."—(lmmense cheering).

Onto (idlers as ybu *mad they_ should do mite
you
to
He should vote for the motion.
The Earl of- CARNARVON felt it necessary tol
Mike a few observations on this very important ques-4
tion. It was urged on the other side, that there were
many difficUlties interfering against the present mo-
tion. He did not wish to refer to the straitened Bill
now in his hands, and upon which they had proceeded
so far without any one of their Lordships (save the
Secret Committee) knowing the grounds of the mea-
sure, or the contents of the fatal Bag upon which it
was founded. The preamble of the Bill contained,
at least what was considered the front, if not the sum
of the offending. And a part of that preamble was
such nonsense, as ta• be scarcely worth repeating. It
commenced by
.stating, that "Nllereas, in the year
1814, her Majesty Caroline Amelia Elizabeth, then
Princess of Wales, and now Queen Consort of this
realm, being at'Milan, in Italy, engaged in her
service, in a menial situation, one Bartolomo Ber-
gami, a foreigner of low station, who had before
served in a similar capacity." Where, he would ask,
was the charge of criminality in this ?—(Hear).--
The preamble went on to state, " And whereas the
said Bartolomo Pergami, or Bergami, had so enifered
the service of her Royal Highness the said Princess
of Vales, and a most unbecomin and disgusting inti- ,
macy commenced between her Royal Highness and
the said-Bartolomo Bergami, and that she had not
only advanced him to a high situation in her Royal
Highness's household, and received him into her ser-
vice, and that in high and confidential situations
about her Royal Highness's own person, but bestowed
upon him other great and extraordinary marks of
favour and distinction, obtained for him orders of
knighthood and titles of honour, and conferred upon
him a pretended order of knighthood, which her
Royal Highness had taken upon herself to institute
without any just or lawful authority," What was
the amount of this charge? Was it one which a
grave assembly could entertain against her Majesty?
Was it one which could be entertained in a Court of
Law? Her Majesty was accused of having obtained
orders and distinctions for this individual. If this
meant anything, it was a charge against those powers
who had granted these distinctions. Let their Lord-
ships look to the manner of distributing, as well as
to the persons to whom distinctions had been given in
this country, and let them consider whether this be a
charge upon which her Majesty ought to be arraigned?
Having finished this part of the preamble, in which
he conceived there was no charge, he nest came to
that part in which her Majesty was charged with
having conducted herself indecently, and with having
an adulteteus..ibtercomie with this Bergami. Now,
if there was any crime, it was in this Charge of adul-
tery. He would ask the Noble Lords opposite, whe-
ther they meant to persist in this charge?-whether
they thought they could convict her Majestr.or it ?
The vague terms in which it was made- were like the
charge.of treasonable practices" against an indivi-
dual but who ever krider a man convicted of Treaion
under such a charge? In-support of. this Bill, he
had no doubt but a considerable share • of matter
would be introduced, which it would be"! betterlo
keep from the public eye—matter which Would' per-
haps cast obloquy on her Majesty, without being suf-
ficient to convict her. • He did not think this was the
intention of Ministers, and therefore he thought they
were bound to -withdraw the preamble, and to supply
it by one of a more definite nature. Biitif this was
not done, he conceived they were bound to grant her
Majesty a list of the witnesses against her, as her
Majesty was entitled to every facility in conducting
her defence. Upon these grounds he felt it his duty
to support the motion.
Lord LAUDERDALE opposed the. motion, on
the ground that to adopt it would be to defeat the
ends of justice. Did his Noble and Learned Friend
call for such a list of witnesses as that prescribed by
the Act of Williant ? No. He knew that to be im-
possible. He called for a list of the intended wit-
nesses, reserving to the House and to the accusers the
privilege of summoning fresh ones. What justice
would there be in this, either to the accusers or to the
accused ? He of coarse by no means imputed such
an intention to the accusers, but the adoption of the
proposition would enable the accusers to give a false
fist, sending the accused to inquire after nonentities,
and afterwards to bring in the real witnesses by whom
the case was to be established. It v.'As also to be con-
sidered, that by agreeing to the motion an opportu-
nity would be given for tampering with, and intimi-
dating the witnesses—an evil, against which, their
Lordships must, one and all, see the necessity of
guarding. He thought the national character had
been already degraded by what had recently taken
place with respect to some of the witnesses, ind to
give a list of the witnesses would be to endanger a
still greater forfeiture of that character.
Lord ERSKINE made a brief reply. His motion
stood on the principle, that it was justified both by
the Act of William 111. and by the practice of the
Courts of this country, in which suits for adultery
were tried. In the Ecclesiastical Court, when a wo-
man was charged with adultery, (and the difference
of rank could make no difference in the justice of the
case), all the circumstances which it was necessary
for her to know both with respect to the specific ac-
c asation, and to the means by which it was to be sup-
ported, were communicated to her. The Noble Baron
(Lord Ellenborough) had said, that he would grant
her Majesty as much as the law permitted, but not
more. He put it to the Noble Baron to point out a
single instance in which, when a woman was charged
with adulterous intercourse, the information which
he had described was not communicated to her?
Nine out of teh of Bills of Pains and Penalties origi-
nated in the House of Commons ; and by the time
they arrived in that House the accused was ac-
quainted with all theavidence, and had the power to
examine such fresh witnesses as might be deemed ex-
pedient for the defence. His motion was founded on
the analogy to the statute of William. He was
shocked at the answer which had been made by the
Noble Lill opposite to the argument grossing out of
that analogy. The Noble Earl had said that the Act
of William was in abeyance until the trial of Lord
George Gordon. He called upon the Noble Lord to
tell the House bow important had been the advantages
derived from the Act since the period of its execution.
He (Lord ErSkine) had been personally concerned in
many cases of High Treason where lists of the wit-
nesses were communicated to the accused, and could
therefore speak to the benefit of the proceeding. He.
denied, most strenuously, that the verdicts in the

Lord ELLENBOROUGH explained. « From the'
respect which the Noble Lord knows I feel both for
him and for his Noble and Learned Friend, he must
have known that I could not intend to impute to
either of them any design of exciting popular cla-
mour. Neither had I any intention to impute any
..!ch motive to her Majesty."

Lord HOLLAND expressed himself satisfied with
the Noble Lord's explanation:
The Marquis of BUTE said, that he differed from
the Noble Lot d (Ellenborough), regarding the inuti-
lity of granting a list of the witnesses to her Majesty,
Lecause she could not inquire into their characters
7,vithin twenty-fours. He thought, that as some of
them were stated to have been persons in the em-
ployment of her Majesty, and indeed must have been
as they were to speak to her private habits, the
knowledge of their names, if :t was only twenty-four
lours before they were examined, would be of some
importance to her in her defence, and upon her cross-
examination of them. Ile maintained that, as the
Bill now before their Lord.,hips went to degrade her
from the rank and dignity of 'Queen of England, and
as she was entitled by the laws of that kingdom to a
list of the witnesses to he exhibited against her, it
was unjust to refuse them to her, when she was
to submit to a trial before the Peers of that nation, as
well as before the Peers of the other parts of the
ljnired Kingdom. He likewise reminded their Lord-
ships, that the Bill now before them might not be
the only Bill introduced into Parliament against the
illustrious Lady. Supposing her to be found guilty
ef the charges produced against her, might not a
Bill of Exclusion be introduced, to prevent her suc-
cceding at any future time to the British Throne, to
wliich it would be recollected that she would, in case
of the death of certain individuals, have a legal title
is I.cr own right ? The Noble Marquis concluded
by ob his assent to the motion.
Lord BELHAVEN said, he' could not give his
vote on this occasion without making a few observa-
tions. They were about to pass a law, which would
&price her Majesty of rights, which she would other-
wise possess. In such a case it was their Lordships
duty to afford her every opportunity of conducting
her defence. Her Majesty asked no more than that
svnich, according to the laws of one part of the Bri-
tish dominions, was allowed to every subject, and
to which she was entitled. He could not help ex.
pressing hii surprise at hearing certain Noble Lords
opposite, and who owed so Much to die People,
raise their voice; against what ['trey called " popular
clamour ;" to hear them exclaim, " the People mean,
to trample on us, to direct us," and so on. Ile re-
nambered the time, to use the words of the Poe—
" When Europe bow'd beneath the yoke,
" And Austria bent acid l'russia broke,
" And tht firm Russian's purpose brave,
" Was bartet'd by 2 timoroul slave '
At such a period as this, the Noble Lords who now •
!:ec:ied poiadar feeling, tailed for and found their
:::.t resource in the People—(llear,Aeor).—The Noble
L Id concluded by observing, that there was a maxim
Divine Authority which ought to govern Noble
I—rdi, as well as other persons, On reflecting what
e(,:111 be their hopes and fears were it possible they
be similarly situated with her Majesty." Do

', .

,

. .
• • •
.. .
• - . ,-, . • ,
cars to which be alluded W. ire. tinitiki_, of ghat they;
.Sir. S. NEWPOR Sal twit any arranrstient a
*ere the result of popular clamour. The Noble Lord do aWay.with the system 'of svarehoosing in the dis.
here entered irsto a short review of the merits of the tilleries, which" he understood would Than a part of
t?ials of Lord George Gordon, and subsequently of one of the Bills, would, he feared, lead 6 frauds on
Hatfielt, the proceedings in the latter of which espe.! the Revenue. Any tneatisie to encourage srnel legal
dial!), had been translated into all the languages. of stills', and thus td suppress ellen distillation, wotild•
Europe, and had- been generally eulogised (amongl be a great benefit to Ireland.
others by the celebrated Madiale de Steel) as afford. Mr. CHICHESTER objected to a proposal which
iug the most admirable example of British Artspeu.l he understood formed part of the Chancellor of the
dente: It was rather too much to adduce in hostility i Exchequer's plan to limit the distillation from each
to the Act of William, the opinion of a puisne Judge.' small still to 2000 gallons. This amount could not
—a man Whom he, nevertheless, allowed to be an in. I possibly pay the expeases of erectieg such stills.
dividual of considerable learning and integrity—he I Mn. HU I'CHINS6N would• not, by now conseht.
meant Mr. Justice Foster. It was rather '
too muchlkg to the introduction of these Bills, be considered
to adduce Mr. Justice Foster against a Statute Lawlas giving his epprobation to them. The Right Horn
which had existed for HO years—(Hear, hear).—! Gentleman had t difiictilt task to perform ih regu.
That Act had been called a Tory Act. If so—if it ' lating the distilleries of lieland. He would advise
proceeded from Tories, it was only an additional the Right Hon. Gentleman to take the opportunity
proof that GOD had created no animal which was not of communicating with the dittiiiers of Ireland, and
df some use or other !—(A laugh). According to others interested, to see how far the plan new pros
some Noble Lords, the present proceeding was one pbsed could be beneficially adopt-ed.
*hich seemed likely to set the world on fite. Those General HART complained of the late period of
Noble Lords also talked of popular clamour. In his opi- the Session at which these measures were be ought
nion, that which was so called in the present instance, forward, which rendered it impossible to give them
was only popular reeling ; and the only way to abate due consideration. He complained particularly of
that feeling was to render justice !—(1-fear, hear).— the system and principle of the Excise altogether
,Tice Noble and Learned Lord concluded, by again Mr. C. GRANT thought he had reason td Corn.
intreating their Lordships to accede to his motion ; plain of the
_gallant General for bringing forward
th'y had a right to reject it, because they were su- his charge against the system at a period when there
preme—but they ought •to grant it, because they was neither time ibr inquiry as to the truth of the
should be just!—(Hear, Hear, Hear). phargei brought forward, nor to remedy the evils if
The House then divided— they existed. ' -
• Foe the Motion - - 48 - General HART then alluded to two instances of
Against it - - - 78 abuse on the part of Excise Officers. Ore of them re-
Majority . - ,—,....50 lated to an Excise Officer having shot an individual
11111 House then Adjourned. through the bod ; the other to an Officer who, hav-
TIOUSE OF COMMONS. ing been tried fqr s pie act of violence, and condemned;
Mr. IRVINE presented a Report Irons the Committee on had been pardoned' . y the Lord Lieutenant.
the duadaloupe Claims. Mr. C. GRANT really must complain of this con-
Mr. P. MOORE presented a Petition from Olivia Sere. duct on the part of his lioncurable Friend. The
The Petitioner stated herself to be the 'legitimate daughter of the
late Duke of Cumberland; she asserted that she possessed a, course adopted by him 'Ras calcUlated to ki!scredia
document to prove the solemnization of a marriage between her Government, and not to afford opportuniry ;Or in.
mother (who was Julia Wilmot, the daughter of the late Dr. quirt'. The first instance alluded to by the gallant
Wilmot) and the late Duke of Cumberland, the brother of his General would come under the consideration of the
late Majesty, in the year 1767. The Duke of Cumberland had
propel: Tribunal in the regular way. The cther man
subsequebtly married another Lady', on account of which his
Marriage with the Petitioner's mother Was concealed. From was convicted under Lord Ellenberough's Act, and
this cause the Petitioner, who was born in 1774, had been de- condemned; but the Jury recommended his sentence
prived of property which should have descended to her. She to be commuted for trahspertation ; -afterwards,
stated that she possessed a document with the sign manual of his d 9 dee in the Lord n Lieutenant, u;:o the advice of the
late Majesty, acknowledging the validity cif the marriage of her
Lord Chief Justice, and the
mother.—ThePvtition was laitkon the table. Lord Chancellor, the
Lord A. HAMILTON took occasion to say, that what he Attorney-Genetak, pardoned the man. -
had said last night respecting Sir P. Murray, was mistated in After some further observations from Mr.--Loce-
77te Morning Cliionicle. Ile now repeated, that he had never
HART, aril Mrs
a accused Sit I'. Murray of having given up claim to the Repre- 9 Sir. otarititetviott eneral'llXii
•
sentation of eertistere, in order to get ofil.ce ; and, in fact, that GRANT, leave was, given to the CHANCELLOR of the
h- had tot made such an assertion respelling any Candidate on Exclieettita to.bring in his Bills. •
an occasion whatever. THE QUEEN: 4.
The Ikinaghadee Harbour Bill was read a third time, and Sir JOHN NEWPORT exptessed a wish to know*
. .
passed. •
whether, if the Bill. at present pending in the other
Mr. HOBIIOUSE said he should, in the next Session, bring
before theattention of the House, the situation of a C LAB of his Hoitse with respeCt to her hljesty, were brought
Majestyts subjects, which might, and ought to be, ameliorated. down to that ilciuse,lt-Was the intention of Minister!
They had heath last night mention made by Honourable Gun- to propose :he same tourse.oftproceeding that had
demen of the situation of the Catholics and Dissenters; be (air.
flobhoose) should shortly call their attention to the situation of been followed by the* Lords; and whether it was in.
the Jewel, who now laboured under 'disabilities which would tended to -move a call of the House? it was del)
be hardly believed to exist in such an age as this, and 'especially sirable to inform the I-louse upon this subject, in order
in London, and other Cities of the Empire. . to guard against ani soiprise in the event of the Bill
The AppoPriation Bill was read a third time, and passed; .
also die Sea Offences Bill. . being suddenly breughe drown from the Lord&; and
The EducatiOn Endowments Bill went through a Committee. also in order that those Gentlemen who had any busi-
-Report on Monday. - ness to transact at distant parts of the United King.
zessertz's !Alt ISAtiIACKS. dom might have means afforded to have that business
The Those having resolved itself into a Committee on the done in due time.
Barrack Agreement Bill,
The CHANCELLOI of the
.EXCHEQUER said;
Mr. CALCRAFT said, he should be extremely obliged to.
the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some information respecting he was sure that ever); ihdividual islio had the hos
the Barracks in question. He had learned. by accident, that nom: to be a Member of that House, would feel it his
One reason fist the great expense with which the buildingiof these d t to a yattend upon such -a- solemn occasion.
Barracks was to be attended, was, that a wall was to be built '
inclosing a large track of ground. He wished to know how many Sir JOHN Nk;WPOlt'l deelaied that he did rsiat
acres were to be thus inclosed, and whakwas the estimate of the - put the question from any solicitude fer his own cases
expense of the wall? but for the satisfaction of others, mho, instead u
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER allowed that being left to conjecture and surmise, u islied to have
the building of a boundary wall formed a considerable item in
SOMedlillg like certainty upon this sutiect.
the estimate. He did not know exactly the quantity of ground
Inclosed, but he believed it was about eight acres. SITLEOD AND BRUCE.
Mr. CALCRAFF thought it was a most improvident expen- Mr. J. P. GRANT requested to know whether in
diture of the public money, to spend a large sum in building a the case of M'Cleod, who had been sentenced in Scot.
large wall round eight acres of Lnd for the accommodation of land to transportation for a seditious offence , it wa s
400 men. He had done his utmost to prevent this waste of the '
public money, and if the House of Commons was not disposed the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to recomnfend
I
Ito save X 50,000 or £40,000, ir was not his fault. He should him to mercy? He put this question because; from
divide the Committee ou the main clause—(ifenej. • all the circumstancet of the case, such a sentence
The CH A NCELLORof the EXCHEQUER said, the wall ought to be mitigated. His Noble Friend near hint
be which had been spoken of was to built round a piece of
ground for the exercise of the troops. The Barracks in question had, it was known, given notice of a motion to abos
were not like those hi Hyde Park, nears place where they could lish the power of transportation for sedition in Scot.&
exercise their horses, as the whole of the Regent's Park was laid land, and it was also known that many high author`
out in inclosures or plantations.
• Mr. C. CALVERT thought this pretence for building a high miss in Scotland entertained serious doubts as to the
will round eight acres of ground was absurd. There were near legality of such a power. These doubts:were indeed
the Opthalmic Establishment inclosures of more than eight acres, . expressed in a late case by one of the Judges of the
where the Cavalry might exercise, without the necessity of any Court of Session,. and under such circumstances be
sucbwall being built.
submitted that the sentence against M.leod should
Mr. THOMAS WILSON (Member for the City) wail not C
satisfied that these Barracks should have been built at all. The not be carried into execution.
troops might have bees kept where they were, till the tranquil- The Hon. Mr. CLIVE said, that neither the Lase
ley of the times would allow them to be removed to some of the Officers of the Crown in -Scotland, nor the proper
unoccupied Barracks in the neighbourhood of London. If they Officer in this country, saw any reason tb recommend
were to have been built at all, they should have been built In the
•
most economical manner ;—on the contrary, the plan which had M'Cleod to mercy.
been proposed to them for their approbation, betrayed gross ails-. - i • .
Lord J. RUSSELL asked orlon what_gronnd it vvat •
. ,
management of thepliblic money. If the wall welch was to determined to transport Bruce, who was convicted
at the last Assizes of Chester? This certainly was a
cost so much should be esteemed necessary at some future time,
it should not have been built at present, when every possible en-
deavour should be used to prevent the increase of the expendi- case of very peculier character; for if Bruce were
ture. Even assuming the correctness of the estimate, the mode guilty, the punishment was too little, and if he was
of paying the builders seemed to him injudicious, u tending to innocent, that punishment was. too much—or rather,.
increase unnecessarily the present annual charge on the country. if he were innocent, wily should he be punished at all ?
If X 70,000 had been raised at the market rate of 4f, per cent. The Mn.
Hon. MCLIVE said, that his Mijies'ry.'s Mi-
the annual charge on the country would only have been 83400,• - .
instead of 5,400 a-year. He thought the Bill should be thrown nisters saw no reason to recommend any alteration in
back on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to try to force him the present sentence upon the person alluded to.
to make a better bargain; and the attention of the House was ' PENRHYN.
more forcibly called to the question, by the statement which —
Sir C. BURRELL said, that in consequence oi an
the Honourable Mover of the Amendment (Mr. Calcraft) had
made on a former night, that the contractors were friends to opinion from high authority, to which he felt it his
whom he was indebted for services done him, but that he, oot- duke to tow, and also from a wish to wait the issue
withstanding, felt himself bound to bring the subject forward. of the Bill brought forward by the Noble Ilitcl near
Sir H. PARNELL read the Resolution of,the House in the
last Session in favour of economy, and asked whether it was not him upon the subject of Grampound, he bad in this
a mockery pass such a Resolution, .and to sanction such a Session declined to propose the measure which 1 0
measure
e o Istth is?
some time since promised with respect to Penrhyn ;
The Committee divided—For the Clause, 50—Against it, 33--
but, notwithstanding the delay, he should not feel
Majority 17. himself precluded from bringing the subject before
The Rill went thrbugh the Committee.—Report to-neorrow.
the House, either after the adjournment, or in the
' The House went into a Committee on the Irish
next Session of Parliament.
Distillery Acts. •
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ex- VOTERS IN SCOTLAND.
plained the nature of the measures he intended to Mr. CLIVE laid a Return upoa the table with
propose very briefly, as be stated Members would respect to the Voters for the Counties of Scotland.
have ample time to consider them when the Bills Lord A. HAMILTON observed that this Return
served. to skew what he had-alleged in that House
-were before the House. The measures were divided
into three heads, and were to consist of three distinct upon a loaner occasion, first, with regard to the
Bills. The first for the regulation of large stills; the paucitycon of the voters for counties in .Scotland ;
ly,
that the names of those voters were the
second for the regulation of small stills; the third for secondly,
the suppression of: illicit distillation. Under the last same in various counties ; and thirdly, although not
so prima fiicie, that of the few entitled to vote, it
.bead he should propose an enactment to permit any
person to seize unlicensed stills, and to give certain was not required by law that any person should pos.
rewards for such seizures, to be paid by Magistrates, secs landed property, while; in point of facts several
the sums thus expended being presented by the Grand* had neither landed nor personal property. Upon
Juries at the Assizes. these grounds he had moved for papers, and on these