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

f
,~

ti • %.
• % *a 41%N
"...VI, 09.

.%
.•

t•

• st
esyglter -meabk they snould have of meeting it, but by a cross-exami-
. e enier,rafteir theyislti -been enabled to ascertain the character
of the witnesses against them ? The Learned Gentleman
agreed that the moment the examination in chief was fi-
nished, was the meet proper for cross-examination ; but he
knew also, that he was standing do grounds from which justice
woald never remove him, when he demanded a full and unre-
slrieted elms-examination, after he had the means of making
the necessary enquiries. He contended, that in an ordinary
Court of Law, where the evidence was concluded on both sides,
if the Jucige had delivered hie charge, and the Jury were deli-
'l.:rating on a verdict, yet, if the Counsel for the defence, then
heard of important facts which would impeach the evidence of
a single witness, then the proceedings would be stayed, and the
.iev evidence produced. There was one important topic, and he
thought it was the only one to which his Learned Friend had
net adverted, namely, that her Majesty's Counsel had not been
furnished with copies of those depositions and papers, on which
a Committee of their Lordships had made a report, recommend-
ing the institution of some proceeding against her Majesty. He
(\rr. Denman) hati,distinctly made application to their Lord-
- ships for teinse paperstand that application had been refused. It
Ivas by having an opportunity on a former occasion when her
Majesty's character was assailed, of contrasting the prepara-
tory affidavits of certain persons with their subsequent deposi-
firms before the Lords Commissioners, and by that means alone
that her Majesty had then been able to establish her innocence in
the eyes of the world. But of that advantage her Majesty is now
wholly deprived. It was impossible not to perceive that seven'
of their Lordships who bad been in the Committee before alluded
t t, had put questions to witnesses from information which they
acquired from other sources than the public proceedings conse-
quent on this Bill—from sources to which the Counsel of her
Majesty had been refused, and had no access—but to which
they ought to leave the freest access, were it intended
to do justice to her Majesty—(Hear, pear, hear).—
This was one strong reason, in addition to the many which
had been stated, why her Majesty's Counsel should not
be deprived of the most full, ample, and complete right of cross-
examination, or of any opportunity of bringing forward, at any
time, any information which might throw light on the case,
or cast infamy on those who bring infamous charges. How-
ever painful it might be, it would be better for the interests
of the Public that her Majesty's Counsel should at once with-
draw from the Inquiry, than give their sanction to a course
of proceeding by which no real justice could be done to the ac-
cused party. It would, indeed, be painful, but not so painful as to
concur in a proceeding by which, in the person of her Majesty,
the safety of every person in England would be compromised,
and to which any of their Lordships might themselves fall vic.
tints hereafter. It did seem to him as if her Majesty, by every
fair means of defence being withdrawn from her, were devoted
to destruction—that her destruction, at all hazards, was vowed
and resolved upon. Ile never would cease to insist for the most
full and unreserved right of cross-examination on all occasions.
It would be better, a thousand times, that all the summer months
of the next ten years should be occupied in the inquiry, than
that the least injustice should be done to the Illustrious Party in
the case by any difficulty in the way of proceeding, of which
their Lordships were themselves the cause. The Learned Gen-
tkman criteluseed a most impressive speech, by conjuring their
Lordships to he guided alone by those great principles—not of
written, but of unwritten law—principles which were engraven
can the hearts of all mini, and by winch every cultivated mind
was regulated.
1 (The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then commenced his reply
which contained nearly the repetition of some of the favourite
arguments of the friends to the proceeding. lle denied the ap-
plicability of the case of the Duchess of Norfolk to the present
case, and in fact declared that there was not a syllable of argu-
recut in the speeches of Mr. Brotieham and Mr. Denman.
IL took occasion to observe, that the Public Press which spoke
ir. condemnation of the proceedings, was daily in the habit
w: latching their Lordships, his Majesty's Attorney and Sohci-
re: General, and the witnesses for the Bill.
The SOLiCITOR- GENERAL followed on the same side.
Mr. BROUGHALI 'spoke in reply.—He said hit Learned
Friends bad misquoted th.: case of the Duke of Norfolk, al-
though they had assumed to themselves such high pretensions
f..r a superior knowledge of the law on this occasion. His
Learned Friends bad quoted their law on this subject from Cob-
bees &ate Trials; but be had now in his hand the original copy
of the case alluded to—he had the old authentic folio edition of
a work which would alone be received as evidence in a Court
of Justice; and be submitted, that this folio edition, belonging
to the Parliament, ought to the book quoted on this occasion,
when it would appear that the Learned Attorney-General was
wrong, and that he (Mr. Brougham) was right. In thus re-1
futing his Learned Friend's argument, Con forbid he should feel
any inclination to triumph over him, as his Learned Friend
wished to triumph over him. By good fortune, he happened
just an hour before to lay his hand on this book. In the 47th
page of the 15th volume of their Journals, their Lordships
'would find that the Proctor of the Duchess had examined Ann
Burton, a maid-servant, who lived in Chancery-lane, and who
six years before had lived as servant with the Duke of Norfolk
for the space of a whole year : she stated, that she lived by her
service, at her own charge. Twenty witnesses were examined
altogether by this Proctor, in the same way as Ann Burton had
teen examined; and it would appear, on the authority, not of
Cobbett's hook, which his Learned Friend had quoted, but of
their Lordships' books, that after the witness just alluded to
bad been examined, a petition was sent in praying for delay, and
it was ordered by the lionte of Lords that the Duchess's Proc-
tor should have a copy of the statements given by the witnesses,
and that time 'should be allowed for their cross-examination.
Now as he could nut enter into competition with his Learned
Friends on points of hew, in which they were so vastly superior
to him, it happened by good providence that he came across this
authority, which gave so complete an answer to their argument.
Not a word, however, that he could say would add a leaf to the
laurels which the Attorney-General had gained there; but it was
odd, that a man possessing so superior a knowledge of the law,
should have recourse to mistating authorities in support of his
argument. Thus it happened that the most exalted men were
found at times to have a little of the frailties of their nature
about them. Ilis Learned Friend was wrong in supposing that
he (Mr. Brougham) had stated, that in a civil case a defendant
had a list of witnesses. Ile had said no such thing; all be said
was, that when a man came into Court to defend himself, he
had a right to have the means of being prepared for his defence.
If a man were sued on a civil contract, he had a right to know
the nature of the debt, the time when it was contracted, and
the amount of the same. Ile had seen the application made for
a knowledge of this kind ; and he contended, if an action was
brought, of a nature so vague that it had passed over six years,
and a doubt rested as to the validity of the grounds on which it
was brought, the defendant, on application to the Court, would
be entitled to have a specific knowledge of every circumstance
connected with the claim made upon him. The case was much
strorger in criminal proceedings. If a man was taken up for
at. offence, he knew he must be tried in the county where it
was alleged to have been committed. That was enough to give
him information where the crime was alleged to be committed.
There the defendant would have an opportunity of recollecting
all he had done in that country, and would be able to make out
a defence. In like manner, an indictment did not run over a
whole man's life, or charge him with a multitude of crimes
committed in the course of six or seven years, in different parts
of the world; but he must be tried for a specific act, committed
in a particular place specified in the indictment; and no man
tees ever yet put on his trial who did not know the nature of
the charge against him, so as to be able to make a defence.—
Their Lordships were now about to lay down a new rule with
respect to a Bill of Pains and Penalties; and he wished to know
whether those rules, which were the greatest possible exceptions
to law, were hereafter to become habitual to that House? and
whether it was meant to say that it were better an individual
should be punished, than that such rules should not he Lid
down? What chalice was there that such a measure as the
present was ever likely to be brought forward again? and why
should a general rule he rendered applicable to a solitary case?
Ile might as well ask their Lordships to lay down a rule which
would tie favourable to the defence. Why was all the onus of
making an inflexible rule of positive injustice to he applicable
alone to the case of her Majesty, and not that of her prosecu-
tors? The law, in a spirit of justice and humanity, said that it
was better ten guilty men should escape, than that one innocent
man should suffer. But in the present case, it seemed to have
been laid down as a maxim that it would be better to find ten
innocent guilty, than that their Lordships should not have an
inflexible rule to assist them in trying and convicting her Ma-
jesty. See then what the injustice of this sort of proceeding
eves. If the present Bill should be thrown out, her Majesty
valid not then be said to be acquitted; because the pro-
pounders of the Bill might still bring in new Bills toties
wires, until some Bill should at last be passed against her.
This was no slight difference ; and anotliet important distinction