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

THE. EVENJN STAR;

LONDON,.
• WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 1820.
?RICA Of &MUI THIS DAY AT ,01111 0•CDOCII
Beni Stock DM 1113-3 per Cent. Reduced 011
3 per Cent. Cam. Sat 1 ex. div.--34 per Cent. 771 1
per Cent. $64 $7—S per Cent. IQ% ilex. Abr. •
Long Ann,. 18 1-iipaial Anne. 681—Old Anna. 61111
India Stock 216}—Eachtfle 4a. se. pre.
Osmium I* pr.—CenselOpening 70* 1

.

A Petition-from the QUEEN was last night pre-
sented by Lord AUCKLAND to the House of Lords,
requiring that the House would command that a
list of the witnesses intended to be produced against
her should be communicated to her MAJESTY'S At-

torney-General, as 4, essential to her defence." The
Petition was ordered to be taken into consideration
On Friday next, for which day Lord Easnuez has
given notice of a motion on the subject.
The Earl of LAUDZpDALE proposed that, in the
meantime, a CoMmittee should be appointed to
examine into precedents as to the practice of fur--
nishing lists of witnesses in.cases of Bills of Pains
and Penalties.

Earl BATHURST proposed, as an Amendment, that
the inquiry' of the Comilittee should be extended to
precedents in cases of Impeachment.
The House divided upon the Amendment, which
was carried by a majority of 18 to 10.
We think the result of this division must create
Very general surprise. Whenever anything unusual
in the course of proceeding is proposed against her
MAJESTY, all precedents are scoffed at as inapplica-

.ble to a case most truly said to be without a parallel;
but as often on the contrary as anything is deinanded
for ter MAsEsfr,founded on the most. obvious -prin-
ciples ui justice, and consonant to all the analogies
of practice; the cry is immediately- for what .vas
scouted the moment before—for precedents—prece-

dent, in acase without a parallel ! Nay more; wheal
precedents are to. be enguited into for allowing to
her MAJESTY what is thus so obviously just, the in-
quiry Must not be narrowed to cases as nearly like
to that of her MAJESTY as possible, but extended
to cases which are quite dissimilar.
'f he case of her MAJESTY is one of a Bill ofitiir -
and Penalties; and to inquire into preiedents as to
Bills of Pains and Penalties, is an intelligible pro-
ceeding. But what have precedents in case of Im-
peachment to do with that of her MAJESTY, which
is not one of Impeachment? The individuals who
have succeeded in thus enlarging the inquiry, know
well, that if precedents in cases of Impeachment are
to be taken into the account, the Report will negative
the right of her MAJESTY to what is, nevertheless,
most just. In cases of Impeachment, it is not usual
to furnish lists of evidence—and why? Because
they are not needed. .
The public and solemn Inquiry in the Commons*
which precedes every Impeachment, gives the party
accused a perfect knowledge of all that is alleged
against him, and of the means by which it will be en-
deavoured to beestablish,ed. But what is there like to
such Inquiry in the present instance? A Secret Inqui-
sition at Milan, in which all the inquiry is on one side;
a Secret Committee of the Lords appointed to examine
the bag of materials hatched by that Secret Inquisi.
tion—and a Report of that Secret Committee cola.
ceived in .terms so general as to leave the party ac-
cused in titter ignorance of every partictilar circum-
stance of the charge against which she is called upon tcY
defend herself As Lord ACCKLAND most justly
observed in the coarse of last nights debate, when
speaking of the pertinacity with which. Ministers now;
stickle about precedents, it would have been well iii
they had been as tender in this respect when they en-
tered into such a secret course of investigation.
The proceedings of the House Inive been anoma-
lous all through; and were it even anomalous to

accede to the demand of the QUEEN for a list of the

witnesses against her, it would surely not be the
worst anomaly which has been committed in the
_ _ -

course of these proceedings.
What, to the ear of an Englishman, can be more
just than the demand of a party accused to knoiv
who are her accusers? Is it possible to mention a
single proposition which requires less to be said in
its support ? Let us suppose that, instead of insti-
tuting an inquiry into inapplicable precedents, the
House t act ordered the opinion of the Judges to be
taken on the general question—whether it is usual to
allow persons accused lists of the witnesses against
them? Can any man doubt for a moment what would
have been the answer? Is there a Judge in the land who
would not have joined in replying that it is the uni-
versal—the established—the immutable practice, to
allow suck lists, and thatit has always been so ever
since condemning without a trial went out of fashion,
and since law and justice took the place of despotism
and (ppressiOn amongst us?- And shall the QUEEN
of` ENGLAND be the first to be denied what every
pet son on English ground is entitled to?
We would join 'with a Morning cotemporary in
earnestly entreating Ministers to weigh well the
import of the language made. use of by Mr. Dam-
MAN the other night, ads& he said, that if this
list of witnesses were refused, " it mien become
a question with his colleagues ancrhimself, whether
it was not due to her MAJZSTY and to public, jus.
tice, to abandon the _defence altogether, and to leave
it to the indignation of posterity to proisosmce vox
the trassactios."