Star.
London, England, 1820-09-08 00:00:00

THE QUEEN.

The case against the Qualm was closed yesterday,
and, as our Readers will see from our Parliamentary
Report, her MAJESTY'S Counsel are this day to be
called upon to inform the House what course they
now propose to pursue.
What the House wish particularly to extract from
the Learned Counsel is, whether, should they com-
mence the defence of her MAJESTY to day, they
intend to go through with it at once, or only to pro-
ceed with it in part, and then crave a delay of some
weeks or months, to procure further evidence.—
Now why is it that they wish to extract this infor-
mation? Is any such thing usual in ordinary cases?
Or has such a thing ever been heard of in any case?
Where shall we find a precedent for a Judge asking
a defendant, when on the point of entering upon his
defence—" Do you think, defendant, you will get
through with your defence? Do you expect that
you will have any occasion to ask us for delay? Are
you sure all the witnesses you have subpoenaed will
be in waiting to answer your call? Because, if you
think you will not get through with your defence,
you had better not begin it; if you expect to have
hereafter occasion to ask for delay, you had better
ask for it before you want it ; if you are not sure all
your witnesses are in readiness, you bad better wait
till you have got them all under lock and key, in
same high walled garden, or other sure place of cus-
tody!" We say, unhesitatingly, that such language
from aJudge to a defendant was never heard within the
walls of a British Court of Justice, and should it ever
chance to be heard, would either be scouted as the
blundering officiousness of one who ought never to
have been raised to the justice seat, or the drivelling
garrulity of one who had survived the faculties
which do it honour.
The obvious answer of a defendant to any such
questions would -be—" These, my Lord, are my mat-
ters—if I cannot go through with my defence, the
harm is mine: when I want delay, it will be then
time enough to talk about it: if I cannot produce
all my witnesses, I shall doubtless be able to chew
your Lordship good reasons for it, and either obtain
a delay, or lose my cause. But all these are things
with which your Lordship has nothing to do at pre-
sent. lam ready to go on with my defence, and it
is your Lordship's duty to be ready to hear me."
Such, we say, would be the answer in any ordi-
nary case to questions so irregular and extraordi-
nary : and why, we ask, ought it not to be the an-
swer of her MAJESTY'S Counsel to the question which
is this day to be put to them by the House-
-Much has been said on all sides, of the great pro-
priety of assimilating, as far as possible, the pro-
ceedings of the House of Peers in this case, to the
ordinary proceedings in the Courts of Law ; and
why not observe that analogy in a case so ob-
viously admitting it as the present? The truth is,
that the. House know and feel that they have, by their
own acts of refusal, placed the Illustrious Defendant
in this case in a situation to which no other defend-
ant was ever subjected ; they are conscicus that they
have thrown such obstacles in her path, that she
cannot get through with her defence without some
delay being interjected; they know that they have

made it next to impossible that she should have
all her witnesses in readiness ; and therefore it
is that they want her to ask for a long delay, to
make up for the unprecedented inconveniences
and difficulties to which they have subjected her;
leaving her character, in the meanwhile, to suf-

fer all the injury which the load of calumny heaped
upon it by the case for the prosecution can and must
inevitably do to it. But are the House entitled to
act on that consciousness? Are they entitled to an-
ticipate what the defendant may, possibly, be com-
pelled to solicit, to demand from them ? We think
not. We conceive her Man:sin% Counsel are en-
' titled to put themselves on their right, and to decline
sa)i.lg a word more than that they are ready to go
on with their defence. When they feel it necessary
to ask for any delay, in consequence of the refusal by
their Lordships of a list of the witnesses and a speci-
fication of the times and places of the alleged acts
of .criminality, it will be then time enough to talk • -
about it, but not till then.

FROM TIM TIMES.
" At length the case against the QtrZEN is of neeesshy closed;
for the Arroanar-Grantaax, asst being able to bring forward his
rashly but auxiliary evidence by the time he had at first ex-
pected, declined pressing his requrst for [lards,: delay. This is
:probably the most singular cause that aver was, or ever Will be,
banded down to posterity : among the seeming witnesses of a
Quxtv--of the Qualm of EsoLaina--there is not one that is not
of the inwest meanest, most.purchaseal4e occur:Mon in human

life--not oat whine character has borne the test of a cross-cr,
nithadim, even from those slight materials which fprung up fr,,n,
casual knowledge, or were supplied by the examination in third_
the names and designations of the witnesses being, u inde,4
they well might be, studiously concealed, till the momm
their production!—We, of course, except the two BritiA
tains, whose evidence proved advantageous to her MA/ MT.

" Wu 'ever suck a Bill of Divorce thought of? flow
thv ! how unholy ! Other DIU of this kind are opened vt::4
evident as to the happiness of the parties before the sedrcu:s
took place : their union in holy church is attested ; the vritce::,,
of the marriage—the friends, the relatives, of the parrfts__.c
painfully brought forward to testify to these and sialiinr
Tears are the usual ct•ncornitants of such evidence. There :
sanctity even in the dissolution of a sacred tie; but this ur.',.r,
noblest in its motives--unblest in ha celebration—in its et:: i.

nuance--unblest in its fruits—la now, when tie parties are fa.:
approaching to she term af life, frigidly presented to the n; then
to be rent asunder, without ling of those preliminaries whirl_ ~f
necessity precede the Sisal separation of those whom it is Lr.
bidden to man rsi separate. Bat the divorce, it appears, via
not now be attempted. Lord Lorrnists. an adherent of
Miters, himself proposed the removal of that clause from tt,
Bill, and Lord laves oat pertly aequiesced, disputing only
to the state in which the ehange was to be made. We wei.ld
not recal contemplated injuries or menaced injustices againn tar
Queen by shelving drat it is more difficult to retire than to pro.
teed; but does not every one see that, if a husband mimic
obtain a divorce against his wife, a Bill of rain:; and Penaltir•,
even if justly carried. can have no other effect than to prt.i.,
that the parties are en a level ? and is it for such a cause .11 this
that the tranquillity of England is to be shaken to its faundation
Sorely, if there Is anywhere a husband who seeks in vain
fora divorce against a wife whom he charges with profligacy,
is for his credit, as well arthe wife's, that the cause of fah:' !.
should rather be found in her purity thaw in Lu unworthier.
To fail of a divorce, because the wife is innocent, is no great
disgrace; but to be declared. unworthy of separation trim A
woman. who, as a wife, is debased and tainted by Set of
serene, is such a state of ignoinihy as cannot easily be descriho.:.
We are sure, therefore, the divorce being given up, that tic
KVIG must now wish that the Qtrastr may escape the rienaltic
in order that the lustre of her virtue, thus tried, may be reflected
upon him whom it is not thought proper to separate from hi
In this view of the subject, therefore, the KiNG'S friends
to be glad that the evidence for the prosecution has failed."