Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1820-10-06


thought II was quite clear that The Learn
ed Counsel must be allowed TO speak "a
sainst the principle OF the Bill, either now
or al future stage of the proceeding, but
that he could Iot he allowed to speak
twice upon II. His Lordship, therefore,
thought that the Counsel. ough, to elect
whether they would now or AT a suisse
quen, period bring forward their argu-
menIs against ihc principle of The Bill
lie thought that the consideration OF say.
ing the time OF their Lordsh:ps MAS as
| nothing 10 being saved The disclosure of
facts, which IT the Learned Counsel's are
| currents prevailed, would be the desira
! bic result.
The Counsel were then ordered to be
called in, and Mr.. Brougham advanced
again close 10 the bar
| The Lord Chancellor, addressing The
Counsel. informed them that he was COM
manded by the house 10 ask if they chose
now 10 proceed in their arguments a
gainst the principle Of the Bill 7 at the
same time they must clearly understand,
that they could moi then so proceed and
AT any future stage Likewise.
| Here there was a cry of Counsel 10
withdraw, which was loudly reiterated, as
| Mr.. BrOugham had not retreated al all
from The bar; on which, as before, lie
slept a pace or two.
| The Earl of Landerdale SAID, that he
must object TO the course of proceeding
proposed Tor the Counsel might find il
expedleni TO object TO the principle found
ed on facts arising from the evidence 10
be given on the Bill; when, by the mode
adopted, they would he precluded from
making The objections, however well found
ed. RE objected 10 this, because il APP
1 nParqH hkn tho
with the Counsel TO pursue a certain
course i'll defending his clients cause.
| The Counsel were then ordered to be
called in, on which
Mr.. BrOugham slept forward 10 the bar
and apolossed for his delay in with
drawing when the call took place for tina,
purpose. He said he had understood
| from those who were i'm the habit of al
tending the bar of their Lordsllips, thai
The Withdrawing was a mere act of form !;
hebegsed, therefore, 10 clear himselfir from
! any imputation OF disrespect 10 their
| Lordslips, as he was well aware there
were those present who we're ready Ia
miscons'ruc any thing he might do or
say.-(Load cries Of" Order! Order y
ne now understood that he was 10 make
his election as tn the time when he would
argue agalnst the principles of the Bill,
and lie The more readily chose that mo-
Dent from being satisfied their Iordships'
sense or justice would induce them to
revise their decision against hearat,er
hearing him; should aav THU. essent al
to The ends OF substantial Justice arise af.
ter the evidence bad been gone through
10 render II necessary. His first objec-
ZION was, That the Bill was a private law
hiaoe Tor particular case, aud TO punish
particular individual, a proceeding
never resorted TO IN any country, or in the
worst OF times, without a deep sense Of
us hateful nature, and its utter repug.
nance 10 every principle OF jurisprudence.
from tac earliest period of the Roman
Code, The greatest Juriscons,ilis had des-
crlted such laws as of dreadful dcscrip-
non, and oniy 10 be justified by absolute
necessity. SnCh laws were CT post facto;
iney nrsi permit the deed TO be done, and
afterwards define whether ii be guilty or
innocent, or rather before any notice or
warRing gwen, and then las hold of the
person anu intlct punishment, as if the
suiit han been previously defined. He
uisc'aimed the childish pedantry of quo
i"g {" their Lordships examples from the
ROMAN history, bnl it would be in their
Lnruships recollection that not only the
wisest and best OF the legislators of that
people, but even those of moderate sa
gaclty, have startled at passing laws like
these: Aud in the history of our coun-
Try, lie story of The enactment was speed.
~ followed by the account Of The repeal.
II might be objected That he was refer
ring TO a period when civil wars had de-
iuged ,he country will, blood, bni he did
moi refer TO those times for examples, but
because The cases lie was about TO quote
were against the examples of Bills Of
rams ana Penalties. In The reign of Ed
ward III, the Bill against Mortimer was
passed and quickly rescinded so also si-
Inilar Bills III the reign Of Richard iii.
and indeed almost ali laws ola similar
nature adopted under tie pressure oftem-
porary expectancy were afterwards re-
peal'd. The case OF Lord Stafford would
De ia ne recollection of their Lordshps.
en- The Bills against the wives of Harry
VIII, any refcreuce 10 which would involve
blm IN the history of the violence and
cruelty OF that hateful iyrant, he should
Tor The present pnIposely pass over, and
lake his Stand al better periods, and on
~ just glance at The fine of The two
ChaTleses, when Stafford suffered under
proceeding which was The greatest dis
grace that ever sullied the purity of either
House ct Parliament. Had that been
case OF impeachment, il would have
bren comparatively a case of Justice -
there would have been al least the forms
OF justice hall observed, and the spirit 10
iaiiy neglected-but il was case OF al |
tander, aud TO shew their Lordsips what
was The sens entertained by their ances.
Tors OF That act, he would beg leave 10 |
read to them a passage from a history
written by one OF the most eloquent men
ibai ever existed, and a near relative TO |
one OF their Lordships who then heard |
him. Here the learned counsel read a |
passage from Mr.. Fox's History OF james