subject. Although it might not be possible, according to the Queen's request, to begin the trial in twentyfour hours, yet no longer period ought to elapse before the mode of conducting it should be distinctly laid down. A division took place on this question, when the motion of Lord Liverpool was carried by a majority of 56 to 19.

On Monday, 10th July, accordingly, the Earl of Liverpool proceeded to state his views with regard to the course of proceeding. He particularly dwelt on the importance of securing an attendance of the judges. It was impossible, however, without materially interfering with the administration of justice, to procure, within any tolerable period, the attendance of the whole twelve; nor did this appear to be necessary. The earliest time, however, when it would be possible to command the attendance even of four, was the 17th of August; and he proposed to fix for that day the second reading of the bill. Notwithstanding the inconvenience of the period, he trusted that the extreme importance of the case would secure a full attendance of their Lordships.

Earl Grey did not, in the present state of his information, mean to oppose the motion, but he was anxious that something should be done to prevent the interruption of the proceedings after they had begun, and to avoid the necessity of allowing time for the preparation of the defence. This, he thought, might be accomplished, by communicating to her Majesty a copy of the charges, and a list of the witnesses against her, which he considered nothing more than what strict justice required. Unless such an arrangement could be made, he saw no necessity for delaying till the 17th of August, as the

attendance of four judges could surely be procured at an earlier period.

The Earl of Liverpool assured the noble lord, that it was impossible to procure the attendance of the judges sooner, consistently with a due regard to the administration of justice. As to the charges, he conceived that they were already sufficiently made known. They were as fully detailed in this bill as ever they had been in any other of the kind. With regard to the other and more important point

the communication of the names of the witnesses-he had already given it his most serious consideration, and he was perfectly satisfied that no claim whatever could in justice be made to such a communication.

Lord Holland conceived that the proceedings against Lord Treasurer Middlesex in 1623, afforded a precedent for laying a full statement of the charges, and of the evidence by which they were to be supported, both before the accused party and the House. This precedent was supported by the practice in courts of law. Where informations were taken before a magistrate, the depositions were generally given in the presence of the party accused; but whether they were sworn in the presence of the person accused or not, when the case came before the court for trial, they were communicated to the judge. They were produced for the purpose of giving the judge an opportunity to ascertain the credibility of witnesses, by checking the evidence sworn at the bar with that which had previously been given before the magistrate. It had been usual for committees to give much more particular information as to the contents of papers referred to them, than had been done on the present occasion. He conceived that the accused party was fully entitled either to a list of the witnesses, or to a pre

cise and particular statement of the evidence.

The Earl of Liverpool thought it would be better to make a distinct motion on the subject, than thus to introduce it incidentally. The noble lord candidly admitted, that the application of his case was doubtful. There were many later instances, particularly that of the Bishop of Rochester, in which copies of the depositions had been peremptorily refused. Their Lordships would see that their judgment was not to be founded either on the depositions, or on the report. They all agreed that it would be improper if the House were asked to declare an opinion on these documents; and it had been stated all along that the case was to be proved by oral testimony at their Lordships' bar, subject to the examination, crossexamination, and re-examination, to which oral testimony was always liable. He admitted the advantage of proceeding with celerity, after the business had commenced; at the same time, if a previous list of the witnesses, or else a period of delay between the accusation and the defence, were demanded, he would decidedly prefer granting the latter.

Lord Ellenborough expressed the same opinion, while, after some explanation from Lord Holland, Lord Erskine strongly urged the Queen's right to an immediate communication of a list of witnesses. This was opposed by the Lord Chancellor, who said, he should be glad to know whether his noble and learned friend could state an instance, except in the case of high treason, where, according to the principles either of law or justice, a list of witnesses was given to the accused party preparatory to trial.

The motion was then carried, and a strict call of the House ordered for the 17th of August.

VOL. XIII. PART I.

The Queen, who was always ready to act with promptitude, did not fail to press the claim now advanced in her favour. On the following day (11th July,) Lord Auckland presented the following petition :

"To the Lords Spiritual, &c.

"The Queen having received information from the House of Lords, that the second reading of a bill for the degradation and divorce of her Majesty, is fixed for the 17th of August next, and deeming it essential to her defence that she should be furnished with a list of the witnesses intended to be examined against her, desires that such list should be forthwith delivered to her Majesty's Attorney-General."

Lord Lauderdale now moved the appointment of a Committee to search for precedents, with respect not only to the giving of lists in analogous cases, but to the whole proceedings. Lord Liverpool being of opinion, that the object of the search should be precisely pointed out, moved, as an amendment, That the inquiry should be, whether it had been customary to grant lists of witnesses in cases of bills of pains and penalties, and of impeachment. Lord Holland urged that a full view of the whole proceedings,however voluminous, was indispensable; otherwise it was impossible to see the principle upon which the House had formerly acted. The House divided, when Lord Bathurst's amendment was carried by a majority of 18 to 10.

On the 14th of July, the Earl of Shaftesbury brought up the report of the Committee. It stated that the Committee had examined the precedents, from the earliest period down to the latest date on the journals, of bills of attainder, bills of pains and penalties, and of impeachments, and

M

they had found two cases only bearing at all on the subject under their consideration. Those were the cases of Sir John Bennet in 1621, and the the Earl of Strafford in 1640, both being cases of impeachment. Of these two cases the Committee thought it necessary to state the particulars. 1st, With regard to Sir John Bennet's case, the 5th resolution states, in answer to his request, that he might have liberty to examine the witnesses brought against him, and have a list of their names, it was resolved that he should have leave at the hearing to crossexamine the witnesses, and that the names should be delivered to him also at the hearing. 2dly, In the Earl of Stafford's case, it appeared that no answer was given to that part of his application which related to the names of the witnesses.

Lord Erskinerose to support strongly the motion he had formerly announced, for allowing the Queen a list of witnesses. This appeared to him absolutely imperative on their Lordships. The bill carried back the charge to a period so long ago as the year 1814. It stated that her Majesty, being then at Milan, engaged in her service, in a menial situation, a foreigner, who had before served in a similar capacity. It afterwards went on to state, that her Majesty, unmindful of her exalted rank and duty, conducted herself towards the said foreigner, both in public and in private, in the various places and countries which she visited, with indecent and offensive familiarity and freedom, and carried on a licentious, disgraceful, and adulterous intercourse, which "continued for a long period of time." Thus the crime here charged was not laid on any particular day, nor stated to have been committed in any partilar place, but to have occurred during a period of six long years, and in foreign countries, remotely distant,

none of which are, however, specified in this bill. The illustrious person against whom this bill was now directed, stood in need of the same guards with which persons accused of High Treason are surrounded, to secure them against the weight of power and influence, with which they have to contend. Those accused of treason were, by the statute of William III., to have a copy of the indictment, stating the different overt acts with all that precision which is the glory of the law of England. He was also to have a list of witnesses, the use of which was, that the accused might know every thing relating to them-might be able to estimate what weight their character gave to their testimony-and might be in possession of all those circumstances which might go to invalidate their evidence? There were few indictments for high treason that had all the ministers of the Crown as accusers, and none where the judges were like those before whom her Majesty was to be tried. He knew that this statute had been grumbled at; but he also knew that it had stood for a century. In this opinion he could have no bias. He stood in a relation to the King which few of their Lordships did. He had known him for many years, and had passed the best part of his life in his friendship; but he repeated, that he would allow no personal consideration to influence him on the present occasion. The noble lord then pointed out the advantages which those accused of adultery possessed, by the previous proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court. Besides, delay would be necessary to prepare her defence after the evidence for the prosecution was heard, if she was not in the first place put in possession of the advantage which he now claimed for her; and let their Lordships consider what would be the consequences of that delay on the

public mind, from that uncontradicted testimony hanging over her. In ordinary cases, jurors, during such an interval, were either locked up, or brought under a promise not to converse with strangers. Were their Lordships to be locked up, then, till her Majesty could prepare for her defence, or to be prevented from speaking on the evidence which they had heard? However determined their Lordships might be to adhere to the strict principles of justice, they ought to adhere to the established rules of law, and carefully to place themselves above all suspicion. Let her have all the protection which this indulgence would afford, to combat the immense difficulties with which she would have to contend. Let them stand by the maxims of ancient times; let them stand by the principles of the Revolution; let them stand by the statute of William, which had continued for upwards of a century.

The Lord Chancellor could not conceive that, with regard to precedents, their Lordships ought to appeal to times when the accused could not defend themselves by law and fact; neither ought any regard to be paid to whether the party was high or low. No man living could deny, that the giving of a list of witnesses to the accused conferred a great, and, in many cases, a fair advantage, in the examination of evidence. The testimony of witnesses might be crush ed to pieces, and entirely destroyed, by a cross-examination, proceeding upon a knowledge of their characters. At the same time, the general adherence to such a system would render the administration of justice in all cases inconvenient, and in some nearly impossible. He had often experienced this in cases of high treason, being obliged to call unnecessary witnesses, and even to divine the na

ture of the defence; for if, after the evidence for the Crown was heard, the prisoner brought forward a defence founded on perjury, he could not call a single witness out of the list to contradict it. He did not grumble at this statute. (Here some dissent was expressed by Lord Holland.) The noble, and, if he would allow him to add, learned Lord-for learned he certainly was in the law-had said, that this looked something very like grumbling. The noble and learned Lord had never to endure any part of the trouble, or to undergo the exertions that he had in the execution of this statute, or he would have grumbled still more. He admitted the advantage of assimilating their proceedings as much as possible to those which the wisdom of ages had sanctioned in courts of justice; but was Parliament, on that account, to divest itself of its great functions? He was convinced that a great essential constitutional principle would be sacrificed, if the petition of the Queen were complied with.

The Marquis of Lansdowne supported at great length the motion of Lord Erskine. His original impression had been greatly strengthened by one of the most convincing, calm, and dispassionate speeches he had ever heard. The noble Lord had manfully and rightly stated, that the House on this question was not about to follow, but to create a precedent; and, in fact, to make a new law ap plicable to cases of this magnitude. Was it not rather too much for those who had induced the House to abandon all precedent, and to violate all analogy-who had prevailed upon it to put to sea on this perilous voyage of discovery, without compass or landmark, now to contend in favour of that very course which they had themselves deserted? All great constitutional writers had considered bills