entirely dissented from the doctrine that had been laid down. It would be of very little use if counsel were restricted from asking any questions except those which related to the name of the witness and the place in which he resided two months ago. A contrary course might be opposed to the practice in the courts below; but it ap peared to him that, by the rule prescribed, the learned counsel would be precluded from going into those objects which it was most desirable to know. To confine them to such circamscribed limits was treating the matter very differently from the way in which, according to his view of the subject, it ought to be treated. If the counsel had been put in possession of a list of the witnesses at the time when he, in common with several of his noble friends, had argued that it ought to be allowed, a sufficient time would then have been granted for allowing a proper inquiry into the characters of the individuals suminoned on this occasion, as well as into many other matters of primary importance, which could not now be so conve niently done.

Viscount Sidmouth explained.-What he argued was, that the plea of the learned counsel for an extended crossexamination, on account of a list of the witnesses not having been produced, could not be maintained; because the first questions constantly put by the person who examined the witness was, "What is your name, your situ ation, and the place of your residence?" And the answer given to those questions constituted all the information that would have been produced, relative to every witness, if the list had been granted.

The Earl of Liverpool.-I do not wish that the learned counsel should be precluded from sifting the witnesses in the fullest manner possible; but the question here is, whether the witnesses are to be sifted twice on points connected with character? If there are to be two cross-examinations, it is fit that the first should be confined to name, residence, occupation, and such facts as come out in the direct examination.

The Lord-Chancellor said his sentiments had been somewhat misunderstood when it was supposed that he agreed in the doctrine laid down by the noble viscount. He did. not think that the first questions put by the AttorneyGeneral, as to the residence and situation of a witness, rendered unnecessary the extent of cross-examination which their lordships had agreed to allow. If the list of

witnesses had been granted six weeks ago, such inquiry might have been made as would have rendered the crossexamination as to occupation and residence quite unnecessary. It was, therefore, on account of withholding that list of witnesses that the cross-examination, to elicit the correctness of the statement made in the first instance, on these points, was allowed to proceed; and he knew of no other way of doing justice ou both sides but by impressing the counsel with an idea that the House was determined to conduct the business with honour and fairness. To the first two or three questions no objection could be made: but he thought the last question put by. the learned counsel," where are you now?" trenched on the principle laid down by their lordships. It was a question that went to impeach the witness's credit, and was evidently intended to do so. He trusted, under all the circumstances, that the learned counsel would repose on the honour of the House; and believing that they would, he was sure the House would repose on the honour of the learned counsel to act up to the regulation that was laid down.

The Earl of Donoughmore.-I agree perfectly in the -opinion of the learned lord with respect to the line of cross-examination that ought to be allowed in this stage of the case. If the cross-examination is to be conducted as it has hitherto been, the effect will be the same as if the trial had been for high treason, and that a list of witnesses was furnished. I do not complain of her Majesty's counsel for endeavouring, by every means in their power, to get the completest information they can for the benefit of their client; but it is the duty of the House to stop. them when they proceed irregularly. Your lordships should have interposed long ago. I must say we have fallen imo great errors in the course of this proceeding; and were it not for the deference I feel to higher authorities, I should have interposed long ago, to put a stop to the course of cross-examination pursued. The noble lord on the woolsack has stated that he felt the House had fallen into very great error. This is slso my feeling; and I would have submitted my sentiments to the. House on the subject, if I did not think that it was not for me to interpose on a nice question of law and fact, when it is passed over in silence by individuals of more authority and talent. There was something extraordinary and highly improper in the cross-examination of that man, Majochi. (Order, order.)

Earl Grey rose to order. This, he said, was not the proper time for making any allusions to the cross-examination of a witness not now before their lordships. He submitted, therefore, that the noble earl was not in order, since he could not introduce a discussion of such a nature, on the present occasion, without an interruption of the proceeding that was regularly before them.

The Earl of Donoughmore said he would proceed no farther on that part of the subject. There was, besides the reason given by the noble earl, another, and he thought a better reason, to influence him in coming to that determination-namely, because the House appeared at length" to see their error on this occasion, and were determined not to fall into that error again. (Order, order.) He contended that he was in order, and if his noble friend (Earl Grey) thought he was not in order, he wished to know how he meant to prove the fact. The noble and learned lord on the woolsack had stated in his place, and he was not called to order when he made the observation, that the House had gone on in a way which, he hoped, they would not adopt again. The learned lord was not called to order on that occasion, and he could not conceive on what principle he was to be interrupted for expressing the same sentiment. He knew not why the learned lord should be' allowed to say things which it was deemed improper for him (Lord Donoughmore) to restate. At all events, he would not consent to shut his mouth on account of a call of order, unless it was fairly shown that he was indeed in error. The House had, undoubtedly, got into some irregularity, which, it appeared, they meant to avoid in future. He was glad their lordships entertained that feeling, because irregularities in that House had, he believed, caused other irregularities out of doors. The facilities afforded in their lordships' House had given rise to very great irregularities out of doors. He here spoke of the public press, and he could not help thinking that the facilities allowed in that House had led to great injury and injustice elsewhere. In ordinary cases the cross-examination always immediately followed the examination-in-chief, and he could not see why that should not be the course in the present instance. He agreed with the noble viscount" (Sidmouth) that they ought to place the counsel nunc prò tunc in the same situation as in cases of high treason.

Lord Erskine.-My noble friend who has just sat down has expressed his acquiescence in the argument of the

noble viscount, and also in the argument of the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, which is in direct opposi tion to the argument of the noble viscount. I am of opinion that the utmost indulgence should be given to the counsel for her Majesty, because the House cannot put them in the same situation now in which they would have been had they, as in case of high treason, been previously. furnished with a list of the witnesses, their professions, and their places of residence. I think that whatever regards the credibility of the witnesses should be matter of future cross-examination; but that every question ought now to be admitted which was preparatorily requisite to enable the counsel for her Majesty to make the necessary inquiries into that credibility.

The Earl of Donoughmore explained.

Earl Grey. Let it be understood, by the counsel at the bar, whether the question that has just been put does or does not come within the limits prescribed by their lordships.

The Lord-Chancellor took the sense of the House on allowing the question to be put. The non-contents had it by a great majority.

Mr. Brougham. I understand your lordships to say, that, at any rate, you will place us in the same situation.

The Lord Chancellor.-Propose another question, Mr. Brougham. We must proceed according to received rules. If you propose another question, you may support it by argument; if you are ready to do so, we will hear you, but the House will not permit counsel to make observations on what it has done.

Mr. Brougham.-I meant only to state what I apprehend to be the course which your lordships wish to be pursued. I understand counsel are called on to trust to the honour of the House, and we are quite ready to do so; but certainly there is little use in making an argument in support of a question before it is objected to. I would suggest a question, and then, if it be objected to, am I to understand that I shall be allowed to argue in support of it? (Go on, go on.) I wish to be acquainted with the names and residences of the witnesses, I have no other object at present. I therefore ask the witness, Where is your place of residence ?—At Carlsruhe.

I ask, where does the witness live at present?

The Attorney-General.---I beg leave to say a single word on the course now proposed to be adopted. I understand

your lordships to have distinctly stated, at the outset of the proceeding, that, in case my learned friends, who are counsel for her Majesty, should offer to your lordships sufficient grounds for having this witness, or any other in the same circumstances, only cross-examined in part, they should be at liberty so to do, but not to exceed some reasonable and certain limits. But the rule now applied for is not that it should be limited in this manner, but that the cross-examination of all the witnesses should only take place in part, until the examination-in chief should have been completed. Surely your lordships will not give my learned friends such an election. If such a course is adopted, I have no hesitation in saying it will be subversive of the first and best interests of public justice, and will lay down a bad precedent in all future proceedings of this nature. What is the hardship complained of on the other side? Why, that they had not had a list of the witnesses. But your lordships have relieved them from the difficulty: you have allowed them to cross-examine twice; and, before the bill closes, they may re-examine again.

Lord Erskine.---Why does not the interpreter give the witness's answer?

The Lord Chancellor.---Because the House objects to the question.

The Earl of Liverpool.---Does the Attorney-General object to the question?

The Attorney-General said he did object to it. This was, perhaps, the most important question that had yet occurred. Unless his learned friends now cross-examined the witness, how were they to proceed? Was he to lay the whole of the evidence in support of the bill before their lordships, and that before there was any cross-examination at the other side. Why such a proceeding was never heard of in any court-of justice. Was the crossexamination to proceed in this manner, by piecemeal? If it were, he should be shut out from offering any explanation as to circumstances disclosed by the witness that might be even necessary; and it would be impossible for their lordships to place those who were to support the bill in the situation in which they ought to be placed. Until the whole of the cross-examination and the re-examination were closed, there could be no summing up by counsel. They now cross-examined in part; again they crossexamined in another part, and when or where was this to end? Let them either now proceed to the cross-examina