ation of great disadvantage compared with her prosecu tors: her acquittal, nay, even her conviction, could not be pleaded in bar of any further proceeding this bill might be withdrawn and amended, again withdrawn and again amended: toties quoties new measures might be offered to their lordships against their Queen, and session after session she might be put upon her trial. This was no slight difference; and another important distinction had been demonstrated already by the evidence, that the Queen's accusers had a power of procuring witnesses which she could not enjoy. Not only were large sums at their command, not only was force used where bribery failed, but the foreign force (for the conclusion was irresistible) used to bring the King's witnesses would not be employ ed to make those of the Queen come. Further, the same force found effectual in driving the King's witnesses over would be exerted to keep the Queen's witnesses back. He did not profess to be so deeply skilled in human nature as his learned friends, but he guessed that the same power which said to one man, "Go over to give evidence against the Queen," was not, likely to tell another, “Go you to give evidence in her favour." He might assume even more; the government which told the King's witnesses to stay away from England at their peril, would warn those of the Queen to go to England at their peril. Upon these grounds he left the case with the House, without at all pretending to be able to estimate either the importance of new impending difficulties, or of those in which it was already involved. He had of course no right to offer any advice or suggestion to their lordships, and perhaps

"Should they wade no more,

Returning were as tedious as go o'er." Mr. Brougham having concluded,

The Earl of Liverpool rose immediately to move an adjournment, as the House would probably wait until tomorrow morning before it came to any decision on the important question. One circumstance in the situation in which he stood he felt it an imperious duty to notice in a few words, and it was with reference to what had been said relative to measures of compulsion in bringing foreign witnesses to this country, and to the funds used for carrying on this prosecution. As to the last he could state that unlimited sums had been placed at the disposal of the professional advisers of her

Majesty, for the purpose of collecting evidence, and conveying it to England, so that here the government hoped no superior advantage. The compelling of witnesses to come over of course depended upon the state from which they were taken: some neither could nor would oblige them to give evidence, but on the part of that power more especially referred to it had been announced to one of the legal advisers of the Queen, that whatever degree of compulsion had been used to bring over witnesses to support the bill, would be employed, if necessary, in se caring the attendance of persons in opposition to it. If any difficulty arose, care would be taken that equal and impartial justice should in this respect be done.

Lord Erskine did not rise to oppose the adjournment, but to caution the House against the thickening difficul ties that surrounded its proceeding, and which might in the end place it before the country in a situation neither honourable nor respectable: the resolutions of one day it might be compelled to abandon on the next. He thought he could pledge himself to convince their lordships that the course now recommended was utterly untenable, and that it would perhaps be better to adjourn for such a period as might reasonably be demanded by the counsel for the Queen, and to grant a list of the witnesses yet remaining to be examined with a specification' of the dates and places to which their examination might refer. In his view this course would be attended with advantage even to the King himself, but he would not argue it further at present.Adjourned at 5 o'clock.

NINTH DAY.-August 29.

After the House was called over, apologies were made for several peers on the ground of indisposition; and on the motion of the Earl of Liverpool, the clerk read the resolution moved by the noble earl yesterday, previous to the adjournment.

The Earl of Liverpool then observed, that when he made the motion yesterday that counsel should be called in, it was with the view of hearing what might be said on either side on the subject of the instruction he had moved respecting the course of proceeding. He had then observed, that he should not think himself bound by any opinion he had given on the subject of his motion, if, upon the statement of the counsel, it should appear necessary for the due administration of justice that an alteration should be made with respect to the cross-examinations. He

still conceived, however, that the course recommended by his motion was that which was most convenient for their lordships' proceedings; and also, as far as he was capable of forming an opinion on the case of her Majesty, the most advantageous for her interests. But the counsel for the Queen had not thought so, and in their argument at the bar had pressed, and he understood were still disposed to press, for a contrary course—namely, that they should have leave, after certain questions were asked of a witness, to postpone their cross-examination to a subsequent period. In insisting on this point, they had referred to what they conceived to be an understanding upon the subject. He was certainly ready to allow that on Saturday last an option had been given them under the discretion of the House, and on their asking for it, to put a few questions, and postpone the remainder of the cross-examination. Upon consideration therefore, under the inconvenience of withdrawing an advantage which appeared to have been conceded to them, he thought that their lordships ought to continue the indulgence; it being always understood that the counsel in support of the bill should not be called upon to sum up their case until the whole of the cross-examinations should be concluded. In stating this as the result of the consideration he had given to the question, after hearing the counsel on both sides, he must still say that he thought the other course the best both for the convenience of their lordships and the Queen's defence. At the same time the distinction between the two modes was very unimportant; because, if the counsel for the defence were allowed to call back witnesses for a second cross-examination, upon their stating a special case, it would be very easy for them to accomplish that object, as they could find no difficulty in laying such a case before their lordships whenever they should think it necessary. As, then, the difference between the two courses was so little, he thought their lordships, under all the circumstances, should now allow the course for which the counsel for the Queen contended to be followed. He now proposed to withdraw the motion he had made yesterday, and should move in its stead, that the counsel be called in and informed, that the House consented, under the special circumstances of the case, to allow them to proceed in the cross-examination in the way in which they had proposed.

The Earl of Lauderdale and Lord Erskine rose at the same time. After repeated calls of " order," the former noble lord, who stated that he was about to speak to a point of order, obtained the attention of the House. He observed, that according to their lordships' standing orders, when a motion was once submitted to their consideration, it could not be withdrawn without the consent of the whole House. It was therefore sufficient that one peer should object, and he declared that he would not consent to the withdrawing of the motion.

Earl Grey was aware that his noble friend was perfectly right in what he had stated respecting the rules of the House; but he differed with him as to the necessity of opposing the withdrawing of the motion in question. He thought his noble friend ought to state some ground for his opposition.

The Earl of Liverpool admitted that the noble earl was perfectly correct in his reference to the orders of the House. He certainly had a right to oppose the withdrawing the motion; but the difficulty could be easily got over by his (Lord Liverpool) proposing the motion he had now suggested as an amendment on his motion of yesterday.

The Earl of Lauderdale thought it most consistent with the convenience of the House, that he should postpone his reasons for opposing the withdrawing of the motion, as his noble and learned friend (Lord Erskine) appeared to consider himself in possession of the House. He was, however, ready to state his reasons.

Lord Erskine was happy to see ministers at last coming forward to amend their own awkward work. As ministers were thus disposed to amend their own motion, and to correct their own ill-judged proceedings, nothing could give him more pleasure than to withdraw the motion he had proposed, if he should be given to understand that the counsel for the defence were to be permitted to have the advantages to which they were justly entitled. If this were granted, he would be glad to go and sit as a spectator under the gallery, and take no part in the proceedings.

The Lord-Chancellor apprehended that no motion had been made yesterday by his noble and learned friend; he had only given notice of one.

The Earl of Harrowby said, that to remove any objection as to the amendment being proposed by his noble

friend, he would move it. The noble lord accordingly moved the resolution stated by the Earl of Liverpool as an amendment on the motion made by that noble lord yesterday.

The Lord-Chancellor then put the amendment formally." The Earl of Lauderdale observed, that the question was now put into a shape which called for their lordships' attention, for it came before them in the shape of a motion made by the first Lord of the Treasury, and amended by the President of the Council. It was singular enough that this proposition should come from the noble earl opposite, who had contended so strenuously for a different course; but if the motion were to be agreed to, and the counsel for the Queen permitted to suspend the cross-examination of a witness, and resume it at pleasure, he should be glad to know at what time the examinations by the House were to take place. The proper time would be at the close of the cross-examination; but how was that to be done if the counsel for the Queen, after having cross-examined a witness, were to say he was not sure but that he would have occasion to call up that witness again? He had a right to ask the noble lords what their view of the course to be pursued in this respect was. After having come down with this motion, which they had converted into an amendment, they ought to be able to state what was to be done in that important part of the examination to which he had alluded. He really wished the noble lords would state to the House when and in what manner the peers were to examine. He need not remind the House, that one of the many difficulties he had pointed out yesterday as unavoidably connected with the course proposed to be pursued by the counsel for the defence was that of leaving it quite uncertain at what period of the proceedings their lordships should examine. But the noble earl had assigned a curious reason for his conduct on the present occasion. He had contended the thing would come to the same point whether the crossexamination were gone fully into immediately after the examination-in-chief, or whether the counsel for the Queen were allowed to suspend the cross-examination, and recal the witness at a future period; because, said he, as the counsel were to be allowed to recal a witness on stating a special case for so doing, it would bet impossible for them ever to fail in making out such a case. Now, if this was the noble earl's opinion, why did