together; and let their lordships carry home in their minds the statement at each side, instead of the statement at one. If they suffered the counsel against the bill now to proceed, they would, as he thought, be acting right; if they refused him the permission he claimed, then he thought they would be inflicting a great wrong. It was only right to call upon their lordships to suspend, so far as they had the power, the prevalence of any opinion upon the case, until the whole was gone through. For himself, he had no feeling upon it but the attainment of the real ends of justice; but he begged that he might not be under the necessity of meeting an adjournment under the impression of ex-parte evidence and a summingup speech. now The Earl of Lauderdale said, that the question on which their lordships were called upon to decide was precisely this-whether, if an adjournment were necessary, that adjournment should take place at the time the case for the bill closed; or whether the counsel against the bill should be permitted to make his opening speech, and then to have an adjournment before the production of his evidence. Now he was prepared to contend, that if the House adjourned at all, now was the proper time when that adjournment ought to take place. They could take no other course respecting an adjournment without committing great injustice. He was perfectly ready to concur in opinion with his noble and learned friend, that an adjournment at any time was a great evil; but they had in this case a choice of evils, and they were bound to select the lesser of the two. It was true that, if they adjourned now for the space of two months, both the evidence and the speech of the Solicitor-General would go forth to the world during such a recess; but it was a mistake to say it went forth unaccompanied by cross-examination, for there had been cross-examination, and the adjournment afforded ample opportunity of collecting whatever evidence could be had to combat the facts asserted in support of the bill. He felt convinced that no fair man, that no member of their lordships' House, would suffer any impression to operate upon his mind to the prejudice of her Majesty the Queen, until he heard her defence, and arrived at the conclusion of the whole case. He was at a loss to see what just grounds of complaint the counsel for her Majesty could have at the summing up being permitted before the adjournment: that adjournment, surely, would enable them the better to ruminate over the case for the prosecution, and the value attached to any of the details of evidence in its support, and to make a more complete and decisive reply to all that had been urged. As the case stood, the evidence had gone forth, and the summing up could be compared with that evidence; but if they permitted the AttorneyGeneral of her Majesty to proceed now, they would be hearing a statement unaccompanied by any proof in its support. He knew the counsel of her Majesty to be men of as much honour, respectability, and talents, as could be found, and that there was no danger of their making use of the opportunity of stating their case to assert any thing as a fact which they were not instructed they should afterwards have the means of substantiating in evidence; but he could not consent to intrust counsel any where with the privilege of stating the case for a client, unless they were to be immediately after called upon to adduce their evidence. He saw great danger in extending such an indulgence to any body. Indeed, such a proposition as this had never before been made in any court. To talk of what the courts below would do in such a case was to reason without analogy; for there never before was tolerated, in any case in the courts, such an adjournment as their lordships were now ready to concede to the Queen, between the opening of the case and her defence. But he did remember having been present at the hearing of a case in the courts below, when an application made on the part of the defendant for a few hours' delay was peremptorily refused. Did not the late Lord Ellenborough, in Lord Cochrane's case, give that refusal? The case for the prosecution had been closed, and the counsel for the defendant made an application to have until the following morning to prepare the defence. Lord Ellenborough instantly rejected the application: he said that he had a great many hours of the day yet to spare, and that he could not think of interrupting the proceedings. He was perfectly at a loss to conjecture the object of the learned counsel of the Queen in wishing to have a speech, and then to adjourn their evidence. If they had their witnesses ready, why not go on? If not, how could they comment upon evidence which might not hereafter be available for them? He submitted to their lordships' candour, whether it was not the general understanding that the adjournment, if at all, was to take place in the present stage of the proceedings? The fact was, that her Majesty's counsel, if their application were granted, must either state a case far short of what they would be able to prove, or else indulge their imagination; and unless he (Lord Lauderdale) had lost all idea of what was likely to influence the minds of men, such a proceeding would be directly calculated to produce that effect. The Lord-Chancellor had never, in the course of a professional life, felt more strongly inclined to avoid any duty than that which he now was called upon to execute. He begged to be understood as by no means opposing the indulgence in the first instance suggested the giving time to counsel, if time they required, for the preparation of their defence; but, painful as it was for the House to resolve upon a course, the effect of their resolution would not be confined either to the present case or to the present day; they must act upon some principle on which they could fairly leave the future and the general administration of justice. Most unjustifiably should he disguise his opinion if he said that evil did not attend the view which he had taken of the case. True, every individual who sat in that House would stand convicted of violating his duty, if he suffered himself to infer any thing even approaching to guilt from the evidence which had been laid before him. It was the duty of the House to remember, that every syllable of it was capable of being disproved, and to guide its conduct by that recollection; but at the same time it would be most unjust to represent, it was impossible even to hope, that either the House or public could, after what they had heard, go away without some prejudice unfavourable to the Queen. Their lordships, then, had but a choice of evils; and it was for them to consider what would be the consequence in criminal cases hereafter, if that evidence which was necessary to the statement of any case which counsel might have to offer were postponed to an indefinite period after that statement had been made. Himself, as well as his noble and learned friend, Lord Erskine, were approaching the term of their natural existence. No doubt both acted from a feeling of their duty. He gave credit to that noble and learned lord for more expe |