Star. — London, England, 1820-10-17 00:00:00

. • . .. , k, ~'. - . --, 77 - : --.- . 71;14 7 1? - .7 " 'V 7 .....";trin" . 4 .l 3n . . . ............................ ~......;.„. .A• .... 4/. ...........;.: ' 4 . -.A.• 4••• 14 ' . ' -.•:.•.: 1 %...6•••••••••• :L-....-..........44.• ' 4644 , •' ' . •;/•:.......... • -..' .."411....... - '" ...- - - Acirr•rli in ---- -- -----,----- . . .. . . a , , . ... a • •-•.-... t ALL. T Oitialli i „ , ....1, ..• . • • • . ee ‘--....).• :' 1 .. . .., Ish , • • , _ , yam Of; - .- - , . .. . . .... ...r..." .. . . . •••• . . • • , ........ . . _ . . . • . . . • nit 111111 L . 2e- : 11 (--' 4C•-/fr . • Ar•e.-e._:.l - • s - • • .. - 7 • . _ I ... ... .. -'• • . .. . : ' . . i . . . •• • • • . • 4., .- - • . ••• • s .:7.'44NNir...'' .. 1 : i . i .. •• , .. .. .• . ..... .11 .ral ‘ ‘ .4 • . ir 4.10 Affr-. '• • I \ .• . • .1 N I.nt s r: t. P x;498.: . • 4. - - :.. ?.. PRICE SEVEN -PENCE. TRIAL OF' THE V. 10111.. ' find It necessary to discuss the propriety of entertaining it any longer? Although these things might not be brought home to Lord Harrowby„ and Lord Liverpool, and other Noble Lords who advocated the Bill, would any man of sense say, that if these things were proved, there did not exist a conspiracy against the Queen ?—a conspiracy of the most atrocious nature ? and that ii,n-e agents had employed, not their own money, for they could out am uo benefit from such a *course, but the money either Of Government, or el those who immediately employed them? We ch,r , e," seid the Learned Counsel, •• a conspiracy. o f t h e foulest kin d, t and we call upon your Lordships to afford us all possible fuel:lees to expose it fully to the country !" Dr. Ix:ern:erne said, it was not meant that Reganti was a general agent of the Commission, but that be was employed in a particular way to obtain witnesses against her Majesty. The Milan Commission had employed Riganti to collect evidence, which he did by bribery and correption of every description. Let their Lordships only reflect on the effect which could not fail to have been produced by such an emissary going about tifrough all the places...which were made the scene of .the acts imputed to the Queen, holding forth t e mp t i ng accounts of the bribes to be had, the fortunes to be gained, the good day's works to be made, by giving testimony against her Majesty. It was conduct which entered into the- fopraciation of ,the whole case; and which must be strictly investigated if justice.were to be done. had been said, that the persons were only asked to go to Mi lan, and not to come to siseijr Lordships' bar. B ut w h en .b r ib e d to go to Milan, and say what they could against her Majesty, were they not sworn its their declarations? though by what au thority (said the Learned Counsel) I protest have not the most distant idea. Could it be said that the depositions which they had so made at Milan would not have an in. laence on what they said when brought to their Lordships ba r And were not her Majesty's Counsel, therefore, entitled to en quire by what sort of agency their depositions were obtained ? It was evident, that the Milan Commissioners had 'given itb pal authority, as an agent; they had adopted' his acts by ex amining the witnesses, procured by him. But &Tend was only one of many agents. Her Majesty's Counsel were now entering on a course of evidence which would skew that in every place where her Majesty had been, there had been agents without number seeking out persons who by possibility might know some thing of her 'conduct," and tempting, by promises and offers of bribes without limit, persons whose circumstances made them fnost open to seduction, to go and perj ire themselves before the Milan Commission, and afterwards to abid e by t he se per j ur i es at their Lordship s ' ar. The Arroansr-Gaimaar. was astonished at the bold assertions • in which the Learned Counsel for her Majesty had indulged, asctrtims which were negatired by the evidence. IVhere did le find that oaths had been administered by the Milan Commission? ;The fact was _negatived by every one of the witnesses. • Mr. Baououele—No, by some of them only. The Arroaxar-Gxuaaau. challenged her Majesty's Counsel to prochice a single instance where it had been sat med. Dr. LUSHINGTON begged to refer to page et:7 of the evidence. A witness was there asked "If he was sworn at Milan?" His answer was, " Yes, I took an oath at Milan." " Wbb swore you ?" " The Advocate, Vilmacarti." " Were you sworn.'on the cross?" " Yes, I took an oath on the cross?" The Arroaver-Gieezeise said, that taking the whole of that witness's statement fairly, it did not warrant the assertion that he had been sworn by •Vilmacarti—(4l general laugh, and c r i es Ok, oh !"/ • The LORD CHANCELLOR said thathe believed thet e ita Counsel had been so treated in any of the Courts ot thresunin. nee Hall, he would have instantly left the Court. The Aeroverxr.Graszaet. resumed, and proceeded to argue his proposition, that the witness alluded to had not meapt to say that he was sworn, but only that he was ready. to swear.— The opposite Counsel admitted that agency must be fixed on Re .ganti, but no such agency had been proved. The ground on which evidence had been admitted, as to the declarations of Rastell I was not that he was an agent, but because such evidence might, possibly, contradict the evidence given by RastellL The.ete sent case was very different. All that bad been proved as to Reganti was, that he had told Rastelli to go to Milan. But who would say that was establishing an agency ? The LORD CHA CELLOR thought the question could not be put. If any Noble Lord thought otherwise, it would be competent to him to as k 'the opinion of the judges on the subject. Earl GREY:=Although the opinion on this subject giien by the Attorney-General had been confirmed by the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, yet he must; although, per haps, liable to the imputation of pertinacity, still express his decided optnion, that, under all the circumstances of the case, the question ought to be put. He would admit, that in Courts of Law, according to the most strict rules of evidence, the question win.tel not be permitted, and he dot.bt d not that so the Judges would so deterfnine, were their opinion: asked. But the question was whether their Lordships thou d be bound by those rules of legal evidence, or deviate from them when the peculiar circumstances of the case and the ends of jus lice rendered such deviation necessary? Their Lordships were now on a Bill of Pains and Penalties, supported by eel.. 'dente collected by a Commission in foreign countries. In a case like this, their Lordships were bound to see that the evidence was not only unsuspicious, but unsuspectec4 It w. a proved by the evidence' of Rastelli, that Riganti was an agent. It has also been sworn, by more witnesses than one, that Ras telli had gone to Witnesses and stated4o them if they would give evidence of such a deicription, they should receive sr great reward. the knowledge of this fact must have great weight in the decision of their Lordships. If it could be proved, and it was offered to be proved, that agents had offered to corrupt witnesses, to suborn perjured witnesses against the Queen, their Lewd ships ought to enquire into the circumstances, and, sift the sub.. jest to the bottom.' Feeling strongly, as he did, the importance &the enquiry, and anxious as all their Lordships must be'that justice should be done, he had felt it and stiU felt it his duty to declare his firm but humble opinion that this was an admissible question. The proofs ought to be substantial one way or the other, and this could never be the case if the conspiracy were to go unexplored or unexamined. • The Earl of LIVERPOOL 'wished their Lordships to do as they had done in former cases, refer to the Judge, whenehey had any doubts. It would be I painfail proceeding, in this stage of • the business, to adopt a contrary course; which, if once adopted, would render tee inquiry lute minable. He would agree with the Noble Lord opposite, that when they came to decide on this great question, they should weigh the subject well. Nay, he would go farther, and state, that every particle of evidence that was suspicious should be struck out, and that, utile,s the preamble of the Bill could be proved by clear and unsuspected testimony, the Bill ought not to pass. The Noble Lord eon eluded, by declaring his opinion that the question ought not to be put. ' Lord ERSKINE was anxious that their Lordships sboild guide, themselves as closely as possible to the rules of exidesei e ; there were, however, circamsta.ncee in which It was their LAW& ships' duty to deviate from those strict rules.- In rezatd. Cooke, 'and Milan Commission, he knew one of it s principals, mr . *and he believed him to be an honourable and conscientiOui aim; and, for anything 'he knew, the other Gentlemen might he equally honourable ; but if they were Angels instead of men the witnesses might hive Been corrupted before they reached the Mi lan Conunissieners ; and therefore it was necessary to know whs.. ther they had been corrupted in their coursers, It was theituty et the House to hear all the evidence an the subject, and perhaps it might be found that there was not a conspiracy; 'but he could they come to such a decision without hearing the evidence offered to prove it? Were their Lordship, to suffer the case of .a //rid* Queen, exiled as she had been, and reduced ,to the most forlorn and destitute situation, to be judged-of like a cat „mon cause at nisi ',rims? . •e We," t said his Lordship, "ar e.g sitting in. a- Court of Justice as vie ought to have sat. -We ought, my Lords, to haye proceeded by . Fnipestehment. / Tai t your Lordships have not done; you leave isroceedo&by th e enc . makes and untonstitutional proceeding of a' liffl of Paine and Penalties ; and yet you talk of confining yperselves the. . ref la*, surdof legal evidences - . My single biadon c a n h e i e , weight; but I &dare to your Lordships, t u i oiny I. of this odious Proceeding, thaewere tbe .Que e d, as * * o b . b e . lieve her spotless, I would nut vote for deli nue" • HOUSE OF LORDS,:OCTOBIIIt is.' DEFENCt—TWELVIII ti n continual m from tie, first Edition of ytsierviny's STAT.) The Fart of LIVERPOOL said, he had difficulty in stating what was required; bist - he wrindered-the subjecthad not been n!mentioned in an eatlier stage of the proceedings. Therecer eainly was nothing misietilius in the proceedings. Ile had; on ;he 7th of June, laid on ihelteble, by command of his Majesty, c , rtain Papers relative tO•the ionduct - of her .Majesty while l`rinc.:ss of Wales. He- propoied that they should be referred to a Secret Committee, and many Noble Lords thought it the duty of the Executive Government to introduce a Bin on the subject. He presented other Papers ; they were referred to a Secret Com mittee; a Report was made, and a Bill was brought In, for which he (Lord Liverpool) was 'responsible. In this there was nothing mysterious. Whether the Secret Committee was legal or not, had nothing to do with the Bill; for if the Com mittee had never existed, the Bili might have been brought in. lie Laroduced it upon the firm belief that the Preamble would be proved. Whether that would be the ease, or whether he was j.:srified in bringing in the Bill, would be a subject for their , Lordships' consideration on some future occasion. The Marquis of LA NS DOW N agreed with the statement of the Noble Earl opposite, that the House were now entertaining the Bill, on his suggestion, and that, for the purpose of insti tuting the inquiry sought for, the House had created the party at the bar, by appointing the Attorney and Solicitor-Generals to appear in behalf of the Bill. But althdugh the House had,• for its own convenience, created the prosecuting party at the bar, it was incumbent on them, at the same time; to consider in what way that proceeding affected the party who had been called to the bar of their Lordships as defendant. The Noble Earl oaaosite (Liverpool) had been- pleased to--express his as tonislimeht, that no such objection or difficulty had been before stated, aa was now made by the Counsel for htr Majesty ; but, as far as his recollection served, it hid been stated more than one; and he niust tell the Noble Earl, that there was a manifest , reason, why it should be more especially reverted to at the pre sent moment, thso at any other.' The proceedings which had to ken place in the I louse, had raised, in a manner that had not been dune before, the vc:stion of who was the party prosecuting? The Meisel for her Majesty had entered - upon a course of evi eience, the object of which was to establish the existence - of a conspiracy for the sulrornation of perjury in support of the pro- ; 'caution: In proving this they had to prove an 'agency, and bow could an egency be proved before they knew who was th4rinci pal? Agreeing with the representation given bythe Noble Earl op pOsite, that the measure was, in the first instariee; his measure, and aftern ds the - measure of the blouse; by their entertaining he felt that be had been guilty of an omission of duty in not Libmittlng to their Lordihips on Saturday, that the letters of , Colonel BtoWri to Mt*. Powell, in as far as they related to the abstraction 'of a material witness in the cause, were evidence which ought to have been produced. The d e m a nd f or t h at evidence had 'no other object, and could not possibly have any other object than the discovery •of •the truth. In ordi nary cases- of prosecution the - parties might have interests to be preferred before those of troth, but here, where the pub he were said to be the only party concerned in instituting the prbzecution, there could of course be no interests but those of truth to serve. Ins Lordship conceived, therefore, that the Hianse were bound; and should have felt it due to their own hi- , '*crests, to the interests of justice and of truth, that so much of Ike Inters of Colonel Brown as related to the abstraction of .Rstel/i Should have -been called for, and that Mr. Powell I should have been compelled teeprisduce it. The LORD CII AN CELLOR pointed out to their Lord ships tlet diildvantage of delaying the cross-examination of the witness lie at their Lordships Bar, and wished that any discus sion that was not instantly calloclfor might be deferred till that was over, in despite of all the world might say, be was convin ced, that in the end, their Lordships would do substantial justice. . Lord CA LT/W[IPB explained. "Earl GREY rose chiefly to express his dissent from that port ot the statement of the- Noble Earl opposite, which went to infer ihit those who had opposed the Bill had called upon his Majesty's Ministers to bring forward that Bill -on their own responsibility. What they had called upon'thent for was id bring forward at once the charge against her Majesty, on their own • responsibility, aad not to seek shelter under the Ile ‘ i•nt of a Secret Committee. To the mode of proceeding by Bill la; had always had an invincible objection. With respect to de question immediately before their Lordships, he thought that the Noble Earl apposite had made no answer whatever to the point so well stated by kis Noble Ftiend near trim (Lausdown). If the Counsel for her Majesty could not refer to the principal in this prosecution , hoar, hate Would repeat, were they to prove the agency? It must be clear to every one, that where agency iito be proved, It is nearly impossible to do so without knowing Wha the principal was. The Karl of CARNARIION directed the attention of their Loisiships to that pan of the case which referred to Carisrube, ai inuitrating strongly the necessity of a satisfactory answer being given to the question put by the Counsel for her Majesty. The whole a that part of the case depellBed on the testimony df one witness who had, at the request of one petty German Potentate, been examined by - another, and compelled to come ores to give her testimony. Lord LIVERPOOL interrupted the Noble Earl, to observe, thatahough the witness he alluded to had been.first examined by the Hanoverian Minister, she had -been afterwards examined by Colonel Brown, before being sent over here. The Earl of C ARNAIi VON resumed. Admitting what the Noble Earl stated, still it was by the Hanoverian Minister that she had been first dealt with, and by the Grand lanke of Baden that she was compelled, ag ainst her will, to come and give th e testimony . And were their Lordships to entertain fur a moment this part of the case, if they were unable to ascertain what sort of iillueoce had been used towards the witness, on whom alone it depended, by a - foreign 'Power, who had no right to interfere with the proceedings' of the House, and whose agents the Llcruse had no means of ceiling before them. Un less it . were acknowledged that this Ilanoverian agent acted tuadr the controul of the British GOvernment, he must contend that her Majesty's Colima ought to be directed not to touch upon the Carlsruhe part of the case at all. The proceeding against her Majesty, disgraceful es it was in every point of view, stood ad Germanized, that the House ought to know whether it comes front the constitutional advisers of the King of England, or from the advisers of the King - of Hanover—(Year, hear!) His Lordship proceeded to animadvert, in warm terms, on the distinction made. by the Noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Treasury, between holding the preamble of the Bill proved, and passing the Bill.—The only question, he contended, which their Lordships could have before them' was, the simple one of passing the Bill. For any division of it into parts there was no analogy or precedents, nor could any reason be shewn for it, founded either on justice or common sense. Europe had already smiled, (be would use no harsher term) at their Lordships proceedings. But what would la: its opinion, were this great and august As sembly to hold that the preamble of the Bill bad been proved, but that nothing further ought to follow? What would they think .of such a wanton libel oo the character of a defenceless , woman and a Queen ; of an inquiry gone into fur no other pur pose but to libel the character of an injured and persecuted indi vidual?—(ll.dr, heat, hear.)—This indeed would, on the part of their Lordships, she w a disposition "'l'o hint a fault, and hesitate dislike— " to wound, arid yet aftaid to strike r .---(llsar, hear, hear !) Here the discussion as to the erosecuting party in the case shoeped, end • hod :VIELVILT.E now moved', that the proper Officer should be ordered to attend at their Lordship: air with a state ment of the services of William Carrington on board tile Pole -tiers, and any other ships of his Maj....lty's '.gary • and extracts of so much of the books of those ships u rela ted to these ler vteitsr--th deal!. 'lle wins= l'ituerro roan fir„ nets re-eedlcd, and cross e.ro- wrinel kitke Artoaxer-GEwEnaL. yuu Rave siaccd that you resided in a house at the Ba- TUESDAY, OCTOBER 'l7, l S2O. ,• - , idle. Is that house now called the Villa Bergami?—Yes, at proton it.is-called the Villa Bergami. w ilow long has it been so called ?—A little time ago. . How long ago ?—About three months ago. Do yoti swear it was not called the Villa liergami till within these three months ?—After it was purchased by the. Baron- it was called the Villa Bergami. How long ago was it called the Villa Bergami?—Bergami bought it In Igl6. After Bergami purchased it did you continue 'to work there as a carpenter ?—I have. Did you continue Ro work at the Villa for Bergami up to the present time?—When he was the master I worked for him, when other persons were masters I worked for them. When did you last see Bergami?--I do not quite recollect; it must have been in August I think. Where ?—at his house. Did you see him anywhere else: 4 —T have seen him in no other place, for I never went out of the house. Did yeki ace him the day you left the Villa Bergen-1?-1i did not. How long before 7--I left the Villa Dergami on the 20th of September. I saw him in August, but Ido not know the day. Will rui swear that you did not see him in September ? l cannot swear. It must have been the latter end of August, or the beginning of September. I have no memorandum. I can not tell. How !log before leaving the Villa did you see Bergami ?—I cannot tell whether it was the end of August or beginning of September. How many days was It before you left do not know how many days. Was it a week?—More thin a week: Was not Bergarni Being there at the time you left ?—No, he had set out—gone away. Who desired you to come over as a witness ?—No one; my own will. Do you mean to swear you came voluntarily, without any person applying to you for the purpose ?—I came here by my own will, because I heard that the Advocate Bolazzi was re ceiving testimony, and I went to him and said I had something to say about that Lady, who had dime a great deal of good. The Interpreter, the Marchese Spinetti, gave his answer, " who had done me a great deal a good." This was noticed, and the right answer given. Do you mean that the Princeu had done you much good or much good to others?—To me and to all the people at the Sa mna She has done me a great deal of good, and to all the peo ple is general. Will you swear that you went to Bolazzi of your own accord without any application being made to you ?—Yes, I will swear that before any tribunal. Did any person apply to you to go to Bolazzi before you went there ?—No •' I heard that Bolazzi received depositions about the Lady, and I went of my own accord. - When did you go to Bolazzi?—On the 24th of August. Was Bergami then at the Villa Bergami ?—He was not. Was he at 'Milan at the time ?—lle was not, as far as I know. Did any perron desire you to come over here as a witness?— Yes, Bolazzi told me, if you have any deposition to make you may go, because your deposition is good. Were you examined by liolazzi?—Yos. Was any Ather . person present at the time'?—There was nobody present. . • _ Bolaizi having said you might go, did you come over of your own accord?—Yes; because I told him, that if it had been a business that required me to go 100 miles, I would go willingly. After you were examined by 13olazzt, and before setting out for England, did you see any other persdn,on the sUbject?—Yes, I have seen another Advocate at Milan. When?—(lei the day after I saw Bolazii. Who was with the English Advocate when you saw him ? I have been in his own house, and I saw only him. I went of my own accord to him e as I did to Bolazzi. Did you see uo other. person but these two on the subject of your coming over 2—Not at that time. At any time 2—When he came one day to the Barons, I saw him, 13olazzi, and another person. Who was he ?—I do not know. Was he an Englishman or an Italian T—l think he was a fo reigner; I believe be was an Englishman; I did not speak to him ; I took them up stairs tc shew them the house. Da you know Vassali?—l do. Did you see him previous to your coming here?—Yes, I did. When was it you saw him ; how long before your setting out? —lt was in the mopth of August, but I have not present the day. Before or after seeing Bolazzi?—After. . _ Did you tome over to England by yourself, or in the com pany of other persons?--I came over with my head-master, Garoliai, and three other persons. Where did you see Vassali ; at the Villa d'Eate, or at Milan ? —At Milan. Where?—Near his house. He was getting into his carriage. lhd you call at his house?—lio, I never called at his house. WM; that the only time you saw Vassall?—l have seen him many times in 1817 and in 1818. . . Besides the time you saw him at Milan, did you see him at any other time os this business?—l have seen him here In this country. Ido not know where. In London. Did you pay your own expenses - of coming over, in come quence of your coining voluntarily ?—I have not. Who paid them ?—My head master, who paid all the ex penses ; for he paid for all. Who is your bead master ?—Gaorlinl. Is he your master when you live at the Villa 13ergaini?—Re is. What are you to be paid for coming here as a witness ?—Tbis is it. When I went to the Advocate, I told him if this is to be an afar of a little time, I have no objection to go. The question was repeated; when the witness said—l told him if I was to go a hundred miles, I would go without any interest. Wham are you to be paid for coming here ?—As to the pay I cannot' tell, bccause when I saw the Advocate, I tald him if he would give some trifle to my family, I would go for that Lady to the end of the world. Do you not_ expect to receive something for coming here ? If they would take care of my family, I would have no expec tation for' myself. What pay sloes your family receive?—This it is; they give a livre (teprenct:) for my wife, and half a livre (fivepence) to each of my children (daughters). Is that all you are to receive, or expect to receive, for coming here ?—This is the assistance to my family. As to myself, if they give use anything I will take it ; but if not; I do not care. I do not expect anything. Will you swear you have not made an Agreement for a sum of money for coming here ?—This I can swear, that I have made no agreement whatever; but as some people have hopes, I may have some hopes also. Then I understand you have hopes of remuneration ?—I have told yAi that I have no hopes. For that lady, the Princess, for the benefits I have received from her, I would go to the end of the world. You stated when you were last here, that when Rastelli CAITIC to the Villa Bergami, he came with the son of your head master. What was the name of that son ?—Antonio Ciao/lini. Is Antonio Gaorlini an architect, as his father is ?—He is more clever .than his father. Did not young Gaorlini take a plan of the • house 2—Yes. they made a little drawing. Did not young Gaorlini make a little drawing or plan 2—Yes ; when Antonio Gaorlial came to the Barons with De Mont, 'tae-' telli, and some other persons, Gaorlini was upstairs, and they' made a drawing or plan. Did you see Gaurlini go away with them after making this plan?—\o, the others went away in a carriage. Gaorliai and &we'll went out of another doqr, and they began to leap for joy, and congratulate each other. As you lived at this Barona some years, do you remember any dances when the Princess and klergami were there?—.Ye. 'remember it. • 1)o you know a person of the noose of Androgini?—Yes, I do; he was Lieutrantof the rolice. What was the eittent of the grounds of the Villa Barons ?—I do not know precisely, bat I suppose abbot 1000 perches. Has not Androgini several daughters 7--He has a deal of chit dress, male and female. . Did his daughters use to be present at these talls.7—They came one evening when her Royal Highness 'e x pressed a wish to see the family coming from one father and one mother. What other persona were present at these balls ?—They were all people well brought up from a father and a mother, and the father was always present. I am not asking of Androgiol ; but were there not present people of the neighbourhood in a low situation in life 7—There were other girls, but they were all well brought up people. In what situation of life?—All Gentlefolks: Gentlemen and • Ladiei. • 1 All.gentlefolks, both male ,and femal e?—Yes, Androgini is a gentleman, and all the others were gentlefolks. * Do you knew a persbn named .Maria Gallati?—Perhaps she might have gone there. Who is she ?—I don't know her positively. Does she not keep the public-house called St. Christopher° You must mistake the name; 'tis not the name of the person who keeps that house. What is the name of the landlady ?—Rosina. • Dow long is she there ?—A long time. She has been an Inn- keeper ,there. • ihe been at these balls?—Yes, she came ; she has been brunght by these gists. But she is a respectabli woman. She is not a bad woman. Is she one of those gentlefolk* you describe who used to fre quent these balls?-.Yes. She came only once. Is she cafe of the gentlefolks you describe ?—She was the mo ther of another girl who used to go there. She was mistress of the Si. Christopbero Inn. Is there another Inn at the Barons ?—Yes. Who beeps k?—Bergami is the muter. Yei, but whotteps it?—The innleeper—(A laugh). What is his name ?—Glovanni Angelo : his father was called A ntowlie. ----- Did his wife and her sister use to go to those balls ?—They came only once. What is the wife's sister?—She has no sister. Do you know a person named Baptiste, who lives at-the Ba rons, a blacksmith?—No, there is nu Hapti i te th e r e . What is the name of the blacksmith ?—Antonio Manli. Was he and his family at those balls ?—No ; first of all he has no daughters; he has three sons. Was he or his sons at the ball T—No,•I never saw them. You say you are a carpenter. Do you remanber ever having done anything to a door up stairs in the Barona?—'es, T have made all the doors. Do you remember, on one occasion, going up stairs to Mend a door at the Barona?—llow am Ito remember that, having been there KO times 1 .—(4 laugh). Do you recollect, upon an occasion-of the kind, seeing her Royal Highness?—No: In that time I have not seen her when I was mending a door. I have seen her down stairs and up stairs many times, but not when mending a door. Did-you ever see her Royal Highness up stairs.?—Yes, in her own room. Was it when you were mending the door you saw her ?—No; it was when I mended a chest of drawer.. Where was it you saw her Royal .Highness at that time ?—ln her own room, when I was coming up. Was Ilergami with her?—No, I did not sec him. Did you not see liergami anywhere on that occasion?—Nn. Will you swear you did apt see Bergasui on this occasion ? Yes, before Goo I'll swear I did not. Did you see, at any time, I3ergami and her Royal Highness in her bed-room?—Never. Have you never stated that you have seen hint and the Prin cess in her bed-room ?—How am 1 to tell stall a thing, when I never saw it? • I don't ask you that:; but whether you ever said you saw them hi the bed-room together?—l never did. Will you swear you never said you saw theni in her room ? I am ready to swear I never said I ever siw them in her room. . Have you not said you went up stairs to mend a etsest of drawers?—Yes, I have said that I went up sairs to mend the chest of drawers. Was it on that occasion you saw the Princess in her bed. room ?—Yes. Now did you never say you saw, upon that occasion or any other, her Royal Highness and Bevgami in her Royal Ilighnes bed-room together?—How often am Ito say " No." —(mil fauzit) I never did. I rsevet said, ftor have lever seem it. Did you know the wife of Bergami ?—Yes. Have you been at the Villa Bergami?—Yes; before I set out for England she was there. Did you see the little•Vietorine at the Villa, where you saw the wife of Bergami?—No; she was not at home : she was at sciwoL Where?—l don't know the place. State the names of the gentlefolks who went to the balls at the Villa 2.-1 cannot mention them. Can you mention any of the Ladies?—Marianne Donarina, Duselle Dl:marina, and I could name others, if they were before my eyes. 4 - Where does Marianne Donarina live? At the Barons ? Who is she? Does she live on her fortune ?—A girl well. brought up, and de flower of godlefiliss—(laughter.) Is she not the daughter of the man who keeps one of the inns of the Barona?—Yes, she is the daughter of Antonio— (laugh/Er.) Ezamined by the Lords. Lord GREY.--Was any proposition made to you to give evidence against, the Queen, and by whom ?—No. Did no person speak to you upon the subject of giving evi dence against the Queen?—Yes, Itastelli, whom I mentioned the oilier day. Any other person'?—There is another person of the name of Reganti, who, when I went to his shop to buy snuff, or some thing else of the kind, told me— Ttte immediately stilted up, and ob jected to the witness proceeding with his answer. Earl GREY complained to the House of the interference of the Attorney-General v: on this occasion. The Arroatrr-Gatistst said, the interruption given in page 97, to a question put by the Counsel for the Bill, justified him in thus interfering. It was then said, by Mr. Denman, that the imagination of the witness under examination had nothing to do with proceedings before the House. Ai the suggestion of the Loan Cuemr.t.oa, the question and answer previously put were read, and his Lordship then asked whether it was the wish of any other Couns e l to speak upon the subject? The Souerroa-Gastasat. said, he should Say a few words in support of the argument of his Learned Friend. In his appre hension Iteganti was to be considered a stranger to the inquiry, and of course any cohversation between the witness and him could not be received ie evidence. He had:personally no objec jection to the question, but he was unwilling that anything not strictly evidence should be entered upon their Lordships' notes. The LORD CHANCELLOR.—Are her Majesty's Counsel disposed to support the question and answer objected to? Mr. 131101/01k1All said, they would have been perfectly satisfied that their Lordships should undertake the discussion on the pro. priety of the course - folittattl by one of themselves; bar; *et called upon,. he . should submit to their Lordships his reason for pressing the question: There were, he submitted, sufticientgrounds in page 410 to justify their Lordships in putting the question,. Theagency of Hastedi had been admitted, and it appeared that it was at the .suggestion of Regapti that agent had been em ployed,. for Rastelh acknowledged that he adopted the advice of lteganti in going before the Milan Cominissien. But the attention Of their Lordships was particularly dem.aided to this: circumstance. Supposing that it could be proved that the witnesses lad been applied to, by agent after..agent, to swear tatinst the Princess—that differpat rewards, propOttioned to .the magnitude of the offences with which-they should accuse her, were offered--that one witness was offered a larger aun t tha others for swearing that he saw . bands .indecently pined. Supposing 'those thirigs, and that•ft be sign 'proved that there existed a eonisexson bistreeen the .patfdprs and miscreants., who Offeredthose'rewatda, saa 'the blilan * Commistion,'*oold it not be . nvikolard in their %Lordships to refuse evidence whichl must so powerfully affect the 13111 when their Lordships should ~:~ . ~ w v ''~ r..