The Sun. — London, England, 1820-10-17 00:00:00

liP5 the e L .I ded 1 , 1 " orio, ` 1 ; 1 :are- rniri SSl •_ him lowa al The cor oin! exam ° on ° 3l a dal aw a nuell wove ` k ii the , telli him t' ) nitnis si° i tion, issiool f of be s eated t o t ist be e i t 11 - few ail 3 'o tin c° give led 1,11 was _.A; c e reP l i c e loc" „,f ti' id , v l ir lied t bil „vas t,at la de, Co llll %tv , ll 111 lo tli jea ril e to ' pa ge ; i5l Ls fall° in. refutation of the ASSertio❑ of the Attorney-Ge neral you sworn ?—Yes. 1 ,1)1m take •an oath at Mil an ?—Yes, before Vilmacarti. you swear on the Gospel or not ?—I swore on the cross . r ~ Did vo - say you w ere rea d y to collie to swear to the trut ? fOl. °us wore on th e cross?—Yes, I took it, and held it up be the and the Advocate, and kissed it.. The A TTORNEY-GENERAL said he would put e t to th e i r L ordships whether, even upon that hadvi en ce, it would not a pp ear that the witnesses not been sworn.—(Much noise and laughter.) T he LORD CnaNct:Leon. took the liberty of stating_, to their Lordships, that had any honour -48}11).1e Barrister been treated in the way their Lord -I,ll's had just treated the Counsel at the bar, he '°,lll,lditrnediately have walked out .of that Court. t o he A TTORNEY-GENERAL proceeded. He Mended that no oath had then been taken by toaggazoni. Ile had' been asked if lie was ready c swear to the truth., of what he had said in a : til t of Justice, and then he had taken out his ~;( 8s himself and. kissed it, and replied that he ti : + B • He trusted their Lordships, upon exarni ,l"" of that evidence, would agree with him, t candour and in justice, that no oath had il'en dministered. The other side of the Bar ad constantly thrown out assertions which tlaa oo more to do with that case, than as if .the'r lordships had to decide upon a question keyeost remote from that which was before ? Where was the evidence of the fact that d e t, elll had, been employed as a collector of evi e. hY the Commission ? All that they had Stilt that a person of the name of Raganti had 4'ol' nlessage to Rastelli, telling him to. go to a : . Advocate ; and concluded from that, lie was 111 authorised agent and a collector of evidence. sli e ): °4ld say, if that were evidence, their Lord wenld not know where they would have to ~ O r Where they should stop. 'Their Lordships w e hot to go o ff t o thi s co ll a t era l issue—they tli e r :i t° , decide upon the truth or falsehood of I_l4l - ' e ations contained in the preamble of the deti ar : 4 l :heY could not let in all the acts and had of this person, merely because he Aba nd -e tivered a message. If their Lordships dow n - "ed the. rules which they had at first laid b e de g and all along acted tipon, they might yet coi6;s ai ned 'for days and weeks in going into coj' er al issues and facts. If their, Lordships 1 .11 1311 7 (1 to be directed in this -inquiry by the , perec w hich governed the Courts of Law, he was of t,e.ti y satisfied that the declarations and acts n ' s man c ould not be admitted. he l'onn CHANCELLOR stated, that as far as ci a ; ll derstund th e ru l es o f ev id e nc e , these de- . : 44)11 s could not, in the present state of the qi o „l., d ings, be admitted. If any Noble Lord 1 4 ,1". 1 consider that the practice of the 'Courts ta, °w •was different, they might have the advark-, th4 e hi the opinion of the Judges. He the-,fight . 1 14 Noble Earl who put this question should ti v e . k hevu satisfied with what passed a day or 't a 5 lucre Supposing, hypothetically, and it tii:„ -er e hypothesis, that the overnment were b e ,r N secutors—that the Milan CommiSsion might b ot i °ll ,sideredas a Joint Stock ( jompany—or that ,Iv e ; Government and the. Milan CommiSsion that d istinctly proved to be the prosecutors, and TOLit 'le i r- agelltS could be en - ambled, yet,he would -e°ll s that nothing he.d _been produced to ei ti v e that Raganti had been . the agent of toi t l tt , d l i Before any evidence 'could be ad-. bush _respecting him, his agency.must be esta -4,"Th„,) which could be' done either by his Cu , de claration the eLmission of other persons, tag r° °fs of his own fa cts. It was impossible to t ?„ that, because .Raganti had desired Ras-, Y ° , go bekre the Milan Commission, and' Itha s t - p e di had. gone, Raganti was the agent of bee;'°lnrnisson. That could not be assumed, one man had been sent to fetch another.. 'betlit u Terefore -thought her Majesty's 'Counsel'to , to call Raganti, if they persisted in wishing tl it es tablish hi s age ncy. Had Ate (the Lord - ' c ellor) b een a C o u n s e l at the Bar, and had 114 been asked where .Raganti was, he would it 1 , iunestionably have 'stated where, if he knew - Lordships . should be careful how they 10w - Led Proofs of agencY, for they could not a 4 where it might stop. They: might after have similar proofs of conspiracy produced d rat se ,Other side. He did not mean to say ouch a conspiracy existed. In the whole of he u siliess, h e s h ou ld ne v e r fo rg ive himself if tie m ade any unfounded assertion, but, hypothe agaiii-' s peaking, there might be conspiracy c onspiracy, and if reputed agents were not be o - 4 : 141 examined at the Bar, how would it sPir - j li ss ` h ,le to ascertain who were the real Con- Part 4 , --rs r It was absolutely necessary, that if a meant t o prove its agency, they should l ord it ' t , 111 the clearest manner. If some Noble sitowinght think him wrong in his opinion, he red up fe el it as th e greatest obligation confer queit°;ll has,,, if that Noble Lord would frame th der O h to be s ub m itt e d to the Judges, in or „at . e nught be put right. ~liicli,,,:/ittY did not complain of the manner in is char the Attorney -General for the prosecution ably g e - his duty. , His objection had been th e v s , tat i E !'t and 'had ..net with the support of and f,'" le and Lecarned Lord at the table ; th at : (Earl Grey) should perhaps incur .the tl i i nt °f . 11 .ndue pertin a city, if he still persisted vtiaL t "'ng that th e ques ti on was one which ° f th e t° h e Put bit; the house.. The statement as to i \f t, oble a n d: Learned Lord h a d sat i s fi e d hi m bad e practi oe o f the C our t s b e l ow , an d h e Jud . li`u° 'doubt tl tat if a'question were put to the manses' t hey would d e cide exactly in the same er as . the Noble d Learned Lord. He J udges 41 d there • an fore, put no such question to the 4t r i c T . ; he admitted, that according to the hlitvi at hl techni ca l mo d e it would not be per thei74.,_ in the inferior Courts ; but it was for eb o "hrdship s to d ec i de whether t h ey were to der 44 d by the strict rules of other Courts, .un sheeldcirchinstances which requ i re d that' they th e , p be rel axe d a little, lie fully admitted hnt b' o .° Priety o f an a dh erence to the rules of law, right or co ntended that th a t H ouse possesse d th e case departing from those rules whenever a st4t kes nue L?efore them, . attended by circum of a n ature so peculiar as to call for that clepartarth , The qUestion then would be, Slrhe ther the present was such an extreme case aslie had mentioned. He conceived- that it was. He fully admitted that the fad of general agency as to Raganti had not been clearly proved, for if it had, the present question would not be before their Lordships at all. But when it was re collected that the present trial arose out of a Bill of Pains and Penalties, proposed by the Government, supported by evidence of their production, connected with the Milan Com mission--a Commission sanctioned by their au thority ; when it was recollected too that the object of that Bill was to degrade the Queen Consort of these Realms from her rights,' her subjects obedience, and all her other privileges, and to consign her for evec to infamy, he would ask whether, in such a case, their Lordships were not bound to see that the evidence was not only unsuspicious, but unsuspected ?—But when. it was in proof that Raganti had been employed by the Milan Comthission to ask other individuals to become witnesses'; when Rastelli admitted that he had gone before that Commission in con sequence of the application of that individual, if there were proofs that Raganti had told another person, that if he would give evidence against the Queen he should receive a great present—with such suspicious circumstances he would ask whe ther this was not a part of the case which must have a very material influence upon their minds in coming to a decision? lie again and again would admit that the proof of Agency was not that kind of pnoof which would fix the principle in a Court of Law, but he submitted most confidently that if proof were offered at their Lordships' bar that corruption had. been exerted, perhaps too successfully exerted.against the illustrious object of these proceedings, no matter whence that corruption had originated, or who was it author. In such a case he submitted their Lordships would receive the evidence ; for of how little conse quence was it to the Accused from what quarter the corruption had originated if the effect of it upon her case should he the same ? This was the general view he had taken of 'the present ques tion, material in itself, material to.the illustrious object of these proceedings, but material above all to the impartial administration of justice: He en treated their Lordships not to pass a decision upon this question without giving it their best Considera tion. He felt almost ashamed at pressing this point, after the opinion of the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, an opinion which 'must always carry weight and authority with it. This he felt, and this had caused him to feel more anxiety on the subject. Once more he would admit that according to the rules of the Courts of Law, the evidence was not admissible ; but for the reasons . lace had given, he thought it ought to be received in that HOuse on the present occasion. In the Courts of Law such a question never could oc ctit, for he thanked God that the Courts of Law were strangers to Bills of Pains and Penalties 4 The Earl of LIVERPOOL was glad to find that the Advocates for the admissibility of the pro posed evidence had acknowledged, that if there Were a doubt upon the subject, that doubt should be set at rest by the opinion of the Learned Judges. But he understood that the Noble Earl, who had spoken last, did not intend to refer the question to the Judges, as he was not prepared to dispute the correctness .of the opinion express- . ed by the Attorney-General and the Noble Lord on the Woolsack. That Noble 'Earl rested solely on the specialty of the case, the necessity of departing from that which had been hitherto the usual course of proceedings in Courts of Law. Was it proper, at the present stage of the business, to adopt another course than that followed throughout the whole? lie would not contend that a case might not arise which would justify the House in opening a wider door for the admission of evidence than that which existed at present. He admitted, that the powers of that House, which enabled them to exercise functions legislative as well as judicial, would justify their departure from the rules of all other Courts, because the power of that House, as a Court, was unlimited. He be lieved that all had, from the first, agreed that such a departure ought to be strongly deprecat ed, and that the House ought to put voluntary shackles on itself. Now,' without inquiring whe ther the present was a case which justified such a departure or not, he would ask their Lord ships whether they could possibly bring them selves to depart from the rules of law, after they had, up to that very hour, acted upon them ? One departure must lead to others, and he im plored the House to stop, lest they should lead themselves into interminable difficulty. —Bet the Noble Lord had said he hoped the House would' not bind itself by le gal and technical objections. He (Lord Li verpool) hoped so too. But the objection now before the House was not a technical objection. It was an objection founded upon the elementary principles of justice. It was founded upon this question :—Whether when you bind men by the acts of others, you should not establish an agency or connection botween those who bind, and those who are bound. If this principle were not to be acted uposj, there would be an end of all justice. Indeed to him the objection appeared to' be one of all others which must carry conviction to any reasonable mind, even unassisted by profes sional habit and experience. The House ought to be most cautious how it admitted evidence against alleged agents, before their agency was proved. For what could be easier for a party than to make individuals act in the character of agents for the other side ? If such agency were admitted without scru pulous investigation, what monstrous injustice might not he committed ? What, in the present case, was the nature of the evidence adduced ? Did it amount to more than this, that R agan ti had told Rastelli that Vilmacarti wished to speak with him ? It was the communication of a message,. and of a message only. If that were admitted as a proof of agency, every prin ciple of justice and substantial law would be I t violated. He agreed with a Noble Lord wh o I had spoken on a former occasion; that when the whole evidence should have been laid be fore the House, he shoUld be ashamed if all-did not concur in setting aside every particle that was of a suspicious nature. He wished the Bill to pass 'only on the clearest evidence.--- (Hear, hear !)—lf the preamble to the Bill could not be made out by testimony, not by the speeches of Counsel:at the Bar, but by such tes timony as could not be suspected, he had no he sitation in saying, that the Bill oughtnot to pass.— (Hear !)—He had no objection to investigate whether a consp;racy had really existed ;'but he thought that it would be improper and ineffective to do it hy a side wind, because the House, being bound by the rules of evidence, could not push it sufficiently far. If such an inquiry were to be set on foot, let it be on its own ground; let it be undertaken by the House, as a House' of Parlia-. ment, that a greater latitude alight he allowed ; and its power might not be fettered. But with reference to the mere abstract question now before the House, as to the admissibility of _the propos ed evidence, he could not doubt fora single mo ment that in the present state of the proceedings, that question could not be put. Lord ERSKINE fully concurred with the Noble Earl in the opinion that the Bill ought only to pass on clear and undisputable evidence. But the question now for the House to decide was, whether the line of examination proposed wasnot necessary to make that evidence clear ? The Noble and Learned Lord declared he had no intention to depart from the strict rules sf law, nor did he mean to say the Milan CommissiOn was' not composed of persons worthy to dis charge an honourable Office ; but it was his duty still to see whether the witnesses bad not been corrupted. It was also for the House to say how far they would support the Bill on the evidence. In regard to the Milan Commission, he knew, one of its principals, Mr. Cooke, and he believed hitn to be an honourable and conscientious man ; and', for any thing he knew, the other Gentlemen might be equally honourable but if they were Angels in stead of me,n the witnesses might have been cor rupted before they reached the Milan Commis sioners ; and therefore it was necessary to,know whether they had been corrupted in their course . ; It was the duty of the House to hear all the evi dence on the subject, and perhaps it might be focnd that there was not a conspiracy ; but how could they come to such a decision without hear ing the evidence offered to .prove it ? Were their Lordships to ~suffer the case of a British Queen,• exiled - as she had been, and reduced to the most forlorn and destitute situation, to be judged of like a common cause at Nisi Prim ? " We," said his Lordship,' are not sitting in a Court . of Justice, as we ought to have sat. We ought, my Lords; to have proceeded by Impeachment. This your Lordships have not :done ; you have proceeded by the anomalous and unconstitutional proceeding . of a Bill of Pains and Penalties ; and yet you talk of confining your Selves to the rules , of-lawi and of 'legal evidence. My single opi nion can have ; little weight ; but I declare to your 'Lordships, :that - such is my view of this odious proceeding,` that were:the Queen as black as I begeie: her spotless, I would not vote for this Bill." Lord RCDESDALE declared , himself a supporter on all octasions of those rules laid down in early ages for the discovery of truth ; they ought to pro ceed with strict regard to established rulei. lie objected to the question, because it broke in upon the rules of eVidence ; if such a question was permitted, the Noble Baron knew not to that extent inquiry might go. It went the length of making a person an agent in the most, trifling occurrences of life; to .the great injury of the principal. Suppose, said the Noble Lord, I meet a man, and say—Where is John Thomas, tell him I desire to see him—is that person to be considered my agent ? All the House knew respecting Vilmacarti was, that he desired fta ganti to tell Rastelli to come to speak to him.— Was such a person to be made an agent and ruin the cause of the principal ?, To permit such a person to be an agent would be contrary to jus tice. If they were to admit agency they must first inquire to what extent a person is agent. The Noble Lord, under all the circumstances, strong ly objected to the question, on the ground Ahat no rule which the wisdom of ages had establish ed for the purpose of sustaining truth ought to be violated. Earl GREY said, if he could have felt with the Noble Baron that the question was against all rules established for the discovery of truth, he should not have supported it, but, perhaps from obstinacy in his mode of thinking, he remained unconvinced. He rose, however, in deference to the opinions of other Noble Lords, to say he should not press the question further. The LORD CHANcELLon. observed, that he was anxious to say a few words. He could assure his Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Erskine), that no man could feel stronger than he did that the long duties of professional life might lead individuals to use expressions they did not mean, but certainly his Noble and Learned Friend had on some occasions given a character to witnesses which did not appear to belong to them; he had, however, that day given a clear statement of the character of the evidence, when his Noble and Learned Friend said it ought to be looked at with great jealousy. With respect to the Bill of Pains and Penalties, he should say nothing on that occasion, except that he could congratulate their Lordships that they had durin g these proceedings been governed by rules of evi dence which had not been so well observed in former proceedings on Bills of Pains and Penal ties. One circumstance could not escape his notice : the evidence in 'support of the Bill had been gone through with attention to the' strict rules of evi dence. How then could they depart from those rules in hearing witnesses for the defence ? How could it be possible, if they got into that species of evidence to be found in some Bills of Paini and Penalties, on one side, to avoid letting it in on the other side ? If Raganti was proved to be an agent, and it was also proved that he had acted out \ of the scope of his authority r the House would be just where they were. The. Noble and Learned Lord then put the . qtestion, whether the witness •cOnld be permitted to answer the question 'objected to ?—lt was then negatived without a •diviSiou.. The witness was then called back and examined. Lord KING asked him whether Rastelli said to him that Dumont was to receive a large reward for giving evidence against the Queen. An objection was made to the, question, which was not pressed. A Loup.-L-Q. Do you expect to- be paid more or less, in proportion as your evidence is more or less favourable to the Queen l'only say, if they give me, I'll takeit.—(A laugh . ) The Marquess of LAnt)oNvN. aSked whether it was Mr. Brougham's intention. to examine the next witness with respect - to the charge of bribery ? Mr. BROUGHAM said, 'he should pursue that course for the purpose of establishing the con-. spi racy. The Earl of CARNAR'VON asked the Noble Lord (LiVerpool) whether any person in the kingdom of Hanover had been employed to take depositiOns of persons to be examined in this cause. _ The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, as far as he could recollect, there was only one agent.—[We did not catch the name.] BONFILIO Bomail sworn—Examined by Mr. WYLDE. Q. Are you a Member of the Society of Ad voeates at Milan ?—A. Yes. Were you there concerned as an agent for her Royal High ness the Princess of Wales ?—Yes. Did you know Advocate Vimicarti ?—Yes, I did. Had you at any time any communication with -Vimicarti re specting the Princess of Wales ?—1 had. Did you in that communication explain to Vimicarti your reason for coining to him ?—I told the person who conddeted me to his door. Did you state the same thing to Vimicarti ?—1 did. Did you state anything to Vimicarti of what passed between you and the person who took you to the door I—The moment he saw me he knew me, and told me to bring the.papers be longing to her Royal Highness. Did he offer you any inducement 'to bring those papers? The SOLICITOR-GENERAL.—It is my duty to object to this course of inquiry as to any conversation between the witness and Vimiearti. I apprehend in this case; no conversation be tween them can be evidence with reference to the charges in the preainble of 'this. Bill. I must hear from my Learned Friends the principle on which they endeavonr to make it evidence. Mr. BROUGHAM said, the task imposed tipisn the Queen's defenders was:bard. They were not only called upon to an swer objections, but to state the grounds of e xamination. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, he wished lowly to know from his Learned Friends upon what principle of law the de clarations of Vimicarts could lie'made evidence ? Suppose be \was an agent in this case, what he said could not be made evi dence. Unless some circumstance was stated to prove bow this could be evidence, he was obliged to say he did not know how a.coneersation between Vimicarti and the witness could he received. It was one .of the first principlts Of law, that a conversation between an agent and principal could nut be evi dence to affect the principal. . Mr. WYLDE said, Ho difficulty could arise with respect to the character of the agent. t 7 imicarti stood in the situation of accredited agent tO the parties. The LORD CHANCELLOR ordered that 'part of the evi dence to be read which applied to the acts of Vimicarti.— The minutes were accordingly read. Mr. WYLDE then observed, that the witnesses bad proved the agency of Vimicarti, inastatich as they had been examined by him at Milan. It was his object to show what had been the course that agent pursued in procuring wAresses to appear at their Lordships' Bar - against the Queen. Unless it should be laid down as a general rule, that the conduct of no person who stood in the situation of agent could be - inquired into, he was certainly entitled. to inquire into the acts. of Vithicarti and Colonel Brown, whose conduct should not be concealed. It was the Misfortune of the Queen's. Counsel to find oppo sition wheneve? they attempted to prove the• acts of these persons. They stood ready to show what had been the con duct of Col. Brown and Viinicarti ; and if the conduct of those persons was not to be inquired into, what ripPortuoily had they of defending their Illustrieus Client ? They had called . the regular constituted law agent of her Majesty, in proof of corrupt motives on the • part of Vimicarti; he could .thew a corrupt application of money by vinsiearti, sanctioned by ColoneOrown, and therefore• he di sired to ask the wit ness what had been the conduct of those persons. They were persons who had been named at their Lordships' - bar, and upon inquiry into their conduct, it was desirable to lay before , the House the particular ails in which they bad been concerned —(Here the witness was ordered to with draw.) Mr. Wykte continued—He wished to thew that the conduct of the agents who had brought witnesses to their Lordships' Bar had been such, that if the Judges of the dif ferent Courts of Law in England were to receive evidence procured in the same way, that evidence would be scouted out of Court. He desired to prove, by this witness, the cor rupt application made to him to withdraw the evidence front her Royal Highness the Piincess'of Walei ' which had been put into his hands as her 'Legal Adviser. The-House would know, upon inquiry, by whose authority the bribe was offer ed. Was it no consequence to her Majesty to have witnesses bribed to be brought to their'Lordships' bar. If they were not at liberty to shew a conspiracy was in existence by the acts of agents, no tnait's life would be safe. They proposed to shew that bribes were offered by agents. They were at present charging parties with a conspiracy which had been managed by the means of corruption, by agents running from one country to another, and it was too much to say at that distance of time, that they ought not to be at liberty to make oht their proof, merely because they could nut !hew by whusu the. false charge against her Majesty had been made. Mr. BROUGHAM said, after the very strong statement of Mr. Wilde, be should nut adtlresi their Lordships much in detail. He was not much surprised to find therwere nut•al lowed to speak of agency, but it was at the same time a con solation to know, be had got good hold of the agents. The agency was sufficient to enable. bias to bring forward their acts in defence of Are Queen. If Ise skewed that Vimicarti was an authorized agent against ter Majesty, it was enough. Vimicarti was found in -the company of Colonel Brown. the bead of the Commission. -.Mt. Powell was also a con fidential agent as well as Colonel Brown. Some person might be ready to panegyrize the Italian Attorney, but their Lordships would first hear some solid evidence, because it would, perhaps, lead them to dispense with panegyric. They had certainly a clear agei•ey, unless their. Lordships meant to say Colonel Brown and Mr. Powell had nothing to do with the case. -What had passed with respect to Powell ? He was not allowed to put a question, because that witness was profes sional man. Mr. Powell was an agent, so was Vimicarti.— They both stood in , the same situation, for whenever a witness was handled,.as it were, by one, he was handled by the other. The agency was proved, and they were not-asking any ques tion on that point. They were asking the wit lICS} to disclose • a fact of great importance to their Royal ( !lent; add did their Lordships mean'to - : say they nets not to lie at. liberty to ask questions which might furnish strong 'nadir for the de f. ace? If they were to be obstructed hi that . line of defeuez - -, he would ask their Lordships and his-Learned Friend, bow was the Queen .toproceed further ? The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, he was not surprised to'brid his Learned Friend itidalge in a variety topics. Ile should not follow his Learned Friend on his desions ars7, but state shortly and distinctly the gronsids on which this evi dence could .not be received. Adverting tollie correspond ence which Mr. Powell did not produce the:Other day, his Learned 'Exhort had mentioned the - circumstance to prove Mr. Powell was an accredited agent. The - fact was, Mr. P swell did curry on a correspondence . with Colonel Brown, a nd he did that which a man of hanourmight he expected to-do. He did not refuse to priiince the leati, but he stated to the House the sit uation in which he stood: 5 .11 was his d ut y, as a Gentleman, to make the .ohj ! etion. His . Learned Friend pro ceed ed , in a singular line of. argument yes' 4:instead grave charg e w as to be supported by : vague evidence. principle in law, that. a •grave. charge t l h t a li t ri a d king b een a t; was• to he supported by: evidence strictly legal, but his Learned Flitted threw away all legal evidence. lie begged leave to rep e at that no act of the Milan Commission,could • be received in evidence, unless. it had reference to . sumethiag said or done by the witnesses in this cause. If it' was other wise, they would Dave to go into all the collitterkl 'evidence which his Learned • Friends"••Might introduce.• The House, after 10116001 n Solicitor-Gentral,ittljournett.