The Sun. — London, England, 1820-10-20 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT, HOUSE OF LORDS-YESTERDAY. TILE QUEEN'S DEFENCE. [continuation of Yesterday's Proceedings.] IMr. BROUGHAM said they wished shortly to state the view with which they wished to put the question they had proposed to ask. Mr. WILLIAms stated that be had been about to exiimine the witness as to the effect of the de clarations of -Zanga on himself. This was his object, and inasmuch as it was impossible—for . Ural() do that without putting the preliniinary queition respecting what Zanga had said, he had put .that question which had been objected to, .and.successfully objected to, by the Attorney eneral. lie (Mr. Williams) was not then al lowvd to open what lie,intended to prove ; and it was supposed. that he was about to inquire into what Zanga had said respecting Colonel Brown, a thing which had never once entered into his dreams. What he proposed to prove was this, that Zanga bad told the witness that if he would depose to any thing against the Princess of Wales his fortune would be made. To this the witness replied, "'But how can I 'do that when I have never seen her." Zanga Would them be shewn to have siid," Oh! as to that, I can take you to the Villad'Este and the Lake Como—l can point out a spot where that you can swear you saw her Royal Highness and Bergami embracing, and that will be sufficient." The witness would then state what had been done - in consequence; but that which be would proVe was all between him self and Zanga, and had nothing to do with Col. Brown. The LORD CHANCELLOR now begged Mr. Wil liams to state the question he intended to put. 'Mr. WILLIAIui answered, that he could not put the whole of his intended examination in one question. He should ask the witness the ques tion he put yesterday, following it up by what conceived necessary in explanation. The LORD CHANCELLOR begged Mr. Williams to state what that question was. Mr. GURNEY, by the request of Mr. Williams, read seyeral questions and answers, immediately preceding the objection taken yesterday, the last question being with reference to what passed be tween the witness and Zanga, and propounded in these terms : " What did he say to you at that time ?" The Avr*RNEy-GENERAL.—Nomr, my Lords, I object to that question. The argument this morning does not carry my friend's position fur ther than his argument yesterday carried it. lie opens his examination , upon the hypothesis of the agency of Zanga. My objection remains the same. The LORD CHANCELLOR.—Let the witness withdraw. . The witness withdreW in pursuance of. the command of the House. TheArroaNwr-GiEntt.r. resumed. The agency of Zanga is assumed, my Lords ; and then my friend wishes to lay before the House declara tions as to his procuring and suborning witnesses. I submit that these declarations cannot be re ceived ; because you have not fixed the man with an agency. My Lords, the objection appears to me to be so clear and well founded, that I shall Clot argue it further, until I hear what answer can be (liven to it (if any answer can b.e given to it) on the other side. • Zanga must be called, and must be shewn to be an agent, and eyen theacts a an agent are not to bind his principal, unless they be acts that come within the scope of his agency. With all submission, therefore, my Lords, I contend that the objection remains now as unanswered as it was yesterday. The SOLICITOR-GENERA-L said, he would, with their Lordships' permission, add a few observa tions to those which had fallen from the Attor ney-G eneral. The manner in which he appre hended -it to have been stated by his Learned Friend, Mr. Williams, that the evidence ought to be admitted was,• that it was competent to' them to prove, first, the existence of a conspi racy ; and next, that the individual allud ed to was a panty in that conspiracy. lie ad- Mated, that if they could show that such a con spiracy ever did exist, and if they could also show that individual - to have been a party to it, then every act of his connected with the object of that conspiracy would be evidente. But his Learned Friends assumed the whole grounds of the case ; they assumed that a conspiracy had been entered into, tot—the , purpose of suborning witnesses to give evidence against their client ; they assumed that .Zanga was engaged in that conspiracy, and they asked their Lordships, on the faith of these assumptions, to let in a string of evidence, con cerning, that person's ,conluct. But he con tended it was necessary that these points should be fullypriied before that evidence could be let in. The Le.arned Gentleman then re ferred, in support of his argument, to'" Phillips's Rules of Evidence," from which he read a long ex tract,. beginning at page 76,in one edition, and page 96 in the subsequent edition.—ln this it was laid dawn, that before acts or declarations of a sup posed conspirator that were to affect other per sons charged with .being connected with the con spiracy could be received; it must be shown that site]] acts and declarations were in furtherance of some design that was common to all the par ties. All that he was desirous to do was to produce a : clear and distinct understanding of this question among their Lordships ; and if his Leatned Friends had convinced them that there, had been such a conspiracy as they spoke of, and that -Zanga was a party to it, he did not stand . there to to contend that this would not be evidence.ut was there, in fact, before them any 'evidence Which woitld, convirce any man 'whatever of the existence of such a conspiracy ? And if there were no evidence of that kind, still less did it appear that Zanga had been engaged in it. For all that appeared on that point was from the evidence of the last witness, that on coming down stairs he had said something. Were their Lordships on such grounds to take it that ' a conspiracy was proved ? Was that evidence sufficient to induce them to fix upon any indivi dual a charge of so black a nature ? It was the first time he had ever heard of a conspiracy being so proved—it was the first time he had ever known it attempted to maintain that this was sufficient to justify the letting in of such evi dence as it was now sought tog lay before their Lordships. Mr. WILLIAMS had been interrupted yester day on a misconception of the grounds on which he was . proceeding, and the Attorney-General bad entered into a reply to arguments that had never been used or thought of by him, and had succeeded in preventing him from opening evi dence, which, if gone into, would have beaten down tltat argurnent for it would have shown that he was. carryinl the charge against Zanga atfd not against Colonel Brown, who had never entered his imagination. His Learned Friend had been pursuing as strange a course of argu ment as he had ever heard proceed from a Lawyer. He had been addressing their Lord ships on the effect of the evidence, which effect could only be determined by hearing the evi dence itself. His Learned Friend had confound-. ed, he would excuse him for so saying, two things, which, as a Lawyer, he must have known to be essentially different. He had confounded the admissibility of evidence with 'the, 'effect of evidence, when he should have known that the admissibility of the evidence was the' first thing to be decided, and that its effect was to be con sidered after it had been received. The con nection of the conspiracy with the Milan Com mission was not the question they had now to grapple with. Whether that Commission was a party to it—whether it was even aware of its existence or not, he still contended that he had a right to prove that there was a conspiracy.—Sup pose it had only resulted from the appetite for gain having been exited in the Italians by an idea of the lucrative nature of the speculation, that persons, be they who they might, had engaged themselves in suborning witnesses ;, and that it was not at all within the knowledge of the Milan Cemmissioners— it would still be a conspiracy—the guilt would be the same as to all the parties who were engaged in it ; and its effect i n this cause would be the same, and, therefore, he contended he had a right to prove it. But, said the Attorney-Gene ral, " Wily don't you call Zanga ?" What! call him ? him, the very culprit whom they charged with the crime—call him to prove it by evidence of his own acts ! ' Could his Learned Friends who argued thus have been studying those very cases to which they had referred ? They charged the guilt of this conspiracy against Zanga—and had he been a person resident in this Country, or within the range of its laws, or the reach of its legal power, they would have placed him at the Bar to answer that charge. But it was really too much to suppose that, living where he did, out of the reach of the vengeance of our laws, that he would readily comply with any invitation to come and place himself at their Bar to give evidence of this conspiracy, when the weight of the charge lay against himself. Such a case would be quite new to him. But he hoped the Attorney-General, in his reply, would show the rule of law he had newly discoverea., by Which the crime charged against any person was to be proved by the evidence of the individual himself. In all the State trials and prosecutions of a simi lar nature, evidence was always gone into the general state of the Country, and of a variety of acts of various persons in different parts, in order to prove a conspiracy ; whether any connection existed between that conspiracy and the per son charged, appeared afterwards. And unless this practice, and the rule laid down by the Judges, on which it was founded, were proved to be erroneous, he contended this evidence must be admitted. Mr. BROUGHAM said he would be brief in the comment he had to make upon the plain state ment of the argument by his friend Mr. Williams, not to waste their Lordships' time. What they now sought was to implicate Zanga. To con nect this evidence with Colonel Brown, or with the Milan Commission, was not HOW their object; whatever it might hereafter become. But it did not follow that because they did not seek to fix the conspiracy upon them, that they were to be precluded from fixing it upon another person. If they could show that any person had done any act affecting the proceedings in this case, Such as abstracting or tampering with the witnesses for the defence, or bribing or suborning, or attempt ing to bribe or suborn witnesses to give evidence in support of the Bill, he cared not what his name might be, he contended that they had a right to give evidence of that act. If he could prove that Zanga had made the offer and the declaration im puted to him, he did contend that he had a right so to do. And the only way to shut him out from proving it, the only way to keep out this, evidence, was by declaring, that even ad mitting it to be proved, it was totally irrelevant to this case, and could not at all affect the issue now before them. You (the Learned Gentleman continued) must be prepared to say that, or otherwise you cannot shut out this evi dence. And I ask, can any man so say ? li put it to any indiyidual--the Judges—l mean those Noble persons who are to decide this question. Let any man ask himself this question, whether lie would not pause the more before passing this Bill, after I shall have proved this tale, which you have only heard in statements, than if he had never had it brought to his knowledge. What is it •I am offering ? I am offering proof of a man who is making himself an agent—l care not what Brown is, or who are his employers; I may here after fix him with that also, but I begin with the proof of what Zanga did ; and I say, even if I am never able to bring it home, I ask, if any man would not pause the more after what I fix on Zanga ? What is 'said to have been done ? " Swear you against the Princess of Wales, and you shall have a reward." Says the man, 64 I cannot swear, I never saw her, I know no thing against her, I never was at her place of abode." Says Zanga, " What signifies that, I will supply you with that knowledge. I will take you to the place of her abode, where all the witnesses have been . , and she is said to go on this promenade with Bergami as well as 'with other men and women ; all von have to do is to say what I shall tell you z .and you shall have these Napoleons—come to ma and fix a dace, for it is true she was there at a certain time, and all you have to do is to add, (and which I admit is not trtie, but it is what you have to say) that you saw Bergami salute her Royal Highness—kiss her." Suppose I prove this, and in order to shew that I have a right to prove it, you must assume I can prove- it. You must be prepared to say Lat it will not better the Queen's defence and not damage the prosecution. Is it not monstrous? Can any man doubt that it will make a differ ence in the case Can any man lay his hand upon his 'heart and say s according to his con science, and upon his honour, and giving his vote -for or against the Bill which is to ruin this Queen, that the having proved such a story as I have now stated would not make the slightest difference in his judgment—the slightest dif ference in the issue now before you ? I say I go a great way if I can prove that means have been taken to bring perjured wit nesses before you. My Lords, it is said we must assume the possibility of a conspiracy on both sides ; and it is said, may not all this have been got up in order for me to raise this objection.— This proceeds from the effect of the evidence, and the question of its competency or incompe tency. But, my Lords, I pray you to dismiss such suspicions from your minds, and I will put one question, which, if I do not greatly deceive myself, will have the effect of allaying it. Ido not deny the possibility of conspiracy on the part of the Queen ; I have no doubt but that in a le gal argument you must admit the possibility, and that it will weigh a little in the scale in dealing in a point of law. Do your Lordships think it very likely, so likely as to make it worth consi dering in the Course of this legislative proceeding —do you think it likely that the Queen, inMarch, 181g,before she was put upon her trial,aud when 'there was no chance she would be put on her trial, and before the Milan Commission had proceeded one step, that she should has e been so provident, so astute to discover a defence against charges, which, for any thing she knew, might never be made, so very circumspect, so extremely provi dent, that she should foresee that in July,lB2o, proceedings were to be instituted against her ? The ATORNEY-GENERAL saw no difference between the lifie of argument now taken by the Learned Counsel for her Majesty, and that which they had yesterday pursued. The course of ex amination which they proposed was wholly inad missible, unless they proved to demonstration that Zanga had been employed as an agent, or had acted under the agents, for this Bill. The House had hitherto acted upon the principles which governed the Courts below, and he trusted their regard for consistency would induce them not to depart from those principles. If the testi mony respecting the declarations of Zanga, who was in no respect proved to be connected with the agents for this Bill, were admitted, then had he and his Learned Friends, who were called upon to support the Bill, a right to call in to their aid, all the rumours and reports which had been circulated respecting the Illustrious Defend ant on this occasion. Lord DONOUGIIMORE argued against putting the question. lie said, if stich evidence was ad mitted, the evidence of any person who might come and say he was told by another person that a conspiracy had existed, must be received. For four or five days the ears of their Lordships had been filled with the charge of conspiracy; the charge had been sent forth all over the Country, and now their Lordships were called to believe its existence without the least proof of it, ex cept from the evidence of persons who knew no thing of it of their own knowledge. If the evidence of this man was received, any man might be called from Milan to swear that he heard so and so, and every thing he heard, and every thing that was said, must be admitted as evidence to prove the innocence of the Illustrious Accused. Was it to be said, because some of the agents had acted improperly, perhaps corruptly, that a con spiracy existed between the whole of the persons employed in the prosecution ? Was it to be said, because some overstrained zeal had caused some of the agents to go beyond that line of conduct which they ought to have observed, that the whole of the evidence brought against the accus ed was completely false, and ought to be wholly repudiated ? He was determined that his atten tion should not be called, by cries of conspiracy, from the real question :—viz. the guilt or inno cence of the accused. He knew the object of such a course as that which had been continued for some clays. The defenders of the accused say, we have only to charge a conspiracy and the whole case will be destroyed ; but they were mistaken, for lie was determined to proceed in that course by which the•guilt or innocence of the accused would be substantiated. Lord ERSKINE observed, that the whole ques tion immediately before the Ilous6 was this— Whether the case in dispute came under that de scription of case stated in the opinion of the. Learned Judges, as competent for a defendant to prove, The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that' the ad missiost of such evidence as that offered by the Counsel for her Majesty, would constitute one of the most novel proceedings ever known in a Court of Justice. If admitted, there might be no end to such evidence ; every man in Italy might be called as a witness. In the opening of this case, it was strongly intimated, that the Illustrious 'Person that is now accused, had found means of sending out of her family all the En glish persons of distinction, and introduced not only Bergami, but several of ) his family ; and this for the purpose of carrying on the practices that have been,Alledged. Lord Llandaff and se veral others had been examined on the part of her Majesty, and they had stated the reasons of quitting her service on grounds quite unmated ed with any intention of her Majesty. It wa s stated that Bergami mentioned that was the cause of their leaving her service ; what would their Lordships say, if evidence was offered to pr°'!, this conversation ? The interests of justice if be protected by acting on general rules, and their Lordships were to depart so.faa.from every' I"iitown rule of law, as ttiadmit the 'evideirce ni4 tendered, there would ,be an end to all those, great protections which were the safeguard 01. every interest, public and private. Lord REDESDALE followed on the same side. Lord Gnix understood - that 'the House ha d decided yesterday that evidence . of a conspiracf might be admitted ; and he. thought the questioo now before the House was, whether the evidence now proposed was objecth.nable evidence ? ant i he must say that his opinion was that this el' deuce should not be received. This opinion he formed, although he could not conceive that the supposed case of the Noble Lord at the table had any analogy to the case before them. In orde,r to prove a conspiracy, it was necessary that solve persons had been connected together in forming this conspiracy. Now they had evidence before them, that with respect to the alleged conspiracy in that case, and whether truly alleged or not be would not then stop to inquire, that Rastelliao t l Riganti had been connected, and that Vimicarti and Colonel Brown had been employed, but be could not see how it had been proved this Zangla had been connected. The sole proorl support of this assertion yvas,that Zaugla came 0 3 s of the house of Colonel Brown with the 'wane; at the bar. For his own satisfaction he wis h " . to state his reasons for thinking that this (Ines (ion should not be put. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that it appear ed to be the sense of. the House that the questic 4 should not be put. No dissent being expressed, Counsel were re d called, and The LORD CHANCELLOR stated, that he ha d ' t in command from the House to inform them th a t the question could not be put. The Witness, ANTONIO MAJONT, was now rec all ed to the Bar, and examined by Mr. W ILLIAms• Q. You stated yesterday, that you went wit' Zanga from Venice to Milan :—A. I did. Did you return with Zanga to Venice ? --Y e 4; How many days were you at Mi lan ?—T wo d a Y s ' What is the distance from Milan to Venice One hundred and eighty-five miles. Did you pay your own expences, or did Of one pay them for you did not pay even 0 3e hundredth part of a livre ; Zaugla paid t" whole. Had you any business of your own at Mila °- -No. Had Zangla any, as a Stage Manager or other" wise ?—None; he Went only for this object. What do you mean by this object ? be The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to - t question. + e ti Mr. BROUGHAM said, that they only waok - to to know whatthe witness meant by certain wor d , he had used. Ile had never-before heard sti an explanation objected to. The LORD CHANCELLOP. said, that peril the question could be put to a shape which NW' leave no room for objection. Mr. WILIJAMS said, he would endeavour t ° do so. To the Witness.—Did you see Zangla 313 1, thing else than go to the Porto Orientate and ti ' s Rue Gabello ?—He went also to look a fter a person of the name of Irnberti, a sc4-t of sec° Manager of the Theatre. You told us, yesterday, you saw Zangla CO down stairs from Colonel Brown with a noilic u of Napoleons in his hand ?—Yes, I did. At that time, did he make you any offer ? toe question; ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to t oe it was to the very same purpos, e 4 that which their Lordships had just deg' should not be put. Mr. WILLIAMs.—It is a question as to a fitGts The SO LICITOR•G ENERAL—And we object that fact, as not relevant. • IS The LORD CHANCELLOR.--I must coni e e , - does appear to me to be the same quelitini" that last rejected. Mr. BROUGHAM.—,Am I then to underst3 lif that the decision of yOur Lordships is' to aPr io to all other evidence that we may have reaLV t o adduce of similar offers having been mav e suborn and bribe. , it The Loan CHANCELLOR.—Mr. Broughaw d ef would beinfinitely,too daring to give an On t o to your question. The House can only de e on each question as it arises. dor Mr. BROUGHAM.—We can tender no 0- ", e kind of evidence that can bring the,case of cp spiracy nearer to the Milan Commission than tore which your Lordships are pleased to reject. 0 01 have not Rastelii to produce ; we have not Itig lio f to produce ; we have no means of compel 0:4 their.appearance— All that we can do iv e sol , l ready to do; but your Lordships seem 0 : 0 0 that all we can do is of no avail. I under s ; l o your Lordships to be of opinion, that the ai rt o On Col. Brown, the bringing out of money him, and shewing that money, as a bribe receir ed to bear evidence against her Majesty , ar.gt,eff cumstances not sufficient to connect the ll f ie e t with the agents of the Milan Commission . ,` ie I can only. say that you cut thus the e' teili our case ; we can, situated as we are, 1 1 ! 5 0 0 3 being withdrawn ~from us, and Riganti bet 0e our reach, produce no stronger evidence tbcted• have tendered, and your Lordships have reie.corne If such is,the decision your Lordships loS e ° f to, then we need,not carry farther the l ine dence on which we had entered. The LORD CHANCELLOR.--All I can s.ad b iec t :5 out taking the sense of the House on the 0; 55 0 is, that the question of calling other witlisticl must be. entirely to your own discretioll,seticP am sure it cannot ,be left to any better discfetiler Mr. BROUGHAM.--Then we have 110 questions to put to the witness Miani. ct° ss' The ATTORNEY-GENERAL declined anY O sq examination. ion Na By Lord LAIIDERDALE.---Q• tl the poleons in the hand o f Zanga; we loo se , i ful, ‘ati 'lay Pesa rc Royal Mr: wi t s gc docum Lor, answe: Thi tern v By aanl db; o t rot Q} ~J ec Withi e l i cit ur ttirl)