The Sun.
London, England, 1820-10-21 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF LORDS-YESTERDAY

THE QUEEN'S DEFENCE.

[Continuation of Yesterday's. Proceedings.]

After the first division, the LORD CHANCEL..
LOR said, " I am commanded, Gentlemen, by
the House, to inform you, that they. have decided
this question cannot be put:"
BRODOILIM.—" Then my Learned Friends
and I are to understand yoiir Lordship, that the
House rejects all evidence of acts 9f agency, or
subornation or witnesses ? Permit me to say,
with all deference, that I think this topic has
been considered in a light not exactly applicable
to the preient case. Such evidence tendered in
'a prosecution against A. B. I know could not be
received ; but I submit that this proceeding is
.different altogether in its nature from the cases
put:. Here, properly ”speaking in a technical
sense, there are no two parties before the Court ;
:and therefore the opinion of the Learned J udges,
as far as appears to me, seems to indicate that
they have viewed the question in a light not
applicable to the present proceeding. In an or-
dinary -case in the Courts below, the witnesses
may depart the. Court as soon as .they are cross-
examined: but here the witnesses are in constant
attendance on this Court by order of the Court.
I have no further argument on this point."
Here the Learned Counsel paused.—(Cries of
" go on" proceeded from several Peers.)

Mr. BROUGHAM consulted with his Learned
Coadjutors—(Cries of " Go on," again proceeded
from different parts of the House.)
Mr. BROUGHAM.—" My Lords, I was re-
quired to give information to the House when I
should have closed this branch of my case. In
consequence of the decision of the House, I beg
leave to say, I have now closed that part of her
Majesty's defence which relates to mai-practices
against her."

The Marquess of LAissnowN said, having given
notice of his intention, as soon as that branch of
the examination had terminated, to make.a mo-
tion for the production of that part of the corre-
spondence between Mr. Powell and Colonel
'Brown; which related to Rastelli, it would.now
be his duty shortly to state the grounds of his
motion. He thought their Lordships' could not,
consistently with justice, and a due regard to the
dignity of their character, neglect to probe to
the bottom the circumstances to which that part
of the correspondence he had mentioned related.
Their Lordships knew that after, if not an order
of their House, at least such -an intimation as
could not but be considered as equivalent to an
order, that none of the witnesses who had been
examined at their bar should be withdrawn, one
of those witnesses had been sent out of the
country by one of the agents for the .Bill, with a
passport from the Foreign Office, where no order
had been given to withhold passports. The agent
had in consequence been called to their Lord-
ships' bar, and been examined as to his motives
in that proceeding.—[The Noble Lord read from
the printed minutes, that part of Mr. Powell's
examination on this subject where he stated his
motives in sending Rastelli away to he to quiet
the apPrehensions of the families••of the witnes-
ses for their safety, and to bring back .a paper
which he sent out by him.]--Their Lordships
had thought it their duty to examine the agent as
to his motives, and having heard these motives
from the agent on oath, they would find, if they
believed Mr. Powell, and far be it from him to
impute to that Gentleman that he had spoken
any thing but the truth, that he had not given
any particular instructions to Rastelli ; ought
they not therefore to get at the precise nature of
mission from the best evidence now left them
for ascertaining—namely, the letters between
Mr. Powell and Colonel Brown ? He thought
the same grounds on which they had put the ques-
tion to the witness at the bar, were Sufficient to
induce them to call for these papers. Their
Lordships having made themselves the party to
this Bill, he called on them to.consult what they
had rendered their own interests, by demanding
of their own agent a thorough explanation of
his motives for violating their order. Was there
any one among their Lordships, who, if he were
the principal in a cause in any of the Courts, and
his agent had in violation of the orders of that
Court done any act to impede the 'administra-
tion of justice in the cause, would not not only
consent, but insist on his giving an account of his
motives in such a proceeding, for instance, as the
withdrawing of a witness? If they examined the
evidence of Mr. Powell, no objection could arise
to the course he proposed, because, if Mr. Powell
spoke the truth, which, as he had said before,
he by no means wished to dispute, his sole mo-
tive had -been that Rastelli might assure the fa-
milies of the witnesses of their safety, and bring
hack a paper with which he had charged him, and
he had so stated in a letter to Col. Brown ; what
objection then could there be to producing that
part of the letter to Colonel Brown, which con-
tained that statement, .and the letter from Col.
Brown, in which he assigned Rastelli's illness as
the only cause of his not returning,• when by
their production, Mr. Powell's testimony on these
points would only be thereby confirmed ? 'Their
Lordship could obtain nothing by the production
Of the papers for which he moved but a confir-
mation of the evidence given by the agent, as to
his sole motives in sending the witness out of the
Country cothrary to their order, if that evidence
were correct, and it appeared to him to be highly
Important that that confirmation should be had.
He therefore moved, that Mr. Powell be called
to the bar of the House and dfrected to produce
such parts of his correspondence with Colonel
Brown as relate to the sending hack of Rastelli
in September last, and to the cause gf his not re-
turning.
The Eail of LivEurooLadrnitted this case was
wholly different from that of any individual pro-
sfteuttie, in which no power existed that 'could '
hgally call for the disclosure of a confidential