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

communication. 13nt) 'altliOngh he readily achnit7
ted that the House had, by ordering the attend-
ance of the Attorney-General in support of the
Bill at their Bar, assumed a mixed character, yet.
he contended that in appointing agents to prose-
cute the Bill, they had invested those persons
with the usual privileges and immunities of pri-
vate agents, and had. given a confidential cha-
racter to all correspondence betweth them as
agents for the Bill, which rendered its production
in his opinion liable to all the objections against
the disclosure of the confidential communications
of private 'agents: .13esides, it might be impos-
sible to make "the required extracts without garb-
ling the contents of the letters, or making such a
disclosure of the rest as their Lordships had not
in their con temelation ; •if - their Lordships should
therefore incline to the opinion that the part of
the letters .moved for ought to be produced, he
thought it preferable, and should therefore have
less objection to procure the desired information,
by referring the whole of the letters to a Secret
Committee.

Lord K usa~1, at the commencement of these
proceedings the Soble Earl opposite . had, with
great appearance of candour, declared his wish
that the whole proceedings from beginning to
end should be sifted to the bottom. Ile (Lord
King) could not reconcile that declaration with
the Noble Earl's opposition to the present mo-
tion. The Queen's Counsel had openly made a
charge of conspiracy. Hastelli was proved to
have been one of the most active agents of the'
Milan Commission ; he was charged by
.the
Queen's Counsel as being a leading member of
the conspiracy, and he had in a most improper
wanner been removed out.of the Country by the
agent of their prosecution. He (Lori King)
thought this conduct so' flagrant, that in his opi-
nion, if a similar act were done in a cause pend-
ing, in the Courts below, the Court would not
suffer the agent to continue in his office. He
could not see what reasonable objection-the Noble
Earl could have to the production of thercorres-
pondence. The object of the motion was to
discover 4-hether Rastelli had been sent out of
the country from a mistaken though not impro-
per motive ; or whether he had been withdrawn'
to prevent the exposure of the conspiracy
charged by the Queen's Counsel. If this case
differed from other cases in some instances, it dif-
fered also very materially in this, that there was
no ascertaining. with certainty Ow was the
prosecutor. The other day something like"
an admission had been made by the Noble Earl
on this subject ; which he now appeared dis-
posed to retract. •He should consider the rejec-
tion of the. present motion an attempt to screen
the getter up of this prosecution from an inquiry,
the juice of which would be cofirmed by that
very restjection. The Noble Earin had said, that
neither he nor his friends had any personal an-
xiety respecting the result of the present prose-
cution. He (Lord K.) could only say, that if
they had not, they possessed —nerves of a firmer
texture than were eyer possessed by any set of
Ministers since the time of the Cabal ; for they
had engaged in measures in which no man had
ventured to engage since then ;. and which had
left them exposed to a very serious responsi-
bility. These proceedings had been made a
mystery by the subordinate agents, and the Mi-
nisters had, adopted the mystery. Some of these
agents were known and some unknown : but it
was known that the. Hanoverian Minister had
been very busy in the business, for he had ex-
amined, engaged, and sent, over Barbara Krtiss.
There appeared to be a mystery, a kind of double
machinery, throughout the whole business ; and
unless the House accepted the invitation of the
Noble Earl " to probe the business to the bot-
tom," their Lordships' high-sounding professions
about justice and impartiality would be ridiculed
and held by the public in perfect contempt : and
it would be insinuated that they had some im-
proper inducement for shutting out the inquiry.
Lord ELLENBOROUGII thought it right to say,
that he saw no reason to change the opinion which
he had given on this subject on a former occasion.
He did not believe that there was any mystery
in this case. Ile was anxious that the truth should
not be concealed, and in this feeling-he should
vote for the production of the correspondence in
question. He agreed, however, in the propriety
of referring the documents to a Secret Committee.
Lord Ross,LYN apprehended that it. was 'only
for the protection of the client tilat agents were
not allowed to give evidence. In this case it was
the agent, and not the client, who was implicated;
and in this view he thought the papers required
ought to be produced to time House. He appre-
hended that the agents in the present case were
acting for the llouse, with a view to the interests
of the public, and the question was, whether that
House, as the principals, were disposed to throw
impediments in% the -way of getting at the truth.

The Earl of LlvEitroor, considered the evi-
dence at the Bar of a different nature from the
contents of written documents. Having stated his
objection, he should not press it further.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that with a view
to the justification of Mr. Powell in this case, he
felt himself called upon to say, that if he had not
made the objection which he did to the pro-
duction of these papers, he ought never to
be employed as agent again—(lear, Hear:)—
If it was contended that the agents for this Bill
were acting for that House, and that therefore
these papers ought on that account to be produc-
ed, he protested he saw no reason why, upon the
same principle, they might not call for the brief
of the Attorney-General, and the whole of the
.correspondence which had taken place 'on this
subject. If the parts of the letter required could
be conveniently extracted, be should make no
objection to the course suggested ; but he desir-
ed it to be understood, in saying this, that he by
no means conceded the sacredness of the prin-
ciple which, had been so fairly stated by the
Noble Earl (Liverpool) as to the general rule re-
specting the communication of confidential docu-
ments entrusted to the care of-agents.
Lord REDEsnAi,E denied that any evidence
had been adduced, which *fixed Ristelli 'as an
agent.