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

ce
rePli ce
loc" „,f ti'
id, v
lir
lied tbil
„vas t,at
lade,
Collll%tv
,
ll
111 lo tli

jearileto
'page ;i5l
Ls fall°

in. refutation of the ASSertio❑ of the Attorney-Ge-
neral

you sworn ?—Yes.
1,1)1m take •an oath at Milan ?—Yes, before Vilmacarti.
you swear on the Gospel or not ?—I swore on the cross.
r
~
Did vo
- say you were ready to collie to swear to the trut ?
fOl. °uswore on the cross?—Yes, I took it, and held it up be-
the and the Advocate, and kissed it..
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he would put
et to their Lordships whether, even upon that
hadvi ence, it would not appear that the witnesses
not been sworn.—(Much noise and laughter.)
The 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.
to he ATTORNEY-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
:tilt 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
tlaaoo 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
det,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.
slie):°4ld say, if that were evidence, their Lord-
wenld not know where they would have to
~Or Where they should stop. 'Their Lordships
we hot to go off to this collateral issue—they
tlier:it°, decide upon the truth or falsehood of
I_l4l-'eations contained in the preamble of the
detiar:4l:heY could not let in all the acts and
had of this person, merely because he
Aband-etivered a message. If their Lordships
down-"ed the. rules which they had at first laid
be deg and all along acted tipon, they might yet
coi6;sained 'for days and weeks in going into
coj'eral issues and facts. If their, Lordships
1.1113117(1 to be directed in this -inquiry by the
,perec which governed the Courts of Law, he was
of
t,e.ti y satisfied that the declarations and acts
n's man could not be admitted.
he l'onn CHANCELLOR stated, that as far as
cia;llderstund the rules of evidence, these de-.
:44)11s could not, in the present state of the
qio„l.,dings, be admitted. If any Noble Lord
14,1".1 consider that the practice of the 'Courts
ta,°w•was different, they might have the advark-,
th4e hi the opinion of the Judges. He the-,fight
.114 Noble Earl who put this question should
tiv e.khevu satisfied with what passed a day or
't a 5 lucre
Supposing, hypothetically, and it
tii:„-ere hypothesis, that the overnment were
be ,rNsecutors—that the Milan CommiSsion might
boti°ll,sideredas a Joint Stock (jompany—or that
,Ive; Government and the. Milan CommiSsion
that distinctly proved to be the prosecutors, and
TOLit'leir-agelltS could be en- ambled, yet,he would
-e°lls that nothing he.d _been produced to
eitive that Raganti had been. the agent of
toitltt,dli Before any evidence 'could be ad-.
bush
_respecting him, his agency.must be esta-
-4,"Th„,) which could be' done either by his
Cu, declaration 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'
Ithast-pedi 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
tlit establish his agency. Had Ate (the Lord
-'cellor) been a Counsel 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
drat se ,Other side. He did not mean to say
ouch a conspiracy existed. In the whole of
he usiliess, he should never forgive himself if
tie made any unfounded assertion, but, hypothe-
agaiii-' speaking, there might be conspiracy
conspiracy, and if reputed agents were not
be o- 4:141 examined at the Bar, how would it
sPir- jliss`h,le to ascertain who were the real Con-
Part4,--rs r It was absolutely necessary, that if a
meant to prove its agency, they should
lord it 't, 111 the clearest manner. If some Noble
sitowinght think him wrong in his opinion, he
red up feel it as the greatest obligation confer-
queit°;ll has,,, if that Noble Lord would frame
th
der Oh to be submitted to the Judges, in or-
„at .
e nught be put right.
~liicli,,,:/ittY did not complain of the manner in
ischar
the Attorney-General for the prosecution
ably ge- his duty. , His objection had been
the vs,tatiE!'t and 'had ..net with the support of
and f,'" le and Lecarned Lord at the table ;
that: (Earl Grey) should perhaps incur .the
tliint°f. 11.ndue pertinacity, if he still persisted
vtiaLt "'ng that the question was one which
°f the t° he Put bit; the house.. The statement
as to
i\ft, oble and:Learned Lord had satisfied him
bad
e practioe of the Courts below, and he
Jud. li`u°
'doubt tl tat if a'question were put to the
manses' they would decide exactly in the same
er as .the Noble d Learned Lord. He
Judges 41d there •
an
fore, put no such question to the
4tricT.; he admitted, that according to the
hlitviathl technical mode it would not be per-
thei74.,_ in the inferior Courts ; but it was for
ebo "hrdships to decide whether they were to
der 44d by the strict rules of other Courts, .un-
sheeldcirchinstances which required that' they
the, p be relaxed a little, lie fully admitted
hnt b'o.°Priety of an adherence to the rules of law,
right
orcontended that that House possessed the
case departing from those rules whenever a
st4tkes 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 Raganti
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
It violated. He agreed with a Noble Lord who
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 during
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 authorityr 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 examination.
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. t7imicarti 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,
and 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
duty, as a Gentleman, to make the .ohj! etion. His
.Learned
Friend proceeded, in a singular line of. argument yes' 4:instead
grave charge was to be supported by : vague evidence.
principle in law, that. a •grave. charge
tlhta litriad king been a t;
was• to he supported by: evidence strictly legal, but his
Learned Flitted threw away all legal evidence. lie begged
leave to repeat 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.