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

but be (Earl carnarvon) repeated it was of
no consequence. It was sufficient for that
House that there bad been an improper inter-
ference by persons who were not accountable to
that House, and over whom their Lordships
had no control. He submitted, as a proposi-
tion that could not :be denied, that influence and
responsibility should go hand in hand. As in
the present case, ,there had been influence with-
out responsibility (for the Hanoverian Minister
was not answerable to the Parliament ; he con-
tended, with, perfect confidence, that the King's
Counsel should be directed to withdraw that part.
of the case,whiCh had been affected by that in-
fluWtce.- .The whole charge had been surround 7
ed by diplomacy. There was at least presump-
tive proof that .endeavourabad been made topre-
vent witnesses coming foiward on the. part of the
Queen. Presumptive did he say ?—there was
'eery thing but positive proof. In short, the
Sc hole proceeding, from its first commencement,
had'been diio'aceful. Tice:evidence had been
garbled by a petty German /despot, and this
charge, so disgraceful, so garbled, and so Ger-
manized, was brought before that House for their
• LOrdships to judge and to legislate upon it. In
'fact, it could not be known whether it a pro-
: ceeding'of the advisers of the King of England,
or of the King of Hanover. 'There would, how-
ever, he hoped, be a serious inquiry in another
p'..a.ce, into the whole of this transaction.. ,The
'advisers of the Duke of Cori wall might have to
answer For their conduct at the Bar of that House:
Their Lordships Were called upon to give an opi-
'nion to-day, upon 'that very proteeding,, for tue
manufaCturing of • .which, its authors might to-
morrow he 'brought for trial to their Lordships'
Bar. It had been said by -the Noble Lords
on the other side, that when" the whole of the
evidence should have*been concluded, their Lord-
ships had only to decide Whether the preaMble
of the Bill' had been proved or not ; but tliis he
contended was not the question. The Bill of
Pains and Penalties was an unconstitutional pro-
ceeding, never resorted to, I.4at under the worst of
'GovernMents, 'and whatever might' be proved
again.st the Queen, he Would resist the passing of
the Bill. Even if the preamble of -the Bill should
be protetl, the utmost that House could, legally
do Would be to libel' the Queen and expose them-
selves to the derision of Europe. He Would wish
the'Noble Loids opposite to consider that re-
Tentemce came " better late thannever," and he
would 'wish also titt these Noble Lords would
'would
the great- responsibility which they
would encounter- 'by pressing the present pro-'
ceeding. The Bill 'could not legally pass, and
it must he a 'matter of regret to every well-wisher
'of his country, that the House and. the country
had been disgusted with the ribaldry and the
'Odious evidence which had been 'offered at the
Bar of that House.

Lord MELVILLE moved that th,e proper officer

'4lonld attend at the Bar, with such parts of the
'hooks of his Majesty's ship Poictiers,as were cal-
'cula'ted to chew the situation which NV:Carring-
ton held on board that ship.—Ordered.
Porni,cross-examined by the ATTo aNtEy-GENER.4.L.
Q. You said, that .yoti'reSidedat the Ba.rona
is that hotise now called the' Villa Bergami ?—A.
'Yes, at present it is.
• 'How long has it been so called?--,-Little

thne agO.
How long ago ?—After that Membruza sold
it it is about three months ago.
Do you swear, 't?►at it was not called the Villa
Bergami till. within. the last three months ?—lt
was so called even before Membruza bought it,
'and after it was bought' again by Bergami it was
'called the Villa Bergami.
How long is it since it was first 'called 'the Villa
Zerzatni ?---He 'bought it in 1816.
'.After Bergami purchased it, did you continue
to work there as a carpenter ?—I
Have you continued to work at that Villa
until the time you left Italy ?----When he was the
mailer, I worked for him, and when others were,
1 worked for 'them.
• When did you last see Bergami ?a-I do not
-quite recollect ; I 'think it was in August.

Where ?—At his house.
Any where else ?---I have seen him in no other
-place, for I never went out of the house.
Did you see him the• day you left the Villa
Bergami ?—No.
When did you see him before ?—I left the
Villa Bergami on The 20th September. I saw
hirn in August, but do not know the day.
Will you swear yon did not see him in Septem-
ber ?-1 cannot swear, it might have been the
latter end of August `OT beginning. of September.
1 took no memorandum, and cannot swear.

How' long before you left the Villa Bergami
did you see Bergarrii;—l left on the 20th 'Sep-
tember, and I cannot tell whether it was :at The
Utter end of August or the beginning of Sep-
tember.

How many days did you see him before 'you
left do hot know.
Was it a week,?---Kore.
* Did he not reside there when you left the
Villa Bergami ?--No, iire' had left some 'time.
• M:" ho desired you to come over here'--No
one ; my own will.
Do you mean 'to swear that you came volun-
tarily, and no one asked you to come came
here of my own will, because I heard that the
Advocate, Cadazzi, was receiving witnesses, and
I went to him to say something in favour of that
Lady, who had done me .a great deal of good.—
(The Interpreter corrected himself)—a great
deal of good.
An objection having been made 'to the trans-
lation, the Interpreter (Spinetto) said, that his
lira impression was,, that the witness had said
" 'good to me;" but Mr. Cohen (the Queen's
Interpreter,) told 'him, that " to me" Was not
in answer. The order to explain the follow-
ing question was put 'to the witness
• Did you mean that she was good to you, or to
the people generally ?—To me and to all the
people of the Barona. She did a great de•al of
good to me .and to all the people„ generally.
• Does he mean to swear that be went, to the
Nclvocato.iCadazzi, of his own accord, and that