The Sun.
London, England, 1820-10-16 00:00:00

evidence that Regent; was employed as an agent
iu conjunction with Rastelli. Every person em-
ployed in the Milan Commission was an agent,
and he was at liberty to prove their acts. If he
established the acts of agents, he was not obliged
to call principals. The opposition to this ques-
tion should not be added to the many difficulties
with which her Majesty's cause was surrounded,
by prosecutors who had not yet dared to exhibit
themselves in any visible shape or form. It
would appear as if the prosecution was sustained
by-a Joint Stock Company. Whether it was un-
dertaken by the order of your Lordships, or of
*;evernment, it was evident to all men of corn-
' soon sense that the acts of the agents should un-
dergo investigation ; that the eondtect. of all the
Commissioners, and all those who were employed
under them in collecting evidence, should be
sifted to the bottom. In what state is the Queen
likely to be placed if evidence of this kind were
refused ? India:duals might go through all Italy
suborning perjury. What hope of justice cenlil
exist if the acts of those persons, who he could
aecove were -gniity of the vilest acts, were not to
ise inquired into ?.
• Mr. Desimais said, although this was admit-
' ted to be a criminal prosecirtion, it was also
Divorce Bill ; a Bill of Pains and Pe-
uoltiee, and a proceeding going forward for
the sni•.e of substantial justice. He asked
-whether SUbSteential justice could be an-
.swered if there tied been an extensive sub-
. • otestion of .perjury in the North of Italy, and
the-fact was to be excluded by a refusal to 'hear
,evidence proving the fact. The witnesses, Ras-
t± lsi itaganti, it was said, were not paid for
canning before their, ‘Lordshins ; they were only
employed to appear before Colonel Brown and
Advocate Ragaoti was in this coun-
'taies-he came over with Rastelli, but whether he
bad returned with him or not to qoiet the appre-
hrisioris of the witnesses who remained, he did
not know, bet whether he was in the country or
not, they could not
.well put into the box a per-
run Whom they considered to be stained with
crimes. The very attempt to ask a question from
a man like this, was fixing ,a disgrace on her
Majesty:' He'did not know whether he was jus-
'titied in
eaying.Rastelli had been smuggled away,
but he he.d-been sent away in defiance of an
otisler given by the Noble Lord at the head of
.his Majesty's Government. He did not know
whether he should he permitted to enter into the
qUestion, butunless his lips were sealed, the de-
fence of his illustrious client would be, that the
chant malignant conspiracy ever entered into
againsaan unfortunate individual, was the ground
of the prosecution. It was to meet that conspiracy
that he claimed on the part of the Royal. De-
feridant in this most criminal prosecution .proof
against one of the agents who acted with Ras-
telli on the occasion. There could be no doubt
- unless he was to be told by the Attorney-Ge- •
tieral that in a criminal prosecution nothing could ,
lici'iaroved by acts of agency, that they ought to
I:e.Ye all the facts before them. On that ground
teasytendered the 'evidence then offered out of
tSe• month •of the witness. Unless they were
neisnitted 'to enter into that line of defence they
vrculti be' excluded from the defence which
tLe. mode of proceeding more than any other
fitrnished. - Had' this been a proceeding by im-
peachmept, .the LOrds might have considered
sehother the acts. of agents could be admitted in
evidence, but in a
.proceeding hy a Bill of Pains
and' Penalties, and. a Bill of Divorce, he should
littve thought it was open to the Queen's Counsel
to inquiee whit means had been resorted to, in or-
al& -to lay the evidence before that House.
Admitting the Milan CommisSion to be suspended
iu July, 1819, they were going on before that,
apd the mischief was, that when it was known the
prosecution against the Queen Consort of Eng-
land was to take place, all that money and in-
terust could do was to be done. They asked the
-Halite,- however, to allow them to prove, not what
theommittee had done, butthe acts of their agent.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he had reason
to complain of the manner in which the Milan
Gortienisston was spoken of.—" I will tell my
Learned Friend (said the Attorney-General),
Mita fql the time ce:nes for inquiring into their con-
duct, which they most ardently desire to have in-
vestigated, not only be justified, but it
will . stand 'higher in. your Lordships' judgment
and that-of the public., and that nothing was done
there ivh4coUld'refect the slightest diScredit
on'those G-entlerrien.' This question, however,
had niatlaiiig.:to•do with the Milan Cemmissione-
bis'Learned Friend having exhausted all his in-
vective against Rastelli, and commenced an attack
on the .:Milan• Committee and Raganti.
The Lban CHANCELLOR here interposed, 'and
deOared his opinion that it was impossible to al-
loWthe question to be put. Whether the pro-
sectitor was visible or invisible, the Houie would
never:stiffer the question to stand.—(Here there
vas A cry of " Cio on,': and," at ourn!" • '
The ,question. was accordingly over-ruled.
Mr. DessaDits then said he had to subinit an
application', to.. their Lordships;ibefOre they ad-
journed. , It was, that their 'Lord:lips 'should.
ascertain from -the parties conducting the prose-
cution, whether Raganti yeses in this country.
The, King's
,Rolicitor" General said, that the
Learned Counsef had no right to inquire,into the
course the Counsel for the Bill meant to pursue.
Whether; or notthe'y wotild call him at a witness
to contradict any statements that might be made,
it was-far them' to determine. e: .
Mr. DEttmAra said, that he had not asked whe-
ther it was theii intention to examine Ritanti for
the purpose of obtaining a contradiction •to any
thing which-had been said. He merely wished
to knots- whether that person was or was not in
the country.
The. LORD CHANCELLOR said, that it was not in
the power of the House to ask that question ; but
it was in their power to deCide .whether 'in any
courseof the proceedings Olity!;hOuld themselves
call this avitness.(Heatihear l)
TheArroastay-GOttnaideclined his cross- .
examination of the''Yitnedats it was near four
o'clock.. It--was understoOd his , intention was to
cross-examine ok'Mondaynirning.--Adjourned. I