The Sun.
London, England, 1820-10-20 00:00:00

The SO LICITOR•G ENERAL—And we object

that fact, as not relevant. • IS
The LORD CHANCELLOR.--I must conie e,-
does appear to me to be the same quelitini"
that last rejected.
Mr. BROUGHAM.—,Am I then to underst3 lif
that the decision of yOur Lordships is' to aPrio
to all other evidence that we may have reaLV to
adduce of similar offers having been mave
suborn and bribe.
,it
The Loan CHANCELLOR.—Mr. Broughawdef
would beinfinitely,too daring to give an Onto
to your question. The House can only dee
on each question as it arises. dor
Mr. BROUGHAM.—We can tender no 0-", e
kind of evidence that can bring the,case of cp
spiracy nearer to the Milan Commission than tore
which your Lordships are pleased to reject. 001
have not Rastelii to produce ; we have not Itigliof
to produce ; we have no means of compel 0:4
their.appearance— All that we can do ivesol,l
ready to do; but your Lordships seem 0:00
that all we can do is of no avail. I unders;lo
your Lordships to be of opinion, that the airto
On Col. Brown, the bringing out of money
him, and shewing that money, as a bribe receir
ed to bear evidence against her Majesty, ar.gt,eff
cumstances not sufficient to connect the llfieet
with the agents of the Milan Commission. ,`ie
I can only. say that you cut thus the e' teili
our case ; we can, situated as we are, 11!5003
being withdrawn
~from us, and Riganti bet 0e
our reach, produce no stronger evidence tbcted•
have tendered, and your Lordships have reie.corne
If such is,the decision your Lordships loSe ° f
to, then we need,not carry farther the line
dence on which we had entered.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.--All I can s.ad biect
:5 out taking the sense of the House on the 0;550
is, that the question of calling other witlisticl
must be. entirely to your own discretioll,seticP
am sure it cannot
,be left to any better discfetiler
Mr. BROUGHAM.--Then we have 110
questions to put to the witness Miani. ct°ss'
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL declined anY
Osq
examination. ion
Na
By Lord LAIIDERDALE.---Q•tl
the poleons in the hand of Zanga; we

loose, i
ful, ‘ati

'lay
Pesarc
Royal

Mr:
wits gc
docum

Lor,
answe:

Thi
tern v

By
aanl db;
o

trot

Q}~J ec
Withi

elicit

ur
ttirl)

Wag

:ause

their

)rove

na if

110'S
thOSet
7€l 01

had
iracf

fence
? aurl

5 evi'
on he
t the,
e }gad
orcler
sow°
lefore

tot be
li aukicartr
ut he
that
otl*
itnel
islieu`
cuss.

e ar°

e-,6t1.0

I•s re'

had it
that

7called
3is • /
IcitJ

—Ye5-
,daYs'
Lee

1 Or
•
,en one
id 0'

s
~4ilaU'

other'
t.

0 the

4.0 tea
AVOriis
511 Ch

erial 53
W 011'

'C'ur

dO 3T)
Ind th:
rt.E''
512011-

a c°lDe
lualber

r •
die
to a;

fact'
,0
)iect

it
Ire° a

erg°3
3aPrit
cadY
tv
iade

it
1101 r
-`re
de clI"

f 144 tit;
ec
ases
itne J
(0'
re'
scfariber

crosr

50.
I°lithei
e:c ;

loose,
in bags, or in paper ?—A. He had a hand-
ful, and a large hand he has !—(A- laugh 1)
HaYe you any concern with the Theatre at
Pesaro
•--No other than that I wrote to her
Royal Highness, informing—
, Mr. BROUGHAM here interposed ; the witness
NiA as going to speak to the contents of a written
uoturnent ; this could not be permitted.
Lora LAUDERDALE thought that ithe whole
answer should be heard.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, that he had interposed
Xactly at that point which formed the confines
crt-ween evidence that was admissible, and evi-
ence that was not. 'the witness had written, in-
" her"g. Royal Highness. What he had in-
g.
ed her in writing could not be proved by
parole testimony.
The LORD I(CHANCELLOR said, that the inter-
'Position of the Learned Counsel was q'ulte proper.
Lord L
AuniatnALE.—Well, but the answer of
tieTwituess was no answer to my question.
""er
- he quEstinn was repeated—Had you any con.
iTII with the Theatre at Pesaro ?—Never.
7a y Lord DA.RNLEY.—Do you know whether
nga Was ever in the service of the Princess
(i
0 not.
"4ltiGo SALVATIORI .examined.--:-Bg Mr.
( W DENMAN• •
lv at citizen are you ?—I am from TreViSO.
hat at
do you follow ?—I am a Pro-
ofor Literature.
'ere do you live ?—At Lauzanne, iu Swit-

• uite Sou at Morges in
see Sacchi there ?—lres.
l'e hold any conversation with you about
pr
°Less of her Royal Highness ?—He did.
Ject.
ate give any counsel to you upon that
Pri e
lIIT6RNEY-GENERAL objected to this
°ISa e, "Pan the ground, that the declaration
nlis4hlj) given by another poison, was not ad-
under such circumstances, Sacchi not
be
Mrg ,-en proved to be an, agent.
ohj e;.,"txmA.N. said, his Learned Friend wasi.
to his putting a question about, Sacchi,
evidwitici;` lirst pointing out that part in Sacchi's
21.1to.e:e,Which he intended to, Contradict, pre-
form
sl,,,tnat that was his object. He hat.; to in-
uiiyhiir"'S, Learned Friend, however, that he.
,was,
lotO tTiel'• His object, in putting the witness'
Pot box. was to shew that Sacchi had pro-
tc't: -,:°_birt;, as had been proposed to others, to
14Es,,e,"°‘1 swear falsely against the‘Queen. e
14t0shew that he said to him that others
Alis:4(l9' their fortune, and if the witness, who
he
comeo the Queen, would do t e
tui'lnd and depose against the Que,en,
it 4:° make his fortune also. In page 4.11 S
triiss7lll'l be found that Sacchi, by his own a.r
to '°"3 Was employed by the Milan Commission
tilOnt t° Switzerland and fetch Mademoiselle Du-
ll'', ~t° Milan. He.aiso acknowledged to h.av-
'o‘i,:`eeived money from the Milan Cornmissioi.l,
*a,--I°urney,froin Lausanne to Charnitz ; and
the
Ritn °ll that journey that this application to
IV" made. He therefore contended, thatthat ;jras clearly an agent in this business, and
1' 1 testimony which this witness was about
11,4':as perfec,tly.admigsible-
A.I3Q ;I: 11l XE apprehended that no grounds had -"o hewn for putting a question of this nature.
440 -laence whatever had been adduced d .
tee •i Sacchi's being an agent. It was true he
Co for going to Charnitz, from
`0 st; '-otrirnission.; but there was no evidence.t.
Ns:v that he was employed in collecting wit
4.
pas generally. The journey was proved, but
vv-r°tse was assigned to it. Ile apprehende_
ghat
t'itnout attempting to ask any question for
this purpose of contradicting Sacchi's evidence,
4 .t,e
,\°f examination could not-be pursued.
1.
r,r-'"xiitAN contended, with great subn ts-
-1)44 Loa,
there was nothing inconsistent in sup-
lh4gi,Sacchi to be, an agent. He had referred
i'icl,-°rdships to those parts of the evidence
hlst. ~elated expressly to this point ; but. he
their Lordships would not shut their eyes
vlex: el' Parts of the evidence which gave a co.rn-
Ild°Olutt° the whole. He hoped their Lordships.
1-141 shut their eyes to this; because if they
1,-.'"'S-1.44,„"ti1d be the worst sort of blindness, and
"43est-illa shut their eyes against one of the
Ita,ke t-h
cold
ever devised. They must
,":he iligeneral tendency of the whole evidence.
"leY saw him employed 'to go to Milan
'"'t b-ae Witness, and afterwards to go to Charnitz
b'ghtur Witness,
which although it was not known,
19 the 4uessed from the fact of his being paid
Commission ; taking the whole case
ne ought it was fairly made ont that
-s°l-lAtui 11;as an :uthorized agent of the Milan
."11411'1P1°°' lie did not mean to charge the
ljitn as -o°4l,nlission with the acts committed by
e `lid ten' agent ; 'ltalie merely contended, as
ij•gl,° about the eountrry for the purpose of
idt iltf3/41-g witnesses in the i'attiner he had done,
Light stood in the sittatioli of an agent. He
Htiia-ave gone beyond' his instructions, but
(11(eg.t.1-,11 agent, because he was not authorized to
iaeen -as° ste.Ps to bring witnesses against the
4,14 71. Which be was able to prove that he did
V'o4 ;,` was too much to say that evidence of
41 sa6'flauth,orised acts ought not to be received.
(;'it's, fl ha Principle were admitted by their Lard-
:"eY would shut out the acts of the Milan
it w °"ssioa itself
tt 4s se,from all inquiry ; althOughf
tat _3,0 IL
overnment that was no proof
verurnelit authorised all its acts.
I'RllOl nc-L
eun CHANCELLOR asked whether the
acehitlieo evidence tic ed relating at' n to the • agency of
ges 448 and 449
'41.e°4,°%1: the liberty ofn asking this, because there
(luesti ° Points of view in which to regard' this
tltis 'no. If the could be proved, then
coti exarwriati a,ency_ _ if the
S osei on ought to be allowed ,• but
calchi as Wished to impeach the testimony of
1 a Witness, it was competent to them to
Nlfro hack and re-examine him, in order to
Nk 14 the witness Salvadori with him.
r•
obi, "AN in answer to the question of the
in c r '
Paz„ -I,earned Lord,
'44 D begged to state, that
‘2 its to l Dumont stated. facts of a similar na-
toluile.n. ler being applied to by Sacchi to go

Mr. PARKE said that no grounds had been
shewn for this line of examination. His Learned
Friend, when called on to point out the precise
part in evidence which fixed Sacchi as an agent,
shewed them a part which simply proved that he.
had gone on one occasion to fetch Dumont; and
on another, that he had taken a journey to Char-
nitz, but for what purpose did not appear. He
did not see how their Lordships could admit as
evidence the acts of a man who was simply em-
ployed as a courier. In his opinion it was ut-
terly inadmissible. It was also contrary to every
rule of evidence to admit evidence of the acts of
a person, without givitig that person an oppor-
tunity of agreeing to or denying the charge. On
both of these grounds, he apprehended the ques-
tion proposed by his Learned Friend was inad-

missiblein point of law.
The Loan CHANCELLOR, in calling their Lord-
ships' attention to what had been urged by the
Learned Counsel on both sides of the question,
submitted to their Lordships' decision, observed
that there were two points of view in which to
look at the evidence with respect to Sacchi.—
The first was—as to what evidedce there was to
strew that Sacchi was an agent ; in which case the
testimony now tendered and objected to, would
be admissible. The second was, in the event of

there being any previous evidence of a con-
tradictory nature to the facts now tender-
ed in evidence, in which case that testimony
would be admissible. He apprehended that the
whole of the evidence, applied to these points,
w:-,; to be found in pages 344. 372, and 448.
The Noble and Learned Lord read from the dif-

ferent pages the evidence in question. In page
344, was stated by Dumont, the fact of her be-
ing desired to go to Milan for the purpose of
being examined. She stated that Sacchi came to
seek her on the part of the Milan Commission,
and on being asked if Sacchi was not in the ser-
vice of the Milan Commission, she answered that
she did not know, but that he was employed by
them on this mission. In page 372, was the evi-
dence of Sacchi, in which he confirmed what had
been stated by Dumont, as to his carrying her
to Milan, .being employed for that purpose by
the Milan Commission ; but added, that he did
not bring her back. In page 448, they had Ras-
telli's evidence, in which he had declared, that
Sacchi had asked him to come to England as a
witness to declare the truth, on the part of the
Milan Commission. Sacchi was certainly a
witness ; and the question was, whether, taking
him as a witness, they could ask this question,
for the purpose of discrediting his testimony.
—lt was settled by their Lordships' former
decision, that new evidence could not be called

to prejudice the testimony of a witness, by cir-
cumstances on which that witness had not been
cross-examined. Upon this ground Majocci had
been called, and upon the same authority this
examination would go forward, the witness Sac-
chi being entitled to the privilege of examination
to contradict the declarations of person whose
testimony was to affect him. These observations

were directed to the consideration of Sacchi as
an evidence. In the case of 'tastelli the House

had resolved that, as he was absent, evidence
should be taken as to what he had said without
calling him. In the present instance the ques-
tion, separating the ground of agency, was, if the
Counsel wished to impeach the testimony of
Sacchi, whether they conld"take evidence of what
he had said without first calling him. He should
say, that as Sacchi was here he ought to be called,
and asked if he made these declarations or not.
The question as to his biing an agent or not de-
pended on whether the acts proved against him
constituted him a messenger of the Commission
only for the purpose of bringing the witnesses
before the Commission, or whether he went be-
yond that character, and employed persuasion,
declaration, or other means to procure witnesses.
This was a question he should leave for their
Lordships to decide upon.
Lord ERSKINE said, that the question was,
whether this did or did not go to affect Sacchi's
testimony. It was so long a time since he fol-
lowed the profession of an Advocate, that he
could not pretend to know all the changes in
practice which had taken place since that time
but he would undertake to say, that if, in his
time as an Advocate, he could prove that a wit-
ness'had been beating up for false testimony, he
could have called witnesses to prove his corrup-
tion, without first calling upon that corrupt wit-
ness himself.
Earl GREY said, that such a connection had
been established between the Milan Commission
and Sacchi, that it became indispensably necessary
to prove the nature of his employment ; and if
a person could be proved to have attempted to
corrupt others to swear falsely, what doubt could
be entertained of his willingness to swear falsely
himself ? The proof of a corrupt agency upon the
part of a witness, destroyed the credibility of
that witness. Isis Lordship had been reluctantly
compelled to dissent from his friends in a recent
instance ; but in this case the evidence was quite
different.; for Sacchi was clearly proved to be a
direct agent under the Milan Commission, and
although there might not be proof enough, ac-
cording to the rules of the Courts of Law, to
prove his agency, yet there was such a connec-
tion here, that no person could deny that he was
an agent; and, as it was proved that, he had at-
tempted to corrupt witnesses, it was easy to sup-
pose him wicked enough to swear that he was not
an agent to the Milan Commission.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL did not object to
Sacchi's being called back ; but he could not agree
with the Noble Lord who spoke last in the view
which he had taken of the question. If Sacchi
had been sent by the Milan Commission to col-
lect witnesses, he thought the agency ought to be
admitted. But as there was no other ground than
that he was sent to fetch Dumont, he could not
see how it was possible to charge the 'general
task of collecting_ witnesses upon him. lie thought
however that either one way or the other, the
question might he admitted.
Earl GREY did not think any one could doubt
the nature of Sacchi's mission to Charnitz.

Lord ERSKINE could not agree to Sacclai's be.

ing called in ; he thought the question might be
asked without him.

The Loan CHANCELLOR maintained that, in
point of law, Sacchi ought to be called.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL wished to know why
Sacchi was to be sent for, whether it was to con-
tradict the evidence he had already given, or to
give fresh' evidence which another witness might
be examined upon.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, it was the gene-
ral opinion of the House that the examination
should be pursued, and that Sacchi might be
called to rebut the evidence.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL wished to know
upon what grounds the question was to be put.

The LORD CHANCELLOIt.-It appears to be
the opinion of the House that the question may
be. put, to affect the testimony of Sacchi.—(Hear,
hear !)

Lord LAUDERDALE said, it was most necessary.
:o know distinctly the grounds.

The Loan CHANCELLOR repeated, that it ap-.
peared to him that the general opinion of the
House was, that the question should be put. At
the same time, he must state, that he still re-
tained his opinion, that the agency had not been
proved, and that the declarations of the witness
could not be heard without at the same time de-
termining- to call S,acchi himself.
Lord ERSKINE contended that the object was
not to prove Sacchi's declarations but his acts,
and if that could he done the question might be
allowed.: It was not necessary first to prove his
agency, butte show acts of corruption in him,
and that he Lad aPplied to corrupt other wit-
nesses.

Lord REDESDALE wished that the Noble and
Learned Lord on the Woolsack would info►m
the Counsel at the bar on what ground the House
consented to receive the evidence which they had
offered.

Lord GRENVILLE said, that their Lordships
ought to hear Counsel on both sides upon the
point in dispute, and to decide upon the argu-
ments they should adduce.. They would thus
be acting as became their situation. They ought,
as much as possible, to keep themselves in the
situation of a Court.

The Counsel were called hi, atd informed by
he LOAD CHANCELLOR that they were at liber-
ty to argue for and against the admissibility of
,he evidence.

The ATTORNEY-GENTER.AL argued against the
admissibility of the evidence. If Sacchi had
committed any offence it was not competent on
the other side to discredit him by calling evi-
dence to prove that offence, unless they produced
the record of his conviction. The law upon the
point was clearly laid down—a witness in the
defence might be asked if he would believe a
witness for the prosecution on his oath and that
was the extent to which he could go. No witness
could be expected to come prepared to defend
himself on any particular charge. He could only
be ready to answer with respect to his general
conduct and character. He therefore maintained
that evidence like the present, going to prove a
particular charge,- could not be received.
Mr. PARKE followed on the same side, and
quoted " Phillips on the Law of Evidence" in
support onus argument. The Counsel ort the -
other side bad proposed to criminate the witness
Sacchi, without having previOusly asked him any
question respecting that transaction which was to
he made the foundation of a criminal charge ; and
when he had no means of knowing it, or defend-
ing himself against it.
Mr. BROuGuAra admitted the general iiroposi-
tions of law as laid down by the opposite Counsel,
and that as a general rule he could not attempt to
criminate a witness, on facts on which be had ne-
glected to cross-examine him ; and further, that he
could not invalidate his testimony by his conduct
out of this cause. But 'it was on the conduct of
Sacchi in this particular cause that he wished to call
evidence. And here Sacchi had notice of the
charges against him. He came to their Lordships'
Bar as a witness, and all his corrupt acts in this
business must be known to him. This took the
particular case out of the general rule. And he
would ask, who would believe a man who had,
in the same cause, proved himself a suborner of
perjury ?
Mr. DErrinAN asked their Lordships if in a
trial in the Common Pleas, (and he should sup-
pose a case to
.illustrate the present argument,)
it should be offered to be proved that on the morn-
ing of the trial the Attorney of the cause had offer-
ed a person a sum of money to give false testimony
on the trial, the Judge would refuse to hear that
evidence ; no, he was sure he would not; and
then he asked their Lordships if such evidence
would not throw discredit on the whole proceed-
ing in which the Attorney was concerned ? So
in this case, Sacchi was proved to be an agent :
he was also a witness in this cause, and he had
a right to bac., him called and examined upon
those facts of corruption and subornation, in
which he charged him with • having been
concerned. It was one of the peculiar circum-
stances of this case, that in total ignorance
of the list of witnesses to be brought against
her Majesty, her Counsel could neither know
the facts deposed to, nor the character of the in-
dividuals, until after the cross-examination had
closed, unless they had accepted terms
which they conceived would be still harder for
their Illustrious Client. They had since been.
informed that Sacchi, who had icpresented him-
self as sent to Switzerland to seek Dumont, had
been employed in those corrupt transactions Which
they were prepared to prove. Here was a wit-
ness, who knew much of Sacchi's, conduct, and if
what he stated was not true, then let Sacchi come,
if he dare, and contradict him. The Learned Coun-
sel concluded by submitting to their Lordships,
that there was no sound distinction between this
question and some that had already been admit-
ted by their Lordships, and that consequently
the
question might he put.
Mr. PARKE said, that with respect to the
question of agency, which had been so often re-
ferred to, their Lordships had, in his opinion,
already decided that point.—(No, no.)---He
then referred their Lordships to a decision of

Lord Ellenborough's, in a case of usury, in which
a person had endeavoured to prevent another from
attending the trial, and yet evidence to prove.
that fact was not admitted. lie concluded by
saying that a more 'untenable proposition that%
the present was never before advanced iu a Court
of Justice.

Mr. BROUGHAM expressed some surprise, that
his friend Mr. Parke, if he had a case to produce,
Should have held it over until now. But he re-
membered the case well, for he had been em-
ployed in it, and he could not draw the same con-
clusions that Mr. Parke did from it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was extreme-
ly difficult for him to be called on, day after
day, to state what was the practice in the Courts
below, when he had been so long separated from
those Courtts. lie therefore wished, as in former
cases, to consult the opinion of the Judges on the
subject, and he proposed that the following ques-
tion should be put to them Whether, in the
administration of justice in the Courts below
when a witness for the prosecution had been exa-
mined in chief, and had not been cross-examined
as to any declaration he had made relating to his
procuring witnesses for the prosecution, whe-
ther the Counsel for the defence could bring evi-
dence to prove suet' declaration, without first
calling on the witness to know if he had ever
made such declaration ?;5.

Lord GIZEY was of opinion that the case cited
against the Queen's Counsel did not apply. In
the present case, there was positive proof offered.
that one of the, witnesses had at,tempted to sup-
port the prosecution by subOrdkion of perjury.
What the rule of law could be on this point he
did not knew, but he thought this was a most
important question, and one, in fact, which had
been already disposed of, as such a connection
betwt.en Sacchi -and the Milan Commission had
been established as, he conceived, imposed it as
a duty on the,House to receive the evidence. Of
this he iVas so convinced, that, should the Judges
decide otherwise, and should the House, contrary
to his hope, adopt their decision, he should still
contend that the question proposed should be
admitted.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL said he was perfectly
satisfied the case of agency had not been made
out ; but with the view to get rid of the present
difficulty, he proposed that the witness Sacchi
should be called up and examined as to the par-
ticular facts now in dispute. If he denied hav-
ing made the declaration, then the present wit-
ness might be legally called to prove it. If her
Majesty's Counsel should see no reason to object
to this coure, it might possibly remove the dif-
ficulty ; but should it not be so, it would then
be competent for their Lordships to consult the
Learned Judges.

The Marquess of LINSDOWN thought the 'sug-
gestion of the Noble Earl who had.just sat down
should be adopted, but it must be on the express
condition that the Queen's Counsel did not ob-
ject to it.

The LORD CHANCELLOR then asked Mr.
Brougham whether he objected to the calling up
the witness Sacchi.

Mr. BROUGHAM.—The last time we wished to
have a witness called, he was found to have bten
sent out of the country.--(Hear, hear!)

The LORD CHANCELLOR.—But if he is to be
found, have you any objection to his being called,
and when do you wish it?

" Now, new, my Lord," from both Mr.
BROUGHAM and Mr. P.ENMAN.

Lord EttsKINE said the evidence against Sac-
chi ought to be taken on the ground of his merely
being employed as an agent for the Commission.
In the name of common sense he asked, whether,
if the facts were true, charged against Sacchi, his
evidence could be credited at all. If the evi-
dence was objected to, he should think it his
duty to take the sense or the House upon the
subject.
Lord LAUDERDALE objected to the question
bieng put on the ground of agency.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that some of
their Lordships might object to the question be-
ing put on the ground of agency, and others on
the ground of his being a witness who had acted
corruptly on both quest7oas.

Earl GREY saia, that although such agency
had not been proved, as in general eases would.
admit the evidence proposed, yet in this peculiar
case such an extent of agency had been proved,
as in his opinion, ought to render the evidence
admissible against Sacchi,, He therefore moved,
44 That the question be now put to the witness,
on the ground of Sacchi being an agent employed
by the Milan Commission."
The Lonn CHANCELLOR then put Earl G atl's
motion.

Lord HoLLAND said, that as part of the House
might think the question ought to be put upon
the ground of the agency of Sacchi, and the other
party think it should be put to impeach his tes-
timony as a witness, it might be wrong to act
upon the present motion, as when the questions
were put separately each would be rejected, al-
though in point of fact a majority of the house
might really think that, in one way or other, the
question ought to be put to the witness.
The Lone CHANCELLOR said the House ought
to take the opinion of the Judges upon the ques-
tion before they decided.
Earl GILEY concurred.

Lord ERSKINE said.he had quite a different
view of the business, and had not been at all
convinced by any thing which had bee❑ said ;
he would therefore submit the following question
to the consideration of the Judges Whe-
ther, if in any cause in the Courts below, it was
discovered .that a witness had endeavoured to
corrupt other witnesses, it would be open to the
Counsel for the Defendant to give evidence to
prove such corrupt conduct."
The Loup C“ANCELLOR proposed a question,
to the purport of ascertaining if such evidence
could be taken without first calling back the
witness.

The question of the Lord Chancellor v.-as pre-
'cisely the same as that put in the case of Majocci,

except that the present referred to an act, and
not to the declarations of the witness.
Lord REDESDALE said a few wards.

Lord CARNARVON was averse to putting the

question to the Judges, and said, that whether
Sacchi was an agent or a witness, they could not
refuse to hear testimony to prove that he had act-
ed corruptly. They could not do justice, if they
excluded this evidence. He did not see why they

should divide tins question into so many points,

and trouble the Judges for their opinion. He
would move,. by way of Amendment, that the
question proposed be now put.

. . . .
Lord It Ea F!, D k LE protested against the amend-
ment moved by the Earl of Carnarvon.
The .14otzn CHANcer.Lou then said--" Is it
your. Lordships' pleasure the question proposed
be ansAeredi”--

It was negatived without a division, and the
House adopted the mOtioti for sending the ques-
tion. to the J ridges.
The.. Lon 1) etwicr.t.Lon accordingly handed
it to the Chief Justice.

•
AfAer the Learned Judges had deliberated a
short time, the Loan CilAxcELLoit informed the
Boole that the Judges wished to withdraw to
comider the question, and as the usual hour of

adjuurunient. was so near, perhaps their Lord-
!A) would adjourn.. .

On dte motion of Lord Eas•KINF.,. the House
accoi:dingly Adjourned at Half-pasahreeo'Clock.

•
PROCEEDINGS OF 'FIIIS`DAY-.

r, usual prelim.mary forms having beer gone

thron9.l there were excuses made for the. Earls
of Pon-r.imouTri and BLESAINGMPN being absent.
The Dukes of
.Vaatt, CL. RENCE, and GLoueis-
Ttlt were early in atte:ulance.
The Marquess of LANS'DOWN then snggested.
the propriety of the Order of the 21st of August
last being read, which was agreed to ; th,

der being read,
The Noble Marquess proceeded, and at some
'length contended that by the-order of their Lord-
ship witnesses were expressly enjoined to be in
attendance die in diem. Their Lordships must
be aware of 'the inconvenience resulting from
contrary line of conduct, from what they had
already suffered. Yesterday, for example, Sac-
chi was called for, but was not to be found, even
though the Noble Earl had agreed that he should
,be called up if Such was the wish of her Majesty's
Counsel.

Here Lord LIVERPOOL, as we understood, in-
Jimated that Sacchi was in London.

The Marquess of LANsnowN was very happy
,to .hear this, but of what avail was his. being in
town, if he was not within the reach of their
Lordships % To. his absence yesterday might be
attributed all that delay and discussion which
ensued, and even the necessity of putting ques,
tions to the Learned Judges. The loss not only
Of a single day, but even of the part of a day; was
of great importance in the present state of the
if;ti airy.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL thought that- the
course adopted yesterday by their Lordships was
proper, and he still was convinced of the propriety
of putting the questions to the. Learned Judges;'
He sincerely wished that every witness who
had been examined, should in future be in at.:
tendance near the lliiuse. He had diligently
inquired relative; to Sacchi's residence-, and he
found he was still in town, and unquestionably it
would be more regular if the witnesses were near
the House, in order to be ready if called upon.
The Marquess of LANSDOWN said he would
repeat what he had said, and he was happy to
hear that Sacchi was'in town, but he did not see
how the questions could have been put to the
Judges, had SaCchi been in attendance.

The .Lono CHANCELLOR said that either their
Lordships or the Counsel had, as he'understood,
objected to Sac Chi being again called up. But
he la*, in'one of the public Journals, which pro-
fessed to detail the proceedings of the House,
that there was yesterday an expression of " now,
now," by the Learned Counsel for the Queen.—
He must own that he was surprised to see that
statementl but then, the person who gave the
report must have been much nearer the Bar than
himself and many other Noble Lords.
The LORD CHANCELLOR and the Marquess of
LANSDOWN severally explained.

Lord REDESDALE considered it to be a con-
tempt of the House if witnesses who were elm-
mined at the Bar, who might be wanted again,
were not within the immediate call of the House.
The Earl of L tUDERDAVE said that if the
meaning of the Counsel was " now," or at that
moment, he certainly did not understand it ; but
it was pretty clear from what had passed now,
that the other•_ side I hOlight Sacchi was not in the
Country, and that it was impossible to find him or
bring him to the Bar.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE of the King's-
Bench then rose to deliver the opinion of the
Judges ou the two questions 'submitted to them
by the House yesterday, and which negatived
both the questions'then put.
The Loan CuArtc•ct.Lon now inquired of the
Counsel for the Queen- whether they had any
objection to call in Sacchi now ?
MI% BROUGHAM said, he should repeat the an-
swer he gave yesterday when a similar question was
put to him. If Sacchi was in readiness to be pro-
duced at the Bar, he had no objection to call
him iil, but if he was not there, he would rather
defer it till to-morrow, He complained of the
interruption he had met with in stating his rea-
sons to the House.

Viscount SIIMOUTII stated that a person was
sent yesterday to make inquiry after Sacchi at
his lodgings, where he was immediately fouud.
He understood that Sacchi was afterwards met
coming down to the House, when several
Members of the House accosted him, It told
him, that the House had adjourned till this day.

The LORD CUANCELLOK then asked if their
Lordships agreed that the questions should be
pat to the witness ? 11e himself concurred per-

fectly with the Lear ►ed Judges, and he would
therefore say nothing at all.
, Earl GREY declared his opinion to be that the
Judges .had decide.l nothing more than merely
the right of the Queen's Counsel to contradict
-what Sacciii had stated in evidence to the House.
lieltimseif did not intend to occupy their Lord-
ships' time in useless discnssion, or in the moot-
ing of questions which were unnecessary to be
put. He begged to observe, that there were two
grounds of another nature•--namely, th►e agency
of the Milan Commission, and the discrediting
of that witness for the corrupt practices attribut-
ed to him in suborning w►tnesses to come against
the Queen,—and on these grounds no answer had
been given by the 'Judges to the House. 11 is
own opinion was this, that the latter ground•was
sufficient to put the questions to him. There was
also such a connection to be traced between the
acts of Sacchi and the Milan Commission that the
question should be put.
The Earl of la,-kut.roor. contended, that there
was no'appF•arance to him of any evidenCe What-
ever. I* support of a general agency to warrant
the questions` being put. •
Loan .-t;RSKINE strongly insisted that the
age►►cy of Sacchi. was manifest, and therefore he
could not discharge his mind from the duty of
putting the question►s. Their Lordships ought to
receive the_ evidence still offered by the queen's
Counsel,' and he apprehended that they were jus
tified in asking the House to receive the evidence
against .2angla, notwithstanding the opinion of
the Learned Judges, for whom. he felt person:
ally the greatest respect, but from whose opi-
nion. he conscientiously differed. It ought
to be recollected that their•.. Lordships " were
not' sitting as a'Court of Law, for even .the Noble
„Earl opposite had admitted that adultery was in
this instance no crime by law. Every liberty
was taken in the case for the prosecution, but the
Queen's Counsel were in her defence to be bound
,down by laW4 'whereas they ought to be allowed
to give legal evidence respecting the suborna-
tion of perjury. .It. was material to put the
questions now from the length to which the'
House had gone. He would, make no specific
motion on the subject, hut would vote for put-
ting, the qnestions, if a division took place.
Lord DAR,NLE-y requested that the two last
questions put to.the witness yesterday might be
read.

This was done accordingly.
Lord MANNERS said that the Judges had told
their Lordships, that their opinion was equally
applicable to one ,side or the other. Suppose
now, that a conspiracy was alleged to have been
in existence to remove an, important witness, still,
if it could not be connected with either of the
illustrious personages who might be the objects
of it, it was evident that no injury could be prov-
ed or substantiated. Their Lordships never
could do justice if they adhered to the rules of
evidence on one side, and abandoned them on the
other side. •

After a few words from the Marquess of
T. ANSDOWN, the House divided on Lord Er-
skirie's motion for putting the questions—

Col.tents
,Ntin-C:otitetits
Majority against the ,Motion -108

We left the LORD CHANCELLOR Oil his legs,
addressing the House.

PR(CR 0
TIM DAY AT

STOCKS
ONT 0-CLOCK.

Bank Stock
4 per Cent, lied. Goli India Stock 02(i
3 pri ( ent.Cons..... 67i i$ Isrtlia Bonds ....-255. 3Us. pr.
:if per Cent. 7511* South Sea Stock 74i
4 per Cents
, oet,Ct. Navy Ann. iO3l 104 ()tumult] 2l dis.
I Bank Long Ann... 17a 7-IGtbs Cont. for Account

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE TO-MORROW.
Morning, 99 itiintitts after 1..1 Evening, s(i minutts after 1

THE SUN.

BOLEN QUIS ICERE FALSELY AUDEAT?

LONDON,
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 20, 18,20.

We have had no arrival of Paris Papers this

►morning.

We learn with deep regret that the moral cha-
racter of this Country has sunk very low in the
estimation of all the Continental States, but par-
ticularly in Italy, on account of the favourable
reception which attended THE QUEEN, under
the heavy charges which were brought against
her, before any trial had taken place, and since
evidence so apparently strong and irrefutable has
been heard during that trial. but tine inhuman
outrage committed on the witnesses against her,
on their arrival at Dover, and the infamous attacks
on them by the factious Press, because they were
foreigners, has still more contributed to degrade
the national character in the eyes of other Na-
tions. They were in, some measure inclined to
consider the favourable reception of THE QUEEN
as a tribute of respect to her sex and high rank,
the natural result of a humane and liberal spirit.
But the outrage on the witnesses, 'and the perse-
vering and shameless abuse of them, they could
not but view as the effects of the most rancorous
and brutal prejudice. Besides these causes of
the contempt and indignation felt towards us on
the Continent, the daring libels upon his MA-
JEsT Y, and the, infamous caricatures on his per-
son, which would most deservedly draw on their
flagitious autlnirs the heaviest punishments in every
other State in the civilized world, has increased
and confirmed their sense of our national degrada-
ti.;n. We really know not how to repel or palliate

These attacks upon out national character, parti
cularly as the daily libels of the Rebellious Press,
and the infamous caricatures i►► question are ex-
posed in shop-windows, -in various parts of the
metropolis, undermining the moral and religious
as well as the loyal principles of• innumerable
spectators every day, and yet are Suffered not only
to pass with impunity, but apparently with dis-
regard and indifference.