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

[Morning Chronicle.]

Small progress was made yesterday in examin-
ing evidence respecting the Conspiracy. Nearly'
the whole of the day was consumed in discussions
arising out of technical objections. It was stated
by Mioni, that he went with Zangla from Venice
to Milan ; that he accompanied him to Colonel
Browne's house, and that when Zangla camnt
down stairs he had his hand full (" a rarge_
hand") of Napoleons; but when a question was
put whether any offer was made by Zangla to
him, an objection was immediately taken, and it
was determined that before evidence as to his
suborning witnesses could be received, it was ne-
cessary to connect Zangla more closely With the
Conspiracy. Mr: Brougham was ready to prove
that Zangla had been employed in, suborning-
witnesses, but though no one. can suppose that
Zangla felt such a warm friendship for the Milan.
Commissioners as to be-himself at the expence
suborning witnesses for them; and though there
can be no doubt, either as to the source from
which he was supplied with the means of subor-
nation, or as to the object for which
,the money'
was given to him—as Mr. Brougham was unable
to connect him hi that near way with the Milan..
Commission which was deemed necessary, he.
was obliged to call another witness.—llere again
the same objection was- started. Domihico SalVa-r'
dore, a Professor of Italian and Latin, was pro.,
ceeding to lay open the conduct of the famous
Sacchi. This individual, it is proved, was em-
ployed to bring Dumont from Lausanne to Mi-
lan. To facilitate his agency, he had even a
credit at a Banker's at Lausanne. lie was em-
ployed also at various other places. But all this,
it was contended, was •not agency.

[New Times.]

The whole of yesterday was occupied in the
House of Lords by discussions on the admissibility
of evidence. We cannot but lament that so much
valuable time should be lost in the futile attempt
of her Majesty's Counsel to support their absurd
charge of a conspiracy by evidence as much beyond
the usual pale of law, as the chargelts,elf is beyond
the pale of reason. .As far as 'we can understand
the course they are pursuing it is that of fishing
for facts which their ingenuity may hereafter be
able to twist into a case of conspiracy. The regu-
lar way would be for them to state distinctly what.
they mean by conspiracy, who are the conspirators,
and on what facts they ground their charge. But
this straight forward proceeding .would not suit
them at all ; and the Lords (We speak it with
all possible deference) appear to us, in their
'great anxiety for giving her Majesty every just.
advantage, to place the Counsel for the Bill in
a disadvafttageous position, • It must be remem-
bered that they are the Counsel of the State. It
must be remembered that this is a Str.te proqeed-
ing, instituted and carried on for the protection
otj the dearest interests of the Nation, its morals
and its honour. , The Crown Officers attend
under the authority, and at the express direction
of the House ; and it is aggravating their very
painful and laborious duty, to hold the rules of
law strictly as , against :them, and relax those
'rules in favour, of their opponents.

LAW CdURTS.---dt will be recollected, that is
consequence of the preparations for the Corona-
tion; the Courts of Chancery and King's,l3ench,•
in Westminster llal.l, were removed to make•
room for. that ceremony ; and also that a Bill
wassubsequently introduced to enable the Judges,
of the Court of King'sdßench to hold Sit-
tings in other places than the " Great Chang,
tier in Westminster Hall." It is, however, now
ascertained that, although Sittings at Nisi Prit(g
may be held elsewhere, the actual business of
the Term must be transacted, by the terms of
the Charter, in some Chamber within the Hall.
Some new Court must, therefore, be erected ;•
and an order to that effect has .been issued ; it
cOnFequei be begun
.forthwith, that it ,
may be in readiness to receive the Judges on the
sixth of next month.

The tenants of the four houses in the Hayrnar.
ket opposite Charles-street, St:James's-square,
have received notice to quit immediately, pr..pa-
ratory to their being taken down for the ereciou
of the• new Simmer Theatre on the spot.

PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF LORDS-YESTERDAY.

TILE QUEEN'S DEFENCE.

[continuation of Yesterday's Proceedings.]

IMr. BROUGHAM said they wished shortly to
state the view with which they wished to put the
question they had proposed to ask.
Mr. WILLIAms stated that be had been about
to exiimine the witness as to the effect of the de-
clarations of -Zanga on himself. This was his
object, and inasmuch as it was impossible—for.
Ural() do that without putting the preliniinary
queition respecting what Zanga had said, he had
put .that question which had been objected to,
.and.successfully objected to, by the Attorney-
eneral. lie (Mr. Williams) was not then al-
lowvd to open what lie,intended to prove ; and
it was supposed. that he was about to inquire into
what Zanga had said respecting Colonel Brown,
a thing which had never once entered into his
dreams. What he proposed to prove was this,
that Zanga bad told the witness that if he would
depose to any thing against the Princess of Wales
his fortune would be made. To this the witness
replied, "'But how can I 'do that when I have
never seen her." Zanga Would them be shewn
to have siid," Oh! as to that, I can take you to
the Villad'Este and the Lake Como—l can point
out a spot where that you can swear you saw her
Royal Highness and Bergami embracing, and
that will be sufficient." The witness would then
state what had been done- in consequence; but
that which be would proVe was all between him-
self and Zanga, and had nothing to do with Col.
Brown.

The LORD CHANCELLOR now begged Mr. Wil-
liams to state the question he intended to put.
'Mr. WILLIAIui answered, that he could not
put the whole of his intended examination in one
question. He should ask the witness the ques-
tion he put yesterday, following it up by what
conceived necessary in explanation.
The LORD CHANCELLOR begged Mr. Williams
to state what that question was.
Mr. GURNEY, by the request of Mr. Williams,
read seyeral questions and answers, immediately
preceding the objection taken yesterday, the last
question being with reference to what passed be-
tween the witness and Zanga, and propounded
in these terms : " What did he say to you at
that time ?"

The Avr*RNEy-GENERAL.—Nomr, my Lords,
I object to that question. The argument this
morning does not carry my friend's position fur-
ther than his argument yesterday carried it. lie
opens his examination,upon the hypothesis of the
agency of Zanga. My objection remains the
same.

The LORD CHANCELLOR.—Let the witness
withdraw. .

The witness withdreW in pursuance of. the
command of the House.
TheArroaNwr-GiEntt.r. resumed. The agency
of Zanga is assumed, my Lords ; and then my
friend wishes to lay before the House declara-
tions as to his procuring and suborning witnesses.
I submit that these declarations cannot be re-
ceived ; because you have not fixed the man with
an agency. My Lords, the objection appears to
me to be so clear and well founded, that I shall
Clot argue it further, until I hear what answer
can be (liven to it (if any answer can b.e given to
it) on the other side. • Zanga must be called, and
must be shewn to be an agent, and eyen theacts
a an agent are not to bind his principal, unless
they be acts that come within the scope of his
agency. With all submission, therefore, my
Lords, I contend that the objection remains now
as unanswered as it was yesterday.
The SOLICITOR-GENERA-L said, he would, with
their Lordships' permission, add a few observa-
tions to those which had fallen from the Attor-
ney-G eneral. The manner in which he appre-
hended -it to have been stated by his Learned
Friend, Mr. Williams, that the evidence ought
to be admitted was,• that it was competent to'
them to prove, first, the existence of a conspi-
racy ; and next, that the individual allud-
ed to was a panty in that conspiracy. lie ad-
Mated, that if they could show that such a con-
spiracy ever did exist, and if they could also show
that individual -to have been a party to it, then
every act of his connected with the object of that
conspiracy would be evidente. But his Learned
Friends assumed the whole grounds of the case ;
they assumed that a conspiracy had been entered
into, tot—the, purpose of suborning witnesses to
give evidence against their client ; they assumed
that .Zanga was engaged in that conspiracy, and
they asked their Lordships, on the faith of these
assumptions, to let in a string of evidence, con-
cerning, that person's
,conluct. But he con-
tended it was necessary that these points
should be fullypriied before that evidence could
be let in. The Le.arned Gentleman then re-
ferred, in support of his argument, to'" Phillips's
Rules of Evidence," from which he read a long ex-
tract,. beginning at page 76,in one edition, and page
96 in the subsequent edition.—ln this it was laid
dawn, that before acts or declarations of a sup-
posed conspirator that were to affect other per-
sons charged with .being connected with the con-
spiracy could be received; it must be shown that
site]] acts and declarations were in furtherance
of some design that was common to all the par-
ties. All that he was desirous to do was to
produce a
:clear and distinct understanding of
this question among their Lordships ; and if his
Leatned Friends had convinced them that there,
had been such a conspiracy as they spoke of,
and that -Zanga was a party to it, he did not
stand. thereto to contend that this would not be
evidence.ut was there, in fact, before them
any 'evidence Which woitld, convirce any man
'whatever of the existence of such a conspiracy ?
And if there were no evidence of that kind, still
less did it appear that Zanga had been engaged
in it. For all that appeared on that point was
from the evidence of the last witness, that on
coming down stairs he had said something. Were

their Lordships on such grounds to take it that '
a conspiracy was proved ? Was that evidence
sufficient to induce them to fix upon any indivi-
dual a charge of so black a nature ? It was the
first time he had ever heard of a conspiracy being
so proved—it was the first time he had ever
known it attempted to maintain that this was
sufficient to justify the letting in of such evi-
dence as it was now sought tog lay before their
Lordships.
Mr. WILLIAMS had been interrupted yester-
day on a misconception of the grounds on which
he was . proceeding, and the Attorney-General
bad entered into a reply to arguments that had
never been used or thought of by him, and had
succeeded in preventing him from opening evi-
dence, which, if gone into, would have beaten
down tltat argurnent for it would have shown
that he was. carryinl the charge against Zanga
atfd not against Colonel Brown, who had never
entered his imagination. His Learned Friend
had been pursuing as strange a course of argu-
ment as he had ever heard proceed from a
Lawyer. He had been addressing their Lord-
ships on the effect of the evidence, which effect
could only be determined by hearing the evi-
dence itself. His Learned Friend had confound-.
ed, he would excuse him for so saying, two
things, which, as a Lawyer, he must have known
to be essentially different. He had confounded
the admissibility of evidence with 'the, 'effect of
evidence, when he should have known that the
admissibility of the evidence was the' first thing
to be decided, and that its effect was to be con-
sidered after it had been received. The con-
nection of the conspiracy with the Milan Com-
mission was not the question they had now to
grapple with. Whether that Commission was a
party to it—whether it was even aware of its
existence or not, he still contended that he had a
right to prove that there was a conspiracy.—Sup-
pose it had only resulted from the appetite for
gain having been exited in the Italians
by an idea of the lucrative nature of the
speculation, that persons, be they who they
might, had engaged themselves in suborning
witnesses ;, and that it was not at all within
the knowledge of the Milan Cemmissioners—
it would still be a conspiracy—the guilt would be
the same as to all the parties who were engaged

in it ; and its effect in this cause would be the
same, and, therefore, he contended he had a
right to prove it. But, said the Attorney-Gene-
ral, " Wily don't you call Zanga ?" What!
call him ? him, the very culprit whom they
charged with the crime—call him to prove it by
evidence of his own acts ! ' Could his Learned
Friends who argued thus have been studying
those very cases to which they had referred ?
They charged the guilt of this conspiracy against
Zanga—and had he been a person resident in
this Country, or within the range of its laws, or
the reach of its legal power, they would have
placed him at the Bar to answer that charge.
But it was really too much to suppose that, living
where he did, out of the reach of the vengeance
of our laws, that he would readily comply with
any invitation to come and place himself at their
Bar to give evidence of this conspiracy, when the
weight of the charge lay against himself. Such
a case would be quite new to him. But he hoped
the Attorney-General, in his reply, would show
the rule of law he had newly discoverea., by Which
the crime charged against any person was to be
proved by the evidence of the individual himself.
In all the State trials and prosecutions of a simi-
lar nature, evidence was always gone into the
general state of the Country, and of a variety of
acts of various persons in different parts, in order
to prove a conspiracy ; whether any connection
existed between that conspiracy and the per-
son charged, appeared afterwards. And unless
this practice, and the rule laid down by the
Judges, on which it was founded, were proved
to be erroneous, he contended this evidence
must be admitted.
Mr. BROUGHAM said he would be brief in the
comment he had to make upon the plain state-
ment of the argument by his friend Mr. Williams,
not to waste their Lordships' time. What they
now sought was to implicate Zanga. To con-
nect this evidence with Colonel Brown, or with
the Milan Commission, was not HOW their object;
whatever it might hereafter become. But it did
not follow that because they did not seek to fix
the conspiracy upon them, that they were to be
precluded from fixing it upon another person. If
they could show that any person had done any
act affecting the proceedings in this case, Such as
abstracting or tampering with the witnesses for
the defence, or bribing or suborning, or attempt-
ing to bribe or suborn witnesses to give evidence
in support of the Bill, he cared not what his name
might be, he contended that they had a right to
give evidence of that act. If he could prove that
Zanga had made the offer and the declaration im-
puted to him, he did contend that he had a
right so to do. And the only way to shut him
out from proving it, the only way to keep out
this, evidence, was by declaring, that even ad-
mitting it to be proved, it was totally irrelevant
to this case, and could not at all affect the
issue now before them. You (the Learned
Gentleman continued) must be prepared to say
that, or otherwise you cannot shut out this evi-
dence. And I ask, can any man so say ? li put it
to any indiyidual--the Judges—l mean those
Noble persons who are to decide this question.
Let any man ask himself this question, whether
lie would not pause the more before passing this
Bill, after I shall have proved this tale, which you
have only heard in statements, than if he had
never had it brought to his knowledge. What is
it •I am offering ? I am offering proof of a man
who is making himself an agent—l care not what
Brown is, or who are his employers; I may here-
after fix him with that also, but I begin with the
proof of what Zanga did ; and I say, even if I
am never able to bring it home, I ask, if any
man would not pause the more after what I fix
on Zanga ? What is 'said to have been done ?
" Swear you against the Princess of Wales,
and you shall have a reward." Says the man,
64 I cannot swear, I never saw her, I know no-
thing against her, I never was at her place of

abode." Says Zanga, " What signifies that, I
will supply you with that knowledge. I will
take you to the place of her abode, where all the
witnesses have been., and she is said to go on
this promenade with Bergami as well as 'with
other men and women ; all von have to do is to
say what I shall tell youz.and you shall have
these Napoleons—come to ma and fix a dace,
for it is true she was there at a certain time, and

all you have to do is to add, (and which I admit
is not trtie, but it is what you have to say) that
you saw Bergami salute her Royal Highness—kiss
her." Suppose I prove this, and in order to shew
that I have a right to prove it, you must assume
I can prove- it. You must be prepared to say

Lat it will not better the Queen's defence and

not damage the prosecution. Is it not monstrous?
Can any man doubt that it will make a differ-
ence in the case Can any man lay his hand
upon his 'heart and says according to his con-
science, and upon his honour, and giving his vote
-for or against the Bill which is to ruin this
Queen, that the having proved such a story as
I have now stated would not make the slightest

difference in his judgment—the slightest dif-
ference in the issue now before you ? I
say I go a great way if I can prove that
means have been taken to bring perjured wit-
nesses before you. My Lords, it is said we must
assume the possibility of a conspiracy on both
sides ; and it is said, may not all this have been
got up in order for me to raise this objection.—
This proceeds from the effect of the evidence,
and the question of its competency or incompe-
tency. But, my Lords, I pray you to dismiss
such suspicions from your minds, and I will put
one question, which, if I do not greatly deceive
myself, will have the effect of allaying it. Ido
not deny the possibility of conspiracy on the part
of the Queen ; I have no doubt but that in a le-
gal argument you must admit the possibility, and
that it will weigh a little in the scale in dealing
in a point of law. Do your Lordships think it
very likely, so likely as to make it worth consi-
dering in the Course of this legislative proceeding
—do you think it likely that the Queen, inMarch,
181g,before she was put upon her trial,aud when
'there was no chance she would be put on her trial,
and before the Milan Commission had proceeded
one step, that she should has e been so provident,
so astute to discover a defence against charges,

which, for any thing she knew, might never be
made, so very circumspect, so extremely provi-
dent, that she should foresee that in July,lB2o,
proceedings were to be instituted against her ?
The ATORNEY-GENERAL saw no difference
between the lifie of argument now taken by the

Learned Counsel for her Majesty, and that which
they had yesterday pursued. The course of ex-
amination which they proposed was wholly inad-
missible, unless they proved to demonstration that
Zanga had been employed as an agent, or had
acted under the agents, for this Bill. The
House had hitherto acted upon the principles

which governed the Courts below, and he trusted
their regard for consistency would induce them
not to depart from those principles. If the testi-
mony respecting the declarations of Zanga, who
was in no respect proved to be connected with
the agents for this Bill, were admitted, then had
he and his Learned Friends, who were called
upon to support the Bill, a right to call in to
their aid, all the rumours and reports which had
been circulated respecting the Illustrious Defend-
ant on this occasion.

Lord DONOUGIIMORE argued against putting

the question. lie said, if stich evidence was
ad-
mitted, the evidence of any person who might
come and say he was told by another person that
a conspiracy had existed, must be received. For
four or five days the ears of their Lordships had
been filled with the charge of conspiracy; the
charge had been sent forth all over the Country,
and now their Lordships were called to believe
its existence without the least proof of it, ex-
cept from the evidence of persons who knew no-
thing of it of their own knowledge. If the evidence
of this man was received, any man might be called
from Milan to swear that he heard so and so, and
every thing he heard, and every thing that was
said, must be admitted as evidence to prove the
innocence of the Illustrious Accused. Was it to
be said, because some of the agents had
acted improperly, perhaps corruptly, that a con-
spiracy existed between the whole of the persons
employed in the prosecution ? Was it to be said,
because some overstrained zeal had caused some
of the agents to go beyond that line of conduct
which they ought to have observed, that the
whole of the evidence brought against the accus-
ed was completely false, and ought to be wholly
repudiated ? He was determined that his atten-
tion should not be called, by cries of conspiracy,
from the real question :—viz. the guilt or inno-
cence of the accused. He knew the object of
such a course as that which had been continued
for some clays. The defenders of the accused
say, we have only to charge a conspiracy and the
whole case will be destroyed ; but they were
mistaken, for lie was determined to proceed in
that course by which the•guilt or innocence of
the accused would be substantiated.
Lord ERSKINE observed, that the whole ques-
tion immediately before the Ilous6 was this—
Whether the case in dispute came under that de-
scription of case stated in the opinion of the.
Learned Judges, as competent for a defendant to

prove,
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that' the ad-
missiost of such evidence as that offered by the
Counsel for her Majesty, would constitute one of
the most novel proceedings ever known in a
Court of Justice. If admitted, there might be
no end to such evidence ; every man in Italy
might be called as a witness. In the opening
of this case, it was strongly intimated, that the
Illustrious 'Person that is now accused, had found
means of sending out of her family all the En-
glish persons of distinction, and introduced not
only Bergami, but several of) his family ; and
this for the purpose of carrying on the practices
that have been,Alledged. Lord Llandaff and se-
veral others had been examined on the part of
her Majesty, and they had stated the reasons of
quitting her service on grounds quite unmated-

ed with any intention of her Majesty. It was
stated that Bergami mentioned that was the cause
of their leaving her service ; what would their
Lordships say, if evidence was offered to pr°'!,
this conversation ? The interests of justice
if
be protected by acting on general rules, and
their Lordships were to depart so.faa.from every'
I"iitown rule of law, as ttiadmit the 'evideirce ni4
tendered, there would ,be an end to all those,
great protections which were the safeguard 01.
every interest, public and private.
Lord REDESDALE followed on the same side.
Lord Gnix understood -that 'the House had
decided yesterday that evidence
.of a conspiracf
might be admitted ; and he. thought the questioo
now before the House was, whether the evidence
now proposed was objecth.nable evidence ? anti
he must say that his opinion was that this el'
deuce should not be received. This opinion he
formed, although he could not conceive that the
supposed case of the Noble Lord at the table had
any analogy to the case before them. In orde,r
to prove a conspiracy, it was necessary that solve
persons had been connected together in forming
this conspiracy. Now they had evidence before
them, that with respect to the alleged conspiracy
in that case, and whether truly alleged or not be
would not then stop to inquire, that Rastelliaotl
Riganti had been connected, and that Vimicarti
and Colonel Brown had been employed, but be
could not see how it had been proved this
Zangla had been connected. The sole proorl
support of this assertion yvas,that Zaugla came 03s
of the house of Colonel Brown with the 'wane;
at the bar. For his own satisfaction he wish".
to state his reasons for thinking that this (Ines-
(ion should not be put.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that it appeared
to be the sense of. the House that the questic4
should not be put.
No dissent being expressed, Counsel were red
called, and
The LORD CHANCELLOR stated, that he had' t
in command from the House to inform them that
the question could not be put.
The Witness, ANTONIO MAJONT, was now recalled
to the Bar, and examined by Mr. W ILLIAms•
Q. You stated yesterday, that you went wit'
Zanga from Venice to Milan :—A. I did.
Did you return with Zanga to Venice ?--Y e 4;
How many days were you at Mi lan ?—T wo daYs'
What is the distance from Milan to Venice
One hundred and eighty-five miles.
Did you pay your own expences, or did Of
one pay them for you did not pay even 03e
hundredth part of a livre ; Zaugla paid t"
whole.
Had you any business of your own at Mila°-
-No.
Had Zangla any, as a Stage Manager or other"
wise ?—None; he Went only for this object.
What do you mean by this object ?
be
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to - t
question. +eti
Mr. BROUGHAM said, that they only waok-to
to know whatthe witness meant by certain word,
he had used. Ile had never-before heard sti
an explanation objected to.
The LORD CHANCELLOP. said, that peril
the question could be put to a shape which NW'
leave no room for objection.
Mr. WILIJAMS said, he would endeavour t°
do so.
To the Witness.—Did you see Zangla 3131,
thing else than go to the Porto Orientate and ti's
Rue Gabello ?—He went also to look after a
person of the name of Irnberti, a sc4-t of sec°

Manager of the Theatre.
You told us, yesterday, you saw Zangla
CO
down stairs from Colonel Brown with a noilic
u
of Napoleons in his hand ?—Yes, I did.
At that time, did he make you any offer ? toe
question; ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to toe
it was to the very same purpos,e4
that which their Lordships had just deg'
should not be put.
Mr. WILLIAMs.—It is a question as to a fitGts