Star.
London, England, 1820-10-10 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS.

This morning, at five minutes before ten o'clock, the Loan
CHANCIII.I.OI. took his seat on the Woolsack. Prayers were read
by the Bishop of Datum., and the list of Peers was called over
in the usual manner, and some excused on account of indis-
position,
Earl GROSVENOR rose to call the attention of their Lord.
ships to a subject which he conceived of considerable import-
, ance. Their Lordships had, in an early stage of these proceed-
ings, declared that nothing in the rules or privileges of this
House ought to prevent the prosecution of a witness who might
have committed perjury. But as, notwithstanding this declara-
tion, there appeared some doubts on the subject, he thought it
due to tee honour and dignity ef the House that those doubts
should be removed, that no diliculties might be thrown in the
way of prosecuting for perjury, and that, for this purpose a short
Act of Parliament should be made as speedily as possible.
'The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that, in the present stage
of the proceedings, this address of the Noble Lord was the most
extraordinary he ever heard in that House. When the Counsel
for the Queen stated that he would prosecute one of the wit-
nesses for perjury, he went too far. It was not for their Lord-
ships to contemplate cases of perjury, nor to offer an opinion as
to the perjury of any witness until the proceedings were finished.
An address to the House imputing perjury to a witness who
might hereafter be proved not to have perjured himself, was
highly improper.
Earl GROSVENOR explained. The Noble and Learned
Lord had spoken u if this was the first time the subject had
been mentioned in the House. This, however, was not the
case ; and as it had been acknowledged in the commencement of
these proceedings, that the House should have the power of di-
recting prosecutions for perjury, no impediment ought to be
thrown in the way of such prosecution.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was still of opinion, that it
was highly improper any Noble Lord should impute perjury to
a particular witness, before the proceedings were concluded.
The Earl of ESSEX thought the best way of proceeding
would be by an Act of Parliament, to remove all difficulties as
proposed by his Noble Friend.
Earl of LIVERPOOL agreed in the observation of the
Lord Chancellor.

Mt CATULTINITOX.
Lord MELVILLE rose and said; from some circumstances
which had occurred, with which he would not trouble their
Lordships, be thought it desirable that William Carrington, one

,f the Witnesses examined In behalf of the ureic on t former
shy, should be again called before their Lordships, in order that
certain further questions should be put tb him.
Earl GREY suggested that it would be a more convenient
course, that the cause should be gone through before any new
questions should be asked of a witness already examined before
their Lordships.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, it was a question for their
Lordships to decide, whether it might be better to call the wit-
ness now, or to wait until the conclusion of the evidence for the
Queen, and then call him previous to the summing up.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE was not aware what was the
Nature of the questions to be put to the witness; but he thought
it was for the Noble Lord who had these questions to propose,
to say whether he would put them now, or at any future time.
The Earl of DONOUG Il MORE was of opinion that if the
questions of the Noble Lord were necessary for the information
of the Court, the sooner their Lordships were in possession of
that information the better.
Lord \l ELVILLE deemed it highly expedient that the wit-
ness Carrington should be examined with as little delay as
po,,ilik. The Noble Lord then moved, that Wm. Carrington
be celled to the bar of the House and examined. Agreed to.
OA:nod m ere called in at twenty-five minutes before eleven.
Lieutenant FLYNN then appeared at the bar.
Cross-eraMittatiou resttmet: by thc SOLICITOK•GENERAL.
Did you make the memorandum to which you referred yes-
terday, on stem or on board the vessel 2—On board the vessel.
clad you been on board an Italian vessel a short tame before?
—I don't remember.
At the time, I mean, when you made the memorandum?—/
do not remember.
Of what country was the vessel ?—ln English vessel.
What was its name?—Tare Lion.
Let me look at the memorandum in your hand?
The witness handed over the memorandum to the Solicitor-
General.
You have told us you were in command of the poiacca : who
navigated it ?—I did.
Who gave the orders to the sailors ?—Generally the Captain,
hut these orders came from me.
Did yon do more than direct the Captain to what place he
was to go ?—I did not particularly direct him to go to any place.
I only gave him orders to execute the duties belonging to the ship.
Did the Captain execute those duties which a Captain of a ship
ordinarily does by giving orders to his crew ?—Yes.
liad he the whole management of the ship ?—No, because the
management was given to my charge by her Royal Highness.
Did you give orders to the seamen about the navigation of
tee vessel ?—The matagement of the ship and manoeuvring are
direrent things.
Do you mean to say that you gave any orders for the navi-
rtiea of the vessel?
Mr. DENMAN objected to the form of this question; and, after
some conversation, it was changed to the following :
What do you mean by saying you navigated the ship ?—I
mean that I did so by directing the course it was to steer, and
giving orders to the crew occasionally. _
Did you occasionally give orders to the seamen respecting the
maigation of the vessel?—Navigating the ship, includes ma-
Lcervring the ship, the sails, navigation also.
Did you give directions as to the management ?—Sometimes

I did, and sometimes not.
Were they generally given by Garciulo, the Captain ?—The
Captain was sometimes not on deck, and lhad occasion to do it
Li) s. If.
Was it only when he was not on deck, that you gave direc-
Cita o••••Soinetimes also when he was on deck ; but generally,
t..e directions as to the working of the ship we're given more by
Garcia° than by myself.
In what language do you usually write ?—I write both in
Julian and English. . _ .

That Sir, is no answer to the question I ask you.
Do you usually write in the one or the other ?—ln English
generally.
11as the account which you kept on board the vessel in Ita-
haa or Euzlish ?—lt was in Italian.
Was it kept by yourself?—No, by the clerk.
• you mean that account whic,h you referred to yesterday,
fr.oni which your memorandum was extracted ?—Yes, it was
kept by my clerk.
Wds that clerk an Italian or an Englishman ?—I don't know
• whzt he was.

How long was he on board the vesselN--Several months.
diaul I am to understand that the journal from which the me-
morandum was extracted was in Italian?-I%e log-bout was
in Italian.

WAS it from the log-book that the
—Yes.

was taken?

By whom was the log kept?—By myself; it was a private
memorandum.

Was the log-book a private memorandum for your own use.?
—Yes • it wrs not exactly the log of a ship, it was a memo-
randum for my own private purposes.
Was it kept by yourself or the Clerk?—lt was kept and di-
rected by myself, sometimes in my own hand, and sometimes in
the clerk's.

You mean the clerk you have just alluded to?—Yes.
Was he on board the vessel during the whole voyage?—Yes.
Was he an Italian or an Englishman?—He was an Italian.

Did you not tell me, a minute ago, that, you did not know
what he was?—l believe he was an Italian or Sicilian.

I ask you, if you did not say just now that you did not know
*kat he was?—(After a pause)—l do not know what lie was.
He might be an Italian or Sicilian.
Was the part of the lug you wrote in Italian?—The part I
wrote was in English.
Did you not tell me just now that the log was written in
Italian?—Yes.

And you now mean to say that it was partly in Italian and
rirtly in English 7—Partly both.
[Here Mr. Imam, who for some time previous appeared to
to labouring under indisposition and wandering of mind, sunk
down at the bar, as if in a faint. Mr. DIICIAN requested that
thdr Lordships would permit the witness to withdraw for a
f,sr minutes. He was supported out by Mr. VlZ►an. The
ind,knt excited a great sensation in the House].

In a-short time Mr. FLYNN returned, and the cress-examina-
tion was immediately resumed.
The account alluded to upon a former occasion was, he said,
written by a dui named Pzscuelli, a servant of his.
!.ow, you told us before that Pascuelli was not a servant of
your';, and now you say that he was. Which of those stories do
)0a mean to adhere to ?—I mean to adhere that he acted as both.
Do you mean by that, that he was and he was not your ser-
Tart ?-11e was my servant as to taking down my cot, and
raking my bed, and attending to my private affairs He was
not kept as my clerk, but as a sailor on board the ship.
Then he waited upon you as your servant?—He was a sailor,
a he acted as my servant.
Now having kept the log-book ycarself, and having employed
hint to keep it also, which of you kept the most ?—lt is impos-
si to say ; I think I did myself, but Ido not recollect ; I
cue b: mistaken. _ _

Then most of that which was kept by you was kept in Eng-
-1•511?—Some in English, and some in Italian.
Did you not tell us before, that the part kept by you was
tept in English?—lf I did, it was when I was ill, and did not
know what I said.

was the greater proportion; to the best of your recollection,
in Italian or in English ?—I do not recollect, but I believe the
greater proportion was In English ; they might be both the same.
The SOLILITOR-GENIZAL then shewed a paper, and asked
whether that paper did not commence with the departure of the
queen from Messina?—No; it commence. with December, the
y her Majesty arrived at Messina.
When did she set out from Messina?—On the 6th of January.
Mr. 13itoncilax said the conduct adopted on such occasions
was to give the witness the memorandum to assist his recollec-
tion. Now the Solicitor-General retained it.
The Sotscrroit-Grszast said, the charge was without foun-
dation. Ile bad requested to look at the memorandum—to that
he was entitled—aud he was also entitled to cross-examine
trout it.
Mr. BROUGHAM said their Lordships had decided in another
way some time ago.
Tie SosiCl7oll-GENZZAL said the two cases were totally dis-
similar.
Th: LORD CHANCELLOR said, the rule laid down was,
that the paper should be in the sight both of Counsel and witness.
Mr. DEsmsN said, the Solicitor-General had violated the
tole, and taken away the paper.
Lord LAUDERDALE said, part of the memorandum was
written by Mins( If, and part by his clerk, and that witness had
ne_rolaht to sue that which had been written by the Berk.
The Marquis of LA NSDOW N said, that as it was not a re-
ror log-hook, but a private memorandum, the witting had a
tit* to keep it to himself.

The witness had at this time the illenusanduts in by poseesofins.
The Soucrroa-Ginaux..—/ ash you toprodneo the rem
Mr. Daum.—l advise the witness not to prodooe it
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, it mut be placed in the
eye of both Counsel.
The memorandum. was then placed before 'Counsel, and
The SOLlcrroß-thutiaAL then examined witness u to the
items and the language in which they were written. Whom
said they were written in Italian.
Now, look at that paper, and say whether there is a single
entry in the English language?—No.
Does it come down to the return to Messina?—Yib.

Look at that paper (producing another paper), and tell me,
can you swear kis your hand-writing ?—N, cannot swear it is.
Whose hand-writing is that paper ?—lt is the Clerk Pascuelll's.
Was not Pascnelli confectioner to her Royal Highness ?—Not
that Pascuelli I mean. Not the one who was on board the
potaeca.

t.