The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-10-13 00:00:00

THE QUEEN. •

!SOUSE OF LORDC—(Tnts Ifoixims.) •

After the tunal ceremony the Peers were called over.
There were but very few excuses ; and the only de-
faulter WAS Viscount Anson.
counsel were then called in ; but before their Lord-
.hips proceeded to serious business, another e °over-
utio, took place as to whether the windows should he
„mod or not : and this important question gave rise
wrerAl jokes. After some propos:Ds from two or
tame Noble Lords,
nu Earl of LIVSRPOOL rose and proposed that the
fulloors on one side should be opened, and that those
i the other side should remain shut. lie would pro-
p that the windows on the south side should be
oreed.--(Hear, hear, hear !)
The Loan to ‘Nt•eu.ort then ordered that the
°Geer of the House should open the windows on the
smth side. "Tint's there." said a Noble Lord, paint-
his to a place where there were no windows at all;. and
their Lordships' then discovered that there were no win-
doers es the south side of the Mouse. The laughter
arising from this discovery was interrupted by the
Lata Chancellor; who suggested that, in consideration
of tin way the wind blew, the side upon his left
ssoulJ he considered the south side. This was agreed
I,: sad tl sir Lordships' order to open the windows on
the sulth side, was complied with by opening those
oo the.west.
OARIOLINI was then ealled in, and his
rumination was resumed by Mr. WILLIAMS.

yea said restenlay that you were employed at the
Villa d 1 n.
Were you paid as you went on, or was a Lill contract-
er:—Before her Royal highness set out on her long
joitarf, I was paid every week ; after ber departure a
rantract was entered into for PAM livres. I continued
ti work tinder the direction of the architect ; the work
was afterwards increased as to extent, and the price at
last amounted to 140,11011 lirres.
pill von see Rastelli while that money was owing to
run'-Yes.
Did he useak to you abont it ?—fle did. lie asked
use what ;1.13 my detailed told him there were
4.0011 limes still due.
Did be then say any thing as to the manner of your
being paid ?-11e.tlid.
What di,: lie say?
Here the Sow' ron-ticsFRAL FORP to object. A con-
rersatioo between the witness and Itastelli he conteaded
was not eitlence. _

'I he Loan CHANCELLOR was of opinion, that as Ttas-
telli had, in his examination, denied that he offered any
person angry to came upon this trial, any question
to his contradiction was admissible.
Did lta.telli offer you any money ?---He said that if
mr scream had nut been liquidated, to give it to him,
and he would see that it should be paid.
What did he say the witness,' was to do for that ?--
to!cl me to Ore my account to him, for there were
Cnclisinnen at Milan, and he would see tue paid.
Did he say what the witness was to do in order to get
it paid ?-11e told me that if 1 had any thing to say
ataiist her Royal Highsete, to tell it to him, and be
would endeavour to et me paid
Now, at that same time, or at any other, had he any
brim conversation with Hastelli, as to what he was to
do?

The Sotactcon Gitmts tt. objected to the putting this
Vestinn, a+ it referred to n co ...... tion.

Mr. Witt t %ma Mated, that the object of examining
t e witien on this point was to shew that Rastelli war
an agent, and a ♦ery active agent of the Milan Com-
munion ; and he (Mr. W.) apprehended, that even by
the ordinary rules of evidence, he was entitled to Jahn,
this course ; f ,r, if he pr0...0l that Rastelli was the agree
he described him to be, he established a contradiction
to his testimony. Their Lordships, in pages 226, 234,
of the printed evidence would find that he (Kastelli)
stated himself to be nothing but the courier. They
would also find several facts relative to his sending pee-
s ms to, or taking them with him, to Milan. to be ex.-
mined, b}• which the collection of witnesses was corn-
pletely hringlit h.-une to Rastelli. He admitted that, in I
point of law, it was necessary to establish the fart of
spicy against the principal ; hut in the Collets
b-kw, there were always responsible parties on both
sides. There WaS always au ostensible plaintiff and I
drfentlant, against whom the acts of agents could he
made chargeable. The legal analog•, of necessity,
failed in this ease, because, on one side, at least, there
Sits uo ostensible parry ; and if the usual ground were
arted upon, they must he excluded. Hut their Lord-
ships would then proceed on narrow and unsatisfactory
ground, if they decided that because there was only one,
party, the proceedings of an agent collecting witnesses
in Italy against that ostensible party, should nut be rim
received its evidence. When their Lordships Caine is
consider what credit was due to the conflicting evi-
dence on both sides, the fact of that evidence coming
before their Lordships, whether voluntary or forced,
or Wired, would surely be a matter for their consi-
deration. It was one matter of complaint to het
Majesty, that there was no ostensible prosecutee
against her; and it would be another, if this gross
injury were done her, of rejecting this evidence.
Mr. lieoursuass followed.
Mr. W 11.1.1.018. He had only to remind • their
Lordships of what his Learned Friend had stated to
them, tie necessity of establishing a contradiction of
evidence ; and in proving the agency of Rastelli, he
would shetr, that that witness had sworn falsely. lie
allowed that they would not be proceeding so com-
pletely in accordance with the rules of the Courts
below on this point. But their Lordships %lust con-
tinue to bear in *lliad, that this case would by no
means bear a strict analogy s.itb the ordinary cases
in Hiegel:us:ls. If they bad had timely warning of
the witnesses who were to come against them, they
would bare been ready to put questions to this man,
itastelli, his answers to which would be in direct
contradiction to what they could prove. Hut
not knowing that he was coming, Low could
they be ready with the names of persons whom
they meant afterwards to peculate against him.
But eves the sort of contradiction they bad esta-
blished, could not be rejected in the Courts
below. The}• contended, on theit side, that be had de-
nied agency, negatived active agency, hot let tat
enough to contradict himself. Dot if they were de-
tested. on the more of tits analogy, net standing
beware this rasa and the cases of the Courts below,
Ks still unthrialsod that the ends et tabttintiat jai**
lalossisasig:slematriati& they ties Milan Centatiaties
Amid tie recognised as one party in this proceediNg.

....'

dP4S,;