Preamble

HL Deb 18 October 1820 vol 3 cc806-42

The order of the day being read for the further consideration and second reading of the Bill, intituled "An Act to deprive Her Majesty Caroline Amelia Elizabeth of the Title, Prerogatives, Rights, Privileges, and Exemptions of Queen Consort of this Realm, and to dissolve the Marriage between His Majesty and the said Caroline Amelia Elizabeth;" and for hearing Counsel for and against the same;

The Counsel were accordingly called in.

Then Lord Chief Justice Abbott stated, that the learned Judges had conferred upon the questions referred to them by their lordships, but that some doubt being entertained as to the point intended to be proposed by the third Question, he took the liberty of suggesting whether their lordships would be pleased to give some explanation of that question.

Then, by leave of the House, the said Question was withdrawn; and the following Question was proposed for the consideration of the Judges: Supposing that, according to the rules of law, evidence of a conspiracy against a defendant for any indictable offence ought not to be admitted to convict or criminate him, unless as it may apply to himself or to an agent employed by him, may not general evidence, nevertheless, of the existence of the conspiracy charged upon the record, be received in the first instance, though it cannot affect such defendant unless brought home to him, or to an agent employed by him; and whether the same rule would apply if a defendant sought by such general evidence, in the first instance, to affect the prosecutor with a conspiracy to suborn witnesses for the destruction of his defence. The Question was delivered to the lord chief justice, and the learned Judges requesting leave to withdraw, leave was granted accordingly.

Lord Kenyon

stated, that Mr. Granville Sharpe, who had given evidence respecting the performance of the Moorish dance at Calcutta, wished to make a correction in a part of his evidence. He had, since he appeared at the bar, seen a letter or written document, which raised a doubt in his mind, as to whether the bishop of Calcutta was present at the exhibition of the dance. Mr. Sharpe was in attendance, and might now be called, if their lordships pleased to hear his explanation.

Then Granville Sharps, esq. was again called in, and further examined by the Lords, as follows:

Lord Chancellor.

—It has been stated to the House that yon are desirous of making some correction in your evidence, with respect to a person or persons stated to have been present at a dance at Calcutta, is that so? It is.

Be so good as to state what the correction is? In the evidence I lately gave before your lordships, I stated that the bishop of Calcutta was present at an Eastern dance; since that time I have seen a private memorandum, made by a person who was present upon that occasion, made about the time, which leads mc to believe that the bishop himself was not present, though it confirms oilier parts of my statement.

Have you any reason to suppose, that you made any mistake with respect to the other persons stated to be present on that occasion? I have no reason to doubt, in fact it is confirmed by the memorandum, that the other persons were present.

Lord Kenyon.

—Are you correct in your recollection, and are you now of opinion that the bishop was not present? My memory is strongly impressed that the bishop was present, but I consider the written document more to be depended upon than my memory.

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

The Lord Chancellor

did not exactly see how far it was material that the bishop should appear present or not at the dance. The former question and answer might therefore, stand or be expunged, just as their lordships pleased. It was certainly very commendable in the witness if he had scruples respecting any part of his former testimony to come forward and state those scruples to the House.

Mr. Brougham

requested permission to put in two letters, one of his late majesty, arid the other of his present majesty, both of which he had stated in opening the Defence of her majesty, and requested that the earl of Liverpool might look at them to identify the hand-writing. The earl of Liverpool was accordingly sworn at the table by the lord chancellor; but Mr. Solicitor General expressing his willingness to admit the hand-writing of the said letters respectively,

The said letters were marked by the clerk assistant. [For copies of them, see page 207, and 208, of the present volume.]

Then Samuel Inman was called in, and having been sworn, produced a paper, and was examined as follows by their lordships:

Lord Chancellor.

—What paper have you got there? A certificate of the servitude of William Carrington in his majesty's navy.

Are the entries taken from the original books? I have extracted this from the books of his majesty's ships therein specified.

Those are faithful extracts? These are faithful extracts from those books, made by myself; I have the books here from which this is taken.

The Solicitor General of the Queen, having seen the paper, stated that it did not occur to him to put any questions upon it.

The same was delivered in.

After a short time, the learned Judges being returned; the Lord Chief Justice of the King's-bench, delivered the unanimous opinion of the Judges upon the first and second Questions, severally in the negative; and gave his Reasons as follows:

Lord Chief Justice Abbott.

—My lords, the Judges conferred together for some time yesterday, upon the questions proposed to them by your lordships; and afterwards separated in order to, consider them apart, and met again early this morning, and again conferred together upon them. All of us then agreed in the answers to be given to the questions proposed to us, and I having read to my learned brothers the writing which I had prepared as containing my own sentiments and answer, it was found that they concurred therein; and I have their authority, with your lordships permission, to deliver what I had written (which your lordships will observe is in the singular number, being originally prepared as my own alone), as containing and expressing their sentiments also.

My lords, the first question proposed by your lordships is in these words: "If, in the trial of an indictment for a capital offence, or any crime, evidence had been given upon a Cross-examination of witnesses, examined in chief in support thereof, from which it appeared that A. B., not examined as a witness had been employed by the party preferring the indictment as an agent to procure and examine evidence and witnesses in support of the indictment, and the party indicted should propose, in the course of the defence, to examine C. D. as a witness to prove, that A. B. had offered a bribe to E. F. in order to induce him to give testimony touching the matter in the indictment, E. F. not being a witness examined in support of the indictment, or examined before it was so proposed to examine C. D., would the courts below, according to their usage and practice, allow C. D. to he examined for the purpose aforesaid, or could such witness, according to law, he so examined, if the counsel employed in support of the prosecution objected to such examination."

My lords, the question thus proposed by your lordships to the Judges must be admitted by all persons to be a question of great importance, as it regards the administration of justice; and it is to me a question entirely new, and of very difficult solution. I have considered it with all the attention due to a question proposed by your lordships, and with an anxiety proportioned to the importance of the question itself; and it is not without much diffidence that I now offer to your lordships the result of my deliberation. Your lordships will allow me here to interpose an observation, and to say, that the diffidence I felt at the moment of writing has been considerably decreased by the knowledge I now have, that my opinion and sentiments have received the concurrence of my learned brothers.

The question must, as it appears to me, be considered in the same mode, and must receive the same answer as if the parties were reversed, as if, instead of proof offered on the behalf of a defendant respecting the act of an agent employed by the prosecutor, it were proof offered in reply on the part of the prosecutor, respecting the conduct of an agent employed by the accused to procure and examine evidence and witnesses in support of his defence. If such proof can be received on the part of a defendant, it must be received on the ground that it may lead to a legitimate influence and conclusion, that the witnesses examined against him, although not appearing to have been called before the court by any undue means, are nevertheless, on this ground, extraneous and foreign to them, not to be considered as the witnesses of truth. And if such an inference and conclusion can be reasonably and legitimately drawn in favour of a defendant, in the case proposed by your lordships, I am unable to discover any principle upon which I may say that the like conclusion may not he, with equal reason, drawn against him in the analogous case, that I have taken the liberty to suggest; so that proof of this nature, if admissible, must be expected to lead as frequently to the condemnation of an innocent man by casting discredit upon his defence, as to the acquittal of such a person by disgracing the prosecution; and this consideration enables me to contemplate the question proposed with more calmness than I should be able to view a question, of which the determination might possibly, by the exclusion of his evidence lead to the condemnation of an innocent person, but could in no case produce the same consequence by the exclusion of evidence against him.

The question proposed by your lordships, regards the act of "a person employed by the party preferring an indictment as an agent, to procure and examine evidence and witnesses in support of the indictment;" and it regards the act of that agent, addressed to a person not examined as a witness in support of the indictment, and the offered proof not apparently connecting itself with any particular matter deposed by the witnesses who have been examined in support of the indictment, and leaving therefore those witnesses unaffected by the proposed proof, otherwise than by way of inference and conclusion; and this question may be considered as it regards the prosecutor or party preferring the indictment, and as it regards the witnesses.

The prosecutor has by the hypothesis employed a person as an agent to procure and examine evidence and witnesses. This is a lawful employment, necessary in many cases, in some meritorious, in none disgraceful or improper, if we look either to the employer or to the person employed; and being a lawful employment it is to be presumed until the contrary be shown, that the employer means and intends that his agent shall execute it by lawful means; and as, according to the general rules and principles of law, a person is not to be affected in interest or fame by any act of another, although that other may have been in his employment or confidence as an agent or otherwise, excepting such acts only as either are in their own nature or may by extrinsic evidence be shown to be within the scope of the authority given by him, and which may therefore be considered as his acts performed by the hand, or his declarations uttered by the tongue, of his appointed substitute, it would be contrary to those general rules and principles, to allow a prosecutor, and through him the prosecution that he has instituted, to be disgraced by the act supposed in your lordships question, without some further proof affecting him, than the terms of that question suggest. It is perfectly consistent with the matters of fact contained in your lordships question, that the prosecutor may, up to the very moment when the proof is offered, be wholly ignorant of the wicked act of his agent; it is no less consistent that, having been informed of the act, he may have rejected it with indignation, and have repudiated the proffered testimony, and withholden the witness from the court; and if he be absent from the trial, which frequently happens, it may be impossible to prove his ignorance in the one case, or the propriety of his conduct in the other.

With regard to the witnesses, my lords, which is the most important part of this consideration (because if false witnesses are produced against a person, it is of little consequence to him by what particular procurement they may have been produced), it is to be considered whether a legitimate inference and conclusion can be drawn against their credit and veracity from the proof proposed. The proposed proof does not directly affect them, it regards an art to which according to the hypothesis, they may be entire strangers, and being an unlawful act, they are not to be presumed to have been parties to it, or to any other act of the like nature, without proof against them; they may be persons of honour and probity, deposing to facts really and truly occurring within their own personal knowledge, and taking place within their own sight or hearing, as they have averred upon their oath. It may have been intended, that the person to whom the bribe was offered, should speak to other facts, occurring at another time, and in another place, wholly unconnected with them, or with the matters to which they have deposed; can it then be reasonably concluded, that the facts deposed by them are untrue; that, however respectable or numerous they may be, they must be all wicked and perjured men, because some other man has, from overweening zeal or a corrupt heart, wickedly endeavoured to seduce by money another person to give evidence touching the matter of that indictment on which they have appeared? I must say, my lords, that I am of opinion, that such conclusion cannot reasonably be drawn, either in the case proposed in your lordships question, or in that analogous case which I have taken the liberty to adduce. The utmost effect, in my opinion, of the proposed proof, and in many cases even this would not be a fair or reasonable effect, would be to excite suspicion; but suspicion is not a legitimate ground for the verdict of a jury, which ought only to be founded upon reasonable and probable proof. For these reasons, I think your lordships first question must be answered in the negative.

This, my lords, is the opinion which, after much consideration, I have formed upon the question proposed by the House. That question is couched in the most general and abstract terms; and your lordships must be aware of the difficulty that may often occur in forming an opinion upon a question of such a nature, applied, not to a matter of abstract science, but to a matter connected with the business and affairs of men. Few cases occur in the practical administration of justice, wherein a judge does not find some help toward a right decision of a questionable point in antecedent or accompanying facts and circumstances appearing before him, and is not guided in his application of general principles to the individual case by the particulars of that case itself. The question, as proposed by your lordships, does not contain any such aid or guide; I mention not this, my lords, by way of complaint against the question, but by way of excuse for the imperfection of my answer to it; and I must beg leave to add, that notwithstanding the opinion I have delivered on the question proposed, I am by no means prepared to say, that in no case, and under no circumstances appearing at a trial, it might not be fit and proper for a judge to allow proof of this nature to be submitted to the consideration of a jury; and the inclination of every judge is to admit rather than to exclude the offered proof.

2. The same reasons which have induced me to answer your lordships first question in the negative, lead me to answer the second question also in the negative.—The question is in these words: "If in the trial of an indictment for a capital offence, or other crime, evidence had been given upon the cross-examination of witnesses examined in chief in support thereof, from which it appeared that A. B., not examined as a witness, had been employed by the party preferring the indictment, as an! agent to procure and to examine evidence and witnesses in support of the indictment, and the party indicted should propose, in the course of the defence, to examine G. H. as a witness to prove, that A. B. had offered him a bribe to induce him to bring to him papers belonging to the party indicted, G. H. not having been examined as a witness in support of the indictment, would the courts below, according to their usage and practice, allow G. H. to be examined for the purpose aforesaid; or could such witness, according to law, be so examined, if the counsel employed in support of the prosecution objected to such examination."

In answer to this question, my lords, I must also take leave to add, as another ground of objection to the proof proposed in the question, that it does not thereby appear what was the nature of the papers alluded to, or what the motive of the party endeavouring to obtain them; for any thing that can be inferred from that question, the papers might be unconnected with the subject of the prosecution, and relate wholly to some other and different matter.

Then the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench delivered the unanimous opinion of the learned Judges to the first part of the third question in the affirmative; and to the latter part of the same in the affirmative also, with a qualification, and gave their Reasons as follow:

The third question proposed by your lordships is, "Supposing that, according to the rules of law, evidence of a conspiracy against a defendant, for any indictable offence, ought not to be admitted to convict or criminate him, unless as it may apply to himself, or to an agent employed by him, may not general evidence, nevertheless, of the existence of the conspiracy charged upon the record, be received in the first instance, though it cannot affect such defendant unless brought home to him, or to an agent employed by him; and whether the same rule would apply if a defendant sought by such general evidence, in the first instance, to affect the prosecutor with a conspiracy to suborn witnesses for the destruction of his defence."

My lords, we understand the first part of this third question to relate to a prosecution for some crime, the proof whereof is supposed to consist wholly or in part, of evidence of a conspiracy entered into by the party then indicted and under trial, so that the conspiracy is to he given in evidence against him; and the latter part of the question regards the case of a person indicted for some crime, and seeking to defend himself against that indictment by proving a conspiracy to suborn witnesses against him; and the points of inquiry in both parts regard only the order and course of adducing the proof before the Court; and so understanding this question, we have no hesitation as to answering the first part of it in the affirmative. We are of opinion, that on a prosecution for a crime to be proved by conspiracy, general evidence of an existing conspiracy may in the first instance be received as a preliminary step to that more particular evidence by which it is to be shown, that the individual defendants were guilty participators in such conspiracy. This is often necessary to render the particular evidence intelligible, and to show the true meaning and character of the acts of the individual defendants, and on that account, we presume, it is permitted. But it is to be observed, that in such cases the general nature of the whole evidence intended to be adduced is previously opened to the Court, whereby the judge is enabled to form an opinion as to the probability of affecting the individual defendants by particular proof, applicable to them, and connecting them with the general evidence of the alleged conspiracy; and if upon such opening, it should appear manifest that no particular proof, sufficient to affect the defendants, is intended to be adduced, it would become the duty of the judge to stop the case in limine, and not to allow the general evidence to be received, which, even if attended with no other bad effect, such as exciting an unreasonable prejudice, would certainly be a useless waste of time.

As to the second part of the question, my lords, we understand it to be here assumed, that the supposed conspiracy to suborn witnesses against the accused, is a legitimate ground of defence, and that your lordships do not ask the opinion of the judges upon that point, and therefore upon that point we do not presume to offer any thing to your lordships; and considering this latter part of the proposed question, like the first part, to regard only the order and course of adducing the proof, we should give the same answer, in the affirmative, with this qualification only, namely, that the proposed evidence should, in some way, be previously opened to the Court, as in the case of a prosecution to be proved by conspiracy, in order to enable the judge to form an opinion as to the probability of bringing the evidence home so as to affect some person, whose acts are material and relevant to the issue in the indictment then under trial.

Mr. Attorney General

stated, that having been present, by the permission of their lordships, during the delivery of the concurrent Opinion of the Judges by the lord chief justice, he trusted he should stand excused for submitting a few observations. Whilst engaged in the discharge of a duty which had been cast upon him, he had understood, at its outset, that, in the production and reception of evidence, their lordships had resolved to be guided by the rules of the courts below. He hoped that, in the discharge of a duty so anxious, and to him personally so painful, he should not be supposed to have acted improperly in having, the day before yesterday, interposed to offer an objection founded upon that resolution. The Opinion of the Judges, as he understood it, confirmed the validity of the objection as originally taken on a preceding day by his learned friend the Solicitor-general. If, however, their lordships thought that the inquiry to which the question so objected to was pointed, was an inquiry that ought to be pursued, he, for one, would no longer object to it, but rest persuaded that its result would be to the credit of the Milan commission. Even although a primâ facie case should be made out against the persons engaged in that commission, their lordships, he was sure, would reserve to him the opportunity of rebutting hereafter the evidence in support of it. At all events, he felt conscious that he had throughout endeavoured to discharge, with the best ability he possessed, a most arduous and most painful duty.

The Lord Chancellor

inquired of the Queen's counsel whether they had any thing to offer in reply to the attorney-general.

Mr. Brougham

said, he could not undertake to state that he yet precisely understood the opinion of the learned Judges, or the effect of the observations just made by his learned friend.

The Counsel were directed to withdraw.

The Earl of Liverpool

said, it would save trouble, if he now stated what his view was of the questions proposed to be put to the witness at the bar. He had always thought that if they departed from the rules respecting evidence which were adhered to in the courts below, they would have no marks to go by, and would be continually plunged in collateral discussions. But he certainly was most anxious that the investigation which the Queen's counsel had been desirous to commence should be pursued to its utmost extent. The course of examination which was now proposed, was very different from that which was proposed a few days ago, when evidence was offered respecting the conduct of an individual, against whom could not be proved a shadow of agency. But certainly whatever degree of agency might be said to attach to the advocate Vimercati, it was such that if, without violation of law, it could be done, It was desirable his conduct should be inquired into. The result of the Opinion given by the Judges (which, however, was not without difficulty) was, that the inquiry could not be pursued, unless the attorney-general consented to wave his objection. The learned gentleman had, however, withdrawn it, and he was very happy that he had done so, that the inquiry might be proceeded in.

Earl Grey

observed, that it now appeared that the question on which so much time and deliberation had been consumed, was a question which ought to be put to the witness. He thought so too, but not for the reasons stated by the noble earl. If the Opinion of the Judges was clear, and ought to govern their proceedings implicitly, there was a rule laid down from which the noble and learned lord on the woolsack had himself frequently departed in the course of the present trial. The attorney-general now waved an objection which he had before most strenuously urged; but this was not of itself a reason sufficient to induce him to deviate from any rule which their lordships had previous established, from any principle of law, or that was essential to the administration of justice. Admitting the anxiety of the noble earl to bring this part of the inquiry to a conclusion—an anxiety which he was sorry had not displayed itself at an earlier period, because it might then have saved a great deal of useless discussion—he could not concur With him in the reasons which he now offered for going into it. Whatever was the practice of the courts below, he was now more than ever confirmed in his opinion, that the question ought to have been allowed to be put at once to the witness. The learned Judges did not appear to him to have given a very satisfactory explanation of the points referred to them. In their elaborate answer they gave no distinct statement, as to what was the prac- tice of the courts below, but described the matter propounded to them as full of difficulty and doubt. It was not an answer indeed, but an elaborate argument, quite unnecessary on this occasion, and affording no light on the general subject. He expressed his feelings as they arose out of a consideration of the general subject; and he must add, that there was this material defect in the answer of those learned persons—that it stated none of those facts or circumstances which were represented as likely to influence the decision of a judge when presiding at a trial. It was represented on their authority, that the proposed course of examination might, on some occasions, be allowed, with the view of eliciting truth. Why, then, upon an opinion so little conclusive, so little distinct as to the usage of other courts—why, as had been so ably urged the day before, in the powerful speech of a noble friend behind him (the earl of Rosslyn), were they, under special circumstances, and in the most special and extraordinary proceeding, to exclude evidence so apparently important? He thought it right to state his view of this question; but, at the same time, he could not but feel glad that, for reasons, whether good or bad, there was an unanimous feeling, that the examination ought to be continued. He now, therefore, moved that the examination be resumed.

The Lord Chancellor

said, he could not allow the question to pass without saying a few words. When he had put the question to the Judges, he had called their attention to it in such a manner, as to induce them to state, not only what the practice of the courts below was, but also what was the law on the subject. He had been of opinion, that the point was altogether new, and that, therefore, they would not be able to state any practice on the subject. What he had foretold had occurred: the case put was quite new to them, and they then felt it necessary to state what the law was on the subject; and (as they had no case in practice to refer to) he was sure they would have been wanting in respect to the House, if, in a case so novel, they had not stated the reasons on which their opinion of the law was founded. He would leave it to their lordships to say, whether he had departed from the rules he had laid down. But he would now affirm, that if he conceived the question to be contrary' to the rules of I law, no consent of the attorney-general should induce him to allow the question to be put. At the conclusion of the Opinion of the Judges, however, there was a statement of their opinion, which it was of great importance should be placed on their lordships Journals, viz. that they understood that the particular facts disclosed in any case should very much regulate the questions which should be put to witnesses in such cases. They stated the law, therefore, in such a manner, that if their lordships decided that the question should be put, it would be a precedent for the courts below in no other way than this, viz. that in a particular case, under particular facts disclosed, the House of Lords consented to put such questions. It was his duty to speak his opinion plainly; and he would do so through good report and through evil report; and that opinion was, that the facts disclosed were not sufficient to warrant the letting in of the evidence. But this objection he should not press (except, perhaps, for the purpose of recording it), because many of his co-equal Judges in that court were of a different opinion as to the nature and weight of the facts disclosed.

Lord Erskine

said, he certainly required no waver of the attorney-general to convince him that the evidence in question ought to be received. It ought to be received on the ground of its essential importance to the elucidation of truth. The answer of the learned Judges did not amount to a negative of his proposition: it admitted, that general evidence might be admissible, and it was difficult to say that one question might not produce evidence of a general nature as well as another. He contended, therefore, that he had the authority of the learned Judges for the proposition which he had at first maintained.

Then Bonfiglio Omati

was again called in, and further examined by Mr. Wilde as follows, through the Interpretation of the Marchese di Spineto.

The Evidence of the Witness on Monday last was read over, and the Witness was asked:

You have stated that Vimercati told you to bring the papers belonging to her royal highness, did he offer you any inducement to bring those papers? He told me that he would give me an employment, and he would give me more emolument than my own employer.

Did he state the nature of the employment he would give you? In the police of Milan.

Did you afterwards possess yourself of any of her royal highness's papers, and take them to Vimercati?

The Counsel were informed that the proper question would be, Whether he did any thing in consequence?

Did you do any thing in consequence of your communication with Vimercati with any papers of her royal highness? On the following day I brought him some.

Did Vimercati say any thing to you as to the time at which you were to go to his office? He told me to call in the evening.

Did he mention any time in the evening? After sun-setting.

Did you on any other occasion take any papers of her royal highness to Vimercati? I did.

For how long a period were you in the habit of taking her royal highness's papers from Codazzi, her solicitor, and carrying them to Vimercati?

Mr. Solicitor General objected to the form of the question, though not to the substance.

On how many occasions did you take papers from Codazzi, and carry them to Vimercati? I do not know how many times.

Did yon do it frequently? No.

About how often do you believe? Seven or eight times at the utmost.

Did Vimercati know, when you took those papers to him, that you were a clerk in the office of Codazzi? He knew it, certainly.

By whose desire, or at whose request, did you take them? I do not know the man.

Had you any conversation with Vimercati about your taking them? He told me to bring to him those papers I could get.

Did you receive any thing from Vimercati for taking those papers to him? Money.

How often did you receive money from I Vimercati for taking to him her royal highness's papers? Six times.

Were you satisfied with the money that you got from Vimercati? I was not.

Did you ever make any complaints to' colonel Browne that Vimercati had not paid you money enough for taking papers from your master to Vimercati? I complained once.

What did colonel Browne say to you on your making those complaints? He told me he was a friend to the advocate Vimercati, and that I ought not to doubt that he, Vimercati, would perform his promise.

Did you, in consequence of your communication with colonel Browne, make any further application to Vimercati for any more money? Colonel Browne told me to call again on the following day on advocate Vimercati, who would give me something.

Did you call on Vimercati? I did.

Did you receive any more money from him? I did.

Where does Vimercati live at Milan? He-lives in the street of the Crucifisso.

Did he live at the same place at the time yon took the paper to him? Not the first time.

Name the other place at which he lived, when you took papers to him? The first time he was living in the street Ruga Bella, and then he went to dwell in the street of Crucifisso.

Do you know the number at which he lived in Ruga Bella? It was in a lane, a narrow street.

Where did colonel Browne live at the time you applied to him? Below the bridge of the Eastern Gate (Porta Orientale.)

Do you know the number? I do not.

Do you know to what subject the papers yon took to Vimercati related? I know the subject of some of them.

State to what subject those related of which you knew the contents? One was a deposition of a femme-de-chambre (cameriera,) who had been sent to Vienna together with Sacchi.

To what subject did the papers relate? They were letters.

Were there any examinations of witnesses? Not among the letters; they were letters of her royal highness, and the baron, and others.

What other papers were there besides the letters? There were some copies of the advocate Codazzi, who had answered.

Answers to what? The answers of Codazzi, to Pergami.

Were there any other papers than letters and copies of letters? No.

Do you know to what subject those letters related? Of some of them.

State them? One was of Pergami.

What was the subject of those letters; were they on the subject of this inquiry? The advocate Vimercati told me to bring to him those letters which treated of depositions; that is, which desired somebody to come and give evidence.

Did you, in point of fact, carry papers relating to that subject to Vimercati? Letters, not papers.

Do you know a man of the name of Riganti? I do.

Did Riganti ever make any application to you about papers? He has been at my house to ask for them.

Did you tell Vimercati of Riganti's application for papers? I did.

What did Vimercati say upon the subject of Riganti's application for papers? I did not know Riganti, and I asked Vimercati who he was, and he told me that he was a person of character, and that I might give him any papers.

What did Riganti ask you to do with th papers you have spoken of? To give them to him, and he would give me a great deal—much.

What papers did Riganti wish you to give to him? Papers respecting the affairs of her royal highness.

What affairs of her royal highness? Those which are now in England.

What subject did they relate to? He told me nothing else.

Did Riganti know in whose employ you were? He knew it, for he came to my house. Riganti came after me, and asked for the secretary of Codazzi, for I was the secretary of Codazzi.

Did Vimercati say any thing further, as to the employment of Riganti? He told me that he was a person of character, he told me nothing else.

When did you first disclose to Codazzi that you had taken those papers? On the 27th of July.

By a Lord.

—In what year? This year.

Mr. Wilde.

—Do you mean the year 1820? Yes, 1820.

Do you mean to say this was the first time you told Codazzi of the circumstance? It was.

You have said, that you do not know the number of colonel Browne's house; describe the house, and what premises are about it, whether it is a private house, or a shop, or what? It is a house.

Is there any business carried on at the house, any goods sold there? There is a shop on both sides of the door.

What sort of shop, what goods are sold in the shops on either side? On the left, there is a tailor's, and on the right, a dealer in alabaster.

What business does Riganti carry on? He sells tobacco and salt.

Can you state whether there are any shops next to Riganti's house? There are.

What are they? I do not know, for I pass seldom that way.

Cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General.

How long have you lived with Codazzi? A year and a half.

Have you acted as his clerk all that time? Always.

Down to the present time? Till the 27th of July.

Did Codazzi turn you out of his service on the 27th of July? He did.

Have you ever been in his employment since? No.

Do you mean to swear, that from the 27th of July down to the present time, you have never been in the employ of Codazzi? I can swear it a thousand times.

With whom did you come over to this country? With the chevalier Vassali.

Did you come over alone with Vassali, or whom else? There was another person.

Who was that other person? A certain Lago Maggiore.

After you had left the service of Codazzi, did you enter into the service of the chevalier Vassali? I did not.

Did you not come over to this country as a servant of Vassali? I did not come in the ser vice of Vassali.

Did you not come over to this country in the character of a servant of Vassali? No, because he had a servant with him.

Did you never represent yourself on any occasion to be a servant of Vassali? No, never.

Did Vassali never represent you to be his servant in your presence? Never, never.

When was it you first saw Vimercati? September the last year.

Can you tell us the day of the month? I do not know the day.

Can you tell us about the time of the month? Towards the end.

Did you know Vimercati before? I did. Did you go to Vimercati of your own accord, or what led you to go to him? The employer with whom I was before had some money due to him.

When you went to Vimercati's in the month of September, and towards the end of that month, did you go of your own accord, or what led you to go there? There was a person who urged me twice to go, and then that person took me himself there.

Did that person tell you what you were to go to Vimercati for? He told me that I ought to go, because he wished to speak to me, and I should be made a gentleman if I went. Did he tell you how you were to be made a gentleman if you went? He told me so much, he told me no more; be told me that be would take me.

Did you know at that time, that Vimercati was employed at all in the process about her royal highness the princess of Wales? When I went I knew it.

Do you mean to say you did not know it until you saw Vimercati, did you not know it at the time when you saw this person? I knew it.

You knew it when you saw this person? What person?

You have told us that you saw a person twice, who desired you to go to Vimercati; at the time you saw that person, did you know that Vimercati was employed in the process about her royal highness? I knew it.

Was Codazzi at that time employed for her royal highness? He was not employed on the affairs of her royal highness in England, but for the affairs that her royal highness had in Italy.

Did you know that Codazzi was in possession of papers belonging to her royal highness? I had them in my own writing table.

Did you not then immediately, as an honest man, communicate to your master Codazzi, that you had received this message; to go to Vimercati? I did not.

Did you not conceive it to be your duty to do so? I thought that I could produce no prejudice, no mischief; that I could do no harm.

Do you mean to say that you thought you could do no harm in delivering over to Vi- mercati papers belonging to her royal highness; the letters and other documents you have mentioned? Documents I did not give, I gave letters.

Do you mean to say, that you thought you could do no harm in banding over letters of her royal highness to Vimercati, without the consent of your master Codazzi? Yes, I thought to do no harm.

Did you not think it your duty to tell your master Codazzi, in order that he might judge for himself, whether or not it would do harm? I did not tell him.

Did you not conceive it your duty to tell him? I believed it was nothing.

Do you mean by that to say, that you did not think it was your duty to communicate this to your master? I thought it was my duty, but I neglected it.

Have the goodness to tell us who this person was that called upon you twice, in the manner you have described? I do not know the person if I knew him I would tell.

Where did you see him the first time? In the street of San Vittore, near the theatre.

Did you meet him by accident? By accident; I did not know him, nor do I know him; he stopped me.

When he told you to go to Vimercati, you being the servant of Codazzi, did you not ask him what his name was, and who he was? I asked him, and he told me that it was no business of mine to know it.

When was it that you saw him the second time? On the following day.

Did you meet him by accident the second day? Yes, in the same place, in the same street.

Did you meet him by accident the second day? Yes, I was coming from the office.

Was it the same hour the second day? The same hour.

Did he repeat the same question to you the second time? He asked me also, whether I had thought upon what he told me the day before.

What did you tell him in answer to that? That I had thought upon it, and I would not go.

Did you meet him a third time? No, I went then, this second time.

After telling him you would not go, you in point of fact did go? Yes.

Did you ask him his name the second time, when he urged you so much to go? He would not tell me even then; I asked him.

Did you go alone, or did you go with him? He took me as far as his door.

Have you ever seen this man at any time, since? I have seen him since, but I could not see him clearly in the face.

Had you no curiosity to know who he was? How could I know it.

Had you no curiosity or wish to know who he was? If I could have known it, certainly.

Did you follow him for that purpose, when you met him the third time, or any of the former times? On the second time.

Where did you follow him to, the second time? As far as the door of advocate Vimercati, he took me, and then he went away.

Had you any papers in your pocket at that time? On the following day I brought the papers; then I had none.

Did you ever meet this man by accident again? I did meet him, but I could not see him in the face.

Only once? Only once.

Did you speak to him? I did not see him in the face; I could not speak to him.

Was he a young man or an old man? Middle aged.

Of what complexion, light or dark? Black hair.

A stout man or how? A little stout.

How was he dressed? I am not a painter, to draw his picture.

How was he dressed? I do not remember, I do not know.

Do you mean by that, that you do not know or that you do not remember? I do not remember how he was dressed; he was in a coat, but I do not remember the colour of the coat.

Has any body told you that when you came here to be examined at the bar, you were to be careful not to say "Non mi recordo?" I have heard it said about the town; and I have asked what was this Non mi recordo.

Has not Chevalier Vasseli told you to be particularly careful not to say Non mi recordo? No; he told me nothing; nobody has told me any thing.

Has nobody told you that you ought to be careful, to say rather "Non mi sovvienne." or "Non so?" I know it by myself, without being told by any body.

Did Vimercati pay you any thing for the papers you delivered the first time? He gave me three double golden Napoleons, and he told me that they were for me to take chocolate.

When was it that you carried the second parcel of papers to Vimercati? After the month of September.

Tell us, as nearly as you can, how long it was after the first parcel was delivered, that you carried the second parcel? Three or four days.

What did Vimercati pay you for the second parcel? Four single Napoleons.

Did you go the second time in consequence of being sent for, or what led you to go? I went by my own accord.

When was it you carried the third parcel? In the month of October.

About what time in the month of October? I am not able to recollect the day; I know it was in the month of October.

Was it in the beginning, the' middle, or the latter end of October? In the mouth of Oc- tober; I do not remember whether it was in the beginning, the middle, or the end; I know it was in the month of October.

Did you get paid for the third parcel? He paid me at another time.

When was it you carried the fourth parcel? I carried him papers as far as the latter end of November.

When was it you carried him papers the fourth time? I do not remember whether it was in the month of October or November.

Did you carry many papers? Some letters.

Having carried those papers from time to time during this long period, and having been paid by Vimercati, did you ever communicate the circumstance to your master? I never said any thing to Codazzi.

Do you mean to say, that from the month of September to the month of July in the following year, Codazzi never spoke about those papers to you? Never.

Did Codazzi never miss any of those papers? No.

Did he never ask for them upon any occasion? No.

You have said that those papers were left in your charge and custody, were you a confidential clerk of Codazzi? Confidential clerk.

Being the confidential clerk of Codazzi, did you not think you were acting a most infamous part in selling his letters to the advocate Vimercati? Not at the beginning.

As the beginning was in the latter end of September 1819, how long was it before this light broke in upon your understanding?

Mr. Denman.

—For the sake of regularity' and for the sake of following the example of my learned friend, who often objected to similar questions, I object to the question, because it assumes that some light did break in upon the witness's mind.

You have stated, that you did not at first consider that this conduct was most infamous; when was it you did first discover, if you ever did discover, that this conduct was most base and infamous? About the beginning of this year.

Was it a discovery of your own, about the commencement of the present year, that your conduct was base and infamous, or were you told it by any other person? There are many who act basely and infamously, but then afterwards they repent, and so have I.

You having discovered, at the commencement of the present year, that this conduct was base and infamous, did you not think it your duty to communicate it to Codazzi? I thought it better to be silent.

Having not only discovered that the conduct was base and infamous, but having already sworn that you repented of it, did you not think that the best thing you could do, as the fruit of that repentance was, to communicate it to Codazzi, in order that the evil might be repaired? I could not foresee all these things.

You have told us, that at the beginning of the year it was, that you repented, when was it that you carried the last parcel of papers to Vimercati? I do not remember whether it was in the end of November or the beginning of December.

Is it to be understood that you never carried any papers after the end of November, pr the beginning of December, to Vimercati? Before I swear, allow me to think a little; in the month of July, when I went to ask about the name of the person who had called at my house, he asked me about the list of the persons who came in favour of her royal highness, and I gave him the list.

Did you call on Vimercati in the month of July last? Yes, to tell him that this person had called.

Was that the same person whom you had before met by accident in the street, that called upon you? No, the first person I did not know; but the person who came in the month of July was Riganti.

Did you give any papers at that time? I gave him a list of the persons who were going to set out.

Was that by the desire of Signor Codazzi? No.

Do you mean to say, that that was a list of the witnesses that were to set out on behalf of her royal highness? They were not all witnesses, I did not give the list of all the witnesses.

How many of the witnesses did it contain?

Mr. Denman

submitted, that Mr. Solicitor-general could not examine to the contents of a written paper, stated by the witness to have been delivered to one of the agents in support of the bill.

Are you to be understood to say, you did not communicate to Codaazi that you had given this list? I did not tell this.

Having repented of what you had done as early as the beginning of the year, you afterwards in July delivered to Vimercati a list of the witnesses coming on behalf of the Queen?

They were five or six; I wrote them, I gave their names myself.

Did Vimercati pay you any thing for that last intelligence? No, I gave him this list to find out who was the person who had called at my house, this Riganti.

Did Riganti pay you any thing for this list? I did not give the list to Riganti, but to the advocate Vimercati.

How long was it after you had delivered this list to the advocate Vimercati, that your master Codazzi knew of it? On the same day that I told it to the advocate Codazzi, on that same day I gave this list to the advocate Vimercati.

With the exception of this list of which you have now made mention, did you deliver any other papers to the advocate Vimercati after the month of December in the year 1819? No, except the list in the month of July.

Will you swear that positively at this moment? I will swear it a thousand times.

Did you, after that, offer any papers to Vimercati? I never called on Vimercati till Easter, when colonel Browne sent me.

You have told us that Vimercati paid you for those papers, did Vimercati pay you for those papers at the time when the papers were delivered? He did in the beginnings not afterwards.

When was it that Vimercati made yon the last payment? When colonel Browne sent me, towards the end of March of this year.

How long before that period, the end of March, was it that you received any money from Vimercati? The end of November.

So that from the end of November to the end of March you never received any money from Vimercati? Nothing.

Are you perfectly sure of it, and will you swear it? I will swear it a hundred times.

What was the sum you last received from Vimercati at the end of March? Fifty-two livres and a half of Milan.

Are you quite sure that that was at the end of March? I am.

Did you ever, upon any occasion, state, that you had received money from Vimercati for papers, in the month of February of this year? No, I never took any thing.

You are not asked whether you took any thing in the month of February, but whether you have never stated that you took any in the month of February? I have not said it, and I never called; for from the beginning of December till the end of March f never called.

Will you swear you have never said it? Yes, I swear it.

Will you swear you have never in any way so represented it?

Mr. Wilde objected to the question, unless it was staled that the question did not refer to a statement in writing.

Did you not call on colonel Browne With a bundle of papers? I had two or three letters to make myself known.

Did you not, when you called on colonel Browne, ask him whether he was not one of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the conduct of her royal highness? I knew it.

Did you not introduce yourself to colonel Browne by taking a bundle of letters from your pocket, and asking colonel Browne, Whether he was not one of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the conduct of tier royal highness? I called, and I took out two or three letters.

Did you not deliver those letters to colonel Browne, saying, "Are you riot one of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the conduct of her royal highness?" I showed him the letter to make myself known, and I complained of the advocate Vimercati, who, after having seduced me, had paid me little.

Having stated that, upon taking these let- ters out of your pocket, did you not ask colonel Browne, whether he was one of the commissioners employed to inquire into the conduct of her royal highness? Yes, I asked him so; but I knew it.

Did not colonel Browne ask you what your name was, and who you were? I made myself known, by telling him that I was the confidential clerk of the advocate Codazzi.

Did you tell colonel Browne, that you were the confidential clerk of Codazzi, when you first went into the room? At the first I asked him, whether he was colonel Browne, for I knew him not.

After you had asked him, whether he was colonel Browne, did not colonel Browne ask you who you were? He answered me, yes; he did not ask me who I was.

Will you swear that colonel Browne did not ask you who you were, and that you did not refuse to tell him? He did not ask me who I was, but I told him of myself.

Will you swear that colonel Browne did not ask you who you were, and that you did not refuse to tell; upon which colonel Browne shut the door, and said, you should not leave the room without informing him (colonel Browne) who you were? I swear this not to be true.

In answer to a question put by colonel Browne, did you not say, you were clerk to the advocate Codazzi, and did not colonel Browne then give you back instantly the two letters you had delivered to him, and tell you he thought you a most infamous scoundrel, and that you would end by being hanged? He will be hanged, not I, for I have not said so.

Mr. Cohen stated that he concurred in this being the answer the witness gave. On the suggestion of earl Grey, the question was repeated—

In answer to a question put by colonel Browne, did you not say you were clerk to the advocate Codazzi, and, did not colonel Browne then give you back instantly the two letters you had delivered to him, and tell you he thought you were a most infamous scoundrel, and that you would end by being hanged? I repeat again, that it is not true; he gave me the letters, but he said no more; nay, he shut the door of the room, in order that we should not be heard, and he told me to speak not so loud, because I complained of the advocate Vimercati; and he told me to call the next day on the advocate Vimercati, from whom he would cause me to receive 200 francs; this is what he told me, nothing else, and that the advocate Vimercati is a person of character, and that he would keep his promise.

Did he not, when he shut the door, say you should not go out of the room until you told him who you were? He is a liar if he says so.

Do you mean to swear that colonel Browne did not say so? Yes, I swear it; he told what I have just said.

Did not colonel Browne say you were a most infamous fellow at that meeting? I have repeated it many times, he did not say so.

Did he not say you would end by being hanged? He never told me so.

Did he say any thing to that effect? Nothing at all, for I had been seduced by them, and they are more infamous than I am.

Did you call on colonel Browne more than once? I called the first time in the morning; he was not at home; then, after dinner I called and I found him, I have been twice.

Did you see him more than once? Afterwards I saw him many times through Milan.

Did you ever see him more than once at his own house? At his house only once.

When was that once that you saw him at his own house? About the end of March of this year.

What were the papers which you carried to colonel Browne at this time? Two or three letters.

When you called on Vimercati the first time, did you tell Vimercati who you were? He knew me.

Did not Vimercati ask you who you were, and did you not refuse to tell? He did not ask me, because he knew me immediately, and because a person whom I did not know took me as far as to his door.

You mean to swear that Vimercati did not ask you who you were, and that you did not refuse to tell him who you were the first time? Yes, I swear it is not true.

Did you not live at that time upon the terrace of the Porta Tosa? No, I lived then at Contrada Larga.

Is that the place where Codazzi lives? No, where I live.

Did you ever live at the Terragio di Porta Tosa? At present I live on the Terragio of Porta Tosa.

When did you first go to live there? On the 29th of September of last year.

Have you lived there from that time to the present? Yes.

Having stated that for two or three months-you did not know it was infamous to betray the confidence of your master, do you consider it infamous to say, upon your oath, that which is untrue?

Mr. Denman, before this question was answered, wished to be referred to any part of the witness's evidence in which he had said that for two or three months he did not know that it was infamous to betray his master.

The following extract was read from the evidence of the Witness.

"You have stated that you did not at first consider that this conduct was most infamous; when was it you did first discover, if you ever did discover, that this conduct was most base and infamous? About the beginning of this year."

Mr. Denman objected to the question, as not being a correct recital of the evidence of the witness.

Having discovered for the first time in the month of January that your conduct was base and infamous, do you consider it infamous to say, on your oath, that which is untrue? To swear the truth is just, what is true I swear, and what I have stated I am ready to swear to.

Did you communicate those facts to Codazzi of your own motion? I told him on the 27th of July.

Upon your telling him on the 27th of July those facts, do you mean to swear that your master immediately dismissed you? Yes.

Whom have you been living with since, from that time down to the present? I am in trade.

What trade? I buy and sell woollen cloth for dresses.

Did you ever carry on that business before? Yes.

Do you swear, that you have no expectation of returning into the service of Codazzi after this business is over? I swear it, because I am in trade.

Who brought you over here? Chevalier Vassali.

What are you to have for coming here? I will receive nothing; I came here to remedy the evil I had committed, and to tell the truth.

You mean to swear that is the only reason of your coming here, and that you do not expect any reward from any person? I swear it; that being able to return quick home.

Do you mean to swear that nobody made you a promise of any thing for coming here? I swear it; they have promised me nothing.

And that it is entirely for the purpose of remedying the evil you have occasioned, that you have come here; do you mean to swear that? I do.

And no other motive whatever? Nothing else.

Have you had any communication with Codazzi since you have been turned out of his service? No, because I went into the country.

Did Codazzi never send for you? Never.

Is Codazzi still employed for her royal highness? I do not know.

You mean to swear, that you have neither seen nor had any communication with Codazzi since the month of July? I swear it a hundred thousand times.

Where do you carry on your trade? I carry it on at home.

Where is that? In Porta Tosa.

Is that in Milan? In Milan.

How far from Codazzi's? Much distance.

What do you mean by much distance, is it a mile? Oh, yes, more than a mile.

Have you lived in Milan from the month of July down to the time of your coming here? I always live at Milan, but from the month of July I have been a few days in the country.

Where about in the country? On the territory of Lodi.

Except those few days, have you been in Milan ever since the month of July? Yes.

You mean to swear, that though you have been in Milan during the whole of that time, Codazzi has not called upon you or seen you? I have seen him; I have bowed to him, and nothing else; but I have not spoken to him.

Where did you see him? On the Corso of the Porta Ticinese.

How long was that after you left his service in July? About a month.

Was Codazzi still concerned for her royal highness when you left his service in July? He was.

Do you mean to swear, that though Codazzi met you in Milan, he did not speak to you upon any subject at all? I swear it an hundred thousand times.

Were you not examined at Milan before you came here? They have asked me a very few things.

Why was it they examined you? Because I had put in writing my deposition, and given it to Codazzi on the 27th of July.

Were you examined by Codazzi on the 27th of July? I, by my own accord, told him the whole story.

And Codazzi took it down it writing? I wrote it with my own hand.

Do you mean to swear, that after you had done that, Codazzi turned you out of his service? I do.

Did not Codazzi at that time tell you, "you must go out of my service now, and I will take you into my service again, for it will not do for you to be in my service till the process is over?" No, because in the office of Codazzi I get nothing, and I by my trade gain.

Did you leave the service of Codazzi in order that you might gain by your trade, or were you turned out of the office? He sent me away.

Did you know on the 27th of July that you should gain any thing by your trade? Yes.

Why so? Because I was still carrying on the trade whilst I was in the office of the advocate Codazzi.

How came you, carrying on trade, and getting money by it, to go into the office of Codazzi, and remain there for a year, where you say you got nothing? It was for the sake of learning to write well.

Will you swear now that you have no expectation of returning into the service of Codazzi? I have no expectation, I have no hope, because I am in trade, and that suits me better.

Re-examined by Mr. Wilde.

How old are you? Twenty-two years old.

You have been asked whether colonel Browne told you you were an infamous fellow; was it after your interview with colonel Browne that you received money from Vimercati? On the following day.

How much in the whole did you receive from Vimercati? Between 350 and 400 francs.

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then Filippo Pomi

was again called in, and further examined by Mr. Tindal, through the interpretation of the Marchese di Spineto.

Do you know a person of the name of Riganti? I do.

Do you know whether his name is Filippo? I do, he is Filippo.

Where does he live? On the bank of Porta Ticinese.

What is he by trade? He sells tobacco, salt, liquors, brandy.

Do you recollect his calling on you at any time? He did not call upon me; but when I went into his shop, he always had something to say to me.

Did he never make you any offer?

Mr. Attorney General

submitted, whether, as the evidence stood, it was competent for the counsel against the bill to go into evidence of offers by Riganti, leaving it to the House to determine whether they thought it fit to proceed to hear such evidence.

The Counsel were informed, that after the statement made by the last witness in his evidence, this question might be asked.

Mr. Tindal.

—Upon that occasion, what did Riganti do? I went to buy salt, tobacco, or something; and he told me, for he knew I belonged to the Barona, "Pomi, have you ever seen those jokes (scherzi) between the princess and Pergami? now is the time to come forward, to gain something, and to become a man."

Did he say any thing more upon that occasion? He told me this; and I answered him, "No, I have seen no scherzi?" and he replied," "Oh, have you not seen Pergami put the princess on the back of the donkey, and put his hand under her petticoats?"

Did you make any answer to that? Yes, I told him that this, was a perfect falsehood, for, instead of that, he paid her all possible respect and decency which; was due to that great personage.

Was any thing more said? Yes, at other times, whenever I went to his shop; so that I was obliged never more to go to his shop, for he annoyed me so much.

Cross-examined by Mr. Attorney General.

You are understood to say, that Riganti never called upon you, but that this conversation took place when you went to Riganti's shop; is that so? Yes, it is positively so; I can swear it.

When was it that this conversation took place? When I went to buy something, either tobacco, or salt, or something.

Can you tell the time, how long ago it was? I do not know precisely; it happened the last year; I do not know the time precisely.

About what time in the last year? He said so many times, and whenever I went to his shop he always said such annoyances; and he even went so far as to say, that he would wage war till death; that he would be against her till death; and then there were other persons present, there were five or six persons present.

Be good enough to name the names of the persons, or any of them, that were present when this conversation took place? I could name Antonio Birraghi who was present; I remember he was present, the others I cannot tell; I know them, but I do not know their names.

Who is Antonio Birraghi? He is a man who always frequented this shop.

Where does he live? In Milan.

In what part of Milan? I do not know; I know he lives in Milan; he is a man of that description, I know his name.

Can you tell what he is? I do not know whether he is employed in the police, or whether he is employed somewhere else; I do not know precisely.

Antonio Birraghi heard this conversation as well as you? He did not speak to me directly, he spoke to all in general, to all those who were present, and this conversation he had not with me only.

This conversation was generally with the persons in his shop? Yes, with whomsoever was present.

You say you know some of the other persons, cannot you remember the names of some of the other persons besides Antonio Birraghi? It is impossible, for those names cannot be recollected, unless I had known that this affair should happen; then I should have paid more attention, and that would have more fixed them in my mind.

This sort of conversation, you state, took place frequently, when you went to Riganti's shop? Yes, about four or five times, as I have said; when I have heard those annoyances, so, as I' have said, I was obliged not to go any more to his shop to buy salt or tobacco, or any thing else.

Did you go there to buy those things for yourself, or were they for the people at the Barona? For my own use, because I wanted them.

Was Birraghi present more than once, or only, on one occasion? I cannot tell; he frequented the shop; he might have been there, or he might not have been there; for that once I remember that he was present.

Is what you have stated all that passed on those occasions; did you yourself say any thing more than what you have stated? I can say nothing more; I said that against that lady I can say nothing, for she is a just woman, and she is a charitable woman.

Examined by the Lords.

Earl of Lauderdale.

—Were you yourself present at the balls at the Barona? Yes, I, told it the other day that I was present.

Were your daughters there? No, because I had not daughters.

How came you to say, the other day, the sum that they gave was a livre to my wife and half a livre for each of my children, daughters? I said figli and figlie, because my eldest son is nine years and the others are under that age; I have daughters, but they are babies under nine years of age.

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then Antonio Mioni

was called in, and having been sworn, was examined as follows by Mr. Williams, through the interpretation of the Marchese di Spineto.

From what place do you come? From Venice.

What business do you follow there? Before I was employed in the police; now I am a manager of a theatre.

At Venice? At Venice, wherever I meet with opportunity.

Do you know a person of the name of Paolo Zancla? I do.

What is he? He is a manager of a theatre.

Were you acquainted with that man in the month of March in the year 1818? I was.

Do you remember being at a theatre at Venice with that Zancla in that year? In the theatre of San Luca.

In what month? In the month of November.

At that time do you remember Zancla receiving any number of letters, one or more? He received two letters at once.

Did you observe whether Zancla opened those letters or not? I saw him open them, and emotion or surprise after he had read them.

Did you observe that he exhibited emotion or surprise when he read those letters? Yes, it is very true.

After that, did you and Zancla go together from Venice to Milan? We set out from Venice and went to Milan.

How soon after the receipt of those letters?

Five or six days, or seven days, thereabouts.

How did you go, by what conveyance? By a diligence led by Doria.

When you arrived at the place from whence the diligence set out, was there any money deposited there for the use of Zancla? On the following day that Zancla had received his letters, we went together to the place of the diligence, I saw Zancla receive fifteen golden Napoleons.

When you had arrived at Milan, do you remember going with Zancla to a house in the Porta Orientale? I remember that we went to the Porta Orientale, to look for the number 660.

Do you remember the adjoining houses on either side, can you describe them by the trades carried on by the people; or in any other manner? Before reaching the door of 660, there is a tailor's shop.

Is that an adjoining house on the one side? Yes.

Do you at all recollect what is the description of the house on the other side? I have paid no attention to that; only I paid attention to the tailor's shop, because there we inquired after the number of the door.

Did Zancla go into that house, No. 660? He went in.

Did you go up or remain below? I remained below.

How long did Zancla remain away? About a quarter of an hour.

Did you wait for Zancla till he came down? Yes.

Did you and Zancla go together to the inn after you had called there? We did.

While you remained at Milan, do you remember going with Zancla to any other house? To the house of Vimercati.

Do you speak of Vimercati the lawyer or advocate? I do.

What is the street, do you remember? The street Ruga Bella.

Upon that occasion did Zancla go up stairs? Zancla went into the house and remained about an hour and a half, but this happened on the following day.

Did you remain below during the time? Yes.

At the end of the time you have mentioned, did Zancla join you again? Yes, and there was another man in company.

After that did you and Zancla go again to any other house? To the house of major Browne.

Do you say that it was major Browne? Major Browne.

Do you know a colonel Browne, as well as a major Browne; do you know two persons of that name? No, I know one alone; I do not know whether he is a major or a colonel, I have not seen his brevet.

Do you know the person you call major Browne? I saw him on the following day, on the Corso de' Servi, where he met Zancla and bowed to him, and Zancla told me he was major Browne.

Did you at that time observe whether Zancla and the major or the colonel spoke to each other? They did not speak to each other.

Did they move to each other? They bowed to each other, and each went their own way What was the street in which major Browne, lived? At the Porta Orientale.

Was the house of which you are speaking, to which you went upon this occasion with Zancla; No. 660, Porta Orientale? Yes, it was.

Upon this latter occasion, that has been spoken of, did Zancla go up stairs? On the evening when we arrived do you mean?

On the last occasion that has been spoken of? Yes, he went up stairs.

Did you go up stairs with him? I remained below.

How long did Zancla remain above? A quarter of an hour.

When he came down again, did you see whether he had any thing with him? He had a handful of double gold Napoleons.

To the best of your judgment and recollection, how many double Napoleons might there have been? He told me eighty; but at seeing them, I believe there must be as many.

Did they in fact appear as many as that? They appeared to be really eighty.

Do you mean eighty pieces, or forty pieces of double Napoleons? Eighty double Napoleons.

What did he say to you at that time?

Mr. Attorney General

objected to this question. Although this was not a very regular inquiry, he presumed their lordships would require that it should be conducted with at least some degree of attention to the rules of evidence. The short objection which he should submit to their lordships was, that there was no evidence to show that Zancla was the agent of colonel Browne or Vimercati, or of any other person whatever; and consequently no conversation between Zancla and the witness could be evidence in this proceeding.

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Mr. Williams

contended, that in point of law the evidence was admissible, even upon the narrowest ground; for the conversation between Zancla and the witness fell within the strict rule of a declaration accompanying an act, and was, consequently evidence to prove that act. But he did not mean to rest his argument upon that narrow ground. He would beg leave to put a case to their lordships. Suppose any such language as the following had been used by Zancla to the witness—"Here, you see, I have got 80 double golden Napoleons, and if you will only do as I have done, you shall receive as much, or more."

Mr. Solicitor General

said, he felt himself bound to interpose. It was surely most irregular that a counsel should suggest the answers which the witness was hereafter to give, by putting supposed cases.

Mr. Williams

wished to know how it was possible for him to make the House understand the nature of the conversation tendered in evidence, unless he was permitted to suppose such a case? He would suppose, then, that the conversation was in substance, a recommendation on the part of Zancla to the witness to go and make a deposition against the princess, and an assurance, that if he had any thing to say against her, he would obtain as large a sum of money as himself.

Mr. Solicitor General

said, he must object to this mode of proceeding.

Mr. Williams

said, in reply, that the judges, in delivering their opinion that day, had said that on a trial for a conspiracy it was competent for the party to begin at whatever end of that conspiracy they thought proper. The usual practice, they said was, to begin with evidence of a general nature, showing the existence of the conspiracy, and then to adduce the details, bringing it home to individuals. His object now was, to show, that an opinion prevailed in Italy, that if witnesses came forward against the Queen, whether right or wrong was their testimony, they would be profitably rewarded. That was a material fact in the contemplation of the case. To establish the conspiracy it was therefore necessary to take the declarations of persons in detail. It would be impossible but by individual declarations to arrive at a general result. From the opinion of the Judges it was open to him to prove, that these prevalent impressions not only existed, but were acted upon by persons, inducing them to come forward as witnesses. Under these grounds, the examination which he was pursuing was evidence as far as it went. Besides, here it was not an abstract supposition. They had traced the witness and Zancla from Venice to Milan, there to the house of Vimercati, and thence again to colonel Browne's, where Zancla received the Napoleons. Here, then, were facts on which to append a case to which a great degree of materiality attached. The fact of a conspiracy could not be proved per saltum, but by progressive steps, according to the very doctrine that day laid down by the learned Judges.

Mr. Tindal

followed on the same side. He contended, that the question ought to be received in evidence; first, upon the ground of agency, and of the connexion between Vimercati and Zancla. The question of agency being established, he had a right to prove the acts and declarations, without being compelled to produce the agent himself. Wherever crime was imputed by the agency of third parties, from the showing of the acts of that party, the agency was inferred, Who ever heard in election cases, where the affirmative of bribery was to be established, of calling the agent to prove the act of bribery? It was quite sufficient to prove the character of agency; then to trace the acts, and having done so, to affix the entire upon the principal. Here they had a stage-manager invited from Venice to Milan; a sum of money, amounting to more than the necessary expense, was deposited at the office of the diligence, in itself an extraordinary fact. When arrived at Milan, the witness accompanied Zancla to colonel Browne, then to Vimercati, acknowledged agents, and again to colonel Browne's house, where Zancla received eighty double Napoleons. Such circumstances were enough to establish that Zancla, who conducted the witness from Venice to Milan, and was traced to acknowledged agents, was himself an agent of those parties. Next, on the ground of its being proof to establish a conspiracy, it was to be considered as a substantive fact, from which the existence of the conspiracy was to be inferred. It might be impossible to establish that by one separate and distinct fact; but when found to adhere and cohere with other facts, its existence could be inferred, and the matter traced to the author of the whole. From the number and weight of these facts, and their connexion with each other and the parties, the conspiracy can at length be established. In the case of the King v. Stone for high treason, a letter was allowed to be received in evidence, though such letter had never been written, authorized, or seen by the defendant;* it was, however, admitted, because it was written by one of the parties proved to have been engaged in a common design. In the present case they had traced the connexion of Zancla with Vimercati and Browne, who were now acknowledged agents. In this view, he contended their lordships were bound to admit the evidence, as one of elements, out of which the conspiracy was formed.

Mr. Attorney General,

in reply, intreated the House to pause before it admitted this evidence, and see the importance of adhering to the ordinary rule of law, which was fatal to the admissibility of this question. They had now heard that they were to be called upon to admit as evidence in this cause, the prevalent reports which might have been circulated in Italy, because it was possible they might have made an impression on the minds of the witnesses. The House would now clearly see the extent to which the other side wished evidence to be received. No man ^*See Howell's State Trials, vol. 25, p. 1269, and the Note thereto. could in future be safe if it were allowed; and it was his duty to object to it, when the object was to substantiate so foul, so heinous a crime as conspiracy. It was admitted by the counsel for the Queen, that they had not yet laid even the foundation for this species of testimony, and they claimed credit for connecting it with the case hereafter. But persons were to be presumed innocent rather than guilty, and the House was bound so to consider Vimercati and colonel Browne, until, by distinct legal evidence, and not by vague declaration, they were shown to be otherwise. Why, at all events, did not his learned friends call Zancla? His agency must be proved, before his declarations could affect any of the parties, and that agency could be established only by acts, and those acts must be adopted by the principal. Here nothing was attempted to be proved but the declaration of Zancla, in order to show, that he was the agent of colonel Browne and Vimercati. If the House let in this evidence, they must go still farther—it must receive all the prevalent rumours and opinions existing at the time in Italy; because, by possiblity, they might have had some influence on the mind of the witness at the bar. If this had been an indictment, it would have been the duty of counsel to take the objection, and in this proceeding it was no less his duty to do so because a false impression might be produced—the statement of what could be proved might go forth to the world with nearly the same effect as the actual evidence. Colonel Browne and Vimercati ought not to be convicted upon mere suspicion and inference. What the witness had already stated amounted to nothing. He most earnestly entreated their lordships, before they decided, to receive the evidence, and thereby to deviate so widely from all the established rules of evidence, to consider that the inquiry, in that case, must be interminable. It had been avowed by the counsel for the Queen, that they should bring forward testimony to all the rumours and speculations afloat in Italy; and if they were allowed to go to this extent, there was no safety in future, for the life, character, and property of any man. A floodgate would be opened to testimony such as had never been brought forward in any case since the beginning of time. The hypothesis was, that at some time or other, Zancla would be connected with the supposed parties to this conspiracy; but the accuser had a right to demand J that the connexion should be established in the first instance. The objection he had urged was not merely technical, it went to the very foundations of truth and justice, and depended upon rules of law that to this day had been held sacred.

Mr. Brougham

said, that he had no right to reply—he only wished to explain.

Mr. Attorney General.

—I object, my lords, to this explanation.

Mr. Brougham.

—I only beg to say that we do not attack colonel Browne.

The Lord Chancellor

said, that three grounds had been urged for receiving this evidence:—1st. That testimony might be given of general impressions abroad; but this was the first time he had ever heard of such testimony being offered. Secondly, it was asserted, that agency had been established. He could not conceive on what ground the declarations of Zancla, when he came down stairs to the witness, could be admitted as the proof of what had passed up stairs. If this were to be proved, at all events it must be proved by Zancla himself, unless the rule that the best evidence that could be obtained should be adduced were completely reversed. The third point urged was, that this might in the result turn out to be evidence of a conspiracy; but here again he knew of no case where such had been allowed, and where it was not required that the party producing the evidence should connect it more immediately with the charge. For these reasons, he thought that the objection urged by the attorney-general ought to prevail.

Lord Erskine

said, he entertained considerable doubts upon the subject. He agreed that this question ought to be viewed as if the objection had been taken on an indictment; and he admitted also, that before such evidence could be entered upon, counsel ought to explain its object, and to state what he intended to attempt by the production of the witness. If the proof failed, no party would be affected by it. It was asked, if this were a connected chain of testimony? It might be so; but as yet the House only saw one of the links which hereafter might be connected, and closely connected with colonel Browne and Vimercati. The question here was, whether the declaration and explanation on the part of counsel had been sufficient to bring the case within the decision of the judges. The noble lord then referred to what had occurred on the trial of Hardy, in 1794? he mentioned various circumstances connected with that proceeding, in order to show that the attorney-general of that day, the lord-chancellor of this, had been allowed to state what he should he able to prove against the conspirators, and then to proceed to the proof of it, step by step, without, in every instance, showing the precise connexion of the evidence with the parties accused. It had turned out, that the prosecutors could not connect the links; at least, so the jury found, and a verdict of acquittal was the consequence. The attorney-general had to-day complained that on such evidence as that offered, a false impression might go forth to the public to the prejudice of colonel Browne and Vimercati; but when men were on trial for their lives, no such objection was allowed; the evidence was allowed to weigh what it was worth for the time, and if it was not brought home to the party, a verdict in his favour was the consequence. His lordship did not see why a different rule ought to prevail in this case. If a conspiracy existed to defame and degrade the Queen, before it was proved, some opening ought to be made at the bar, and the question, as he had observed, in this case, was, whether the explanation that had been given, fell within the opinion given by the judges.

The Lord Chancellor

observed, that in his view this point required much consideration, though he was quite satisfied, that if his noble and learned friend looked again at the case to which he had referred, he would entertain more doubt than he had expressed. The effect of the cases of Hardy, Stone, and others, had been collected in Mr. Phillipps's work on Evidence, which did the learned author so much credit, where it was distinctly laid down, that the separate declarations of conspirators rendered the whole responsible; but then they must first be shown to be conspirators, and their declarations must be proved according to the regular forms of law. Hardy's trial had occurred so long ago, that until he refreshed his memory regarding it last night, he had forgotten all the circumstances, excepting that he made a tedious speech, which very nearly killed himself, and quite sickened his hearers. Having referred to it, however, he found that the position taken by his noble and learned friend was by no means borne out. If A. B. and C. D. were both proved to be parties to a con- spiracy, then E. F. might be examined as to the declarations of C. D., which would also affect A. B., but the testimony of E. F. could not be received until C. D. was shown to be connected with the conspiracy. Here if colonel Browne and Zancla were proved to be conspirators the last witness might give evidence of the declarations of Zancla, but not until Zancla was proved to be connected with colonel Browne. His lordship here examined a part of the evidence on the point of conspiracy in Hardy's trial, referring particularly to certain letters from Martin to Margarot, and to the opinion of Mr. Justice Buller.^* Here there was no evidence to connect Zancla with colonel Browne, though Riganti and Vimercati stood upon different grounds. On the whole, therefore, he felt satisfied that the question proposed could not be put to the witness.

Lord Erskine

added, that what the learned lord had selected from Hardy's trial had no reference to the part to which he (lord E.) had alluded.

The Lord Chancellor

begged pardon for interposing; but it might perhaps be as well if his noble and learned friend would take an opportunity of again reading the arguments in that case.

Lord Erskine

replied, that he remembered all the main features of the case as well as if they had occurred yesterday. The question was, whether what was now offered to be proved might not hereafter be shown to be a link in a chain of evidence, showing that a conspiracy had existed to suborn witnesses against the Queen. In Hardy's trial, lord chief justice Eyre had allowed the attorney-general to bring forward evidence of particular facts, on the faith that they would afterwards be combined and united into a series. He (lord E.) did not mean to offer a decided opinion upon this point, but he thought the same liberty ought now to be allowed to the counsel for the Queen.

The Lord Chancellor

had no objection to the opinion of the Judges being taken on the subject, and lord Erskine expressed his assent.

Mr. Brougham

said, that the House might remember that he was not allowed to open the nature of the evidence upon this point.

Lord Erskine

observed, that counsel ought not only to be permitted to open it, but were required to open it. ^* See Howell's State Trials, Vol. 24, p. 451.

The Lord Chancellor,

after exchanging a few words with the judges who sat near him, said, that though it might not be regular, he was authorized to say that the judges entertained no doubt that the evidence ought not to be received.

Lord Redesdale

expressed his concurrence.

Earl Grey

felt disposed to agree in the opinion given by the lord chancellor, and upon the three grounds that he had stated. General reports, he thought, ought not to be proved, and the agency of Zancla was not sufficiently established. As to the third point, whether it was proof of a general conspiracy, he felt bound to admit that Zancla was in no way shown to be connected with col. Browne, nor could evidence of his declaration be admitted. If Zancla were not connected, it was impossible that the House should hear from a third person what Zancla had told him in order to affect colonel Browne. Such being his opinion, he did not think any reference to the Judges necessary.

Mr. Brougham.

—Will your lordships allow me to state—

The Lord Chancellor.

—The House, I dare say, will have no objection to allow you to state what you wish to-morrow, but it is now four o'clock.

The Counsel were directed to withdraw; and the House adjourned.