HL Deb 07 September 1820 vol 2 cc1330-45

The House having been called over, and the order of the day read, for the further consideration and second reading of the Bill of Pains and Penalties against her Majesty, the counsel were called in.

Mr. Attorney General

—My lords; I think it right that I should state to your lordships, that within the last half hour I have received dispatches from Milan, and from which I find that longer delay than I had anticipated yesterday must take place before the arrival of the witnesses to whom I alluded. I think I ought, in justice to myself as well as to your lordships, to state that fact; and under those circumstances to withdraw the application which I made yesterday.

Lord Chancellor.

—My lords; it cannot but give your lordships pleasure, that this application should be withdrawn. The House, however, will permit me to say, that I think the attorney-general having in a general way stated in the opening of his case, the transactions to which that application alluded, he would not have done his duty to this House, under the state of the information which he had yesterday, if he had not submitted that application to your lordships consideration.

Mr. Brougham.

—Then, my lords, considering my learned friend as saying, that this is his case, unless something which I shall do in the way of deferring my further cross-examination should induce him to call other witnesses—taking that to be the position in which we now are—I beg to call back Theodore Majoochi, for the purpose of putting one or two questions; and then I shall give your lordships no further trouble in cross-examination.

Then Tcodoro Majoochi was again called in, and further cross-examined as follows by Mr. Brougham, through the interpretation of the Marchese di Spineto.

Do you know one Julius Cæsar Gavazzi? I never heard this name of Julius Cæsar Gavazzi; I do not know the name.

Do you know the name of Gavazzi? In Italy I have heard this name of Gavazzi, and one is a jeweller in the Coperto dei Fugini at Milan; I have seen him, and he is a fat man; he lived there, but I never was in his shop.

It being suggested whether the whole of the answer had been translated, the interpreters were asked, whether the witness had said that he understood the person lived there, but he did not know it.

The interpreters both answered, that they did not hear that stated by the witness.

I heard of this Gavazzi by name, and whether he was the Gavazzi or not, I cannot tell.

The question refers to a Gavazzi who lives in Grevillc-street, Hatton-garden, or who did live there last February? I remember that this Gavazzi told me that he was a relation of this Gavazzi of Milan, for when I came here to London I met with this young man, and he told me he was a relation to that of Milan.

The question refers to this Gavazzi, and not to the other, who you have stated was the only one you knew? But I have known this young man Gavazzi only during the few days I have been in London.

Did not this London Gavazzi and you dine together last winter for eight or ten days together? Not for eight or ten days, I was not here ten days.

Did you not dine with him once or twice in the same place? Yes, I remember I did; I dined with him twice, and we ate some rice.

Now that you recollect it all so accurately, even to the dinner, was not this a short time before the death of his late majesty? The king was already dead.

Was not it about the time, near the time, of his majesty's death? After the death of the king.

Do you mean that it was immediately after the death of the king? I think, as far as I can remember, that I arrived here on the day when they were telling me that the king was already buried.

Did not you show Gavazzi a letter which you said you had received from some person? What I had received was a letter that came from Milan from my wife.

The question does not refer to that letter at all, but did you not show him another letter, which you told Gavazzi at that time you had received from some persons here to carry abroad? What I remember is, to have shown him the dispatch which I had received to carry abroad, and I showed only the address, the outside.

Was not that a dispatch which you were to carry to lord Stewart? It was.

Did you not also show a number of Napoleons which you had received at the same time that you got the letter? Yes, for my journey; I counted them there.

How many Napoleons did you so count? I believe there were eighty.

Will you swear there were not 150?—I cannot swear, but what I remember is, that there were eighty, and I can swear that they were eighty Napoleons in gold.

Did you not tell Gavazzi at the time, that whoever gave you this had given you more than you asked to pay your expenses? He cannot say so, because I have asked only the money to make my journey.

Will you swear you did not tell Gavazzi that they gave you more than you had asked to pay your journey? I cannot swear any such thing, because I have asked for nothing else than the expenses of my journey, and Gavazzi cannot say to the contrary.

Will you swear that you did not tell Gavazzi, that whatever you asked, they gave you more than that? But I cannot swear to have asked for more, nor can he say that I asked for more, and as I have once sworn to this, I cannot swear to this a hundred times.

Will you swear that you did not say to Gavazzi, that you had got more than you asked? I never said so; no.

Do you know one Joseph Visetti? I do not know the name of Giuseppe Visetti.

The question refers to a person who lives near Liquorpond-street? You may say Liquorpond-street, for I cannot remember that; I came here in a sack, and I went away in a trunk, and I do not know the English language, and I cannot remember.

Though you knew nothing about Gavazzi, you recollected him perfectly well the moment you were told something about Hatton-garden? I recollected it because I knew the name of Gavazzi, not because I knew the garden; for I did not go reading what is put at the top of the streets; I do not know the English.

Do you remember an Italian that dined frequently at the same place where you and Gavazzi dined? There were many Italians who came there, sat down, and ale the rice which was prepared.

Did you not know an Italian whom you met there, who accompanied you frequently up and down London, to show you the way, and to explain things to you? That is true; because he served me as a lacquais de place.

What was his name? I never asked him the name by which he went.

Do you not know that he was a cabinetmaker? It was said that he was a carpenter or joiner.

Do you remember going with him, either on the day or the day after the late king's funeral, to the west end of the town? Where did I go?

To the west end of the town? He carried me about, and brought me here and there, and told me this place is this, and that place is that; and I did not know whether that was this or was that, and how can I remember?

Did you not go with him, in the way you describe, somewhere or other on the day of the king's funeral, or the day after it? To look at the funeral do you mean?

No, not to look at the funeral? I have been with him in several places; he was telling me that on the day they went to see the king, but I never went.

A Peer here interfered, and observed, that the witness had not used the word "funeral."

Mr. Brougham

complained of this interference. He was not to be interrupted in this way. Their lordships must be aware that he was obliged to pay the greatest attention to the course of the cross-examination, and yet a noble lord thought fit to object to a term he had used, and thus prevent him from proceeding. He desired to know whether their lordships allowed him to put the question.

Lord Exmouth

moved, that the counsel do withdraw; which being ordered, his lordship said he was not the noble peer who had said, that the witness had not used the word "funeral," though the learned counsel directed his looks to him. He would maintain, however, that he or any other peer had a right to interpose to correct a question which I might appear improper, without any counsel checking them or staring them in the face. He came there to sit as judge, and to vote on his honour and his oath, and was not to be lectured by any counsel whatever.

The Marquis of Lansdown

thought, that the proper course of proceeding, when any noble peer wished to interpose, was, first to move that the counsel withdraw. This, he thought, should have been done, if it was wished to ascertain whether the witness meant that people were going to see the king, or the king's funeral.

Lord Redesdale

observed, that in his opinion, noble peers had been several times insulted by the remarks of counsel in the course of the present proceedings.

The Counsel were again called in.

Do you mean to say, that it was on that day that the young man told you people were going to see the king's funeral? He told me that the people all went twenty or twenty-one miles to see the funeral of the king; but whether it was true or not true, I do not know.

Did you go with that young man to any particular house to call there? I remember to have called in some street upon some gentleman whom I do not know; I carried a letter, and a servant told me, that he was not at home, because he had gone out to see the ceremony of the funeral of the king.

Was that a large house? I do not know whether it was large or small; I was not there to look at it; I went to the door, I was answered that he was not at home, when I went away.

Did you go that day with the young man, the lacquais de place, to any other house? Yes, because I had another letter, and even there I did not find the account (il conto); and that day we could not find the house, for we went here, and we went there, and could not find the address.

Do you mean to say you called at a house with a letter to carry to somebody, and could not find that person at home? Not on that day, but on another day; for on that day we went here and there, and could not find the account (il conto).

On that day, or on the other day, did you go to find any person in a very large house? But how am I to know whether it was large or small, I do not make observations of these things; I went to the door, and I did not make observation whether the house was large or small.

Did you, on cither of those occasions, go into a house where there was a centinel standing at the gate? Was that on the same day when I went with that letter, for you must give me a more clear explanation, for I went into three or four houses.

Did you, on any of those occasions, when you were accompanied by the lacquais de place, go into any large house where there was a soldier standing centinel at the door? That was on the first day of my arrival in England, when I was told that that was the house where was the court of the king, for I had three or four letters.

Did you ever go to that house again? Yes, I went to and from this house.

Do yen mean that you went several times to and from this house? I do.

Upon those occasions did you go into the house, and leave your lacquais do place at the gate? The first time I left him out at the door.

Did you not leave him at the door also the other times when he accompanied you to the house? What I remember is, at the house where there are the soldiers, to have left my lacquais de place out at the door.

Do you mean to say, that the other times you were there your lacquais de place went into the house with you? Whether he came in or not I cannot tell, I left him there, and F. told him to stop; whether he afterwards came in I cannot tell.

Did you find him there waiting for you, when you came out of the house, upon those occasions? I have not measured the place, what I remember is, that I found him there waiting for me when I went out.

Upon one of those occasions did you come out with a gentleman, whom you found in the great house? Yes, I did.

Did you go from thence with that gentleman to his chambers? No.

Did you not go with him somewhere? With this gentleman I went no where.

Who was this gentleman that you came out with? What I remember is, that it was Mr. Powell.

Will you swear, that you did not go with your lacquais de place and Mr. Powell immediately from what you call the Corte to Mr. Powell's chambers in Lincoln's-inn? With Mr. Powell I did not go.

Did you not at that time make an appointment to go the same evening at six o'clock to Mr. Powell's chambers? I did.

Did you not go that evening, according to the appointment? I did.

You are understood to say, that you went several times backwards and forwards to that house with your lacquais de place? Yes.

Did you not upon one of these occasions go from Mr. Powell's with a note to that same great house? I did.

Did you go in upon that occasion 100, and leave your lacquais de place outside the gate? I believe to have left him outside the door, but I cannot say for a certainty.

Was not this great house Carlton-house? The name of the house I never heard, it was said it was the house of the king.

Were there pillars before the door? I know that the people entered by a small door, and as soon as they got in there was a porter.

Did you see no pillars upon the house? I saw some ancient Grecian columns, but I paid no attention to them; I saw the columns.

A tier you entered the outer gate was there a court in the inside between the house and the street? There was a court between the house and the columns.

Had you any conversation with Mr. Powell about your expenses in the presence of your lacquais de place? I do not remember.

Did Mr. Powell say to you, in the presence of the lacquais dc place, that money was no object, and that you might have more if you wanted it? No.

Will you swear that? I swear that Mr. Powell never said that.

Will you swear that he never, in the presence of that lacquais de place, said any thing to that purport? Mr. Powell never held this sort of discourse.

Perhaps Mr. Powell never spoke to you at all about this business of the Queen?

The Attorney General objected to evidence of the declarations of Mr. Powell.

Mr. Brougham

appealed to their lordships. Was it meant to be said that he could not, upon cross-examination, ask this question? Was it meant to be contended that it was an irregular question? Non constat, that Mr. Powell had said this or any thing else. Her majesty's counsel knew not Mr. Powell; they had not upon the record any description of Mr. Powell; but any thing he might have said was as much and as fair matter of evidence in this case as any thing else.

Mr. Brougham was informed, that he was entitled to ask this witness, whether Mr. Powell did or did not say such and such a thing to him, with a view by-and-by, if he desired, to call Mr. Powell to contradict him.

Mr. Brougham.

—Do you mean to represent that you never had any conversation with Mr. Powell on the subject of the Queen? On what do you mean; I do not understand what you say.

Do you mean to say that Mr. Powell has never spoken to you upon the subject of the Queen? Mr. Powell spoke to me on this business at Milan, when I made my first deposition; but after that we have never spoken any more upon this subject.

Did you ever see this letter before [a letter being shown to the witness]? I never saw it; I do not know how to read.

Do you know a Mr. Long; a person of the name of Long? I am not acquainted with such a name as Long.

Were you ever at the Globe-tavern, the place where you used to meet Gavazzi and the others at dinner? Yes, I met them, but I do not know the name of the tavern, for I did not look; and I do not know how to read and write.

Do you know the master of that tavern? If I were to see him, I should know him.

After your first examination in this place, have you ever seen either Mr. Powell or his clerk? Yes, I have.

Have you seen them, or one of them, frequently? Yes, I have seen him sometimes, for he comes into the place where we are, and I have seen him sometimes, but I cannot recollect precisely the number of times.

How long were you ever with him or them at any one of those times? I have seen him coming to others, and I merely paid him my I respects; and I saw him the other day when he came to ask for my certificate.

Turn and look at this person; is that the master of the house? [A person stated to be of the name of Joseph James Long, being pointed out to the witness.] Yes, I know him.

Did you employ that person, not being able to write yourself, to write a letter for you to a Mrs. Blackwell? He has written twice for me, once to Mr. Hyatt, and the second time to Mrs. Blackwell.

Should you know either of those letters again if it were to be shown to you? I have not seen the letters, because I told him, "Do me the favour to write for me," and he wrote those letters, and then he told me, "Here are the letters which I have written," but I never took them, and I cannot recognize them.

Mr. Brougham

stated, that he proposed to ask the witness, he not having written the letter, but employed another, whether he did not state certain things which he begged Mr. Long to write.

The Counsel were informed, that they could not give any evidence of the contents of a letter, hut that they might ask the witness whether he did or did not desire A. B. to write a letter to such and such effect.

Did you not request Mr. Long to write a letter to Mrs. Blackwell? Yes, I have begged him to write a letter in my name.

Did you tell him to write it in this manner: "I have safely delivered the letter to your brother, and he was quite well, and desires to be remembered to you kindly? "I told him to write to the following effect:" I have not found your brother at home, but I have left the letter in the hands of his wife; that they are well, and I beg to make my compliments to the family," because I was going away.

Did you not add in your instructions to Mr. Long, "I have got a situation, and am going off this evening to Vienna?" Yes, that I had got a place, and was setting out for Vienna.

Did you not desire in that letter to give your kind regards to Mrs. Hughes, brother, Madame Catalani, M. Bodeno, andaMr. Daniel? Whose brother?

Meaning Mrs. Hughes's son, whom you were accustomed to call brother? As an act of friendship.

Do you mean that you used to call Mr. Hughes, brother, as an act of kindness and friendship? Yes.

Did you desire Mr. Long also to write, "After I left you all, I could not eat, nor drink, nor sleep; so God bless you all?" As when we were together we played and joked among ourselves, so when I was writing to them, I said to Long to write, as a matter of compliment, "I cannot eat, or drink, or sleep; so God bless you."

Did you ever propose to marry Mrs. Black-well? Yes; I wanted to marry Mrs. Black-well, Mrs. Hughes, and every body in the house that would marry me.

Were you ever in Paris in the year 1818 or 1819? I was not.

Were you ever there in 1819? I never have been in Paris.

Re-examined by the Attorney General,

You have been asked respecting some Napoleons which you received before you went to Vienna; in what capacity was it that you went to Vienna? I went to Vienna as a courier.

Did you receive any directions to travel to Vienna with all expedition? Yes, I was ordered to go as quick as possible.

For what purpose were those Napoleons given you before you went to Vienna? To pay the expenses of the journey.

Were you to account for those Napoleons? I was.

Did you account for those Napoleons? Yes, I gave an account of my expenses at Vienna.

You have been asked, whether you took a note from Mr. Powell to the great house of which you have been speaking, for what purpose was it you took that note? As far as I can recollect to obtain a passport.

Upon that occasion, into what part of the house did you go if you went into the house at all? I went to the outer gate, and then I went through the court, I turned to the left hand, mounted a few steps, and went to the door and rung the bell, a servant came, and I gave him the note.

How long did you stay upon that occasion? About half an hour, not longer.

Were you directed to go any where else for your passport, and did you go elsewhere? I did.

Where? The Austrian ambassador's.

Did you, upon that occasion, get your passport? When I showed the note, they gave me the passport.

Do you recollect whom you saw at the great house upon that occasion? I saw a footman, and I saw a German, who talked to me in German.

You say you were there at other times; at any other times whom did you see at that great house? A big man, rather a handsome man, who did not talk either French or Italian, and spoke to me by signs.

For what purpose did you go to that house? The first time I went to carry a packet, and then I said that I must have a receipt for that packet, for I cannot give it without a receipt; and this was the object of my first going, because I was obliged to deliver it in person.

Did you bring that packet over with you, when you came over with Mr. Hyatt? I had it in my pocket.

How many times altogether did you call at that house, according to the best of your recollection? What I remember is, that I have been there three times.

You have stated what you went there the first time for; do you recollect for what you went there the other two times? The second time I went to see whether there was any answer to the packet for which I had had a receipt; the third time, because they had told me to call again; I had got no answer.

Was it the third time, or another time that you went there upon the subject of your passport? Then I went another time for the passport.

Examined by the Lords.

Earl of Rosebery.

—Did you go alone to Vienna, or in company with any other person? Alone, alone, alone.

Who then kept the account of the expenditure of the money? I was alone, and I was obliged to keep it myself.

Earl Grey.

—How could you keep that account, when, as you have stated, you can neither read nor write? The book of the post teaches all, shows all expenses.

You are understood to state, that you can neither read nor write? I know only to write my name very ill, and hardly that.

That is all you know? I am not fit either to write letters, or to keep accounts.

The following Extract was read from the printed Minutes, page 141.

"How long were you in England at that period, when you lived with Mr. Hyatt at Gloucester? This I cannot remember, because I have not the book in which I have marked the time.

"About how long were you in Mr. Hyatt's service? This is the same answer, because I have not the book in which I put down how long I was there."

How do you explain that? Non in cui he marcato, but, di marcare.

Interpreter.—It appears to her majesty's interpreter, as well as to myself, that he means, that he has not the book in which lie used to mark.

Do you mean to say, that you have not the book in which you put this down, or that you kept no book in which you entered such things? I said I had no book of any sort to mark upon, for I do not know how to read or write.

The interpreter was asked, what he conceived to be the literal meaning of the words "quanto mi recordo," which had been frequently used? to which he answered, "according to the best of my recollection."

The interpreter was asked, whether "I came in a sack, and went away in a trunk," was not an Italian proverb? to which he answered that it was.

The Witness, and also the Counsel were directed to withdraw.

The Marquis of Lansdown

said, he would take that opportunity, before the summing up of the counsel, to call the attention of the noble earl opposite, and of the House, to a letter which had that morning appeared in all the public journals. The letter was dated "Milan, Aug. 21, 1820," and purported to be from M. Marrietti to his son. One of the learned counsel at the bar had commented yesterday upon the extraordinary contents of that letter, and had also mentioned the communication which he had upon it with the noble earl opposite. He (the marquis) had not, however, seen this letter until he read it in one of the morning papers. Now that it had gone before the public, and would, no doubt, be copied into the public prints all over Europe, he felt it to be his duty to bring the subject formally before their lordships, for the purpose of its receiving that explanation which he trusted would relieve his majesty's government from the imputation which the letter was otherwise calculated to reflect upon them. For this purpose he begged leave, first, to ask the noble earl opposite, if his majesty's government had had an accredited agent of the name of colonel Brown at Milan, to whom instructions upon the subject of his mission had been sent? In putting this question, and alluding to the office of colonel Brown, he begged by no means to be understood as putting it for the purpose of entering into the propriety or impropriety of the colonel's conduct, whatever it should turn out to be. If it were proper to entertain such a charge as this—a point upon which he did not mean now to enter—he was free to confess, he did not know how the charge could be proceeded upon or substantiated without there being an accredited agent abroad to superintend the transmission of evidence. But the moment the government had sent that accredited agent abroad, his language and conduct became fit matter for inquiry, so far as it was calculated to involve or compromise the character and dignity of his majesty's government. It was in that view only, and not for the purpose of reflecting upon the office of the agent, if such he was, that he now solicited an explanation from the noble earl opposite. In doing so, he was very far from imputing to the noble earl opposite, or to his colleague, the noble secretary of state for the home department, that they had ever entertained any intention of giving instructions to an accredited agent, the effect of which must necessarily be, the employment of that agent abroad, under the authority and influence of his government at home, in an improper interference to obstruct the course of justice. But their lordships would see, from the nature of M. Marrietti's letter, that it was not sufficient the disclaimer of his majesty's government should be confined to the learned counsel who first called the noble earl's attention to the letter, but that it should also be made in the most public and formal manner. It was not enough, that if, upon any occasion, an agent abroad should be found to violate his duty (and to travel out of his instructions must be deemed a violation of his duty), that those who employed him should merely say, that he had no instructions to commit their name to any purpose of threat or intimidation: they must go further than that, to perform their duty to the public. The letter to which he alluded, came from M. Marrietti, a banker at Milan, than whom a more respectable person did not exist. The paragraph in that letter to which he called their lordships' attention was as follows:—"The object of this, my letter, is only to inform you, that it has been written to colonel Brown, here, that you behaved yourself ill, relatively to the things which interest the royal court and the Princess of Wales; for which reason you are watched to such a degree, that it has been in agitation,' that a command, called the Alien bill, should be signified to you to leave the country; and especially for the express reason, that you have sought to discover from this M. Sacchini, a Milanese, what he had deposed against the above royal princess." This paragraph contained a severe charge; what could be more unjust than to threaten a person under such circumstances with the terrors of the Alien bill? Such an interference, if made, was most unjustifiable; and the more particularly when the conduct of the individual against whom it was levelled, was within the strict limits of propriety and justice. Now, if this letter should ultimately prove to have been written by colonel Brown, and that he was an accredited agent of his ma-jesty's'government—and if it should, as he bad no doubt was the fact, prove to have been written without the sanction of the government at home—then the king's ministers were not only bound to disavow the intention imputed to them, but to demand from their agent an explanation of his conduct. If agents abroad could be suffered to act in this manner without reproof, then the language used by them would necessarily be considered as involving the character of the government at home; and of course, from its natural influence, would create an indisposition abroad, on the part of foreigners, which would prevent their coming here at any time to perform that duty which justice might require, and which otherwise they would be very willing to tender. On these grounds, he felt it to be his duty to put the following questions to the noble earl opposite, on the subject of this letter:—First, was colonel Brown an accredited agent of the king's government abroad?

and, secondly, if he were such, whether his majesty's ministers, when they were apprized of this letter, had taken any steps to ascertain from colonel Brown, whether he had acted in the manner imputed to him?

The Earl of Liverpool

said, he had not the smallest hesitation in giving the noble marquis the explanation he desired, as far as it was in his power at the present moment to give it; and, so far from being surprised at the question, he felt thoroughly obliged to the noble marquis for putting it, and thereby enabling him to give the explanation which he was now about to offer. He begged in the first place to assure the noble lord, in the fullest and most positive manner, that he was wholly and utterly ignorant of there being such a person in this country as the younger Marrietti. He certainly did know that there was a respectable banker of that name in Milan; but he was utterly ignorant of there being any relative of his here, and his noble friend (lord Sidmouth) was just as ignorant as he was of that circumstance; so that it was clearly impossible for either of them to have had the most remote notion of applying the provisions of the Alien hill against a person, of whose residence here they were utterly ignorant. He could also assure the House, that they were as ignorant of even the sound of the name of the other person alluded to in the letter as any noble lord who now for the first time heard it. After clearing away by this explanation, which showed the utter impossibility of either his own or his noble colleague's intention to apply the Alien bill to M. Marrietti, of whose existence they were wholly ignorant, he would proceed to answer the more immediate question of the noble marquis. Before he did this, however, he begged to state, that at the moment when Mr. Brougham had apprised him of this letter, he authorised him to take the first and earliest opportunity of apprising the younger Marrietti, that he might live here with perfect impunity, as long as he liked, from the operation of the Alien act; that he might at once remove from his mind any impression of apprehension from the operation of that law. With respect to what happened at Milan, it was quite clear he was in no condition at the present moment to give a full explanation; for he could have no knowledge of what the occurrence had been which gave rise to this letter. As to colonel Brown, he had no difficulty whatever in stating that he was a qualified accredited agent of the government respecting this case. The noble marquis had the candour to say, that if such a case as this was to be proceeded upon, it could not be substantiated without the appointment of some agent abroad. He was not himself acquainted with colonel Brown, but he had the assurance of those on whom he could implicitly rely, that a more respectable man than colonel Brown could not be found to be intrusted with such a business. On looking at the letter, he confessed that, with every disposition to place credence in what was said by so respectable a person as M. Marrietti at Milan, he very much doubted whether it referred as clearly and directly to colonel Brown as the noble marquis seemed to suppose. He was very ready to admit that it was liable to such a construction; but he still did not think the communication was conveyed in terms so decisive as to implicate colonel Brown; but this was mere conjecture on his part, and he agreed that the letter had some ambiguity about it. With respect to what had fallen from the noble marquis on the subject of making inquiry from colonel Brown, he had to inform their lordships, that, on the very day the learned counsel had communicated to him M. Marrietti's letter, he had not only disavowed it, but ordered a letter to be immediately sent to colonel Brown, desiring a full explanation upon the subject. It was obvious that he could do nothing more than what he had already done, as the matter stood; and it was equally clear that, whatever should prove to be the result, his majesty's government could not, in the most remote degree, be implicated by it. He could assure their lordships, that, in every letter of instructions which had been transmitted to the government agents abroad upon this business, it was desired that every facility should be given the witnesses for the Queen in the same manner as to those of the opposite side. He still felt persuaded that colonel Brown, in answer to the requisition made to him, would have it in his power to make a full and proper explanation. The government had at present demanded that explanation, and they could do no more.

The Marquis of Lansdown

expressed himself satisfied with the explanation given.

Lord Holland

said, he could not help hoping that in the course of the investigation the conduct of colonel Brown would appear justifiable. At all events, whatever might have been the conduct of the colonel and of those of whom he was the agent, the House and the country must look to the statute with a feeling of the strongest indignation. It was not to the possible lenity with which power might be exercised that he looked, but to the statute which lay before their lordships, the existence of which was calculated to operate upon men's minds, and deter them from acting the part towards the development of truth to which their conscience directed them. If colonel Brown had said what had been imputed to him to Marrietti, he had used an influence which no authority could justify; but, if the menace was merely in the apprehension of Marrietti, it was the law still that operated. However that statute might be acted upon by men, the law itself made an impression that would tend to the perversion of justice. If colonel Brown had so far forgotten his duty as to make use of the threat alluded to in that letter, then he must pronounce him, acting as a public officer, to be a great state delinquent. If the colonel was free from the imputation, then it was the impression of the terrors of the Alien bill that made Marrietti write as he had done; it was the fearful solicitude for the safety of his child that induced him to warn his son of what might be the consequence of offending persons in power in this country. So that, in either case, their lordships had a practical opportunity of seeing the effects of this most unwarrantable statute. He should not now detain their lordships by a repetition of his arguments against the impolicy of the Alien bill; but he must beg the House to recollect, that when he had opposed that bill, the character of the ministers who were to exercise its provisions was quoted as an argument—certainly not a very parliamentary or very wise argument in a free country—but it was quoted as an argument, to show the visionary nature of the dangerous effect which he had apprehended from the enactment of this statute. But did not the result support and justify his opinion, that the operation of this most impolitic law did not depend upon the character of those who were to administer it, but that it was in itself a law which, from its very nature, might operate to the perversion of justice? And here was an instance in which it was calculated to have such an effect.

The Counsel were again called in.

The Attorney General.

—Am I to understand that the Queen's attorney-general does not contemplate any further cross-examination at any time?

Mr. Brougham.

—At no time.

Forward to