Sitting of 14 October 1820

Preamble
The order of the day being read for the further consideration and second reading of the bill, intituled "An Act to deprive

627
"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; Counsel were accordingly called in.
Then John Allan Powell, esq., was called in, and farther examined as follows, by the Lords:
Earl of Carnarvon.—You have stated, that Restelli was sent to Milan on Thursday or Friday after the adjournment of the House, that was on the 14lh or 15th of September? On the 14th or 15th of September. I left town early on the morning of the 15th, the Friday, I believe, but I am not certain, that Restelli went the preceding evening, but I did not see him go.
Do you know whether Restelli was directed to take dispatches on his way to sir Charles Stuart at Paris? I do not.
When you sent Restelli abroad, in how many days did you calculate that he would probably arrive at Milan? I calculated that he might arrive at Milan in seven or eight days.
What time was it understood that Restelli was to remain at Milan? I sent some papers by Restelli to be farther legalised, which had been sent over, as I conceived, not so: those papers I thought might have been made use of upon the opening of this business again; consequently Restelli was to have returned previous to the 3rd of October, to have brought back those papers.
Was Restelli instructed by you to go anywhere except to Milan? Nowhere except to Milan, he was to go direct there.
Do you know that at or near the same time any persons who had been sent over here, in order to give testimony in this cause, were sent back to Milan? I know that, previous to that time, a person who had been sent over here had been sent back, not any person who had been examined.
Was only one person sent back? I recollect only one person.
Was that person one who had landed at Dover at the same time with Restelli? He was not.
Previous to Restelli's being sent abroad, you have said, that one person was sent back to Milan, was any other person, similarly circumstanced, sent back, or allowed to go back, to any other part of Italy? Not to my knowledge.
Subsequently to the return of that one person, had no other persons who had come here for the purpose of giving testimony, and had not been examined, been sent back, or been permitted to go back to Italy? Not to nay Knowledge.
Are you to be understood that, previous to
628
Restelli's going to Italy, no person who had come here for the purpose of giving evidence or deposition had been sent back, or permitted to return to Italy, except the person you have already mentioned? Am I to speak from my own personal knowledge?
The witness was directed to speak from his own knowledge.
To my own personal knowledge there has not been.
To the best of your knowledge and belief?
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
The Earl of Lauderdaleconsidered this examination irregular. He could not conceive the object of making inquiries respecting persons who had come from Italy, but hail not been examined. He also protested against an examination of the agent of a party in a cause. He did not think their lordships could, consistently with the principles of law, call an agent before them, and examine him as to every step which he took in his client's case.
The Earl of Liverpool,without entering into the consideration of the question immediately before the House, had no hesitation in saying, that he was fully of opinion that any persons who had been brought here as witnesses, and who had not been examined, might be sent back. Indeed, it was his wish that they should be all sent back; and were he asked as to his belief, he would say, that several who had not been examined had returned.
Earl Greysaid, his noble friend on the cross-bench (lord Lauderdale) seemed totally to misapprehend the object of the examination. What was the situation in which the House was placed? It was proved, that an agent in support of the bill had, contrary to his general instructions, and contrary to his duty, sent away one of the witnesses who had been examined at the bar. That agent had admitted his having done so, and, in justification, said, that he had so sent him for the purpose of giving assurance to the families of the persons who were in this country to give evidence in support of the bill, who had been, it was stated, very much alarmed by what had happened at Dover. Now, what was the object of the examination of his noble friend? To ascertain whether there was any validity in this excuse, set up for a step which was universally condemned, except, perhaps, by his noble friend on the cross-bench, but which he too would condemn if it proved to be unnecessary. In his questions relative to this measure, so generally repre-

629
hended by their lordships, his noble friend had asked whether certain persons, who had not been examined as witnesses, had not been sent back to Italy, who might have answered the purpose for which Restelli was said to have been sent. It was, doubtless, competent to their lordships to enter on such an inquiry, and without violating any important secrets, which an agent was bound not to disclose with respect to the affairs of his clients. An answer to the question which had been put by his noble friend was indispensable, in order to ascertain the validity of the excuse, if their lordships meant to inquire into this most reprehensible transaction, a transaction the impropriety of which his noble friend on the cross-bench did not deny:
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, he had expressed his abhorrence of the proceeding; but the question was most objectionable in the manner in which it was put. It might be asked, whether any person who was present at Dover when the witnesses were ill-used, and who was also an Italian, had been sent to Italy besides Restelli? If he knew any thing of the law, one of the principles held most sacred was this—that an agent ought not to be required to disclose the confidential secrets of his client. To the question as he had defined it, he should have no objection.
The Lord Chancellorthought it his duty to state, with respect to the matters now before their lordships, that they could not be too cautious in putting questions to an agent; as, if this were permitted on one side, justice required that the same licence should be granted to the other. The principle, as the noble earl had stated, was this—that an agent should not be called upon to disclose the affairs of his client. The noble earl ought to put the question thus:—Have you or not, sent any other person abroad equally qualified to do that for which Restilli has been sent abroad?" By putting the question thus, they might ascertain all that had been done, without inquiring into matters that ought to be concealed.
The Earl of Rosslynobserved, that if the question was put in this shape, the witness might answer "No." But in that answer they would have only the opinion of witness as to the comparative qualifications of Restelli, and not the fact which they wanted; namely, whether at that period any unexamined witness had been sent back? Here their lordships
630
had the admission that an agent of the bill had sent away a witness. That agent having assigned reasons in justification of his conduct, their lordships were bound to inquire and decide whether those reasons were valid and justifiable—whether they were real or pretended. With that view he conceived their lordships had a right to press the questions of his noble friend.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, there might be many cases, in which, from the sacredness of the principle now contended for, difficulties might arise; but if facts could not be obtained without doing that which the law of England would not authorize, the evil must be submitted to. Such questions must not be put in any particular case, on account of the evil consequences to which such a departure from the established practice must lead.
Lord Hollandbegged to ask one question of the learned lord on the woolsack relative to the principal in this cause. Was the secret committee or the House the principal. It had been said, that the House were the prosecutors, and if so, were they not entitled, as the principals, to examine their own agent?
The Lord Chancellor.—Whatever the popular effect of the question put by the noble lord may be, I cannot allow myself to answer a question which the noble lord ought not to have put.
The Earl of Darnleyunderstood that a vast number of witnesses had been brought to this country who had not been examined at their lordships bar. For obvious reasons, it might not have been improper to send back this superfluous testimony. Such being the case, he was surprised that some of these unexamined witnesses had not been conveyed to Italy, where they could have answered every purpose that was to be answered by sending Restelli. It was said, that an account of the expense incurred was unnecessary when he had called for it.
The Earl of Liverpool,though the point was certainly out of order, begged to mention, on the subject of expense, that he had given orders a fortnight ago for the preparation of the accounts referred to. He begged also to observe, in reply to some observations which he had heard, that it was true that more witnesses had been brought over than had been examined, and he had certainly given it as his opinion that the unexamined witnesses should be sent back. But he had ex-

631
pressed this merely as his own opinion, subject to the professional opinion of those who were the best judges, how far those witnesses might be necessary or not. The attorney and solicitor general would, of course, act as they pleased respecting the disposal of their own witnesses. All that he had said on the subject was merely an opinion, and such, he begged it to be considered, always subject to the opinion of others better qualified to judge upon that subject than himself.
The Marquis of Lansdownobserved, that there could be no question that the unknown prosecutor, whoever he might be, had the right of disposing of his own unexamined witnesses. There could be no objection to his doing so, for the act itself was open to no improper imputation; nor could the opposite counsel interfere to put any question respecting the disposal of the witnesses either to the agent or the principal; they could only ask, whether these unexamined witnesses had been sent away—a fact, which, when answered at the bar, could put them in possession of no new information, as that circumstance was already known.
The Earl of Carnarvonagain supported the relevancy of the question which he had put. The object of it was, to know the value of the explanation given by the witness of his conduct in sending off Restelli, contrary to the general understanding of all parties, and contrary to the express order of the House. If he could shew that not one only, but from fifty to sixty witnesses had been sent back, who could have carried the information for the conveyance of which Restelli was so improperly selected—persons too, who, by their own personal appearance, probably well clothed, and with pockets well lined, could have completely removed all apprehension as to the treatment of witnesses here—if he could establish that, of what value would the explanation of Mr. Powell be? The question was simply whether any witnesses had been sent back to Italy previous to the departure of Restelli, and he could not see what secret there was in this. If there was any secret in it, it was one well known at the Foreign office, where all these persons had obtained their passports, and to this great secret, therefore, all the persons connected with that office, must necessarily be parties.
Lord Aucklandunderstood it to be a rule observed in the courts below, that a question might be put to an agent, at the
632
same time cautioning him only to answer it so far as he could do it, without violating the confidence reposed in him. In criminal cases this rule was, he believed, more extensively applied than in civil cases. He apprehended, therefore, that the question might be put, but that Mr. Powell should first be asked, whether in answering it, he would act inconsistently with his duty to his principal.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that the objection made to the question did not go upon the ground that it was necessary to protect the agent, but the principal. Although, therefore, the question might be put in the form suggested, yet he did not see how that would remedy the inconvenience, because it was not the protection which the agent owed to himself, but the privilege which was accorded for the safety of the principal.
Lord Ellenboroughcould not allow that that principle which was held to be so sacred in other cases, was exactly applicable to the present proceedings? The principal in this cause he considered to be the state. The Attorney-general had to discover the truth and nothing else; and if, at any period of the proceedings, the counsel for the bill should be satisfied that a case could not be made out, it was their duty to state this to the House. The state being the principal, that House, as part of the state, it appeared to him, had a right to examine their own agent.
The Witness was again called in, and the question was proposed.
I have heard that two others have gone.
At the time you resolved to send Restelli to Milan, had you inquired whether it was probable that any witnesses would be soon permitted to depart? I had made no inquiry on the subject.
You stated that you had received letters stating that Restelli was ill, from whom did you receive those letters? From colonel Browne.
Have you got those letters? I have not them about me.
Have you had any communication from Restelli himself since he left England? None, nor made any to him.
Marquis of Lansdown.—Did you instruct Restelli to go to any other place or places than Milan? I have already answered that I did not.
Earl of Morley.—Is the House to collect from your evidence of yesterday, that you applied yourself to the Foreign office for a passport for Restelli? I mentioned at the Foreign office that Restelli was to go as a courier.
Antecedently to your, application, were you

633
acquainted with the persons of lord Clanwilliam and Mr. Planta? I was.
Earl of Darnley.—Do you consider that, as agent for this inquiry, the witnesses are all under your direction and control? Certainly not under my direction and control.
Did you make the application to Restelli to go as courier, or Restelli to you? I; not Restelli to me.
Solely for the express purpose of quieting the minds of those witnesses in Cotton-garden? Of quieting the minds of the families and relatives of the witnesses in Cotton-garden.
Solely for that purpose? Solely for that purpose, and of taking back those papers; I sent the papers with him as a courier.
Lord Erskine.—If your sole object in sending Restelli was, to quiet the apprehension of the families of persons whom they might be anxious for, how came you to send by him the papers to legalise at Milan, the legalising of which might create some delay, if he was to bring them back? I did not send the papers that he might legalise them; I sent papers by him to Milan to be legalised, that farther proof might be had of them; and I expected that those papers would be legalised in sufficient time for Restelli to bring them back here on or before the third of October.
Did you intend that the papers should not be left by him to be legalised in his absence, but that he was to wait to bring them back? I had no expectation of that sort; it would be left to the discretion of colonel Browne to send those papers back by Restelli or not.
Marquis of Lansdown.—State what families of witnesses now in Cotton-garden you know to be resident at Milan? To be resident at Milan and the neighbourhood.
At Milan? Rancatti, I think, and the Majoochis, in the neighbourhood of Milan; I cannot carry in my mind the names of those witnesses: if I could see those names, probably I might be able to point out some others; it was intended not only to the families at Milan, but in the neighbourhood of Milan also.
Did you give any instruction to Restelli to quit Milan, and go into the parts of the neighbourhood or country adjacent to Milan, where those families resided, for the purpose of conveying those, assurances? I do not remember that I gave any precise instructions upon that subject, but he was to take letters, and did take letters from the witnesses in Cotton-garden to their families.
Then it was by means of those letters so conveyed from Cotton-garden by Restelli that you expected that the families you allude to would derive that assurance? By means of those letters and Restelli's personal appearance at Milan, and probably the neighbourhood, that he would be sent from Milan to places in the neighbourhood.
Had you reason to expect that Restelli, without any instructions from you, would go
634
into the various countries adjacent to Milan, in which those families resided, for the purpose of conveying assurance to them by his personal appearance? I recollect having stated to Reslelli that he should take letters to the families of the different persons who were there, and that he should assure them of their being safe, and I concluded that colonel Browne would send him to those different persons to give that assurance.
Would it have been possible for Restelli to convey that assurance by carrying letters to those families in the different places where they resided, and by his personal appearance before them, without incurring a greater delay than that which you stated would belong to his mission? As I have already said, Restelli left this country, I believe, either on the evening of the 14th or the morning of the 15th, I do not know which, not having seen him go: couriers have gone to Milan in six days and six nights; supposing him to have taken seven, it would have brought it to the 21st or 22nd, leaving eleven days before the 3rd of October; the distance he had to go into the country would have been either to Monza, which is about ten miles, where one of the families lived, and Como, which is about five-and-twenty.
Lord Auckland.—Can you state whether the friends of a witness named signor Cuchi were in a state of anxiety? I know nothing of that; I have no reason to believe one way or the other.
Do you know whether any letter was sent to Trieste? By Restelli; I do not know what letters he took.
Can you state what number of letters were sent by him? I do not know.
Lord Ellenborough.—Did you send any letter to colonel Browne, by Restelli, on the subject of Restelli's mission? I did.
Have you a copy of that letter? I have.
Can you produce it? I have it not here.
Can you produce it? I can produce it; it contains a great deal of matter relative to other subjects; whether in my situation I ought to produce it or not, I must leave to the House, whether confidential communications ought to be produced.
Can you produce that part of the letter which refers to the causes of Restelli's being sent? It is altogether a confidential communication, which in my situation I must defer, and submit to the House whether I ought to produce or not.
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
The Earl of Darlingtonbegged to remark to their lordships, that this witness had not been called in support of the bill, nor by the counsel for the defence, but by the House. In what capacity the House had called him, his lordship could not say. He had, however, been brought to the bar by an order of the House, and the noble lord would submit, that the counsel on both sides should be per-

635
mitted to put any question to him which they thought necessary, confining themselves to those rules of evidence which prevailed in the courts below.
Earl Greysaid, the reason why the wit ness had been called was very clear. A cir cumstance occurred which was calculated to obstruct the course of justice. A person had been sent out of the country, contrary to an understood pledge, and the present witness, with whom this was supposed to originate, was in consequence called to the bar. He saw no reason why counsel should not be at liberty to suggest any question they thought material.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the principle acted upon in all the courts below, should in like manner be observed by that House, acting either in a judicial or legislative capacity. Whether counsel suggested a question or not, their lordships might put it to a witness if they thought proper. He did not rise for the purpose of objecting to the question put by the noble lord, but he really thought that now, as well as upon other occasions since the commencement of these proceedings, they had done that which, if permitted in the courts below, it was impossible that substantial justice could be done. If counsel called a witness to the bar in any state of the proceeding, it was certainly the duty of the court to give him credit for thinking that it was for the interest of his client so to do. Their lordships might ask any question, at the suggestion of counsel, if they thought such question fit to be put. He apprehended, however, that no noble lord ought to put questions which, in the courts below, would not be permitted. No doubt it would, in many cases, be impossible for counsel to give a satisfactory answer to the court as to the importance of a question, but the safe rule was, to give them credit for putting no other but such as were material.
The Witness was again called in.
Earl Grey.—You are understood to state, you are in possession of a letter from colonel Browne, giving an account of Restelii's illness? I am.
Can you produce, if not the whole, that part of the letter which contains that communication? I consider all the communications made to me by colonel Browne in this business as made to me confidentially, and as considering me one of the agents on this bill.
You therefore object? I therefore object to the production of any correspondence to colonel Browne, or from him.
Or any part of that correspondence? If I object to the whole, I object to every part.
You also object to the production of the whole or any part of your letter to colonel Browne on the subject of Restelii's mission? I object, in the character in which I stand, to the production of any correspondence either to or from colonel Browne.
636
You were understood to say, that you gave positive injunctions to Restelli to return before the third of October? If I recollect right, I stated to Restelli that he was to be back on or before the third of October, or as soon as he possibly could.
Did you state to him the reason for the necessity of his speedy return? I do not recollect that I stated any reason for his speedy return.
You were understood to state yesterday, you did not expect that Restelli would be wanted before this business was proceeded on in the House of Commons? I did not expect he would be wanted as a witness until this proceeding would go on in the House of Commons.
On what account then did you give him so positive an injunction to be back by the third of October, or as soon as he possibly could? Because I expected him to return with the papers which I had sent, and which I conceived I might want to use upon the re-commencement of the proceedings on the third of October.
It was for that purpose, and not for the purpose of his being called in case of necessity, in consequence of any examinations that might arise in this House? The necessity of his being called as a witness in the proceedings in this House did not suggest itself to me; the counsel against the bill having slated, that they had no further questions to put to any of the witnesses in support of the bill, his being called upon by them as a witness in the course of their defence did not suggest itself to me.
You were aware, however, of the opinion of this House, that it was necessary all the witnesses who have been examined here should be kept in a state to be produced, if necessary, in the course of the proceedings? That it had been so decided by the House.
That the House had expressed its opinion, and given its orders? I do not recollect that.
Were you not aware that this House had expressly stated its opinion, that every witness examined in this cause should be kept in a state to be re-produced, if necessary, in the progress of this inquiry? I certainly understood that, during the inquiry in support of the bill, during the giving the evidence in support of the bill, the House would require it.
You were understood yesterday to state, that you had been present when the first lord of the Treasury stated to the House an assurance that every witness, as far as it was possible for him to command it, should be forthcoming to answer any questions that it might be necessary to put to him in the further progress of this inquiry? Certainly.
Then were you not aware of the necessity of Restelli, as well as the other witnesses, being kept here for that purpose? I can only say, that it did not suggest itself to me at the time of Restelii's going; if it had in any

637
manner suggested itself to my mind, I should not have thought of sending him.
If any witnesses had been sent back previously, or at the time of Restelli's going, might not they have effected all the purposes of assuring the families of those who remained here of their personal safety? I considered Restelli the best person to send back for that purpose, because he had accompanied those witnesses who had been maltreated; I believed him to be well acquainted with the families, and consequently that he was the best person to go back for that perpose.
You meant then, that he should have a personal communication with the families of those witnesses? As far as was in his power, that was my intention.
You considered him as the best agent to have communication with the families of those persons? I thought him the best person to have communication with the families of those persons for that purpose.
The reason then of your sending Restelli back was, that he might have such communication with the families of those persons? The reason of my sending Restelli back was, that he might take letters from the individuals here to their friends and families, and that he might personally communicate the situation in which those persons were here.
State from your knowledge, as an agent in this cause, of the witnesses who have been examined here, whether any one of their families is resident in Milan? Never having seen their families, or been in communication with their families, I cannot state from my own personal knowledge, any thing about it.
Those witnesses have all been examined here as to the places of their residence? I do not recollect the places of residence thay have stated.
Do not you know that all, except Majoochi, have stated that their residence was at other places, and not at Milan? I do not know, because I do not know where they have stated their residences to be.
You meant that Restelli should have communication with their families? I meant that Restelli should have communication with all the families, as far as he could, in Milan and the immediate neighbourhood.
You have stated, that if a courier goes day and night, and uses all possible expedition, he may go from hence to Milan in seven days, and return in as many? Six days and nights; I have heard of couriers going in even less time than that, in five days and six nights.
You seem to allow, upon the average, seven days as a quick expedition? Not as extraordinary expedition; I take it that a courier, using no extraordinary diligence, perhaps I may say ordinary diligence, would get to Milan in six days and nights.
Do you think a courier, using his utmost diligence, could go from hence to Milan and return, without any delay there whatever, in less than fourteen days? I do think so; I think he might.
638
Did you expect that Restelli could have performed the journey in less time than that, there and back? I can scarcely say what my expectation was; I generally calculated a courier's going in six days and nights; I know it has been repeatedly done.
Supposing this man had travelled twelve days and twelve nights without intermission, that was the least time in which it was possible for him to go and return from Milan? I do not say the least time, but that is the time he would probably have taken, if not a day or two more; he might have taken a day or two more.
Then state what time there was left, considering the time occupied in going and coming, for him to execute this commission of personal communication with the families of the witnesses, so as to make it possible for him to have been here again on the third of October? Supposing him to have left London on the evening of the 14th, he would have arrived at Milan on the 20th; I believe he went on the evening of the 14th, allowing six days for his return, whenever that might be, that would be the 26th, he would then have seven days.
Did colonel Browne state in his letter to you the date of his arrival at Milan? I do not recollect that he did.
On referring to your letters, if you find the date staled, should you have any objection to communicate it to the House? I can have no objection to communicating that, except that I object to communicating any thing.
You object to communicating the mere fact of a date? The mere fact of a date I could have no objection to communicating, except as forming a part of the confidential communication that has taken place between colonel Browne and myself. I consider that I ought in my character to object,—it is not that I should have any personal objection, but I consider it my duty to object to making any communication of correspondence of that nature.
Lord De Clifford.—Have any of the persons whom you have stated to have been ill-used at Dover, returned to Italy? None to my knowledge, except Restelli himself, who was ill-used.
Was there not a woman among those persons? I understand there was; I understand one man has never recovered the effect of it, he has been deaf ever since.
Is that woman still in England? She is.
Lord Kenyan.—Did Restelli bring more than one set of witnesses to this country? I do not recollect, I have no knowledge of it.
What were the names of those witnesses whom Restelli brought? Does the question refer to the witnesses whom he brought to Dover.
Any witnesses he brought to this country? I cannot recollect all the names, I can recollect some he brought over to Dover, as I understood; I did not see them.

639
On inquiry, can you ascertain the names of those witnesses whom Restelli brought? I could on inquiry ascertain the names.
Can you state what was the greatest distance of the residence of any witness from Milan, whom Restelli brought to this country? I cannot; I do not remember the names of all, therefore I cannot state.
Do you conceive Restelli could communicate with the families of all the witnesses he brought here, by going to Milan? That he could conveniently communicate with them all, certainly.
Do you know the names of the two persons whom you state to have been sent back to Italy? I stated one person to have been sent back to Italy.
Do you know his name? I do.
Can you state it? Aquabuona.
Did not you know, that you had lost all control over Restelli the moment he quitted England; and might not any other courier, not placed under such circumstances, have conveyed the intelligence to the families of the witnesses? Personally I lost all control over him, but I do not know that I ever had any control over him; I have already stated, that I did not think any other person could so well have communicated that information.
The Earl of Liverpoolhere interposed, and observed, that there could not be the least difficulty in communicating to the House the names of the witnesses, the alarm of whose families his journey to Milan was meant to allay, as well as the dates of the letters which were written for the purpose of bringing him back, whatever difficulty the witness might make, in communicating these facts in his character of agent.
Lord Kentyon.—Am I to understand, that there is any other difficulty in your answering these questions than that which arises from your character as agent.
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, that this course of proceeding, if persisted in, would be fatal to the judicial inquiry in which they were engaged. They had called an agent to their bar, as a witness, who had been himself instrumental to bringing witnesses to support this bill; he begged only to ask, what would be their situation, if, from that confidential ascent, a contradiction was extracted to the witnesses, whom he had himself produced? He thought the whole of his testimony should be removed from their Minutes.
Mr. Brougham.—I understand I am to be permitted to suggest some questions to the witness.
The Lord Chancellor.—The Lords have not yet done with the witness.
The Witness was again called in.
The Earl of Darnley.—You have stated, that you consider the witnesses for the prose-
640
cution are not under your direction and control; do you know under whose direction and control they are? I can scarcely state under whose, I consider them under the control and direction of the government generally, and the agents of the government.
Who is the person immediately authorized by government to see after those witnesses, and to direct and control those witnesses; do you know of your own knowledge? There are several persons who reside in the place with them, under whose immediate direction, whether control I cannot say, but under whose direction and care they are.
In point of fact, are persons admitted to see the witnesses, or refused admission, by your order? I have given directions, that persons should be admitted to see the witnesses, and certainly I have given directions, that strangers should be excluded; not that a constant, direct, and free communication should be had to the witnesses by every body who wished to go there, because I thought it inconsistent with their safety.
Earl of Derby.—You are understood to state, that you did not consider Restelli to be under your direction or control, under what authority did you take upon yourself to send Restelli from this country? As a person assisting, an agent, perhaps, I may call myself; a person assisting in the support of this bill; I conceived that I had a right to send Restelli; that I had that sort of implied authority.
Did you send Restelli out of this country of your own mere motion, without any communication with any other agent in the cause? I do not recollect whether I made any communication to any other agent in the cause; I know I spoke of it generally; I made no secret of sending Restelli.
You were not asked whether you made any secret of it, but whether, prior to sending this gentleman out of the country, you gave directions solely from your own head, that he should so go? I do not remember any communication to any other person; it is possible I might have made it.
You took it solely upon yourself to send this person, whom you did not consider under your control, out of the country upon this occasion? I took upon myself to send this person as a courier upon that occasion.
Can you state the names of those witnesses whom Restelli brought over to this country? I did not see the witnesses brought over by Restelli, I can merely state it from hearsay, therefore I have no personal knowledge as to who they were.
The following extract was read at the desire of lord Kenyon, from the former evidence of the Witness:
"Did Restelli bring more than one set of witnesses to this country? I do not recollect; I have no knowledge of it.
"What were the names of those witnesses

641
whom Restelli brought? Does the question refer to the witnesses he brought to Dover?
"Any witnesses whom he brought to this country? I cannot recollect all the names; I can recollect some whom he brought over to Dover, as I understood, I did not see them.
"On inquiry, can you ascertain the names of those witnesses whom Restelli brought? I could on inquiry ascertain the names."
Lord Kenyannow suggested, that the witness should be directed to produce the list of the witnesses whom Restelli had brought to this country.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that as the witness could not speak to this subject of his knowledge, such list could not be evidence:
Earl of Winchelsea.—Did you consider yourself as having any authority over Restelli to order him to go out of the country? If the man had refused to go out of the country, I certainly had no authority to order him; I even considered him at liberty to go if he pleased, and that I could not have stopped him; I conceived that he was under no legal restraint.
The Counsel were asked, whether they had any questions to submit.
Mr. Brougham.—Who is your client or employer in this case? [Cries of No, no!].
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Mr. Brougham.—My lords, it is a very important question, and I have no object in putting it except for the purposes of strict justice. It is most important for us to put this question to the present witness, as he is the very first that has appeared at this bar, in the course of the proceedings, who could give us any information upon the subject. Is it not of great importance to ask of this witness, who is the solicitor in this cause, who his client is, when we are acting as the counsel for a defendant open and avowed? If I knew who the person was, non constat that I could not bring forward documents, speeches, and communications without number against him, and highly important to the cause of my client. But up to this moment I have never been able to trace "the local habitation—the name" of the unknown being who is the plaintiff in this proceeding. I know not but it may vanish into thin air. I know not under what shape it exists;
"If shape it might be called, that shape had none,
Distinguishable in member, joint, or limb—
Or substance might be called, that shadow seemed;
For each seemed either.—What seem'd his head.
The likeness of a kingly crown had on."
If I could see it, I might interrogate it, and bring out of its mouth, if mouth it had—who and what it is, and whether it be a man?
642
But up to this moment, we do not know who the party is; it may be some shapeless form without a head—or it may be a head with the semblance of a body. But highly and vitally important as it is for my client to know who is her principal accuser, and highly indispensable as it is for me, who am her advocate, to put such 'questions to the witnesses as I am legally entitled to ask, and upon which I should have a right to insist in any of the courts below, I am met at every step of my progress by, "You can't ask this question—you must not put that question." But, my lords, how can I discharge my duty to my illustrious client, if I am to be debarred from putting questions to the witness indispensable for her defence; and which as an advocate in any of the courts below, I should have an undoubted right to put, especially as they tend in no degree to infringe the rules of professional confidence?
The Counsel was informed, that the question could not be put to a witness called to account for his having permitted a person examined as a witness to leave, this country; but if he wished to propose such a question, he must for that purpose call him as his own witness.
How many witnesses, previous to the 14th of September, were here on the part of the bill from Italy?
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
The Counsel was informed, that he could not put that question; that he might ask how many had left this country.
The Witness was again called in.
How many witnesses who had ever come over in any way to this country, in support of the bill, to the best of your knowledge and belief, had left the country before the 14th of September?
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
The Counsel was directed to confine his question to witnesses from the north of Italy.
The Witness was again called in.
Previous to Restelli's being sent back to Italy, how many of the witnesses had, to the best of your knowledge and belief, returned to the north of Italy after having been here? I do not know of any; to the best of my knowledge and belief, none.
Will you undertake to swear, that at the time that Restelli was sent back, you did not know and believe that any persons who had been in this country as witnesses, had returned to the north of Italy? To the best of my knowledge and belief, none.
The question relates to witnesses who have been here and have never been examined at all; will you undertake to swear, that none of those witnesses who had not been examined, had gone back at that time to the north of Italy? None; I have no recollec-

643
tion whatever of any: I know of one person who was sent over here as a witness having been sent back to the south of Italy; I know of no person who had been sent over here; I have no recollection of any person who had been sent over here; I have no belief of any person who had been sent over here having returned to the north of Italy; if there be any names, and you will state them, it may bring it to my recollection. There were so many persons that I cannot possibly take upon myself to recollect every name of every individual who has come over here; some have come over that I have never seen.
Will you take upon yourself to swear that, at the time Restelli was sent back, no other person employed as a courier under the Milan Commission had ever' gone from this country to the north of Italy after the Dover riot; Krouse, any other person employed as a courier under the Milan Commission? After the Dover riot, certainly not, under the Milan Commission; I consider the Milan Commission to have ceased its functions upon the return of Mr. Cooke and myself from Italy, early in the month of June 1819; having left Milan myself in the month of May, for the last time, but having ceased to act in the month of March 1819. I do not consider myself as having acted under that Milan Commission in this country.
The question relates to any persons employed as a courier in relation to this bill, and to the persons to be examined in support of this bill? Certainly couriers have been sent from this country since the Dover riot.
Will you give the names of some of those persons who have so gone backwards and forwards since the Dover riot? Does the question mean down to the present time?
Down to Restelli's departure? I know as a courier, Krouse.
Had not Krouse brought over some of the witnesses from the north of Italy? Yes.
Has any other person gone backwards and forwards, since the Dover riots, as a courier to the north of Italy? Other persons have gone as couriers to the north of Italy.
Who? I do not know; Krouse is the courier I know.
Do you know of Krouse having so returned to Italy after the Dover riot, at the time you sent off Restelli? I did.
Did you also know of those other persons having gone as couriers at the same time? I did.
Did you send any other courier, besides Restelli, to give information and comfort to the families of the other sets of witnesses, besides those whom Restelli had brought over? Letters were taken from all the witnesses and sent to colonel Browne by those different couriers, by other couriers besides Restelli.
Were any of those couriers, besides Restelli, directed to go round to the families of the witnesses, and to give them better evidence
644
than their hand-writing of their friends being still alive in this country? When Krouse was sent to Milan, with letters from the witnesses here, I considered that colonel Browne would make use of Krouse in giving any information of that nature.
Did you give any instructions to Krouse, similar to those you gave to Restelli, to go about to the families when he took the letters? I do not recollect any instructions, any particular instructions to Krouse.
Did you give any instructions to any of the other couriers to the same purport with those you gave to Restelli? I sent my letters to the other couriers; I had not personal knowledge of those couriers; I sent my letters to the Foreign office to be forwarded; but I beg to state, I received information from Milan that the families of persons there were not satisfied with the assurances given by colonel Browne, and further, that reports were circulated that the letters which were sent by individual witnesses from this country had been forced from them, and that they had been obliged to write them in that way, stating their safety.
Name any persons who gave you that information? I received information to that effect from colonel Browne.
Will you mention the names of any families who were so uneasy? Colonel Browne's information was general; but I can name an individual to whom a representation had been made, after such letters had been sent, that her husband had received great personal injury, the wife of Rancatti, who bad been sent for express by a person in Milan, to be informed of that, as I understood.
Did colonel Browne suggest at the same time the propriety of sending Restelli for the purpose?
Mr. Solicitor General objected to the question.
Lord Chancellor.—Were the communications from colonel Browne in writing? I may be allowed to state, that all the communications I have made, have been in writing.
The Counsel were informed, that then parol evidence of them could not be received.
Mr. Brougham.—Did you not know that Restelli never knew one of those witnesses whom he brought over, nor their families, and never had in his life seen one of them before the journey? How can I know that.
Do you not know that Restelli has sworn it in this place? Whatever Restelli has sworn appears upon the Minutes.
Had you read those Minutes before the 14th of September, you being agent for the Bill? I did read the Evidence; I do not recollect to have read Restelli's evidence; I have heard it.
Did you not hear Restelli swear, that he never had seen one of the eleven witnesses

645
he brought over, before he came the journey with them, consequently could not know them or their families? I cannot take upon myself now to say what I heard Restelli swear.
The following Extract was, at the desire of the Lord Chancellor, read from page 413 of the printed Minutes:
"Who are the persons with whom you came? Some I know, some I do not know; those I know, I know because we came together, but I had never seen them before.
"Who are they? They are various; I knew them by sight before, but I had no intimacy with them.
"State their names? Of some I can say, the others I do not know.
"State the names of those you do know? Carlo Rancatti, Geralimo Mejani, Paolo Oggioni, Philip Riganti, Enrico Bai, Finette, the wife of Majoochi; perhaps there maybe some more, but at present I do not remember them."
Mr. Brougham.—Did you not hear the whole of that evidence given by Restelli before you sent him? I am not sure that I heard the whole, because I frequently go in and out of this House, therefore I cannot take upon myself to say that I heard the whole; but I must beg to observe, that the sending Restelli had not reference merely to the families of those witnesses whom he brought over with him to Dover; the occurrence at Dover had occasioned an alarm to the families of all persons who were sent over, or to come over as witnesses in support of this bill.
Do you mean to state, that the intention of sending Restelli was, that he, Restelli, should at Milan go round, and in the country in the neighbourhood of Milan, not merely to the families of those he had brought over, but all others who had come over, and others also who might come over? To the families of all those that had come over, as far as he could; and, under colonel Browne's direction there, Restelli was to go and to take letters to the families and relations of persons who are here; as to the families of those who might come over here as witnesses it could have no reference, because they were not in danger.
State, not within one or two, but as nearly as you can recollect, how many witnesses came from the north of Italy? I cannot tell.
As nearly as you can tell, about how many, not within one or two, or six or seven, hut about how many witnesses came over from the north of Italy in support of this Bill? I cannot tell; I do not know the numbers who are here now, and I cannot tell.
Will you swear there were not forty?
Mr. Attorney General objected to the question.
Mr. Brougham waved the question.
646
Had Restelli remained in this country the whole time which intervened between the riot at Dover and the 14th of September? Restelli went to Holland.
Did he go any where else? I cannot tell.
Had he any instructions to go any where else? He had instructions to go to Holland.
Had he instructions to go to any other place? Not that I know of.
Will you swear he had not been back at Milan between the riot at Dover and the 14th of September? No, I will not undertake to swear that he had not; I did not see him afterwards.
State the language you used to Restelli in giving him his instructions before he set out on the 14th, as far as is connected with this inquiry? As far as I can recollect (I cannot state the precise words) I told him he should collect letters from all the witnesses who were there, and that he should take them, and see the persons in Milan and that neighbourhood, and communicated to them the situation in which he had left them—that they were all safe—in order to ease their minds from the alarm that was, I understood, prevalent.
Did Restelli make any difficulty about going? No, he did not make any difficulty about going.
Did Restelli say any thing about coming back at that time? He said he would come back as soon as he could; I knew that Restelli was a very important witness in the proceedings on this bill, and that he would be a very important witness, as I believed, in the House of Commons, in case the bill should go there; I had no motive whatever, therefore, in sending him, except that which I have stated; and I certainly repeat what I have before said, that if I had not had the strongest conviction in my mind that Restelli would have returned to this country, no inducement whatever, and no feeling, should have made me send Restelli out of this country.
Mr. Attorney General.—Were you present in this House when the Attorney-general of the Queen stated, that he did not intend further to cross-examine any of the witnesses who had been called in support of the bill? I was, and heard him so state.
Has any intimation ever been conveyed to you, or to any other person to your knowledge, by the agents or counsel for her majesty, that Restelli would be wanted again to be cross-examined by them? None whatever; and I considered it not at all probable that Restelli would be wanted to be cross-examined by them, because I had understood the House to have called up Teodoro Majoochi, who was the only person called up for reexamination, under special favour, and as a special act of the House, not one to be continued with respect to all the other witnesses, who had been examined and cross-examined, and their cross-examination done with.
Has any intimation ever been conveyed to

647
you, or to any person to your knowledge, that rately printed, many of the noble earl's her majesty's counsel meant to call Restelli as questions had an equal claim to be also a witness for the Queen? None whatever printed separately. The object of that Had you when you dispatched Restelh to inquiry was to discover whether a certain Milan, or had any other person with whom you had been adopted by an in you have communicated, to your knowledge, the slightest intention of withdrawing Restelli from this country, in consequence of his having given evidence in support of this Bill? None whatever; and no person, for any consideration whatever, should have prevailed upon mc to do such a thing.
Examined by the Lords;
Earl of Lauderdale.—Was not Restelli along with the witnesses at the time of the riot at Dover? I understood he was; I understood so from him.
Do you know whether, between the riot at Dover and the time of Restelli's quitting this country, there was any courier went from this country who was present at the riot at Dover? Not any, that I know of; I do not know who were present at the riot, and therefore I cannot tell; not to my knowledge, certainly; I was not at Dover.
Marquis of Lothian.—Was not Restelli himself maltreated at Dover along with the other witnesses? I understood they all were maltreated.
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, that for the purpose of putting on record the part he had taken, lie would move, that the examination of Mr. Powell be printed separately, as not being relevant to the issue of the present inquiry, it having been gone into for the information of the; House on a subject of complaint.
Earl Grey maintained that the examination was of great importance, as it went I to ascertain whether an important witness was or was not sent away. He saw no reason why the evidence on that subject should be printed separate. On; the contrary, he was of opinion, that it should be embodied with the rest, especially as it would become a part of their lordships duty afterwards to examine accurately into all the circumstances connected with it.
Lord Erskinewas anxious that their lordships should not stultify themselves. It was then near one o'clock, and this exanimation had continued from the beginning of the day, and their lordships were now called upon to declare that it ought not to have taken place. His noble friend had contended, that it ought to be printed separately, because it was irrelevant to the issue before the House; if that were a sufficient reason to entitle it to be sepa-
648
rately printed, many of the noble earl's questions had an equal claim to be also printed separately. The object of that inquiry was to discover whether a certain proceeding had been adopted by an individual, in contempt of the order of the House; and if he had done that for which he ought to be punished? He agreed with his noble friend, who preceded him, that this examination was a part of their judicial proceedings, and ought to stand with the rest.
The Earl of Lauderdaleheld this examination to be of a separate character from the rest of the proceedings, and one in which every rule of evidence had been violated. Their lordships had attempted to assimilate the rest of the proceedings to those observed in the courts of law, but here four Judges had opened the case, and then asked the opinion of counsel. The usual course in other cases was, for counsel to open the case, and ask the opinion of the Judges. He wished it to stand on their Journals, that one peer at last had not sanctioned a precedent, by which every rule of evidence was violate.
Earl Greysaid, that as he was one of the four Judges alluded to by his noble friend, he hoped he would not be found to adopt any conduct which did not become a Judge. At least he could assure his noble friend, that nothing should induce him to mimic the extreme mildness, moderation, and forbearance with which his noble friend had conducted himself during these proceedings. What had been clone by the noble lords alluded to, would have been done by any Judge, in any court, under the same circumstances. If any person was charged with having thrown an obstruction in the way of the defence, the person so charged would have been called up for contempt of court, and examined, before the case was permitted to proceed any further. As for the proceeding itself, it was one which they were bound to take in justice to the parties concerned, and upon all accounts it was fitting and proper that it should appear with the rest of the Minutes.
Lord Redesdaleobserved, that what they had just heard at the bar could not stand as evidence one way or other, either in proof or disproof of the preamble of the bill. He was satisfied that no noble; lord would permit it to operate on his; mind as evidence.
The Earl of Donoughmore, so far from thinking that this examination should be

649
expunged, or treated with any distinction, thought it was as material as any part of the case. Their lordships were bound, from respect for their own characters, to protect the parties. There were many anomalies in the present proceeding; whether they rested more with one side than with the other, he should not take upon himself to say; but this he would say, that if they had not examined the individual whose evidence was now in question as they had done, they would have appeared to press very unreasonably and partially upon one side. He had always felt the great difficulties necessarily connected with a proceeding like the present; but he had also felt that the case was one which ought to be brought to issue, and one on which the verdict of guilty or not guilty ought to be pronounced. The examination, which had lasted three hours, might have been concluded in half that time, if no technical difficulties had been interposed. For his own part, he would have been ashamed to suggest any technical difficulties, because he wanted to get at the bottom of the transaction, and with that view to open a door as wide as possible to the admission of the necessary evidence. There were two parties concerned in the present bill. Of those, his majesty's government were the prosecutors. It was not becoming to state this candidly and openly, for government was called on by a sense of its own duty to act as such. If they were not the prosecutors in this case, he did not know who the prosecutor was in any case. Such, then, being the prosecutors, persons of the highest power in the state, it was the more necessary that the party opposed to that high power should have every fair advantage necessary to the conducting of their cause. He had risen to state these sentiments, as the grounds upon which he should concur with what he believed to be nearly the unanimous opinion of the House—that in justice to itself, and in justice to all parties concerned, the examination should be made a part, as he thought it would appear to be, not an unimportant part, of the Minutes.
The Earl of Carnarvonsaid, that if the proposition of his noble friend for printing the evidence in a separate form were adopted, the House would be placed in the situation of first inviting the counsel to take a part in the proceeding, and then coming to a vote, that
650
this examination formed no part of the proceeding, but was a little private affair of their own. In common consistency, their lordships were bound to reject such a proposition.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, it was extremely important, that, when this House came to a decision upon evidence, or any other points, it should be distinctly understood, under what circumstances they came to that decision; because their proceedings would regulate those of the courts below, and it was of the utmost consequence that those courts should know, what weight was to be given to their decisions, by clearly apprehending the grounds upon which they proceeded. With respect to the question before the House, he certainly thought it would be convenient to agree to the proposition of the noble earl, for printing the evidence separately; for he understood from the clerk, that if it were printed in a separate form, it might be in a course of delivery early on Monday; but if printed with the other evidence, it would not be ready till a later period. There was one observation which he begged leave to make, with reference to what had fallen from a noble lord. This proceeding had been termed, as it was indeed daily called, an anomalous proceeding, because it was partly judicial and partly legislative. Now, he said, it was not an anomalous proceeding; a proceeding partly judicial and partly legislative was perfectly well known to the constitution of this country. As to the eloquence of judges, he was very unwilling to say any tiling upon that subject, because it had always been his opinion, that judges should not be eloquent. It was their duty to state facts plainly, and give a clear and impartial statement of the law upon those facts. As to what had been said of the intemperate zeal which had been manifested in the course of this proceeding, he knew I not what the eloquence of judges might I be, nor was he prepared to say, that some noble lords, speaking as they did yesterday, were liable to such an imputation; but one thing he certainly felt to be objectionable, namely, that there was a species of noise in the House yesterday, which, whether it were eloquence or not, he would venture to say no interpreter at their lordships bar could explain. Of this species of evidence he hoped he should hear no more. He would only add, for the satisfaction of noble lords,

651
that when the evidence should be printed, whether separately, or together with the other evidence, it would be perfectly competent to any noble lord to make any motion upon the subject, which he might think proper.
Then Joseph PtantaEsq. was called in, and having been sworn, was examined as follows, by the Lords:
Earl of Carnarvon.—Are you under secretary of state in lord Castlereagh's office? I am.
Do you remember any application having been made to you by any person in the month of September for a passport for an Italian of the name of Restelli? I remember that Mr. Powell came to me in the office in the month of September, and slated, that it had been determined to send Restelli as a courier, and desired me to take the official steps for that purpose.
What did you do in consequence of that application? I, in consequence, ordered the passport to be made out for him, and took the steps which were proper.
By whom was that passport signed? By lord Castlereagh; that is to say, if I might be allowed, I should explain that; there are signed passports kept in the office ready for such occasions, that therefore it was a signed passport which was used for that purpose.
Did you make any application to lord Castlereagh respecting the granting of that passport? I did not.
Did you, of your own accord, grant that passport, in consequence of Mr. Powell's application? I did.
Is it the practice of your office, for persons in your situation to grant such passports to couriers, without an immediate order from lord Castlereagh? It is the constant practice. Had you received from lord Castlereagh, or from any other person, any instructions with respect to the granting passports, or otherwise, to persons who had attended as witnesses at the bar of this house in the progress of this bill? I had received no instructions whatever from lord Castlereagh, or any other person, with respect to witnesses or persons attending at the bar of this house.
At the time that passport was granted did you know that Restelli had been examined as a witness upon this bill? I knew it generally, from the knowledge one has from reading the newspapers; the general knowledge one obtains of the events of the day; but I did not know it otherwise that I am aware of. Do you know on what precise day that passport was granted? I believe on the 14th of September.
Do you know whether courier Restelli was charged with any dispatches from the Foreign office, or only the dispatches given to him by Mr. Powell? I think certainly not with any dispatches from the Foreign Office.
652
Do you know whether any passport has been granted to any courier for the purpose of calling back Restelli? I know that passports have been granted to other couriers, but what the object of their going might be I do not know; what I mean is, that I do not know, of my own knowledge, that their object was to recall Restelli.
Earl of Darlington.—In what capacity did you consider Mr. Powell to have applied for the passport for Restelli; in what capacity did you consider him as acting? As an agent on the part of the prosecution, certainly.
When Mr. Powell made the application for the passport for Restelli, did he at the same time make an application for other passports for other persons to return to Italy with Restelli? I think certainly not.
Earl of Darnley.—Has Mr. Powell made any application to you, at any other time, for passports for other witnesses on the part of the prosecution to go away? Certainly not.
Were you acquainted with the orders of this House at the time you granted this passport, the order respecting the witnesses not being allowed to leave this country? I had no knowledge whatever officially of it; I merely knew it in the same manner that one would know any thing one sees in the newspapers.
The Counsel were asked, whether they wished to propose any question to be put to the witness.
Mr. Brougham.—Did Mr. Powell say any thing else to you respecting Restelli's going back to Italy at that time? As far as I recollect, he mentioned something about Reslclli's being a proper person to return to satisfy the families of the witnesses here, he made some statement of that sort, but I did not attend to that, I did not consider it as my business, I merely did the official act.
Did he say any thing else respecting Restelli's return to Italy at that time? I really recollect nothing else that he stated.
Did you recollect his mentioning that Restelli had been examined as a witness at that time when he applied for the passport? I do not recollect that he did.
Was any body by at the time of this conversation with Mr. Powell? I really cannot recollect, it is a month ago, whether there was any body in my room at the time; there are a great number of persons constantly in my room; I fancy there may have been others. Mr. Powell came in and staid but a short time, but I cannot recollect whether there were others; it is very likely there were other persons in the room.
You say that passports have been granted since the 14th for couriers, do you mean, to send couriers on business connected with this bill; this prosecution as you call it? Certainly, I do mean that.
What was the earliest of the passports after the 14th of September granted in this Way?

653
That I really cannot recollect; I cannot possibly know that now, at this moment.
How soon can you take upon you to say that a passport was granted of this description to the north of Italy, after the 18th of September? I really do not know; I do not keep the book of the dates of the passports, all I have to do is to give the order for its being done; it is done, and a register kept of it; I do not keep the dates myself, and therefore L do not recollect the next date after the 14th.
Endeavour to recollect the date of the other passports with the same accuracy as you have recollected this? In consequence of what had passed, I ascertained last night, from the proper official person, that it was the 14th; previously to so doing I had no knowledge of the date of that.
Mr. Planta was directed to ascertain the date of the earliest passports after the 18th September to the north of Italy.
The Witness and the Counsel were directed to withdraw.
The Earl of Carnarvonagain drew their lordships attention to the question which he had already submitted. It did not, as he apprehended, call for any opinion of counsel upon the evidence; but a material fact having appeared in evidence—the fact of Restelli being sent out of the country, although it now appeared necessary for the ends of justice that he should be called back to the bar—this having appeared before their lordships, made it incumbent on them to inquire of the counsel, whether they were prepared to proceed to other parts of the case. He should therefore move, that counsel be called back, and informed of the fact; after which the Queen's counsel should be asked, whether they were now prepared to proceed with any other part of their case.
The Lord Chancellorfelt himself called upon, in the faithful discharge of his duty, to state to their lordships what ought now to be done. He was decidedly of opinion that, although her majesty's counsel might be called in, and informed of the absence of Rest ell the subsequent part of this question ought not to be put to the counsel. He would state the grounds of his opinion. If her majesty's counsel should think proper, after they were informed of the absence of Restelli, to make an application to their lordships, stating that they could not, consistently with the interests of their client, go on with the defence, it would be their lordships duty to call upon
654
the counsel to state their reasons for such an application; to hear counsel on the other side; and after having heard both sides, to give their own judicial opinion, whether the proceeding should be suspended or not. He apprehended that, if it were established as a precedent that the court might call upon counsel to give an answer to such a question, the court would impose upon itself the duty of asking for the reasons of their answer to that question; and it might happen that the counsel could not state those reasons without entering into considerations as to the future part of the case, which it might be their most sacred duty to withhold from the court. But on the other hand, if the counsel thought proper themselves to interpose, and to state to the House, whether it would or would not be an unjust proceeding to go on with the defence, in that case the court must give the counsel credit for having looked round the subject, and determined for themselves whether it would or would not be for the interest of their client to state all the grounds of their opinion. It would be establishing a most dangerous precedent, when there was no occasion for it, to call upon counsel to state their reasons, instead of leaving them to judge for themselves, whether they would make any application to the Court Upon these grounds, he should move that the latter words of the motion be left out, and that counsel should be called in, and told, that as they had called for Restelli, and that call could not be answered, it would be competent to them to make any application they might think proper.
The Earl of Carnarvonsaid, he should not oppose the amendment of the learned lord.
The question was then put, "That her majesty's Counsel be called in, and informed, that it appeared from the testimony of Mr. Powell, that Restelli was absent on the public service."
The Earl of Carnarvonthought it ought to appear distinctly upon their lordships Journals, that Restelli had not absconded, but had been sent away by the direction of Mr. Powell. If this did not appear, their lordships would not communicate to the counsel a knowledge of the evidence which had been heard at their bar.
The Earl of Liverpoolhad not the least objection to its being stated, that he had been sent away; but he thought their lordships were bound in justice to add,

655
not only that he was absent upon the public service, but that several official messengers had been sent to expedite his return.
Lord Hollandthought it unnecessary to inform the counsel of what bad already appeared in evidence. He could not perceive the advantage of gravely informing the counsel of facts which they had themselves been permitted to elicit from the witness.
The Earl of Liverpoolentirely agreed with the noble baron that it would be better to make no communication at all, but merely to call in counsel and desire them to proceed."
The Marquis of Lansdownagreed that tin's would be the better course. The motion was objectionable upon another ground, because it would be an indirect acknowledgment that this House was satisfied with the conduct of Mr. Powell.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that it was certainly somewhat doubtful whether the counsel could be considered as having been absent, inasmuch as they bad themselves taken a part in the examination of Mr. Powell.
The Counsel were again called in, and the Counsel for her majesty were directed to proceed.
Mr. Broughamrequested, that himself and the other counsel of her majesty might be permitted to withdraw for a few minutes, in order to consider how, under the present circumstances, they should proceed.
The House was adjourned during pleasure. After a short time, the House was resumed.
Mr. Broughamstated, that in the extraordinary circumstances in which he and the other counsel for her majesty were placed, and under the new and insuperable difficulties by which they were surrounded, he felt it impossible to announce to their lordships any determination which they had to come to as to what future course they might feel themselves compelled to pursue in the further conduct of I their case, more than to state that they would to-day pursue a little further the line of examination in which they had been engaged yesterday.
Then Fillippo Pomiwas called in, and: having been sworn, was examined as follows, by Dr. Lushington, through the in terpretation of the Marchese di Spineto:
In what part of Italy do you usually reside? At the Barona.
How long have you resided there? In my own parish for thirty-five years; in the place where I work by day, fourteen.
Is the Barona the name of a parish? It is.
Have you resided in the house at the Ba-
656
rona, where the princess of Wales resided? I have been living fourteen years in that house.
Do you remember the princess of Wales residing in that house? Yes, I do, by night and by day.
What are you by trade or profession? A carpenter.
Do you know Giuseppe Restelli? I do.
Was Giuseppe Restelli in the princess's service? he was a groom.
Do you knew Louisa Demont, a chambermaid in the princess's service? I do.
Do you remember, in the course of the Jast year, Restelli coming to the house at the Barona? I do remember it.
By whom was Restelli accompanied? Restelli came together with the son of the head master.
Was Demont with Restelli at that time? Demont came half an hour after, in a carriage with other persons.
Were Restelli and Demont on that occasion together in the house? They were.
What did you see Restelli do on that occasion? I saw them make a little drawing or plan up stairs.
Did Restelli, on leaving the house, offer or give you any money?
Mr. Attorney Generalobjected to the question. The witness ought to be asked, what did Restelli do?
Dr. Lushingtonconceived the question to be perfectly regular.
Mr. Attorney General—You cannot lead.
Dr. Lushington—I do not mean to lead the witness.
Mr. Attorney General—My lords, I apprehend that this is a leading question.
Mr. Denman—I apprehend that it ought to be rather a leading question. Restelli has sworn that he offered no money to procure witnesses; and we have a right to ask a direct question, for the purpose of contradicting him.
The Counsel were informed, that the question might be asked.
The question was proposed, and the witness said,
He asked me whether I had received presents from those persons who had come, and I said no; and he afterwards made me a present.
Of what amount? He made me a present of forty francs, two half napoleons, or forty francs.
Did Restelli say any thing respecting mademoiselle Demont then, when he gave you the money.
Mr. Attorney General objected to the question. Their lordships could not receive evidence, as to what Restelli said respecting a third person.
The Counsel were informed, that they

657
might ask whether Restelli had offered any person money to come here as a witness.
Did he offer any money to induce you to come here as a witness? He did offer me on another day, not on that day; but he offered me not—not on that day, but he told me, that if I had any thins; to say against her royal highness, I should receive a great present.
When was it he told you you should receive this great present if you had any thing to say against her royal highness? I said that I had nothing to depose against her royal highness, and that I bad nothing to speak but well of her.
State, as nearly as you can, the exact words which Restelli used when he told you that you should have a great present if you came to speak against the princess? He told me, "Pomi, if you like, you may make yourself a man;" I asked him in what manner, he answered, "You, who have always lived in this house, day and night, may have something to depose against her royal highness." I said, that I had nothing to depose against that lady, who had always done a great deal of good.
Was Mademoiselle Demont present upon that occasion? She was not.
Did Restelli, at the time he made you this offer, mention the name of Demont to you?
Mr. Attorney Generalobjected to this question. A conversation about Demont could not be received in evidence.
Mr. Denmansubmitted that, as a question likely to lead to important information with respect to transactions connected with this case, in which Restelli was engaged, it ought to be received.
Mr. Attorney General—The witness has sworn that Demont was not present at the time, and therefore the question was irregular.
Mr. Denman—The circumstance of Demont's not being present is of no importance whatever.
Lord Erskincobserved, that the reason for asking the question was quite obvious, and it appeared to him to be one that ought to be answered. Restelli, it appeared, had taken an active part in this business, not only as a courier, but as an agent who procured witnesses. He was charged with having acted corruptly, and it was necessary to trace how far that corruption went. Therefore, whatsoever this man knew, that could inform their lordships on this part of the case, ought to be given in evidence, subject always to cross-examination and contradiction hereafter.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that, under the peculiar circumstances of the
658
thought the question must be admitted. Something had been asked, on account of the absence of Restelli, which, if he were present, could not properly be received; and he could not shut out evidence of that, which, if Restelli were at the bar, could have been explained by himself; because it was not the fault of those who opposed the bill that he was not forthcoming. If the case were otherwise, the question certainly would not be regular. Let the evidence now go on.
The short-hand writer read the question:
Did Restelli, at the time he made you this offer, mention the name of Demont to you?
The Witness—No; because it was a few days after that he had with me this conversation.
The Counsel were informed, that if they wished to be further heard against the last Question and Answer standing upon the Minutes, the House would hear them.
Mr. Solicitor Generalsaid, that he and his learned friends protested against putting a question of this description to the witness. It had been admitted that, if Restelli were here, it could not be put, unless he was himself called and examined to the fact. He contended that such was the legal rule. The question could not be put unless Restelli was called to the bar, and interrogated a3 to the fact. If Restelli, on being so interrogated, had denied it, then it would have been competent for the other side to call witnesses to contradict him. Such was the undoubted rule of law. But it was said, that because Restelli was absent, the counsel for the defence might go into a course of examination that otherwise could not be permitted. But why should this be allowed, when, in consequence of the unfortunate mistake with respect to Restelli, the counsel on the other side might make a proposition to their lordships for the postponement of the further proceedings on this bill until the return of Restelli? Is appeared to him to be fraught with great danger, if, on account of the accidental absence of this man, her majesty's counsel should be allowed to take a line of examination that was never before tolerated. They might ask questions, the witness knowing Restelli to be absent, which, if he were here, would perhaps be answered in a very different manner.
Mr. Denman—How does the witness know that Restelli is not here?
Mr. Solicitor General—He was now asked, how the witness knew that Restelli was not present? He did not state positively that the witness did know it; but if he were in such a situation that by possibility lie might know it, that was sufficient for his purpose; because it was clear that such knowledge might C3use a material alteration in the witness's evidence. When he heard Restelli called "a corrupt and profligate witness in this case," he would say, that, so far as the evidence went, there was no proof to bear out such an assertion. He had denied, on his oath, that he had participated in any transactions of such a nature; and witnesses, on the other side, had come forward, and sworn that he had. But he would ask whether, in this stage of the question, any person, viewing the proceedings that had taken place before their lordships, could fairly take on himself to say, before the evidence was finished, before the case was concluded, that this man was "a corrupt and profligate witness," or that he was proved to have been implicated in any transaction that ought to prejudice his evidence in the minds of their lordships? It was, he conceived, the duty of the counsel on the other side to make application to their lordships, as Restelli's evidence was material to the defence, for a postponement of the proceedings until he came back; but he thought it was wrong, during his absence, to suffer, on that account, an examination wholly inconsistent with the rules of evidence, and entirely unfit for the elucidation of truth, to be persevered in.
Mr. Denmandenied that her majesty's counsel were bound to make any application to their lordships for a postponement of these proceedings; all they had to do was, to make such exertions as they might deem fit for her majesty's defence, considering the peculiar circumstances in which she was now placed. And here he might be permitted to assure their lordships, that if Restelli had been in this country, it was the wish of her majesty's counsel to have produced him at the bar of the house, as Majoochi had been. Under the expectation that he would appear when called, her majesty's counsel had actually summoned the witness at the bar to follow him, before they were apprized of the fact that Restelli had been spirited away from this country. When her majesty's counsel were thus situated—when, without any error on their part,
660
they were deprived of a great advantage—he called on their lordships to support their claim to an extended examination. He, at the same time, entertained no doubt whatever, that the course her majesty's counsel were now pursuing was accordant with the strict rule pursued in courts of justice. Restelli said, he had nothing to do with the Milan Commission, except as a courier; but her majesty's counsel would prove, from his transactions, that he acted in another capacity; that he exerted himself to procure witnesses for money to swear against her royal highness. Restelli expressly swore, that he offered no money to any person to appear in the present cause,—a statement which her majesty's counsel were ready to rebut. In answer to this deposition they would show that, by a reference to the name of Demont, Restelli did make such an offer. Therefore he thought it necessary that the mention of the name of Demont should be proved, since it was by a reference to that person that the offer was made. He stood here upon the right which he was entitled to assume, in consequence of the extraordinary absence of Restelli, being perfectly convinced that the witness now at their bar was prepared to contradict his evidence, to show that many of his statements were altogether false. If, however, their lordships thought that her majesty's counsel were not entitled to go into the matter arising from this question, he was still prepared to act with confidence on the proved agency of this man. On that point he was ready to proceed. It appeared that Restelli was the agent, not the courier of the Commission; and, for the purpose of a further contradiction of that man's testimony, he had a right to inquire as to what he had stated relative to Demont. He had clearly a right to show, that a certain representation had been made by Restelli, when he referred to the name of Demont which involved a contradiction of the evidence he had given before their lordships.
Mr. Attorney Generalmaintained, that the question could not be put, for the reasons so forcibly advanced by his learned friend, which had not been met by any sufficient arguments on the part of her majesty's counsel. He had heard it repeatedly asserted, that this man, Restelli, was acting in the nature of an agent, for the purpose of procuring witnesses to attend at their lordships bar; and that, therefore, what he had stated as evidence

661
was not to be credited. Now he would assert, that agent, this man, never was for any such purpose. The only purpose for which he was employed appeared to be to bring witnesses to Milan, to be examined before the Milan Commission; but there was no evidence, that he ever procured witnesses to be examined before their lordships. He would ask, whether it was ever heard of, in a prosecution like this—in a criminal prosecution—that the conversation of an absent person was attempted to be proved, when he himself might be called and examined? It was said, that no party appeared in support of the bill. Who was the prosecuting party in every criminal prosecution The public, always. But was it ever known, in any criminal prosecution, that an examination might be carried on through the medium of a third person, when the individual whose words were to be proved might himself be called? Restelli stated, that he was employed on the Milan Commission to conduct evidence to Milan, evidence, that certainly might afterwards support the bill. But the question asked of him was, "Did you receive money to bring witnesses to the bar of this house?" And his answer was "No." The question now put was, not whether he gave money to bring the present witness to their lordships' bar, but it referred to a conversation which was held with the witness, in which the name of another person was mentioned. He would contend, however, that his learned friend must confine his examination to the question originally put to Restelli, namely—"whether he offered money to any person to come to that House to which question he had answered "No." As to the fact of such an offer having been made to the witness, he knew, that evidence relating to it might be received; but, as to Restelli's conversation with other persons, he denied that any deposition on that point could be attended to, even if he were present, except to contradict, supposing him to have declared that he had held no such conversation.—He would now call back their lordships' recollection to what had taken place at the close of the case for the bill; he would call their recollection to the express declaration of the Queen's attorney-general, that he should want no farther examination of the witnesses in support of the measure. He knew their lordships had reserved to themselves, under the exigencies of the
662
case, the right of calling back witnesses, if they thought it necessary. This, however, was not meant for the advantage of the counsel on the other side; their lordships only asserted their right to call back witnesses for their own satisfaction. Now, however, her majesty's counsel, after their express declaration, wished to put questions to a particular witness. They had stated no cause why they wished to bring him forward again. All that he understood was, that Restelli was to be brought up as a witness for the defence—as the witness of the other side; not for cross-examination, but as a direct witness. But if he even were at the bar, they could not, in that case, ask him as to those declarations; because they could not summon a witness to come forward with a view to make him contradict himself. If Restelli were at the bar that instant, called forward by his learned friends on the other side, no examination of the nature now attempted, with respect to the case of Demont's name on the occasion alluded to, could be allowed. Then, he would ask their lordships, whether his learned friends were justified in placing themselves in a better situation, than they would have stood in if Restelli were present? His learned friend had said, he wished to call this man to the bar as a witness for the defence. But if he were present, not a question that had been asked, put in the way in which they were put, would have been allowed. As their own witness, his learned friends would not be suffered to ask questions to make him contradict himself. He would point the attention of their lordships to the situation in which they were now placed. He regretted, in the fullest extent, the circumstance of Restelli's absence on this occasion—his innocent absence—occasioned by an ignorance of what was likely to occur. But, because this individual chanced to be absent, were they to depart from all the rules of evidence? If his learned friends conceived that Restelli was a witness in their favour, on this inquiry, then, he contended, that a certain delay should be prayed for by them, in order that he might be brought here as their witness. It was for their lordships to consider whether such a delay should be granted; but if an application of that description were not acceded to, his learned friends ought not to be placed in a situation to which they could have no claim if the individual were present.

663
He trusted that their lordships would not come to a conclusion as to the character of Restelli, until the proceedings were terminated; he hoped they would wait, with reference to that point, as he was sure they would do with respect to that which was of infinitely more importance—the truth or falsehood of the preamble of this bill—until the whole case was proved. Whatever Restelli had done or said, their lordships would decide on by weighing and balancing the evidence. They would view the whole case with a judicial eye. Looking to the law of evidence, he submitted, with great deference to their lordships that this question could not be put. The witness had been asked, whether an actual offer of money had been made to him; that question had been answered; and he would maintain that they could not afterwards go into evidence as to a conversation in which the names of other persons were mentioned.
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he was not competent to decide, how far the question in dispute might be put if Restelli were present; but he did think, that Restelli, being absent for reasons with which the counsel on the other side had nothing to do, being absent from causes which, how-ever explained, left the laches, in the eye of the law, on the other party, that party should not prevent the putting of this question. The only point for consideration was, whether, supposing the question could not be put if Restelli were present, it ought, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, to be allowed now? As the absence of Restelli was not attributable to the counsel for the defence, he thought the question ought to be admitted.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the witness had been asked whether any money had been offered to him, and he had given his answer to that question. It was, therefore, a matter for their lordships' consideration, whether the subsequent interrogatory was not stretching the inquiry too far. Perhaps it was not, if they considered how peculiarly circumstanced they were. With respect to the witness whose evidence was meant to be impeached, he was bound, until the moment that witness was confuted, to consider him as honest a man as any that had been produced in the course of this proceeding. If, in the end, he was contradicted, so as to put it out of his power to clear himself, then he
664
and their lordships would have a right to take a different view of his character. He could not agree that the witness should be described as one who had been "spirited away." He was away, beyond a doubt; but there was no reason for saying that he was spirited away. It would be for their lordships to decide whether, because counsel, when asked if they had any further questions to put, answered in the negative, therefore, for the reasons that had been stated at their bar, the sending away of a witness was allowable. He did not think, because a counsel stated that he had no further questions to ask, on cross-examination, that it must be taken as granted, that a necessity might not arise for a farther examination, in consequence of information which that counsel might have received at a subsequent period. Circumstances might be disclosed which would induce the counsel to call the witness back again, for the purpose of putting certain interrogatories to him, the answers to which he might have an opportunity of contradicting. As it seemed to him, the learned counsel for the defence meant to call Restelli as a witness in chief: so, to him, it certainly appeared. But he could not go the full length of saying, because it so appeared to him, that it was intended to produce Restelli as a witness in chief, that therefore it would have been incompetent to the learned counsel to have waved their determination, and called him as a witness, whose declarations after he was examined were to be contradicted. Undoubtedly, their lordships, were placed in a situation of great difficulty, not by any fault of their own—not by spiriting away a witness—a circumstance which would, by-and-by, be fully, fairly, and impartially discussed:—the great difficulty they had here to contend with was this—whether, as Restelli had been sent out of the country by some of those who were now acting in support of the bill, they were to impose on her majesty the disadvantage of postponing her defence, not in consequence of her act, but of their act? If Restelli had been here, different questions might have been put to him relative to the point spoken to by the present witness. If he had denied the alleged facts, the witness might have been called to contradict him. But his absence had altered the course of proceeding. The matter finally resolved itself into this point-—if the question now put were admitted,

665
whether it did not go to confirm the fact that Restelli had made such applications as had been alleged, under particular circumstances—whether he had not used the name of another witness, who was actually coming to this country, at his desire—and whether, in that conversation, in which money was offered, the name of Demont was not mentioned as a species of communication that was to induce the witness to acept of a reward. These were very important questions, and could only be put to the witness in consequence of the absence of Restelli.
The Counsel were again called in, and the witness was asked,
Dr. LushingtonWhere did this second conversation take place? It took place on a morning that he called upon me, and we went together to the inn.
Did he then make you any offer or promise of money if yon would become a witness against her royal highness, in what words, as nearly as you can recollect? He told me, "Pomi, if you have any thing to depose against her royal highness, now is the time; you will have a great present; you will become a great man, and shall receive a great present;" we went to the inn together, and we drank there.
Did he then, when he told you, you should have a great present, mention the name of Demont? Yes, he did mention the name of Demont.
Did he mention the name of Demont with reference to any offer of money that be made you?
Mr. Attorney General objected to the question.
The Counsel were informed that they might ask with reference to what did he mention the name of Demont.
With reference to what did he mention the name of Demont? I asked him whether Demont was still in the service of her royal highness; he told me that she was; he did not mention to me her name on the day he was taking the drawing, but he mentioned it on the second day, and told me that she had made a good day's work; we were there at the inn, and we drank together.
Mr. Cohen—He has added these words, "and that she, Demont, had gained a great sum."
Some doubt being expressed whether the whole of the answer had been translated; the interpreter, having been directed not to interrupt the witness, but to hear the whole, answer he fore he translated any part, the question was ordered to be proposed again.
The Question was again proposed, and the witness said,
666
I asked him for this thing, because I told him, tell me how is this business, for he told me that Demont was still in the service, and then I found out that she was here; and he told me at that time that if I would depose something I should have a great present; and I said that I had been night and day, a long time in the house, and I never saw any thing that enabled me to speak ill of that lady, then he told me you know nothing, for I tell you that that house was a very bad house, bad women, and so; and I answered that this was a real falsehood, for I had been in the house, day and night, and I saw nothing of this, and we ended so.
Mr. Attorney General objected to the answer standing on their lordship's Minutes.
The Counsel were informed that their lordships were of opinion that the answer should stand.
Did Restelli, upon that occasion, say any thing further respecting Demont? No.
The Witness was directed to withdraw;
Then Joseph Planta,esq. was again called in and further examined by the Lords as follows:
What is the first date after the 18th of September of any courier going to the north of Italy on this business? It appears to be on the 28th of September.
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Then Fllippi Pomiwas again called in, and further examined by Dr. Lushington as follows:
Was it upon this occasion that Restelli used the expression you have repeated, of making a good day's work? Yes, it was on that occasion, that he was going about making recruits.
Stale all that Restelli said about making a good day? I cannot express it; I must only say that he told me, that on that day, when she came there to make that drawing, she had made a good day.
Do you know a person of the name of Riganti? I do, he is a companion of Restelly.
Where does Riganti live? At the Porta Ticinese.
Of what trade is Riganti? He sells salt, tobacco, brandy, and other liquors.
Does he live at Milan? He dwells out of Milan, at the distance of two gun shots.
Has he ever asked you to come and depose against the princess?
Mr. Solicitor Generalobjected to this question as being wholly irregular. What had Riganti to do with the case?
Dr. Lushingtonmaintained the propriety of the question. If their lordships would turn to the 410th page of the

667
printed Minutes of Evidence, they would there find the following questions and answers, which had been put to, and given by ltestelli:—
"Did you offer yourself as a witness to the Milan Commission, or did those who pay you your pension induce you to go before them, or how?—I have not been to Milan for this purpose, but I am settled at Milan.
"The question was, not whether you went to Milan, but were you induced to go to the Milan Commission, or did you go voluntarily?—I have been sought after.
"Who sought you?—The first time a man of the name of Riganti came to tell me to go to the advocate.
To the advocate Vimercarti?—Yes.
"Riganti is a tobacconist at Milan, is not he?—He is.
"How soon after Riganti spoke to you did you go before the commission?—I have only spoken with the advocate at first.
How soon was that after Riganti sought for you?—The day after.
"Was any body with the advocate when you first went?—There was not.
Did the advocate then take your deposition?—He did not.
"Did he ask you any questions about what you knew? He did.
"How soon after did you go before the commissioners?—I believe a day or two after.
"How many persons did you find assembled there?—There was the advocate, three English gentlemen, and two Italian amanuenses."*
Now, on the evidence which he had just read he contended that he was entitled to give proofs of what were the acts of this Riganti. It was well known to their lordships that the counsel for her majesty laboured under this great difficulty—that the real prosecutor in the case never appeared to them in any specific shape or form. Their lordships would therefore, he was persuaded not take from them the benefit of showing, by direct evidence, what were the acts of the subordinate persons connected with the prosecution. The person respecting whom he wished to obtain evidence from the witness was manifestly one of the persons concerned in this nefarious proceeding. Undoubtedly it was extremely difficult to find out who the
* See Vol. 2, p. 1253.
668
actual prosecutors were in the case. It certainly appeared, that it had originated in a kind of joint-stock company of which his majesty's government and their lordships were co-members; and that whatever had been done in it, had been done by order of their lordships and his majesty's government. The expenses of getting up the prosecution had been defrayed by his majesty's government, and their lordships had directed the attorney and solicitor-general to attend on behalf of the bill—Thus, therefore, he had a right to assume that the Milan Commission acted under authority, and he conceived that he had a right to prove what were the acts of all the agents who had been employed on the occasion. Otherwise, let their lordships consider the bard-ship of the situation in which her majesty's counsel would be placed. The immediate agents for the prosecution were screened from examination. Mr. Powell had claimed the benefit of that shelter. Were her majesty's counsel to be exposed to the double disadvantage of not being allowed to examine evidence with respect to the conduct of those agents It appeared, by the extracts which he had just read from Restelli's evidence, that Restelli, at the instigation of Riganti, went to Vimercati, who was unquestionably an agent for the prosecution. But that was not all. When he came to Vimercati, the latter asked him questions, thus adopting the agency of Riganti, and afterwards took him before the Milan Commission. Thus, he conceived, that he had stated sufficient proofs of Riganti's agency, and that he had acted under the authority of the Milan Commission. This being the case in what a state would her majesty be placed, if their lordships refused to allow of this evidence. What hope of justice could her majesty possibly have, if their lordships refused to hear evidence as to the conduct of persons who had avowedly acted under the authority of the Milan Commission, and who, under that authority had traversed all Europe committing subornation of perjury, and using every undue means of supporting the cause to which they were attached?—He contended, that their lordships were bound to hear such evidence as would show whether the testimony which had been adduced in favour of the bill had not been brought to this country by the hope and promise of reward.
Mr. Denmanbegged to add a few words

669
on the same side, reminding their lordships, that, though this was now admitted on the other side to be a criminal prosecution, yet it was also a divorce-bill, and that there were certain parties on whose behalf it was solicited. It was likewise said to be a proceeding for the purpose of obtaining substantial justice; and he begged leave, with great humility, to ask, whether substantial justice could be obtained by the extensive system of subornation of perjury carried on in the north of Italy to purchase all the purchaseable witnesses against her majesty; more especially if those witnesses were to be screened, who were not only paid for coming to the bar of this House, but for going before colonel Browne, Mr. Powell, and the advocate Vimercati, at Milan? Riganti was at present in this country; at least he was one of the individuals who came over with Restelli; and whether he had returned to Milan to quiet the apprehensions of his friends and connexions he knew not; but if he were still in England, the counsel for the Queen would certainly not put a person into the box as their witness, whom they charged with the commission of crimes of the deepest dye. He could not, without surprise, be told that her majesty was bound to make Riganti or Restelli witnesses on her behalf, when the very object of interrogating them would be to fix them with conduct the most abominable and atrocious. [Some person here observed that such conduct was not yet proved. I do not say (continued Mr. Denman) that such conduct is yet proved against them; but I apprehend that, as an advocate, I have a right to impute it. I have a right to state that such is the case I will make out; and I have a right, in every stage of the proceeding, to assume that what I assert I shall establish in evidence. I do not know that I am justified in saying that these persons have been "spirited away,"—but certain it is, that one of them has disappeared at the instance of one of the Milan commissioners, in defiance of a direct order of the House, in direct violation of a solemn pledge given by a peer at the head of the government, and by the assistance of an office over which another noble lord so warily presides. Unless my lips are to be sealed when I enter upon the defence of my illustrious client, I shall maintain, and I think it is but fair to give notice to all parties, that the most malignant and extensive conspiracy ever devised against the
670
honour of a persecuted individual, is the sole source and origin of the disgusting mass of corrupt evidence now upon the table of the House. It is to establish that fact that I now claim, on the part of the defendant in this most criminal prosecution, that we should be allowed to prove the agency of Riganti. Unless I am to be told by the attorney-general, that, this being a criminal prosecution, the conduct of the prosecutor is entirely out of the question, apprehend there cannot be the slightest doubt, that the mode and circumstances under which this evidence has been scraped together, is most material to the great issue before the House. On that ground, we tender the evidence now resisted; and, if we are not to be excluded from the only advantage this mode of proceeding offers to the accused, we must be allowed to proceed with it. If her majesty had been indicted or impeached, there might, perhaps, be some little question whether the acts of agents could be looked to as affecting some unknown and invisible principal; but, certainly, in a bill of pains and penalties, accompanied by a clause of divorce, solicited by the solicitor for the treasury, and by the agents of government, it is at least open to us to inquire what means have been resorted to, to procure the testimony. Mr. Powell has stated that the Milan Commission suspended its sittings in July, 1819; but we are totally in the dark as to its proceedings, with that single exception, though we have every reason to believe that long before that time it was exercising its functions with great activity. When it was known, then, that such measures were adopted to obtain a bill of degradation and divorce against the Queen, it would not be surprising if all that was base and perjured should voluntarily present itself in support of such a proceeding; but when we find, in addition, as we have found, that agents have been going about in all quarters to corrupt, bribe, and invent, it is too much that we should be allowed to prove the acts of those agents?
Mr. Attorney Generalbegan his reply: by complaining that the counsel on the other side, had, as usual, gone out of their way to attack individuals not before the House. They had animadverted especially upon the members of the Milan Commission; but he could tell his learned friends, and could assure their lordships, that, whenever the fit time should arrive for inquiring into the conduct of those

671
gentlemen, all their acts would be completely justified: they were most anxious to have their conduct fully investigated, and it would then stand clear before the House and the public, that nothing done by them at Milan, or in the progress of the commission, could reflect upon them the slightest discredit. But what had this question to do with the Milan commission? His learned friends had exhausted their invectives (he begged pardon, their invectives were not exhausted, for Restelli had again been dragged forward) upon the Milan commission; but what had it or Restelli to do with the point, whether the acts of Riganti should be made the subject of inquiry at the bar? All they could prove against Restelli had been proved; and now they wished to go farther, and to examine as to the acts of a man named Riganti, assuming that he was an authorised agent of the Milan commissioners—
The Lord Chancellorhere interposed, and said,—I wish to know, whether any noble lord thinks that this question can be put. It would be quite wrong to stop the argument if any noble lord entertains a doubt upon the subject, but to me it seems the most extravagant proposition ever urged. Whether the prosecutor is invisible, as one learned gentleman asserts or so clearly seen that another learned gentleman can point him out as easily as a joint-stock company, I do not know; and whether that is language proper for the occasion is another matter. But whatever the House may think, whether the prosecutor be visible or invisible—whether this proceeding be or be not of a criminal nature—I deliver it as my opinion, without the slightest hesitation, that it is impossible to admit such a question.
The Counsel were informed that the question could not be put.
Mr. Denmanwished, before the adjournment, to make an application to their lordships. Restelli had stated in his evidence, that Riganti had accompanied him to this country. He humbly submitted to their lordships, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the expediency of ascertaining, from the parties conducting the prosecution, whether or not Riganti was still in this country.
Mr. Solicitor Generalapprehended, that the counsel on the other side had no right to interfere in the conduct of the case on the part of the bill, or to dictate to their
672
lordships what it was expedient for them to do. Whether or not, Riganti should be called to contradict the testimony of the witness who had just been examined, must be left to the discretion of those who had the conduct of the bill.
Mr. Denmandisclaimed any intention, either of interfering with the conduct of the bill or of dictating to their lordships. Neither had he asked, whether it was intended to call Riganti as a witness. But the question, which he had humbly submitted to their lordships consideration, was, whether, as Riganti had been stated by Restelli to have acted as an agent—
Mr. Attorney Generaldenied that Restelli had so described him.
Mr. Denmanmaintained, that Riganti had been distinctly described by Restelli as having acted as an agent.
Mr. Solicitor Generalcontended, that all that appeared in the evidence of Restelli was, that Riganti had been employed as a messenger.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that if Riganti was in the country, it was in the discretion of those who oppose the bill, whether they would call him as a witness or not, and that it was also in the power of any peer to propose to call Riganti, at any period; but that that question could not be put by the House to the counsel in support of the bill, whatever information might be given in any other way.
The Counsel were directed to withdraw; and the House adjourned.