Lord Erskine, the Earl of Donoughmore, and the Earl of Carnarvon, concurred in opinion with Earl Grey, and Lord Redesdale, and the Lord Chancellor supported the Earl of Lauderdale's proposition.-Nothing, however, was decided.

Mr. Planta, under secretary of state in the foreign department, was called and examined as to the circumstances under which he granted a passport to Restelli. He merely stated, that about the 14th of September he had issued a passport (previously signed, with many others, by lord Castlereagh, with blanks for the names of the bearers and the dates) upon Powell's representation, without any farther consideration, and without any communication whatever with lord Castlereagh upon the subject; he had subsequently issued passports to other couriers, but he could not precisely recollect their dates

[It was intimated to counsel, that they were at liberty to offer any application in consequence of the absence of Restelli.-Mr. Brougham said, he was not prepared with an application at the moment, and he would at present beg to proceed a little further in the line of examination in which they had been engaged on the day preceding.]

Filippo Pomi sworn.

Usually resides at the Barona; knows Giuseppe Restelli and Louisa Demont; in the course of the last year was visited by both these persons; Restelli came first, and Demont in half an hour after; Restelli was making a drawing of the house; he asked wit ness whether he had received any present from the persons who had come; and on witness's replying in the negative, he gave him a present of 40 francs. On a subsequent morning, Restelli called on witness, and they went together to the inn; Restelli said, "Pomi, if you have any thing to depose against her royal highness now is your time; you will become a great man, and shall receive a great present." Witness asked Restelli whether Demont was still in the Queen's service; he replied, that she was, and that she had made a good day's work. Witness then said, that he had been night and day a long time in the house, and never saw any thing that enabled him to speak ill of that lady: then

Restelli said, "You know nothing, for that house was a very bad house, bad women, and so ;" and witness answered, that this was a real falsehood, for he had been in the house day and night, and saw nothing of this: the discourse ended here. Knows one Riganti in the Porta Ticinese; he is a companion of Restelli; he deals in tobacco, salt, and brandy, and other liquors.

MONDAY, OCTOBER 16.

[In order to accommodate sir John Beresford, his examination was, by consent, proceeded in before the conclusion of Pomi's examination.]

Sir John Poer Beresford, bart. sworn.

By Earl Grey.-Is a rear-admiral; commanded H. M. S. Poictiers during the late war, and remembers a person named William Carrington serving on board that ship. At the request of sir William Gell, witness obtained Carrington's discharge by writing to capt. Jones, his acting captain, to rate the man as his, witness's, clerk; as there was no vacancy for a clerk, capt. Jones discharged him by rating him as a midshipman; he was not a midshipman during any part of his service, but was so rated after his discharge, in order to get him his pay. He was not discharged at his own, but at sir Wm. Gell's repeated request. Carrington was an excellent man while on board the Poictiers, and witness gave him a certificate of good conduct.

By the Lord Chancellor.-Carrington never declined the appointment of midshipman, because witness never offered it to him.

By the Earl of Lauderdale.-Carrington never stated to witness any difficulty in point of expense of dressing and maintaining himself; if he did, witness should have maintained him in the service, as he had maintained others, until he should be able to repay him. [The examination was continued by several other lords, but without any important result.]

Filippo Pomi cross-examined. Last saw Bergami in the end of August, at his own house the Barona, now called the Villa Bergami; witness came over unasked, because he heard that the advocate Codazzi was receiving witnesses, and he went to him to say

that he had to say something in favour of the lady that had done so much, good; Codazzi directed him to come, and he came willingly; he made no bargain for payment, but that his wife is to get a franc a day, and each of his children half a franc a day during his absence; if they offer him any thing he will take it, but he expects nothing; for or account of the benefits the Queen has done him, he would go to the end of the world. The estate of the Villa Bergami is about 1,000 pertica; the whole House of Lords covers about half a pertica. Antongina was the tenant of the whole place; he has eighteen children, sons and daughters, and they all went once to one of the balls, because the Queen wished to see so large a family together; all the other persons who went to the balls were people well brought up, all gentlefolks; Rosina, the landdady of the Saint Christopher, came once, brought by the other girls, but she is a respectable woman, she is not a prostitute (trappola)-[No such imputation had been suggested in the question.]-Never saw nor said he saw Bergami in a bed-room with the Queen; saw baron Bergami's wife at the Villa Bergami before he set out for England. Among the gentlefolks who attended the balls at the Barona, he might name Giuseppa and Marianna

Donnarini, and others, whose names

he would recollect if they were before his eyes; Marianna Donnarini is a girl well brought up, and the flower of gentlefolks; she is the daughter of Antonio, a man who keeps one of the inns at the Barona.

EXAMINED BY LORDS.

By Earl Grey. No proposition was ever made to witness to give evidence against the Queen, except by Restelli. There was another person, of the name of Riganti, who, when witness went to his shop to buy snuff, or something of the kind, told him that

The Attorney General objected to receiving as evidence the declarations of Riganti, inasmuch as

A pertica is ordinarily translated by an English pole, but that is greatly below the standard fixed by the witness; 1,000 poles are six acres and a quarter.

he was no witness in the cause, and no agency on his part had been proved. After a long discussion, the objection was allowed.

Bonfiglio Omati sworn.

Was clerk to the advocate Codazzi; Codazzi was professionally engaged for the Queen; was conducted by an unknown person to the door of the advocate Vimercati; he went in, and the moment Vimercati saw him, he knew him, and told him to bring the Queen's papers.-Question. “Did he offer you any inducement to bring those papers?"

The Solicitor General objected to the evidence; he maintained it as a first principle of law, that no conversation with an advocate or attorney in the cause could be given in evidence.

continued until the adjournment The debate upon this point was of the House at the usual hour.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17.

The debate which had been

raised upon the examination of Omati occupied the whole day, and terminated in the proposition of three questions to the judges; the first two framed by the Lord Chancellor, and the third by lord Erskine.

1st. "If in the trial of an indictment for a capital offence, evidence had been given upon the cross-examination of a witness examined in chief in support thereof, from which it appeared that A B, not examined as a witness, had been employed by the party preferring the indictment, as an agent to procure and examine evidence and witnesses in support of the indictment; and the party indicted should propose in the course of the trial of the indictment to examine C D as a witness, to prove that A B had

offered a bribe to E F, in order to induce him to give evidence touching the indictment, E F not being a witness examined in support of the indictment, or examined before it was so proposed to examine C D, would the courts below, according to their usage and practice, allow CD to be examined for the purpose aforesaid, or could such witness legally be examined, the opposite counsel objecting ?" 2nd. "If," &c. [the hypothesis as to parties being the same as on the former question] "the party indicted should propose to examine G. H, to prove that A B had offered him a bribe to induce him to bring papers belonging to the party indicted, GH not having been examined as a witness in support of the indictment, would the courts below," &c.? as before.

3rd. "Supposing that, according to the rules of law, evidence of a conspiracy to suborn witnesses in support of any prosecution ought not to be admitted, except such as directly applies to a prosecutor, or agent employed by him; general evidence of such a conspiracy may not, nevertheless, in the first instance, be received as a preliminary step to affecting the prosecutor himself, or any agent employed by him, and whether the same rule would not apply as to receiving evidence from a defendant indicted, seeking to establish the existence of a conspiracy to suborn witnesses against him?"

The interrogative "whether" seems to be wanting here.

This gentleman came forward again upon his own solicitation, to retract what he had formerly sworn respecting the presence of the bishop of Calcutta at an eastern dance; he had since had reason to believe that his memory had not served him faithfully, and that the bishop was not present; the rest of his statement. he found confirmed by the same memorandum which had discovered to him his error respecting the bishop.

The Chief Justice delivered in an elaborate argument, the unanimous opinion of the judges upon the three queries referred on the preceding day. He observed, in the first place, that the rules of evidence admitted no distinction of prosecutor or defendant, and that the question must be therefore treated as relating to the agent of a defendant, no less than to the agent of a prosecutor. The agency he meant, was that specially described in the quest ons propounded, namely, the employment of a person to procure and examine evidence and witnesses, a lawful employment, necessary in many cases, and in none disgraceful, either to the employer or the employed. Considering, then, the acts of such an agent as they might be supposed to affect the prosecutor, the employment being lawful, it is to be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that the prosecutor intends that it shall be executed by lawful means; and according to the general rules of law, a person

is not to be affected in interest or fame, by any act of another, although that other may have been his agent; except by such acts only as either are in their own nature, or by extrinsic evidence may be shown to be, within the scope of the authority given by him. With regard to the effect which the acts supposed to have been done, can be imagined to have upon the evidence of the witnesses, his lordship said, that the utmost effect (and in many cases this would not be a fair or reasonable effect) would be, to raise a suspicion; but suspicion is not a legitimate ground for the verdict of a jury. Upon those grounds, he thought, that the first question must be answered in the negative. He begged, however, to remark, that his observations applied to the proposition in the general and abstract shape in which it had been propounded; and that he was by no means prepared to say, that in no case, and under no circumstances appearing at a trial, would it be fit and proper for a judge to allow proof of the nature described to go to a jury; and the inclination of every judge is rather to admit proof than to exclude it.

The second query he would also answer in the negative, the same reasons applying to it as to the first; and in addition to these, he observed, that it did not appear what was the nature of the papers alluded to, or the motive of the party endeavouring to procure them; for any thing that could be inferred from the question, they might be wholly unconnected with the prosecution.

The third query, the judges understood as applying to two

distinct cases; the first, where the conspiracy supposed was the object of the prosecution. The second, where it was supposed to be the means of the prosecution, and the proof of conspiracy the topic of defence.

In the first case, the judges were of opinion, that general evidence of a conspiracy might be received as a preliminary step to that more particular evidence by which it was to be shown, that the individual defendants were guilty participators; but in all such cases, the general nature of the whole evidence was to be opened to the Court; and if upon such opening it should appear manifest, that no particular proof, sufficient to affect the defendants, is intended to be adduced, it would become the duty of the judge to stop the case in limine, and not allow the general evidence to be received.

In the second case, in which the judges understood it to be assumed, that the supposed conspiracy to suborn witnesses against the accused, was a legitimate ground of defence, and that their lordships did not ask the opinion of the judges upon that point; they answered the question also in the affirmative, with this qualification, that the proposed evidence should be in some way opened to the Court, as in the case of a prosecution, in order to enable the judge to form an opinion as to the proba bility of bringing the evidence home, so as to affect some person, whose acts are material and relevant to the issue in the indictment then under trial.

The Attorney General said, that although the opinion of the

judges had confirmed the force of the objection taken by the solicitor-general, if their lordships thought the proposed inquiry ought to be pursued, he would make no farther opposition, but rest persuaded, that its result would be favourable to the Milan Commission. Should a prima facie case be made out against the gentlemen composing that commission, he had no doubt that their lordships would allow him an opportunity of rebutting it.

After a short discussion, the result of which was, that the whole House seemed to concur in the propriety of prosecuting the inquiry into the acts imputed to the Milan Commissioners,

Bonfiglio Omati was recalled.

Vimercati told witness, that if he brought him the Queen's papers, he would give him an employment in the police of Milan, and more emolument than his own employer. Carried papers to Vimercati, seven or eight several times; Vimercati knew well, that witness was Codazzi's clerk; he gave witness money six times; but witness was not satisfied with Vimercati's payments, and complained to colonel Browne; Browne told him, that he was a friend to Vimercati, and that witness ought not to doubt Vimercati's promise; witness, in consequence of this conversation, called again upon Vimercati, and received more money from him. The papers purloined by witness, related to the present process; one was the deposition of a chambermaid, who went with Sacchi to Milan; the others were letters of the Queen, Bergami, and other persons upon the subject of depositions. Knows Riganti; Riganti applied to him for papers of this kind; Vimercati assured witness, that Riganti was a person of character, in whom he might confide, and give him any papers; Riganti said, that he would give witness a great deal for the papers. First disclosed to Codazzi, that he

had taken these papers the 27th of July, in the present year.

Cross-examined.

Has lived with Codazzi a year and a half; was dismissed when he con

fessed his misconduct respecting the papers; first saw Vimercati in September, 1819; does not know the man who directed him to go to Vimercati, him, and has seen him since, but indisthough he had two conversations with tinctly [witness described his person]; he met this man accidentally; for the first parcel of papers Vimercati gave witness three double gold Napoleons [about 41. 16s.]; for the second four single Napoleons; for the third parcel he was paid at another time; he continued carrying papers until the end of November; reflected upon the

year;

Codazzi never

impropriety of his conduct in the beginmissed the papers until July; in July ning of the witness gave Riganti, a list of the Queen's witnesses. The last sum witness received from Vimercati was 52 Milan livres, and one-half at the end of March. Brought some papers (two or three letters) when he went to colonel Browne to complain of the advocate Vimercati, who, having seduced him, paid him so little.-Question. "In answer to a question by colonel Browne, did you not say that you were clerk to the advocate Codazzi, and did not colonel Browne give you back instantly the two letters you had delivered to him, and tell you he thought you a most infamous scoundrel, and that you would end by being "He will be hanged?"-Answer. hanged, not I, for I never said so. He gave me the letters, but he said no more. Nay, he shut the door, and bid me not speak so loud, because 1 complained of the advocate Vimercati; and he told me to call the next day upon Vimercati, from whom he would cause me to receive 200 francs, and that Vimercati was a person of character, and would keep his promise." Has never had any communication with Codazzi since his dismissal; expects no reward for coming to England; has no intention of returning to Codazzi's service, because his present trade (selling woollen goods) is more gainful than his employment under Codazzi.