§ The order of the day being read for the further consideration and second reading of the Bill, intituled, "An Act to deprive her Majesty, &c", counsel were called in.
§ Then Giuseppe Sacchi was called in, and sworn, and examined as follows by Mr. Attorney General, through the interpretation of the Marchese di Spineto.
§ Of what country are you? Of Villen-chino.
§ Were you ever in the service of the princess of Wales? I was.
§ When did you enter into her service? On the? th of November 1316.1267
§ Where was the princess then residing? At the Villa d'Este, on the lake of Como.
§ How long did you continue in her service? Precisely a year.
§ What was your situation in her royal highness's service when you first entered it? Courier.
§ Did you remain in that situation, or did you afterwards fill any other in the princess's service? I was for some months in the same employment of courier, and afterwards I was removed to the office of equerry.
§ How long did you remain at the Villa d'Este? About six weeks.
§ Do you know Pergami? I do.
§ Was he at the Villa d'Este when you entered the princess's service? He was.
§ Soon after you entered the service of the princess, were you sent by her with any dispatch to the duchess of Parma? I was.
§ Did you bring back any answer to the princess? I brought another dispatch.
§ Where was the princess when you brought back the dispatch? At dinner.
§ Was any one sitting by her at dinner? Pergami.
§ To whom did you deliver the dispatch? To her royal highness the princess of Wales.
§ What did she do with it? She read it, and then threw it on the table.
§ Did any one take it up? Pergami took it up at the time that her royal highness turned herself to me, to inquire after some further information; he took it up and read it, or pretended to read it, without asking permission.
§ Do you recollect after that being sent to Milan with a letter? I was sent at the beginning of the month of December with a dispatch to the governor Saurau.
§ Did you receive any directions on your going to Milan, as to bringing back an answer? I was desired by Pergami to make the utmost speed, and bring an answer back during the same night.
§ Did you return to the Villa d'Este on that night, or on the following morning? I returned immediately after midnight.
§ Upon your return, where did you go? I dismounted from my horse, I went into the kitchen, where I found a footman, whom I asked where Mr. Pergami was.
§ In consequence of the answer, where did you go? I mounted the stairs, and went into the anti-room of the apartment of Pergami.
§ What did you do on going into the anti-room? I found a servant of Pergami asleep; and I went towards Pergami's bed-room, finding the door open, I went in, and saw the bed of Pergami tumbled, but there was nobody in it.
§ What did you do upon that? I went away, and in going away I heard, a noise on the opposite side; and at the same time I heard "Who is there," then I knew that it was the voice of Pergami, to whom I answered, that it was the courier returned from Milan; Pergami told me that there was no such necessity to give him this answer.1268
§ How was Pergami dressed at that time? In his dressing gown.
§ Did you perceive what he had on under his dressing gown? I saw only about his breast, which was unbuttoned or untied; and I saw nothing else but his shirt.
§ In what place was it that you saw Pergami? I saw him in a room where there was a door opposite to the door of his room.
§ Did you see where Pergami came from? I could not see it on account of the darkness.
§ Where did that door lead to, which you hare mentioned, which was opposite Pergami's room? It led into more rooms.
§ Who occupied those rooms? No one.
§ Do you know what room was beyond those rooms; do you know where the princess slept? I do not.
§ Do you know where the princess's bed-room was? I do not.
§ Whilst you were at the Villa d'Este have you ever seen the princess and Pergami together? Several times.
§ Where have you seen them together? I have seen them walking through the court and the garden.
§ How were they walking together? Arm in arm.
§ Whilst you were at the Villa d'Este, do you recollect carrying any letter to general Pino? I do.
§ Did you bring back any answer from general Pino? I brought a verbal answer.
§ To whom did you deliver that verbal answer; did you deliver it to the princess? I did.
§ Where was the princess when you delivered that answer? In her own antichamber.
§ Whereabouts was that antichamber? Immediately after mounting the stairs, by turning on the left, there was a corridor, and by turning again on the left hand through this corridor, after a few paces, there was on the left the antichamber of her royal highness.
§ Was that antichamber of her royal highness near the place where you saw Pergami, or where was it? It was near the place where I saw Pergami.
§ Do you mean when you saw Pergami at night, on your return from Milan? I do.
§ How near? On the same corridor there was, on the right, and more particularly opposite to the door of her royal highness, a door which led into a room, which room led into another, where I saw Pergami.
§ You say that the princess used to walk arm in arm with Pergami; what expressions did she use in addressing him? Familiar expressions, confidential.
§ What were they, do you recollect? I have heard her call him sometimes by the expression, "mon ange," "mon amour," "mom coeur,"—my angel—my love—my life.
§ Do you remember the princess going to Turin? I do.
§ Did you go with her? I did.
§ Where did they go to at Turin, to what inn? To the inn, The Universe.1269
§ Did you go before the princess to Turin? I went before her the last stage.
§ Did you make any arrangement of the rooms at that inn, for the accommodation of the princess and her suite? Yes; it was arranged between me and the innkeeper, to give to her royal highness the best apartment, and to the dame d'honneur, and also to the femme de chambre; and to the gentlemen I allotted another apartment quite separate from the rest.
§ Did that arrangement continue, or was it altered? At the arrival of the princess and Pergami I showed to them the distribution I had made, but it did not meet with the approbation of her royal highness, or of Pergami, and the apartment which I had destined for the gentlemen, was dedicated to her royal Highness, to the dame d'honneur, to signor Pergami, and to the femme de chambre.
§ How near was the chamber of Pergami upon this alteration to that of the princess? Between the room of her royal highness, and that of Pergami there was the room where the countess Oldi slept,
§ Was there any communication from Pergami's room, through the chamber of the countess Oldi, with that of the princess? There was a mutual communication.
§ How long did they remain at Turin? About six days, I do not know exactly.
§ Do you remember going with the princess and Pergami to the Barona? I do.
§ Whilst they were at the Barona, were any balls given there by the princess? Many balls.
§ What description of persons attended those balls? At the beginning, besides the persons in the suite of her royal highness, there came also some people of distinction; but in these balls were introduced people of all ranks, and both sexes, and even a very low condition; and as between some of the suite of her royal highness and these low women there was some freedom, thus those people of distinction were no longer seen.
§ What sort of freedom, what do you mean by freedom? Those persons took those women out from the ball-room, and made them go out at their pleasure and will, (alcune persone) some persons, (prendevano queste donne) took these women (e le face-vano sortire dalla sala di hallo) and made them go out from the ball-room, (a loro pia-cere) according to their pleasure, (e volonta) and will.
§ Did the princess know this?
objected to the question.
The counsel were informed, that they had better ask what the witness saw.
Have you heard the princess say any thing at those balls, upon those persons going out or coming in? I have not.
Did you hear the princess say any thing, or did any conversation take place between the princess and yourself, respecting any of those 1270 females who were at the balls? One day whilst I was in the court, and her royal highness and Pergami were there, the princess told me these precise words,—she said that she wished to make a present to some of those girls, and then she asked me, "How can we dress these young virgins (verginelli) Mr. Sacchi?" then she asked me, "Do you believe they are such?" I answered, that as far as I was concerned, I believed them to be (oneste) modest girls, and I had nothing to say against them; her royal highness said to me, "I know, you rogue, that you have gone to bed with three of them, and how many times you have had intercourse with them. "I being surprised at this compliment, endeavoured to persuade her royal highness, that she was deceived, and Pergami, who was present, began to laugh and to cry aloud," It is true, it is true, it is true."
(to the Interpreter.) Is there any other word in Italian but vergini and verginelli for maids and little maids? No, maids and virgins are expressed by the same word, vergini or verginelli.
—You have said that the princess stated, that she was about to make a present to some of those girls; did you learn from her to which of those girls this present was intended to be made? No.
Have you seen the princess at those balls in the same rooms with those persons of low description, and girls who came there? Several times.
Did the princess join in the dancing? Sometimes.
Have you, on any of these occasions, heard the princess make any other remark upon those women, or upon their conduct? When one of those women came by day-time to the house of her royal highness, and when she was seen by her royal highness, she pointed her out by her finger and laughed; and on such an occasion once she exclaimed, how much the population of Barona must increase.
Did you accompany the princess in her tour through Germany? I did.
In the course of that journey, do you remember Pergami's purchasing a carriage calculated to carry two persons? I do.
After that carriage was purchased, who used to travel in it? During the night and during the days, bad weather, it was for my use.
Did the princess ever travel in it herself? Yes, during the days of fair weather, many times she travelled in this carriage with Pergami.
Do you remember on any occasion when the princess and Pergami were travelling in that carriage, their going on before you? I remember that one day whilst they had remained at a place whose name I forget, her royal highness and Pergami set out suddenly in this small carriage, for I was not in time to follow them, as I was obliged to see about 1271 getting the other carriages ready, and having followed them as soon as I could, and making the most haste, I could not overtake them till they had arrived at the first stage.
When you arrived at that place, did you see the princess and Pergami any where? I asked about them, and I was pointed to a room in the first floor.
Did you go to that room? I went and knocking at the door, I inquired whether I could enter; Pergami answered me to come in, as I did; after I had entered, I saw her royal highness and Pergami upon the bed, but I must observe that they were decently dressed, and at a distance from each other.
How were they placed upon the bed; how were they sitting or lying on the bed? They were lying on the bed as far as the middle, and the back was supported against the wall.
In the course of that journey did you stop at any inn at which there were any English persons? I do not know.
Had you received any directions from any person on the subject of the English? I remember that when I preceded her royal highness on the road to Munich, she told me that the first thing in settling for lodgings was to inquire whether there were any English; I was to inquire after his rank, and to go somewhere else for the lodgings of her royal highness.
In the course of that journey what was the general disposition of the bed-rooms of Pergami and her royal highness? I continued to distribute the lodgings as far as Carlsruhe, but when we arrived at Carlsruhe, there having happened the same thing that had happened at Turin, that is to say, the change of the bed-rooms, I did not meddle with it any more during the rest of the journey, leaving lo her royal highness and Pergami to choose what rooms they liked best.
What was the disposition of the rooms of the princess and of Pergami during that journey, as far as you know? Generally they were as near as possible.
In the course of that journey did you go to Monte Falcone? Setting out from Trieste, we went to Monte Falcone.
At what time of day did you arrive at Monte Falcone? We arrived when it was already night.
Where did the princess and Pergami go upon their arrival at Monte Falcone? As we had been overtaken by a violent storm, and by a great darkness, we were obliged to stop at a miserable inn.
Where did the princess and Pergami go at that inn, into what room? They mounted the stairs, and went into a room where there was a bed.
Did they remain in that room alone? They remained alone till the rest of the suite arrived.
How long was it that they remained alone in that room? Between an hour and an hour and a half.
1272 After that journey did you return to Milan, to La Barona? We did.
From the Barona did you go to Rome? Yes.
In your way to Rome, did you stop at a place called Savignano? Yes.
Was the princess ill at Savignano? She was overtaken by violent pain.
Did you yourself see who attended upon the princess upon that occasion? Pergami and the countess Oldi.
Do you know whether any medicine or any applications, were given to the princess on that occasion? I do not know whether they were intended for her royal highness, but I saw Pergami and the countess Oldi make some cloths hot.
Did you sec where Pergami and the dame d'honneur carried those hot cloths? As those cloths were made warm, Pergami as well as the countess carried them into the room where was her royal highness.
Did you go to Ancona? Yes.
At Ancona, do you know the situation of the princess's bed-room with respect to Per-gami's? One day I was called by Mr. Pergami, whilst he, Pergami, was still in bed, and whilst he was speaking to me, there was a door open which led into another room.
Was the door open when you went into Pergami's room, or was it opened whilst you were there? The door was open when I went into Pergami's room.
Do you know into what room that door opened? Another room, which I believe was that of her royal highness.
Why do you believe that was her royal highness's room?
was heard in reply.
The counsel were informed, that the proper question would be, whether he knew that that was the princess's bed-room?
Mr. Attorney General.
—Do you know whether that was the princess's bed-room into which that door opened? I cannot say it with certainty.
What did you see in that room, when the door was open? I saw some things belonging to her royal highness; as for instance, the boxes belonging to her toilet.
Did you see the bed in that room into which the door opened? There was one.
Did you afterwards go to Ruffinelli? We did.
At that place was Pergami ill, and confined to his bed? He was.
Had you occasion, during Pergami's illness, to go to his room at night? One evening that I was going to visit him, when I was at the door, which I found by a third part open, I saw Pergami in bed.
About what hour was that? About eleven o'clock at night.
1273 You say you saw Pergami in bed; did you see any body else in the room? There was also her royal highness.
Where was her royal highness? She was by the side of the bed, stretched on a sofa.
Could you see what was on the sofa? There were some cushions.
Upon seeing the princess in that situation, did yon go into the room, or did you turn back? I quitted the room immediately.
From Ruffinelli did you go to the villa Brandi? We did.
In what part of the house did you sleep at the Villa Brandi? I slept in the wing of the house, on the left of the entrance door.
Do you know where Pergami slept at the Villa Brandi? He slept on the right hand, exactly opposite to my room.
Do you know where the princess slept? Her royal highness also slept on the same side of the house on which Pergami slept.
Do you remember at any time at the Villa Brandi, after the people of the court were gone to bed, seeing Pergami any where? I remember one night after midnight, whilst it was insufferably hot, that nobody could sleep, I was at the window of my room, and as I heard a noise on the side of the room of Pergami, I withdrew a little; I saw Pergami come out from his room and go to the door which led into the apartment of her royal highness; he opened the door, entered, and I saw him come out no more.
How long did you remain at the window after you saw Pergami go in the manner you have described? About an hour.
On any other night did you see Pergami? A few days after I saw the same thing.
At what time was it that you saw Pergami the second time? Nearly about the same hour as the first.
Did you, upon that second occasion, see Pergami return to his room? I did not.
How long were you at your window the second time when you saw Pergami go, and during which you did not see him return? About a quarter of an hour.
Whilst you were at the Villa Brandi, did you sec any busts? I saw two.
Of whom were they, the busts, whom did they represent? I was told that one was for her royal highness and the other for Pergami.
You are not asked what you were told, but whose likenesses did they appear to you to be? One represented her royal highness, the other Pergami.
Where was it you saw those busts? I saw them in the room of Pergami.
At the Villa Brandi, or where? At the Villa Brandi.
Were the busts of the same size with each other? Nearly.
In what month was it that you saw Pergami going, as you say, at night from his room? The month of July.
Did the princess go from Rome to Senegaglia? She did.
1274 Did she travel by night or by day from Rome to Senegaglia? She travelled always by night.
Was it very hot weather at that time? It was very hot.
In going from Rome to Senegaglia, did you go to the carriage in which the princess was? Always by the side of it.
Were there curtains round the princess's carriage? There were.
Did you at any time go to the carriage and draw away the curtains for any purpose? Several times.
For what purpose; what was the occasion of your doing that? Every morning when day appeared I went near to the carriage to ask her royal highness whether she wanted any thing.
Who travelled in that carriage with her royal highness? Mr. Pergami, and sometimes there was the countess Oldi, or the little girl of Pergami.
Upon any occasion when you have gone for this purpose, have you observed in what situation the princess and Pergami were? It has happened to me two or three times to have found them both asleep, and having their res-pective hands one upon another.
Describe in what way, one upon another? Her royal highness held her hand upon the private part of Mr. Pergami, and Pergami held his own upon that of her royal highness.
Did yon observe on any of those occasions the state of Pergami's breeches? Once I saw that Pergami had his breeches loosened from the braces, that he had the front part of his breeches, the flap, half-unbuttoncd.
Upon that occasion did you observe where the princess's hand was? One hand was upon that part.
Was any one in the carriage besides Pergami, at that time? I do not remember.
Did you say that they were asleep at that time? I did.
Did you, in going from Rome to Senegaglia, see any thing else pass between the princess and Pergami? I saw once her royal highness kiss the neck of Pergami.
Did you afterwards go to Pesaro? We did.
During the -time that the princess was at Pesaro, did Pergami, go away for any time? He went to Bologna, where he remained for two days.
Upon the return did the princess go to meet him? Her royal highness went to meet him with a part of her suite.
Did she meet him? Her royal highness met him near Catolica.
When they met each other, did you observe what was done by them? When they met they each dismounted from their respective carriages; they met and embraced, and kissed each other.
Did they then return to Pesaro? They did.
Did they return in the same carriage, or in different carriages? In the same carriage.
1275 Did Pergami use to dine with the princess at Pesaro, 'and before? I do not know, because I was never present when they were at dinner.
Do you know were Pergami's mother and brother Louis dined? When they entered the service they dined in a room by themselves.
Did any alteration take place in their dining whilst you were at Pesaro? I do not know.
At the time you were at the Villa d'Este, did any persons of distinction visit her royal highness? Once I saw General Pino.
Did you see any other persons of distinction there? I do not remember.
Was there a person of the name of Verona in the princess's service? There was.
What was he? A servant.
In what capacity? Like any other servant in the house; he waited at table.
Do you know what he had been before he came into the princess's service? I never knew what his employment had been before.
Have you ever heard Pergami converse with the princess about Verona? I do not remember.
Cross-examined by Mr. Brougham.
You do not understand English at all, it is taken for granted? No.
Not at all? Not at all.
How long have you been in this country? About fourteen months.
Where have you lived all that time? Sometimes in London, sometimes in the country.
Your name is Sacchini, is it not? Sacchi.
Did you ever go under the name of Sacchini? All at Milan called me Sacchini, which is a diminutive.
But whilst you were in this country the people called you neither Sacchi nor Sacchini; they called you Milani, did they not? It is true.
You have always gone by the name of Milani in this country? It is true?
Whom did you live with at Stevenage; did not you live at Stevenage? Some time.
How long did you live at Stevenange? I never lived at Stevenage.
Where did you live "when you were in the country? Aston.
How far is Aston from Stevenage? Four miles.
Whom did you live with there? In the house of the rev. Philip Godfrey:
Have you seen Mr. Godfrey in town lately? Once.
After you left the princess, where did you go to live first? I went to Milan.
Did you go into any other service there? I did not.
How long did you remain out of place? Always.
You have never been in any other service since? Never.
1276 When were you first examined at Milan upon this business? In the month of November of the year 1818.
Was that the first time that you told this story to the persons at Milan? No, I have said it at other times.
When was the first time you were examined upon the subject? In November 1818.
Whom had you told it to before that? To different people.
Name one of them? I do not remember any of them.
Who asked you to go to be examined at Milan in 1818? A messenger sent to me by the advocate Vimercati.
Whom did you see with Vimercati when you went to him? No one else but Vimercati. Did he then examine you? No, it was not that time. When did he examine you? After about a fortnight. Whom did you see then, when you were examined? I saw the advocate Vimercati and the advocate Powell, colonel Brown, and another gentleman called Cooke.
Did they take down what you said in writing? They did.
Did they swear you to it, did they make you take an oath? At Milan I never took an oath.
Where did you take the oath then? In London.
Was it at Mr. Powell's chambers you took the oath? Just so.
In what way were you living and supporting yourself at Milan at the time that they sent for you? I have always had means of my own to support myself.
What wages had you as courier to her royal highness? There never were any wages settled to me.
Do you mean that you served as a volunteer without wages? No, I have received something, but there was no fixed salary.
How much did you receive the first half year that you were courier? I have received three times money during the time I have been in the service of her royal highness, making all together the sum of sixty or seventy Napoleons.
How much did you receive of that sixty or seventy Napoleons during the time that you acted as courier only to her royal highness? I do not remember.
How long did you serve as courier of the year that you were there? About nine months.
Who hired you for her royal highness? I entered into her royal highness's service through the good offices of the banker Ceriani, the baron Cavaletti, and Pergami.
Do you mean to represent, that when you went to her royal highness you were in easy circumstances? I have always been, thank God, in easy circumstances.
1277 Were yon as well dressed the day you went to her royal highness to be hired as you are now? I have always been dressed equally.
You were called count Milani here, when you were introduced to Mr. Marrietti, were you not? I do not know.
Do you mean to swear you do not know whether you were introduced to Mr. Marrietti here in London as count Milani, or not? I have sworn to say the truth, and to say the truth alone, and I swear that I do not know that I was introduced to Mr. Marrietti as count Milani.
Do you mean to swear that you never were called count Milani in your own hearing in Mr. Marrietti's hearing here in London? I am sure that I never heard myself called count.
Do you mean to swear you never heard yourself called count at Aston, where you lived with Mr. Godfrey? I am sure I never heard myself called count at Aston.
Will you also swear that you did not introduce yourself to Mr. Marrietti as a merchant? Never.
That you never stated that you came over to this country for commercial purposes? No, I have always said, that I had come in the service of a Spanish family.
In the service of what Spanish family did you come over?
The Attorney General
objected to the question, as assuming that the witness had come over in the service of a Spanish family, and that the witness had not so stated.
—Is it true, or not true, that you came over to this country in the service of a Spanish family? It is not true.
Did you not represent to Mr. Marrietti, or to some person in his family here, that the princess owed you money? I said that I had a law suit, a process with her royal highness, but I never said that she owed me money.
Was it true or not that you had a law suit with her royal highness? I meant to say, that I was in the process which was making against her royal highness.
Did you mean to tell Mr. Marrietti's family, that you were one of the witnesses against her royal highness? No.
Was it a double entendre, then, that yon used in speaking to Mr. Marrietti? I never spoke of that with Mr. Marrietti.
With whomsoever you have spoken of that which you represented,' namely, that you had a law suit, did you use that expression as a double entendre to that person?
The Attorney General
objected to this question. The witness had not said that he used a double entendre, and his learned friend had no right to ask any question as to what passed in the witness's mind.
said, his learned friend had 1278 just laid down a new rule of evidence in respect to cross-examination. He was ready to argue this point, if their lordships did not think it a waste of time. In the first place, the witness had stated himself to have represented to some person, that he had a law suit with her royal highness, but upon being further questioned upon this point, he admitted that he was not a party, but a witness in this process. Now, was it not manifest that he had a right to ask the witness this question, for the purpose of explaining his own answer? When was it ever heard of, that a counsel had not a right to assume a fact, for the purpose of trying the credit of a witness, not merely with reference to facts, but as to what passed in the mind of the witness? One of the commonest questions asked in cross-examination was, whether such was not the witness's belief or expectation? He was a ware, that in the examination in chief, a witness could not be questioned as to his belief except in the single instance of proving a handwriting; but every day's experience showed that this was not the usual course in cross-examination. If their lordships were satisfied that he might put questions as to the belief of the witness, it was no less clear, that he might put them as to what passed in the witness's mind. If it were necessary to cite authorities to prove this, he need only appeal to the case of the duchess of Kingston. Upon the cross-examination of Jndith Phillips in that case, questions were repeatedly put to her, as to her belief and expectation. She was repeatedly asked by Mr. Mansfield, who, though he was at that time only practising at the bar, their lordships would admit to be no inconsiderable authority, whether she did not believe and expect that she would receive certain sums of money? These questions were put by Mr. Mansfield, and not objected to by their lordships. This mode of putting questions was allowed even on the re-examination of witnesses, which was a sort of examination in chief, and upon the re-examination of Demont, his learned friend had repeatedly questioned her as to what passed in her mind at the time.
The Counsel were informed, that, in the opinion of the House, the question could not have been put in the first instance if it had been objected to, but that the witness had already answered the question, adopting the expression "double entendre." The question was proposed to the witness.
Yes, as a double entendre.
Did you ever disclose to Mr. Marrietti, or any of his family, that you were one of the witnesses against her royal highness? I told it to Mr. Marrietti after I'returned from Aston.
How long ago is that? About two months ago.
Did you not at that time know that Mr. Marrietti's family had discovered who you were? I do not know.
1279 Do you mean to swear that you did not know at the time you told him who you were, that they already knew who you were? Who I was as a witness, do you mean?
Your name in the first instance, that they had found out your real name? Yes, because I have mentioned it to some persons much before.
But not to any of the Marrielti family? I told my real name to one of the brothers of Marrietti, who was in Aston with me.
When was it that you so told your name to one of the Marrietti's? After I have been at Aston a few months.
How long ago is it, how far back? Seven or eight months.
To whom was it you told your name, and who you were, two months ago? Two months ago, I do not remember.
Did the gentleman of Mr. Marrietti's family, to whom you disclosed who you were, ever see you afterwards? It is some time since he has set out for Milan.
Have you ever been in Mr. Marrietti's house since you mentioned this to the gentleman, who has gone to Milan? Several times.
When was the last time you were there, to make a visit? Three or four months.
Did they then know that you were Milani or Sacchi? The brother who has set out for Milan knew that I was Sacchi; the others I do not know.
Did the other call you Sacchi the last day you were there visiting? Never.
Did you tell the family of Mr. Godfrey, at Aston, that you were Sacchi or Milani, the last time you were there? I said I was Sacchi.
Did you tell them you were one of the witness too? I did not say it myself, but I caused it to be told.
By whom did you cause this to be commucated to the family? By a Mr. Sperati.
Who is Mr. Sperati? A Milanese gentleman, whom I have known in the house of Marrietti: Is he not a near relation of Mr. Marrietti's? I have heard he is a cousin.
What was the first time that Sperati knew who you really were? It was one day he came to Aston to pay me a visit, and I told him who I was.
How long is that? Seven or eight months ago.
You will swear that it was at least seven months? About seven months.
Did you ever make application to he taken back into the service of her royal highness? I do not remember.
Did you ever represent, after you had left the service of her royal highness, that you were in a destitute condition? Never.
Did you ever intreat any person of her royal highness's household to have compassion on your dreadful situation, after you had left her royal highness? I have never been in a dreadful situation.
1280 Will you swear that you never entreated any one of the suite of her royal highness to take pity, or to take compassion on you, after you had left her? On what account to have pity; on what account to have compassion?
Will you swear that you never entreated any one of the suite of her royal highness, after you had left her service, to have pity on you, or to take compassion on your situation? It may be.
Did you ever represent to any person, after you left her royal highness's service, that you taxed yourself with ingratitude towards a generous mistress?
The Attorney General submitted that the question should be put, whether he had so represented himself in conversation, for that if the representation was in writing, the writing itself must be produced before the question could be put.
contended, that the limits of a cross-examination were much more extensive than an examination in chief. He had a right to put the question in the way he bad done. He had a right to ask the witness if he had represented so and so, without stating whether it was-in a written instrument or in a conversation. And further, the only time in which the opposite counsel could take an exception, was, if the witness had said it was in writing. He trusted their lordships would not adopt a course, the consequences of which would be, to prevent all the benefits of a cross-examination.
—In all the books of law that I have seen—in all the trials that I have read, and in all the practice that I have known, I never knew such an interposition as that of the attorney-general. To furnish a witness with an excuse for not answering a question, which only put his credit to the test in a legitimate way, if permitted, must prevent the detection of every conspiracy. I dare the attorney-general to state a single case, to quote a single instance, in which this has been permitted. It may screen a witness from the detection of his frauds and perjuries; it may, for the moment, prevent his being proved totally disqualified to give evidence. It can be of no other use, nor used for any other purpose, than to prevent the eliciting of truth. What! shall we not put a witness, whom we know to be infamous, to the severest examination, without declaring to him the means we have of proving him so? It is a little too much, to be told that a letter written on a former occasion, which directly contradicts the evidence he now gives, must be produced, 1281 before we can put any question to him that may tend to prove his perjury by other means. If we are bound first to show the letter, he may give his own explanation, say it was a double entendre, or escape by some other means. The learned counsel concluded by declaring, that no power on earth, not even that court, much less the persons charged with producing this perjured witness, had a right to dictate the manner in which a question should be put to his own witness. He demanded, on the part of the profession to which he belonged, and on the part of the public, that their lordships should pause before they gave a doctrine so monstrous the sanction of their high authority.
The Attorney General
complained warmly of the term of "perjured witness" applied to the individual under examination.
The Attorney General
resumed—The opposite counsel had no right to do cir-cuitously what they could not do directly —they admitted that their object was, to get the witness to declare as to the contents of some written document that was in their possession, and which they' might afterwards produce in contradiction of his testimony.
—My lords, we have a right to correct any misrepresentation or misconception of our words. The privilege of explanation belongs to us [Order, order!].
with increased energy—"I have a right to do so" [renewed cries of Order, order! with much murmuring among the lords].
with considerable elevation of tone and vehemence of manner—"I have a right to do so."[Here the cries of Order, order! became still louder, and the counsel were desired to withdraw.]
§ Lord Redesdale
thought the counsel had no right to interrupt each other. When one had done, the other had a right to interfere and explain; but to allow interference and explanations in the middle of an argument would introduce the greatest disorder. Such interruption 1282 ought not to be allowed, and could not be insisted upon as matter of right.
The Counsel being recalled,
The Lord Chancellor
said, that he had it in command from the House to state to the counsel, that they must not interrupt each other while speaking, but reserve any corrections or explanations they had to make till their opponent had finished.
The Attorney General
resumed. He was as anxious, he declared, as any man to avoid misrepresentation; but he contended, that he was correct in his argument as to the tendency of the doctrine laid down by his learned friends; for that doctrine, if acted upon, might lead to the admission of illegal evidence; as any evidence founded upon a written document could not be received while the best evidence, namely, the written document itself, was forthcoming. His opinion, indeed, on this subject was sustained by the recent decision of the House itself; and if this decision were allowed to be evaded, their lordships might be again in the situation in which they were placed previous to that decision, by having illegal evidence inserted upon their minutes. The learned gentleman concluded with pressing his objection to a question so likely to lead to illegal evidence as that referred to, stating, that if the question were only, whether the witness had made any parole representations to the effect mentioned, it would be quite unobjectionable, while his friends would still be at liberty to adduce any written representation which they might have in their possession, in contradiction to the depositions of the witness.
The Lord Chancellor
thought, that the former decision of the judges, as to the production of letters, did not amount to a decision of the propriety of putting the present question; and, with the leave of the House, he would put a question to the judges, which he should the rather do, as nothing was more important than that the House should be fully acquainted with the mode of its proceeding. He meant no unfounded compliment to Mr. Williams, but be must say that, the other day, he had extremely well argued this point: considering, however, the present as additional argument to what was then offered, he was most desirous to refer to the Judges this Question—Whether, according to the established practice in the courts below, counsel cross-examining are entitled, if the counsel on the 1283 other side object to it, to ask a witness whether he has made representations of a particular nature, not specifying in his question whether the question refers to representations in writing or in words?The Question was delivered to the lord chief justice, and the learned Judges requested leave to withdraw.
thought it right to take this opportunity of making a motion, without giving any notice. It was desirable that that House and the country should be informed whether every due facility, in pecuniary supplies as well as in other respects, were afforded to the Queen for the preparation of her defence. The House had heard with satisfaction, from the noble head of the administration, that means had been taken, on the part of his majesty's government, to enable the Queen's advocates to collect any evidence which they might deem it desirable to adduce. But still, for the complete satisfaction of the House and the country, he felt it necessary to move for copies of all communications which had taken place between the Queen or her advisers and his majesty's government since the arrival of her Majesty in this country in June last; and also for an account of all sums of money advanced by government for the use of her Majesty within that period.
The Earl of Liverpool
complained of the irregularity of making a motion of this nature, without previous notice, which was agreeable to the practice of the House, or that kind of communication to himself or his colleagues, which was the usual courtesy of noble lords. But this motion was the more to be deprecated, as it referred to circumstances to give publicity to which would be contrary to common decency. Besides, no complaint was made, nor could he suppose that any dissatisfaction was felt, on the part of her majesty's advisers, as to the conduct of the king's government, in affording every facility necessary for her majesty's defence, in the means of collecting evidence, or in the advance of unlimited pecuniary supplies. Upon what ground, then, should such a motion be pressed? While on his own part and that of his colleagues, he could have no personal objection to let all that had passed on this subject go forth to the public, yet as there was no necessity whatever for such a motion, he hoped the House would not assent to it, without due consideration. If the noble lord meant 1284 to persist in this motion, he hoped he would give notice of it for to-morrow.
thought, that when the noble earl said that unlimited sums of money were advanced, it was the duty of their lordships to inquire from what source such sums were drawn, and who were to be accountable for them?
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that when he mentioned unlimited sums, he meant it to be understood that these sums were advanced under proper securities.
expressed his surprise to hear any noble lord ascribe to him any disposition to propose a proceeding contrary to common decency, and he was the more surprised at such an imputation, considering the quarter from whence it came. With respect to the motion he had submitted, he had made a previous communication of his purpose to some of the noble earl's colleagues, and that he supposed a sufficient intimation to the government; and as to his bringing it forward without any previous notice to the House, that was owing to the circumstances of the case; for understanding, since he came into the House, that the evidence on the part of the advocates for the bill would close this day, he considered it of the greatest importance, that an immediate opportunity should be taken of satisfying their lordships and the public, that every means and facility were afforded to her majesty, that could be deemed necessary for the preparation of her defence. But, understanding that the case on the part of the prosecution would not close so soon as he was led to expect, and being quite unwilling to take any noble lord by surprise, he should, with leave of the House, withdraw his motion, and give notice of it for to-morrow.
§ After a short time, the learned Judges returned.
Lord Chief Justice Abbott.
—My lords, the judges have conferred upon the question proposed to them by your lordships, "Whether, according to the established practice in the courts below, counsel cross-examining are in-titled, the counsel on the other side objecting to it, to ask a witness whether he has made representations of any particular nature, not specifying in the question whether his question refers to representations in writing or in words."
My lords, the judges find a difficulty to give a distinct answer to the question thus proposed by your lordships, either in the affirmative or the negative, inasmuch as we are not aware that there is in the courts below any 1285 established practice which we can state to your lordships as distinctly referring to such a question propounded by counsel on cross-examination as is here contained, that is, whether the counsel cross-examining are entitled to ask the witness whether he has made such representation, for it is not in the recollection of any one of us that such a question in those words, namely, whether a witness has made such and such representation, has at any time been asked of a witness; questions however of a similar nature are frequently asked at Nisi Prius, referring rather to contracts and agreements, or to supposed contracts and agreements, than to declarations of the witness; as for instance, a witness is often asked whether there is an agreement for a certain price for a certain article, an agreement for a certain definite time, a warranty, or other matter of that kind, being a matter of contract; and when a question of that kind has been asked at Nisi Prius, the ordinary course has been for the counsel on the other side not to object to the question as a question that could not properly be put, but to interpose on his own behalf another intermediate question, namely, to ask the witness whether the agreement referred to in the question originally proposed by the counsel on the other side, was or was not in writing; and if the witness answers that it was in writing, then the inquiry is stopped, because the writing must be itself produced.
My lords, therefore, although we cannot answer your lordships question distinctly in the affirmative or the negative, for the reason I have given, namely, the want of an established practice referring to such a question by counsel; yet as we are all of opinion, that the witness cannot properly be asked on cross-examination whether he has written such a thing (the proper course being to put the writing into his hands, and ask him whether it be his writing); considering the question proposed to us by your lordships with reference to that principle of law which requires the writing itself to be produced, and with reference to the course that ordinarily takes place on questions relating to contracts or agreements; we each of us think, that if such a question were propounded before us at Nisi Prius and objected to, we should direct the counsel to separate the question into its parts.
My lords, I find I have not expressed myself with the clearness I had wished, as to dividing the question into parts, I beg therefore to inform the House, that by dividing the question into parts, I mean that the counsel would be directed to ask whether the representation had been made in writing or by words. If he should ask whether it had been made in writing, the counsel on the other side would object to the question; if he should ask whether it had been made by words, that is, whether the witness had said so or so, the counsel would undoubtedly have a right to put that question, and probably no objection would be made to it.
1286 The Counsel were called in, and were informed that if, on cross-examination, they inquired of a witness whether he had made representations of any particular nature, stating the nature of those representations, they should, in their inquiries, ask the witness first, "Whether he made the representations by parol, or in writing."
inquired, whether he was to understand, before he had asked, whether the witness made any representations, he was to ask whether it was in writing.
The Counsel was informed, that he might put the question referring, in the mode of putting it, to a representation by parole; or that where a question of that kind was put, the counsel on the other side was justified by the practice in breaking in upon the course of the cross-examination, so far as to put the question, whether the declaration, if made, was by parol or in writing.
§ Earl Grey
observed, that if counsel went to particulars, it must first be ascertained whether the representation had been parole or written. Might not a general question be put as to the fact of any representation whatever having been made, without going into any details, until it should be understood from the answer to that question how the matter stood?
The Earl of Liverpool
had no objection to such a general question; but he had understood the learned judges to state, that the question, as submitted to them, could not be asked generally, but must be divided into two; that it must be first asked, whether any representation had been made in writing? and that, if an answer were given in the affirmative, then the inquiry must cease; but that, if the answer was in the negative, the witness might then be asked if he had made any parole representation? and, if he answered in the affirmative, that the particulars of such parole representation might be inquired into.
§ Earl Grey
observed, that the witnesses had been over and over again asked if any promises had been made to them? To such questions no objection had been made, until it was ascertained whether those promises had been made in writing or not. It appeared to him that the present question came within the principle on which the questions respecting supposed promises proceeded; and that a general question might be put, in the first instance, avoiding details.
§ Lord Erskine
remarked, that a counsel had a right to ask a witness whether any promise had been made to him. If the 1287 answer were in the affirmative, and if the counsel were about to inquire into the particulars of that promise, the counsel on the opposite side might interfere and inquire whether or not the promise was in writing; in which case no further question could be put about it. Such appeared to him to be the principle which should be observed with reference to the question under their lordships' consideration.
The Lord Chancellor
confirmed the statement of his noble and learned friend. Such was invariably the practice when he attended in the courts below.
begged to know, whether lie might be at liberty to alter his question, and to put it, "Did you ever make any representation in writing concerning your real or supposed ingratitude towards so generous a mistress as her royal highness?"
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
The Earl of Donoughmore
observed, that on all former occasions, when a question had been referred by their lordships to the judges, the opinion of the judges had been declared to the counsel at the bar as the opinion of the court. He was not aware why there should be any departure from that practice in the present instance. He did not want the question before their lordships to be settled by any kind of accommodation, he wanted it to be settled according to law. What he proposed, therefore, was, that the subject should be submitted to the reconsideration of the judges.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that if, from the imperfect and insufficient character of the question that had already been submitted to the judges, they had found it impossible to give to that question a direct answer, it might be advisable to amend the question before it was again referred to them.
The Counsel were called in, and the counsel for the Queen were asked, whether they wished to withdraw the question.
stated, that he earnestly begged to withdraw the question, to save the necessity for farther discussion.
§ The Witness was again called in.
—Did you ever say to any person that your conduct towards her royal highness was liable to the charge of ingratitude with respect to a generous benefactress? Never.
Is that your hand-writing? [A letter being put into the hands of the witness.] It is.
Is that your hand-writing? [Another letter 1288 being put into the hands of the witness.] It is.
Is that? [Another letter being put into the hands of the witness.] It is. [The letters were delivered in, and marked by the clerk assistant.]
Were you ever called by any other name than Milani, Sacchi, and Sacchini? I have been called by another name, and I am still called.
What is that other name? I beg, as a favour from the House, that I may not be obliged to state that; if I should tell what name I go by, I might be exposed to the fury of some person that is ill-intentioned? I beg, as a favour, that the House would interpose their authority that such a question, and such an answer, should not be inserted in the public papers.
Did you ever go by any other name than: that while you were abroad in Italy? I do not remember to have ever been called by any other name.
Did you ever make use of any other name while you were in Italy, for the purpose of corresponding with other persons? I do not remember.
Have you ever been in Switzerland? Many times.
Were you ever at Morge? I have.
Were you ever at Collombier? I have. How long have you been at Morge and Collombier at a time? About six weeks.
Did you let it be known by every body there that you were in that neighbourhood, or did you conceal yourself? I made myself known to all.
Under what name did you go there? By my own proper name, Sacchi.
Had not you money in your name at a banker's at Lausanne? I had.
How much had you there in your name? Fifty Louis.
Will you swear you had not more than that at one time at that banket's? I had no more than those fifty Louis.
Will you swear you never had a credit which empowered you to draw upon that banker for a larger sum than that? I never had.
Have you never represented that you had a larger sum or a greater credit? I do not remember to have said so.
But you will not swear that you have not said so? I cannot swear when I am in doubt.
Did not you fetch a certain M Demont from Switzerland to Milan? I did. Did you bring her back? I did not. But you went to prevail upon her to go to Milan, did you not? Not to prevail upon her, but to, ask whether she would go or not.
Who employed you to fetch her, or to procure her attendance? I was desired by the commission at Milan.
Did you tell any person in Switzerland that Demont was gone back or going back, to 1289 return into her royal highness's service? Never.
Whom did you come over yourself to this country with? A courier, called Mr. Krouse, and my servant.
Is that Mr. Krouse the person who was lately arrested at Paris on a charge of having dealt in forged notes? I never heard speak of that.
Did Mr. Krouse come over with you to London or remain in Paris? He came with me over to London.
Is Mr. Krouse a regular messenger, one of the king's messengers, or only employed on the Milan commission business? I do not know.
Have you made any other journies with Mr. Krouse? I have not.
How much money did you get by the Milan commission for your trouble while you were at Milan? I have received no other sum, except for the expenses of the journey that I made to go to Lausanne and return, and for another journey which I took to Scharnitz and returned.
Do you mean to swear you have received no promise of any sum from the Milan commission for your trouble? I can swear never to have received any promise.
Do you mean to swear you have received no promise from any person of a remuneration for your trouble in this business? I can swear never to have received any promise.
Do you mean to say you will swear you never received any promise, from any person, of any advantage, of any sort, to be given you for this? I have never asked for any thing, nor has ever any thing been offered to me.
The question is not whether you have ever asked for any thing, or any thing has been offered to you, but whether any promise was ever made to you, by any person, of any advantage whatever? No one has ever promised me any thing.
Have you ever said to any person that you have received any money, or any promise of any money, or of any advantage? I have never said to any person that I had received any money, or any advantage; I might have said that I have received the money for the expenses of my journey.
Do you expect to receive nothing for your trouble in this business from any person? I hope that my time will be paid which they have made me throw away till now. Have you ever seen M. Demont since you came to this country? Many times.
Have yon seen any of the other witnesses in this business? Never.
Re-examined by Mr, Attorney General. Where does your family live? My family now resides at Trobio.
Were you ever in the army? For ten years.
In what army did you serve? In the army of Italy.
1290 Whose army of Italy was it; Buonaparté's army? Of the Kingdom of Italy, headed by Buonaparté.
What rank did you hold in the army at the time you quitted it? First lieutenant of cavalry.
When were you made a lieutenant of cavalry? On the 6th of September 1813, in the field of battle.
At the time you left the princess's service, did you receive from her royal highness any certificate to your character? I did.
Have you got it about you? I have. [Producing a paper.]
Is it signed by her royal highness herself, in her own hand-writing? When it was given to me, I was told that it had been signed by her royal highness.
Have you ever seen her royal highness write? I do not remember.
Have you ever seen any letters which have been written by her.
Mr. Attorney General.
—Do you know whose seal is annexed to it? I do.
Whose seal is it? A seal that I have seen often on the letters that her royal highness gave me.
Who gave you that certificate? Count Schiavini.
The Attorney General requested, that the certificate might be read.
—My learned friend has not yet brought home the paper to her royal highness. I object as much for the sake of regularity as any thing else to its being read. The paper was received from Schianivi, non constat who Schiavini was. It bore a seal similar to that upon some letters sent by the princess; non constat that it was her royal highness's own seal, non constat that they were her royal highness's own letters. Therefore I object to the paper being read at present.
Mr. Attorney General.
—You say that was given to you by Schiavini? I repeat it.
Is the body of the certificate written by Schiavini? Yes.
At the time you received that certificate, or about that time, was Schiavini the person who was in the habit of giving characters to persons who left her royal highness's service?
objected to the question.
What situation did count Schiavini hold in her royal highness's service at that time? Marshal of the palace.
When the servants quitted the service of her royal highness, did any person in her household usually give them characters? I have not seen; but Majoochi so received his certificate, and that was given to him by Schiavini.
Had Schiavini the office of marshal of the palace at the time he gave you that certificate? He had.
1291 Did you apply to him for a certificate to your character? I did not.
How long before you quitted her royal highness's service was it that Majoochi quitted? Majoochi went away before me.
How long before you? I do not remember.
About how long? About two months.
The Attorney General
submitted, that he was now in a condition to read the certificate, connecting this evidence with that given on a former day.
objected to its being read, and stated the seal was not capable of being deciphered, and that there was no proof it was put by her royal highness.
The Counsel were informed that the evidence was not sufficient to permit the certificate to be read at present.
You have been asked as to your communication with persons of the name of Marrietti; who are the Marrietti's? I have known several brothers called Marrietti.
Have they a banking-house at Milan? The family of Marrietti are bankers at Milan.
Have they also a house of trade in London? I know no establishment under their firm.
Do you know the firm of Orbicini and company? I do.
Is one of the Marrietli's a partner in that house? I believe so.
Do you know whether the Marrietti's are the princess's bankers at Milan? I know that the house were so.
You have stated, in answer to a question, that about two months ago, one of the Mr. Marrietti's called upon you? I did.
Upon that occasion did Marrietti'state for what purpose he called upon you? He did.
objected to the relation of any conversation between the witness and a third person, unless the rule was to be laid down, that because a particular person was at one time his (Mr. B.'s) banker, he must be therefore connected with all such persons said.
The Attorney General
meant not to argue on any hypothesis. He was aware that he had no right to put such a question in an examination in chief, but when in a cross-examination questions were asked relative to a conversation, he contended that he had a right to inquire as to the whole of that conversation.
The Lord Chancellor
desired that the evidence relative to the conversation alluded to should be read.
The following Questions and Answers were then read from the previous part of the evidence: "Did you ever disclose to Marrietti, or any of his family, that you were one of the witnesses against her royal highness? I told it to Mr. Marrietti after I returned from Aston.
"How long ago is that? About two months ago.
1292 "Did you not at that time know that Mr. Marrietti's family had discovered who you were? I do not know.
"Do you mean to swear that you did not know at the time you told him who you were, that they already knew who you were? Who I was as a witness, do you mean?
"Your name in the first instance, that they had found out your real name? Yes, because I had mentioned it to some persons much before.
"But not to any of Marrietti's family? I told my real name to one of the brothers of Marietti, who was at Aston with me.
"When was it that you so told your name to one of the Marrietti's? After I had been at Aston a few months.
"How long ago is it, how far back? Seven or eight months.
"To whom was it you told your name, and who you were, two months ago? Two months ago, I do not remember.
"Did the gentlemen of Mr. Marrietti's family to whom you disclosed who you were, ever see you afterwards? It is some time since he has set out for Milan.
"Have you ever been in Mr. Marrietti's house since you mentioned this to the gentleman who is gone to Milan? Several times.
"When was the last time that you were there to make a visit? Three or four months.
"Did they then know that you were Milane or Sacchi? The brother who was set out for Milan knew that I was Sacchi, the others I do not know."
§ Then the Witness was asked,
Mr. Attorney General.
—Upon what occasion was it that you told Marrietti you were a witness against the Queen? On the occasion that he came to pay me a visit at my lodgings, about two months ago.
What was it that made you state that to Marrietti; what had Marrietti said, or had any thing passed which induced you to state that to Marrietti at that time? Mr. Marrietti before coming sent to me one of his friends.
Confine yourself to the time when Marrietti came?
insisted that the witness had said nothing in his cross-examination leading to such an explanation as he was about to give. It was not because A. B. had told Marrietti something, that it was to be made evidence against the Queen. Marrietti might have been dumb, for any thing that the witness had stated in his cross-examination.
further enforced this objection, contending, that the answer formerly given by the witness required no further explanation, which formed the only reason for allowing more questions to be put on re-examination.
The Attorney General
fully allowed that all questions on re-examination must arise out of something said on the cross-examination: for 1293 this reason, the question he had put was perfectly regular: the witness had told Marrietti that he was to give evidence against the Queen, and what he wished to know was, what Marrietti had said to lead the witness to give him that information. He would not waste time by arguing at length a matter in itself so clear.
The Counsel were informed, that they might ask as to the particulars of any conversation with Marrietti, to which the witness had been asked on cross-examination, but that the witness should be asked whether that which he had said arose out of the inquiries of Marrietti.
Mr. Attorney General.
—Did any conversation pass between you and Marrietti, at the time to which you have referred, relative to your being a witness on the subject of the Queen? Marrietti came to me in the morning, and told me that Mr. Brougham, the brother of the counsel of her majesty, had called upon him, and as Marrietti had received some favours from those two brothers——
—See, my lords, to what your permission leads. [Order.] Do any of the judges refuse to allow me to speak? [Some confusion.]
§ Lord Exmouth
said, that he had called to order, as he had a right to do, when the counsel had interrupted the witness.
§ Earl Grey
begged to inform the noble viscount that counsel were at full liberty to interpose if a witness stated what was not legal evidence. Counsel would ill discharge their duty as advocates, if they did not interpose, and their lordships their duty as judges if they did not allow that interposition.
Mr. Attorney General.
—What induced you to make the statement to Marrietti, that you were a witness against the Queen? Marrietti, when he came to pay me a visit, had already been told by somebody that I was a witness against the Queen, and he asked me whether it was true, what he had heard, that I was a witness against her majesty; I answered in the affirmative; he then told me—
objected to this answer, submitting that the question put by Marrietti having been stated, and the witness having stated the answer which he gave to that question, no further account of the conversation which passed could be given in evidence.
The Attorney General
answered, that a counsel who in cross-examination put a question regarding a conversation, knew, that he 1294 thereby ran the risk of having the whole of that conversation brought forward in the reexamination. This was only the common case, such as occurred every day at nisi prius, and their lordships would deal with it accordingly.
enforced the inconveniences that must necessarily arise if a door were thus opened to conversations of any kind, and with any persons. The primary issue regarded the Queen, and there was a collateral issue on the credibility of the witness, but neither of them could be affected by the dialogue between the witness and Marrietti. Suppose the witness had conversed with De Mont respecting the Queen, would the House think of inquiring into all that had passed between them?
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
The Counsel were again called in, and the attorney-general was informed, that considering the answer as having stopped at the words "I answered in the affirmative," he might put a question on which the opinion of the House might be taken.
Mr. Attorney General.
—Whatdid Marrietti tell you, upon your saying that you were a witness against the Queen?
objected to the question.
The counsel were informed, that in the opinion of the House the question was put too generally; and that the witness might be asked, what did Marrietti say with reference to that which you so stated?
Mr. Attorney General.
—Did Marrietti, upon your saying you were a witness against the Queen, say any thing to you upon that subject.
Mr. Attorney General.
—Before you stated to Marrietti that you were a witness upon this subject, had he said any thing more than you have already stated? No.
Upon your saying that you were a witness, did Marrietti make any observation upon the subject of your being a witness?
objected to the question. What Marrietti said could not touch the Queen, unless agency was first established.
The Lord Chancellor
consulted with the judges, and after a short inverval, his lordship stated, that the judges wished to have that part of the short-hand writer's notes which included the cross-examination relative to this point.
After some further conversation, it was agreed that the answer of the judges should be given to-morrow morning, it being under-stood that they would give their answer upon a question involving the point in dispute, founded upon the practice of the courts below.
§ Adjourned till to-morrow.