The Sun. — London, England, 1820-10-20 00:00:00

Wag :ause their )rove na if 110' S thOS e t 7€l 01 had iracf fence ? aurl 5 evi' on h e t th e , e }ga d orcler sow° lefore tot b e li aukicartr ut he that ot l * itnel islieu` cuss. e ar° e - ,6t1 .0 I•s re' had it that 7call ed 3is • / IcitJ —Ye 5 - ,daY s ' Lee 1 Or • ,en one id 0' s ~4ilaU' othe r ' t. 0 the 4 .0 te a AVO riis 511 Ch eria l 5 3 W 011' 'C'ur dO 3T) Ind t h : r t.E'' 512011- a c° lDe lualber r • di e to a; fac t ' , 0 )iect it Ire° a erg° 3 3aPr it c adY tv iade it 110 1 r -`re de clI" f 14 4 tit ; ec ases itn e J (0' re' scfariber c ro sr 5 0. I° li t hei e: c ; loos e, in bags, or in paper ?—A. He had a hand ful, and a large hand he has !—(A- laugh 1 ) HaYe you any concern with the Theatre at Pesar o •--No other than that I wrote to her Royal Highness, informing— , Mr. B ROUGHAM here interposed ; the witness Ni A as going to s p ea k to the contents of a written uoturnent ; this could not be permitted. Lor a LAUDERDALE thought that ithe whole answer should be heard. Mr . BROUGHAM said, that he had interposed Xactly at that point which formed the confines c r t - w een evidence that was admissible, and evi ence that was not. 'the witness had written, in " her"g. R oya l Hi g h ness. Wh a t h e h a d in g. ed he r in writing could not be proved by parole testimony. The LORD I (CHANCELLOR said, that the inter 'Position of the Learned Counsel was q'ulte proper. Lord L AuniatnALE.—Well, but the answer of tie T wit uess was n o an s wer t o m y que sti on . ""er - he q u Estinn was repeated—Had you any con. i T I I with the Theatre at Pesaro ?—Never. 7a y Lord DA.RNLEY.—Do you know whether n g a Was ever i n the service of the Princess (i 0 not. "4ltiGo SALVATIORI .examined.--:-Bg Mr. ( W DENMAN• • lv at citiz e n are y ou ?—I a m from Tre ViSO. hat at do you follow ?—I am a Pro ofor Literature. 'ere do you live ?—At Lauzanne, iu Swit- • ui t e Sou at Morges in see Sacchi there ?—lres. l'e hold any conversation with you about pr °L ess of her Royal Highness ?—He did. Ject. ate give an y counsel to you upon that P ri e l IIT6RNEY-GENERAL objected to this °IS a e , "Pan the ground, that the declaration nlis 4h l j) given by another poison, was not ad under such circumstances, Sacchi not be M r g ,-en proved to be an, agent. ohj e;.,"txmA.N. said, his Learned Friend was i. to his putting a question about, Sacchi, evid witici ;` l irst pointing out that part in Sacchi's 21 . 1 to .e : e ,Which he intended to, Contradict, pre form sl,,,tnat that was his object. He hat . ; to in uiiyhiir"'S, Learned Friend, however, that he . , was, lotO t T i el '• His object, in putting the witness' Pot box. was to shew that Sacchi had pro tc't: - ,: ° _birt;, as had been proposed to others, to 14 Es,, e ," ° ‘ 1 swear falsely against the ‘ Queen. e 14t0shew that he said to him that others Alis: 4(l9 ' their fortune, and if the witness, who he comeo the Queen, would do t e tui'lnd and depose against the Que,en, it 4:° make his fortune also. In page 4.1 1 S trii ss 7 lll ' l be found that Sacchi, by his own a . r to ' ° "3 Was employed by the Milan Commission tilOnt t° S witzerland and fetch Mademoiselle Du ll'', ~t ° Milan. He.aiso acknowledged to h.av 'o‘i,:`eeived money from the Milan Cornmissioi . l, *a,--I°urney,froin Lausanne to Charnitz ; and the Ri tn °ll that journey that this application to IV " made. He therefore contended, thatthat ;jras clea r ly a n a gent in this business, and 1 ' 1 testimony which this witness was about 11,4':as perfec,tly.admigsible- A . I3 Q ; I : 11l XE apprehended that no grounds had -"o h ewn for putting a question of this nature. 44 0 -lae nce whatever had been adduced d . tee • i Sacchi's being an agent. It was true he Co for going to Charnitz, from ` 0 st; ' -o trirnission.; but there was no evidence .t. Ns: v that he was employed in collecting w i t 4. p a s generally. The journey was proved, but vv - r ° t se was assigned to it. Ile apprehende_ ghat t'itnout attempting to ask any question for th is pu r pose of contradicting Sacchi's evidence, 4 .t,e , \ °f examination could not-be pursued. 1. r ,r - '"xiitAN contended, with great subn ts -1)44 Lo a , there was nothing inconsistent in sup lh4gi,Sacchi to be, an agent. He had referred i 'icl, -°r dships to those parts of the evidence h l st. ~elated expressly to this point ; but. he their Lordships would not shut their eyes vlex: el ' Parts of the evidence which gave a co . rn- Il d ° Olut t° the whole. He hoped their Lordships. 1 - 1 41 shut their eyes to this; because if they 1 , -. '" ' S- 1 . 44 ,„"ti1d be the worst sort of blindness, and " 43 est -ill a shut their eyes against one of the I ta ,ke t-h cold ever devised. They must ,":he i l i general tendency of the whole evidence. "leY saw him employed 'to go to Milan '"'t b -a e Witness, and afterwards to go to Charnitz b'ghtur Witness, which although it was not known, 1 9 th e 4uessed from the fact of his being paid Commission ; taking the whole case ne ought it was fairly made ont that - s °l-l At u i 11 ; a s an :uthorized agent of the Milan . "1 14 11 '1 P 1°° ' lie did not mean to charge the ljitn a s - o °4l ,nlission with the acts committed by e `lid t en' agent ; 'ltalie merely contended, as ij• g l , ° a bout th e eountr r y for the purpose of idt i l t f 3 / 4 1- g witnesses in the i'attiner he had done, L i ght st ood in the sittatioli of an agent. He H tii a -av e gone beyond' his instructions, but (1 1( e g. t.1 - , 11 a gent, because he was not authorized to i ae en -as° ste.Ps to bring witnesses against the 4 , 1 4 7 1. Which be was able to prove that he did V'o4 ;,` was too much to say that evidence of 41 sa6'flauth,orised acts ought not to be received. (;'it's, f l ha Principle were admitted by their Lard :"eY would shut out the acts of the Milan it w °"ssioa itself tt 4s s e , from all inquiry ; althOugh f ta t _ 3,0 I L overnment that was no proof verurnelit authorised all its acts. I'RllOl nc-L e un CH ANCELLOR as k e d w h e ther the acehitlieo evidence tic e d relating at' n to the • agency of g es 448 and 449 '41.e°4,°%1: the liberty of n asking this, because there (lu esti ° Points of view in which to regard' this tl t i s 'no. If the could be proved, then coti exarwriati a,ency_ _ if the S os e i on ought to be allowed ,• but calchi as Wished to impeach the testimony of 1 a Witness, it was competent to them to Nlfro hack an d re-examine him, in order to Nk 14 the witness Salvadori with him. r• obi, "AN in answer to the question of the in c r ' Paz„ -I, earned Lord, '44 D begged to state, that ‘2 i ts to l Dumont stated . facts of a similar na toluile.n. ler being applied to by Sacchi to go Mr. PARKE said that no grounds had been shewn for this line of examination. His Learned Friend, when called on to point out the precise part in evidence which fixed Sacchi as an agent, shewed them a part which simply proved that he . had gone on one occasion to fetch Dumont; and on another, that he had taken a journey to Char nitz, but for what purpose did not appear. He did not see how their Lordships could admit as evidence the acts of a man who was simply em ployed as a courier. In his opinion it was ut terly inadmissible. It was also contrary to every rule of evidence to admit evidence of the acts of a person, without givitig that person an oppor tunity of agreeing to or denying the charge. On both of these grounds, he apprehended the ques tion proposed by his Learned Friend was inad- missiblein point of law. The Loan CHANCELLOR, in calling their Lord ships' attention to what had been urged by the Learned Counsel on both sides of the question, submitted to their Lordships' decision, observed that there were two points of view in which to look at the evidence with respect to Sacchi.— The first was—as to what evidedce there was to strew that Sacchi was an agent ; in which case the testimony now tendered and objected to, would be admissible. The second was, in the event of there being any previous evidence of a con tradictory nature to the facts now tender ed in evidence, in which case that testimony would be admissible. He apprehended that the whole of the evidence, applied to these points, w:-,; to be found in pages 344. 372, and 448. The Noble and Learned Lord read from the dif- ferent pages the evidence in question. In page 344, was stated by Dumont, the fact of her be ing desired to go to Milan for the purpose of being examined. She stated that Sacchi came to seek her on the part of the Milan Commission, and on being asked if Sacchi was not in the ser vice of the Milan Commission, she answered that she did not know, but that he was employed by them on this mission. In page 372, was the evi dence of Sacchi, in which he confirmed what had been stated by Dumont, as to his carrying her to Milan, .being employed for that purpose by the Milan Commission ; but added, that he did not bring her back. In page 448, they had Ras telli's evidence, in which he had declared, that Sacchi had asked him to come to England as a witness to declare the truth, on the part of the Milan Commission. Sacchi was certainly a witness ; and the question was, whether, taking him as a witness, they could ask this question, for the purpose of discrediting his testimony. —lt was settled by their Lordships' former decision, that new evidence could not be called to prejudice the testimony of a wi tness, by cir cumstances on which that witness had not been cross-examined. Upon this ground Majocci had been called, and upon the same authority this examination would go forward, the witness Sac chi being entitled to the privilege of examination to contradict the declarations of person whose testimony was to affect him. These observations were directed to the consideration of Sacchi as an evidence. In the case of 'tastelli the House had resolved that, as he was absent, evidence should be taken as to what he had said without calling him. In the present instance the ques tion, separating the ground of agency, was, if the Counsel wished to impeach the testimony of Sacchi, whether they conld"take evidence of what he had said without first calling him. He should say, that as Sacchi was here he ought to be called, and asked if he made these declarations or not. The question as to his biing an agent or not de pended on whether the acts proved against him constituted him a messenger of the Commission only for the purpose of bringing the witnesses before the Commission, or whether he went be yond that character, and employed persuasion, declaration, or other means to procure witnesses. This was a question he should leave for their Lordships to decide upon. Lord ERSKINE said, that the question was, whether this did or did not go to affect Sacchi's testimony. It was so long a time since he fol lowed the profession of an Advocate, that he could not pretend to know all the changes in practice which had taken place since that time but he would undertake to say, that if, in his time as an Advocate, he could prove that a wit ness'had been beating up for false testimony, he could have called witnesses to prove his corrup tion, without first calling upon that corrupt wit ness himself. Earl GREY said, that such a connection had been established between the Milan Commission and Sacchi, that it became indispensably necessary to prove the nature of his employment ; and if a person could be proved to have attempted to corrupt others to swear falsely, what doubt could be entertained of his willingness to swear falsely himself ? The proof of a corrupt agency upon the part of a witness, destroyed the credibility of that witness. Isis Lordship had been reluctantly compelled to dissent from his friends in a recent instance ; but in this case the evidence was quite different.; for Sacchi was clearly proved to be a direct agent under the Milan Commission, and although there might not be proof enough, ac cording to the rules of the Courts of Law, to prove his agency, yet there was such a connec tion here, that no person could deny that he was an agent; and, as it was proved that, he had at tempted to corrupt witnesses, it was easy to sup pose him wicked enough to swear that he was not an agent to the Milan Commission. The Earl of LIVERPOOL did not object to Sacchi's being called back ; but he could not agree with the Noble Lord who spoke last in the view which he had taken of the question. If Sacchi had been sent by the Milan Commission to col lect witnesses, he thought the agency ought to be admitted. But as there was no other ground than that he was sent to fetch Dumont, he could not see how it was possible to charge the 'general task of collecting_ witnesses upon him. lie thought however that either one way or the other, the question might he admitted. Earl GREY did not think any one could doubt the nature of Sacchi's mission to Charnitz. Lord ERSKINE could not agree to Sacclai's be. ing called in ; he thought the question might be asked without him. The Loan CHANCELLOR maintained that, in point of law, Sacchi ought to be called. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL wished to know why Sacchi was to be sent for, whether it was to con tradict the evidence he had already given, or to give fresh' evidence which another witness might be examined upon. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, it was the gene ral opinion of the House that the examination should be pursued, and that Sacchi might be called to rebut the evidence. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL wished to know upon what grounds the question was to be put. The LORD CHANCELLOIt.-It appears to be the opinion of the House that the question may be . put, to affect the testimony of Sacchi.—(Hear, hear !) Lord LAUDERDALE said, it was most necessary. :o know distinctly the grounds. The Loan CHANCELLOR repeated, that it ap-. peared to him that the general opinion of the House was, that the question should be put. At the same time, he must state, that he still re tained his opinion, that the agency had not been proved, and that the declarations of the witness could not be heard without at the same time de termining- to call S,acchi himself. Lord ERSKINE contended that the object was not to prove Sacchi's declarations but his acts, and if that could he done the question might be allowed.: It was not necessary first to prove his agency, butte show acts of corruption in him, and that he Lad aPplied to corrupt other wit nesses. Lord REDESDALE wished that the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack would info►m the Counsel at the bar on what ground the House consented to receive the evidence which they had offered. Lord GRENVILLE said, that their Lordships ought to hear Counsel on both sides upon the point in dispute, and to decide upon the argu ments they should adduce.. They would thus be acting as became their situation. They ought, as much as possible, to keep themselves in the situation of a Court. The Counsel were called hi, atd informed by he LOAD CHANCELLOR that they were at liber ty to argue for and against the admissibility of ,he evidence. The ATTORNEY-GENTER.AL argued against the admissibility of the evidence. If Sacchi had committed any offence it was not competent on the other side to discredit him by calling evi dence to prove that offence, unless they produced the record of his conviction. The law upon the point was clearly laid down—a witness in the defence might be asked if he would believe a witness for the prosecution on his oath and that was the extent to which he could go. No witness could be expected to come prepared to defend himself on any particular charge. He could only be ready to answer with respect to his general conduct and character. He therefore maintained that evidence like the present, going to prove a particular charge,- could not be received. Mr. PARKE followed on the same side, and quoted " Phillips on the Law of Evidence" in support onus argument. The Counsel ort the - other side bad proposed to criminate the witness Sacchi, without having previOusly asked him any question respecting that transaction which was to he made the foundation of a criminal charge ; and when he had no means of knowing it, or defend ing himself against it. Mr. BROuGuAra admitted the general iiroposi tions of law as laid down by the opposite Counsel, and that as a general rule he could not attempt to criminate a witness, on facts on which be had ne glected to cross-examine him ; and further, that he could not invalidate his testimony by his conduct out of this cause. But 'it was on the conduct of Sacchi in this particular cause that he wished to call evidence. And here Sacchi had notice of the charges against him. He came to their Lordships' Bar as a witness, and all his corrupt acts in this business must be known to him. This took the particular case out of the general rule. And he would ask, who would believe a man who had, in the same cause, proved himself a suborner of perjury ? Mr. DErrinAN asked their Lordships if in a trial in the Common Pleas, (and he should sup pose a case to . illustrate the present argument,) it should be offered to be proved that on the morn ing of the trial the Attorney of the cause had offer ed a person a sum of money to give false testimony on the trial, the Judge would refuse to hear that evidence ; no, he was sure he would not; and then he asked their Lordships if such evidence would not throw discredit on the whole proceed ing in which the Attorney was concerned ? So in this case, Sacchi was proved to be an agent : he was also a witness in this cause, and he had a right to bac., him called and examined upon those facts of corruption and subornation, in which he charged him with • having been concerned. It was one of the peculiar circum stances of this case, that in total ignorance of the list of witnesses to be brought against her Majesty, her Counsel could neither know the facts deposed to, nor the character of the in dividuals, until after the cross-examination had closed, unless they had accepted terms which they conceived would be still harder for their Illustrious Client. They had since been . informed that Sacchi, who had icpres en t e d him self as sent to Switzerland to seek Dumont, had been employed in those corrupt transactions Which they were prepared to prove. Here was a wit ness, who knew much of Sacchi's, conduct, and if what he stated was not true, then let Sacchi come, if he dare, and contradict him. The Learned Coun sel concluded by submitting to their Lordships, that there was no sound distinction between this q uestion and some that had already been admit ted by their Lordships, and that consequently the qu estion might he put. Mr. PARKE said, that with respect to the question of agency, which had been so often re ferred to, their Lordships had, in his opinion, already decided that point.—(No, no.)---He then referred their Lordships to a decision of Lord Ellenborough's, in a case of usury, in which a person had endeavoured to prevent another from attending the trial, and yet evidence to prove . that fact was not admitted. lie concluded by saying that a more 'untenable proposition that% the present was never before advanced iu a Court of Justice. Mr. BROUGHAM expressed some surprise, that his friend Mr. Parke, if he had a case to produce, Should have held it over until now. But he re membered the case well, for he had been em ployed in it, and he could not draw the same con clusions that Mr. Parke did from it. The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was extreme ly difficult for him to be called on, day after day, to state what was the practice in the Courts below, when he had been so long separated from those Courtts. lie therefore wished, as in former cases, to consult the opinion of the Judges on the subject, and he proposed that the following ques tion should be put to them Whether, in the administration of justice in the Courts below when a witness for the prosecution had been exa mined in chief, and had not been cross-examined as to any declaration he had made relating to his procuring witnesses for the prosecution, whe ther the Counsel for the defence could bring evi dence to prove suet' declaration, without first calling on the witness to know if he had ever made such declaration ?;5. Lord GIZEY was of opinion that the case cited against the Queen's Counsel did not apply. In the present case, there was positive proof offered. that one of the, witnesses had at,tempted to sup port the prosecution by subOrdkion of perjury. What the rule of law could be on this point he did not knew, but he thought this was a most important question, and one, in fact, which had been already disposed of, as such a connection betwt.en Sacchi -and the Milan Commission had been established as, he conceived, imposed it as a duty on the,House to receive the evidence. Of this he iVas so convinced, that, should the Judges decide otherwise, and should the House, contrary to his hope, adopt their decision, he should still contend that the question proposed should be admitted. The Earl of LIVERPOOL said he was perfectly satisfied the case of agency had not been made out ; but with the view to get rid of the present difficulty, he proposed that the witness Sacchi should be called up and examined as to the par ticular facts now in dispute. If he denied hav ing made the declaration, then the present wit ness might be legally called to prove it. If her Majesty's Counsel should see no reason to object to this coure, it might possibly remove the dif ficulty ; but should it not be so, it would then be competent for their Lordships to consult the Learned Judges. The Marquess of LINSDOWN thought the 'sug gestion of the Noble Earl who had . just sat down should be adopted, but it must be on the express condition that the Queen's Counsel did not ob ject to it. The LORD CHANCELLOR then asked Mr. Brougham whether he objected to the calling up the witness Sacchi. Mr. BROUGHAM.—The last time we wished to have a witness called, he was found to have bten sent out of the country.--(Hear, hear!) The LORD CHANCELLOR.—But if he is to be found, have you any objection to his being called, and when do you wish it? " Now, new, my Lord," from both Mr. BROUGHAM and Mr. P.ENMAN. Lord EttsKINE said the evidence against Sac chi ought to be taken on the ground of his merely being employed as an agent for the Commission. In the name of common sense he asked, whether, if the facts were true, charged against Sacchi, his evidence could be credited at all. If the evi dence was objected to, he should think it his duty to take the sense or the House upon the subject. Lord LAUDERDALE objected to the question bieng put on the ground of agency. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that some of their Lordships might object to the question be ing put on the ground of agency, and others on the ground of his being a witness who had acted corruptly on both quest7oas. Earl GREY saia, that although such agency had not been proved, as in general eases would. admit the evidence proposed, yet in this peculiar case such an extent of agency had been proved, as in his opinion, ought to render the evidence admissible against Sacchi,, He therefore moved, 44 That the question be now put to the witness, on the ground of Sacchi being an agent employed by the Milan Commission." The Lonn CHANCELLOR then put Earl G atl's motion. Lord HoLLAND said, that as part of the House might think the question ought to be put upon the ground of the agency of Sacchi, and the other party think it should be put to impeach his tes timony as a witness, it might be wrong to act upon the present motion, as when the questions were put separately each would be rejected, al though in point of fact a majority of the house might really think that, in one way or other, the question ought to be put to the witness. The Lone CHANCELLOR said the House ought to take the opinion of the Judges upon the ques tion before they decided. Earl GILEY concurred. Lord ERSKINE said.he had quite a different view of the business, and had not been at all convinced by any thing which had bee❑ said ; he would therefore submit the following question to the consideration of the Judges Whe ther, if in any cause in the Courts below, it was discovered .that a witness had endeavoured to corrupt other witnesses, it would be open to the Counsel for the Defendant to give evidence to prove such corrupt conduct." The Loup C“ANCELLOR proposed a question, to the purport of ascertaining if such evidence could be taken without first calling back the witness. The question of the Lord Chancellor v. - as pre 'cisely the same as that put in the case of Majocci,