The Sun. — London, England, 1820-09-06 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT, HOUSE OF LORDS, TUESDAY, SEPT. 5. THE QUEEN. (The Examination of GUISEPPE SACCHI, by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL,continuedfromourryper °l'Nefeirrt/( 7 30 Q. Ilist-yon',SO • to 1114:int leoni ?—A. After -we set out froniArilitt d'Este we went to Mont Falconi. What time did you arrive there ?—We arrived there when it was already night. Where did the PrinCess and Bergami go on arriving at Mont Falconi ?—Being overtaken by a storm, we were obliged to stop by the way at a miserable inn. The Princess and,Bergami went up stairs into a room. , _ Did they remain in that room alone P—They remained there alone until the remainder of the suite arrived. How long did they remain. there P—An hour, or an hour and a half.- • After that journey did they return to Milan to the Barona ?—They Did they go from - the Barona to Rome ? They did. On the way to Rome, did you stop at a place called Savigniani ?—I do not know the place. Did thay stop at a place called Savigniana ?-- They did. Was the Princess ill at Savigniana ?—Yes, she was overtaken by yiolent pains. Did you see who attended on the Princess on that occasion ? Bergami and the Countess of Oldi. Do you know whether medicine or any ap plications were given to the Princess on that occasion ?—I do not know whether, medicine was given her Royal Highness, but I,saw: Bergarni and the Countess of Oldi making some clothes hot. Where did they carry them ?—When warm, Bergami as well as the Countess, carried them into the room where her Royal , llighness was. Did the Princess go to Ancona ?—Yes. At Ancona, do you know the situation' of the. Princess's bed with respect to Bergand's ?—One , day I was called by Bergami while, in bed, and as I was speaking to him, there was a door opened .into another room, which.' believe was her Royal Highness's room. Why do you believe it was her. Royal ifiglv mess's room Mr. DENmAN . .--4 object to ,that, because it inay- lead to every species of illegal evidence. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—UntiI you heat the answer, you cannot tell whether it, is legal evidence or not. The LORD CHANCELLOR.--I , apprehend the question ought to have been, " Do you know it was the . Princess's, bed-room ?"—I cannot say -with . certainty. What did you see in that room when the door opened ?—I saw several things belonging to her Royal Highness; as for instance, the boxes be longing to her toilet. • Was there a bed in that room ?—There was. Were they afterwards at Ru pi nelli ?—We were. At that place was Bergaini ill, and confined to bed ?—Yes. Had you occasion, during his illness, to go to his bed-room during the night ?—One evening,' I was going to visit him, and I saw by his door, which was about one-third, part open, Bergami in bed; that was about eleven o'clock at night. • ,You. say he was in bed—did' you see any one else in the room 1— Yes; there was also her :Royal Highness. Where was her Royal Highness I—ln the Toom, by the side of the bed, stretched on a sofa. Did. you see what was on the sofa?—Some 'cushions. Upon seeing her in that situation, did you go in or turn back ?—I withdrew immediately. Did you after that go to the Villa Brandi ?—Yes. In what part of the house did you sleep in the Villa Brandi slept in the wing of the house on the left of the entrance hail. Do you know where Bergami slept in the Villa Brandi ?-11e slept on the right hand, exactly opposite to my room. Do you know where the / Princess slept 2-11'er Royal Highness slept on the same side of, the house as Bergami. Do you remember, at Villa Brandi, seeing Ber gami any where ?—I remember one night, after midnight, when it was insufferably hot, I was at the window of my room, when I heard a noise on the side *here Bergami slept; I withdrew a little, when I saw Bergami come out of his room, and go to the door of te apartment, of the Prin cess ; be opened the door, entered, and came oat no more. How long did you remain at the window after Bergami's entrance into the apartment. of her Royal Highness ?--A bout an hour. Did you observe Bergarni any other night ? A few days afterwards I saw the same thing. At what time was it when you "Saw i llerga.mi the second time?—About the same time as - the first. • Did you on the second occasion see Bergami return to his room did not. How long did you remain at the,window the second time you saw Bergami enter and not re turn ?—About a..quarter of an hour. While you wene it at the , Villa Brandi did, you see any Busts-? Yds.—Whom did they represent? Of whenniwe're the busts ?—I was told that one , was of -het Royal Highness, the other of Bergami..., _ _ . - I don't ask you what you were. told. What did they appear to :yourself to be ?—One ap peared to be H. R. Wighness, the other Bergami. Where did you,i6el -those busts saw them 'in the room of Ilgrgatni, at the Villa Brandi. Were they bulk of the sa-me size ?---Nearly so. At what time of the, year was it that you saw Eergami entering the Princess's room ?--In the month of July.' • • Did the Prhicess go from Rome to Senegalia ?.Yes.' Did' she travel by night or by day ?--J-She tra yelled always by night. Was it very ha weather at the time ?—Very hot. In going from Rome to Senegalia, did you go to the carriage in which her Royal llighness was ?-1 ryas aLways by the side of it. Were there - turtains round the Princess's car riage ?—There were. Did you at any time go to the carriage and draw aside the curtains ?—Several times. , For what purpose ?—Every morning, when da' appeared, I went to the carriage, to ask her ItOyal 'Highness if she wanted anything. Who travelled with her Royal Highness in that carriage Bergami, and sometimes there was the -Countess of 01111 2 or the child of Bergami. Have you, on any of these occasions, observed in what situation the Princess and Bergami were? Two or three times I found them both asleep, with their hands lying one upon'the other. Did you upon any occasion of that kind re mark any thing respecting the poSitions of • the Princess and Bergami?—Yes ; I once, on open ing the carriage door, observed them both asleep, and—(The witness here proceeded to describe the"positions of the Princess and'Bergami, but we cannot Pollute our Paper by giving the dis gusting description. It was of the most indecent nature that can possibly be imagined.) Did you observe, on any of these .occasions, the state "of the breecheS ot - Bergami ?--:Onee saw that Bergami had his" breeches loosened from the braces, and the 'front - fart half un buttoned. " • On that occasion did you 'observe where the PrinceSs's hand was ?-on6 hand was on that part: Was any body in the 'carriage, besides.Ber gami, at that time ?—I do not remember. Did you say they were asleep at that tithe ? I did. Did you, in going from Rome to' Senegalia, see'any thing else pass between the Princtss and Bergami ?—I saw once her Royal . highness kiss the neck, of Bergami. Did they afterwards go to Pesaro? The LORD CHANCELLOR.—Mr. Attorney, do hold up your head, and speak out. Question repeated Yes. While at Pesaro, did Bergarni go away for any time ?-11e went to Rologna, where he re mained for two da*s.• • On his return, did the Princess go to meet him? Her Royal Highness went . to' meet him with part of her suite. Did she meet him ?--ller R. 4ighness met him. 'When they met, did you observe what was, done by them ?—They dismounted from their respective'carriag - es ; they embraced, and kissed. Did they then return to Pesaro ?---Yes. In the same carriage, or different carriages In the same carriage. • Did Bergami dine with the Princess at Pesaro, 'and before ?—I don't know, because I was never present when they dined. DO you know where Bergami's mother and his - brother Luigi dined ?—When I went into the service, they dined in a room by themselves. Did any alteration take place in their dining hile at Pesaro ?—I do not know. At the time you were at the Villa d'Este, did any persons of distinction visit her Royal Iligh ne"ss ?—Once I saw General Pino. Did you see 'any other persons of distiiiction there do not remember any. Was,there a person of the ;lame of Verona in her service ? Yes.--WLiti was he ?-A messenger. Do you know what he had been_before he en tered her service never knew. . . Did. you never bear Bergami converse with,the Princess about him ?—I don't remember. Cross-examined by iIir.,BROUGHAM: You don't .understand - English, I take it for granted ?L-Not at all. - How long have you been in: this country ? About 14 months. . Where have you .lived here ?—Partly in Lon don and partly in the country: Did you never go by the name of\ Sacchini ? At Milan they called me Sacchini. Wereyou never called Milani ?=—Yes. Whom did you live with at Stevenage ? How long did you live there ?—I never lived there. Where then did you live ?—At A.ston, four miles from Stevenage. Whom did you- live with there ?—With the Rev. Philip Godfrey. Have you seen him in town lately ?—Once. After you left the Princess, where did you go to live ?—I went to •Milan. Did you go, into any other service there did not. How long did you remain out of place ?--- Alwap. never been in any other place in service ?—No. • When were you first examined at Milan upon this business ?—ln November, 1818. Was that 'the first time, that you told this story at Milan ?—No, I had said it at other times. When was • the first time you were examined upon the subject ?—ln the year 1818. Who had you told it to before that ?—I do not remember to whom I told it.. Who asked you, to go and be examined at Mi lan in Ngvember 1818 ?—A messenger sent to me by the advocate Vilmacarti. Who did you see with Vilmacarti when you went to him ?—No one else. ,Did he examine you ?—No, it was not at that time. When did he examine .you?—About after a fortnight. . Who did you see, there when you were exa mined ?--The Advocate Vilmacarti, Mr. Cooke, Mr. Powell, and Colonel Brawn. Did they take your deposition in writing? Yes. Did they make.you take an oath f—Nci. Where did you take the oath ?—ln London. Was it at Mr. Powell's chambers you took the oath ?—Precisely. In what way were you living. at Milan when you were sent for ?—I have always had means of my own to support myself. What wages had you from her Royal High ness ?—I had no wages settled to me. Did you serve her Royal Highness as a volun teer 7—No. What did you receive the first year as courier . I _have received money three times during the time I was in her Royal Highness'sservice, mak ing altogether 60 or 70- Napoleon's.- 1. How much of that did you receive when 'you were courier only ?—I do not remeTpber. - ll6w long did you serve the Princess,as courier ? About 'line months. , Who hired you to . r her "ItOyal Highness entered into her Royal Highness's service through the good offices of the banker Cherrani, the Baron Cavalette, and Bergami. And' do you mean to say you were in easy cir cumstances when you went into her -Royal High ness's service ?—Thank God I always was in easy circumstances. And were you dressed as well as you are now when you entered her Royal Highness's service? I was welt dressed. Did you not introduce yourself to M. Marietti as Count Milani ?—I do not remember. Do you mean to represent you do not know that you were introduced to M. Marietti as Count 'Milani ?—I swear I do not know that I was in troduced as Count Milani.. Will you swear you were never called Count Milani in M. Marietti's presence ?—I swear I never heard myself called Count at all. Will you swears you never heard yourself call ed, COUnt at Mr. Godfrey's ?—I 'am sure I never heard myself called Count at Aston. Will you swear, you did, not introduce yourself to M. Marietti as a merchant ?—Never. Did' you not state that you came over to this country for commercial purposes?—No, I always said I came over in the service of a Spanish family. In what Spanish family, in whose service did you come' over ? _ (Objected to by the ATTORNEY-GENRAL.) Is it true that you came over in a, Spanish family ?—lt is not true. 'Did you say you had a law suit against the Princ - ess'?-4 said I had a lawsuit, but I. meant I was in the process against the Princess. . In saying you had a law suit, instead of saying you were a witness against the Princess, was it in tended as a doll . ?hle entendre to• the person to whom you spoke it The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected. Mr. BROUGHAM argued the right of putting the question, and in' support of it , cited the cross-ex amination of Judy Phillips 'in the Duchess of Kingston's case by Mr. Mansfield. The LORD CHANCELLOR ilecided that the ques tion was relevant. Question repeated—Yes, I meant it as a double entendre. Did you disclose to M. Marietti in any way that you were a witness against the Princess ? I told M. Marietti after I returned from Aston. How long is that ?---Abottt two months ago. Did you then not know that M. Marietti had discovered who you were Do you mean to swear that at the time you told them who Sou were, that they did not know Who you were ?—That I was a witness do you mean. Did they know your name ?—Yes, because I had mentioned it to a person. But not to any of Marietta's family ?—I told my name to one of the Mariettis, who was in the family at Aston with me. When did you tell it to one of the Mariettis ? Two months ago. To whom did you tell your name two months ago ?-4 do not remember. Did the gentlenian of M. Marietti's family, to whom you disclosed whom you were, ever see you after ?—No.•-- -- Did the family of Marietti see you after ? Yes, three or four months. (No, without trans lation.) The brother who set out' from. Milan knew I was Sacchi. Did they call you Sacchi ?—Never. Did you tell Mr. Godfrey you were Melaui or Sacchi Did you tell Mr. Godfrey you were a witness against the, Queen ?—I did not; but I caused a M. Speratti to tell Mr. Godfrey. Who is M. Speratti?-lle is a Gentleman I have seen at M. Marietti's. Is he a relation ?—Yes, a cousin. When did Speratti know who you really were?. One day when he came to pay a visit to Mr. Godfrey. How long ago ?—About seven months. Do you know that it is at least seven months ago ?—About seven months. Did you ever apply to be taken back into her Royal Highness's service ?—I do not remember. Did you ever intreat any person of her Royal Highness's household to have compassion on your dreadful situation, after you left her Royal Highness's service ?—I have never been in a dreadful situation. Will you swear that you never intreated one of the suite of her Royal Highneis to take pity or, have compassion on you after you left her Royal Highness's service ?—I do not remember, on what account of pity. , Answer my question, before you put one to me. Question repeatcd.—lt may be I did so. 'Did you ever apreseut to any one, after you left the Princess's service, that you taxed your self with - ingratitude towards a generous mistress ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to Mr. Brougham's question ; he said the representation might be in writing ; he might ask if the witness told any 'person. Mr. BROUGHAM argued his right of putting the question, and considered the objection to be a novel one.' The ATTORNEY-GEI4ERAL contended, that if the representation alluded to had been made in writing, the question could not be legally put, and he therefore objected to the asking of such a question unless it were limited to conversation. Mr. BROUGHAM asserted his right in cross- examination to put the question generally in that stage of the proceedings. Should the answer be that a representation had been made in writing, then under a rule laid down on a former day, an ob jection might be made to the ftirtl?er examination of the witness on that representation. Mr. DENMAN said in all the books that he had read, in all the reports of trials that he had fe l ! it his duty to look over, and in all the prAct ic ' d he had seen, an objection like the present he ha never met with before ; that on cross-examina tio b a witness might not be asked a question? whi e , went to affect his credibility by the most legit' ol mate means, was anew to him; and haled 11P°,1 the Counsel on ,the 'other side, in which "such objection had ever been urged before. Such 3 _, objection might protect the witness from his oli; perjuries, and from disclosures which would sh° that on this, as on former occasions, he - had' ‘ lls ' qualified himself from being regarded as a c ri ' dible witness ; but how it could lead to O st which ought to be the object of every Court of R s tice, the disclosure of the truth, he was et loss to discover. The question he maintained they had a right to put in general terms, for tb e purpose of detecting the witness, if they posse ed the means of proving that he had formed! stated, that went to contradict what he now d e ; posed on oath. If they possessed a paper whi c ka might prove this, were they to be compelled ‘ e produce it in the first instance, and lay it at th ( mercy of the explanation which the ingenuity a t the witness could supply: Such , a doctrine 1 ' Fould take upon himself to say, had never be e , ll , laid down before, and he would rather manful' , submit the question to the decision of those e thorities who-were supposed to have already de cided against that for which he contended, ths give up 'the point. He was of opinion that a'% power on earth, not even the presiding au thoritk in that Court, could rule it as those who ha d brought forward a perjured witness could des'j and feeling this; he and his friend were bolo", to object to the doctrine of the Attorney-Gel neral in the first place, that it did not follow'a consequence of that rule which had been 11 down by their Lordships on a former day ; in the next, as humble members of that profer sion to which they belonged, he had a right! call on their Lordships not to suffer suelf a or to go tkiwn as the law to posterity. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thoughtit must ne: appear, not only that he was justified in makilf the objection, but that it was his duty to make it' since his Learned Friend, who had gone a littl‘ too far in calling the witness a perjured witness' Here Mr. DENMAN said, he meant no such e , pression.—(Hear, hear.) t LORD CHANCELLOR—The expression used 10 1/ a perjured witness. Mr. DENMAN—My Lord, I beg to retract expression, for it was not intended.—(llear.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was glad that ..a r had afforded his Learned Friend an opportn of retracting the words he had used respectil the witness ; but he must now contend that: as quite clear that it was his object to overtop, the rule which bad been laid down by their Lo: 4 ships on a former day, founded on the opid l l of the Judges, and which declared that they not a right to examine as to the contents 'of written paper, if thepaper itself could be pre ij duced. If this were not his purpose, why shoo,, he object to limit the 'question to ding epr' tion made conversation ? Le questioo he would admit, might be put in cross-examl; tions, but questions might not be put that Nv to produce illegal evidence. In- the present stance it had been avowed that they meant apply the word " representation.," not me rely'" coniersation, but to any thing that might h a '` been stated in writing. Mr. BROUGHAM here interposed to correct statement of the Attorney-Gen,eral.---(Cries Order, order.) Mr. BaouonAil.—" I have a right"—Ora! order), " I have a. ,right,"—(Order, order " My Lords, have a right,"—raising voice very loud—(Order, order! withdraw.) The Loan CHANcEr,Lon.—Let the Ceuu d withdraw.—Mr. BROUGHAM. That I will do. f Lord REDESDALE apprehended that one C° l 'd sel had no right to interrupt another. When 0. 1 i( had finished, the other might have a right to 1 0 i any observation to correct a mis-statement,bl t present igh t t o b i I he heard. thought the Learned, Counsel 11 0 r tl l • The LORD CHANCELLOR.—" Call 4 ,1 Counsel."—The Counsel having come to the l io f The LORD CHANCELLOR informed them' 1. 4. 01 0 the House had decided that they had no 0' interrupt each other ; but to wait till they done, and then to correct any iris-statement 10 1 might have been made. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, DO moo ,71,et I less anxious to misstate the argument of an ol' than he was ; but he appealed to the llu tise o what he'had asserted were not correct. The' 0 ) 1 gument of his 'Learned Friend (Mr. Del ln'a do came to this, that he had a right to exarnin e hi - 14 witness on any representations he had made I" t i, holding the letter in his hand which was to c ° ol , fute him. The rule which had been laid d ° e j was, that a witness should not be quest o / 0 about a written document, without that doell„e4 being first shewn to him. If, then, this coul u b j i i be done directly, he apprehended it could n e ,'„ci done indirictly. He then noticed the co u" ;0 , of his Learned Friend in imputing to him a li c t, tive which did not belong to him, that of pr ete o ing the witness from the consequences of his statements: ot Mr. DENMAN did not mean to impute tlll his. Thea Lerrjed, Frien Y- d. h ATTORNEGENERAL was glad to , this from one whom he so highly _respected; ' eA th e he declared that he had only objected t e t° be question because- it had appeared to hi ll ' illegal. • Mr. BROUGHAM begged to say be hau• ° ; ut a meant to correct an unintentional misrep re oi tion of his argument by his Learned Frien d, a d, had imputed that to him which he had neverd vanced. He had merely argued that lie lla bd right to ask generally 'whether the wi t " ess r ibek made any representations of the nature d esc. v i t h The LORD CHANCELLOR did not agre e t i l e the communication made to the House V ol of Judges on a former day, on the course ?"03 ceedings sanctioned in the Courts below' therefore he, if it met with their Lordships ii A 7: t, . 11 e~ k} ~1~ 141 1 14 ti, b e hi ; ye