The Sun.
London, England, 1820-09-07 00:00:00

PARLIAMtNIT,
OUSE OF LORDS, 1,17 EDN-SDLY, SEPT. 6.

of the facts which had been partially extracted
by the crass-examination were allowed to be de=
tailed, a witness might most unjustly be exposed
to al prosecution for perjury. If a questi4n
drew from him an answer, or part of an answer,
and he were then stopped, it might be that what
he had.stated was very far from being the whol.e.
truth. If the Whole were allowed to be stated,
that might turn out to be correct, whiCh had at.
first seemed to be tinvrorthy of credit. • lie-'con..
ceived it to be theirlsordships' duty to eiidea
your to extract the whole truth ; and if the wit-'
ness were not allowed to state it, to hiM it ap.a
peared.that he would be most injuriously'freated.
This beanie the More important when they :1-.
membered. the manner in which answers were
drawn from witnesses on cross-examination. ;in
proof of this he need only to refer to the cross-
examination :of the present witness;-to show 'that
in some,: instances -the questions: had been mis 7
Understood: The witness -had 'Called for expla=
. nation, and then the answer given differed with
what he had said . before, from his having mis-
understood -what he had beeniskeds His Lord-
ship conchided by observing, that they were
bound to extract the'vvhole trutho .and not suffer
the professional term " Rules of Evidencei" to
prevail against so just a principle. For his owti
part he shotild feel perfectly justified in putting
questions to the witness, the object of which
would be to bring the whole of the conversation
referred to before their Lordships.
The LORD CHANCELLOR proceeded to put‘the
question, whether he should call in. the Counsel
and inform the AttornepGeneral that the House
would not permit the question in dispute to be
put to the witness at the Bar.
The questiOrt was carried in the affirmative
without a divisions
Counsel were accordingly "called in, and the.
LORD CHANCELLOR informed Mr. ATTORNEY-
GENERAL the result of their Lordships' delibera..
tion.
The witness, Guisseppi Sacchi, was
,then
called in. •,

THE QUEEN.
;Continuation of the Pr Ocedchngs of yesterday.]

The LORD Cuastuta.ort.-4t certainly does
appear on comparing the publication given in by
the Learned Counsel.(Mr. Brougham) with the
minutes, that a gross misrepresentation has found
its way into the public prints. If you lay aside
your privileges as to the publication of evidence,
you must" at least' insist that thrptiblication shall
.be minutely correct. As to . the publications
Which have already gone forward, it may be mat-
ter of consideration hereafter. At present there
is another quvstion before the house. • .
The business was then-.`"suspended at half-
past eleven, id.expectation' orPie return of the
Judges. , . •
The Judges did not„return until ten minutes
before one. •
. .
. .
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE said, the Judges
had .carefully considered the question proposed
to-them by their Lordships, and would now..cle,
liver their opinions seriatim.
Mr. Justice BEST was sorry to differ in opi-
nion from his brother Judges. But he thought
criminals and ' witnesses would be, placed in a
dreadful situation if a part of any conversation
was admitted as evidence without the witness be,

ing allowed to explain hiS motive. litver since
he had the honour of a seat on the Bench, he had
acted, upon his own opinion, without regard to that
of others.' He could see no difference in the
examination of witnesses in this case from that
pursued in criminal and civil proceeding-s. In a
civil action a witness was, asked what; itulticed
him to say so and so in his evidence. On his re-
examination he ought to be allowed before their
Lordships to tell all the motives that influenced
him. From the experience of the House on this
trial, their Lordships knew that the motives of
the witnesses were obtained, from tliem by ques-
tions put in re-examination which could not have
been put in the examination in chief. If it were
not so, criminals would be placed in an awkward Q. You have stated
Sou
situation, and the motives of witnesses against that when you came to this country
assumed the nave of Milani; why did you assume thatname?
them would never be known. He was there- A.aclet, dof
otititlet-t hisname on account of the tumult which had talien
pi
fore of. opinion that the examination of the wit- the danger 1 should have been in if my own
name hag been known.
ness ought to be proceeded in, otherwise no cause
would be safe, or no witness. The justice' of, assume' has
stated that he took another n
hname name; when was it be
e
the case could not be got at unless the whole. the Na'i
tirthath
apphee now
at holds?-tlt was immediately after
You have stated that you took an oath to depositions : when
conversation was explained. He could not un-
W aboutthataatv
~ 10
? —ldoi not remember exactly the day ; but it was
derstand how a' conversation" between two per-
sons could. be explained if their Lordships did On what were you sworn to that deposition ?—lt
was offered to me by the Advocate PoWell.
not hear the whole of the conversation, and if .
hat purpose ?—He told me—
they- refustd to do' so, it would be laying down Mr. BROUCHAMobjected t y thientfiibigeiinhgtrhe: toiLeedt,f
what
Powell said..
li i s wotiu Ind" be I
a dangerous rule. 'Was any person bold enoughrowcniiisi.devidence in the case, and-departing
to say, that in a Court of Justice witnesses were lf;°„1,'„(t)fi,!1,"
not allowed to explain away what they had be- The LOrtDi(.7llstAlCFrlro R said,-no doubt could exist that
the witness was at liberty to state the occasion tiiion which he
fore given in evidence ? - It. was but shortly since
the question had been submitted to him. He had towsr.irzi l
e;i.(Go on go on !)
t.—id mehe,
had
Ni st
received a
l
et
no cases to (incite, but if longer. time had been -Liverpool, saying it was necessary that
1' should r bferosmworit'iortdo
my deposition..
given to him, he was convinced he could not have rfi.ellaltOUGHAM repeated his objections, and said he was
found any, as the precise. question never had been justified
. by the answer which Ited been given ; as this answer
submitted to the Judges before. No man had a not only applied to Mr. Powell s ohServations, but to the COn-
tents of Lord Liverpool's letter. 'The course adopted by this
higher opinion of the laws of the country than he tort of examination would not occur elsewhere'
had, but he was of opinion that the examination of The LORD Cl] ANCF.LLOR.—We are' very often told what
wouldior would not be told elsewhere. Whether this is pru-
witnesses was too narrow, and therefore ought not
to be more narrowed. He regretted the misfortune pe'litite A7TTOolutrNiardGshEqEtoltA"leide. - I al the question
of differing from his brother Judges, but he was Pei fectly proper, as affording' a
r:ascoonnfseli'retnhe oath ids had
bound to say that the witness ought to answer the been taken, and contended that he had a right to inquire into
the purpose and the occasion of the oath being taken.(Go.on,
question. It was alWays to be borne in Mind that go on !)
the facts which came out in conversation were not Did he say any thing more of the purpose for
.which thLt
• oath was taken?—Nut bung ?Ise. .
to be regarded_ as facts proved. , fhe ATTORNEY-OkNERAL said he had no furl her goes-
. Mr. Baron GARROW, Mr. JUstice BURROUGHS, lions to ask.
Did Mi. Powell say for what purpose the deposition was To
Chief JuStice DALLAS, Mr. Baron GRAHAM' and
be used ?—He added nothing else. . • '..
Chief JUstice IticuAßDSseverally their sea- / gave Lord GROSVENOR —Witness has said that he was an Of-
Sons in a very few words, for deciding that the Geer in the Italia" army ; has he. arty P"Y new ?-"Ndil part
question could not be put. . nolpay.
%lien von were discharged from acting in that army, did
Chief Justice ABBOTT felt called upon to an- you offer your services -
to any other Government as a soldier
swen the question in the negative. He thought Alter three years 1 asked to be taken into the service of the-
Counsel on the re-examination had a right to put troops for the King of France. • - ..,
Swiss Cantons, who had capitulated or agreed to furnislt
all questions tending to prove' the sense of the
the s What
aue answer
asr d liiihyeldu igoe' stet
theto
answers given an cross-examination, where these was
.no vacano.y.
were at all doubtful, and to set the witness right ,t‘ltrahtt
yofapplicationl ta y
; 1 f—
was I
told
ded therefo r
,considered that
with the Court. He, however the rank of a serieant.
-Did they oiler you an inferior situation ?—They offered me
Counsel had no right to introduce matter new
in itself, for the purpose of proving what had hel s
pi
it.i customaryii
e"r.i.ni with:s:, iflogo
oentesoai in
i.tl.let e.s, irt,,.,illat
tiootnt,:ty t,fil:rii
sttii held
dbre under
n thed e r
tcurriinscoer"
been the motives of the ' witness. He thought acre-, or having their permissiol'ilig,ea'nil particularly wniflio-ra-
-I:,eartisition
goi:f such
t high rank ast. the Princess ?—Evetry morning I
the Counsel not entitled to lead the witness intothe f carriageoti i,,,
the h Royaler II
Curtains drawn, i g i'lies•
and 9 I:Cie:tit:7i u°11:r;
a,conversation with a third person. Such con- d
_ers ; sometimes)
open ; and as I was always accustomed to du so, and was never
versations could only become evidence as theV
reprimanded or even admonished by her Royal Highness,Cl
affected the character and motives of the witness; never imagined that i had dour any thing wrong.
and all beyond that was in his , opinion, ir-
triedfs Mt.. K
pryus ai
nto friendtil
e ofp MademoiselleEi,private
airars D,
oi
fiat o
titheril! )—II,e
o'nprhov_er
1
relevant.
.•The LORD CHANCELLOR stated the question, (Lt'Zhgh'yi,",.tgi know.)
the manner in which it had been raised and the
not know.
and Dumont friends?—Yes; I was with her in the
situation in which the House then found itself
family of her Royal Highness.
Lord GROSVENOR —Have yon any
lobjection to state to
and reminded their Lordships that it was for
to tell him what ho was; to direct Counsel the House the number of' names) v
course of the last ten years, excludii7gu thi',7,etihtsestelomneedeallini the
to do, as they were aware that the opinions of
,ii.,,.,...,..hi,711 yo,i,n!rem , necessary for four personal safety ?1-3:
the Learned Judges were not binding on the
Marquis
or I.l,,,),u,',::(]ii;,.l:oK:,;(l,letrN‘ale,(4,ti,in.it'iel
eirle:‘ the
i last
Ii)
it t the,
have
s t i i n e s .
umtne,.i that
is: o 1‘.1,1 oh money
a.ea n syt :11teaersds been
.tttlt: 711.:
vt.fito.
feted to
arrival
roirniy:. y,auili ttitoiri er House. He did not set a high value on his own
opinion in'such cases, as of late years he had Clot
with
arinnyptheui.dytoudpi.sin4:
been in the habit of presiding in Courts Aere . c thoasdaiststaude yuu from gir-
oral testimony could be received ; and he there- ing your evidence'?—No, nobodyie
me; I have had nu coannunication
lh iiieocv, t,.
lon, is it since you became acquainted with Marietti?
fore thought it would be safer for their Lord-
s u
ships to rely on , the opinions of the Learned
Judges who sat in these Courts ; but he must
—Sit Isit:
ee nm:yiamricki Yeal:
at
itt 1.-ig
Milanl ati
?d__.
It is said so; I never had any
confess that he had been long in way as to the thing ,„ do with, him
rule established in them, if they would not ad- Who is the Marietti Sou are acquainted with in London ?
;nit the whole of the conversation art of which , I know three hi ot hers, Mariettrs,in London.
h
You have said that Marietti knew of your hying a witness
had been brought before them to be given in as in this charge ?—I have said Marietti 'knew I was a fitness
evidence. when I told him so. ..
-
, SHINE objected to receiving the con- Did any of time markti
Lord FR
versation, and adopted the negative-which the is ,wake any proposal to you, touch-
ing- t.he evidence you were to give in this cause?—One of the
Mai iettas came to me at my lodgings, and told me that he was
Judges put on the question. directed by Mr. Biougham, brother to the kttorne •-(' ei Ai
,
was with considerable diffidence he offered n
Lord. REDESDALE begged to observe that It to the Queen, (who had called. upon him that'
mornitZn and
~,etthootaluttdi inauired if
„the I,.new me,) to learn from me any thing
the ileen. lartetti added," the Messrs. Broughams
opinion against thationifptrheseselid,eawriiitehdthjeuipt7ol,ribeautt 'have served me., while 1 had tralisautions with her tt.y.A
f-)lig tress, nod 1 should like also to do them s irne service ;
he was so strongly
.1
Lti
thatie.f ii rie
cli,
tut ei,!lat)smau
friendeeat it t . ist In
not to
dissuade)to sa yl best'
if toomi i
di ft,iirt;ll,
of putting to the witness the question now in Y
dispute, that he could not suffer the House to what you intended. I also represented to :11r. trougliatii (tbo
brother to the Attorney-General to the Qneen,; that I would
'dispose of its discussion without offering his • 1
of the case. The principle laid down was, Itlielavt nut commit myself, nor did I w;sh the parties to commit them-
give evidence seives;" and he added, that as Ministers had not granted a
the witness should be made to tell the truth, and ti.,.,t,toei.n.:•ittiiiiatsts,s,e.es,s
hoorutil:iel
itkoe•atdos
h 1),!,
wt
ft meern
you,charges
i y against
~,1
know 111,..,1:
at all,
if they called upon him to
tell the whole truth. wdoe,ses, or the number of tleem, arid if y •it can inform us
he ought to be alldwed to
swi.:l4;;l,taltho.ugh I knew something, I would not tel it, 4, it
of any thing alto the depositions they are to make. 1. sii,-
His Lordship observed, that the object of a cross-knewitio onits)eowtibttoresisjytih_at I knew
examination was to discredit a Wetness, 'and that of no de. plonsTtito ri
nt
et:i itil'eamtull :I Dulygis e
etti added, that it was wished to know so lunch, i'te' d1"-ni-
of a re-examination, by filling up his testimony, prepare fur the taneen'a defence; and again askedrue,l" ejictor
was to restore his credit. Unless m then the wholeu new something a!tout the depositious; ai'-al • , -
I again assured um
. '

Re.c.rumination resumed by' the ATTORNEY-G E-

NERAL.