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

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 011112 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 fel!
it his duty to look over, and in all the prActic'd
he had seen, an objection like the present he ha
never met with before ; that on cross-examinatiob
a witness might not be asked a question? whie,
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 cri'
dible witness ; but how it could lead to Ost
which ought to be the object of every Court of Rs
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 tbe
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 de;
posed on oath. If they possessed a paper whicka
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 at
the witness could supply: Such, a doctrine 1'
Fould take upon himself to say, had never bee,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 authoritk
in that Court, could rule it as those who had
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 101/
a perjured witness.
Mr. DENMAN—My Lord, I beg to retract
expression, for it was not intended.—(llear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was glad that
..ar
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 opidll
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 preij
duced. If this were not his purpose, why shoo,,
he object to limit the 'question to dingepr'
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 merely'"
coniersation, but to any thing that might ha'`
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 Ceuud
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 10i
any observation to correct a mis-statement,blt
presentigh t t
o b i I he
heard.
thought the Learned, Counsel 110
r
tll
• The LORD CHANCELLOR.—" Call 4,1
Counsel."—The Counsel having come to the liof
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 101
might have been made.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, DO moo ,71,et I
less anxious to misstate the argument of anol'
than he was ; but he appealed to the llutiseo
what he'had asserted were not correct. The' 0)1
gument of his 'Learned Friend (Mr. Delln'ado
came to this, that he had a right to exarninehi-14
witness on any representations he had made I"ti,
holding the letter in his hand which was to c°ol,
fute him. The rule which had been laid d° ej
was, that a witness should not be questo/0
about a written document, without that doell„e4
being first shewn to him. If, then, this coulubjii
be done directly, he apprehended it could ne,'„ci
done indirictly. He then noticed the cou";0,
of his Learned Friend in imputing to him a lict,
tive which did not belong to him, that of preteo
ing the witness from the consequences of his
statements: ot
Mr. DENMAN did not mean to impute tlll
his.
Thea Lerrjed, FrienY- d.
h ATTORNEGENERAL was glad to,
this from one whom he so highly _respected; 'eA
the
he declared that he had only objected tet° be
question because- it had appeared to hill'
illegal. •
Mr. BROUGHAM begged to say be hau• °
; uta
meant to correct an unintentional misrepreoi
tion of his argument by his Learned Friend, ad,
had imputed that to him which he had neverd
vanced. He had merely argued that lie llabd
right to ask generally 'whether the wit"essribek
made any representations of the nature desc. vith
The LORD CHANCELLOR did not agree tile
the communication made to the House Volof
Judges on a former day, on the course ?"03
ceedings sanctioned in the Courts below'
therefore he, if it met with their Lordships