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

had felt
pr
Actid
t he hal
minatio

ised Si

tract
[ear)
that
,lrd
p o rtunoi
espentO,
d that
overttr,,
eir Lora;
opiniol3,l
they .I°o
ents 'of
be
by shot
present
question'
..e)pan
that NO:,
resent
meant

mere AVII
tight ha!'

COTTe
-(Cries

orderif;
rising
VithaW"

r 175
_ou
nil do.
me Cc'l
Vhen Out
It to
mite but
el had

11 in 4,4114'
o the PA 'a
them.
r
to rig
they toll
Lent wPI

"an TA
of all°l
Moose r'
Th9o)
Deolh(
mininehoe
lade 11,0"0.
as to jog
laid do et)!
IlleSti°lleo
d0C11°11.; of
could
Uld 111YA'oci
Le con- 0,
kiln a
,f prota-.4
)f his

ite this to

to Ilei;
,ted;
`
ed to ,":e
him to

had 001%
?pr-
,bi
ievd, j,
„ever 3 ;,
he had
id
tnessZ34
jescrwv.

(free
tlitiviiv
;
e of Pl°,i
.40w,
;hips' 1

probation, would move That the following ques-
tion should be submitted to the Judges, " whe-
ther it was the established practice in the Courts
below, for Counsel, in cross-examining, were en-
titled to ask the opposite Counsel objecting, whe-
ther a witness had made a representation, with-
out specifying whether that representation was in
writing or in terms ?"
The motion was agreed to, and the Judges
retired to take the question into consideration.
During their absence, Lord KENYON rose and
statedi'that he wished to take that opportunity
of submitting to their Lordships a motion which
he thought it was highly necessary should be
made, and he hoped it would be complied with.
Their Lordships would feel that it was necessary
the public at large should be informed of the
amount of such sums as were placed at the dispo-
sal of her Majesty. He would therefore move
first, for a copy of all communications made on
the part of her Maje Sty to his Majesty's Mi=
nisters, on the subject of, pecnniary advances';
and secondly, for an account of all sums advanced
for her Majesty's service since her arrival in this
country.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, he had certainly
been in communication with hey Majesty'y Ad-
visers. lie had given•notice that unlimited sums
were placid at her Majesty's disposal.- And for
himself he had no objection to. the correspon-
dence being laid before all the world. The no-
lefty of the motion was such, thatbe thought the
llouse ought not to agree to it without some con-
sideration. The Noble Lord ought, in his opi-
nion, to give notice on the subject.
Lord HOLLAND was surprised to' hear it said
that the motiou_ was of a. novel nature; to him it
seemed to be most ancient in its character. The
Noble Earl said 'he had given notice that " un-
limited sums" were placed at the disposal of her
IViajesty, and was it not the duty of Parliament
l
',inquire whence those sums were taken, and
I'Vilat was their amount ?
bn'The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, when he stated
tcl,.,4'ited funds to be placed at the. disposal of
eVleen, he hoped It was understood that
these funds were only to be so placed at her dis-
hos t
a' On proper security, which was understood
V'. the party. He did not object to the motion,
but in common decency he thought some notice
13nght to have been given.
Lord KENYON appealed to the House if his
'°nduct this day had justly subjected him to the
severe remark of the Noble Earl, or if his con-
duct Were usually found to be such as could
fairly be regarded as inconsistent with common
hcency. However unfortunate he-might be on'
.07 present occasion, he had a great respect for
"'public and • private' character 'of the Noblu
-"Id, and had not directed the present'motion
against him or his colleagues. He then explain-
ed the circumstances tinier which he had brought
I.o"vard the, motion. He had understood the
case was to be closed to-day. If it were not,
notwithstanding the ungracious treatment he had
IZeeived he would let his motion stand as a no-
ce for to-morrow.
Noble
of LIVERPOOL was sorry that the
4Noble Lord should feel hurt at what he had said.
twhoul h t t
had
i
no objection to the motion, but he
oug
not ;
b ht not to have been brought for-
aru
'vituout notice.' In point of fact it could
poro made bow, without adjourning (pro
the Whole of the present .proceedings.
Judges 5 rres havin returned at the end of half
Ail hour -Iv
•ierT, re IMP JUSTICE stated, that they had con-
edon the point submitted to them ; but thzi
_liras impossible for them to give a distinct and
here
answer in the affirmative or the negative,
notiere Was no statute on the subject. It was
a in the 'recollection of any one of them, that
usre,stion in those precise words had ever been
eLt ; though questions of a similar nature had
eo4cl,ll_ently been asked, but referring leather to
Pacts and agreements, and relating to prices
tiot`i'efinite times. On such occasions the ques-
otherrwas. not opposed, but the Counsel for the
(Air -side was allowed to interpose, and to in-
Ivrit, whether the alleged agreement was in
it 111.% or otherwise. If the witness said that
As 7:s in writing, he could not be cross-examined
heien?artieulars, the agreement itself being suf-
the
et evidence. If he said it was by parole,
t4in Mss-examination might be carried on to ob-
piarticulars. The Judges were all of opi-
mat a witness 'could not be asked, whether
had written a letter, but the letter must first
e in •
his hand, and he might be ques-
p whether it was written by him. In the
esent •
tie 4, instance, they conceived that the ques-
th 1-1 should be separated into two parts, whether
lvteit,itness had said so, or whether it was in
ing.?
beAt_ft" some conversation, which was inaudible
,iu,hw:tie
txtsianeaCtionni,EF JUSTICE was understood to add in
he that
said
witness should be asked
he had whetherhl he had said go and so, and not whether
made a representation.
I,OltD CHANCELLOR.—IS it your Lord-
that Pleasure that the question should be put in
leafsb
v Counsel and that Counsel should
41-,
is n ?
4 h
1444 was understood to be settled' in the affir-
tre, and Counsel having been called in,
they-7114°14i CHANCELLOR informed them, that
l'epl• Ways had a right of asking Whether a
Ithc,-tisleentation had been made ; but if they asked
nature Er ,the representation was of a particular
Itas I,,,L.,tney must add the question whether it
in writing, or in conversation ; other-
"e Counsel fa the opposite side would
tiorl
ha.righ, . • .
to interpose, and to put that ques-
!lliSelf.
r. ,
uefor '"ltouunAm.—Are we to understand that
wade ask whether a representation has been
versaii"o'' e must ask whether it was made in con-
The Til or in: writing ?
sHI lia,CtZ°D CHANCELLOR stated,.that the Conn-
tiltlestion,"e option,' either of putting the general
_tori or of asking, whether the representa-
?l,r eas_beeO, made in writing ; but, in the for-
toeti : e the opposite Counsel would be,allow-
Lute -
rP°Se and to ask that question himself.

Earl GREY thought th.at. the Counsel had
better put, the general question first, as to ,the
a fact of representation having been made,
without going into the details until that fact was
ascertained.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL had no objection to
the question being so put., What he understood,
however, from the opinion expressed by the
Judges, was that Counsel could not ask the
question generally, but must divide it into two ;
and that if on being. asked whether the repre-
sentation had been made in writing, the witness
answered yes, he should not be cross-examined
as to particulars. If his answer .was that the
representation had been made in conversation,
then only could the cross-examination proceed.
Earl GREY observed, that in the course of the
present proceedings witnesses had been asked
over and over, whether any promises had been
made to them„ without its being objected that
it was necessary first to ascertain whether the
promise had been made in writing or otherwise.
Lord ERSKINE stated, that if the witness had
been about to explain, the nature of the pros
mise, it would then have been allowed to the op-
posite Counsel to ask whether it had been made

in writing. '
The LORD CHANCELLOR re-stated, that if, on
cross-examination, a question was put to the
witness respecting any representation of a parti-'
cular nature, it would be necessary, first, to, in-
quire whether the said representation had been
made in words or writing. If this were not
done, the opposite Counsel would have a right to
interpose, and to say, " Before you go farther,
state whether the representation was made in
writing or not."

Mr.-BnouGnAm—Suppose we add the words,
cc,in writing."
After a desultory conversation between Lord
Holland, Lord Redesdale, the Marquis of Lans-
downe, Lord Grey, and the Lord Chancellor,
The Earl of DoNouGintonE suggested, that as
there seemed to remain some doubt on the sub 7
ject, notwithstanding the opinion expressed by
the Judges, tke best mode would be to request
the Judges to retire and re-consider their opi-
nion, in order to make it more distinct, and then
to communicate it to Counsel.

The LORD CHANCELLOR observed that if the
answer of the Judges had not removed all doubt,
it arose from the imperfection and insufficiency
of the question put to them. The best mode of
settling the matter would be to amend the ques-
tion: But he shOuld previously inquire of the
Counsel whether it was, or was not, his wish to
withdraw the question altogether ?
Mr. BROUGHAM—I" My Lord, I most earnestly
wish to withdiaw it."

Cross-examination resumed.

Q. 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 ?—A. Never.

A letter was here handed to the witness.
Is that your hand-writing ?—lt is.
Another letter was banded.
Is that your hand-writing?
Did' you ever go under any other name than Milani, and
Sacchani, or Sacchi?► I was called by another, as i am still
called.
What vras that other name?—l' beg the favour of the
House that I may not be obliged to state another name I go
by, as I shall be exposed to the fury of some persons of evil
intentions. I also beg. that 'the House will interpose its' au:-
thotity, in 'order that such question, and such answer, as that
just g;:ven, may not be given in the public papers.
Was you ever called by any other 'name in Italy never
r''. member being called by any of her name. • .
Did you ever make use of any Other name ill' Italy for the
purpose of corresponding with,any one?-7-I do not recollect,
Were you ever at Mauge ?—1 was.
Were you ever at Colombia have been.
How long each time were you at Mauge and Colombia ?
.About six weeks.

Did you let all body know that you were in the nei&hbour-
hood, or did you conceal yourself ?—I did not.

Under what name did you then pass there ?—My own,
Sacchi.

Hadn't you some money at a banker's in Lausanne ?—I had.
How much ?—Fifty Louis. •
Will you swear that you never had more at that banker's
at a time 1-I had no more than the fifty Louis.
Will you swear that you never had-a credit which empower-
ed you to draw on that banker for more than that ?—I never

Did you ever say to any person, that you had either a credit
or a greater sum in their hands ?—I do not remember.

You won't swear then ?—I cannot swear, when I am in
doubt.

Did yon fetch a certain Mademoiselle Dumont from Swit-
zerland to Milan?-I did.
Did.you bring her back ?—No.
Who employed you to get her ?—I was desired by the Com-
mission, which was at Milani

Dittiou tell any person in Switzerland that Mademoiselle
Dumont was gone back, or going hack to return to the ser-
Tice of her Royal Highness ?--Never. .
Who did you come with, when you came to this country your.
self ?—A Courier called Crouse.

Is that Mr. Cronse, who was lately arrested at Paris fur ut-
tering. forged notes ?—I never heard speak of that. • •
Did he come to London with you, or did he remain at Pa-
ris came with me to London. _

.
Is Mr. Crouse a regular King's Messenger, or is he only
employed as such, fur the Milan Commission business ?-1 do
not know. ' •

Have you made out any other journies with this Mr.
Crouse?—Never.

How much money did you get from the Milan Commission?
Only the expences of my journies to Milan and return, and
another journey.

Do you mean to swear that yon have received no promise
of any money ?—I do mean that I never was promised any.
Do you mean to swear that you never had arty promise troM
any person.of remuneration for this busineSs ?..-4 can swear
that I never.receive4 any promise.

That you never received promise of any advantage to be
given you of any sort ?—I never asked for any thing, nor was
ever offered.
I don't want to know, if you ever asked for any, or if you
were ever offered any; hut I want to know if any person ever
promised you any advantage whatever ?—No one promised me
any thing.
Hare you ever said to any one that you ever received any
money, or any promise of money or advantage never said
to any person that I had received any advantage or money.
I might have said that I was paid my expenses.
Do you not expect any money or advantage hope to be
paid for my time which I am made to lose now.
Have you ever seen MadeMoiselle Dumont since you came
to this country ?—Many times.
Have you seen any of the other witnessekin this neighbour-
hood ?-=Several.

Re-examined by the AqTORNEY-GENERAL.
Q. 'Where does your family live ?—A. At Broglia.
Were you ever in the army ?—Yes, ten years.
What army did you serve in ?—ln the army of Italy.
Whose army of Italy, Bonaparte's army ?—The army of the
kingdom of Italy headed by Bonaparte.
What rank did you hold at the time you left it?—First
Lieutenant of Cavalry. • .
What was the date of your Commission ?—The 6th of Sept.
1613, onShe field of battle. ,
When you left the Princess's service did you receive any
certificate of your character ?—I did.
Have you got it about you .?,-Yes.
Is it signed by her Royal Highness.?—When'given to me,
I was told that it had been signed by her Royal Highness.

• Have you ever seen her Royal Highness write ?-1 do not
remember ever to have seen her.
Have you ever seen any letters written by her anywhere ?
Mr. BROUGHAM objected to this question; he has al-
ready said that be never saw her write; what can he the use
of his Learned Frieud's question? •
Do you know whose seal was,put to it ?—I do.
`Whose?-Itis the same seal which I have often seen on
the letters which her Royal Highness has given to tne. •
Wlio gave you the certificate ?—Count Schiavini.
[The certificate was here produced, and about to be readi
when—
Mr. BROUGHAM objected. All that has been. proved is,
that the witness received it from Schiarini, and that there is
what he calls a seal, which I call a piece of wax, affixed to it;
by whom he knows not. True, he affirms that it was given to
him with a seal non.constat that it was the seal of her Royal
Highness. He owns, too, that he does not know whose writ-
ing it is, and under theSe circumstances, I contend that this
certificate cannot he received in evidence.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Your Lordships will find
that it is already' in evidence (page i 62), that Schiavini was
the person in her Royal Highness's service, who was in the
habit of giving certificates of character to the servants on
quitting her service. It is also in evidence, that those certifi-
cates were signed by her Royal Highness, and that the seal
was also her's.
Mr. BROUGHAM.—But it will be 'recollected that those
certificates according-to the evidence, were delivered, signed,
and sealed. In the pre;ent•case there is no proof of the sig-•
nature, and as for a seal there is none.