Star.
London, England, 1820-10-31 00:00:00

vii
_fik,

-\;. -

ilasaitat-081044-0141T Lads tali h wet bee-
.
Oar.*
The LORD eIIANCILLOIL-41 AtteamorGenetsl,.
have you anything to say *by then learn ought patio be re.'
calved in Evidence?"
The Airoantf-Onassar..-wi Yee, my Lords, if Mr. Broughanil
his dOOO--...."
Mr. BROUGHAM .said he wail/ like to hear what was the ob-
jection of his Learned Friend.
The Arroattee-GENeseat said, Wit this was like many ether
extraordinary upplications which hall come from the opposite
side of the liar during these proceedibga. He might make use
of the setae exclamation with which Mr. ilgougham had greeted
an application made lay him (the Attorney-diieneral) to their Lord-
ships, and say, " now, my Lords, I ask egos are sitdng as a
Court of Justice?" Mr. Brougham enidi hew bad no other
object in tendering these letters, than is have Asa opportunity
of making such a speech as might cause, on the minds of their
Lordships, and still me e. so on the minds of the Public oat dt
doors, an impression not to be produced by the real that. Or
the case. Their Lordships had already decided, that the verbal;
declarations of a party could not be received as evidence of the
acts of that party,and letters were nothing more than suck dank-
rations in another shape. &sides, their Lordships had yet to
barn to whom these letters were addressed ?
Mr. BROUGHAM.—" I shall read them, if you please ; I am
stare I have no objection"—(ifiatsg.V.
The Arroaxev-Graxam. said, he was not to be caught by thei
dexterity of his Learned Friend. It was no matter to whom
the letters were addressed, nor what they contained, under no
eir:unistances could they be received as legal evidence.
Mr. BROUGHAM disclaimed all intention of taking any undue
advantage. His Learned Friend first complained of tendering
the letters, and then, that he had not heard enough of them. Ile
had every desire to relieve his Learned Friend's curiosity on
this point. The first letter was dated the :nth February, 181 Q,
and the second, the 6th March, 1819. The person to whom
they were addressed was the Director of the Police at I'esaro,
an agent of the Home Department of the Roman Government.
In tendering these letter;, he (Mr. Brougham) bad only per-
formed what he conceived tc. be a simple duty, which heowed
both to their Lordships and to his Illustrious Client; but at the
same time,he was far from feeling pressed by any great necessity
to do so. For, though it would be vain for hint to attempt to
rival the ingenuity and eloquence displayed by his Learned
Friends on the other side of the Bar, yet, in as far as respected
argument, in as far as respected correct reference—(Cries of Or•
der, from their Lordships).—lie was not at an alarmed ;he was not
cut of order. The Learned Gentleman proceeded to argue that
he had a right to give those letters, as au answer to the question
why be did not produce certain other witnesses. lie had been
told that he knew the contents of the letters or he would not
%sop held back Alariette and Ilieronimus :this he denied. Lie
had found the activity which had been used in corrupting het
Royal Highness's servants. Ile saw that they had already got
fulakof her servants, and he knew not how far the others might
have been practised upon. With respect to Marlette and
ronimus, he said, on a former occasion, that he did not know
but they night have been under the trammels of the (hnptedas
and Grimnis ; and now it turn; out to be that he was right in
his conjecture--that he was perfectly well founded in the re-.
roark. if he had, in a rash moment, called any of those persons,
they would have turned ronnd capon him; they would, in reality,
be the witnesses of his Learned Friends, whilst they would be
his only to appearance. Tice evidence afforded by the letters of
Onrpttria was a proof of the soundness and discretion which
happily he and his friends had exercised en this point; and it
afforded a forcible answer to the thrice triumphant call of the
other side—Where are your witneues? Why not examine Ma-
rlette? Why not produce Ilieroisimus?
The ATTORNIY-GRHARAL said, he must again object to the
course which his Learned Friend was taking. He was rejoining
to the reply of his Learned Friend the Solicitor and himself, and
not t.rguing the question as to the production of the letters.
Mr. 13aoe,,:ctst —" My Lords, I ant entitled I conseive to
chew the materiality of these letters to our defence,"
The ArrORNCT-G&NERAL.-•-" I submit that my Learned
Friend is only entitled to argue the admissibility."
Mr. BROUGHAM.—" And bow can I better do that than by
chewing their materiality. His Learned Friend had said that
there was not a tittle of proof to show any connection between
Otopterla and the present cause ; now he wanted to spew their
Lordships that there did exist such connection ; he wanted to
demonstrate the fact ; Majocciti was crosi:exattained to sheer
that Baron Ompteda had a connection with the case; Majocehi
shuffled at the questions put to him on this head, and then he
and his Learned Friends called witnesses to contradict Pdajoe-
chi. In the course of the examination of William Carrington,
it appeared that Majncchi represented Onspteda as an agent, and
one Maurice Credi was employed by Ompterla to get posseskion'
0: the papers of her Royal Highness.
The ArtitaNyr-GENniae asked what page of the evidence did
Mr. Brougham allude to?
Mr. Ilitouclisu said, it was the evidence of Carrington ; he
was sure it WAS in the evidence.
_ _

The A-rroisNET.GENERAL again called for the page.
Mr. littouossau said, the evidence to which he allufshul waste
be found in page 579 of the Minutes. " Did Alajocebi tell you
that Ompteda had employed some one to get the keys belonging
to the Princess at Cumo, in order to get false ones made ?—He
did. Did Majocchi ever tell you that a person had confessed
that he had been so employed, and was discharged in come-
quence ? He did. Did Majotchi ever tell you that if the Prin-
cess would have allowed him, he would have killed him like a
dog? —He did. Killed whom?—Baron Omptedi. Did Ma-
jocchi state, that Baron Ompteda was very ungrateful, after he
had ate and drank so long in the Princess's house?—ile did.
Did he say tkat he had made the servants of the house to be
suspected'.'—ire did. Did he frequently mention the name of
thainteda?-11e did often." Again in the evidence of Lieute-
nant I lownam, page 777, that witness is asked, " Did. Maurice
Credi continue in the service of her Royal Highness after you
saw hint upon his knees?-11e continued in the service of her
Royal Highness as far as Nuremburgh on the journey to
Vienna."—Their Lordships would also recollect that !Isaiah
had been sent to Credi ; that he accompanied Mr. Cooke, the
head of the Milan Commission, to Frankfort, where Kress had
been examined ; Cooke went to Frankfurt to examine Credi,
and Rastelli said he accompanied Cooke.
The SOLICrIURGENEILAL .asked in what page of the evidence
was this tact?
Mr. Baovattast.—ln page 764 Lieutenant 1-lovrnam is asked,
" any facts, to your knowledge, occur at the Princess's re-
sidence that occasioned the quarrel between you and. Baron
Omp-
teda.' ' He answers, "By the confession- of a servant; I saw
the servant on his knees begging pardon foe his crime." " Ms.
Attorney-General submitted that the words, • By the confession
o a servant,' could not stand on the Minutes. The Counsel
w, re informed, that each tord in the House would of course be
aware that the witness, having stated that he knew It only by
the confession of a servant, it must be taken, that he did not
keaw it at all. Before whom was that servant kneeling, and
what was the name of that servant ?-13etore the Prince= of
Wales ' - his name was Maurice Credi."
?dr. BRIX:CHM( said, he read this to shew their Lordships how
th evidence stood on the Minutes. Ile was interrupted by
Gentlemen on the other side,. as if he had an intention to mis-
state the evidence to their Lordships. He had, however, to
tb Ilk them for that interruption, for they made him refer to the
page of the Minutes, where it was stronger than on his recollec-
tion. With respect to Credi, he had been before the Milan
Commission, but he had never been before their Lordships.—
Where he was now, it was hard to say. Ile knew not whether
he was in Rugland, but it was very dear that he was not in the
camp of the opposite party. He knew not whether be was
lodged in strong towers within the walled fortress of Milan, or
p well-stored and well-defended fortress in the vicinity of that
House ; but clear if was that they could not see him—that they
could not reach him ; they could not storm the formidable for-
tress within which he was supposed to he, neither could any
civil process reach him. But why was he not produced on the
other side? He was within the power, and undet the tontrnel
of the supporters of the Bill. Why was he not produced to
contradict Carrington ? Had Credi been produced, then might
h • (Mr. Brougham) examine him as to the details of the agency
of Ompteda—then might he have an opportunity of bringing to
light the seandalous- conduct of that individual, and his eonnee-
Con with the Milan CommiSsion. But he did not stand on this
ground ; he would now put his right to produce the-evidence he
stow tendered on broader, higher grounds. lie would ask their
Lordshies, whether they were prepared to refuse evidence
Which was most essential to the case of his client—most essential
to the fair and pure administration of justice in the present ease?
lie stated openly to them the nature of the evidence which he
Low tenilsred—he told them what it was capable of demon-
strating. Wtt a what apnea anee of justice could they refuse to
Live U.? tests: a Legislatiyet body, called upon to pr