Star.
London, England, 1820-10-07 00:00:00

/ •

~~~ . _.

• .
Wished upon any principle of law, that a winien, in defence
could be questioned upon a conversation which had tint been'
treated of in the former part of the case.
Lord ERSKINE said, he considered it a privilege of the'
Counsel for the Defence, not only to refer tb what the witness ,
.Dlsjocchi bad said, but to accompany it with such comments as
appeared to them necessary to the Defence. The. House Were
to look at what Majocchi had aid; and the Learned Counsel
proposed to shew, from the conversation between Majocchl and
the witness, that his evidence was false. The House were
bound to hear it.
Mr. Baeumtax wished simply to state his proposition. It
was past all doubt that nothing that Majocchi had said could
be evidence of what Ompteda had done; but Majocchl having
said, in answer to five or six questions—" I do not remember,"
and in answer to two questions—" I do not know," he
wished to ask this witness whether Majocchi not only remem-
•%red what he had denied, but whether he must not have re-
, • limbered the cirdunstauce in all Its details—that, in fact, it
vas of such a nature that it could not be forgotten. Nay, that
! had told such things as made it perfectly clear that he had
..c• accurate knowledge of every thing connected with the
urcumstance. Ile (Mr. Brougham) contended that Majocchi
having sworn that he was ignorant of certain things, the proof
must be permitted to be given of the contrary, for he was the
ary person who had told those things to the witness. The
Attorney-General had admitted that if any question had been
asked Majocchi, as to the conversation about Baron Ompteda,
there would arise a right to examine other witnesses to that
subject. How, then, could the permission be refused, when
the evidence of the present .witness would go to prove that he
was cognizant of facts, the knowledge of which he had denied.
To prove his right to examine to this point, he was not only sup-
ported by the authority of what had taken place before their
Lordships in the case of the Duchess of Kingston, but by the
case•of Elfz. Canning, at the Old Batley, in which it was ruled,
that a Counsel was not to be limited to any particularity in his
enderioir to prOve the falsehood of an evidence. It would be de-
sirable to put it to the Judges whether, a witness having sworn
to his ignorance'of certain facts, Counsel should not be allowed
to prove that he was aceuahmed with them. Suppose that he
asked a witness whether he knew that A B picked locks, and
vas turned out of the house for it? and that that witness
said he knew nothing of it, would he not be allowed to
rrCve that the witness was present when the locks were picked ?
Ile (Mr. Brougham) could prove that Majocchi was present
IN ben the fact took place. There could be no hesitation then as
to his knowledge of that which he said he was ignorant of. It
would be a powerful contradiction to him (Majocchl), that
he had told to some one, who had previously known no-
thing of them, facts of which he had sworn his ignorance.
If the question had been put to Majocchi which, ex consensis, on
all hands would have entitled Counsel to examine upon the con-
versation, how could the privilege be denied when it was consi-
dered that the reason that questions had not been asked was, that
they did net know whom it might be necessary to call and what it
might be necessary to contradict?
The ArronNlT-QZNIMAL said, the argument Of the Learned
:Counsel was merely a repetition of what had been said before;
and argued against the right to ask the question in the present
state of the can in nearly the same terms he had used before.
The Learned Gentleman continued, in a tone of great warmth,
to argue agair.st the question. If Majocchi had been 'examined
as to the conversation with Carrington, then It would have been
permitted to the Learned Counsel on the opposite side td exa-
mine their own witness on the subject. But that conversation
could not be sought for until Majocchi had either acknowledged
or denecLit. And they must have the denial of Majocclii.he-
foreohey attempted to impeach him on that point.
Lord ERSKLNE wished their Lordships to be guided as
much as possible by the rules of evidence admitted in common
law. But if, in a trial like this, where a list of witnesses was
refused to the Counsel for her Majesty, they learnt some im-
portant facts with which they were unacquainted at the time of
the cress-examination, was the truth, then, still to lay undiko-
vexed? Certainly not. Majocchi might be called to confront
the witness. lie had seen this practice adopted more than once
in the Courts below. He, as a Peer of that House, would con-
tend that the evidence was admissible.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was always glad to hear the
Counsel on both sides argue a disputed point, before their Lord-
ships gale their decision. He had himself little experience in
the rules of evidence. But he conceived they could not admit
the evidence of any witness to a particular circumstance
to contradict a general assertion of another witness, unless that
witness should be examined as to that particular fact. He,
therefore, would recommend that the subject of discussion
should be put in the form of two questions to the Judges; and
that they should state their opinion how far it was the practice
of the Courts below.
Earl GREY, much as he respected the opinions of the Learned
Judges, would not admit them as binding. He thought the best
course would be, that Majocchi should be called in, and the
question put to him, which, if it had been put in cross-examina-
tion, would, as admitted by the Counsel for the prosecution, have
entitled the Counsel for the Queen to pursue the course of exa-
initiation they were doing, when interrupted.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL was in favour of the course
proposed by the Learned Lord on the Woolsack, and hoped
that the House would find no difficulty in agreei4 with the
opinion of the Learned Judges.
LOrd ERSKINE said he had never wished the House not
to abide by the •opinies of the Judges, but he should still re-
tain his own sentiments on the subject.
'Cite Marquis of LANSDOWN thought the shortest cotes
would be to call in Majocchi and put the question to him.
The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to know fronithe
Counsel on both sides If they had any objection to Majoechi's
being called ?
Thr Arroarstr-Gzintnat said he felt considerable difficulty.
saiocchi had been three times cross-examined, and the Learned
Counsel had declined any further cross-examination of him. if
this course was to be adopted, it might be applied to every
witness.
The LORD CHANCELLOR interrupted the Learned
Gentleman, and said, he did not wish him to argue the point, but
merelytostatewhether he agreed to Majoechi being called or act,
The ATIORNEVXENERAL said, he could not consent to Ma-
jocchi being called.
The question was then put to the Judges, who withdrew to
consult upon it. •
Mr. BROUGHAM suggested, that as Lady Charlotte Lindsay
w.ls in attendance, it would save the time of the House if she
u as now called in.
Lady CHARLOTTE LLNDSAT AU then called to the Bar Of the
House.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—Lady Charlotte 'Lindsay,
have you searched for the letter ?—I have,
Has your Ladyship found it ?—No, I have not.
Do you believe that the letter is in existence?—l believe it is
not in existence.
The Earl of DONOUGHMORE enquired what were the
terms of the letter?
Mr. BROUOIIIO4 objected to the question. •

~.

"SECOND' whim.

•
.I.lo.lll,difin LadY Catit&orrt LINDSAY CO/Strflia
?b Log CiaikCELLOR said, tuiderstood 'het: t6li4r•
ship to have stated she left the Princess in coneesploote ist a
communication from her brother, and that it was Vade in
writing ; he conceived that his Ladyship might be asked Mete the

•
general terms of the letter.
The Earl of LA UDERDALE to Lady Chatlotte Tandsay.—
Can your Ladyship state the general terms of that lettert—l
have no distinct recollection of it, farther than a wish that I
should resign my situation, and stating some pecuniary arrange-
ments consequent on it.
Can your Ladyship say whether your brother gave his advice
without assigning any reason for it ?—I do not recollect that be
did; but I have some indistinct idea that the reports already

mentioned might have been stated in the letter.
To what reports do you allude?—The reports which, in an-
swer to a question from a Noble Lord, I mentioned yesterday
—reports of an unpleasant nature which induced me to wish to
leave my situation.
Lord ERSKINE—Does your Ladyship mean those reports
which were inconsistent with your own observations?

Question objected-to.
John Whitconbe was then called in, and was on the point of
being sworn, when
The Earl of LAUDERDALE rose, and said, that, as new
difficulties might arise, he thought the House should wait the
return of the Judges, and not proceed to the examination of
othei witnesses.
Lord HOLLAND did not conceive the presence of the Judges
necessary during the examination of a witness, or even during
the arguments of COunsel, as their opinion should be given in-
dependent of both.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL had no objection to their Lord-
ships' going on, although It was contrary to the course they had
hitherto adopted.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE contended, that the Judges
should not be called on for their opinion without hearing the

nts of Counsel.

Jinn Whitcombe was then sworn, and ermined by Mr. TYWDAT.L.
What situation in life do you bold?—I am valet to the Hon.
Keppel Craven.
How long have .you held that situtionT—Six years., .
Were you in the service of Mr. Craven when the :Briacess of
Wales went to Naples?—Yes, I was.
Ho you remember, on the firstnight of your arrival at Naples,
where Bergami slept ?—No, I do not.
Have you seen the room ?—No, I never saw it.
Do you recollect the room where Bergami slept on the second
night?—Yes, perfectly well.
Was there a passage communicating between that room and
the room of the Princess?—There was a long passage, at one
end of which was the room of her Royal Highness, and at tki
other end was that of Bergatni.
In which room did William Austin sleep?—ln the room melt
to her Royal Highness.
Where did Hieronimus sleep ?—Next to William Austin.
Where did Dr. Holland sleep ?—Next to Ineronimus.
Did these three rooms lay on the same side of the passage?
—Yes.
Was there a door from the room of Ilieronimus that °rood
in the passage ?—Yes, there was.
Where did the door of Dr. HolLind's room open into? 4lialp
another passage towards the dining-room.
Was Dr. Holland's room at the corner of the two passages?—

It was.
Did the door of Dr. Holland's room open opposite to the door
of Bergamrs room?—No, Bergami's room did not open into-that
passage. De Mont slept in a room over that of Dr. Holland. Has
been in that room frequently, late as well as early. De Moot
generally invited him to go there. Mother female servant of
the kspse was sometimes present, but has been alone with De
Mont in the room very frequently. On some occasions, when
thus alone with her, the door was locked and bolted.
The Ser.scrroa-Gresasi here interfered. He said, that the
object of this course of examination must be evident to their
Lordships, and surely no argument was necessary to shew that
it was illegitimate.
Mr. Derstax.--My Lords, we will not pursue it.
The LORD CHANCRLLOR.—You have pushed it as Ear
as you possibly could—(4 laugh).
Nzaatissatiort resumed.
Recollects the masked ball given at Naples. Part of the
servants were dressed in character ; Sicard, Boland; and Hie-
ronimus, after the Turkish fashion. Saw Bergami, in the latter
part of the evening, in his plain clothes. He was walking about
the rooms, and at times assisting in handing about refreshments.
Was at Naples all the time the Princess was there. Bergami
conducted himself towards the Princess in the same way as the
rest of the servants—as they all did.
Cran-eramined by the Sciticrros-Orxxaat.—From a long series
of questions about the position of the rooms, unnecessary to ben
repeated, it appeared that besides the passage common to the
rooms of the Princess, Dr. Holland, Hieronimus, William
Austin, and Bergami, there was *docker parallel passage by
which Bergami could go to the room of the Princess, without
passing the room doors of Dr. Holland, &c.
The witness being ordered to withdraw.
Lord ERSKINE rime, and requested the attention of their
Lordships to that part of De Mont'* evidence which related to
her sleeping alone at Naples. She had sworn that she had slept ,
alone " every night"—" The whole night"—" Aland"—"
All
alone ;" and that she did not recollect where Mr. Keppel Cno
'en's *Tient slept on any 'one night, while at Naples. • His
Lordship wished that the witness Whitcombe should be re-
called, and asked whether be passed any night, or part of a
night, in the roam of De Moot when she was there and in bed?
The Souirron-Ilorradit submitted to their Lordships, that
the question was one which ought not to be put. It was at-
tempting to do that circuitously and by a side wind, which could
not have been done directly. The object of it was to Al the
guilt of a certain connection on De Mont; and if, as he submit,
ted, to be quite clear, De Mont could not have been asked to
criminate herself; it was incompetent by questibas to another
witness to come at the same result.
Lord ERSKINE vindicated his right to put the questlOn.
A witness might be asked a question which be was not bound
to answer, but nothing could prevent Counsel from putting it.
His Lordship when at the Bar had once tendered a BM of Re-
ceptions on this very point, and though that Bill had oat been
argued, as the cause it referred to was of no importance, it
hid ever .since been regarded as a Intded rule of practice; that
Counsel might put questions to a witness, tending to .crhallote
that witness, leaving it in the option of the witness to =gm
than or not. When De Mont was asked whether she had lielpt
alone, no objection was taken to the relevancy of the inquiry;
and his Lordship could not see how it was now irrelreant to as-
certain whether the answer ,she gyre to that qufsdinypss true
or fah&
The LORD CIUINCIILLOR eislim4ll.l3llbitV

.