Lords Sitting of 24 August 1820

Preamble
The order of the day being read for the Further consideration and second reading of the Bill of Pains and Penalties against her majesty, counsel were called in.
Then Vincenzo Gargiulo was called in, and sworn through the interpretation of the marchese di Spineto.
Mr. Williams(one of her majesty's counsel) said:—My lords; before this witness is examined, I certainly do not wish to revive discussion upon any subject upon which your lordships may be supposed to have decided, but I wish to understand distinctly from your lordships, whether or not a question is decided which I am desirous to submit—a point which I believe has not been under your lordships consideration, still less in any degree argued before your lordships.
My lords; in the observations which I am about shortly to address, I do not—indeed the body of authorities to the contrary would be sufficient to discourage me from so doing—attempt to say that upon any preliminary inquiry there can be the slightest discussion or examination into any person's particular faith or belief, provided he entertains a settled opinion with respect to a future state and the
908
being of a God—that I admit;—but although that be true, yet it is equally certain, that in every case a person who is adduced as a witness is to be sworn according to that form and in that ceremony which he deems to be most binding upon his conscience. I do not state this upon slight grounds, because your lordships well know the case of Ormichund v. Barker, which was so solemnly decided,—in that case which arose upon the immediate question, whether or not a person not having any idea of the Christian religion, but being completely a heathen, could or could not be an admissible witness at all, all the judges, without exception, including the lord chancellor, went upon this precise ground, that a person who is to be sworn in each case is to be sworn according to those ceremonies which he himself deems to be most binding upon his own conscience; he is to be "most solemnly sworn," in the language of one of the learned judges; in the language of chief justice Parker, which was adopted by chief justice Willes, "oaths are to be administered to all persons according to their own opinions, and as it most affects their consciences." Your lordships will not fail to observe those words, "as it most affects their consciences," insomuch that if in the case of a Chinese, which has once occurred—if in the case of a Mahometan, which has once occured—any one of those persons should have taken the form of oath which is binding upon every inhabitant of this realm, and he was afterwards to begin to give his evidence, it is manifest by what occurs in all of those cases, that it would not be a binding obligation upon him, but it would behaving recourse to a ceremony which, though material in this country, is immaterial in his conception; and therefore passing by his own particular opinion and his own particular ceremony would, in effect, be giving perfect latitude, and relieving his conscience from the virtual obligation of an oath. In the case to which I have referred the Gentoo was sworn by the ceremony which he thought most binding.
The Lord Chancellor.—I do not apprehend there can be any doubt in point of law with respect to what you now state. You may take it as conceded, that a man cannot be sworn in any particular form, if he does not believe in the being of a God or a future state—if he does not believe in the being of a God or a future

909
state he could not be a witness at all. I apprehend he must pledge himself to veracity in a form binding according to his own religious opinions.
Mr. Williams.—I distinctly admit, that any sort of belief of that description cannot be inquired into—I allow that is no question to be made—it is decided that the question cannot be put. Mr. Justice Buller refused to permit a person to be asked whether he believed in the Gospels, when he stated that he believed in the being of a God, and that he conceived he was responsible to that God. What I was about to submit to your lordships is this, that we have a right to inquire from this particular witness, supposing him to be a Roman Catholic, whether or not, according to the form of swearing in his own particular country, and according to the form of law which there obtains, there are not certain ceremonies observed which he deems to be material towards the obligation of an oath, and the omission of which ceremonies in his particular case, would be as fatal as swearing a Gentoo on the Gospels, or swearing a Mahometan upon the Gospels, whereas the evidence of each of those witnesses would be admissible only upon the ground that their faith is pledged by the administration of the particular form of oath which each of them deems most solemn and most binding, and upon this I found the inquiry we were about to institute of this witness, and what I am submitting to your lordships upon that subject is, that it is competent for us to inquire upon this preliminary question, I mean upon the voir dire, whether or not there are ceremonies which he in his own country would have gone through, which he in his conscience believes to be binding, which have not been observed upon the present occasion, though the ceremony at present observed is, for the reason I have given, binding upon the subjects of this realm. So that I do not at all impugn the validity of this person's oath—I do not call in question his particular opinions—I have nothing to do with him, but merely wish to know whether he has been, in the language of chief justice Parker, "most solemnly sworn"—whether the oath has been administered according to his opinion, as it does most affect his conscience, and it is with that view, that I beg leave to submit some questions to the witness upon the voir dire.
Mr. Brougham.—Perhapsyour lordships
910
will allow me to call your attention, in support of what has been urged by my learned friend, to the case in Cowper and to the particular expression used by my lord Mansfield in referring to the case of Ormichund v. Barker: "Upon the principles of the common law no particular form is essential to the oath to be taken by a witness"—No more do we contend for any particular form; but, he adds, "but as the purpose of it is to bind the witness's conscience, every man should be bound by that form which he thinks will bind his conscience most." Now, I submit to your lordships the materiality of that mode of expression "which he thinks will bind his conscience most," and my lord Mansfield adds, "this was agreed to in the case of Ormichund v. Barker by the judges." Now your lordships will observe, that were it not for this mode of laying down the rule, it might be open to my learned friends on the other side to contend, and it might be open to the observation which dropped from your lordships the other day, that if a man only believes in God and a future state, that is sufficient as far as it regards the binding him by the religious sanction of an oath—that if he says, "I am bound by this form, this is a form which binds my conscience"—were it not for the authority I have just stated, it might be contended that we have enough if we have got him to take that form of oath that he admits binds his conscience; but my lord Mansfield goes a step farther; relying on the case of Ormichund v. Barker, and referring to the opinion of the judges in that case, he says, "every man should be bound by that form which he thinks will bind his conscience most." Supposing an Englishman were to go to China and were to pass through the mode of swearing in a court there, which it is perfectly well known a Chinese has gone through at the Old Bailey Sessions in an admiralty case, in the year 1806, a case of Murder, in which we know the Chinese had a China saucer held up before him, which was broken, and certain words were pronounced by him or by the priest, that being the mode of swearing by which his conscience would be bound in his own country—supposing, I say, an Englishman to go to China, and a saucer were to be broken before him and the words pronounced, and he made no objection (for I understand the objection to my argument to be that the witness does not object)—

911
could it be said to be sufficient that the Englishman did not object to the mode of swearing, supposing he admitted upon the voir dire, that it bound him to a certain degree, when every man knows that another mode of swearing is a mode in which he is accustomed to be sworn in his own country and with which he has associated all his ideas of religious observance—which he has been accustomed to look to as imposing the solemnity of a religious sanction, and what we commonly call the obligation of an oath—could it be maintained, that he ought not to be sworn, and that the court would not have said, you shall be sworn, not in a way which you admit binds your conscience, that is not enough, but you shall be sworn in the way which "most binds your conscience."
Lord Chancellor.—The Counsel will be so good as to inform the House, what is the question they wish to put to the witness.
Mr. Williams.,—I am desirous to learn from him, first, whether he has ever been examined as a witness in his own country?
Lord Chancellor.—That does not signify.
Mr. Williams.—Als, whether he has seen a witness examined, and then whether there are certain ceremonies observed at the time of administering the oath?
Lord Chancellor.—If it is not inconvenient to you, confine yourself at present to the proposal of one question.
Mr. Williams.—It shortly comes to this, whether there are not certain ceremonies observed in the country to which he belongs, which he deems to be binding upon his conscience.
Lord Chancellor.—My lords; I state it as the opinion I have received from the Judges, and the opinion I entertain myself, that the witness may be asked whether he considers the oath he has now taken to be an oath binding upon his conscience, and that the question now proposed to be put to the witness ought not to be put.
Mr. Brougham.—We do not put that question: we do not deny that it may to a certain degree be binding.
Lord Erskine.—My lords; I beg to express my concurrence in the opinion which has been delivered by the noble and learned lord. I am of opinion that it is not competent to the learned counsel to show whether there are other forms used in the country to which the witness
912
belongs, but that they are at liberty to ask him whether the oath tendered to him is that which is binding upon his own conscience. I remember a case to have occurred when I was at the bar. A person came into the court of King's-bench, in the time of lord Kenyon or lord Mansfield, I think lord Kenyon. Lord Chief Justice Eyre was sitting in the other court—a witness came who did not describe himself to be of any particular sect, entitling him to an indulgence, but stating that, from certain ideas in his own mind, he could not swear according to the usual form of the oath; that he would hold up his hand, and would swear, but would not kiss the book. I have no difficulty in saying, that I wished very much to get rid of that witness, and I asked what was his reason for refusing to be sworn in a certain form? He gave a reason which appeared to me a very absurd one, but it strengthens the very matter we are upon—"because it was written in the Revelations that the Angel standing upon the sea held up his hand"—this appeared to me to be no very good reason. I said this does not apply to your case, for, in the first place, you are no angel, secondly, you cannot tell how the Angel would have sworn if he had been on shore. The chief justice sent into the court of Common Pleas to ask the opinion of chief justice Eyre, and the opinion delivered by chief justice Eyre, and which the learned chief justice thought himself bound by was, that though this man could not swear himself to be of a particular sect, yet, if he stated (whether his reason was a good or a bad one) that that was the manner consistent with his feelings of the obligation of an oath, and that which would be binding on his conscience, that was the oath which ought to be put to him; and that was administered. The question is what the witness feels himself.
Mr. Brougham.—I only wish it to be understood what is the point we have raised. Our objection is not that he is not bound by it, but that if there be another way which would bind him more, that should be preferred.
Earl Greyproposed to have it put to the witness, whether any other form of oath would be more binding on his conscience.
Lord Redesdalesaid, that if the mode in which the oath had been administered to the witness was wrong, then all the

913
foreign witnesses that had given evidence in courts of justice, in his experience, had been improperly sworn.
Earl Greyproposed to refer it to the Judges whether the witness might not be asked, if there was any other mode of swearing which he thought more binding on his conscience?
Lord Chancellor.—I understand your lordships wish this question to be proposed to the Judges.—"If a witness produced in the Courts below, without objecting to it, takes the oath according to the usual form, can he be asked whether he considers the oath he has taken as binding upon his conscience; and can he be also asked, whether there are other modes of swearing more binding on his conscience than the oath he has taken?" I remember a case before Mr. Justice Gould—a person of some peculiar way of thinking in Scotland was called as a witness, I apprehend either at Newcastle or Northumberland; the man objected to be sworn in the usual manner, and gave a very singular reason. Mr. Justice Gould asked him what was the reason he objected to take an oath; he said he had taken an oath that he would take no oath—the learned judge was of opinion that as he had once taken an oath he must take an oath again; but on the man afterwards saying that the manner in which he pledged his conscience was by holding up his hand, he was pledged to his evidence in that manner.
The Earl of Liverpool.—My lords, I do not wish to give any opinion upon the point of law, particularly as it is about to be referred to the learned Judges. I would only observe, that the cases which have been referred to appear to have been all cases where the witness had made the objection himself. It does not appear, from any thing which has been stated, to have been usual for the court to interpose and put questions to the witness.
The question was handed to the Lord Chief Justice, and the learned Judges withdrew with it. During the absence of the Judges
The Earl of Darnleyobserved, that their lordships had, a day or two before, made an order to exclude any persons from being present at the proceedings, who might afterwards be required to give evidence. He thought it highly desirable that some similar rule should be adopted, to prevent communication out of doors between those who had been examined
914
I at the bar, and those who had not yet been called on. It appeared to him highly important that these two classes of persons should be kept separate. He appealed to the noble lord opposite, whether the proceedings against her majesty ought not to be conducted with every judicial form and solemnity; and whether, in order to that end, the adoption of some rule, such as he had suggested, was not necessary?
The Earl of Liverpoolreplied, that it was impossible to prevent persons in the situation of the witnesses from getting together. Such persons naturally associated with one another; all that the House could do in the case was, to direct the parties to take care that the agents on each side should give strong injunctions to the witnesses, in the circumstances described by the noble lord, not to hold any conversation together.
The Earl of Winchelseathought it advisable, for the purpose of enabling the House to understand the relative situations of the apartments and doors on board the ship, that a correct sketch should be taken, and laid before the House. Such a step would tend very much to shorten the proceedings.
On the motion of the Lord Chancellor, the following resolution was agreed to:—"That in case any prosecutions shall be commenced in any courts after the conclusion of the proceedings in this House, touching the bill intituled 'An Act' (reciting the title), against any witness or witnesses who shall have been examined at the bar of this House, in support of, or against the said bill, touching any testimony given by such witness or witnesses at the bar of this House in respect thereto, this House, any privileges of this House notwithstanding, consents that evidence may be given thereof in any such prosecutions, and also that evidence may be given of all such proceedings of this House, touching the said bill, as may be required to be given in the said courts in support of, or in defence, in such prosecutions."
After sometime the learned Judges returned.
Lord Chief Justice Abbott.—My lords, the judges have considered the questions proposed to them by your lordships, and they have taken the liberty to detain your lordships while they sent for books, in order that they might consult the authorities referred to in the course of the argument before your lordships. My lords, the judges are of opinion,

915
that the most correct and proper time for asking a witness whether the form in which the oath, as about to be administered to him, is one that will be binding upon his conscience, is, before that oath is administered; but inasmuch as it may occasionally happen that the oath will be administered in the usual form by the officer of the court before the attention of the court or party or counsel is directed to it, we think that the party ought not to be precluded; and therefore, my lords, in answer to your lordships first question, the judges are of opinion, that although the witness produced in a court of law shall have taken the oath in the usual form, as therein administered, without making any objection to it, he may, nevertheless, be afterwards asked, whether he considers the oath he has taken as binding upon his conscience. I am further to inform your lordships, that the judges are of opinion, that if the witness, in answer to that question shall declare in the affirmative, namely, that he does consider the oath he has taken as binding upon his conscience, he cannot then be further asked, whether there be any other mode of swearing that would be more binding upon his conscience than that which has been used.
Speaking for myself, not meaning thereby to pledge the other judges, though I believe their sentiments concur with my own; your lordships will allow me to speak in my own person; I conceive that if a witness says he considers the oath as binding upon his conscience, he does in effect affirm, that in taking that oath he has called his God to witness that what he shall say will be the truth; and that he has imprecated the Divine vengeance upon his head, if what he shall afterwards say is false; and having done that, that it is perfectly unnecessary and irrelevant to ask any further questions.
The Witness was examined by the Solicitor-General through the interpretation of the Marchese di Spineto.
Were you master of the polacre called the Industry? Yes.
Are you also the owner of that vessel? Yes, I am also the owner; but she is now no longer called The Industry, but is called Abramo, because I have turned her into a Brigantine.
Was that vessel engaged for the purpose of conveying the princess of Wales and her suite on the voyage from Augusta to Tunis, and afterwards to Greece? This polacre was hired at Messina, where she was fitted out, and at Augusta her royal highness embarked for Tunis and Greece.
Before her royal highness embarked on board the vessel at Augusta, had the arrangement of the cabins been made by you? Yes, the distribution of the cabins was made at Messina.
Before the princess embarked on board the vessel for the voyage at Augusta, did she, attended by Pergami, come on board the vessel? She came at Augusta.
Did she view the arrangement of the cabins which had been made by you? She did; nay, she ordered the door in the dining-room to be closed.
Before that door was closed, how many doors led from the body of the vessel into the dining room? Two, one to the right and another to the left.
Which of the two doors was it that she directed to be closed? The door that was on the left.
Do you mean on the left, as you look towards the prow of the vessel? On the left when from the poop you look to the prow.
In what way was that door closed, was it merely locked or was it closed up, so as not to be opened during the voyage? It was nailed up.
Was there any cabin contiguous to the dining room on that side of the vessel where the door was nailed up? There was the line of the cabins that ran towards the prow, which formed the line on the left hand of the ship.
Can you tell after the suite embarked on board the vessel, who it was that occupied that cabin nearest the door which had been so closed? The two maids, Mile. Demont and Mlle. Brunette.
Can you tell us who occupied the cabin on the opposite side next to the door that was left open? Pergami.
After the door had been closed, in the manner you have described, was there any mode of going into the dining-room from the body of the vessel, except through that door that was near the cabin of Pergami? There was the ladder that came from the deck into the dining-room, and there was the door which led near to Pergami's room.
Did the ladder which came from the deck go directly down into the dining-room, or was there a door at the foot of it shutting the steps from the dining-room? The ladder came directly into the dining-room, but at the top there was a hatchway, which, when it was desired to be shut up or closed, might be closed to stop the communication.
Then when that hatchway was closed, was there any other communication except through the door by the cabin of Pergami? There was no other.
Beyond the dining-room, towards the stern of the vessel, how many cabins were there? There was another room divided into two apartments; on the right hand was the bed of the princess, on the left the bed of the dame d'honneur.
What kind of bed was it that the princess occupied, was it a single bed, or was it a doable bed? Two sofas joined together, that would make together six palms and a half; it was about the breadth of six feet and a half.
Did Pergami continue to occupy the cabin so assigned to him for the voyage, or did he afterwards change his sleeping apartment? A few nights he slept in his own cabin, then

917
he passed to sleep in the dining-room upon another sofa.
Where was the sofa on which Pergami slept in the dining-room, after he had thus changed, situate? On the right hand.
Was it so situated, that a person lying in the bed occupied by the princess would be seen by a person lying in the bed occupied by Pergami, or was it not? If the door of the room of the princess had been open they would have seen each other.
Do you know the length of an English foot? I do.
About how many English feet, not speaking with perfect accuracy, were they from each other? Ten or twelve feet.
Did any person sleep in the dining-room, or within and beyond the dining-room to wards the stern, except Pergami, the princess, and the countess of Oldi? No, Pergami slept in the dining-room; her royal highness slept in the room is the stern on the right hand, and the dame d'honneur slept in the stern in the room on the left hand.
Did this occupation of beds continue during a great part of the voyage.
Mr. Williams objected to the question as leading.
Mr. Solicitor General.—How long, to the best of your recollection, did that occupation of the beds continue? Till June; the princess came on board towards the end of March, and it continued till June; then at the departure from Constantinople, the air became warmer, and the princess preferred to sleep on deck under a tent; but after her departure from Jaffa, where seven horses with two asses were brought on board, she always slept on board on the deck under the tent.
What bed or beds were placed upon the deck under the tent of which you have spoken? A sofa for the bed of the princess, and a travelling bed that the princess had was put up for Pergami.
You have told us that until the month of June, the princess and Pergami slept below; and you have told us, that after leaving Jaffa the princess continued to sleep on deck under this tent; where did Pergami sleep after the leaving of Jaffa? Under the tent together with the princess in the two different beds.
Mr. Brougham stated that there was a difference in the interpretation.
Mr. Solccitor General.—Have the goodness to repeat in Italian what the answer was.
Interpreter.—"Sotto la tenda unito alla principessa," adding "con due letti devisi." I have said under the tent, "unito;" I have explained to your lordships, that I took it as an adverb "together;" and in order that your lordships should not mistake my meaning, I said he means, together with the prince, but not in the same bed'; and I immediately applied to the witness, and he told me that he meant in the two beds.
Mr. Cohen.—My only objection was, that "unito" would mean joined.
Mr. Solicitor General.—How long did Pergami continue to sleep in this manner? Until they landed at the Porto d'Anza in the pope's dominions, thirty miles beyond Terracina.
At night was the tent open, or was it closed all round? During the night the tent was closed, shut as a pavilion.
Who was it that usually closed the tent at night? I was commanded to close it, and I commanded to others.
Was it so completely closed, that persons on the deck could not see within, or was it at all open? It was my care to close all openings; and when I could not do it with curtains, I did it with pins.
Interpreter.—By curtaius, I understand him to mean sails.
What do you mean by curtains? Other pieces of sail.
About what time in the morning was the tent usually opened? About eight.
Were you often present at the time when it was opened? Often I was.
Did you upon those occasions see the princess in the tent at the time of the opening? Yes,
Upon those occasions was she always up, or sometimes on her bed? For the most part I have seen her sitting on the bed.
At the times when the tent was opened, and when you were present, where was Pergami? Under the tent coming out.
Was he always entirely dressed, or in what manner? I have always seen him entirely dressed.
In what species of dress have you so seen him? On deck he went with a Grecian robe of silk, which he bought at St. Jean d'Acre; but when he went on shore, either he wore, a coat, or was dressed as a colonel.
After the tent was closed at night, in the manner you have described, was any light occasionally or generally left within the tent? No.
It is not asked whether any light remained under the tent all the night, but whether there was any light there at the time the tent was closed to the best of your recollection? When the tent was closed, if there were light airs, no wind, the light was given from out of the tent; if it blew hard, then the light was carried away by the ladder.
Can you recollect who it was that was in the habit of taking the light from out of the tent upon those occasions, when it was delivered out upon the deck? Whoever was present; sometimes I have taken it myself.
How long, to the best of your recollection, did the light usually remain after the tent was closed? Ten or twelve minutes; it remained a short time.
Do you know who it was that usually handed the light out? Pergami.
Do you recollect whether in the day-time the princess sometimes sat or lay upon the bed under the tent? Often; she ordered

919
that the tent might be made as a pavilion, because in the morning it was raised up as a ceiling.
You have told their lordships, that the princess often sat or lay on the bed during the day-time, did she do this after dinner? Yes, after dinner.
Have you seen Pergami there at the same time? Yes.
In the day-time? Yes, during the day.
Have you ever received any directions during the day-time, when the princess and Pergami were under the tent, as to closing it? Yes.
Have you in consequence of those directions closed the tent with the princess and Pergami within it? Yes.
Did you do this frequently, or only seldom after dinner? In detail, I cannot say always or seldom, but it was three or four times a week.
With the princess and Pergami both inside the tent? Both the princess and Pergami.
Can you state upon those occasions about how long the tent was continued closed? About half an hour, a quarter of an hour, or an hour; the time was not certain, not the same length of time always.
Upon those occasions, upon closing the tent, have you ever seen the princess and Pergami both upon their beds?
Mr. Williamsobjected to the question as leading.
The Solicitor Generalsubmitted this was not a leading question, but expressed his willingness to alter it.
You have told their lordships you have seen the princess on the bed in the day-time, at the time when you were closing the tent? Sometimes I saw her upon the bed; sometimes I saw her standing when the tent was closing.
As to Pergami? For the most part he was lying on the small bed.
Did you close the tent leaving them so? Yes.
Have you on any of those occasions seen Pergami afterwards come out from the tent? I have.
In what position have you seen Pergami lying on the bed; have you ever seen him lying on his back, on his side, or how? Lying on his back.
Do you remember, on any occasion when you saw Pergami lying on his back, in the manner you have described, receiving any directions from the princess as to closing the tent? I remember that Pergami was lying on the bed on his back, her royal highness sitting near Pergami; the count Schiavini was walking near the tent, on the opposite side, and, having received the order for closing the tent, count Schiavini delivered this order to me.
Did you, in consequence of this, close the tent upon the princess and Pergami, so lying as you have described? Yes.
920
Do you remember Pergami afterwards coming out of the tent? Yes.
About how long after? About the time I have mentioned, a quarter of an hour, half an hour, or an hour; this happened many times.
Upon the particular occasion to which you have now referred, of being directed by Schiavini to close the tent, do you remember afterwards Pergami coming out, and how long was it after you closed the tent before he so came out? About a quarter of an hour.
Did the princess ever take a bath on board the vessel? She did.
Did she do that more than once, to your recollection? More than once.
Do you remember her going below for that purpose? Yes.
Slate who went below with her? Pergami.
Upon all occasions which you remember of the princess going below for the purpose of taking a bath, was she or was she not accompanied by Pergami? I have always seen her accompanied by Pergami, not only when she was to take the bath, but for any other thing she was doing.
Were there other occasions, then, besides the bath, that rendered it necessary for the princess to go below? The greatest reason was that for going to the water closet; for the water closet was down below.
For whatever purpose she went below, was she, or was she not, always, to the best of your recollection, accompanied by Pergami? She was.
Have you at any time seen Pergami siting on the deck? Yes.
Have you ever seen the princess with him upon those occasions? I have seen Pergami silting on a gun, and the princess sitting on his knees, and that they were kissing.
Has this kissing, to your personal knowledge, been only once, or more than once? More than once I have seen them.
When the princess walked, did she take the arm of any person, and if so, of whom? The princess walking took the left arm of Pergami for the most, nay, always, for I have never seen her take the arm of any one else.
Have you ever seen, during the voyage, any jokes, any thing jocular, done by Pergami? I have.
Did you ever see this in the presence of the princess? I have seen it.
Describe what it is you allude to? I have seen him once, under the Grecian robe that he had, put some cushions and pillows, and make some motions to make her royal highness laugh.
Where were those cushions placed; in what part? Round his belly.
Do you know what that was to represent?
Mr. Williamsobjected to the question, stating that the witness was not to state his opinions, but the facts, from which their lordships were to form their own opinion.
The counsel was informed that he might

921
put the question, whether he knows what this was intended to represent.
Mr. Solicitor General.—Do you know what that was intended to represent? He wanted to play some apish tricks to make her royal highness laugh, as well as all others who saw him.
Do you know what those cushions, placed in the manner you have described, were intended to imitate? As far as I know, it was a buffoon trick.
After this tent was erected upon the deck, in the manner you have described, where was the princess in the habit of dining? Under the same tent.
Who usually dined with the princess under the tent? Generally it was Pergami, and always Pergami.
Did those two persons generally dine alone, or with some other person? Sometimes they dined alone, sometimes there dined William, one that was reported to be son of her royal highness.
What was William called, either by her royal highness or in the presence of her royal highness? Some called him William, some called him Principino, the little prince, or the young prince, and sometimes I have seen her royal highness, when she was going to bed, give him some token of affection, as a mother does to her child.
During the time that the princess and Pergami slept on deck during the night, where did the little Victorine sleep? As the room for the maids was for two maids, so when her royal highness wanted to sleep on deck, one of those maids went to sleep in her royal highness's room, and Victorine went to sleep in the same room with her.
Do you mean in the cabin of the princess below the deck, and adjoining to the dining-room you have before described? Yes.
Mr. Cohen assented to this interpretation.
Do you remember the Christian name of Pergami? Bartholomew, whose festival is to-day.
Do you remember any thing that took place on Saint Bartholomew's day, on the voyage in question? I remember to have been at anchor at Syracuse from the Holy Land, and that night there was a general illumination on the ship, as far as it was possible; Pergami rendered the crew all merry, they all got drunk, and he gave a dollar a-piece to each of the sailors; there was no other thing.
Do you remember any shouts? When they were drunk, the sailors shouted "Live the Princess," "Live the Chevalier."
While this was going on, those rejoicings and those shouts, what were the princess and the chevalier doing, were they together? Pergami was walking on the deck applauding the sailors, the princess was sitting under the tent, which was raised like a ceiling.
Do you remember the princess walking about at that time on the deck? I remember
922
her also walking, for she could not be always sitting.
With whom did she walk? With Pergami.
Did she merely walk side by side, or arminarm? Arm-in-arm.
Do you remember Pergami landing at Terracina? I remember to have seen him embark in the launch which I sent on shore, and I remember to have seen the launch return without Pergami.
How long did he remain absent? Three days.
About what time of the day or the night was it he returned? During the night at Porto d'Anza.
About what hour? About ten o'clock.
Was the princess on board at that time? The princess was on board, and under the tent.
Where did Pergami go upon his coming on board? The princess went to meet him at the top of the ladder, and they went both together under the tent.
Was the tent afterwards closed? They 6upped firsts and afterwards the tent was closed, and they went to lie down, and in the morning they landed.
Did they remain under the tent all night? Yes.
Did you go on shore at Jaffa or at St. Jean d'Acre? I have landed at St. Jean d'Acre and at Jaffa.
Did you go on the journey to Jerusalem with the princess or not? No.
No part? I saw her mount, and then I went on board, and they took the road to Jerusalem, and I returned on board.
On the return of Pergami on board the vessel, after the return from Jerusalem, do you know whether or not he had any new title or order? Yes, he had the order of the Holy Sepulchre.
Any other? No other, but on board was instituted the order of St. Caroline, which had been spoken of at Jerusalem.
Do you know from any thing you heard from the princess, or in the presence of the princess, what rank Pergami had in that order of St. Caroline; what station he held? Grand master of the order.
Have you ever in Italy been examined by any person as to the conduct of the princess and Pergami during this voyage? Yes, I have been.
At what place? At Milan.
Do you know the name of the gentleman by whom or before whom you were examined? Yes, by the advocate Vimercati.
Was colonel Brown present? He was.
About what time were you so examined? The latter end of December.
Last year? Yes.
Where did you go to after you had been so examined? I went to Naples.
Did yon go about your own affairs, or what? Yes, about my own affairs.
Were you afterwards applied to to come here? I was.

923
Where were you at that time? At Naples.
When were you so applied to, as nearly as you can recollect? On the 21stof June I was asked to come here, and as this journey was too long, and could not be done on account of my health, for I suffer the gout, I gave to our minister a certificate of two physicians to exempt myself from it; the minister commanded me to come, and also made me to be commanded by the minister at Milan, the marchese Circelli, who has given me a letter for the Neapolitan ambassador.
Mr. Williamsobjected to these questions on the original examination.
The counsel were informed that those questions would be more applicable in re-examination, if the cross-examination led to them.
Mr. Solicitor General.—Where is your vessel at present? My ship at present is on her way from Puglia to Naples; my interest did not allow me to come here, for my ship was loaded on my account, and I had given orders that she should be unloaded at Reggio.
Cross-examined by Mr. Williams.
When did you leave the ship of which you have been last speaking to come here? I have left oft' sailing, and I have given myself to trade, so that my ship was loaded on my own account; I had an interest in half the cargo of my ship; that very ship which carried her royal highness is now commanded by Giacomo Pettotuzzi.
If you are rightly understood, you are now the owner or part owner of the vessel, and not the captain? I am the owner of the ship and the cargo I have left when I came here, one half of that cargo was my own.
You are understood to have said, that a certain person whom you have named is captain of that vessel now? Giacomo Pettotuzzi is the captain whom I had appointed.
From what place was it that you came to England, as you did not come from your ship? I was at Naples.
Is that the place to which you belong; is that your town? Naples is my native country, but I dwell in the Piana di Sorento.
Who was it that applied to you to come to this country? The minister sent a messenger to find me, because my commercial affairs are at Naples.
Did you see the minister? I did.
Name him? Sir William A'Court, the English ambassador at Naples.
Have you made any bargain with any person as to the sum you are to have? Yes, I have.
Have you made this agreement with the minister? During the five days that I have been at Naples, endeavouring not to come, I have told all my circumstances to the minister; but the minister being convinced of my situation, has appointed to me a thousand dollars a month; but I have already lost four thousand, because the cargo that I have sent
924
to discharge at Reggio I have not sold at a price which I ought to have sold it. I have advanced money to Manfredonia to buy another cargo, and that has remained unemployed; and the minister has given me this paper at the last moment when I set out.
Do you understand English? No.
How often have you been in England before, if ever? Eighteen months before; I was once before in England with my ship.
Were you ever before that in England? No.
Only once then? Once before this; this is the second time.
Have you received any money in advance, or is this sum you speak of in expectancy? I have received one month.
In advance? I received it at Milan.
I understand you to say that you no longer go with the vessel, but that you have a captain on board that vessel; how is it that the captain could not go with the vessel without you? The captain navigates the ship without me, but he receives the order from me, and as soon as I am absent he cannot receive such an order, and acts according to his pleasure.
If you are understood right, you left the vessel actually performing a voyage? I left my ship which had sailed from Manfredonia to go to Reggio, where she was going to discharge her cargo; after having arrived here I have learned that my captain has sold the cargo at less per bushel than was the price, at five carlini less per bushel than was the price.
Interpreter.—Five carlini is about twenty-five pence, as a carlini is five-pence of this country.
Do you mean to say, that if you did not come to England it would have made any difference as to the sale of that cargo? Yes, that for one reason; a second reason, if I had not set out for England I would have continued my commercial affairs, for I have left my country just at the time of the harvest; and I advanced money to Manfredonia to buy corn, and by this time, if I had not come here, I would have gained as much as to compensate mc for the loss of 8,000 dollars which I made in the year 1818.
Explain, if you can, how your coming to England makes any difference as to the profit or loss of that voyage? Yes; I had ordered the captain to sell the cargo at not less than twenty-four carlini per bushel; the captain having arrived at Reggio, and hearing that I had gone away, has taken upon himself to sell at twenty-one carlini, and since my arrival here I have heard that the price of corn was raised to twenty-six carlini, and now I am told it has reached nearly to thirty.
Do you mean to state that your being here affects the price of corn in Italy? [A murmur through the House.]
Mr. Williamswas not aware that this question was irregular.
The Lord Chancellor.—There is no objection to the learned counsel's question.
Mr. Williamsobserved, that it was usual for silence to be observed in those courts with which he was familiar—in those courts where the judges presided; their lordships would therefore excuse him if he did not quite understand the interruption.
The Marquis of Downshirewas of opinion, that every indulgence and facility should be extended to the learned gentlemen who were engaged in this investigation. It was on this occasion the duty of the House to act with the utmost impartiality. Every part of the proceedings now pending before their lordships should be marked with the greatest possible attention; and it was of essential importance to the interests of justice that the evidence on both sides should be given with the utmost clearness.
The Earl of Liverpoolcertainly thought, that, when any question struck noble lords to be objectionable, the objection should be openly made, instead of manifesting any expression of feeling. A contrary course made that sort of impression on those who were not accustomed to their lordships' proceedings which created embarrassment. He was sure that no intention existed, on the part of any noble lord, to produce such an effect. But he conceived that their lordships ought to have a proper command over themselves, and that an entire silence should be maintained, except where a just reason for interruption could be shown; and, in that case, the reason should be stated. He made this observation, without alluding to any particular examination or cross-examination, but applied it to the whole of these proceedings.
Then you mean to state, that the captain has disobeyed your orders, and that you have in consequence lost the sum you have stated? It would have been a disobedience if I had been present; but as I was not present, he has not foreseen; I would have foreseen; and has suffered himself to be deceived by those who were present, and has caused me that loss.
Have you not said that you gave an order to the captain? Yes.
Which order the captain has broken? He has disobeyed this order immediately after he heard I had set out from Naples for England.
Do you mean to represent, that when you made the bargain for one thousand dollars a month, you foresaw any thing of this that
926
you have heard since? I have always foreseen an evil, for I did not wish to come here, not only on account of my health, but also on account of my interest.
Where was the sale of the cargo? At Reggio.
How far is that from Naples? Reggio is opposite Messina; on the straight line it is 190 miles distant; by land, going a circuitous route, it is more than 300 miles.
When did you last see Gaetano Paturzo? The last time I have seen Gaetano Paturzo, was here in London:
At what time? Two days. You did not see him yesterday? I had not seen him before I saw him here; I had not seen him for eighteen months.
When did you see Paturzo last; the day, hour, or the minute, if you can state it? Last night we supped together, and last night we slept together: that is, in two rooms adjoining to each other.
You did not breakfast with him this morning? On the contrary, I have taken my coffee with him this morning.
You have had no talk upon the evidence that Paturzo gave yesterday? No, because Paturzo would not tell what he said, nor am I a person to state what I am obliged to say in this room.
Did you inquire of Paturzo what he, Paturzo, had said? No.
What do you mean by saying that Paturzo would not tell you? Because I had told him to say the plain truth that he knows, as I have also come into this place to say the plain truth, upon which I have taken my oath.
How could you tell that Paturzo would not mention what he, Paturzo, had mentioned here, unless you had asked Paturzo? I have said he would not tell, but I meant to say that the matter cannot be told.
Mr. Cohensaid, that he agreed in this interpretation.
Marchese di Spineto—That the subject was of such a nature, that it cannot be talked about; that is the meaning in which Mr. Cohen and I agree.
Mr. Williams.—Did any body tell you not to speak to Paturzo about what Paturzo said here yesterday? No, I have told Paturzo myself by my own act, without being prompted by any body, not to talk about it.
Do I understand you right that you told Paturzo, "Now mind, Paturzo, you and I do not say one word about your examination of yesterday"? This is very natural; for to tell to others all those things which we say in this House is not decent, it is not creditable.
You say you told it of your own accord to Paturzo; did you tell Paturzo last night or this morning, that it would not be fit for you and Paturzo to talk about his examination of yesterday? Yes, upon this matter.
Had you no curiosity to know from Paturzo who examined him, or what sort of a man Mr. Attorney-General or Mr. Solicitor-Ge-

927
neral was? That does not belong to me to ask those things; for all my attention, I have thought of nothing else but that I was obliged to make this appearance before these gentlemen, these lords.
You thought so entirely about that, that you could think and talk about nothing else? Before these gentlemen, no other.
Have you been in this room before? Yes, but there were no gentlemen here.
When were you in this room before? On Sunday.
Who came with you? A gentleman has brought me to show me the curiosities, not only in this room, but even where the coronation is to take place, to see those places.
Was it an Englishman, or who, who brought you?—An English gentleman.
Do you know his name? Who is he? No.
Do you know his person? I know his person.
Have you seen him before you came before their lordships this morning? I think not.
Have you looked about you to see? I have not.
Should you know his name if you heard it? Because it is a person whom I know, but I should not by name; even if his name was mentioned I should not know it.
How often have you seen him? I have seen him often, many times, but always transiently, because I do not understand his language, nor he mine.
Did you see him at Milan? No.
Only since you came into this country? After arrival in England.
When did you arrive in England? On the 14th instant.
When were you examined as to what you had to say? I was examined at Milan.
Have you not been examined since you came to England? Yes, but verbally so.
Who examined you? A gentleman whom I do not know.
That was not the same gentleman who showed you this place, was it? No.
Look in that quarter to see who it was who showed you this place? The person who is called major domo; I do not know by what name he is called. Do you see that person? No. What did you mean by turning and pointing to that gentleman behind you? Because he examined me. [Pointing to Mr. Bourchier, one of the solicitors of the Treasury].
Do you see the person who showed you the room? I do not.
Who came with you from Naples to this country? I have come with the king's messenger and my own servant.
Who paid for the expenses of the journey from Naples to this country? The king's messenger.
Did you see colonel Brown before you came from Italy to this country? Yes.
Were you examined then, just before your departure, by colonel Brown? No; colonel
928
Brown examined me last year, in December, as I have said before.
And a certain lawyer, Vimercati, was present, was he not? Yes; Vimercati put the questions in the presence of colonel Brown.
Were your answers put down in writing? I believe so.
Were you sworn to the truth of them? I subscribed my name at the end of the paper; but I did not swear to it.
That was in the presence of colonel Grown and Vimercati? Yes.
Have you seen this lawyer Vimercati since you were examined? No; now that I passed through Milan I have not seen him.
You have not seen Vimercati since you were examined by him in December? No.
Did you see any other person on the subject of your testimony except colonel Brown and Vimercati? No.
The question refers to the subject of the princess of Wales? I have seen no other but Vimercati and colonel Brown.
As you passed through Milan in your way hither, did you see colonel Brown? Yes.
Had the colonel at that time the examination which you gave and signed in December? I have not seen it.
Nor any paper at all? No.
Have you never seen it since December? No.
You have never seen the examination taken in December from that time to the present? I have not seen it, and even now I do not see it.
Re-examined by Mr. Solicitor-General.
You have stated the sum which you have received, and are to receive, as a compensation for your time and trouble and loss in coming here; according to the best judgment you can form, is that more or less than a fair compensation for such loss? According to the success of my trade this year it is not sufficient, what I have for what I lose.
It was proposed as an arrangement, that when the re-examination of the counsel had closed, each of their lordships should put all the questions he had to propose, before any other lord put any question, and that he should not afterwards put any question unless under special circumstances, and under the leave of the House.
It was assented to, that their lordships should each in their turn put the questions they proposed, as far as they were prepared to do so, but that they should not be obliged to ask permission afterwards to put other questions; it being understood however, that their lordships should not put further questions, unless any thing arose out of the further examination to occasion it.
Examined by the Lords.
Earl Grey.—What were you paid by the princess of Wales for the time your ship was

929
in her service? Seven hundred and fifty dollars per month, and all port charges paid.
You have stated, that after the tent was shut, the princess and Pergami remained the whole night under the tent together; at the time the tent was shut were there any other persons then in the tent? No.
How do you know that Pergami remained there the whole night? Because it was seen; because, when the tent was covered, he remained under with the princess.
You were understood to say, that you saw Pergami under the tent when it was shut, and saw him again in the morning; did you ever see him in the intermediate time? No.
Was there any communication with any other part of the ship from the tent, without coming upon the deck? There was; there was a communication by a ladder, which led into the dining-room.
Was it possible for Pergami to have left the tent by that communication, without your seeing him? It might have happened, though the passage was small, but I do not know whether he has done so.
Lord Ellenborough.—Was Pergami's bed ever prepared [for him in the dining-cabin from the time the ship left Jaffa, till the time she arrived at Capo d' Anza? Never; once I remember that it was bad weather, and they were obliged to come down below, and they went into the cabins.
When the bad weather obliged Pergami to go below, did the princess go below likewise? Both together went down below.
The question is not whether Pergami's bed was ever prepared in the dining-cabin, but was it ever prepared for him below under the deck, after the vessel left Jaffa? No.
Earl of Rosebery.—You have stated, that in blowing weather the light was put down the ladder; do you know who took the light upon that occasion? Theodore or Carlino; Theodore who has also been here, or Carlino.
Lord Auckland.—You have stated, that you received 750 dollars for the use of your ship, was that sum meant to cover all the expenses of navigation? I have got a great deal to say upon this particular point.
State those particulars? The freight of 750 dollars per month is very low, I agreed to the price of 750 dollars per month as certain; but when we take on board royal personages, we trust more to the uncertain than to the certain profits; upon those uncertain profits I have been disappointed, and I have made some applications, some demand, and in this way the English government have known that I am, what I am, that is, that I am Vincenzo Gargiulo.
What do you consider to be the expenses of navigating such a ship by the month, taking in the pay of all the officers and men, all except the harbour dues? My crew consisted of two and twenty hands, those two and twenty persons, taking one for another at ten dollars per month make 220 dollars per month, to feed so many hands it requires at least so much,
930
especially that year, it being a year of great scarcity: then there are the expenses of wear and tear, the expenses of wear and tear on that occasion were also very high, for we must have enough, in regard to sails, and as to anchors, to carry a press of sail; then there is the keeping of the ship, for the royal personage on board it was necessary to keep things in more tight or clear order; then if you will take into consideration the insurance, which upon a ship that cost me 10,000 dollars, is at least one per cent; if you put together all these expenses, you will find there remains hardly any thing out of these 750 dollars.
Marquis of Lansdown.—Having stated that you were disappointed in the profits you expected, from having her royal highness the princess of Wales on board your ship, did you, in consequence of that disappointment, make any application for compensation, either to her royal highness or any person acting for her? To her royal highness I did not make any application, because she dismissed me, and granted me a certificate of good service; and this was on account of Pergami, because they wished that I should have carried them to Venice at the departure from Rhodes; the princess commanded, for the princess always commanded what Pergami commanded, that they wished to go to Venice. In sailing, after leaving the island of Candia, the wind was continually from the North; remaining in that state we were going to have no more water, the water was going to be at an end, for I had forty-four people and nine horses; I told her, that as the water was near at an end, it was necessary that we should land; they did not wish to go to Morea, they did not wish to return to Candia, therefore they were obliged to go to Sicily; arriving in Sicily, they then passed across the Strait of Sicily and went to Naples, and from Naples to Capo d'Anza; Pergmai, on landing, because he had promised me 6,000 dollars, as a present by the means of the consul at Tunis, told me there was no present for me, because I would not take them to Venice; then when I came here last year, I gave a memorial to my ambassador count de Ludolph, and I stated that as I believed myself to have served the British government, because I had had the honour of having the English flag, I expected the present which I had not received; and on account of this memorial which I gave to count de Ludolph the English government have known that I was Vincenzo Gargiulo of Naples.
Do you recollect, when her royal highness was on board this ship, to have at different times, upon one pretence or another, desired the mate Paturzo to withdraw from that part of the deck near where her royal highness and Pergami were situate? No, I do not remember, I do not know this business.
If you bad for any particular reason been in the habit of directing Paturzo to withdraw from that part of the deck where they were,

931
under some pretence or another, is it not probable you would have remembered it? Now I understand it: once I remember to have seen her royal highness sitting and stooping on the bed of Pergami, and to have desired Gaetano Paturzo to go away, for it was not decent for him, who was a young man, to be present; because when I saw her royal highness stooping on the bed in that way, I sent away Gaetano Paturzo, who was-a young man, not to see that thing which I thought indecent.
On that one occasion on which you recollect to have desired Gaetano Paturzo to remove from that part of the deck, were there any other persons near to that part of the deck—near to which the princess and Pergami were? There were other persons who walked that way; but I divided them all, and sent one one way and one another, that they should not see.
You are to be understood to say, that you desired all the persons, with the exception of her royal highness and Pergami, to withdraw from that part of the deck in which they were? All, except the princess and Pergami, who remained in that place.
Can you recollect any one person in particular, except Paturzo, whom you so desired to withdraw? I commanded it to my crew; but there was always the count Schiavini who was there to receive the commands of her royal highness.
The count Schiavini did not withdraw at the time of which you speak? No; because he remained always there.
When the tent was closed at night, was the hatchway at the top of the ladder usually shut or left open? Sometimes it was shut, sometimes not: I have seen it shut in the morning when the tent was open, because it was obliged to be shut after the tent had been closed.
At night, during the time the tent was closed, had you the means of knowing whether that hatchway was left open or shut? I cannot say whether it was closed or not: what I can say is, that in the morning when the tent was opened, I saw this hatchway closed sometimes.
Is the name of her royal highness affixed to that certificate of good conduct which you have? Her royal highness knew, it was written entirely in her own hand-writing.
Earl of Oxford.—In consequence of the memorial presented to your ambassador, have you received any compensation? I have received nothing; nay, my minister and the colonel to whom I have mentioned it, told me that they knew nothing, and that I might go to London, and then might see upon this particular.
What colonel do you mean? Colonel Brown.
Earl of Donoughmore.—You have said that at times when the princess and Pergami were together upon the deck you have thought it
932
proper to desire your mate to retire; do you recollect on one occasion having desired your mate so to retire when the princess and Pergami were seated on the gun?
Mr. Williamsbegged to suggest to their lordships whether this question was not in an objectionable form.
Do you recollect to have ever seen the princess and Pergami silting together upon the gun? Yes, I have said so.
In what situation were they placed as to each other? Pergami on the gun and the princess on his knees.
Did you on that occasion send away your mate? Always upon that occasion, whenever they stood still to look at such things I sent them away, one one way and one another.
Earl of Lauderdale.—Give in that certificate to which you have referred as written by her royal highness.
[The Witness delivered in the same.]
Lord Chancellor.—From whom did you receive that paper? From the princess of Wales at the Villa d'Este, when I went to her from Genoa.
Did she herself give it to you, or was it delivered to you by any other person? The princess herself wrote it in my presence, and the princess herself gave it to me.
The Certificate was read as follows:
"Son AltesseRoyal, La Princesse de Gallcs Assur par ce Document ecrit de sa propre main que Elle a été contente des Service du Capitain Vincenzo Garguilo qui commendais la Pollaca nomé l'Industrie pendant son voyage.
"Caroline Princess de Galles."
"A La Villa d'Este,
"Ce 17 d'Octobre 1816."
Earl of Lauderdale.—You have stated that you saw the princess and Pergami under the tent, and that after you saw them in that situation Schiavini received orders to let down the tent; did that happen when the Princess was leaning on the bed on which Pergami was lying, and when you ordered your mate to withdraw? Yes, but this circumstance has happened more than once; it did not happen that once only.
Did Schiavini continue to walk in that part of the ship after the curtains of the tent were let down? Then he did not remain in the place where he was, but he went a little more to the stern, a little more to the bowsprit, or he went down into his own room.
The following question was put by their lordships, at the request of Mr. Williams:
Were you in the habit of going down to the dining-room every night, or every evening? No; that was not my place, or my business.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he had an humble application to make to their lordships, in

933
consequence of a communication which he had that moment received. He was anxious to ask one question of Theodore Majoochi without further delay, and, therefore, he hoped their lordships would order him to be called in. He had only one question to put to him, which might by possibility lead to one or two more. [Cries of "state the question."] If their lordships would allow him to examine this witness, he should have no objection to mention the questions he proposed to put: and the first question he wished to put was, whether the witness had been at Bristol at any time during the last year?
The Earl of Liverpoolwished in such a case that the House should be chiefly governed by the opinion of the learned lord on the woolsack, and that of the learned gentlemen at the bar; but he would suggest, whether, if this course was acceded to, which was breaking in upon established rules, counsel ought not, in the first instance, to state not only the particular question, but the object of the examination.
The Lord Chancellorstated, that it became a very important question for their lordships consideration, whether the cross-examination was to be permitted to be taken piece-meal.
Mr. Broughamadmitted that the application was out of the strict and ordinary course of proceeding, but pledged himself, that if it was granted he should not ask that witness any other question until he had opened his case; that he should be content with putting three or four questions to that witness, if permitted, at the present time.
The Lord Chancellorstated, that, with that pledge, their lordships would not refuse the application that had been made; that the counsel might suggest his question, and their lordships would propose it.
Teodoro Majoochi was again called in. He applied through the interpreter, to be permitted as a favour to assure their lordships, that he was ready to lay down his life in that place, if his former testimony was not correct. He was then cross-examined as follows, through the interpretation of the Marchese di Spineto. Were you or not at Bristol in the last year, or in the course of this year? I do not know this Bristol.
Were you at Gloucester? Gloucester I knew very well.
Were you in the service of a gentleman of the name of Hyatt? Yes.
Did you ever declare to any person that the
934
princess of Wales was a most excellent woman? Yes; that the princess was a good woman.
Did you ever declare that the conduct of the princess of Wales was highly becoming? Of her conduct I always said that she was a good woman, but she was surrounded by bad people.
Did you ever say that she was a prudent person, and that you never had observed any thing improper in her conduct? I do not remember at all whether I did say so.
Did you ever say that the princess of Wales always behaved herself with propriety? This I have never said.
Do you remember a gentleman of the name of Hughes; William Hughes at Gloucester, or at Bristol? This I do not remember.
Do you know a person of the name of William Hughes? I may know him, but I do not remember this name.
Do you know a person who was a clerk to Messrs Turner, bankers at Gloucester? I do not know the name of this banker.
Do you know, or have you ever had any conversation with any clerk of any banker at Gloucester? This I do not remember.
Did you ever complain to any person at Gloucester that Pergami had kept part of the servants wages from them, in the household of the princess? Yes, I did.
To whom did you make this complaint of Pergami? Precisely I do not remember; but I remember that Signor Hyatt asked me why I had left the service of the princess, and then I answered him so; and then I remember to have added, after my return from the long voyage Bartolomeo Pergami wished to lower my wages.
Did you ever say the same thing, respecting Pergami and your wages, to any body besides Mr. Hyatt? I do not remember that I did.
Do you remember Mrs. Adams, Mrs. Hyatt's mother? Yes.
Do you remember Mrs. Hughes, Mrs. Adams's housekeeper? I remember that there was a woman who did all the business in the house, if this was her name.
Had she a son a clerk in a banker's house? I remember the son to come to pay a visit to his mother, but I do not whether he was in any bank, this I do not remember.
Did you ever tell this son of the housekeeper the circumstance respecting Pergami and your wages? I do not remember precisely whether yes or no, whether I ever complained myself of this man.
Did you ever represent to this young man that the princess of Wales was a most excellent woman, a prudent woman, and that you had never seen any thing improper or indecorous in her conduct? This I do not remember.
Did you ever represent to this young man, the son of the house-keeper, that the princess of Wales always, as far as you had seen her,

935
had behaved herself in a most proper way? This I do not remember.
Did you ever travel in a stage coach between Gloucester and Bristol, or between Gloucester and any other place? I remember to have travelled from Gloucester when I came to London, this I remember; when I came away on my departure.
Did you ever make any other journey in a stage coach from Gloucester to any other place than London? This I do not remember.
Were you ever asked, by any gentleman in a stage-coach, with respect to the deportment of the princess of Wales during the time you were in her service? This I do not remember.
Did you ever represent her, to any person in a stage-coach, as behaving herself very prudently? I do not remember to have ever spoke of these transactions.
Did you ever represent the princess of Wales to any person in a stage-coach as a much injured woman? This I remember no more no than yes.
Did you represent to any person in a stagecoach, or elsewhere, that you had been applied to, to swear against her royal highness the princess? What I remember of these things is, that I have never spoken of these things in any place; in whatever carriage I may have been, I do not remember to have spoken of these things.
Did you represent yourself to have been applied to, to swear against her royal highness the princess of Wales, to any person in any place, whether in a stagecoach or any other place? I do not understand what you mean by the word jurare.
To give evidence? At what time.
Did you ever say to any body that you had been applied to, to give a deposition against the princess of Wales? I cannot understand what this term means; I cannot understand what this thing can mean.
Did you ever say to any body in England that you have been applied to, to give an account respecting the princess of Wales upon oath? In England; no, never.
The question is, not whether any body ever in point of fact in England applied to you to be sworn, but whether you ever said to any body in England that you had at any time or at any place been so applied to?
The Solicitor-Generalstated, that apprehending it was the intention of Mr. Brougham to obtain answers from the witness with a view to contradicting him, he submitted it was necessary the name of the particular party and the place should be mentioned in the question.
Mr. Broughamstated, that he did not admit that this was the rule, but submitted, that as the witness might not have known the name of the person to whom he said it, if the witness swore that he did not say so to any person, he should be at liberty hereafter to
936
call any person to state that he had so stated to him; but that at the same time if he was informed of the name of the person, it would be his duty to put it to the witness.
The Lord Chancellorstated, that it had been ruled in the Court of King's-bench, that counsel ought in the first instance to name the person referred to, for that a person might sincerely state, that he never had had such conversation; but that if put in mind of having been with a particular individual at a particular time, he might immediately recollect the conversation, and his former answer might be no slur upon that testimony.
The following question was proposed through their lordships at the suggestion of Mr. Brougham.
Did you ever say to Mr. Johnson in the stage-coach, that you had been applied to, to appear as a witness against the princess of Wales? I swear that I do not know this name, and this man I do not know, either the name or even the circumstance of taking this oath.
Did you ever say to any person, "I have been applied to, to be a witness against the princess of Wales," or words to that effect? Never.
Did you ever say to Mr. Johnson or any other person in a stage-coach in England, "I have had considerable advantages offered to me, if I would be a witness against the princess of Wales," or to that effect? I lay my head or my life there, this offer has never been made to me by any one.
The question is not whether an offer was ever made to you, but whether you have said that an offer was made to you? I lay my life if I have ever said so.
The Marchese di Spineto was desired to state the answer in Italian.
Interpreter.—"Io metto la mia testa che se io non he fatto questo discorso di giuramento." I lay my head, which means my life, here, if ever I have made this discourse about an oath; he repeats now, I never made this discourse with any body concerning an oath here in London.
Did you ever say to Mr. Johnson in a stage-coach, that you had been offered a sum of money, or a situation under government, for giving evidence against the princess of Wales any where? But if I do not know even the name of this Johnson.
Did you ever say to any person in a stage-coach, that you had been offered a sum of money, or a situation under government, for giving evidence against the princess of Wales? I lay down my life if this be true; and to you, I will answer no more, because you ask me things I have never dreamt about; things that have never entered my head.
Had you ever any conversation with any body in a stage-coach, respecting her royal

937
highness the princess of Wales? I never spoke about the business of the princess of Wales in a stage-coach.
When you were travelling by a stage-coach in England, did you ever at an inn speak upon the subject of the princess of Wales? Never about the affairs of the princess of Wales, I never have meddled with those discourses.
Did you ever in a diligence, or at an inn, when you were travelling by a diligence, say that you expected money, or a place under government, for giving evidence against her royal highness? Never, never this.
How long were you in England at that period when you lived with Mr. Hyatt at Gloucester? This I cannot remember, because I have not the book in which I have marked the time.
About how long were you in Mr. Hyatt's service? This is the same answer, because I have not the book in which I put down how long I was there.
Mr. Brougham returned thanks to their lordships for the indulgence he had received.
The Solicitor-General requested the following questions to be put:
Did you come from Vienna to this country as the servant to Mr. Hyatt? It is Mr. Hyatt who brought me here.
Did you continue in the service of Mr. Hyatt till you set off to return to Vienna? Yes, till that moment; and he paid for my fare in the coach to London.
Examined by the Lords.
Lord Ellenborough.—When you spoke of her royal highness as a Buona Donna, and a prudent woman, did you allude to her royal highness's moral conduct as a woman, or to her behaviour towards you as a mistress? When there was discourse respecting the princess of Wales, I always said she was Buona Donna; for if I had said she was Cattiva Donna, they would have fixed a quarrel upon me.
The witness was directed to withdraw.
Mr. Broughamstated, that in putting the questions which he had proposed to the witness, he had not done so under the slightest suspicion that any person had offered him a place under government, but with another view, which might be perceived.
Then Francesco Birollo was called, and having been sworn, was examined by Mr. Parke as follows, through the interpretation of the Marchese di Spineto.
Of what country are you a native? Of Vercelli.
In what country? In Piedmont.
In what employment were you when you were applied to, to come here? I was at the service of my master.
What master? Marquis Incisa, a Piedmontese nobleman,
938
Were you at any time in the service of her royal highness the princess of Wales? Yes.
In what capacity were you in her service? Cook.
At what time did you enter into that service; in what year? When she came from Venice; I do not remember the year.
How long did you continue in her service? About two years, or two years and a half; I did not stay two years and a half, but precisely I do not know.
By whom were you hired to go into the service of the princess? Signor Pergami.
Were you acquainted with signor Pergami before that time? Yes.
What was signor Pergami when you first knew him? He was in the same service with me.
Was that in the service of general Pino? It was.
In what capacity was Pergami acting in the service of general Pino? His valet, because he came down into the kitchen, to get the dishes to wait at table; then afterwards he took the situation of courier.
How long were you with Pergami in the same service at general Pino's? I was at the service of general Pino, and he was at the service of the countess of Pino.
How long did you know him in the service of the countess of Pino? I cannot tell, because I went out of the service of general Pino and he remained still in the family, for he became courier.
How long was Pergami in the service of the countess of Pino before you left count Pino's service? I do not know, because when I went into the service of general Pino he was in the service of the countess, who married one another.
How long were you in the service of general Pino? I have served him three times, once when he was minister at war, another time when he was with the army of Moscow, and a third time I served, but I do not count that as a service.
Was Pergami in the service of the countess at all those three times when you were in the service of the count? Yes, the only difference was, that I was paid by general Pino and he was paid by the countess of Pino, but we were all in the same service and dined together.
For how many years before you entered the service of the prineess of Wales had you known Bartholomew Pergami? I did not see him before; I had known him at the time when I entered into the service of general Pino, when general Pino took the countess Pino for a wife; before I did not know him.
How long was that before you entered into the service of the princess of Wales? I do not know; having served another master, I do not know; I had to work, and it was impossible for me to remember all those things.
At what place was it that you were taken

939
into the service of her royal highness? When she went to the Casa Formigine, opposite to the house Boromeo, when she came from Venice the first time.
Were you with her royal highness at the Villa Villani? I was.
Were you at the Villa d'Este? I was. Did you accompany her royal highness in her voyage to Greece? I did.
Did you act as cook on that voyage? I did; but on board the two ships, the Clorinde and the frigate, I did not act as a cook.
Did you return with her royal highness from Greece into Italy? I did return; but before I returned I performed the office of cook on board the polacre.
Were you at La Barona with the princess? Yes.
At what place was it you left the service of the princess? At the Barona.
How came you to leave the service of the princess? Because it was the brother of Pergami who persecuted me, and then I could not stand the labour.
What do you mean by that, that you could not stand the labour? Because it was too much labour.
Do you recollect where the princess slept in her voyage out to Greece? I do, onboard the polacre.
Before the princess went to Palestine, do you know in what part of the polacre she slept? Sometimes on deck, somctimts under the deck; sometimes she lay under the tent, and sometimes she lay down below.
Where was the tent which you speak of? It was there in going to the poop, but I have no knowledge of a ship.
What was the usual place where her royal highness slept, on her voyage from Jaffa to Italy? She always slept under the tent, except when we landed; because then, on land, she did not sleep under the tent, for we had horses, beasts, and other things; and she was under the tent on her return.
Do you know where Pergami slept on the voyage from Jaffa to Italy? In Jaffa, when we were on board this polacre, I saw him enter in the evening under the tent, and the tent was closed, and here was the princess, and he was sitting here.
Did you ever see Pergami in the morning coming out of the lent? Sometimes, but not in the morning early; about a certain hour he came out of the tent, and came there, on the forecastle to make water.
At what time in the morning was it that you saw Pergami come out of the tent? Some-times I saw him in the morning early, sometimes a little later, when I was already at the kitchen, boiling potatoes for breakfast for the crew.
In what part of the vessel was your kitchen? Near the fore-mast.
Was the tent always there, or was it let down at any particular time? Sometimes it was taken up, or raised up.
940
Was the tent let down at night? It was.
In what way was the tent fastened down at night? The tent was closed, and was covered with several things, and it was all closed; and sometimes I could not see what they were, because I was attending my kitchen; and then, in going about, I saw what had been put round, and every thing was snug.
Did you ever see a light in the tent at night when it was closed? Twice I have seen the light put out of the tent.
Do you know who put the light out of the tent? How can I know that, I was at the kitchen, I saw only the light put out.
Do you know who received the light when it was put out of the tent? Either Theodore, or a man called Carlino.
When you saw Pergami in the morning come out of the tent, how was he dressed? He had on a gown which he had made in the parts of Greece, which was of silk.
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
Ordered, That the further consideration and second reading of the said Bill be adjourned till to-morrow.