Lords Sitting of 29 August 1820

Preamble
The House having been called over,
The Earl of Liverpoolobserved, that when he made the motion yesterday that counsel should be called in, it was with the view of hearing what might be said on either side on the subject of the instruction he had moved respecting the course of proceeding. He had then observed, that he should not think himself bound by any opinion he had given on the subject of his motion, if, upon the statement of the counsel, it should appear necessary for the due administration of justice, that an alteration should be made with respect to the cross-examinations. He still conceived, however, that the course recommended by his motion was that which was most convenient for their lordships' proceedings; and also, as far as he was capable of forming an opinion on the case of her majesty, the most advantageous for her interests. But the counsel for the Queen had not thought so, and in their argument at the bar had pressed for a contrary course; namely, that they should have leave, af-
1050
ter certain questions were asked of a witness, to postpone their cross-examination to a subsequent period. In insisting on this point, they had referred to what they conceived to be an understanding upon the subject. He was certainly ready to allow that on Saturday last an option had been given them under the discretion of the House, and on their asking for it, to put a few questions, and to postpone the remainder of the cross-examination. Upon consideration therefore, of the inconvenience of withdrawing an advantage which appeared to have been conceded to them, he thought that their lordships ought to continue the indulgence; it being always understood that the counsel in support of the bill should not be called upon to sum up their case until the whole of the cross-examinations should be concluded. In stating this as the result of the consideration he had given to the question, after hearing the counsel on both sides, he must still say, that he thought the other course the best, both for the convenience of their lordships and the Queen's defence. At the same time, the distinction between the two modes was unimportant; because, if the counsel for the defence were allowed to call back witnesses for a second cross-examination, upon their stating a special case, it would be very easy for them to accomplish that object, as they could find no difficulty in laying such a case before their lordships whenever they should think it necessary. As, then, the difference between the two courses was so little, he thought their lordships, under all the circumstances, should now allow the course for which the counsel for the Queen contended. He therefore proposed to withdraw the motion he had made yesterday, and to move in its stead, that the counsel be called in and informed, that the House consented, under the special circumstances of the case, to allow them to proceed in the cross-examination in the way in which they had proposed.
The Earl of Lauderdaleobserved, that according to their lordships' standing orders, when a motion was once submitted to their consideration, it could not be withdrawn without the consent of the whole House. It was therefore sufficient that one peer should object, and he declared that he would not consent to the withdrawing of the motion.
Earl Greywas aware that his noble

1051
friend was perfectly right in what he had stated respecting the rules of the House; but he differed with him as to the necessity of opposing the withdrawing of the motion in question. He thought his noble friend ought to state some ground for his opposition.
The Earl of Liverpooladmitted that the noble earl was perfectly correct in his reference to the orders of the House. He certainly had a right to oppose the withdrawing the motion; but the difficulty could be easily got over, by his proposing the motion he had now suggested as an amendment on his motion of yesterday.
Lord Erskinewas happy to see ministers at last coming forward to amend their own awkward work. As ministers were thus disposed to amend their own motion, and to correct their own ill-judged proceedings, nothing could give him more pleasure than to withdraw the motion he had proposed, if he should be given to understand that the counsel for the defence were to be permitted to have the advantages to which they were justly entitled.
The Earl of Harrow bysaid, that to remove any objection as to the amendment being proposed by his noble friend, he would move it himself.—The noble lord accordingly moved the resolution stated by the earl of Liverpool as an amendment on the motion made by that noble lord yesterday.
The Earl of Lauderdaleobserved, that the question was now put into a shape which called for their lordships' attention; for it came before them in the shape of a motion made by the first lord of the Treasury, and amended by the president of the council. It was singular enough that this proposition should come from the noble earl opposite, who had contended so strenuously for a different course; but if the motion were to be agreed to, and the counsel for the Queen permitted to suspend the cross-examination of a witness, and resume it at pleasure, he should be glad to know at what time the examinations by the House were to take place. The proper time would be at the close of the cross-examination; but how was that to be done, if the counsel for the Queen, after having cross-examined a witness, were to say he was not sure but that he would have occasion to call up that witness again? He had a right to ask the noble lords what their view of the
1052
course to be pursued in this respect was. After having come down with this motion, which they had converted into an amendment, they ought to be able to state what was to be done in that important part of the examination to which he had alluded. He really wished the noble lords would state to the House when and in what manner the peers were to examine. He need not remind the House, that one of the many difficulties he had pointed out yesterday as unavoidably connected with the course proposed to be pursued by the counsel for the defence was that of leaving it quite uncertain at what period of the proceedings their lordships should examine. But the noble earl had assigned a curious reason for his conduct on the present occasion. He had contended, that, the thing would come to the same point whether the cross-examination were gone fully into immediately after the examination in chief, or whether the counsel for the Queen were allowed to suspend the cross-examination, and recall the witness at a future period; because, said he, as the counsel were to be allowed to recall a witness on stating a special case for so doing, it would be impossible for them ever to fail in making out such a case. Now, if this was the noble earl's opinion, why did he take the trouble of making his motion yesterday? The noble earl was certainly the first person who had ever thought fit to abandon a motion on the day after he had made it, on such a ground. He had also contended that the course he recommended was that which was most convenient for their lordships' proceedings, and consequently the best, while it was at the same time the most favourable to the interests of the Queen. All this the noble earl had argued for, and yet he now abandoned the motion he had made for carrying his own recommendation into effect. Such an instance of inconsistency and vacillation of opinion, he believed, never had before been exhibited. It was impossible for him to agree to the amendment, and he would therefore vote for the original motion.
The Earl of Liverpoolfelt himself called upon to say a few words, in consequence of what had fallen from the noble lord, and he could not but complain of the tone in which that noble lord had just spoken with respect to the motion under their lordships' consideration. When he made

1053
the motion yesterday, he was far from holding out the course it recommended as indispensable. He had, on the contrary, expressly stated, that he thought it would not be proper for their lordships to decide until the counsel on both sides were heard. When counsel were called to the bar by their lordships' order to argue a question, it was absurd to say that, whatever they might urge, the House was not to be allowed to change its opinion. What would be the use of hearing those learned persons at all, if what they said was never to have any influence on the opinion of the House? He had stated yesterday, in reply to a noble lord opposite, that he did not think himself more bound than any other of their lordships to the opinion expressed in his motion. He had expressly staled that he considered himself as free as any other peer to recommend an alteration in the course of proceeding. With regard to the inconsistency, therefore, which the noble lord fancied he had succeeded in pointing out in his counduct, that noble lord proceeded altogether on a mistake. He must further observe, he had never stated, that the mode of examination recommended by his motion and that proposed by the counsel for the defence, were the same. He was too sensible that they were very different to make any such assertion. What he had stated was this:—that under his motion of yesterday the practical effect would be much the same as if the course proposed by the Queen's counsel were adopted, because the advantage for her majesty's defence would be the same, or indeed, as he had shown, in some respects greater, by the mode he recommended. And here he had to observe, that the House was not, as some noble lords had contended, bound to be strictly guided by the practice of courts of justice. They were justified, when they thought it necessary, to take a far greater latitude; and so far from his motion of yesterday being founded on the practice of the courts below, it must be obvious to their lordships that it went much farther, The ground, therefore, on which he agreed to the amendment moved by his noble friend was simply this:—that an indulgence had been already granted by the House, whether wisely or not he should not now discuss—that an expectation had been held out, whether properly or not was not then the ques-
1054
tion, which he thought ought not now to be disappointed. As the counsel for the defence insisted upon what they considered to have been an understanding, and as they pressed for it as indispensable for the interest of their client, he should not refuse their demand. Whatever might sometimes be done in the heat of debate on political questions, he could never, in a case like the present, be persuaded that it was not his duty to listen to the arguments of counsel at the bar, and he had no hesitation in saying that he was always ready on conviction to give up any opinion he had previously formed.
Lord Erskinesaid, that if, when the counsel were called in, they declared themselves satisfied with the mode of proceedings now to be offered to them, he would be silent for ever; but if they said that they were not satisfied, then he would move an adjournment of the House. He wished that counsel should be called in, and that it should be ascertained from them what they required of their lordships. The House did not seem to be fully aware of what the counsel asked. They asked, that evidence should not go forth to poison the public mind without the best antidote they could give at the same time-that they should proceed as far in the cross-examination as they were enabled by their limited knowledge of the witness, and that the bane and antidote should go together. God forbid, that this House should refuse a request so just and so moderate! The noble lord wished distinctly to know if their lordships meant that the counsel for the Queen should, after the adjournment, call the witnesses again and cross-examine them.
The Earl of Liverpool, had no objection to the counsel for the Crown putting what questions they pleased to the witnesses after the examination-in-chief. He was also willing that, on stating that they wished to call any witness again, they should have leave to subject that witness to a second or renewed examination at any time they might think fit. The only condition he wished to impose was, that the attorney and solicitor-general should not be called upon to close the case in support of the bill until the counsel for the defence had finished all their cross-examinations.
Lord Erskinewas happy to hear this-explanation given. He was glad to see-

1055
that the House was disposed to imitate the conduct of Gil Bias, who retraced his steps and went back again when he was able to do no better. What was now agreed to was nothing more than that course which had been held out as a compensation on the rejection of his motion. He had listened too carefully to the powerful speech made by the noble earl on that occasion to have misunderstood him. He hoped he should now have some credit with the House for having at least rightly understood what the noble earl said on that occasion, and fairly represented him.
The Earl of Donoughmorefelt himself bound to state, that the opinion given to the counsel for the Queen was, to take the whole cross-examination at the time, or defer the whole to their defence. There were now three questions before the House: 1st, the examination of the Lords; 2nd, the postponement of the cross-examination; and 3rd, the time of summing up. He would take the last first, as it scarcely required a word, since it was impossible to close the case until the evidence was finished on both sides. As to the examination by their lordships, from which much good had already arisen, he contended there was nothing in the nature of these proceedings, nothing in law, to prevent it. Was there, he asked, any case made out by the counsel at the bar to show that their lordships should not put questions? On the contrary, all parties agreed that such examination was productive of great advantage. In what court had it ever been said that the judges of the court had not a right to examine the witnesses? On the whole, he conceived that the House ought at once to come to a right understanding. Their lordships had no objection to the cross-examination proceeding when the examination in chief was ended, or to its being postponed to a subsequent period; and that the counsel for the Queen should have the privilege and full right either of cross-examining the witnesses immediately on the close of the direct examination, or of postponing it entirely. This was not granted as an indulgence, it was a matter of right.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that undoubtedly, the difficulties attending either course were considerable, but they appeared to him to press just as heavily on the counsel for the bill, as on the counsel on the other side. The counsel for the bill had to contend with a cross-examination spreading over a series of years, and had as little
1056
knowledge of the state or character of the witnesses as their opponents. They were as much entitled, therefore, to a delay, if they required it, for the purposes of their re-examination; and if new witnesses should be produced for the defence, to further time, in order to meet such additional evidence. Let their lordships, then, consider to what extent this proceeding must be carried. They might again and again be called upon, to postpone an examination, and every postponement might furnish occasion for another. Once engaged in such a course, he firmly believed that they would find it impossible ever to bring this inquiry to a close. If their lordships adopted such a principle as that contained in the amendment, he apprehended that the ends of justice must be disappointed. So insurmountable appeared to him the difficulties which would then present themselves in the way of attaining those ends, that he found himself compelled to negative the amendment of the noble earl. A specification of the times and places at which the alleged offences had been committed would, in his opinion, have been productive of less inconvenience than the course now proposed. Lists of witnesses would then have been interchanged, the first adjournment would have been for a longer period of time; but then, when they finally met, they would have been enabled to proceed free from all those inconveniences by which they were at present embarrassed. No doubt there would now be some reason to complain on the part of her majesty, in the case of an adjournment, that the case against her had been opened, and evidence left to rankle in the public mind before she could have a full opportunity of entering on her defence. But this the counsellor her majesty had themselves proposed to inflict on her; and he doubted much whether counsel could be replaced in the same circumstances as to carrying on a cross-examination after an adjournment as they were in before. A third course had been pointed out, but he could not see the superior advantage of it; and in the midst, therefore, of so many difficulties, he was inclined to think the proceeding suggested by his noble and learned friend was the more advisable. He trusted their lordships would regard the character of the House, and not establish precedents which either immediately, or in their consequences, might prove unfavourable to the substantial interests of justice.
Earl Bathurstwas of opinion that it would be most advisable to recur to the proposition originally made, which was, to allow counsel to pursue their cross-examination to any extent, with a liberty to call the witnesses back, and to continue it as far as they might desire.
Lord Ellenboroughwished to know what extent would be deemed sufficient, as it might otherwise run to an interminable length.
The Earl of Liverpoolobserved, that there might be a limit as to times and places; but if the questions went to the discredit of a witness, he did not see that counsel could be precluded from pursuing their cross-examination.
The Lord-Chancellorthought it his duty to state the view which he now entertained upon this question. If in the course of yesterday's proceedings he had given any opinion which he had since seen reason to alter, he should hold himself under a sacred obligation to acknowledge that he had so altered it. Further reflection, however, had only served to convince him, that the ends of justice never could be obtained, if their lordships yielded to the' proposition now before them. He must be allowed at the same time to say, that he had never expressed any thought so inconsistent with the ordinary course of justice, as that counsel ought to be stopped in the course of their examinations. He never had approved of such a proceeding, but thought, on the contrary, they should be at liberty to carry on their first cross-examination to any extent which in their discretion they might think fit. But he was just as well satisfied of the necessity of exercising some sound and wholesome control over the practice of calling witnesses back, and subjecting them to a renewed cross-examination. They were bound to exercise what the law called a sound discretion in administering justice; and he could not admit the propriety of renewing a cross-examination, unless it was intimated by the counsel claiming such a liberty, that new facts or circumstances had been discovered, or unless it were intended to supply an accidental omission. Counsel might also apply for it in the first instance, if they conceived that any material purpose might be answered by postponing their cross-examination till some further testimony was produced on the other side. This they could only be expected to do in the exercise of a sound discretion due both to
1058
their client and to the court, and their lordships would doubtless consider of such an application. But in the first case, counsel ought always to be at liberty to cross-examine as largely as possible; and there was no principle more essential to the due administration of justice, than that the court should be believed to administer it. There was no reason why that great court should not be intrusted with the same discretion as other courts; and if ever there was a case in which the party accused had a right to expect a satisfactory termination of the inquiry, it was this case. After having, therefore, tormented his mind with considering this subject in every light, he was satisfied that the proceeding would have no end if their lordships should acquiesce in the course now recommended by his noble friends. The only safe way was, to adhere to their established rules.—He might here also take the opportunity of observing, that if noble lords put questions to a witness whilst he was yet under the examination of counsel, they thereby raised a new case-upon which cross-examinations and reexaminations must be admitted, after which their lordships would have to renew their examination, and would be thus moving on in an endless circle. He was! acting in that House under a solemn obligation, which obliged him to state his own opinion even though he differed from all whom he respected. The rule, he conceived, by which they ought to govern their proceedings, was, to allow a cross-examination to any extent in the first instance, and to afford, if the ends of justice seemed to require it an ample opportunity of resuming it. If their lordships were, however, of opinion that a sound discretion did not vest in them, in the discharge of their judicial functions, it would be better to shut up their house at once and acknowledge their inability to go on. He saw no other mode of extricating themselves from their difficulties but that which he had now pointed out; but if their superior wisdom should adopt another course, he would endeavour to struggle through it. It was his duty to make a frank statement of his own opinion in the first instance, and when that was overruled, to lend them all the assistance in his power in carrying what might appear to them a more expedient course into effect.
The Earl of Harrow byexpressed his conviction, that if any thing could inspire

1059
the public with perfect confidence in the disposition of that House to do justice in the important case before them, it was the nature of their present deliberations. It was evident, that, however different their lordships general opinions might be, there was but one spirit by which they were actuated on the present occasion—namely, to discover how they could best discharge their judicial duties, and more especially how they could best discharge them with fairness to the illustrious person accused. The amendment which he had submitted to their lordships, on the proposition of his noble friend, had for its object to comply with the request which had been made to their lordships by the counsel for her majesty. This proposition was grounded on the conviction which he and his noble friend entertained, that there did not appear any very essential difference in the conveniences or inconveniences of the two modes in which their lordships might proceed; and it was their wish, the scale being nearly balanced, to lean to that mode of proceeding which the counsel for the accused stated to be favourable to their cause. At the same time he was ready to admit, that if it should appear in the course of debate, that a greater preponderance of inconvenience existed—he meant, a greater probability of a departure from the attainment of that which was the ultimate end that all their lordships had in view—the discovery of truth, by the course which he recommended—that then it ought by no means to be adopted by the House. He really thought that the counsel for her majesty had laid practical grounds before their lordships for an acquiescence in their application. The plain and simple question was, had the counsel for her majesty been given to understand that the option would be granted them of conducting the cross-examination according to their own discretion? He thought they had, and he thought it would be more satisfactory to every one of their lordships individually, and to the character of the House at large, if they had fallen into a misapprehension on the subject, and had encouraged expectations which they did not intend to encourage, not to disappoint those expectations, after having excited them. Still, however, he by no means denied that the inconveniencies of pursuing the course which he recommended, might perhaps be shown to be so great as to overrule his
1060
arguments. That, however, did not yet appear to him to be the case. If in the course of what had fallen from his noble and learned friend, he had felt convinced that the balance of inconvenience preponderated against his proposition, he should have felt no shame whatever in acknowledging it. Unquestionably, in whatever way their lordships proceeded, considerable difficulty and delay must take place. But there were evils inherent in the case, and they must be fairly grappled with. It was acknowledged on all sides that it would be impossible to call on the counsel whose duty it was to support the bill to sum up, that it would be impossible to preclude them from bringing forward such additional witnesses as the cross-examination might seem to them to render necessary, until the whole cross-examination was completed.—He allowed that there would be a great ad vantage in restricting as much as possible the proceedings in that high court of parliament, within the same rules as those laid down in courts of justice. But their lordships were not to tie themselves so closely down to the observance of those rules as to obstruct themselves in the discovery of truth. As to the apprehension, that by departing from those rules a precedent of a dangerous nature might be established, he thought it chimerical. Centuries had elapsed, and in all probability other centuries would elapse, without the occurrence of any case similar in character to the present. After much deliberation, his noble friend and himself had arrived at the conviction that it would be the most satisfactory course, in this peculiar case, to permit the counsel for her majesty to exercise their own discretion as to the mode in which they would proceed I with their cross-examination. It was for I their lordships to determine on the different propositions which had been submitted to them.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that if the amendment which had been pro- posed by the noble president of the council were brought to the vote, he should certainly vote for it, although with a deep sense of the great inconveniences attending the whole course of proceeding—a sense which had certainly been much fortified by what had fallen from the noble and learned lord on the woolsack—and with an undiminished preference for that other course which he had before declared it to be in his opinion most desira-

1061
ble that the House should pursue, and which he thought would be the only one left for them, even after the adoption of the present proposition. It was now generally felt with reference to the peculiar situation of the proceedings, and to the exercise of that most important right, the right of cross-examination, that the counsel for her majesty (not having been put in previous possession of the names and places of residence of the witnesses, so as to be enabled to inquire into their character and credibility) must have a clear unquestionable right secured to them, and subject to no interference on the part of their lordships, to defer such part of any cross-examination as they might think it necessary to defer, until they had made themselves acquainted with the facts respecting which they wished to inquire-Any man who reflected on the situation of a counsel at their lordships bar, entrusted with the interests of such a client, must be aware that it was quite impossible for him to judge how far he should carry, or where he should stop in a cross-examination, unless a certain opportunity were assured to him—an opportunity not contingent on any thing—for bringing a witness again to the bar for the purpose of continuing his cross-examination. His objection to the course recommended by the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, was, that it did not afford that assurance. Although he did not think that ultimately there would be any material difference in the two modes of proceeding, he yet felt that her majesty's counsel ought to enjoy a certainty on the subject. But, although on these grounds he would vote for the amendment of the noble president of the council, he felt all the difficulties of the case, as connected with the due administration of justice by that House; and the more he reflected on the subject the more was he satisfied of the expediency of the course which had been suggested by his noble and learned friend; and which, if his noble and learned friend should persevere in again bringing it under their lordships consideration, he would warmly support. It was admitted on all hands that great inconveniences must exist, whatever line the House might pursue. Was it not advisable to consider whether it would not be expedient to adopt the one inconvenience, resulting from the proposition of his noble and learned friend, which would put an end to all future inconveniences on the subject. By doing
1062
so, their lordships would establish no precedent—they would occasion no inconvenience—they would place themselves by one act in a situation free from future difficulties, by adjourning to a period which would enable her majesty's counsel to acquire all the information necessary for their case; they would adhere to known rules and practice, instead of wandering into a perilous sea, without chart or compass. According to the course now adopted, the difficulty did not end with the necessity under which her majesty's counsel would lie to recall witnesses for cross-examination. The counsel for the bill would thereby be compelled to call fresh witnessess—it would be necessary to rebut those, by additional testimony on 'the other side; and so on, in a perpetual round, injurious to the ends of justice as they respected her majesty, as they respected his majesty, and as they respected the whole country; and leading to what the noble and learned lord on the woolsack had justly apprehended—an interminable proceeding. What principle could their lordships lay down if they adhered to their present course? Where would they stop? When would they say to the Queen's attorney general "you shall examine no further;" or to the king's attorney-general "you shall call no more witnesses." If it were the object of either party to protract the proceedings indefinitely, their lordships could not more effectually defeat that object than by departing from the course they had adopted. If their lordships acceded to his noble and learned friend's proposition, furnished her majesty's counsel with a list of witnesses, and adjourned for a reasonable period, they would establish no precedent that could hereafter be injurious, they would when they re-met take up the proceeding on a good and settled principle. If, on the contrary, they resorted to expedient after expedient to get rid of difficulties as they arose, they would establish new precedents and new principles that might be pregnant with the most injurious consequences. Let them adopt his noble and learned friend's suggestion, and all future inconveniences would vanish, and their lordships would see their way to the end.
The Earl of Lauderdalewished to be informed of the present state of the question before the House.
The Lord Chancellorstated, that the amendment before the House was, to omit all the words in the original motion after

1063
the word "That," for the purpose of adding "counsel be called in and informed, that under the especial circumstances of the case, the House would consent to the counsel for her majesty proceeding in the cross-examination of witnesses, in the manner they proposed; namely, that they should be enabled to cross-examine to the extent they might prefer, with the liberty of calling back the witness for future examination."
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, he had a proposition to make which he thought it impossible the House should reject. Their lordships had heard the various arguments which had been urged on the subject, and in opposition to each other, by the noble president of the council and the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, the latter of whom had distinctly declared, that to agree to the proposition made by the former would be very much to impede, if not wholly to defeat the ends of justice. Their lordships might have the benefit of the advice of the learned judges; and, under all the circumstances of the case, he submitted to their lordships that they would neglect their duty if they did not avail themselves of it. He proposed therefore that the judges should be asked, "if in a court of law a rule were to be made by which a counsel should be left at liberty to cross-examine a witness immediately after the direct examination to whatever extent he might think proper, with the liberty of calling that witness back and cross-examining him again, what effect such a rule would have on the administration of justice" [No, no]? He thought this proposition ought not to be met with clamour. He thought the House ought to know what effect the judges considered the adoption of such a rule of law would have in the courts below. He knew very well, that if he required the judges to state what effect such a rule would have there (the House of Lords), the proposition would be inadmissible; but he considered it to be quite competent to him to ask them what effect the rule would have in the courts below.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he must object to this proposition. In the first place, he thought the learned judges would be rather embarrassed to say what effect an entire new rule of law would have on the courts below. In the second place it was not practicable so to assimilate the proceedings before their lordships
1064
and the proceedings in a court of law, as to make a rule established in the former a precedent for the latter. Their lordships were governed by their own precedents—Courts of law were governed by theirs. But independently of that consideration, the words "under the especial circumstances of the case," were inserted in the motion expressly to prevent it from becoming a precedent. With respect to what had been urged by a noble marquis, and other noble lords on that side of the House, as to the expediency of adopting a course of proceeding altogether different, he must say, without in the slightest degree meaning [to undervalue the opinion of those noble lords, that he was satisfied the course which they recommended, would be liable to at least as many inconveniences as that which their lordships had thought fit to adopt.
Lord Redesdalewas of opinion that the question which his noble friend proposed to put to the judges, could not be productive of any beneficial answer. He was so persuaded, however, that the amendment, of the noble president of the council would be highly inconvenient, that he could not assent to it. Instead of tending to the discovery of the truth, the mode of examination which the adoption of that amendment would sanction, must tend to the very reverse. It would put the whole of the evidence into the power of the counsel, to manage as he pleased. In his opinion, the cross-examination ought to proceed immediately after the direct examination, although he willingly admitted, that if a sufficient reason were alleged for the proceeding, a witness might be subsequently examined. The proposition before their lordships would, if adopted, enable the counsel to garble the evidence, than which nothing could be more injurious to the ends of public justice.—The effect also would be, that the evidence would be in the utmost confusion, and their lordships would find it impossible clearly and intelligibly to connect the parts. They would not have in their recollection, after the second cross-examination, what had occurred in the first. Although the words "under the especial circumstances of the case," were well intended to guard the proposed rule from being drawn into a precedent; he did not think they would have that effect. Former rules so guarded were, nevertheless, now, cited as precedents. In the duke of Norfolk's case, when the duke attempted to obtain a di-

1065
vorce from parliament, without having I brought a previous action against the adulterer, or without any proceeding in the ecclesiastical court, the House proceeded in an irregular manner. They examined witnesses on interrogatories. They proceeded in a way in which he was sure their lordships would never proceed again. It had been said, that it was an "especial case," but that had not prevented their lordships at that period from at least coming to a right determination on the subject. They told the duke he must establish his case in the ordinary courts and then come to parliament. The duke then brought his action against the alleged adulterer, and recovered damages. He then introduced another bill, but the question having been asked, whether the duchess of Norfolk was a party to it, it was answered in the negative. The duke then proceeded in the ecclesiastical court, and ultimately came to that House, in the way which had ever since been proceeded in. He (lord Redesdale) conceived that it would he highly dangerous, even under the guard of its being stated as an especial case, to put on their lordships Journals a resolution contrary to the regular mode of proceeding. He contended, that all the advantages which ought to be derived by those who opposed the bill would be derived from proceedings consistent with the ordinary rules of courts of justice. He contended, that the proper and regular mode of proceeding was, that the witnesses should be fully cross-examined immediately after the examination in chief.—With respect to not knowing all the circumstances and all the facts that relate to those witnesses, that would unquestionably be a ground for a further cross-examination, consistently with the ordinary course of proceeding in our courts of justice. If, from any circumstances, a material question should not have been put on the first cross-examination, that also would be a ground for a subsequent cross-examination. For what purpose, then, he would ask, could this extraordinary proceeding be required or adopted, unless for the purpose of garbling the evidence? In his opinion it could be for no other purpose. He should therefore withhold his assent from it, and he must say, that if established as a precedent, it would be the most mischievous one ever established.
The House divided—Contents (for lord Harrowby's amendment), 121; Not-
1066
contents, 106; Majority for the amendment, 15.
Lord Ershineexpressed his satisfaction at the vote which had just been given, as it relieved her majesty's counsel from many of the difficulties which would otherwise fetter them in the discharge of their duty. In fact, the state in which the matter stood before that decision was confusion worse confounded. Having, however, got thus far, the period was perhaps arrived, when every remaining difficulty might be set aside. The noble earl opposite had, yesterday, said, that the refusal of a list of witnesses, in the first instance, was productive of advantage to her majesty, more than equivalent to any disadvantage arising from a publication of the evidence. Supposing this to be true, it only showed them, that the effect of committing an error was, their being obliged to make concessions, which might otherwise be avoided. [The noble lord spoke in so low a tone, as to be at intervals inaudible below the bar]. The vote to which the House had come, only convinced him more and more of the necessity of still doing what the House, in his opinion, ought to have done at first —allow her majesty a list of witnesses, and a specification of the times when, and the places where, the alleged acts of criminality were said to have been committed. He meant, therefore, to move, that the House should now adjourn for such a time as should enable her majesty's counsel to make the necessary inquiries in order to prepare for her defence. And in order to ascertain what time would be necessary, he should propose, that counsel be heard at the bar on the subject. He could not conceive what objection existed against a motion of this kind. The witnesses were all here, and he took it for granted under adequate protection. It was seen, that the names and evidence of the witnesses already examined had gone forth to the public, and yet no violence or insult was offered to them. What disadvantage, what danger, then, could arise from furnishing her majesty with the names of the remaining witnesses? If her majesty did receive a list of witnesses, she ought also to know what they were to prove against her, he did not mean to detail, but generally what each witness was to be called on to substantiate, and specifying also the times and places. This, he repeated, would only be doing what ought, in his opinion, to have been done at first. Then

1067
the whole of the evidence would be gone through regularly. The attorney-general could go regularly through his case, and her majesty's counsel could go on de die in diem with the cross-examination, until the case for the Crown was closed. Then, on the close of the defence, the attorney-general would have an opportunity of replying. He might be asked, what would be the case if the Crown should afterwards proceed to call new witnesses, if they were allowed to make out a new case? But he answered this would not be so. If it became necessary on the part of the Crown to have new witnesses, their lordships would have an opportunity of acting under the best advice from those persons who had for so long a time been administering justice in the country. He should therefore move, "That the counsel for the bill be instructed to deliver to her majesty's counsel a list of the remaining witnesses together with a specification of the names and places to which their evidence was to apply." If this was carried, he should then move, that counsel be heard as to the period of adjournment which would be necessary.
The Earl of Lauderdalewished to ask his noble friend, whether he meant this as a revival of his former motion, on the same subject, which had been negatived? He asked this, as he conceived it to be very different. This motion would go to preclude the counsel for the bill from calling any new witnesses.
Lord Erskinesaid, he meant it as a revival of his motion. When a question arose, as to the Crown calling new witnesses, their lordships would, he conceived, be governed by the ordinary practice of the courts of justice. By the vote which had been given, that had been gained which otherwise would have been lost. But the motion he was about to make was at the same time more favourable, and more just towards her majesty.
The clerk here read at the desire of lord Lauderdale, the former motion of lord Erskine from the Journals.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, that his object in having the motion read, was, to show that it differed in its character from that which his noble friend had just made —that the latter was more extravagant and more strong than that which their lordships had negatived. After alluding to the consistency of his noble friend, in voting for the amendment of lord Harrowby, and then in proposing that the
1068
present motion should do away with that amendment altogether, the noble lord proceeded to ask, why he (lord Erskine) did not, if he meant to make such a motion, spare the House the labour of four hours discussion, and propose his motion in the morning? It appeared to him that there were some persons who when they got an inch would take an ell.
Lord Erskinesaid, that nothing was more easy than to give the noble lord a satisfactory answer. In the morning, when he came to the House, the noble earl (Liverpool) interfered,and proposed to give to counsel that mode of examination which the House had before refused ["no, no"].
The Earl of Liverpoolobserved, that the House had not before come to any determination on the subject.
Lord Erskinecontinued—Be it so. He understood that the House appeared inclined to give that which before they appeared disinclined to give. He therefore postponed his motion until he saw to what determination the House was likely to come on the other subject. Surely he could not refuse voting for what he conceived to be good, because there was something which he conceived was better and ought to be granted. He waited until he saw what was the opinion of the House, and his noble friend, who had risen to thrust him out of the possession of the House, now complained that he had not brought forward his motion soon enough. He did not mean that the counsel for the Crown should be bound by the act of William, but he wished that the Crown should, after the cross-examination, not call whom they pleased, but that they should call such evidence as would be legal in a court of law. He would give them the option of calling such witnesses as they thought necessary, under the advice and opinion of the learned judges. Their lordships frequently said, that they wished to assimilate this proceeding, as nearly as possible, to a proceeding in a-court of justice, and with that view it was, that he now proposed an adjournment, in order that the case might, when it again came, proceed without interruption.
Earl Bathurstsaid, that the motion already agreed upon by their lordships gave the accused an advantage which, under all the circumstances, he thought it was-desirable should be given; but it was-quite a different thing to adopt such a motion as that now proposed by the noble

1069
and learned lord. The former motion was agreed to, for the purpose of preventing the examination of witnesses from being interminable; it was granted to avert that mischief, and to give the accused the advantages now sought to be obtained in a different form by the noble and learned lord's motion. In fact, the present proposition had been already discussed and decided upon by their lordships; he had stated his objections to it at the time; they were all in full force still, with others superadded to them; yet, notwithstanding the decision already had upon the motion, it was now introduced again for their consideration, without even a hint of the necessity of calling upon the counsel for the bill to know whether it would not be highly prejudicial to the proceedings upon that bill to give the list of witnesses now for the second time claimed. Was this motion, he would ask, founded upon an assumption that all the witnesses were here, and therefore that no difficulty could arise in complying with the demand? He did not know that the noble and learned lord had any authority for such an assumption. But before they acted upon an assumption of that kind, they ought to call in the attorney-general, and ask him whether he had all his witnesses here. Suppose they were all here, and that a list was given, what security had their lordships, that, from day to day, the persons whose names composed that list would not be exposed, and that too during an adjournment to investigate their, character, to the most libellous and slanderous imputations, just as those had been who had already undergone examination? If the attorney-general were called upon by the authority of their lordships to give a list of his witnesses, was that list to be deemed conclusive? Was the attorney-general, after the adjournment, and after perhaps further information had put him in possession of new evidence upon most important facts, to be concluded by his list, and deprived of the opportunity, however, material to the attainment of the ends of justice, of producing such witnesses? And yet, that might be the effect of acceding to the noble and learned lord's motion. A case of high treason, their lordships knew, was the only case in which a list of witnesses was granted to the accused. He would ask them, if their experience of the operation of that rule afforded any encouragement to them to
1070
extend it? It was true their ancestors had made the rule, but they took care in the mode of its enactment, to throw off its operation from their own times. In fact, it never was acted upon until the time of lord George Gordon. Their only experience of the rule was therefore from that time; and he much doubted whether it furnished them with any very cogent arguments for extending the sphere of its operation. He certainly, speaking for himself, saw in that experience any thing but an inducement to extend the effect of the rule. Even on the very first occasion when it was called into action, lord George Gordon, under whose name at least the dreadful riots of 1780 took place, mainly escaped by strength of that rule. He would also appeal to the recollection of the noble and learned lord, in more recent cases than lord George Gordon's, whether his experience impressed him with any desire to extend to other cases that provision which was allowed in cases of high treason. Did not that noble and learned lord recollect one case, in which immediately after this list of witnesses was given, a principal witness suddenly disappeared? And whether, after the most minute inquiry, there was not every reason to believe, from the best information that could be obtained at the time, that that witness had fallen a victim to an assassin. This was at least one consequence which had been ascribed to that rule. Take even the very last case of high treason which had occurred in this country. The evidence which led to a conviction in that case was brought home to the parties by a chain of facts, which was kept together with the greatest pains and the utmost care. If the smallest link in that chain had been broken, it would have been fatal to the prosecution; and yet, in that very case, two days after the list of witnesses which bound the Crown was given in, a witness was obtained who, if sooner discovered, would have placed the prosecution beyond all risk, and brought home in the most conclusive manner the guilt of the parties. Were they, then, prepared to extend the principle of a rule which often risked the attainment of the ends of justice? But on what principle, he asked, had their ancestors framed that rule? Not for the purpose of enabling the accused to cross-examine with more effect, after obtaining a knowledge of the characters of the witnesses: but solely in order to enable the accused to collect, from the names and places

1071
of residence of the witnesses, the nature of the specific acts which the prosecutor had to substantiate. That was the specific reason for which the rule had been framed. If a knowledge of the names and residence of the witnesses were necessary in this case before the accused could prepare a defence, then the same information must be necessary in other cases, whether civil or criminal; so that if the rule once became extended, the whole principle of the law of evidence must undergo alteration from beginning to end. He repeated, that he saw no end to the alterations in the form of judicial proceedings which they must admit, if they agreed to the motion of the noble and learned lord opposite.
Lord Hollandsaid, that it had been his fixed intention to take no part whatever in this troublesome, tedious, and lie would add, disgusting business, in which their lordships had been pleased to involve themselves; but the noble earl who had just spoken, and his noble friend on the cross-bench, had introduced topics and matter so extraneous to that immediately before them, that, notwithstanding his previous intention, he could not refrain from occupying the attention of the House on the present occasion. He should have thought, indeed, that the consistency or inconsistency of any noble lord as to the particular mode of proceeding to be adopted in hearing evidence in this disgusting case, could have afforded no opportunity to a minister of the Crown to have risen in his place in parliament, and pleaded against the best law which it was the blessing of this country to enjoy. It was still natural, perhaps, that some individuals should see a connexion between two subjects which to him seemed so distinct and immeasurably distant from each other. It was natural, perhaps, that this distinction should be altogether over looked by members of that party in the J state, who, for the last forty years, saw nothing in the public feelings of the country that was not fraught with treason to their power, and Chat treason always of a more malignant dye than any which had ever preceded it. Those who had entertained this opinion of the events of the last forty years did right now, in attempting to fix the imputation of inconsistency on him to whose powerful professional exertions, combined with that most glorious act of their provident ancestors, he (lord Holland), and many other men who fearlessly thought with him upon public
1072
affairs, owed in all probability what they now actually enjoyed of life and property. Great as was the importance of the present case which it was the pleasure of their lordships to entertain, ten thousand times greater, would he assert, was the con-sequence of that act, which now seemed to many of their lordships so full of imperfections. He could not sit in silence and hear an act so full of value impugned, without entering his protest against all the facts and all the reasons which induced the noble earl opposite to inveigh against it in the speech which he had just delivered. It seemed, indeed, to be the opinion of the noble earl, that a man's being acquitted of a charge of high treason proved —what?—not the man's innocence, but that the law of high treason itself was inconveniently framed for the attainment of the ends of justice. Did he mean to say that there was no protection for government from the machinations of traitors, where such a law for high treason existed as that which prevailed in this country? If he did, then for the same reason there was no protection for the authorities in Scotland, where such a law had for ages, if he was rightly informed, been in force; where the parties in all criminal cases mutually exchanged lists of witnesses at different intervals, and derived a reciprocal benefit from the practice. There might, perhaps, be some inconvenience felt by the prosecutor, in particular cases, arising out of the practice; but was there any inconvenience to the justice of the country, commensurate with the safeguard of the subject arising out of it? That he-thought, was the only question which enlightened men had to consider in reviewing the operation of that most wholesome act. Upon that point he was ready to join issue with the noble earl opposite; but he repeated, he could not for an instant sit silent and hear such a description given of the act as it had pleased the noble earl to state his own judgment dictated. Equally prepared was he, to contest the practical fact of the experience of the last forty years, so strongly contended for by the noble earl, as furnishing an argument against the principle of the measure. He denied that that experience showed the law to be either insufficient or improper. Did those acquittals alluded to, justify the opinion pronounced by the noble earl, or did they not, on the contrary, show that to that law his majesty's subjects owed the security they enjoyed for their lives-

1073
and properties. On the subject immediately before their lordships, he should not now be provoked to pronounce any opinion. As to the charge of inconsistency arising out of it, he feared the greater part of their lordships would, be fore the business was over, be more or less tainted with that imputation. The noble earl opposite (Harrowby) had so far acted candidly, that he admitted it was much better to indulge an expectation which counsel were led, though perhaps on too slight grounds, to entertain, rather than disappoint it, when it was considered as likely to prove advantageous to an accused. In that view he entirely concurred with the noble earl; but he was still at a loss to see How the imputation of inconsistency applied in the case. It might, he could easily conceive, prove inconvenient to comply with this promise or supposed promise; but how it was inconsistent he had yet to learn. Their lordships loudly talked of not departing from the forms and principles of justice; but they forgot altogether, that neither in form nor in substance were they acting judicially. They were acting throughout legislatively, both in the principle of the bill and all the collateral parts of it. They were, therefore, he contended, in every step they took upon the bill, entitled to exercise their judgments upon the policy, the necessity, and the expediency of the measure; not that they were to act unjustly, but that they were, while they kept in view whatever of justice was involved in the case, not to lose sight of the expediency and necessity of it, which were essential parts of their consideration. Above all, they should, in justice to themselves, in justice to the illustrious defendant, if two modes of attaining the same object were open to them, select that which had the more liberal appearance towards the accused, and which was more consonant to the general rules of justice. With reference to the course pursued by his noble and learned friend (lord Erskine), and which had drawn down upon him a charge of inconsistency, he would not, in the presence of his noble and learned friend, say all he thought of the conduct he had pursued throughout this unfortunate business: but he could not refrain from saying, that in the midst of these calamitous proceedings, he felt heartfelt pleasure and gratification at seeing his noble and learned friend stand up at his advanced
1074
stage of life and with renovated vigour exert the energies of his mind, to uphold the great fabric of those Jaws, the integrity of which at an earlier period he asserted with the vigour of youth, and with all the powers of a genius unexampled in his own times, and never exceeded in any. The attachment which he felt towards such a man acting still in the decline of life upon the same noble principles which rendered his name illustrious at its outset, even degraded as the House stood in this disgusting business, compensated him in some degree, by the gratification and delight which it elicited, by the display of so much personal worth and virtue, for the humiliation which he had to endure from a contemplation of other matters. His noble and learned friend's fame would go down unsullied to posterity.
The Earl of Limerickwas of opinion, that the permission already granted the counsel against the bill, of cross-examining at their own time and discretion, gave them every opportunity of acquiring information which they could desire respecting the witnesses for the bill. He thought, therefore, the learned lord's motion unnecessary. The time, in fact, between the first production of a witness, and the cross-examination, as he understood it was to be permitted, would give ever)' opportunity which could be required for scrutinizing the characters of the witnesses.
Lord Calthorpethought the motion of the noble and learned lord the only one calculated to extricate the House from the dilemma in which it was placed by the proceeding that had already taken place; otherwise, he feared, their lordships' proceedings would be in their duration interminable. Any alternative which could extricate them from such a situation, he thought it desirable to adopt. Any thing which could rescue them from such an investigation as that in which they were about to embark, in a manner that afforded no prospect of the termination of their proceedings, he was most anxious to see adopted by their lordships. With that view he should certainly vote for the learned lord's motion, as better than that which had been adopted.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that as far as he was able he should try and give effect to their lordships' instructions in the proceedings in this case, whatever his own opinion happened to be upon any one of those instructions. He still appre-

1075
hended the great evil of an interminable duration of these proceedings, from the operation of the permission granted in the motion which had been just adopted by their lordships. They had by that motion, the grounds of which it was not for him now to discuss, placed the accused in a more favourable situation than any other accused was placed in, in the history of their jurisprudence upon any legislative measure. Upon a comparison of the proposition now made by the noble and learned lord with that just adopted, he certainly had, of the two, stronger objections to the motion now before their lordships.
Lord Erskine, in explanation, entreated that their lordships would even now pause before they went further into this proceeding. If they still determined to go on, he should, in the progress of the business devote whatever experience he had in judicial proceedings to guide him through their lordships forms.
The House then divided upon lord Erskine's motion, when the numbers were—Contents, 61; Not-contents, 164: majority against the motion, 103.
List of the Minority and Majority on the Earl of Harrowby's Motion.
Those marked with an asterisk voted in favour of lord Erskine's motion to adjourn.

CONTENTS.

Duke of *Glocester

*Albemarle

Wellington

Coventry

Northumberland

*Jersey

Balcarras

Dorset

Rosebery

*Portland

*Oxford

*Hamilton

*Cowper

*Devonshire

Stanhope

Bedford

Pomfret

*St. Alban's

Harrington

Beaufort

Warwick

*Grafton

Buckinghamshire

*Argyll

*Leinster

*Fitzwilliam

Marq of * Lansdown

*Hardwicke

Queensberry

*Darlington

Bath

*Ilchester

Cornwallis

Delawar

Headfort

Bathurst

Anglesea

Harrowby

*Downshire

*Grosvenor

Huntley

*Fortescue

Earl of *Derby

*Carnarvon

Huntingdon

Liverpool

*Suffolk

Kingston

*Thanet

Longford

*Essex

Mayo

Cardigan

Donoughmore

1076

*Rosslyn

St. David's

Ross

Worcester

*Grey

Lord *Dacre

Nelson

Zouch

Mulgrave

Audley

Harewood

Howard

*Minto

*Say & Sele

Verulam

*Belhaven

Morley

Middleton

Beauchamp

*King

*Blesinton

Grantham

Westmorland

*Holland

*Darnley

*Ducie

*Besborough

*Hawke

Courtown

*Foley

Clare

Walsingham

Cassilis

Berwick

*Breadalbane

*Gage

Aboyne

Grenville

Visc. Lake

*Auckland

*Anson

*Dundas

Melville

*Yarborough

*Duncan

*Downe

*Hood

*Gwydir

*Torrington

*Bolton

*Bolingbroke

*Alvanley

*Clifden

*Erskine

Abp. of York

Gambier

Bp. of Cork

Hopetoun

Oxford

Combermere

Glocester

Hill

Peterborough

Prudhoe

Chester

Hutchinson

NOT-CONTENTS.

Duke of York

*Waldegrave

Clarence

Ashburnham

Richmond

Portsmouth

Rutland

Egremont

Newcastle

Harcourt

Montrose

Chatham

Athol

Romney

Marq of Conyngham

Mount. Edge-combe

Sligo

Winchester

*Carrick

Ely

Digby

Camden

Mansfield

Exeter

Caledon

Thomond

Mountcashel

Stafford

Craven

Lothian

Chichester

Tweedale

Limerick

Northampton

Powis

Donegall

Gosford

Earl of Pembroke

Manvers

Denbigh

Orford

Stamford

Lonsdale

Winchilsea

Cathcart

Shaftesbury

Whitworth

Abingdon

Brownlow

*Plymouth

St. Germain's

Rochford

Bradford

Home

Morton

Kellie

Moray

Dartmouth

Galloway

Aylesford

Glasgow

Macclesfield

Lauderdale

1077

Visc. Exmouth

Rodney

Sidmouth

Somers

Curzon

Montagu

Sydney

Suffield

Hampden

Kenyon

*Hereford

Amherst

Bp of Tuam

Douglas

Canterbury

Selsea

Landaff

Rous

Ely

*Calthorpe

Exeter

Rolle

Bangor

Bayning

St. Asaph's

Northwick

London

St. Helens

Lord De Clifford

Redesdale

Clinton

* Ellenborough

Forbes

Arden

Saltoun

Sheffield

Gray

Manners

Colville

Harris

Napier

Eldon Chan.

Scarsdale

*Carrington

Dynevor

Counsel were accordingly called in, and informed, "That under the special circumstances of the case, the House consented to the counsel for the Queen proceeding in their cross-examination in the manner they proposed; namely, that they may be at liberty to cross-examine witnesses immediately after the examination in chief, to such extent as they may think proper, with liberty to call back the witnesses at a future time, for such further cross-examinationas they may desire."
Then Meidge Barbara Kress was again called in, and further cross-examined by Mr. Brougham as follows, through the interpretation of Mr. Kersten.
Where do you live now? In a private house.
Where? I cannot say this.
How far is it from this place? I came in a coach; I do not know how far it is.
On which side of the river is it? We came over a bridge.
Who lives in the house with you? Only the people of the house.
Where does your brother live? He is with me.
In the same house? Yes.
Has he given you any money? No.
Did he never give you any money? No, at no time, my brother did not.
Did your brother at no time ever promise to give you any at a future time? Not my brother, he cannot promise to me any thing.
Why cannot your brother promise to you any thing? How could he promise to me any thing.
Do you mean that he has no money of his own? Only that which he took from home.
What trade is he? A potter.
Is he a workman, or has he a manufactory of his own? He is a master potter.
What is your father? My father was a Serjeant in the army; he is dead.
Is your mother alive? No; I have a father-in-law now.
What is your father in-law? He is a master weaver, but he no longer carries on his business, because he is too old.
Did any person give you any money before you came over here? No; except the gentleman in Carlsruhe, those ducats.
Did no body promise to give you any money afterwards? No.
Did nobody promise to give you any money after you should come back to Carlsruhe from England? Nobody promised me any thing.
Will you swear upon the oath you have taken, that no person promised to give you any advantage of any sort after you came back from England? Nobody has promised me any thing, but they said I should have the damagement when I came over.
Mr. Goltermann.—"Compensation for the time I had lost."
How much were you to have for compensation? [Through Mr. Kersten.] I cannot say what I should get.
Who was it that told you you should get compensation? The minister, our minister.
Which minister? I said to him I must be compensated for the loss of my situation.
Mr. Goltermann.—"That I should lose my. place by it, and I must receive some compensation for it."
What minister are you speaking of? [Through Mr. Kersten.] M. de Berckstett; that gentleman told me that if I would not go voluntarily, I should be forced.
Whose minister is he? I cannot tell this.
Is he not minister of the duke of Baden? I do not know whether he is minister of foreign affairs, or for the interior.
Mr. Goltermann.—That she does not know whether he is minister in the country, or ambassador.
Mr. Brougham.—Do you mean that you do not know whether he is one of the duke's own ministers, or a minister at the duke's court? [Through Mr. Kersten.] Probably; I do not know, I only know his name; I have not yet had any business with that gentleman, except just this.
How did you happen to see that gentleman? They have called me.
Do you mean that he sent for you? Yes.
Did he not come to the rooms in the inn where you lived? Not M. de Berckstett.
Did not M. Von Reden come to look at the rooms in the inn while you were there? I did not see him.
Do you know that he was there? I cannot tell, I have never seen him.
Did you see, after the princess left the inn, any other gentleman come there to look at the room? I have seen nobody except Herr von Grimm, who came in the rooms and walked about there.
Mr. Goltermann.—He lodged in the inn.
How long had Herr von Grimm lodged in the inn before the princess came there? I

1079
cannot say this, I have not paid any attention to this, I had other business.
What part of the house did Herr von Grimm lodge in? He lived in that house, in No. 13, and his brother in No. 14; before the princess arrived he lived in No. 12 and 13.
Did he not give up No. 12 for the accommodation of the princess? Yes, as much as I have seen.
Did he not return after the princess left, and go into No. 12 to look at what was there? Yes, he ran about just when the rooms were left open, and he took again the room afterwards.
Was there any body with him when he came to look? When he ran about in the rooms there came two other gentlemen, one of them was his brother.
Who was the other? I cannot tell this.
Was he a German or an Englishman? I do not know this neither, I never heard them speak, and I did not pay any attention to it.
What is Herr von Grimm? As much as I could hear, he is the ambassador of Wirtem-berg.
What is his brother? I cannot tell this neither.
How oft had you seen the princess before the day that you say you went into the room, and saw her with Pergami? I have seen her very little, I had too much occupation to pay attention to it.
Did not you wait upon her at breakfast in the morning? No.
Did you never see the princess at breakfast in the morning? Once I came in, and when I was to take the mantle to clean it, I have seen her.
Was it after that time you saw her in the room with Pergami in the evening? Yes, afterwards.
Do you mean that you saw the princess in the room with Pergami, after you had been called in at breakfast, or that you had been called in at breakfast after you had seen the princess with Pergami? Yes, afterwards they called me, for they had spilt something which I was ordered to clean away.
Do you mean that it was after you had been called in in the morning to wipe up that slop, that you saw the princess and Pergami in the evening? Yes, afterwards.
where did the princess dine on the day on the evening of which you saw her in the room with Pergami? I cannot say this, I do not know.
Did she dine in the inn? No, I have not seen it, they have not dined with us.
Did they ever dine in the inn, during the whole time they were in your house? I have never seen it, with respect to the dinner; I only know about the breakfast, I have seen them only at breakfast.
Will you swear they dined once in the inn during the whole time they were there? I
1080
cannot swear to that, because I have never seen that they dined there; I have not paid attention to it, I had other business.
Will you swear that the princess and Pergami did not dine at court every day they were in your house living? I cannot know this, whether they dined at court, or where they dined.
Did you see the princess and Pergami, and the rest of her royal highness's suite go to court, during the time they were there? I have seen them twice going away in a carriage, but whether they went to court I do not know.
Have you seen the grand duke come to the inn, to wait on her royal highness? The real grand duke, and several other gentlemen, I have seen come up to the princess.
Mr. Brougham to Mr. Goltermann.—Have you ever examined this witness before, out of Court? Mr. Goltermann.—Never in my life.
Did you never see her before she came here? Mr. Goltermann.—Never in my life.
You never saw her till the other day? Mr. Goltermann. never saw her till she came to the bar on Friday last.
Have you ever seen her since out of Court? Mr. Goltermann. Never.
Mr. Broughamto the Witness.—What do you mean by come up to the princess? [By Mr. Kersten.]—I can say nothing about it. Do you mean that they came to pay their respects to her royal, highness? Yes, probably they came to make their visit or court.
Did you ever happen to see them so come more than once while the princess was there? Only once; it was just when I went down stairs, that the gentlemen went up stairs.
Mr. Goltermann.—"And then I retired up stairs."
Mr. Kerslen.—She repeated that she went down stairs.
Did you ever happen to see them so come more than once, while the princess was there?[Through Mr. Kersten.]—Only once.
When was it? The other gentleman came with him.
Where did her royal highness receive the duke? I saw that they went up stairs, and then I went up to the third story. Do you mean to represent that the grand duke and his suite passed to visit the princess at the moment that you were coming out of the room? No; I have seen that they went up; then I went down stairs, and again up.
Do you mean to say, that the grand duke and his suite came immediately after you left the room where the princess was? I cannot say whether it was on the same day, or whether it was sooner or later.
Will you swear that the grand duke did not come on that same day to pay his respects? I cannot say; I am not alone in the house; and I had occupations: I have not paid attention to it.
Who was it that gave you the order to go

1081
to the room to carry water? Nobody did tell me to do so; it was my business, which I knew, and I did it every evening.
When you looked at the bed one rooming as you have stated before, was it at the time you were making the bed? Yes, when it was to be made; for I had nothing otherwise to do with the bed.
Had you made any of the other beds in the house that morning before? No; this was the first which I had made, just when they left it, and except the beds of my master and his wife which I made.
When you say, "when they had left it," do you not mean to represent only when whoever had slept in it had left it? In No. 12, or where do you mean?
In No. 12? As much as I know, I know that the gentleman slept there, and I went to make the gentleman's bed.
Was there or not any body else in the room at the time you made it? There was nobody in the room, except a servant in a green coat who came into the room.
Did he come into the room while you were cleaning it out? Yes, it was when I was in it, he came to assist me in turning the mattress; I asked his assistance when he just was there; he came to assist me in turning the mattress.
Who was the servant in green? I cannot tell you this; there were two of them, but I have not observed them so closely, I do not know to whom they belonged.
Have you ever seen them before? The servants.
Yes the servants? I never saw them before; only at the time when the princess was there, then I saw them running about.
Have you ever seen them since? No, I have seen none of them since she left it.
Did you ever see any of them at any other time when you were making the bed in that room except that day? I do not know; I never came into that room except just in the morning, therefore I do not know whether they were there or not.
Did you not make that bed every morning? Yes, that bed in No. 12, I made it every morning.
Did you see one or both of the same two servants on other mornings there when you were making that bed? Now and then I have seen one of them in the rooms.
Did any of them assist you in making the bed any other day except that day of which you now speak? Yes, now and then one of them came into the rooms and assisted me; sometimes he remained, sometimes he went out again.
Have you any doubt that those two were servants in the princess's suite? The servants came with her; probably they belonged to her, otherwise they would not have come with her.
Did they not go away with her, as well as come with her? Yes, as much as I have
1082
seen, they went all away with her as they had come.
Was one of them a Jager? I do not know this; one of them had a green coat, but whether he was a Jager I have not questioned him.
When you had that conversation with Mr. Berckstett, about a compensation for coming over here, what did you say to him when you demanded it? I said to him, "your excellency, must I go; for if I do not must, or if I am not obliged, I cannot leave here; I am a married woman, and I have other business to attend to."
What did he say in answer to that? He said, "If I would not go I would be forced;" and then I answered. "well, then I will go, and God may settle the business as he pleases; my husband will not allow me to go."
When you asked for a compensation for coming, what did the baron say? He said he could not give me any thing; I should leave it to the gentlemen he had no doubt they would recompense me when I came here.
Did he not also say that you should be recompensed when you got home again from hence? No.
Had any of your family a promise of any thing? No.
Will you swear that no promise was given to your husband, or any of your family? I can swear that nothing has been promised to me, and I do not think that anything has been promised to my husband, for otherwise he would have told me so.
The Interpreter was desired to state whether the witness had used the same word which he had translated in one instance "recompence," and in another, "compensation"; he stated that she had not; that in one case she had used the word "entschadigung," and in another, "belohnung."
Was the sixteen or eighteen ducats you got for going to Hanover an entschadigung or a belohnung? I cannot say; it was for my going away from the post to Hanover, therefor it may be an entschadigung, or it may be a belohnung.
Mr. Kersten.—Entschadigung means compensation, belohnung means recompence.
Which do you reckon the ducat was, that the gentleman gave you for seeing him in the morning; was it an entschadigung, or a belohnung? He gave me this for the time lost, therefore it may be an entschadigung for my lost time, for my trouble in going there.
How far was it that you went from the inn? It may be half a quarter of an hour's walk; I cannot say exactly.
How long did you remain with the gentleman; the ducat gentleman? The first time it was the servant who showed me in; I did not stay long, because I had no time to stop.
How long did you stay the second time? Not long at all, for I was just on the stairs

1083
when he gave me the ducat, and I went away; I had no time, I had other business to do.
Were any of the gentlemen that you saw upon those occasions called Mandeville, or Mandevil, or anything of that sort? I cannot say; I cannot recollect the name.
What do you generally get from a person who sleeps a night at an inn, as chambermaid, when he goes in the morning? It comes to a common purse, and the keller receives it, that is the waiter.
How much have you ever got, for your share of that purse, for half a year? It was divided every quarter of a year.
How much have you divided for a quarter of a year? Sometimes 18, sometimes 20, 30, according to the number of strangers we have had in the inn.
Eighteen, twenty, or thirty what? Ducats? Florins.
Do you know a place called the glass-house, near the gate of Carlsruhe? Glashuit.
Mr. Kertten.—Glashuit is a manufactory of glass, where glass is fabricated or made.
Is there not a place that goes by that name, the glass-house, near the gates of Carlsruhe, that serves as a pleasure garden? Yes, many people go there.
Have you ever been there? I walked there with my husband, for pleasure.
Have you ever been there without your husband, before you had a husband? Yes, with the person who became my husband.
Were you ever there with any-body else, or alone? With my husband, and with more servants and maids.
Have you ever been there without your husband, and with any-body else, or alone? Never; never with any-body else but with my husband.
Were you ever there alone? No, never alone.
Before you had a husband? Never, except with my husband.
Before you knew your husband? I went there with my brothers and sisters, and that was by day, never at night.
About what time in the morning used you to make the beds in the inn at Carlsruhe? Just when the gentlemen rose and had come down.
Do you mean to say, that you always went into the room as soon as the gentlemen went out of the room? Many times I went immediately; many times later.
After you had seen the person that you took for the princess in the evening in Pergami's room, did you not go to see whether the countess Oldi was in her room? No; I carried immediately the water to No. 5, and there they were standing; at No. 5, the countess lodged.
Did not you go to No, 5, in order to see whether the countess was there? Yes, I went just there.
Did you not go there for the purpose of seeing whether the countess was there? I went and saw just that it was the princess.
1084
Did not you go there for the purpose of seeing whether the countess was there? No, I went not there; I just carried the water there.
Will you swear you did not go to that room, upon the oath you have taken, in order to ascertain whether the countess was there? I went just there to carry the water, because I must do this, as I did it every evening.
Will you swear, by the oath you have taken, that you did not go to that room in part for the purpose of ascertaining whether the countess Oldi was there? I cannot say this; I did not go for that purpose: I have never thought that I should be asked about this.
Mr. Goltermann.—She says, "I have never had any thought about this: I never thought that I should be asked about it."
Will you swear, upon the oath you have taken, that you have never told any person that you did go to the room of the countess, for the purpose of seeing whether she was there or not? I cannot recollect it; I have no thought about it, whether I have said it to any body.
Will you swear that you have never had any conversation with any person about your going into madame Oldi's room that night? I can swear that I never had a conversation with any body about this matter, namely, that I went there for the purpose of ascertaining whether the countess Oldi was there or not.
Will you swear that you have never had any conversation with any person about your going into madame Oldi's room that night? Nobody has asked me, nobody told me any thing; there was a gentleman asked me whether I had been in the room; I told it to the gentleman who had asked me.
Will you swear that you have never, since you came to this country, had a conversation with any body about your going to madame Oldi's room? No, I have had no conversation with any body; has any body asked me.
Mr. Goltermann.—She says, "how do you mean, whether any body has asked me."
Has any body asked you? [Through Mr. Kersten.] Yes, two gentlemen have asked me.
Have you had any conversation with any other person, besides those two gentlemen about what passed that night? In Hanover they have asked me, and at Frankfort; I cannot tell it otherwise.
Who asked you at Hanover? An ambassador, who he is I do not know, he asked me.
And at Frankfort, who asked you? I do not know who he was, it was a gentleman.
How long have you ever been at Frankfort at one time? Five or six days.
Were you ever at Frankfort at any other time? No, never, except just when we went to Hanover, then we passed through Frankfort.
Whom have you spoken to upon this subject since you came to this country? Two gentlemen have come to sec me, but who they are I do not know, I cannot tell.

1085
Have yon ever spoken upon this subject with any other person in this country, besides those two gentlemen? No.
Do you know a captain Jones, or a major Jones in this country? No, I know nobody of that name.
Did those two gentlemen that you talked to, speak German? As much as you [the Interpreter] do here, one of them.
What was his name? I do not know,
Was he a German, or an Englishman? I do not know, he spoke German; but whether he was a German I do not know.
Besides the house where you now are living, have you ever been in any other house since you came to London? No, I have been no where else, except here in this House.
When were you first in this House, what was the first day you were in this House? On Friday last week.
Had you ever been here before that? No.
When you say you never were in any other house in this country, except where you live, do you mean that you never lodged in any other house, or that you never were in any other house at all? When we arrived we went into an hotel only for a few hours, and then into the house where I lodge.
Have you ever been for any other space of time, however short, into any other house except those two? No, no where else.
How many servants were there in the inn at Carlsruhe, where you lived? There were two waiters, and the post-boys, and a groom.
Was there any other chambermaid besides yourself? I was the only one.
How many maids came with the princess? I have seen no more than two and the countess.
Examined by the Lords.
Earl of Mansfield.—When the courier came forward, and ordered a broader bed, did he give any reason for ordering that broader bed?
Mr. Broughamrequested leave to submit, through the House, that what the courier said could not be received as evidence.
The question was withdrawn.
When you made the bed in the morning, and observed the stain, had the bed the appearance that two persons had slept in it? No, the cushions or pillows lay one upon the other, so far as I recollect.
Earl of Limerick.—You have said that you went to make the bed when they had left it, or just as they had left it, what do you mean by they? When I made the bed there was nobody in the room, I had seen nobody when I made the bed.
Lord Hood.—Had you any conversation with any person respecting your observation
1086
of her royal highness and Pergami? I never have made any observation to any body.
You expressed yourself to have been frightened and that the princess jumped up; upon that fright that you experienced at seeing the princess jump up, did you communicate to any one that fright that you experienced after that event? I spoke to nobody about it, except M. Grimm asked me about it afterwards.
How could M. Grimm know any thing of that, unless you had communicated it to some one?
The question being objected to was withdrawn.
How long 'after the princess left the inn were those questions asked you? As soon as they were away, then I made the room, and Monsieur de Grimm asked me about it.
What did Grimm ask you? He asked me into his room, and about it, and then I was unwilling to say it, but he asked me again, and then I said it.
What were you asked? He asked me, have you never seen any thing.
The Earl of Lauderdaleprefaced his examination of the witness, by observing, that since the examination had begun, he had not availed himself in any question that he had put, of the knowledge he had acquired as a member of the secret committee. He regretted much the rancour of feeling which possessed the public mind on the present occasion, and which existed to a degree that he had never witnessed on any former occasion.
When you saw the princess at beak fast, do you recollect who was in the room? They were all in the room, the gentlemen and the ladies.
Can you state what gentlemen and what ladies? The countess, and the other gentleman who was with her.
You have said that it was in the course of your duty to carry water to the chamber No. 12, did you the next night after seeing the princess there, carry water in a similar manner to No. 12? No, it was then shut, and I placed it before the door of the room.
Mr. Goltermann.—She adds to that, "when the room was not open, I have placed it before the door."
After the night in which you saw the princess in that room, did you generally find the door shut or open when you carried water? It was shut.
Was it generally shut? Yes, many times it was shut, many times it was open.
Do you mean by the door being shut that it was merely closed, or that it was actually locked? I intended several times to go in, but it was locked, and I could not go in.
Whose room was No. 10? The princess's.
Did you carry water to that room? No, the maids took care of that.
The following questions were put at the request of Mr. Brougham:
About what time of the day was it that you generally took the water to the room and found it locked? Never by day, only in the evening: except when they asked for it in the morning, then I carried it.
Do you mean to say that you found the door locked twice, or often? I did not observe it so exactly; twice or several times.
[The witness was directed to withdraw.]
Then Giuseppe Bianche was called in, and sworn through the interpretation of the Marchese di Spineto.
Mr. Denmanobjected to the evidence being given through the interpretation of the marchese di Spineto, not on the ground that he had not interpreted truly, but that he was informed he had seen the witness before, and had interpreted the examination taken out of court by the attorney on the part of the prosecution; he conceived, therefore, that the rehearsal of the evidence which had taken place before, might in some degree affect the mode in which the evidence might be given now.
The Earl of Liverpoolcould see nothing in the objection. The marchese di Spineto had been retained as interpreter for the government, and if the attorney had employed him out of the House, it was no reason why his very useful and satisfactory services should now be dispensed with. The interpreter of the other side would be present to assist, should any occasion arise; and it was certain that the House would lose a great deal if any other individual than the marchese were employed between the witness and the House.
Counsel were directed to proceed with the examination.
Examined by Mr. Parke through the interpretation of the Marchese di Spineto.
What countryman are you? I am an Italian Swiss, that part of Switzerland that belongs to the kingdom of Italy.
Of what part of Italy are you a native? In the department of Tessin and in the town of Faido.
Where do you reside? In Venice.
What is your employment when you are at home? The guard or the door-keeper of the inn Grande Bretagne.
How long have you been in that employment? Fourteen years.
Do you remember at any time seeing the princess of Wales at Venice? I have seen her twice.
When was the first time that you saw her royal highness, in what year? About five years ago.
Was she at the inn the Grande Bretagne?
She was for three days, and then she passed to a house adjoining.
What persons were with the princess at that time? She had a chamberlain, a second chamberlain, three couriers, and I think two more domestics.
Do you remember who were the couriers? One was the Brunswick courier, another was a Bartholomew Pergami, and the third was Theodore Majoochi.
When the princess was at the other house, had you occasion to go there sometimes? I had, every day.
What was your employment, for what purpose did you go there? Because it always happened that I should carry something.
Do you recollect a jeweller being in that house one day? I do.
Did the princess purchase any thing from him? She bought a Venetian chain; a chain made in Venice, which is called a manina of gold.
Was that during dinner-time, or before or after dinner? The jeweller came at the end of the dinner, when all the company were going to get up from dinner.
Did you see Pergami in the room at that time? He was always behind the chair of her royal highness to change her plate, in the dress of a courier.
Did you see the princess and Pergami together, after the rest of the company had left the room, on that day? I did.
What passed between them when you saw them together? She, after having got up, took the chain from her own neck and put it round the neck of the courier; the courier afterwards took it off from his own' neck, and put it round her neck; and then he took her by the hand, and accompanied her into the room where they went to drink coffee.
Did they go out of the room together? Yes, together; but Pergami afterwards left the room to go to dinner.
Did you observe any thing more pass between them than what you have mentioned? I did not.
After the chain had been put the second time upon the princess's neck, did they go immediately, or did they stop a little longer in the room? They went immediately away.
Did you see Pergami at Venice the second time the princess was there? The second time I did, when she came to Venice from Trieste, three or four days, and lodged there.
Had Pergami any decorations, any orders, the second time you saw him at Venice? He had a string of orders jewelled, or ornamented with jewels.
Had he any title? I heard him called by all baron Pergami.
When you saw the princess and Pergami go out of the room the first time they were at Venice, in what manner did they go out, or in what manner did they conduct themselves

1089
towards each other before they went out? He took her by the hand, squeezed her hand, and went to the door; she went in, and he went to dinner.
Did you see the princess and Pergami the second time they were at Venice? I have seen them come in and go out every day.
How many days did you see them? Four days.
Did you see them on the canals at Venice? They went twice a day on the canal.
Were they alone in the boat, or were other persons with them? There was always somebody with them, except twice, when they went out alone.
When you saw them going out of the house together, were they walking together, or were they separate from each other? They were always arm in arm; then he also gave her his hand to step into the gondola.
Mr. Cohen.—He adds the words "as I did."
What do you mean by those last words, "as I did"?[ Through the marchese di Spineto.]—I do not understand the question.
When you saw them going out of the house together, were they walking together, or were they separate from each other? They were always arm in arm.
Did you ever give your arm to the princess, as well as Pergami? Never the arm, but I took her by the hand to assist her in going into the gondola.
Cross-examined by Mr. Denman.
Did you see that done with the golden chain through the key-hole? I was in the same room where they dined.
Then the princess and Pergami must have seen you standing by? I was there.
Have you been to Milan to be examined to these facts? I have been.
When did you first go there? I left Venice on Christmas Eve.
Was that the first time you went to Milan to tell the story? That was the first time.
What money or compensation had you for going from Venice to Milan upon that occasion? I received nothing else but my expenses on the journey.
Did you receive a sum of money, or did some person pay for you? A commissary came to take me from Venice, and he paid the expenses of the journey.
Had you nothing for your loss of time? Nothing.
What are you to have for coming here? To come here I have received nothing else but my travelling expenses.
What bargain have you made; what pay are you to have for coming here? None.
Do you mean to swear that you are to receive nothing for a compensation for your loss of time in coming here, and in staying here? They have told me that I am to receive nothing, except to come to London to tell the truth, and this summons I have obeyed.
What are you to be paid for telling the
1090
truth? I have made no agreement nor condition; if they give me something, I will take it; if not, I win go without.
Do you expect nothing? I expect nothing; for this reason I have brought money with me to go back, if they let me.
Who sent you here; who induced you to come here? Colonel Brown from Milan.
Did you see the advocate Vimercati? I have seen Vimercati the first time, but not the second.
Did you say nothing to either of those persons about a compensation for your loss of time incoming to England, and staying there? I have said nothing of that, except that at Milan, whilst they were speaking about several things, I said that I would not come any more, because I was afraid.
Are those two the only persons whom you have seen upon the subject of your coming over here? And a certain Andreazzi, who is the same commissary who came to Venice to fetch me.
How long have you been in this country? Just a fortnight to-day.
Are you now a waiter or a porter at the inn at Venice? If I return back quickly, if not I shall not continue in that service.
Supposing you do not return quickly, but lose your place, do you not expect to have it made good to you in money? I expect nothing; because I know nothing; and what displeases me is, that I shall be obliged to go and beg for another master.
Do you wish to persuade their lordships you have made no bargain whatever, and that you do not expect to receive any compensation for that which you must in that case lose? I have come here to tell the truth without any pay, and what am I to expect.
Did anybody tell you lately to give that answer here? Nobody, I have never spoken of this business with any body.
Whom have you lived with in this country? In company with twenty or twenty-five more.
Was Theodore Majoochi one of them? He is.
Will you swear you have had no conversation with that man about the evidence you were to give here? Yes, I can swear.
Did you not remind Majoochi that you were the person who was there when the princess came there? The first time he saw me, because we were together; but the second time he remained behind to pay attention to the coaches.
Have you not reminded Majoochi, that you knew one another at Venice, when the princess first came there? Yes, I told him so, because we went to drink together some afternoon.
Have you breakfasted every day with Majoochi for the last fortnight? We breakfasted and dined all together.
Do you sup together? Those who want to sup, sup; those who do not want to sup, do not sup; whoever is present takes a supper, if he has an appetite.

1091
Did you pass the whole day together? Not the whole day, because Majoochi is with his wife, and sometimes he conies out, and we walk together.
Do you remember the name of the jeweller whom you saw bring this golden chain? Yes, Fana.
Is he one of those five-and-twenty people who dine together? No, he is a merchant who is at Venice always.
Where does he live at Venice? He has a shop in the Old Procurazia, in the Piazza St. Marco.
Had the jeweller left the room when the princess and Pergaroi remained behind? He had gone away some little time.
Had all the company left the room? They had.
How long had they left? They had just gone before; three or four minutes. Was the door shut after them? It was. How came you left behind, shut up with those two persons? As people went out of the dining-room, they shut the door to prevent the wind; but I was with the servants, to take away the things from the table.
What had become of the other servants? There was only one of the waiters within, in the other room, to get the coffee ready.
Do you mean the princess's servants, or the other waiters at the inn? He belonged to the inn.
Who sent you here; how came you here in England? Colonel Brown.
What power had colonel Brown to send you here? He has sent his commissary An-dreazzi to Venice, to tell us that we must go to Milan, to pass over to England,
What power had the commissary Andreazzi, to send you away from your place to England? This I do not know, because he said that if we would not come willingly, we should be made by force.
Has Andreazzi any office at Venice? None, he also is a Swiss of Bellenzona, in the Canton of Tessin.
How does that give him any power to send you to England? He has no authority, but he told me if we came willingly it would be better, if not, we should one day he made by force to come; and I rather preferred to come willingly, than by force.
What do you mean by being better? I mean that it is better to come, than to be accompanied by force.
Did you see any ambassador at Venice? No other but the English consul. Who is that? Mr. Hoppner.
Did Mr. Hoppner desire you to come? I never spoke of this business with him.
Nor any body in his employment, any secretary or servant? On the contrary, I wished to call upon him and speak to him, but he was in the country.
Re-examined by Mr. Parke.
Did you see Majoochi at any time, between
1092
the time that you saw him at Venice, and when you saw him again in England?
Mr. Denman objected to the question, as not arising out of his cross-examination;
Where had you the conversation you speak of with Majoochi? What conversation?
Where you reminded him of having met him at Venice? Walking below.
Was that since you came to England? Yes.
The witness was directed to withdraw.
Ordered, that the further consideration and second reading of the said bill be adjourned till to-morrow morning ten o'clock.