§ The order of the day being read for the further consideration and second reading of the Bill, intituled, "An Act" to deprive her Majesty, &c." and for hearing Counsel for and against the same,
§ The Earl of Blesingtonbegged to take that opportunity of remarking, that a complaint had gone forth, that the rapid manner in which questions were put one after another to the witnesses, was calculated to produce confusion, and to induce a witness to commit inaccuracy, from the necessity of answering as quick as the questions were put. He therefore suggested, for the purpose of obviating any possible inconvenience of this kind, that the short-hand writer 542 should be directed to read over each question and the answer given to it, before another question was put to a witness.
The Lord Chancellorrequested, that Mr. Gurney would have the goodness to read over each question and the answer when it was given, before another question was put.
The Earl of Lauderdalewould say nothing which could be construed into a desire to have a different direction given than that pointed out by the learned lord on the woolsack; but still he must say, that if the short-hand writer were ordered to pursue this course, it would have the certain tendency to destroy the main effect of cross-examination.
§ Earl Greyquite agreed with the noble earl, that it would impair the effect of cross-examination; but still, if witnesses were unable to speak so audibly as that the House could hear them, what else was to be done? Unless the short-hand-writer were to read the answers, he, for one, must say that he would lose nine answers out of ten. The witnesses must be heard, and it was better their answers should be repeated by the short-hand-writer, than remain unknown to many of their lordships.
§ Counsel were called in.
§ Then Lieutenant Joseph Robert Hownam was again called in, and farther examined by their lordships as follows:
§ Lord Erskineobserved, that he did not find it necessary now to put the questions to this witness that he intended yesterday; in fact, they had been answered in the course of yesterday, when put by others in a different form.
Lord Walsingham.—Do you know where it was that the princess took her bath on board the polacre, what cabin, or where? I never saw her royal highness take a bath on board, consequently I cannot tell.
Earl of Carnarton.—You have stated, that you were with her royal highness at Trieste, can you speak from your own knowledge, whether after the time you joined her royal highness in Italy, she ever was at Trieste, except upon the occasion you have referred to? Never.
Lord Kingston.—Were you in the princess service before Pergami? I was not.
You never served her before? I never served before in her service.
Do you know the reason that Pergami was selected to be in her royal highness's tent in preference to yourself or Mr. Flinn? I do not.
Is it customary for a sentinel to sleep on his watch? It certainly is not customary for a sentinel to sleep on his watch.
543 On board of what ship have you served? I served in many ships.
Be good enough to name them, and the captains? I have served in the Africaine, captain Manby; in the Lively, captain Hammond; in the Centaur, sir Samuel Hood; in the Barfleur, captain M'Cloud; in the Lavinia, lord William Stuart; in the Resistance, captain Adam, captain Rosenhagen and captain Pellew; in the Undaunted, captain Usher; I think those are all the vessels I have served in.
How many years have you served? Since the early part of 1803.
Earl of Darnley.—You are understood to have said, in answer to a question put in the latter part of your examination, that there was no mystery or concealment whatever in Pergami's sleeping underneath the same tent with her royal highness on board the polacre; on other occasions, when Pergami may have slept near her royal highness during that journey, was there any mystery or concealment of any kind? None whatever.
What is your opinion of Pergami, as the servant of her royal highness? I must here confess, that he was excessively attentive, and most ready in his duty.
Was he among the servants of her royal highness more likely to be selected, on account of his fidelity and attachment, than any other to guard her royal highness? I should think, from the way I have seen the marquis Ghisiliari and other persons conduct themselves towards him, that it would authorise that.
No suspicion was ever entertained in your mind, in consequence of the circumstance you have mentioned? None.
You have been asked relative to Mrs. Hownam, to which you declined giving any reply, have the goodness to state about the age of Mrs. Hownam? About thirty.
Have you always lived together as man and wife ought to do?—
On this question being put, there was a loud cry of "Order! order!"
The Lord Chancellorcould not conceive how the question could apply in any way to the inquiry before their lordships.
You are well acquainted with lieutenant Flinn? Yes, I am. You believe him to be a man of honour?
Mr. AttorneyGeneral submitted an objection to the question.
The Counsel were informed, that the only question that could be put upon that subject was, "Is lieutenant Flinn a man to be believed upon his oath?"
Do you believe lieutenant Flinn a man to be believed upon his oath? I believe lieutenant Flinn to be a perfect man of honour.
I wish to know, but I do not desire to press 544 the question, whether, from the knowledge he has of lieutenant Flinn, he believes his understanding to be at all times perfectly clear? I am not vain enough to give an opinion on the understanding of a man of my own age.
Lord De Dunstanville.—What was the distance from the steerage to the tent? They are upon separate decks, the steerage of the vessel is underneath.
From the helm? I should think four, or five, or six feet, five feet probably.
You have said, that sometimes during the voyage from Jaffa, lieutenant Flinn slept on deck, do you not think when lieutenant Flinn slept there, her royal highness was sufficiently protected? His sleeping there was a thing that was not constant.
When he did sleep on deck, was her royal highness sufficiently protected? I should think she was sufficiently protected.
If lieutenant Flinn had slept upon deck during the whole voyage from Jaffa to Syracuse, would it have been necessary that any one should sleep in the tent with her royal highness for her protection? There may have been many reasons; the ship rolling very heavy—an accident might have happened in the tent, and twenty things—a sea breaking on board.
Is that to be understood to be an answer to the question? Yes.
You have said that at night you sometimes went up the ladder from the dining-cabin to the tent, but that finding the princess had retired for the night, you withdrew; how do you reconcile this proceeding with your opinion that there was nothing indecent in Pergami passing the night in the tent with her royal highness? I withdrew, from the impossibility of getting on deck, as the tent came close round to the combings of the hatchway, all round on the side on which the ladder was placed.
You stated that there was no light in the dining-room? I think not.
What was the occasion of your going into the dining-room, and from thence into the tent? From the habit of going up there all day; I did not know that the tent was closed; it was not absolutely in the night; ten o'clock, I think I said—towards the evening.
At what period of the year was this? We left Jaffa I think on the 17th July, and we arrived at Syracuse, I think, on the 20th of August.
Do you mean to say, that at that period of the year, it was not dark at 10 o'clock? It was night-time, it was dark; it was as dark as it is at such an hour in such a climate.
When you went up the ladder, at ten o'clock, did you not know that the tent was closed? I did not.
Earl Grosvenor.—Have you any reason to believe, that after the violent attack made on her royal highness's house at Genoa, or from any circumstance preceding your calling out baron Ompteda, or from any other circumstances at that time, her royal highness entertained any particular apprehensions with regard to her personal safety? She did, because she has mentioned it to me.
Did she, in consequence of such apprehensions, express to you a wish at that time to be more closely attended by the male part of her establishment? I have heard her frequently mention this affair, saying, she would have somebody always near her; I cannot recollect the precise words it was mentioned in.
Near her in consequence of those apprehensions? It was from those apprehensions she had previously mentioned.
§ Lord Combermere.—Yow have stated, that, on account of the rolling of the ship, as well as for the protection of her royal highness, it was necessary to have somebody in the tent with her; would not yourself or Mr. Flinn, or any seafaring person, have answered that purpose better than a landsman, if it was on account of the rolling of the ship? I should imagine if that was the only cause, certainly a seafaring man would be most capable of rendering assistance.
Could not he have answered both purposes, have protected her royal highness, and have assisted her in the event of the rolling of the ship? I trust he could.
Marquis of Downshire.—Did any facts to your knowledge occur at the princess's residence, that occasioned the quarrel between you and baron Ompteda? By the confession of a servant; I saw the servant on his knees begging pardon for his crime.
Mr. Attorney General submitted, that the words, "By the confession of a servant," could not stand on the Minutes.
The Counsel were informed, that each lord in the House would of course be aware that the witness having stated, that he knew it only by the confession of a servant, it must be taken that he did not know it at all.
Before whom was that servant kneeling, and what was the name of that servant? Before the princess of Wales, his name was Maurice Credi.
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
The Earl of Lauderdalewas of opinion this could not with propriety be received as evidence. He requested, that the two last questions and answers might be read over, which was accordingly done. His lordship then submitted, that the statement that the witness had seen the servant kneeling to make a confession ought not to stand on the Minutes.
§ Earl Greywould agree with his noble friend, that the answer referred to could 546 not be received as evidence, if it went to state facts that had come to the knowledge of the witness from the confession of the servant. But unless his ears deceived him more than they had ever done in the course of his life, not one circumstance had been described; all that had been stated was, that the witness had seen a servant kneeling to make a confession, and that the name of that servant was Maurice Credi. What lie had said certainly could not be stated, but nothing of this had been conveyed to their lordships' minds in the answer which had been objected to.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, it was perfectly true, that nothing of what had been confessed by the servant had been conveyed to the mind, by the answer alone; but coupled with the question, it was clear that certain circumstances had been brought to the knowledge of the witness by the confession of the servant. A hundred such answers would give the House no' information of facts known by the witness of his own knowledge. It was on the question and answer conjoined, that he founded his objection.
§ Earl Greythought, that on this, as well as on many other occasions, much time was unnecessarily lost. If the answer complained of, stated what had been confessed by the servant, the objection would be a good one; but he could see no objection to that answer remaining on the Minutes, which merely stated what the witness knew, of his own knowledge, that he had seen a servant kneeling before her royal highness, and that the name of that servant was Maurice Credi.
Lord Hollandcomplained of an objection being stated, not only after a question had been answered, but after another and another after that had been disposed of, and regularly taken down by the shorthand writer. Why did not his noble friend rise in the first instance, to move, that the first of the questions should be struck out? He thought it would save much time if it were made a rule that no question should be objected to but at the time of its being put; and that after another question had been asked, they ought not to go back to take into their consideration what had previously been put on their Minutes; for if they did so, there was no saying how far they might go back. Such inquiries would be interminable, and must add still more to that intolerable loss of time, which was already the subject of just complaint.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, it was undoubtedly important, that objections to questions should be offered as soon as possible; but it might so happen, that a final answer might be of so objectionable a nature as to render it necessary to expunge from the Minutes the questions and answers that led to it. The witness was asked, Did he know of any acts or circumstances that caused a particular result? and he answered, That he had derived his knowledge from the confession of a servant. The fair interpretation of this was, that the witness was present at a statement made by that servant to another person; but whether this confession had one word of truth in it was not proved. The declaration of the witness might, therefore, under these circumstances, be considered as a direct assertion, that, in fact, he knew nothing of those circumstances. The name of the servant was required; and it was stated: if, therefore, he was not present to speak to the facts, the whole must fall to the ground.
The Marquis of Buckinghamsaid, it did not appear to him that the question and answer ought to stand; for that could not be received as evidence which had nothing to do with the case, but which related merely to a private quarrel between the witness and baron Ompteda. He was so far from thinking this ought to be received as evidence, that he was of opinion the whole ought to be expunged.
The Earl of Carnarvonthought it important, to inquire into the circumstances connected with the quarrel between the witness and the baron Ompteda, as the evidence given on these points would go to affect materially the testimony of a most important witness, Theodore Majoochi. He did not know why their lordships should be precluded from any allusion to those circumstances. He did not see that if the question were put—" Did you see any, and what servant kneeling before her royal highness? "—there could be any possible objection to its being answered.
The Witness was again called in.
Marquis of Downshire.—With whom did this person, Maurice Credi, live; whose servant was he? He was the servant of her royal highness the princess of Wales.
The next question I wish to ask, is one which I would submit to the House, to know whether it is a proper question to be asked or not. The question is, whether it was in consequence of what that man Credi said to her 548 royal highness, that the witness called baron Ompteda out?
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
The Earl of Lauderdalecaused the last question to be read. He then objected to it, as referring to a matter not connected with the case.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he was sure that the cause which induced this gentleman to call out baron Ompteda had nothing to do with the issue their lordships had to try.
The Lord Chancellor.—of course the noble marquis will not suppose that I would have the presumption to say, that he has no right to put any particular question; but I should not do my duty in this House if I did not declare, plainly and directly, that I think the question cannot legally be put.
The Earl of Liverpoolwas aware that their lordships were not shackled by the ordinary rules of evidence; but he believed there was scarcely a case in modern times, in the progress of which the peers had not imposed that restriction on themselves; and in this instance, the practice had been followed to the present moment. Now, he would throw it out for the consideration of their lordships, what a sea of difficulties they would have to encounter, if, having adopted that course, they should suddenly abandon it, and claim the right of putting any sort of questions they pleased.
§ Earl Greythought their lordships ought to confine themselves as much as possible to the rules of law that prevailed in the Courts below; and, having so long adopted that principle, he conceived it would not be right to depart from it, except on some very important occasion. He did not understand that his noble friend was going to press this question, which, under the circumstances of the case, could not, in his opinion, be put. To make it a legal question, the case of baron Ompteda must be connected with that into which they were authorised to inquire.
The Marquis of Devonshirewas willing to withdraw the question, which he had put, because it had not been asked by any other peer. He still wished, however, to elicit the fact by some other means.
The Witness was again called in. Marquis of Downshire.—Do you know 549 where Maurice Credi now lives? I do not know but from hearsay.
Do you know where Maurice Credi now lives? I have heard that he is in England.
With whom? I do not know with whom; I have not heard with whom.
Did Majoochi ever mention Ompteda's name to you? I recollect perfectly, at Rome, mentioning to Majoochi the commands of her royal highness, that the servants should not, on meeting baron Ompteda, molest him, or offer him any insult. I never had any conversation with the lower servants of the house on such a subject, consequently he never could have mentioned it to me.
Majoochi never mentioned Ompteda's name to you? I do not recollect it; I do not know that he did.
Earl of Rosebery.—When you saw this man upon his knees to her royal highness, did you hear her make any reply to his question of asking forgiveness? She forgave him.
Do you recollect the words? I cannot recollect the words.
Viscount Falmouth.—You have stated, that you have seen her royal highness walking arm in arm with Pergami at the Villa d'Este, was she then with Pergami only? Walking arm in arm in the garden.
Was there anybody else in company? I do not remember any one particular time to have seen them alone in the garden walking arm in arm.
Are you positive you have never seen them so walking whilst Pergami was courier? I do not recollect having ever seen them so walking while Pergami was courier.
You are not positive you have not seen them so walking together while Pcrgami was courier? I never recollect to have seen them so walking while Pergami was courier.
Lord Hood.—Did the baron Ompteda dine at the princess's table at Milan? I think he did.
Did he at Como? He did. Did he at the Villa Villani? He did. Did Majoochi wait at the princess's table at those places? He did.
Duke of Athol.—You have said, that you considered it necessary, in the situation of the princess of Wales on hoard the polacre, that a male attendant should sleep near her; did you ever express that sentiment to the princess of Wales herself? I never did.
In the reasons which you have assigned for not considering it a degradation in the princess of Wales to sleep under the tent with Pergami, you have said, that there was no mystery in the case, and that the hatchways were open; you have since said, that in an attempt one night to go up the hatchway, you found the tent closed; do you consider that there was no mystery in that? The tent being closed, her royal highness had retired to rest; I did not consider that there was any mystery whatever in that.
Was Pergami in the tent at that period? I 550 did not see him; I do not know; I cannot say.
Do you know that he was not in the tent? I do not know that he was not in the tent.
You have already said, that you have heard and believed Pergami slept in that tent; have you any reason to believe that he was not in the tent at that period when the tent was closed? I never thought about it, I did not think of it.
You have before said, that you never represented to her royal highness the princess of Wales that it was necessary for a male domestic to sleep near her upon the deck, you consequently could not be the recommender of the measure; when you considered it necessary for a male domestic to sleep near the princess of Wales in the tent, did you consider that it was necessary for a male domestic to sleep within the tent? I never represented the one nor the other.
You have said, that you thought it necessary for a male domestic to sleep near her royal highness; did you think it necessary that a male domestic should sleep within the tent? I never thought of the thing at all; and, probably, had there been nobody under the tent, I should have taken as little notice of it, as I did when there was somebody under the tent; when I heard it, I supposed it was necessary; I thought it was necessary within myself.
Was it for the princess's safety you thought it necessary a male domestic should sleep near her? Her royal highness thought so, and I did not think otherwise.
You have already stated, that in your opinion it was necessary, but that opinion you did not communicate to her royal highness the princess of Wales; but in your last answer it appears as if the princess of Wales did communicate it to you; did the princess of Wales in fact communicate it to you? She did not; not on that occasion; except after the business of Genoa, after the general remark that she had always made; not, with the exception of that.
What was the danger to be apprehended on board the polacre? I do not know any immediate danger.
Was there any danger? I do not know any immediate danger, not personal danger; if I had thought that, I should not have been easy myself to have slept below.
Was there any danger sufficient to have induced you at any time to recommend a male attendant sleeping within the tent? I never did recommend it.
§ Lord Grantham.—You have said, that at Carlsruhe the princess dined with the grand duke, except one day that she dined with the Margravine; did you dine in company with her royal highness on those occasions? I did.
You have said also, that she supped at the grand duke's, and also at the Margravine's, did you sup in company with her? Yes, I did.
551 At what o'clock at that court is the dinner? I positively cannot recollect that.
About what hour? I do not recollect the hour sufficiently to be able to mark it.
Have you any recollection of the lateness of the hour of supper and the evening parties there? I cannot say to what hour they lasted; they lasted late in the night, probably twelve o'clock.
Can you of your own knowledge, say, whether the princess had time to return home between dinner and supper, between the dinner and the subsequently going to the other house, or supping at the same house? I should imagine yes.
Did she, to your knowledge, on any one of those days, return home between the dinner and the supper? I do not recollect that.
Will you undertake to say, that she did not? I will undertake to say, that I do not recollect the circumstance; if I had the smallest recollection of it, I have no end in keeping it back, in withholding it.
§ Earl of Darlington—Your attention is directed to the time when Pergami, Camera, and Teodoro, took leave of her royal highness on disembarking at Terracina; you mentioned that they, each of them, kissed her hand; do you know that Pergami had not taken leave of her royal highness before coming on deck? I do not know that he had; I have not an idea of it.
Did you see those three persons come upon the deck together? No; I think we were all on deck together.
Pergami, Teodoro, and Camera? That is the recollection I have of it; every body was upon deck.
Did the princess then come upon deck when you were all there? I do not recollect that the princess was below even.
Did you ever see Pergami take leave of her royal highness upon any occasion, in a different manner from those men just mentioned, Camera and Teodoro, or any other persons of her suite? I have seen him take leave more than once, and I never saw any thing else but the kissing of her hand, as every one else did.
You have frequently mentioned her royal highness sleeping in the tent on board; the sleep, when you mentioned her sleeping in that lent, is it to be understood that you meant that she rather reposed upon the sofa, than slept, in the general acceptation of the word sleeping, going to bed, and pulling off her clothes, for the sake of rest; are you to be understood, that she reposed with her clothes on, when you make use of the word sleeping? I do not believe her royal highness ever took her clothes off on board the polacre, except to shift herself in the day, to change her dress; that is my firm belief. I mean in the voyage back from Jaffa; on the first voyage she slept in her cabin.
You did not positively state, that you knew that Pergami was under the tent? I never saw him there.
552 If you state, that it was your belief that he was under the tent, do you also believe, that Pergami reclined in the same manner on the other bed, with his clothes on? I do not think Pergami ever took his clothes off either, while sleeping under the tent, for I never saw any bed-clothes on that bed.
Do you know where it was that her royal highness changed her clothes on the return from Jaffa, whether it was in the tent, or below? Below, in her cabin; I never saw her change her clothes upon deck.
You never saw her change her clothes? No, not any where.
Did you, from the window of the Villa d'Este, ever see a dance that Mahomet performed at that time? I did, I recollect particularly once; I was in her royal highness's room; I forget now what it was for something I had Jo do, and we heard a noise in the court-yard; her royal highness went to the window, as I did also myself, and Mahomet was exhibiting this dance before, I did not know who they were, but several persons in the court-yard.
Do you know where Majoochi was at that time? I did not take particular notice of him; there were many servants there; I cannot say positively that he was there.
Was any other person in the room with her royal highness besides yourself, at the time you looked out of the window, and saw the performance of this dance? I do not think there was; I have not a recollection of any body being in the room but myself.
Did you conceive there was any great impropriety or indecency in that dance? Most certainly not; I never did.
How long is it since you saw captain Briggs? I have seen captain Briggs at Portsmouth, about two months ago.
Did any conversation pass between you at that time upon this subject? The subject of this inquiry? captain Briggs declined enter line into any conversation on the subject.
You never have, to the best of your recollection, had any conversation on the subject with captain Briggs, since you were on board, the Leviathan? I never have; I have only seen captain Briggs once since that time, which was in this house; he shook hands with me, that was all.
If you ever have had any conversation with captain Briggs, you think you would recollect it? I think I should recollect it.
Lord Ellenborough.—You say, that when you saw captain Briggs at Portsmouth, he declined having any conversation with you I upon the subject of this inquiry; did you I propose any such conversation to him? The object of my going to Portsmouth was that; it was from myself.
What was your reason for wishing to converse with captain Briggs upon that subject? I heard that captain Briggs was coming as a witness against her majesty, and I felt convinced that it could not be so, and I declared 553 that I thought so, and that I would go and ask captain Briggs himself.
What did you, in point of fact, ask captain Briggs? I asked him if it was a fact that he was coming.
What was captain Briggs's answer? He said he thought he should be called, he was afraid he should; that his testimony should be nothing but what was honourable and just.
Was that the whole of captain Briggs's answer? I think it was, I do not recollect any thing more.
In that answer captain Briggs does not appear to have declined entering into any conversation on the subject? Captain Briggs told me he could not enter into any conversation.
Did you ask captain Briggs to enter into any farther conversation? No, I did not press captain Briggs on any particulars, only asked him if he was coming and so forth; I forget the words exactly.
When did you see captain Briggs in this house? The day he gave his deposition.
Were you present during the examination of captain Briggs? No, I was not.
Had you any conversation with captain Briggs at that time? None but a few words, he shook hands with me over the banisters, and said," I hope we shall shake hands when I come out."
That was the whole of the conversation? With the exception of" How do you do."
Did you ever see the tent closed on board the polacre, on the voyage from Jaffa to Syracuse, during the day? I have seen her royal highness falling asleep in the day-time, and I have closed the tent partially myself, brought it round so as to prevent the sun, or whatever it might be; but to close it close, I never saw it.
Were those the only occasions on which you saw the tent closed during the day-time? I do not recollect ever to have seen it closed, but on such an occasion it never was to say closed.
How frequently might that happen in the course of a week? I do not remember; I cannot say; it may have happened once or twice, or more times; I do not remember the number of times it happened.
Did you remain on deck after the tent was so closed? I may have remained on deck; yes, I dare say I did; it is more than probable I did.
Can you take upon yourself positively to say that you ever did? It is five years ago; I cannot remember so as to say that I did; it is a long time ago; I cannot remember such a tact as that.
When the tent was so closed, was any person under the tent, except her royal highness? I have not seen any body.
Can you positively say, that when the tent was so closed, you saw no one under the tent except her royal highness? I can positively say that I never recollect to have seen any 554 body under the tent when the tent was so closed.
Did you ever go into the dining-room while the tent was so closed during the day? I do not recollect.
At what hour were you in the habit of leaving the dining-room in the evening? Eight or nine o'clock; I should think it might have been half-past nine.
At what hour were you in the habit of returning to the dining-room in the morning? I should think we breakfasted about ten.
Did you ever, on any occasion, enter the dining-room between the hours of eight or nine in the evening and ten in the morning? To go up that ladder, I must have frequently gone through the dining-room to go up that ladder on deck.
Could not you have gone on deck without passing up that ladder? Oh yes, there was another passage; in fact, I believe there were two other passages.
You have said you were not in the habit of remaining in the dining-room after eight or nine in the evening, and that you were not in the habit of returning to the dining-room till breakfast time in the morning; did you return to the dining-room after you had left it at eight or nine in the evening, and before you returned to it to breakfast? Only on the occasion of going upon deck after supper; to go on deck I have gone up that ladder.
What was the supper hour? There was no hour fixed precisely; eight, or half-past eight, or nine o'clock, as nearly as I can recollect from the time that has elapsed since.
Are you to be understood to say, that after supper you did not return to the dining-room till breakfast, except for the purpose of going up that ladder on deck? I had no other occasion in the dining-room, but the going on deck.
What is the latest hour at which you ever passed through the dining-room? At night I cannot say exactly to the hour; it might have been, as I have said before, as late as ten, or half-past ten, that I have gone up the ladder; sometimes the tent was closed later than at other times, I cannot say to half an hour.
Did you ever enter the dining-room after you knew the tent was closed? No, I should have gone up the ladder.
Endeavour to give a more distinct answer? I do not recollect to have ever entered the dining-room after the tent was closed, knowing it to be closed.
Between the hour of half after ten at night, and the time at which you returned to the dining-room in the morning, you had no means whatever of knowing whether the hatchway was closed or not? I cannot know that; I was asleep, I was in bed, the thing might have been done when I was asleep, but I do not believe it ever was.
The following Extract was read from the Evidence given yesterday:
555 "Are you to be understood to say distinctly that you do not conceive that there is any impropriety in a male person sleeping in the name tent, the lights being out, with a female? From the manner that the hatchway was open, and all the doors below, there was no mystery in it whatever."
Have you any personal knowledge that the hatchway and the doors were always open? I have always seen the door of the dining-room open, and as I stated before, I ran up the ladder at a late hour, the hatchway was open certainly, and I do not know that ever it had been shut.
Have you a personal knowledge of the hatchway being open in the interval from the time at which you left the dining-room till the time at which you returned to it? I have a thorough conviction that it never was shut.
Have you any personal knowledge of the fact? From seeing it open when I ran up.
Could not the hatchway be closed without removing the ladder? To have closed the hatchway the tent must have been opened, as the tent covered the hatchway.
Where was the cover of the hatchway itself? The hatchway itself was on the deck of the vessel; I do not know in what part of the deck the hatches were kept, whether they were on deck or down below.
Did you ever see the hatches under the tent? No, I never did.
Who slept in the dining-room in the voyage from Jaffa to Syracuse? I do not know; I have never seen any body sleeping there; I have seen a bed there in the day-time, rolled up, but I never saw any body sleeping there; I do not know who slept there.
Where did Majoochi sleep? He ought to have slept down in the hold, where the footmen slept; I never saw him sleeping down in the hold, because I never was down in the hold to see them.
Did Maurice Credi continue in the service of her royal highness after you saw him upon his knees? He continued in the service of her royal highness as far as Nuremburg, on the journey to Vienna.
How long was that? It was in the beginning of the month of November that this circumstance happened, and I think it was in the latter end of March or the beginning of April, in the following year, that we were at Nuremburg.
Where did he leave her royal highness's service? Her royal highness, I believe, gave him as a courier to her aunt, the margravine of Bayreuth.
Was the tent closed during the day-time by the orders of count Schiavini? It may have been; I do not know.
Was it ever completely closed as at night? I never saw it so.
Can you take upon yourself to say, that any one who swore that it was so closed 556 would have sworn a falsehood? I cannot say that; not having seen it myself, I cannot answer for what another person has seen.
§ Earl Grey.—Have you ever seen the tent so closed during the day, that any part of the crew passing might not have seen who were within? No, I never did.
Earl of Winchelsea.—You have said, that you went up the ladder at a late hour of the night, what do you mean by the term late, how late was it? Between the space after supper, and the ordinary time for closing the tent on deck; I have said, I believe, ten o'clock, but I maybe out half an hour, or even an hour, I cannot be positive.
Do you mean to say, that from that hour, ten at night, till ten in the morning, the tent remained quite undisturbed? I have never seen it touched after that time; I have been in my bed, and when I have come up in the morning (I am rather a late riser), it was always open.
Do you know, of your own knowledge, that the hatches were not within the tent? To my knowledge they were not within the tent.
Do you mean that you know they were not within the tent, or that you have no knowledge that they were within the tent? I have no Knowledge that they were within the tent.
§ Lord Auckland.—Did you write your own challenge to baron Ompteda? I did.
It was your own composition? My own composition.
Are you well acquainted with the French language? I wrote it in English.
Was it sent in English? It was sent in English.
Did you give any copies of it, or know of any copies being given? I do not recollect having given any copies of it.
Earl of Mansfield.—Was there a companion to the hatchway? There was not.
No protection at all? No companion, it was quite open.
Were the rest of the suite in the habit of using that ladder in the day time? Yes, they were.
§ Lord Clifden.—Was not the princess, in fact, extremely fatigued by her voyage from Jaffa to Syracuse, arid extremely impatient to get ashore; and did she not complain, her legs being swelled, as a person who had not been a bed? I perfectly recollect the fact.
Earl of Lauderdale.—Do you mean that you recollect her royal highness's legs being swelled? I never saw her royal highness's legs.
Do you then mean that her royal highness told you her legs were swelled? She did, in talking of the excessive fatigue of being on deck; I forget how many days now, but it must have been near forty days or more; she said that her legs were excessively swelled.
Have you read the evidence, as printed in the newspapers in this cause? I have not even read my own evidence of yesterday.
557 Have you read the evidence of Majoochi? I have.
Have you read the evidence of Demont? I have.
.Have you read the evidence of Sacchi? Partially, not all.
Were particular passages pointed out to you to read in the evidence of Sacchi? No, not that I recollect.
How did you select the passages you read in the evidence of Sacchi? I have selected no passages; I have read them as any one would read them; I do not remember a single passage in Sacchi's evidence: I could not repeat one.
You have read the whole of it then?
Mr. Brougham.—My lords, I object to questions assuming the very reverse of what the witness has answered. The witness is asked, "How did you select the passages you read?" although he had said that no passage had been selected or pointed out. He is again asked, "you have then read the whole?" although he had said, that he had read only a part.
The Marquis of Lansdown.—I object to the word "select" being entered as part of a question to the witness, for he had not said that he had selected the passages he read.
The Earl of Lauderdalerose to explain, when the witness was ordered to withdraw. The witness said, he had partially read Sacchi's evidence, but not all. What was the inference but that there was part he had read, and part he had not? Now, how could this happen if part had not been pointed out to him for reading?
The Marquis of Lansdown.—I have read a paper partially this morning, and yet I have selected no part of it [Hear, hear, hear!].
§ Earl Grey.—A person very naturally reads one passage, and then passes over the rest of the same subject. Is that selection?
The Witness was again called in.
Earl of Lauderdale.—Are you a knight of the order of St. Caroline? I am.
Have you a diploma as such? I have.
Can you produce that diploma I can.
You have said that you arrived at Trieste at noon, and that you quitted next evening, I think, between six and seven o'clock? I think I said between five and six.
Does your recollection lead you to that fact or does your knowledge of that fact depend totally upon the letter you had written to your wife, which you have in your hand? I had already fixed upon twenty-four hours, being about the time we were at Trieste, and I only found the letter after I had so fixed my opinion.
Do you recollect any thing passing at Trieste about her royal highness endeavouring to obtain a sum of money? At Trieste I do not even know that she sent for her banker 558 she may have sent for her banker, but I *Io not know any thing of it; I do not recollect any thing of the sort.
You have said you first saw Pergami at dinner with her royal highness in a courier's dress at Bellinzona, did Pergami on that occasion come into the room with her royal highness? No, I think he was in the room, and her royal highness desired him to sit down.
Did he sit on that occasion next her royal highness? I cannot recollect that; I do not recollect that.
Do not you recollect where Pergami sat, in a courier's dress, the first time you had ever seen him at her royal highness's table? I do not recollect it, or I would say so.
Do you remember whether her royal highness spoke to him in the course of the dinner? She may have spoken to him, but I do not recollect the fact; I do not recollect her saying any thing particular to him.
Do you remember speaking to him yourself? No, I do not.
Did not Pergami wait at table when you dined with her royal highness? At Genoa; after Genoa I do not recollect that he ever did.
Have not Louis Pergami, and the cousins of Pergami, waited at table, when you dined with her royal highness? Yes, they-have.
Have you not seen, at her royal highness's table, the brother, the sister, the mother, and cousins of Pergami? I do not recollect the cousins; I have seen the former ones, but not the cousins, at table, I think.
Did you never see the cousin that was an accountant at table? No, I have never seen him at table.
Did you ever see Pergami's wife at table with her royal highness? I never saw her at all.
Were you ever at the Villa d'Este or the Villa Pergami when her royal highness was not there? I think I went once to the Barona with Pergami.
Recollecting that you have dined at her royal highness's table with Pergami, whom you have seen serve at her royal highness's table, with Louis Pergami, who has served you at her royal highness's table with Pergami's sister, and with his mother; and when yon recollect the circumstance further, that you have sworn to your belief that Pergami was under the tent with her royal highness at night, between Jaffa and Capo d'Anza; do you persevere in swearing upon your oath, that you have seen her royal highness do nothing improper or unbecoming of her station? I speak for myself; I had no greater claim to sitting at her royal highness's table than either of those people; I have seen people sitting at her royal highness's table while their fathers have been waiting at table; and I never saw any thing in the conduct of her royal highness, knowing the way she treats every body, to authorise such an opinion.
559 Did you ever wait at her royal highness's table? Never.
The Lord Chancellor.—Mr. Brougham, object to the question if you think it improper, but you are not to make such observations if a question offends you.