Preamble

HL Deb 01 September 1820 vol 2 cc1157-94

The order of the day being read for the further consideration of the bill, intituled "An act to deprive her majesty," &c, counsel were called in.

Then Louisa Demont was again called in, and cross-examined as follows by Mr. Williams, through the interpretation of Mr. Pinario.

You are understood to have stated, that you have been in England thirteen months? Yes.

Have you been out of England during those thirteen months? No.

You are understood to have stated, that you do not understand English? I understand English a little, but I cannot speak it with ease.

Have you had any lessons in English? Yes.

How long have you taken lessons in English? Four or five months nearly; I do not recollect exactly.

Was that up to the present time, or some time back? I have been these two last months without taking any lessons.

Have you not spoken English at all? Sometimes.

Did you understand the questions that were put to you yesterday before they were translated? Yes, I can understand English better than I can speak it, because I cannot speak to make myself understood easily.

Though you could not explain yourself, you understood the questions without explanation? I did not understand them all, but I understood one which Mr. Solicitor General put to me yesterday.

Do you mean to represent, that of the numerous questions which were put by Mr. Solicitor General, you understood only one before they were translated? I understood some of them, but not all; besides I did not understand so perfectly as to be able to answer.

But you did understand most of the questions?.

It was objected, that the witness had not said she understood most of the questions.

Had you understood most of the questions, aye or no? I understood some of them.

Did you understand the greater number or not? I understood some of those which were the shortest, some of them.

Since you have been in England, have you always borne the same name, Louisa Demont? No, I have had another name.

Be so good as to state what that other name is? I took the name of the place where I was born, Colombier.

Did you take a title as well; were you called countess Columbier? No.

Nor were ever so called, were you? I was called so but once.

By once, do you mean one time? I mean by only one person.

By once, you mean one person do you? I only recollect one person that called me countess.

Was that frequently? I only heard it once.

Where were you living at that time when the person called you countess? In Frith-street.

Frith-street, Sobo-square? Yes.

Before that time you had lived in Oxford-street, had not you? Yes.

How long did you live there? About three months, as far as I can recollect; I do not know precisely.

During the time that you lived there, nobody called you countess, did they? I do not recollect that any body called me countess; I do not recollect it at all.

Will you swear that they did not? I will not swear to it, but I cannot recollect that any body called me countess.

Will you swear you did not pass in the house by the title of countess? It was Mr. Krouse who placed me in that house, I do not know by what title he announced me, or described me.

Do you mean to swear you were not called, not behind your back, but in your presence, by the title of countess, while you were living in Oxford-street? I will not swear it, but I do not recollect it.

Was it not something new to you to be called countess? I do not recollect that I was so called there; I recollect my being called so in Frith-street, but not in Oxford-street, or elsewhere.

Was not it something new to you to be called a countess? I was not called countess.

Then you will swear that in that street of which you have been speaking, Oxford-street, you were not called countess in your presence—to your face? I will not swear it, but I do not recollect it.

What name did you pass by before; how were you called before you went to Oxford-street? Colombier.

How long have you been called Colombier? Since I have arrived in England, beginning at Dover.

Have you not answered, when in Oxford-street, to the title of countess Colombier to a person or persons addressing you? I do not recollect that.

Will you swear you did not? I cannot swear it, but I cannot recollect it.

As you say you cannot recollect whether you were called countess there, or not; was it not a matter of some novelty to you to be called countess at ail? I never was called countess except this one time, that I recollect, in Frith-street.

You are understood to have stated yesterday, or the day before, that you accompanied the princess to Naples? Yes.

Do you now recollect whether the princess went to the opera the first or the second night of being at Naples? The second night after her arrival at Naples the princess told me that she was going to the opera.

Then it was the second night? It was the second night.

You are understood to have stated, that there were two beds in the apartment of the princess at Naples, a larger and a smaller bed? Yes.

The smaller bed you are understood to say was the travelling bed of the princess, was that so or not? As far as I recollect, it was the travelling bed of her royal highness.

The smaller one of which you have spoken? The smaller one.

If you are rightly understood, you have said, that upon the morning after the princess was at the opera, you perceived that the larger bed had the appearance as if two persons had slept in it, was that so? I said that the bed looked as if two persons had slept in it.

What did you mean by saying in a previous part of your examination, that you had observed the large bed, that it had been occupied, but that you could speak no more about

The counsel were informed, that they had a right to repeat what the witness had said, and then to ask the witness to it; but that if any doubt arose whether they were correct in stating that the witness had said so and so, the only way of disposing of that doubt was to turn back to the evidence of the witness, and to read that which she had stated.

When you were first examined upon the subject, and when you were desired to describe more particularly, did you not state you could not well recollect whether two persons had slept in it?

Then the following extracts were read from the Minutes:

"Did you observe the larger bed, what appearance that had? I did.

"What observation did you make upon the large bed? I observed it had been occupied.

"Can you inform their lordships more particularly of the state of it? I cannot.

"Was it much or little deranged or tumbled? Not much.

"You have staled what was the condition of the small travelling bed on the second night after the princess's arrival at Naples; what was the state of that bed on the subsequent nights during her residence at Naples? made no observation upon it afterwards, "State what was the appearance, on the second night, of the great bed, whether it had the appearance of one person having slept in it or more? More than one person."

Mr. Williams.

—When you were asked two or three questions before, and then to describe more particularly the appearances of the bed, did you not understand that to apply to persons sleeping in it? I understood that I was asked to say in what condition the bed was, whether it was much deranged.

Did you not understand that you were to describe particularly to their lordships what the derangement was? I did not understand I was to explain it particularly, but I could explain particularly at present.

You gave some account of how some of the family slept at Naples; state the different rooms in which they slept; do you know where Hieronimus slept at Naples? The door of Hicronimus's room was in the same corridor in which was the door of her royal highness's room, as I have already stated.

Had sir William Gell and Mr. Keppel Craven

their servants sleeping in the house at Naples at that time? I saw their servants in the day-time, but I do not know whether they slept in the same house.

Both sir W. Gell and Mr. Keppel Craven

had however men-servants at that time? Each of them had one servant.

A man-servant? Yes.

You mean to say, that you do not at all know where those servants of sir W. Gell and Mr. Keppel Craven slept at Naples, at the time at which you have been speaking? I do not know where the rooms were in which they slept, I never heard it mentioned.

You do not know where either of the ser- vants of sir W. Gell or Mr. Reppel Craven slept any one night during your stay at Naples? I will not swear it, but I do not at all recollect it.

Do you mean to swear that you do not recollect where Mr. Craven's servants slept any one night during your stay at Naples? At this moment I do not recollect it at all.

That you will swear? At this moment I do not recollect it at all.

Where did you sleep yourself at Naples? In a little apartment above, above her royal highness's.

Did you sleep alone in that room? We had two rooms, in the one of them I slept, and in the other Annette Preising, during the time that she remained in the house.

Did you sleep alone in that room? I slept alone in that room.

Every night? Every night.

That you will now swear? That I slept in my room alone? Yes, I slept every night in my room alone.

The whole night? The whole night in my room.

Alone? Alone.

Every night, and the whole of the night alone? I slept all alone in my room.

Are you understood rightly, when you are taken to have said, that one night you saw Pergami coming out of his own room in a state of undress at Naples? Yes.

That was at Naples? At Naples.

How soon after your arrival at Naples was it, as well as you can recollect? It is impossible for me to say; I do not recollect it.

State it as nearly as you can recollect? I cannot say precisely, we have been a long time at Naples, I cannot exactly say now.

State within a few nights, not tying your-self down to the precise night? We were four months at Naples, I cannot recollect at what period it may have been precisely.

It is not required by the question that you should speak precisely, or within a week, but state the time as nearly as you can? I cannot recollect, we were four months at Naples, whether it was one week sooner or one week later.

Was it about a month after, do you think? I cannot recollect whether it was one month or two.

Or three? I again say I cannot recollect; it is so long since this has taken place, that I cannot fix the time.

Was it towards the beginning, the middle, or the latter end of her royal highness's residence there? I do not recollect.

You have no memory at all about it, whether it was towards the beginning, the middle, or the end of the residence, and have no notion of the time? I do not recollect at what period it was.

Then you are to be taken to say, that it was one night at some time or other at Naples? Yes.

You were not twice at Naples with the princess, were you? We were once at Na-pies, and once in the Gulf of Naples, but we did not land.

You resided in the town only once? Yes.

Then you are understood to say that this one night you saw Pergami coming out of his room undressed? Yes.

Where were you standing, or in what position were you when you saw him first upon that occasion? I was standing at the door which came out of the room of her royal highness.

You spoke of a corridor or passage leading between Pergami's room and the princess's? Yes.

The question refers to that same corridor or passage to which the last question alluded? I was standing at the door which came upon this corridor, from the room of her royal highness.

Pergami's room, if you were understood rightly, was at the other end of that corridor from the princess's room? Not quite at the bottom.

Nearly at the other end of that passage? It was rather nearer to the end of the passage than on this side.

Was there not a staircase between the princess's door and Pergami's room door by which you went usually to your own apartment? In this position describing it] was the door of her royal highness; here there was another door leading into a cabinet, in which there was another door leading to a corridor, through which I went to the staircase which led to my apartment.

Had you a light upon that occasion, or had Pergami a light, or had neither of you one? Pergami had a candle in his hand.

Had you any? No, because I was on the point of going.

Going where? To go out; I was still speaking to her royal highness; I was at her door.

When you say "going," where were you going? I was waiting for her royal highness to give me leave to go, as she did every night.

What did you mean, when you said, a minute ago, "I was going?" Because her royal highness was undressed, and I was expecting every moment permission from her to go.

To go where? To withdraw to my own room.

Without a light? I had no light.

Did you, in point of fact, escape through the apartment of her royal highness? I was there, and I escaped through this door: I only traversed this part of the passage [pointing out their situations.]

Are you speaking of that part of the passage between the princess's room and Pergami's? Yes, the interior passage.

When you traversed that part of the passage, in order to make your escape, as you state, had you not to go towards Pergami in the interior passage? I was here, and I escaped through this door, and Mr. Pcrgami's door was here [pointing them out].

When you made your escape from the place where you were standing, at the door of the princess, had you not to go nearer to where Pergami himself was? Mr. Garslon. — She says, "I made some steps," and then she turns off to point it out; "I made some steps in the corridor to go to the door that led out."

Were not those steps nearer to Pergami's door, and to where Pergami was?

The Witness was directed by their Lord ships to give her answer in words, and not by signs, which could not be seen by some of their Lordships.

When you made your escape, as you have several times described, by means of the door, did you not get nearer to Pergami in so doing? Yes.

Did Pergami come forward, or did he run back into the room or what? I saw Mr. Pergami over against me, coming towards me.

Then he kept coming nearer to you to meet you? I did not see that, because I went out precipitately.

Then how do you know that he came towards you? Because I saw him coming in a direction towards me.

Had not the king of Naples lent a palace or a house to the princess? Yes.

The question refers to that night when you describe that the princess acted the part of the Genius of History? Yes.

Were not the king and queen of Naples there? I saw the king or Naples in the room, but not the queen. I heard she was indisposed, and obliged to leave the room at an early hour.

Were there not ladies also of the Neapolitan court upon that occasion? I saw several ladies in the room, but I did not know whence they were from.

Were there not also, of the Neapolitan court, a considerable number of the nobility and gentry? I saw a great number of gentlemen and ladies in the room.

Did not two other ladies sustain, characters at the time when the Queen appeared as the Genius of History? When her royal highness went down first in that character I did not go down, but I remained above in the anti-chamber.

Then you yourself did not see the representation of the piece, whatever it was, that was got up? I was not present during the representation of that piece.

Did you see any other lady dressed up as representing Victory? I do not recollect seeing any other lady; there were several costumes, but I do not recollect further.

Mr. Garston.

—She now adds, "I saw many costumes, but I do not recollect seeing one of Victory."

Were not those costumes, by whomsoever worn, used upon that occasion on which the princess appeared as the Genius of History? I saw different costumes during the same evening.

Did you see one representing Fame upon that occasion? I do not recollect; I saw several costumes, but I made no observation about it.

However that may be, when the princess was dressed up in the character of the Genius of History, did she not go into that room in which the Neapolitan persons, male and female, were? I only saw the princess go down, but I saw no further; I only saw her on the top of the stair-case which she was going to descend.

Was that towards the room in which the Neapolitan nobility and gentry were assembled? Yes.

Have you any doubt whatever that the princess did go upon that occasion to appear before that assembly? I believed that the princess was going to appear amongst them.

When the princess was dressed as a Turk, were not other persons dressed in that manner, so as to form a group? I only saw the princess in her apartment; I did not go into the room; I only entered the ball-room towards the end of the ball.

Did you see Hieronimus? I did not see Hieronimus.

Sicard? I saw neither Hieronimus nor Sicard.

Nor any other of the suite of the princess, did you? I saw no one of the princess's suite, except towards morning, when I went into the ball-room towards the end of the ball.

Before the ball began, did you not see some of the princess's suite dressed as Turkish peasants, or as Turks of some description or other? I do not remember that I saw any body.

Did not the princess travel on horseback in the journey by land to Jerusalem? Yes; that is to say, as far as I recollect, it was an ass.

Did not you travel in some kind of carriage? Yes.

With the countess Oldi? Yes.

Did not you travel after the princess? Sometimes we were before, sometimes after.

Did you not, during that journey, attend upon the countess Oldi? I did not wait upon the countess Oldi.

Did you not continue to be with her, whether waiting upon her or not? I always was in the same palanquin with her.

Did not your sister attend upon the princess that journey? My sister was always on horseback near the princess.

That is, the princess and your sister travelled on horseback, and you and the countess Oldi in a carriage, throughout the whole of that journey? Yes.

Was not your sister, during that journey, constantly near the princess? When we stopped I sometimes was auprês de (near) her royal highness.

Upon that journey, did you wait upon the princess? Yes.

Did not your sister? Yes.

During that journey, did not the princess rest by day and travel in the night? She rested during the day.

And travelled during the night? Yes.

You have described stopping at Aum? Yes.

Do you or do you not mean to say, that you undressed the princess at Aum? I recollect I was under the tent of the princess, but I do not recollect whether I undressed her or not.

Do you mean to say, that the princess was undressed under the tent at Aum? When I left the princess she was in a white petticoat.

Do you mean to say, that the princess was undressed at Aum? She had pulled off her upper habiliments.

Do you mean by that, the dress in which she had been riding, travelling? Yes, a gown or robe, which was open.

Do you mean more than the outer garment, of whatever description? I do not recollect if it was any thing more.

Then her dress remained as it had done all the night in which she was travelling, except that exterior dress of whatever description?

[The question was proposed and the answer returned through Mr. Garston.] Her royal highness was in a white gown or petticoat (jupe) alone.

Was the princess's dress in any other way altered, except by having the exterior habiliment taken off? [Through Mr. Pinario.] —I do not recollect.

When that exterior habiliment was taken off, did not the princess put on a night gown, or a bed gown or something of that description in order to repose on a sofa? When I left her royal highness she was in a white petticoat, I do not know what she did after I had left her. Did she stop upon the journey to Jerusalem another night? Yes.

Did you attend her upon that occasion the second time? I helped her royal highness to dress.

Upon that second occasion, when the princess stopped from travelling, do you mean to say that she undressed? I did not see her royal highness when we arrived, I only saw her when she arose in the evening.

Upon that occasion, when you did see her in the evening, was she dressed or undressed? When I entered her room she was dressed in that white petticoat that I have already said.

Mr. Garston.

—She now speaks of the word "robe" instead of "jupe;" she now says, I must be mistaken, for it was the same jupe of which I spoke before.

When the princess was about to start, had she more to do to her dress than to put on the exterior habiliment of which you have made mention before? I do not think she had any thing else to put on.

You have described that you took ship at Tunis when you were going to Jerusalem?

That we took ship at Tunis; we went on in the same vessel in which we had come.

You went on from Tunis? Yes.

The crew consisted of about two or three-and-twenty people, all together, did they not? I believe it did, thereabouts.

Then there were, besides the crew, ten or a dozen people in the suite of the princess were there not? I believe nearly so.

Do you remember taking on board at Tunis a harper? Yes.

A Jew? Yes.

Upon that occasion we have been told the cabin of the vessel, the extreme of it, was occupied by the princess and countess Oldi? There were two cabins, one for the princess and one for the countess Oldi.

Where did you sleep? In a cabin near the dining-room.

Did it open into it? It opened into the passage.

What passage? A passage that there was to go all along the vessel.

Where did Hieronimus sleep during that voyage? Hieronimus slept in another cabin in the same direction as mine, the last on that side.

When any of the crew slept when they were at liberty they went into the hold, did they not? I do not know where they went.

Do you know where the harper, of whom you have spoken, slept during the voyage? I do not recollect exactly where he slept, but it was, I believe, near the table where we dined I do not recollect exactly.

At what distance was it from the place where you slept? It was at the other end of the vessel.

You slept in your own birth every night?—Was it at the beginning or afterwards?

The whole voyage from Tunis till you-landed? I said that when her royal highness slept on the deck, I slept one night in her cabin and one night in mine.

Did you sleep in any other place except those two you have mentioned? No.

And the harper slept at a different part of the ship, did he? I do not know where he slept, but I believe he slept where I told you,, near our dining table.

Did you not say, a short time ago, that that was in a different part of the ship? I said it was at the extremity, at the end of the vessel in a cabin which was below, not on the deck; I do not mean the end of the vessel which was above, but below.

Do you mean to swear, that the Jew harper slept there every night on that voyage from Tunis until you landed? I do not know where he slept every night.

Will you swear, that you do not know where he slept any one night? I recollect having heard that he slept there, but I never saw him; I do not remember precisely.

Then you do not know, do you, where he slept any' one night, of your own knowledge? No, I said that I did not know myself where he slept, but that I was told.

Nor any part of any night, of your own knowledge? Not by my own knowledge.

You are understood to have mentioned a place of the name of Scharnitz? Scharnitz, yes.

From that place, if you are understood rightly, you have said that Pergami went to get a passport; is not that so? I recollect that Pergami departed from that place, and I was told it was to go to Inspruck for a passport.

Was that the Winter season? As far as I recollect, it was in the Spring, about the month of March.

Was there frost or snow upon the ground? There was a great deal of snow.

It was a poor inn, an indifferent inn, was it not? A small inn.

You are understood to say, that you were upon a bed in the room of the princess, was that so? Yes.

Had you taken off your clothes? Not entirely.

Had you taken off more than your gown? I do not perfectly recollect, but I believe not.

Had the princess undressed? I do not recollect, she was in bed, but I do not recollect whether she was undressed.

Do you remember the dress that the princess was in the habit of wearing at that time? Yes.

Was it not a blue habit, trimmed with fur round close up to the neck, with a great deal of fur about it? Yes, there was a great deal of fur here [about the bosom]; it was a blue dress.

Had not the princess at the same time a cap? When she was travelling she had a cap.

A travelling cap? Yes.

Had not the princess gone upon the bed, or into the bed, with that dress upon her, in the middle of the preceding day? Yes.

Do you mean to say, that from the middle of the day, when she got into the bed or on the bed, she had undressed herself at all? I saw her royal highness on the bed during the day in that same riding habit.

Did you see her royal highness take it off at all, whilst she remained at that inn? I do not recollect seeing it.

You yourself were upon a bed in the same room with her? Yes.

You left that small inn, as you describe, early in the morning, did you not? Yes.

You are understood to have said, that you entered into the service of the princess in the near 1814? Yes.

And remained in it until the year 1817? Yes.

Until the month of November, or thereabouts, in that year, did you not? Yes.

Did you quit the princess's service of your own accord, or were you discharged? I was discharged.

Were you not discharged for saying something which you afterwards admitted to be false? Yes, in fact it was not true.

Did you go into any other service after you were discharged from the princess's before you came to England? No.

Did not your money fail you before you came to England? No.

You mean to say, that you were not short of money before you came to England, do you? No, because I had money in Switzerland, and I might have got it if I had been in want of it, if I had been willing.

Did you never say that you were getting short of money? I do not remember ever saying it; I have funds in Switzerland, and I live upon the interest of them.

Did you never represent that you had failed to save money in the service of the princess? I do not remember ever saying so.

Will you swear that you never represented that to any body? I cannot swear it, but I do not recollect ever saying it.

Or representing it? I do not recollect it.

Will you swear that you have not? I will not swear it, but I do not recollect it.

You were applied to by some person or other, very soon after you were discharged from the princess, were you not? Not very soon after.

For example, within half a year? Not six months, it was more than six months, it was nearly one year after I had left her service.

You are understood to say, you were applied to, to know what you had to say with respect to the princess, is not that so? One year after I had left her service.

Did or did not somebody apply to you, in order to know what you had to say with respect to the princess, about a year after you left the service of her royal highness, or at whatever period? One year after.

Yes or no? Yes, one year after.

Do you mean to represent, that an application was not made to you much earlier than, a year after your being discharged from the princess? [The witness answered, without the question being interpreted to her.] No.

Is it or is it not true, that an application was made to you within half a year of your quitting the service of the princess? No application was made to me earlier than one year after I had quitted her.

Will you swear that? Yes.

Neither by means of a letter, nor by personal application, or otherwise in any manner? No; as I know what it is about, may I be allowed to explain the matter?

Through Mr. Garston.— About six months after I left the service of her royal highness, I wrote to my sister to say, that an application had been made to me, but that it was a double entendre between me and my sister; that is all I have to say.

Mr. Brougham

desired that the examination might proceed through the interpretation of Mr. Garston.

Mr. Pinario

was directed to attend to the-examination, and to interpose in case of any thing appearing to him to be incorrect. The examination proceeded through Mr. Garston.

Have you never said, that the princess was surrounded with spies when in Italy? I do not recollect ever having said it.

Or represented it in any manner? I do not recollect it.

Will you swear that you have not? I will not swear but I do not recollect it.

Have you a short memory, a treacherous memory? Not very short, but it is so long since the thing passed, that I cannot recollect it.

Is it longer than the voyage, and the other travels you have been speaking to? The same thing; I cannot recollect, what I have said in a conversation, it is impossible; things to which one does not pay attention.

Either by a conversation, or in any other manner, have you represented it? I recollect nothing at all about it.

Will you swear you have not? I will not swear, but I recollect nothing of it.

Do you know baron Ompteda? Yes, I have known him.

You have seen him? I have seen him.

Spoken with him? Not often.

You have spoken with him? Once at the Villa Villani.

When he was upon a visit with the princess? He was at the Villa Villani; I believe he was paying a visit to the princess.

Was he often there? I recollect only having seen him this once during some days.

What do you mean by some days? He remained some days in the house.

Has he been upon a visit to the princess while you were in her service, more than once? Yes.

How many times have you known him upon a visit to the princess, whilst you were in the service of the princess? I have seen him at three different places.

Upon one occasion you say his visit was of three or four days, were the other visits of as long duration? I think not.

A day or two perhaps? I only remember to have seen him that once for some days at the residence of the princess.

Then were the visits on the other two occasions of a day or two? They were of a shorter duration, as far as I recollect.

You do not recollect precisely how long it was upon the other two occasions? I think he came only to dine; I cannot precisely say, I have seen him only in the house.

On which occasion was it, that a complaint was made by the princess of his conduct at her house?

The counsel were informed, that the question should first be asked, whether there was a complaint made.

Was there a complaint made by the princess of the conduct of the baron upon one of those occasions? Yes.

On which of the occasions was it? As far as I can recollect, it was at the Villa Villani.

Was the conplaint about locks or false keys?

The counsel were informed, that the first question should be, "what was it about?" and that if that did not sufficiently bring out the fact, a further question might be put.

Was there any complaint about keys or locks made by the princess? I recollect that the princess made complaints, but I do not recollect respecting what.

Only respecting the conduct of baron Ompteda while he was residing in her house? I do not recollect whether it was whilst he resided there or afterwards.

Did not the complaint respecting the conduct of baron Ompteda respect him, Ompteda, while he was in the house of the princess? I do not recollect what was the subject of the complaint.

You yourself took a considerable share in the business of the complaint, did you not? None.

Did not you write a challenge; did you not copy one?

Mr. Solicitor General

objected to the question.

Did you, or did you not, write a letter for Mr. Hownam? I do not recollect if I wrote a letter for Mr. Hownam.

Did he not desire you to write a letter for him to baron Ompteda? I recollect nothing of it, or nothing about it.

Is that your writing? [a letter being shown to the witness, folded so that she might see the last line and a half.] It is not exactly like my writing.

Do you believe it to be your writing or not? It is not exactly like my hand-writing.

Do you believe it to be your hand-writing? I do not recollect having written it, nor do I think that it is exactly like my character.

Do you believe it to be your writing, aye or no? I do not think it is exactly my handwriting; I do not recollect having written it.

Do you believe it to be your hand-writing, aye or no? I cannot decide whether it is my baud-writing; it is not quite like it, and I do not recollect having written it.

Do you believe it aye or no? I cannot say yes or no; because it is not exactly like my handwriting, and I do not recollect having written it.

Do you believe it to be your writing? It is not exactly like my hand-writing.

Do you believe it to be your writing? I cannot tell what else to answer; I cannot answer to a thing of which I am not sure.

Lord Erskine.

—You are not asked whether you know it to be yours, but whether you believe it to be yours? I cannot say positively that it is not my hand-writing, but I do not believe it is.

Mr. Williams.

—How much of that paper that has been before you so long, was submitted to your eye during the time you have given the answers you have given? A line and a half.

Before it was folded down, a? it now is, did you not see higher up in the paper several lines more than that line and a half? When they presented it me, there I saw something more, but I do not recollect how many lines, nor what it was.

Do you mean to say, that when the counsel showed you the paper, before it was in the hands of the interpreter, it was not near enough for you to see the writing? I do not know whether it was near enough; I have seen the writing, but not distinguished what the writing was.

Was it not, when in the hand of the counsel, near enough for you to sec the writing, and the character of the writing? I have merely half seen the character.

Was it not near enough to you for you to see it? It was near enough, because I have seen, it; but I have only partly seen it; confusedly I have seen the hand-writing at a distance but have not been able to distinguish.

Why did you not complain, when the counsel held it in his hand, that it was not near enough for you to sec it? Because the counsel gave it to you. [Addressing herself to the interpreter.]

Do you mean to represent that the counsel did not hold it before you long enough for you to see the character before he handed it to the interpreter? I could not see the character distinctly at that distance.

Mr. Williams.

—Do you now see the line and a half that is before you? Yes.

[The paper was then presented to the witness folded lengthways, so as to show the first half of every line.]

Do you see that distinctly? Yes.

Is that your hand-writing? It does not seem exactly my writing.

Do you believe it, or not? I cannot tell whether it is my writing, because it is not exactly as I write.

[The paper was marked by the clerk assistant.]

The counsel were directed to withdraw.

The Earl of Donoughmore observed, that a part only of this paper was shown to the witness, and therefore she had not an opportunity of stating whether the whole of it was her writing or not. How, then, could they know, by marking the entire paper, which was the particular portion that she had referred to? She was called on to say, "Do you believe this to be your hand-writing, or do you not?" He contended that there was a third mode of answering. She might be asked, "Do you believe this to be your handwriting, yes or no?" But was she not entitled to give a third answer—namely, "I can form no belief on the subject?"

The Lord Chancellor

said, with respect to marking the paper, the regular course would be, that the clerk should, by some mark of his own, enable himself to identify it generally; and where particular parts had been pointed out to the witness, that line, or line and a half should be distinguished by his initials, that, if the papers were hereafter produced in evidence, they might be properly authenticated.

Earl Grey

did not think it was necessary to mark the paper in this manner, since it was stated, on their lordships' minutes, that the letter exhibited to the witness was doubled down lengthwise, so as to show the first half of every line.

The Lord Chancellor

said he had overlooked that circumstance.

The counsel were again called in.

Mr. Williams.

—Was it not in the month of November 1817, that you quitted the service of the princess? Yes.

Of course, at that time you knew all respecting the princess that you have been deposing to before their lordships for two days back? Yes.

Since the time that you quitted the service, or were discharged from the service of the princess, have you never represented the character of the princess to be of a very high description, of an excellent description I do not recollect.

Will you swear you have never represented, that you would surrender half your life if she could but read your heart? I may have said that, but I do not recollect it.

Do you remember never having said, or written, or represented, that if the princess could read your heart, she would then be convinced of the infinite respect, the unlimited attachment, and the perfect affection, you entertained for her august person? I recollect to have written several times to my sister but I do not recollect the contents of my letter.

Will you swear that you did not write to your sister to that effect after you were discharged? I have written to my sister.

Will you swear that you did not write to the effect that has just been stated to you? I wrote home in my journey to count Schiavini.

The question refers to your writing to your sister? I wrote several times to my sister.

Will you swear that you did not express yourself in the manner or to the effect described in a letter to your sister since you were discharged? I have written several times to my sister, and I know I have spoken of her royal highness; but I do not recollect the expressions I have used.

You are asked to the effect? Am I asked if I have written in the same sense, if I have said those words.

To the same effect in any words? If I have written expressly for that.

Have you expressed yourself in these words, or to the sense, "if the princess could but read my heart she would then be convinced of the infinite respect, the unlimited attachment, and the perfect affection I have always entertained for her august person?" I have written to my sister, but I cannot exactly recall the expressions; it was in that sense, in that meaning.

Will you swear you did not use those very expressions, beginning with the words, "Oh! God, I would surrender half my life if she could read my heart?" I may have used these expressions, because at that time I was much attached to her royal highness.

That was some time after you had been discharged, was it not? It was not very long after.

Have you not to the same sister written, "How often in a numerous circle have I with enthusiasm enumerated her great qualities, her rare talents, her mildness, her patience, her charily, in short, all the perfections which she possesses in so eminent a degree?" I do not recollect whether I have made use of those expressions, but I have written to my sister, and I have spoken of the manner in which she conducted herself towards me.

Have you not used the very expressions that have been just put to you? I do not recollect exactly whether I have used the same expressions, but I have written in the same sense; I do not recollect the expressions.

Then you will not swear that you have not used those very expressions? I will not swear that I have made use of them, nor that I have not made use of them.

But to the same sense you admit? The sense, yes.

Do you not remember this, "how often have I seen my hearers affected, and heard them exclaim, that the world is unjust, to cause so much unhappiness, to one who deserves it so little?" I do not recollect whether I used those expressions.

"And who is so worthy of being happy?" I do not remember the expressions.

Have you not written to that effect? I have written to my sister several times to that effect, in that sense.

Will you swear that you have not used those very expressions, those very words? I cannot recollect whether I have made use of them exactly.

You will not swear that you have not? I will not swear that I have made use of them, nor that I have not made use of them.

You kept a journal, did you not? A journal of a voyage.

A journal generally whilst you were with the princess? Yes.

Do you remember writing to your sister thus: "you cannot think what a noise my little journal has made?" I wrote several times to my sister, but I cannot recollect exactly what I wrote,

Did you not on one occasion use the words just repeated, or to that effect? I cannot recollect it.

Will you swear you have not? I will not swear that.

"It has been"(speaking of the journal),"if I may use the expression snatched at"(arraché)? I tell you I cannot recollect what I have written to my sister, exactly the expressions.

"Every one has read it; madame Gaulisa begged me to let her carry it to Lausanne;, all the English who were there wanted to see it immediately;" do you remember using those expressions to your sister? I tell you it is impossible I should recollect what I have written to my sister; I do not recollect the expressions.

Do you not remember writing to that effect? I do not recollect what I have written to my sister.

Will you swear you have not, to the effect just repeated to you about the journal? I cannot swear to that of which I am not perfectly sure.

Who is madame Gaulisa? A Swiss lady.

Whom you know? Yes, I know her.

Did you not shew the journal to mada me Gaulisa? I do not recollect whether madame Gaulisa read it before or after I was returned.

Did she not see it? She has seen it, but I do not recollect whether it was before or after I returned.

Do you not remember writing to this effect or these words: "I have been delighted at it," at her seeing the journal, "for you know I say in it a great deal of the best and most amiable princess in the world; I relate, in detail, all the trails of sensibility and of generosity which she has shewn, the manner in which she has been received, applauded, cherished, in all the places we have visited?" I recollect that I wrote very often to my sister, and spoke of her royal highness.

And to this effect? I do not recollect whether it was in that sense which has been last spoken of.

Will you swear you did not? I will not swear that I have not done it, because I do not recollect it.

"You know that when the princess is my subject I am not barren, consequently my journal is embellished with the effusion of my heart, my greatest desire having always been, that the princess should appear to be what she really is, and that full justice should be rendered to her." Do you remember having written to that effect? It is always the same thing; I have written frequently to my sister, and as I was much attached to the princess at that time, I wrote a great deal about her; but I do not recollect the expressions of which I made use.

Will you swear you did not use the expressions which have just been put to you? I will not swear, because I am not sure of it.

Will you swear that you did not use them? I will not swear, because I am not sure of it.

Have you any doubt that you did use them?

I do not recollect whether I have made use of them? I wrote frequently to my sister, and I do not recollect the expressions.

Have you not represented, that your money began to fall short? I know nothing of that, but I have never been in want of money.

Have you not staled to your sister, that you were beginning to be short of money, that you were getting poor? I do not know whether I have said it, but that has never happened to me.

Have you never represented to your sister, that she should economise as much as possible? Yes.

And retrench every superfluity? I have represented to her, that she ought to economise, because she has no fortune at home.

Have you not represented, "Did you but know the pain I feel in not having done so?" I do not recollect whether I wrote that, but I never have had need of money.

Have you not added, "I do not think I ever was guilty of extravagance, but I have not deprived myself of many things, which were almost useless?" How do you wish me to recollect what I have written?"(Comment voulez-vous que je me rappelle ce que j'ai écrit?")

When you have spoken to the house of something which you call a double entendre, was not the effect of that to this effect: "I had almost forgotten to confide to you a thing which will surprise you as much as it has done me. Upon the 24th of last month I was taking some refreshment at my aunt Clara's, when I was informed an unknown person desired to deliver me a letter, and that he would trust it to know one else. I went down stairs, and desired him to come up into my room. Judge of my astonishment when I broke the seal! A proposal was made to me to set off for London, under the pretence of being a governess: I was promised high protection, and a brilliant fortune in a short time. The letter was without signature; but to assure me of the truth of it, I was informed I might draw on a banker for as much money as I wished."

The Attorney General

stated, that he had not interposed when the counsel against the bill had asked as to particular expressions used by the witness, but that now that he was proceeding to read a long letter, he felt it necessary to submit, that the regular course was for him to produce it, and put it into the hand of the witness, and to ask whether it is her hand-writing or not; and that he had no right, without having so done, to read the contents of a letter, which was assumed to exist.

Mr. Williams

submitted, that he had been perfectly in order. In cross-examinations there were two modes which an advocate had a right to take, with a view to try the veracity of a witness. First, as in the case before their lordships, in parole evidence, supposing the witness to have made any particular statement, at any particular time or to any given number of persons, which was untrue, it was competent to give in evidence not one word in contradiction, unless the witness had been previously asked as to that statement, or generally examined upon that subject. Not till the witness should be so examined, and the answer, whatever it might be, was obtained, was it competent for the cross-examining advocate to call one of the numerous persons assumed to be in a condition to contradict the witness. The analogy with this case was close and obvious. Of course, this alternative resulted from the examination, an examination of great importance in eliciting truth; either he must contradict the witness immediately, or he can put himself in a condition to contradict the witness at a future period. Either the witness admitted what was contrary to the evidence given, and thus gave a self-contradiction, or the witness denied it, and then the party to be affected was in the predicament of setting himself right and the witness wrong. To assimilate the case to the present, where the writing of a letter was the question, the rule of evidence was the same as he had stated respecting parole evidence. In the same way as in parole evidence the witness was asked, whether he had said this or that, so had he a right here to ask the witness whether she had written this or that. He had the chance of a denial of having so written, that he might not only have the contradiction to the evidence which the writing contained, but also the advantage of the contradiction to the denial of having so written, which went further to destroy the general credit of the witness, as well as the truth of the particular evidence given by that witness. In matter of evidence he would not quote nisi prius cases to their lordships, but that the oblique and collateral memoirs of counsel could not be relied on with confidence, as they exercised their memory only for a patty, and one recollected one thing, and another another thing more strongly, remembering best that which suited best the purpose of each. Although he was ashamed to quote cases to their lordships and the learned judges, deeming it unfair, as he did, where there was no opportunity of consulting and deliberating upon the various bearings, yet he was compelled, if he would not rely upon memory, winch was so fallacious, to refer their lordships to a case at nisi prius, before a judge whose distinguished character could not be raised by any praises of his, and who, though not known to him, must have been well known to many of their lordships. Lord Kenyon, in 1802, presided in the case of Sackville v. Bow, which was a question whether goods taken in execution were the property of the plaintiff or another person. A witness for the plaintiff was cross-examined as to a contradiction to his testimony contained in an affidavit. Lord Kenyon, whose knowledge of the laws of evidence was not less eminent than the other great qualifications of his lordship, said, if the affidavit was not in court, the witnesses could not be examined respecting it. This was quite clear and quite well understood in point of practice. But with the affidavit in court, it was competent to have put all the questions proposed to the witness with the view of contradicting him. If the affidavit was not there, it would have been a mere waste of time to examine as to it, because no contradiction could be given in any authentic shape. This, then, was a case quite in favour of the right which he claimed to cross-examine this witness, as to the writing of letters which were in court. The learned judge assumed that, if the affidavit was in court, it would be quite regular to examine upon it. But that, he contended, was, in fact, a decision in his favour. Their lordships would permit him to mention also, that at the last assizes for the county of York there was a case tried before Mr. Justice Bayley, in which his learned friend was against, and Mr. Scarlett with him. There it was allowed to counsel to read from a letter its contents, in order to contradict the evidence of a witness, without its being required to put the letter into that witness's hands. Mr. Brougham was permitted to cross-examine upon that letter, and did so; and the effect of this was, that the witness was contradicted to the whole extent of that part of his testimony to which the letter was applicable; to the whole extent to which he was allowed to cross-examine him on it, and until he was able to contradict and refute his evidence. To this rule, however, the attorney-general had made an objection: and he would not say that it was a captious objection on his part; for no doubt, he knew its consequence; he felt that he was fighting pro aris et focis; and here was an impor- tant objection going to the very bottom of the case. But now that he (Mr. Williams) spoke of authorities, be must be permitted to inform his learned friends, that he had even their's, which was not a mean one, and to the same effect. He had the authority of his majesty's attorney and solicitor general themselves; wherefore he thought such an objection as they had made, came now, a little too late. Of the two cases he had mentioned to their lordships, one was a case at nisi prius, and one he cited from memory. But here had been the attorney and solicitor general looking on, for two hours, by the clock, while he (Mr. Williams) had been examining the witness from a written paper, without making any objection. Surely this implied the sanction of their authority too; and the objection made came from them a little too late.

Mr. Brougham

only begged to state, from his own recollection, that in the case to which Mr. Williams had referred, the rule was decided to be that which his learned friend had stated by Mr. Justice Bayley. He (Mr. Brougham) was putting a writing into the hands of the witness, and asking him to deny or to acknowledge his own hand-writing—nothing more. He proved it, and then Mr. Scarlett objected to his examining to the contents or the writing of that letter, upon which Mr. Justice Bayley held that he had a right to examine the witness from such letter, holding it in his hand, without showing it to that witness. The learned judge so ruled, for this obvious reason-that if he (Mr. Brougham) did show it to the other, there must be an end, at once, of all possibility of his trying the witness's credit.

The Attorney General

would dismiss the two cases which had been cited with this observation—that counsel who quoted cases from memory always did so according to their own impressions of the law upon the subject: those in question had been cited by his learned friends in their own favour. He should not remark upon the declaration which had been used by his learned friend, Mr. Williams. "It is mine and your lordships' duty" (continued the learned gentleman) "to look upon this question according to those rules by which your lordships will conceive yourselves to be bound;" he meant the rules of evidence applying to other courts of justice. Whether the question was one that was material or immaterial, if he felt that his learned friends were trenching at all, or going beyond that which was legal and right, it was his duty directly to object to the. course they were taking. One of the propositions which had been advanced he should dispute; and that was, as to the means to be used in order to procure the contradiction of any fact or expression previously deposed to by a witness. In the first place, the position which had been contended for applied only to parole evidence: here, their lordships would observe, they were not upon parole evidence, but on a long letter. His learned friend said—and he must believe him, of course, though the fact rested upon his own statement only—that he had that letter in his possession. Now his objection was this—not that they might put that letter into the witness's hands, and ask her if it was her hand-writing; and then, if she denied it, prove it was, (which they might undoubtedly do); or in case she admitted it, and that it contained a contradiction to what she had said, that then the letter might be used in evidence (which they would be equally competent to do). But he contended that they could not examine the witness upon any of the contents of a letter which was not produced in evidence, nor put into the hands of the witness, in order to prove the writing. The decision of lord Kenyon, at nisi prius, proceeded upon the same principle. His learned friends had not pursued the regular course; they did not put the letter into the hands of the witness, and ask her if it was her handwriting, which unquestionably it would have been competent for them to do; they might prove that a statement in the letter was in contradiction to a statement made at their lordships' bar; but that part of the letter alone would be evidence. He meant to contend, that they could not bring a written document of this nature in evidence, unless under the particular circumstances which he had stated. They had a right to ascertain if the letter was written by the witness or not; and, if they could ascertain that fact, then they would have a right to use the letter. The document must speak for itself, it being in writing. So far from his learned friends having established, therefore, that he (the attorney-general) was wrong, he submitted to their lordships that his learned friends were in that case, and that he was right. If he had suffered those learned gentlemen to proceed so long in an irre- gular course, that ought not to be allowed to operate against him. What he ventured to stand upon was this—that the course pursued by Mr. Williams was an irregular one. The proper way would be to put the letter into the witness's hands. If she admitted it to be of her writing, it might then be a question what part of it should be taken as evidence or not. His learned friends had no right to cross-examine the witness, assuming the admission of that letter, and upon the facts which it contained. As to what had been said about an affidavit and a letter, he accepted the challenge of his learned friend; and would maintain that there was no difference, so far as regarded the legal rule for which he was contending, between a letter and an affidavit: whether it was an affidavit or any other writing, in every case, that written instrument must be proved.

Lord Erskine

said, it appeared to him that the more preferable course would be for the queen's counsel to go directly to work. They should produce the letter— they should ask the witness whether or no it was her hand-writing; and then if she doubted or denied it, that would be no matter, because others need not doubt about it. It would be easy to examine others as to her hand-writing; and then it would be seen how far that which was written in the letter might be in contradiction, or otherwise, to what she had deposed at the bar. There might be, as he apprehended, danger in the other course. Counsel might hold the letter in their hands, and say to witness, "Did you not write this, or something like this?" and she might reply, "I wrote to this or that effect;" so that there would be nothing like a definite answer, and infinite time would be consumed. Therefore such a course, instead of arriving at the desired object by a direct and speedy method, would be as circuitous as for himself to go round by Hampstead and Highgate to his own house.

The Lord Chancellor

said, that whatever his own opinion might be upon this question, it was one which he thought it would be most advisable to refer to the learned judges. They might be asked, what would be the rule of evidence, in the courts below, applicable to a case similar to the present. He by no means concurred in the view which had been taken of it by the noble lord who had just spoken. When he (the lord chancellor) had the honour of attending courts of law, he al- ways understood the rule to stand thus:— if a witness was called to the bar, and it was intended to shake the credit of that witness, counsel might proceed (as it was quite competent for them to do) to prove that he or she had made a declaration of another sort, vivá voce, or by writing, (if he or she ever had addressed to another person such and such a declaration), from that which was then recently made at the bar. If the witness had done so, and that was made to appear, it went directly to destroy the credibility of such witness upon his examination in chief. If the witness, however, in such a case, denied that he or she ever did make such a declaration (whether by letter or otherwise), it was equally competent for the other party to prove that, notwithstanding that denial, the witness had made such contradictory statement or declaration; that it was in contradiction to what the witness had already affirmed. A question of this kind, he remembered, arose upon the Berkeley peerage; although there it was endeavoured, not to impugn, but to confirm a witness's testimony. Their lordships must see that in their case the rule of parole evidence must apply where the declaration was a verbal one. It was long since he had ceased to mingle in the business of common-law courts; but twenty years ago the rule of evidence in a case like the present was quite clear: they showed the letter to the witness, and asked him "Did he write or subscribe it, yes or no?" If the witness denied that such letter had been so written or subscribed by him, and another person attempted to prove, and did prove, to the satisfaction of the court, that it was written or subscribed by the witness, then that denial destroyed altogether the credit of his examination. But their lordships would easily see (unless they introduced a great deal more limitation than had been attempted to be done) what a state they would be in. Because,' if counsel proceeded in this way, they might go back to any distance of time, and ask witnesses if such or such a letter had been written by them; and if the witness was erroneous in her answer, owing to the lapse of time, very serious consequences might arise from her error. He should propose that the following Question be referred to the learned Judges: "Whether, in the courts below, a party on cross-examination would be allowed to represent, in the statement of a question, the contents of a letter, and to ask the witness whether she had written a letter with those contents, or contents to the like effect, without having first shown to the witness the letter, and having asked her whether she wrote that letter, or put a signature thereto?"

The Earl of Donoughmore

thought, that there could be no doubt, if the witness had confessed this paper to be her handwriting, that the cross-examination upon the strength of it was quite regular. But his doubt upon the subject was this—that it should have been proved. Counsel were making the same use of this unauthen-ticated paper as if it had been already regularly proved. If the witness had declared it was her hand-writing, then they might have been allowed to use it for the purposes of cross-examination; but he doubted, under present circumstances, whether they had a right to make any use of it whatever. What, he would ask, had the whole of the cross-examination tended to? To discredit the witness, if he might use the term, by anticipation. Having shown her that letter, it should be proved; but that could not be done at the present moment, because they could not interrupt her testimony. The witness then, as far as these letters went, must leave the bar, an uncontradicted witness: and the fact being so, she ought to have the benefit of: it. Instead of this, here had been a cross-examination of nearly two hours, and he protested against a proceeding like that upon which their lordships were called upon to interfere being allowed to produce any discredit of the witness in this stage. A very extraordinary objection had been made to the attorney-general, that because he did not interfere before, as he might have done, he ought not to interfere now; so that, because that which was irregular had been allowed to go on for an hour or two, it ought to be permitted to continue.

The Earl of Lauderdale

had a doubt whether their lordships could put the proposed question: supposing the signature or subscription were shown and proved, non constat that that which preceded the signature might not have been subsequently altered.

The Earl of Liverpool

thought, that another question had arisen in the course of the examination. The question was, whether parties were entitled to examine upon certain expressions? But previously to the ascertaining of this, there was another question to be considered, upon which, he confessed, he had a doubt, and should like to hear the opinion of others. It was, whether, when a letter was proved, counsel had a right to read, for instance, a line or two, and to ask a witness a question upon those two lines? This was a point of law, and of course he felt a difficulty upon the subject. For his own part, so far as the reason of the thing was concerned, he should think that in all cases, if any letter were produced in court, the witness had a right to see the whole of it, and then to say whether or no it had been written by him. He could imagine, that under very many, and indeed under all circumstances, the reading of a part, or the exhibition of a part, only, must tend to the deception of a witness.

Lord Redesdale

thought, that if- the witness admitted the letter to be her hand-writing, the examination might be proceeded in. If not, he thought it ought not to be allowed.

Lord Erskine

was of opinion, that they might show the witness a small part of the letter, in order to give her an opportunity of ascertaining whether it was of her writing or not.

The following Questions were then put to the learned Judges:

"Whether, in the courts below, a party on cross-examination would be allowed to re- present, in the statement of a question, the contents of a letter, and to ask the witness whether the witness wrote a letter to any person with such contents, or contents to the like effect, without having first shewn to the witness!the letter, and having asked that witness whether the witness wrote that letter, and his admitting that he wrote such, "letter?

"Secondly, whether when a letter is produced in the courts below, the court would allow a witness to be asked, upon shewing the witness only a part of, or one or more lines of such letter, and not the whole of it whether he wrote such part, or such one or more lines; and in case the witness shall not admit that he did or did not write the same, the witness can be examined to the contents of such letter."

The questions being handed to the lord chief justice, the learned Judges begged leave to retire. After a short time the learned Judges returned.

Lord Chief Justice Abbott

.—My lords; the Judges have conferred upon the questions propounded to them by your lordships: the first question was in these words, "Whether, in "the courts below, a party on cross-examination would be allowed to represent, in the statement of a question, the contents of a letter, and to ask the witness whether he wrote such a letter to any person with such contents, or contents to the like effect, with- out having first shewn to the witness, the letter, and asked the witness whether he wrote the letter, and his admitting that he wrote that letter?"

The judges are of opinion that that question must be answered by them in the negative; and the reason and foundation of our opinion is shortly this—the contents of every written paper are, according to the ordinary and well-established rules of evidence, to be proved by the paper itself, and by that alone, if the paper be in existence; the proper course therefore, my lords, is, to ask the witness whether or no that letter is of the hand-writing of the witness; if the witness admits it is of his or her hand-writing, the cross-examining counsel may, at his proper season, read that letter as evidence; and when the letter is produced, then, my lords, the whole of the letter is made evidence. One of the reasons for the rule requiring the production of written instruments, is in order that the court may be possessed of the whole. If the course which is here proposed should be followed, the cross-examining counsel may put the court in possession only of a part of the contents of the written paper, and thus the court may never be in possession of the whole, though it may happen that the whole, if produced, may have an effect very different from that which might be produced by a statement of a part.

My lords, the next question proposed by your lordships, is, "Whether when a letter is produced in the courts below, the court would allow a witness to be asked, shewing the witness only a part, or one or more lines of such letter, and not the whole of it, whether he wrote such part or such one or more lines; and if he should not admit that he did or did not write such part, whether he can be examined to the contents of such letter." The Judges beg your lordships permission to divide this question into two parts: in answer to the first part, namely, "Whether when a letter is produced in the courts below, the court would allow a witness to be asked, shewing the witness only a part, or one or more lines of such letter, and not the whole of it, whether he wrote such part?" the Judges are of opinion, that that question should be answered by them in the affirmative to the question in that form; but in answer to the latter part, which is this, "and in case the witness shall not admit that he did or did not write such part, whether he can be examined to the contents of such letter?" that the learned Judges answer in the negative, for the reason I have already given; namely, that the paper itself is to be produced, in order that the whole may be seen, and the one part explained by the other.

The Earl of Liverpool

, after a consi- derable pause, observed, that the question of striking out the latter part of the evidence from their minutes, was one of importance, on which he at present delivered no opinion, but which deserved their lordships' consideration.

Mr. Brougham

expressed a hope that their lordships would hear him before they came to any resolution upon this subject.

The Earl of Donoughmore

conceived the subject to be of so much importance, that he should be guilty of a dereliction of his duty, if he did not fairly state his own impressions respecting it. He should be glad also to hear the opinions of other noble lords, although he himself saw but one way of getting out of their difficulty. The opinion of the judges went to affect the whole of that day's proceeding, and if they were not to persevere in an irregular course, neither ought what had been irregular to remain upon their Journals. He thought, too, that it would be unjust to allow the evidence upon an examination which had been erroneously pursued, to go forth to the public. This might serve the purposes of the defence, by casting general discredit as soon as possible on a witness's testimony, but it was for their lordships to prevent any improper influence over the administration of justice. He should therefore in the mean time move, that after communication was made to counsel of the opinion delivered by the judges, they should also be informed that the whole evidence with regard to the letters would be expunged from the minutes of the House.

The Earl of Lauderdale

observed, that they could not strike all this evidence out of their minutes without in the first place hearing counsel against it.

Lord Erskine

stated, that the examination had not been objected to till it had proceeded a very considerable length. If the whole evidence taken under it were struck out, their lordships must, in consistency, go back, and strike out many other pieces of evidence. They were probably not aware how far this would carry them, or that it might lead to the necessity of revising the whole of their minutes, and to infinite debate upon what parts ought or ought not to be expunged. In any case, however, the counsel ought to be heard if their lordships entertained the present question.

The Marquis of Lansdown

observed, that he understood the usual practice to be, when counsel on one side were induced to forbear stating their objection in due time, and delayed it till the examination which it applied to was nearly brought to a close, it should not impose on the opposite counsel the necessity of re-commencing his whole examination. No counsel in the world could begin at once with the material questions of his cross-examination, if by some after-objection it was probable that he must begin de novo, because then the witness would be placed on his guard and see plainly before him the object and course of the questions addressed to him. The error lay with those counsel who omitted to bring forward a sound objection at the proper time, and it appeared to him of great consequence to the administration of justice that this principle should be well understood.

The Lord Chancellor

said, that if the question of striking out this evidence from their minutes was to be debated, it ought to be debated with a full statement before them of the whole matter, and in that case it would be proper to adjourn till the next day. It certainly appeared to him to be a most important and serious question.

Lord Grenville

was of opinion that they ought not to proceed upon the motion till some application was made on the part of counsel for that purpose, nor until after it was shown, question by question, and article by article, to what parts the objection was applied.

The Earl of Donoughmore

observed, that he was not responsible for the order of their lordships' proceedings; he was but a simple peer amongst many. He objected to an examination appearing and going forth which the judges had pronounced to be irregular. That opinion of the judges ought, in his view, to be construed as looking backward as well as forward, and as affecting the whole of that day's examination. If, however, this was contrary to the general impression of their lordships, he was willing to withdraw his motion.

The Counsel were again called in, and informed, that upon cross-examination, counsel cannot be allowed to represent, in the statement of a question, the contents of a letter, and to ask the witness whether the witness wrote a letter to any person with such contents, or contents to the like effect, unless the letter is first shewn to the witness, and the witness is asked whether he wrote such letter, and admits that he did write it; and also, that the House will allow a witness to be asked upon cross-examination, upon shewing such witness only a part, or one or more lines of such letter, and not the whole of it, whether he wrote such part, or such one or more lines: but if the witness should not admit that he wrote such part or such one or more lines, the witness cannot be examined to the effect of the contents of the letter, unless it is shewn to him, and he admits that he wrote it.

The Witness was again called in.

Mr. Williams.

—Is that your hand-writing? (a letter being put into the hand of the witness.) Yes.

Is that side your writing? It is my writing.

Take the next—Is the next page your writing? Yes.

And the next? Yes.

Even to the end? Yes, to the end.

And the address? Yes.

And the date and the place? Yes.

Look at that. [Another letter being shown to the witness [Is that first page your writing? Yes.

And the next? Yes.

And the last? Yes.

The whole? To the end.

Is the first page of that letter your writing, the date and altogether? [Another letter being shewn to the witness.] Yes.

And the next page? Yes.

Name and all? Yes, all mine.

The Letters were severally handed in, and marked by the clerk assistant.

Mr. Attorney General

objected to any question being put as to the contents of the letters, and submitted that the written instruments must be produced, and must speak for themselves.

Mr. Williams

remarked, that the attorney-general's objection was certainly a short one, but if he understood it rightly, a more important question, as affecting the administration of justice, never yet arose from the beginning of the law to this time. No man was more disposed than himself to bow with humility to great legal authorities, but in that high court, and in a cause of such high importance, he should be ashamed of himself, if he did not fairly, candidly, and manfully, state his own opinion to their lordships. The rule in question was one of practice rather than of written authority; if there had been any authority in the books respecting it, that authority should have been produced. But in the absence of all recorded reference or citation on the subject, he should assume that none was to be found. If the rule were as the attor- ney-general represented it, what must be its immediate and necessary consequence? The only principle on which the letter was at all admitted was, that it might show a contradiction to the evidence on the examination in chief. This was the foundation of its admissibility. It was in this light only that letters or old affidavits, not appertaining to the cause in hand, could be made matter of evidence. The course which he now proposed to pursue with the witness was according to the established practice as he understood it, as he had observed it, as he had suffered from it. The writing was introduced for the sole purpose of pointing out a contradiction. Why were they to wait till a future stage of this proceeding for the discovery of facts which might be proved immediately? What was the ground or necessity for this delay? If restrained in his present course, he might experience difficulties hereafter in showing the contradiction. The question was of obvious and vital importance. There was a case fresh in his recollection, a case in which he was himself engaged, and tried before a judge, who, without speaking invidiously, he would say was exceeded by none in legal knowledge (he meant Mr. Baron Wood), the last time he went the Northern circuit. He, as counsel for one of the parties, had a letter in his possession contradicting the evidence of one of the witnesses, and both he and the learned counsel who was with him agreed that the letter was material, and agreed also to postpone the production of it. The witness came and went, and when he (Mr. Williams) conceived that the time had arrived for him to produce it, he was informed that his time was past, his opportunity gone by. Mr. Scarlett, who was on the other side, objected to it, with a taunt which produced an effect upon him, to which was probably owing the present accuracy of his recollection. It was said the letter was no evidence in the cause, and that he must be in the incunabula of his profession, to pretend to introduce it after having omitted to do so at the proper moment. The same rule held in parole evidence; it was not the tenor of what a witness said, but his words that constituted evidence. Suppose an action to be brought for money lent, and John Nokes to prove that a loan of 20l. was made on a given day by the plaintiff to the defendant; if counsel suffered such a witness to pass, and after- wards proposed to call him to show that the loan was the other way, such an exaruination would not be allowed. By the same rule, and not from any remote, but from an unerring and absolute analogy, he submitted, that if he now suffered this woman to escape without' questioning her as to the contents of the writings which she had admitted to be her own, he should be hereafter liable to be told that the time of contradiction was gone by. Had he waited till a future period, the argument would have been that he had lost his opportunity by his own default, and it would have come with irresistible force. He felt the utmost degree of respect for the decisions of their lordships, but he declared to God, he could not understand on what principle of law or reason the objection of the attorney-general was founded.

Mr. Brougham

said, that the question now depending was of the utmost importance as it applied to the evidence which might be settled or unsettled by it. It was of great importance to the cause immediately before them, to their proceedings on all other occasions, and involved a rule of practice that might affect the administration of justice, not only in the highest courts, but before the lowest tribunals. The great rule of evidence, as laid down and recognised, he took to be this—that without any previous examination, the letters or written statements of either party on the record may be given in evidence, because by putting or suffering himself to be put on the record, he let in the adversary to produce all the declarations or statements which during his life he had ever made. Suppose he gave a witness under cross-examination no knowledge of the existence of a written document contradicting his testimony most materially, in what situation would the witness be placed. Non constat that, after the cross-examination had been concluded, the witness might not be able to explain the discrepancy, and reconcile an apparent opposition. He could not perhaps do so without the refreshment of his memory, and that refreshment would arise out of the written document, whether a letter or otherwise, in the possession of the counsel. The common sense of the thing was entirely on the side of her majesty, and against putting and reading the whole letter. All a man's writings were evidence against himself in any cause instituted by him, or where he was defendant: but the case of a witness was different, and this was the first time it had been ever contended that all a witness had written might be produced in opposition to his testimony. If their lordships should decide contrary to what he had now argued, they might put a new rule round the necks of the Queen's counsel, but their reason would remain their own.

The Attorney General

said, that the whole point lay in a very narrow compass. Unquestionably the letters of a party in a cause were evidence against him; but no declaration in writing by a witness could be received in evidence to contradict him without being read. In cross-examination all that was wanted was, the negative by the witness, and then the contradiction must be supplied: but it must be supplied in the regular way, and according to established rule. Where a witness was contradicted by parole, the witness to contradict him must be produced and cross-examined by the adverse party, and the same rule applied to documentary evidence: that also must be produced and read, that the nature of its contents might be properly judged of. This was the fallacy of the argument on the other side; for if they asked questions regarding letters, those letters must be produced at the proper period. In the case before baron Wood, it was merely decided, that matter collateral to the issue could not be introduced; but here the letter itself was put into the hands of the witness, and the consequence was, that if it were to answer any purpose, it must be read in due course. It had been contended, that this was doing injustice to the witness, who ought to be allowed an opportunity of explanation; but if that were required, it could be afforded at any time by recalling the witness. The written declaration of a witness, like every other written paper, must speak for itself: no examination of its contents was ever allowed by parole, and if he did not cite authorities upon this point, it was because the rule was too well known and too often acted upon, to need such support.

Lord Erskine

observed, that if questions founded on the letters were put to the witness, no further use could be made of them then, but they must be produced in the proper stage of the case hereafter. He begged leave to say, however, that whatever might be the rules of courts of law where the case of the accused followed immediately that of the accuser, some difference might here be allowed, because one anomaly of this proceeding was, that an interval must be allowed for the preparation of the defence. The proper course seemed now to be, that the contradiction in the letter should be stated to the witness, and that she should then be required to give her explanation or reconcilement of it, the House being the judge how far that purpose had been accomplished. Either this must be done, or the counsel for the Queen would be deprived of making the cross-examination as to this point, and what it produced, a part of their case.

The following Questions were then drawn up by the Lord-Chancellor, and proposed to the Learned Judges:

"Whether, when a witness is cross-examined, and upon the production of a letter to the witness under cross-examination, the witness admits that he wrote that letter, the witness can he examined in the courts below whether he did or did not in such letter make statements such as the counsel shall, by questions addressed to the witness, inquire are or are not made therein; or whether the letter itself must be read as the evidence, to manifest that such statements are or arc not contained therein: And in what stage of the proceedings, according to the practice of the courts below, such letter could be required by counsel to be read, or be permitted by the court below to be read?"

The Questions were delivered to the Lord Chief Justice, and the Learned Judges requested leave to withdraw. After a short time the Learned Judges returned.

Lord Chief Justice Abbott.

—My lords; the, judges have conferred upon the questions last proposed to them by your lordships: the first partofyour lordships question is in these words, "Whether, when a witness is cross-examined, and upon the production of a letter to the witness under cross-examination, the witness admits that he wrote that letter, the witness can be examined in the courts below whether he did or did not in such letter make statements, such as the counsel shall, by questions addressed to the witness, inquire are or are not made therein; or whether the letter itself must be read as the evidence, to manifest that such statements are or are not contained in the letter?" My lords; in answer to this part of your lordships question, I am to inform your lord ships, that the judges are of opinion, in the case propounded, the counsel cannot by questions addressed to the witness, inquire whether or no such statements are contained in the letter, but that the letter itself must be read to manifest whether such statements are or are not contain- ed in that letter. My lords; in delivering this opinion to your lordships, the judges do not conceive that they are presuming to offer to your lordships any new rule of evidence, now for the first time introduced by them, but that they found their opinion upon what, in their judgment, is a rule of evidence as old as any part of the common law of England; namely, that the contents of a written instrument, if it be in existence, are to be proved by that instrument itself, and not by parole evidence. The latter part of your lordships question is in these words; namely, "In what stage of the proceedings, according to the practice of the courts below, such letter can be required by counsel to be read, or can be permitted by the courts to be read?" My lords; in answer to this, I am to inform your lordships, that the judges are of opinion, according to the ordinary rule of proceeding in the courts below, the letter is to be read as the evidence of the cross-examining counsel, as part of his evidence in his turn, after he shall have opened his case; that that is the ordinary course: but that if the counsel who is cross-examining suggests to the court that he wishes to have the letter read immediately, in order that he may, after the contents of that letter shall have been made known to the court, found certain questions upon the contents of that letter, to be propounded to the witness, which could not well or effectually be done without reading the letter itself, that becomes an excepted case in the courts below; and for the convenient administration of justice the letter is permitted to be read at the suggestion of the counsel; but considering it however, as part of the evidence of the counsel proposing it, and subject to all the consequences of having such letter considered as part of his evidence.

The Counsel were again called in, and were informed, that when a witness is cross-examined, and upon the production of a letter to the witness under cross-examination, the witness admits he wrote that letter, the witness cannot be examined whether he did or did not in such letter make statements such as the counsel shall, by questions addressed to the witness, inquire are or are not made therein, but that the letter itself must be read as the evidence, to manifest that such statements are or are not contained therein; and further, that it is the opinion of the House, that in the regular course of proceeding, the letter ought to be read after the counsel cross-examining shall have opened his case, but that the House will upon the request of such counsel, stating that it is expedient for the purpose of his more effectually, in the course of his cross-examination, propounding further questions necessary for the interest of his client, permit such letter to be read, subject to all the consequences of having such letter considered as part of his evidence.

Mr. Brougham

, before he made his election whether he would wish the letters read now or at a future stage, reminded the House of a precedent in the duchess of Kingston's case, in the State Trials, where Judith Phillips had been called by Mr. Mansfield, counsel for the defendant, in order to enable him to read a letter, which letter was read as part of the cross-examination, and not as part of the defendant's evidence, whose case was not opened until afterwards. On this authority he should have submitted that he might read the letters of the witness Demont as part of her cross-examination.

The Lord Chancellor

told tire counsel for the Queen, that they must make their choice whether they would have them read now, for the greater convenience of cross-examination, or would produce them in a subsequent stage of the business. In both cases they must be considered as the evidence for and of the Queen. He would look more particularly at the duchess of Kingston's case.

Mr. Brougham

added, that Mr. Williams had one or two other questions to put to the witness before he examined her on the contents of the letters.

The Witness was again called in.

Mr. Williams.

—You have been thirteen months in England? Yes.

Any more than thirteen months? I came last year in the month of July.

Were you ever in England before? No.

Who came with you? One of my sisters, a friend, Mr. Sacchi, and Mr. Krouse, who accompanied me.

Your retinue consisted of two females and two males? It was not my suite, we were in different carriages.

But travelling together at the same time, coining at the same time? Yes.

From Vienna, or where? From Switzerland.

You have been at Vienna, have you not? I have not been at Vienna except with her royal highness.

Not since you were in her royal highness's service? No.

Have you been at Milan since? Yes, once.

Were you examined there? Yes.

How many examined you; was Vimercati the counsellor one? Yes, Vimercati and three other gentlemen.

Was there any other lawyer besides Vimercati? There was the advocate Vimercati, three other gentlemen, and those who wrote; I do not know whether there was an advocate.

Was Mr. Powell one? Yes.

Was colonel Brown there? Yes, he was there.

You were examined more than once, were not you? I was examined but once at Milan.

Any where else? I was examined only at Milan.

How long ago was that? A year ago, in the month of January or the commencement of February.

Where did you go from, in order to be examined at Milan? I went from Switzerland to Milan.

You had been at your own house, had you? Yes.

Then living at your own home, not in service? Yes, I lived at home.

Have you finally agreed what you are to have for your evidence? They have promised nothing for my evidence.

Have you not asked for any thing before you came, or for any promise, before you came over to this country, upon your oath? No.

Or for any thing else for your personal presence? No, I have only demanded that they should pay the expenses of my journey.

Do you mean to swear, that you expect nothing for coming to this country, and for giving your evidence? I expect nothing at all for having come here.

No benefit, or any profit of any kind, you mean to swear? I expect no profit for coming here.

Qou do not believe, upon your oath, that you are to receive any money, or benefit of any kind, for coming to England? I expect no advantage from coming here, only that they should pay my expenses back to Switzerland, nothing more.

That is all you expect? Yes, that is what I expect.

And that is all you believe you are to get? I expect nothing else.

You believe you shall have nothing else? I do not believe that I shall have any thing more.

You stated at the outset that you never had been in service since you quitted the princess of Wales; is that so, or is it not? I have been in no other service.

Mr. Brougham

tendered the letters in evidence. The Solicitor General desired their lordships might be informed, whether the counsel against the Bill meant to put questions upon the letters after they should have been read. Mr. Williams, of counsel for the Queen, stated that he should put a question upon them. An observation being made on the above statement, it was explained to be the intention of the counsel for the Queen not to put a single question merely pro formá, but questions boná fide arising out of the subject-matter of the letters.—Mr. Brougham stated, that the reading of the letters would occupy a considerable time, and that he was desirous the witness should not have an opportunity of reflecting upon them before the questions were proposed to her upon them.

Ordered, that the further consideration and second reading of the said Bill be adjourned to to-morrow.