Lords Sitting of 2 September 1820

Preamble
The order of the day being read for the Further consideration of the second reading of the Bill, intituled "An Act to deprive her Majesty, &c." and Counsel being called in,
The Lord Chancellor, by leave of the House, stated, in their presence, that a reference having been made by the learned counsel for her majesty, at the close of yesterday's proceedings, to the trial of the duchess of Kingston, where it was stated, that a letter had been presented to a witness (Judith Phillips) on cross-examination, and having been acknowledged by her to be her hand-writing, had been afterwards read in evidence, not as part of the defendant's case; his lordship had since referred to the printed trial, and had compared the statement contained in that with the Journals of their lordships' House; and his lordship read at length the proceedings touching the same, both as they appeared in the printed trial and upon the Journals of the House; after which, the counsel were informed that, in the opinion of the House, the proceedings touching the said letter, as set forth in the printed trial, did not appear to establish, or destroy, or affect the opinion delivered by the learned judges to the House yesterday; and that, according to the proceedings as they appeared upon the Journals of the House, there was no statement whatever there, to show that the letter was ever read: therefore, the House was of opinion, in the present case, to adhere to the rule as laid down yesterday.
Lord Erskinesaid—My lords, it does not appear to me that what has been read from the duchess of Kingston's case goes at all to oppose the opinion delivered by the learned judges yesterday; and if it had, I should have thought it entitled to no regard. I am now approaching fast to be one of the oldest members of the profession of the law, and I have no hesitation in declaring to your lordships, that the opinion delivered by the judges so entirely corresponds with all the principles that I collected at the bar, and from the whole practice of the courts in my time, that if any judge had held a contrary opinion, which it had become my duty to resist, I would have tendered a bill of exceptions, and can have no doubt that it would have been supported upon a writ of error, by an unanimous judgment of this House.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he was clearly of opinion, that the law, as laid down by the learned judges yesterday, had been most correctly stated. He re-
1196
peated, that in the printed report of the duchess of Kingston's case, there was nothing which either confirmed or contradicted the decision of the learned judges; but their lordships' Journals afforded an apparent confirmation of that decision.
Lord Redesdalealso expressed himself thoroughly satisfied with the decision of the judges. That the letter had not been allowed to be read in the case of the duchess of Kingston, was evident; because, after Mr. Wallace had been heard, no entry appeared in the Journals of its having been read.
The Lord Chancellorthen informed the counsel against the bill, that they might proceed with their cross-examination; adhering to the rule which their lordships had laid down yesterday.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he presumed with respect to reading the letters of the witness in that stage of the proceeding?
The Lord Chancellorreplied in the affirmative. If the learned counsel proposed to read them in the present stage of the proceeding, they must be prefaced by a statement, according to the rule laid down yesterday.
Mr. Broughambegged to ask whether his lordship did not think, in the case of the duchess of Kingston, that Mr. Wallace intended the letter to be read as part of the proceedings when he read it?
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he thought the letter might be meant to be so read at the time, but as far as they could judge from what they saw on the Journals, an objection being taken, Mr. Wallace (whose knowledge of the law, and especially of the law of evidence, was as great, perhaps, as that of any man who ever lived), seeing what sort of an objection that would be in the result, thought, in the exercise of his discretion and judgment, that it would be better to put the letter in his pocket, and say no more about it.
Then Louisa Demontwas again called in, and further cross-examined as follows by Mr. Williams, through the interpretation of Mr. Garston.
To what place did you go when you quitted the service of the princess? To Switzerland.
Did you go to the house of your father and mother? I have no father, but I went to the house of my mother.
Your mother is married again, is not she? Yes.
How long did you remain with your father and mother after you went there? About a year; a year and a month, about that time.

1197
To what place did you go from thence, from your home? I went to Milan.
Was that to be examined as you described yesterday? Yes.
Where did you go from Milan? I returned to Switzerland.
Home? Yes.
How long did you remain at home upon that occasion? Nearly three months.
Where did you go to then? Here into England.
Who desired you to go to Milan, in order to be examined? Mr. Sacchi came to seek for me on the part of the commission.
Who is Mr. Sacchi? An Italian gentleman.
A clerk of Vimercati, or what; do you know what he is besides being a gentleman? No.
What is he besides a gentleman? I do not know what he is; he was a soldier (en mili-taire), but I do not know what he is at present; he was an officer.
Did you know of his being an officer? Yes.
Where did you know him before he came for you? In the house of the princess, or with the princess.
He also had been in the service of the princess, had he? Yes.
When he came for you, he was no longer in the service of the princess? No.
And at that time he was in the service of the Milan commission, was he? I do not know in what service he was.
Employed by them? I know that he came to seek for me, or fetch me, but I do not know whether he was employed otherwise.
What year was it that he fetched you to go to Milan to be examined? A year ago, last year.
Was it in the year 1818 or 1819? He arrived in the month of December 1818, and we left in the January 1819; it is a year ago last December, that he came for me.
Then it was the beginning of 1819, was it? Yes.
Then up to that time, if you are understood rightly, you had been living with your father and mother? Yes.
Then three months more with them, and then you came over to England? Nearly three months.
How long were you at Milan? About two months.
What was given to you for going to Milan, any thing or nothing? They gave me nothing but to pay my journey and my expenses; they paid my journey and my expenses, but nothing more.
Then after that time, when you were three months at home, you maintained yourself, did you; you lived upon your own means? Yes.
And all the time, from the leaving the service of the princess, till going to Milan? Yes.
If you are rightly understood, you have received nothing only your journeying expenses? Yes.
That is all? Yes. You have supported yourself here also,
1198
have you? No, my expenses have been paid me here.
That is all, only the expenses? Yes, only my expenses.
If you are rightly understood, you said yesterday, that you had been examined only once at Milan before you came over to England? I was examined only once at Milan, but I was several days being examined.
Several days under examination? Yes.
Were those successive days together, or were they at different times? Following days successively.
Then in fact it was only one examination at Milan? Yes, at Milan.
Have you not been examined since you came to England? I have not been examined; I have been sworn once, but not examined.
When were you sworn? About two months ago.
By whom? By a magistrate, whom I do not know.
Where was it, what magistrate? I do not know the magistrate, but I was examined in the house of Mr. Powell.
Did you say sworn? Sworn.
Was it upon the subject of the evidence you have been giving in this place? Yes.
Then there was an examination in writing, was there a paper produced? I have seen my own paper.
Was not it there at the time? Yes, it was with Mr. Powell at that time.
Was it the same paper that had been written upon at Milan? I do not know whether it was the same paper, but it was my deposition.
It was your deposition which you signed, was it not? I have signed a deposition. but I do not know whether it was in the same paper.
Did you not sign that paper of which you are now speaking, to which you were sworn? The day on which I was sworn do you mean?
Either then or at another time? I saw my deposition, but I do not know whether it was the paper that I signed.
You had it before you at the time you were sworn, had you not? Yes.
You heard the contents of it read, did you not? I did not hear the contents read.
But you saw the paper? I saw the paper.
Did not the paper contain your evidence? Yes.
And to that you were sworn by a magistrate? Yes.
Mr. Powellwas the gentleman that examined you in Italy? Yes.
Did he ever examine you in this country, except that time when you were sworn? No.
The Solicitor General objected to the question in that form, as assuming that Mr. Powell had examined her."
Mr. Williams.—Did Mr. Powell examine you at any time in England? No.
Has he not often seen, you in England since you arrived? Sometimes.

1199
Has he not seen you frequently since your arrival in England? He has not seen me often.
Has he seen you a dozen times since you arrived in England? Yes, more.
Twenty, perhaps? I do not know how often.
That was not upon the subject of your evidence, was it? No, it was not upon the subject of my evidence.
During those visits that you describe, more or less, you had no talk upon the subject of your evidence, had you; do you mean to represent that? I cannot say we have said nothing about my evidence, because I do not recollect it.
At the time you were sworn, was there a book which you kissed? Yes.
You were regularly sworn, were you not? I kissed the book as here.
To the truth of your deposition which was then before you, was it not? Yes.
Mr. Broughamhere interposed, and begged that the witness might be ordered to withdraw. After she had retired, he put it to their lordships whether the disclosures already made ought not to vitiate the whole of the witness's evidence. It appeared that she had been brought before a magistrate, and there sworn, through the activity and zeal of the attorney on the other side; and this, after the proceedings in the case had been commenced before their lordships. It was for their lordships consideration whether they were not called upon to interfere in consequence of the influence which had been exercised over the witness, and of the most outrageous proceeding which she had described.
Mr. Williamsfollowed in support of the objection. He observed, that if the evidence of a witness, situated as Demont was, were received, very considerable danger would probably arise from the precedent. Every witness came into court to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. But here a party came forward, whose conscience was already pledged to an ex-parte statement. Might not such a pledge, under the sanction of an oath, affect the conscience of that witness, in prejudice to a declaration of the truth; or, according to the language of the oath which was here taken, might it not prevent her from declaring "the whole truth?" Might it not have the effect of so tying down and fettering the conscience of the witness, as to operate against the course of justice? The conscience of a witness ought, in
1200
every court of justice, to be perfectly free and unfettered; which, he submitted, was not the case here.
The Lord Chancellorwas of opinion that the objection taken by the learned counsel did not affect the competency of the witness to give evidence. If the circumstance alluded to affected the credit of the witness, it would be open to observation when the whole case was understood; but to stop the cross-examination now, would be acting against the resolution to which their lordships had come. In ordinary cases he was quite clear that observations of the nature made by the learned counsel could only be urged after the re-examination, as affecting the credit of the witness's testimony.
The Witness was again called in.
Mr. Williams.—Then you are understood to say, that, with the exception to which you have alluded, the swearing and the examination at Milan, you have not been examined at all upon this subject till you came here? No.
Mr. Williamsstated, that, with the permission of the House, he proposed now to read two letters; that three had been proved, but that, of course, it was at the option of the counsel whether they would read the whole, and that, on reading the third, it did not occur to him to be necessary to put any questions upon cross-examination.
The counsel were asked, whether they now proposed to read those letters under the conditions which had been stated in the communication made to them by the House.
Mr. Williamsanswered "Certainly."
Mr. Broughamproposed, that the letters should be read first in French by one interpreter, and then the translation read by the other; the interpreter who had read the letter holding it in his hand, and stating whether he agreed in the interpretation.
Then a letter in French, signed Louise Demont, addressed mademoiselle Mariette Bron, at Pesaro, and dated Collombier, 8th February 1818, was read.
During the reading of the letter the witness remarked, that a person was named in it who might he exposed, by his name being made known; that she wished that no person of whom she had spoken should be exposed.
Mr. Broughamstated, that he had no desire that any person not connected with the proceedings before the House, should be introduced by the reading of the letter; and consequently that he had no objection to the name being omitted in the reading or in the copy of the letter, as it might appear upon their lordships minutes.
Their lordships directed, that the name should be omitted in entering the letter on the minutes; and the interpreter was directed,

1201
if he should meet with any other name in reading the letter, not to read it until he had learned from the counsel whether it was necessary that it should he stated.
Then Mr. Garston,the interpreter, produced a paper, and was asked,
Mr. Brougham to Mr. Garslon.—Have you compared that in your hand with the original? I have.
And have found it to be an accurate translation? I have.
The original letter was handed to Mr. Pinario, and the translation was read by Mr. Garston.
Then a letter, signed Louise Demont, addressed to her royal highness the princess of Wales, and dated Rimini, the 16th November 1317, was read in French, by Mr. Garston.
The translation of the same was read by Mr. Garston, Mr. Pinario comparing the original.
The interpreters requesting that they might have an opportunity of a more careful revision of the translation of the two Letters just read, were directed to retire as soon as their services could be dispensed with, and when they should have agreed in the translations, to present the same to the House.
Then the witness was asked:
Mr. Williams.—Who is the count to whom you allude in the letter first read? The count Schiavini.
Was he at that time in the service of the princess? Yes.
Was that journal of which mention is made, a journal comprising the whole time that you were with the princess?
The Solicitor General objected to the question, submitting that the journal must speak for itself.
The counsel were informed that the question might be put.
The question was proposed.
I do not believe it contained the whole time.
Did it not comprise the greater part of it? Yes.
State more particularly who that Madame Gaulisa is, to whom you refer in that letter? A Swiss lady.
A Swiss lady residing where? At Lausanne.
How near to Lausanne is the residence of your father and mother? Three leagues.
Madame Gaulisa is not a relation of yours, but some acquaintance or other that you formed at Lausanne? Yes, she is not my relation.
But an acquaintance of yours residing at Lausanne? Yes.
Where does your aunt Clara live, to whom you allude? At Collombier.
In the same place of course at which your father and mother reside? Yes.
*These Letters will be found in the proceedings of Monday.
1202
Do you not, in that letter, speak of taking some refreshment at your aunt Clara's? I have already said that this letter was a double entendre for my sister.
Is it true, or is it not, that a person unknown did desire to deliver you a letter? If I may have permission, I will explain every thing respecting that letter.
First of all give an answer to the question—Is it true, or is it false, that an unknown person did desire to deliver you a letter? I have once received a letter without a signature.
Was that letter delivered by an unknown person, who came when you were at your aunt Clara's? I do not recollect whether it was at my aunt Clara's, but this letter was sent to me at Collombier.
Did that unknown person come and deliver the letter to you either at your aunt Clara's, or not? I do not recollect where the letter was given to me.
Did any unknown person deliver to you a letter? I have said I received a letter at Collombier, but I do not know who delivered it to me, I do not recollect.
Are you now' speaking of that letter to which you refer in the letter which has been read? It was a letter without a signature; but it did not contain what you [the Interpreter] have read.
Then it is not true that when you were taking refreshment at your aunt Clara's, you did receive a letter which proposed that you should go to London, and so on? I do not recollect whether I received it at my aunt Clara's.
Did you receive such a letter at all, aye or no? I have received a letter like that, hut it had not the contents exactly of that which you [the Interpreter] have read.
Did that letter you received contain any proposal to go to London? I wish to explain this letter.
Answer the question, and then you may do it; did you or aid you not receive a letter that proposed to you to go to London? I received a letter which said to me, that if I would go to London I could be placed as a governess, if I were provided with letters of recommendation. I wish you would have the goodness to let me explain why I wrote this letter to my sister; I wish to go back to the time in which I was dismissed from her royal high-ness's service; I was to start the following morning; Mr. Pergami came into my room—
Mr. Williamsobjected to a statement of any conversation with Mr. Pergami in the absence of the princess.
The Solicitor General submitted, that the witness was at liberty to state all the circumstances, whether in other respects evidence or not, that induced her to write that letter, and the statement of which was necessary for the purpose of explaining it.
The counsel were informed, that the state-

1203
ment might be received by way of explanation.
The Witness proceeded as follows:
Mr. Pergamicame into my chamber and said, that her royal highness wished to dismiss my sister also on account of me. I was very sorry for that, for my sister not having any fortune at home could not live at home. I begged Mr. Pergami to speak to the princess, in order that she might keep my sister: he promised to do it, and at the same time advised me to write a letter to her royal highness because she was much offended against me, and to recommend my sister to her, and to ask her pardon. I wrote the letter at Pe-saro.—The following morning, when I parted with my sister, she recommended to me when I wrole to her to write to her nothing which could prejudice or hurt her; I promised that I would, on the contrary, do every thing in my power in order that she might keep her place; I wrote also to her royal highness the letter which has been seen from Rimini. I wrote to my sister several other times, and always in those same letters I spoke much of her royal highness, because I knew that they would be intercepted.—About the same time in which I wrote that letter, I had formed the idea of quitting Switzerland and coming into England, at the time that I received information that if I could set off, and have letters of recommendation, I should be placed here as a governess; at the same time being afraid that her royal highness would dismiss my sister, I wrote to my sister, and I dare not write freely for fear the letter should be seen: I said to my sister what has been read in the letter, only to let her know, that if she were dismissed, I would find the means of placing her here, and that I would pay her journey; at the same time, I knew that since I had left the princess, she had always said that she was afraid I should speak against her, and as I knew that the princess would read the letter also, I wished that she might be convinced that I would not speak against her even if I came into England. I have often had questions put to me in private conversations, and I have always avoided saying what took place in the house. This is the reason why I wrote that letter to my sister.
Have you given a full explanation in your conception, or have you more to add? I have said that I wished to pay the journey of my sister; the allusion to the banker was to say, that I wished to take the money which I had with my guardian and place it here, because they had told me the interest would be double, and if I had need of it here for my sister or myself, I should be able to make use of it.
Have you any more explanation? I have no further explanation.
Have you any further explanation; consider well before you answer? I wished by that to convince the princess, who doubted
1204
of my speaking of her, that though I should have questions put to me, money would not tempt me.
Have you any other explanation? I wish to think a little;—I must say also that at that time I felt a great degree of attachment to her royal highness, and grateful for the kindness she had used towards me, whilst I was in her house.
Any more? I do not recollect entirely all the circumstances respecting this letter, but that is as far as I can recall to my mind.
You saw the letter last night sufficiently to know it again, did you not? I have seen it, and I said I could know it again, but could not recall the whole of its contents.
But you saw the date of it, did you not, and the place from which it was written? I have seen two letters, but I have not remarked the date.
Did you not see it last night, when it was put before you? I saw two letters placed before me.
Did you not see the date? I do not know which of the two it was, as to the date.
Did you not see the dates of both? I have only seen Collombier, I have not made observation on the date.
But you did see the one that was written from Collombier, that you noticed? I have seen Collombier at the top of one.
When you went from this place last night, who accompanied you? A lady, one of my friends.
Do you mean to represent that nobody else has seen you since you were examined here last night? I have seen the people of the house, and the person who accompanied me, who is some one whose name I do not know, but who was sent to fetch me.
Did you not remain somewhere near to the place where you now are, for some time before you went home? I went directly home.
Did you not stay near the place where you are now, before you went to the place where you reside, wherever it is? In going out hence, I went direct home.
The interpreter stated, that the term used might apply to the time of her going home, or to her going straight home.
In going hence, I went directly home, without going to any other place.
You are not asked whether you went straight home, whether you went out of your way; but whether you did not remain somewhere near this place before you set out to go home? I remained a moment in a room up here in the house.
How long did you remain in the room above? I do not recollect perfectly.
Do you mean to represent that you did not stay above a moment, as your phrase is; do you mean to swear that you did not stay half an hour above stairs? I will not swear it; I may have remained there half an hour, perhaps, nearly.

1205
Will you swear you did not remain there an hour? I cannot swear as to the time that I remained there.
What did you mean by saying this instant that you remained only a moment? I meant that I did not remain there long.
Will you swear you did not remain there two hours? I cannot swear as to what time I stopped there.
Do you mean to represent that nobody saw you in that room, except the person with whom you went home, and the woman whose name is not asked? I saw the lady who accompanied me home, and the gentleman who came to fetch me, in order to conduct me.
You just now asked for a little time when you were asked whether you wanted to give any more explanation; do you mean to represent that you have not been thinking of the subject of these letters ever since you were examined in the afternoon of yesterday? I have not passed my time in reflecting upon them, but I have thought about them.
Are you to be understood that you have been thinking of them, but not thinking of them all the time? I have not been thinking of them all the while, because on my arrival at home I retired to my bed-chamber.
What do you mean by the capital of Europe in the letter which has been read; do you mean London? It is so long since I wrote the letter, that I cannot exactly recall what I meant by it.
Having heard it read in the French, and also in English, do you mean now to represent that you do not know what you meant by the capital of Europe at the time you wrote that letter? It is impossible to recollect, since such a distance of time, what I meant by all the words; I cannot recollect; I have told you that it is so long since, I cannot recollect.
The following extract was read from the letter.
"Pas plutôt j'ai été partie de Pesaro, qu'on l'a sû avec toutes les circonstanccs dans la capitale de l'Europe."
What place did you mean to describe by the capital of Europe? I cannot recall to my mind what I meant by that expression, because it is often my custom to write in a double sense, and I sometimes call Lausanne and Collombier the capitals, in jest, in joke.
In your jest, have you been in the habit of calling Collombier the capital of Europe? I was often accustomed to call Collombier the capital, in writing to my friends, joking.
Whether you meant that place now in writing that letter, you do not know? I do not know now.
In your letter you say that you want money? Yes.
Was that so, or was it not? Perhaps I had no money at home; but if I had want of money, I could ask it of my guardian, who had it always.
1206
Did you, or did you not, at the time you wrote, want money or not? I do not recollect whether I had money at home, but if I had need of it, I could ask it of my guardian; perhaps I had not money at home.
Do you mean that you were at all supported by your father and mother during the time you were in Switzerland, after you quitted the princess? I paid board to my mother for my maintenance.
You were not assisted in any way during all that time with money by any body? I do not recollect that any one lent me money.
Lent it, advanced it, or gave it? No one gave me money.
You mention in the letter a sister besides Mariette? Yes.
You were much attached to that sister, were you not? I was always much attached to her.
And that sister you wished very much to go into the service of the princess, did you not? My sister wished to travel herself.
Did you not wish her to go into the service of the princess? Yes, because she had often spoken to me to place her, to put her into a situation.
What was the age of that sister? Nearly nineteen, I cannot recollect exactly.
Was she then nineteen, or now? At that time.
What line of life is your step father in at Collombier? He is a farmer.
Does he farm his own estate? He has a small domain which he cultivates himself.
He is in tolerable circumstances, is he? He can subsist only in working hard, he and my mother also.
Does he not maintain himself by his labour? Yes.
He lives in a small cottage, does he not? A small house.
And has some family living with him now, has he not? My mother and two daughters.
Re-examined by Mr. Solicitor General, through the interpretation of Mr. Pinario.
Did you say that your father had any property of his own? My father has some lands which belong to him.
Is that the land which he cultivates? Yes.
Is it with that land and with that labour that he maintains himself? Yes.
Have you yourself any property? Yes.
To what amount in the year? Something about fifty louis.
Is that the annual amount of the income which you have? Yes.
Is your sister Mariette still in the service of her royal highness? Yes.
Has she any thing of her own, except the wages which she receives from her royal highness? She has nothing but what she receives from her royal highness.
Is she your own sister, or your half sister? By the mother's side only.
You stated yesterday, that you were dis-

1207
missed for saying something which was not true—that in effect it was not true; explain the circumstances of your dismissal, and for what cause it was you were dismissed from the service? I was dismissed the service of her royal highness, because she had been told that Mr. Sacchi had given out that her royal highness was in love with him, and that it was I that had told him from the princess. I wrote a letter to Mr. Sacchi; this letter was taken up at the post; and because I said at the end of the letter, that the princess loved and esteemed Mr. Sacchi as before, "aimoit" has two senses, as in the former time; I explained to her royal highness, that I did not mean at all that it was love, but that her royal highness liked Mr. Sacchi in the same manner as other persons in her household. After this letter I was dismissed, because her royal highness thought that it meant love; and yet it was not love at all that I intended.
What were the expressions which were canvassed by her royal highness, the particular expressions which you allude to? As far as I can remember, I said in the letter that her royal highness loved in the sense I have explained, and esteemed Mr. Sacchi as in former time; the words that I used were "aimoit et estimoit comme dans le terns passé."
When was that letter written? At Pesaro.
That letter in which those words were used, "aimoit et estimoit comme dans le terns passé?" Yes.
While you were writing that letter, did any person come into the room? Mr. Pergami.
Did he see you writing? Yes.
Did you afterwards yourself go to Pesaro? I went myself to Pesaro.
With the letter? With the letter.
Was any person appointed to go with you?
My sister and Mr. Hieronimus were to go with me.
After Pergami came into the room, was any other person appointed to accompany you? Mr. Pergami came again into my room, and told mo I was to go with his cousin I'crgami, who was going to Pesaro.
Did his cousin Pergami accompany you? He accompanied me as far as Pesaro.
Did you put the letter into the post office yourself? Myself.
With your own hand? With my hand.
Did you, on the following morning, see that letter in the possession of any person? Yes.
In whose hands? In the princess's hands.
Did you afterwards write a second letter? Yes.
Was that letter also intercepted?
Mr. Broughamobjected to the question, slating, that there was no proof of the former letter having been intercepted.
Mr. Solicitor General.—Did you afterwards see that second letter? I saw it a long time afterwards.
When you were writing that second letter,
1208
did you communicate the contents of it to any person? To nobody.
By a Lord.—To whom was that second letter addressed? It was not addressed to Mr. Sacchi, there was another name; I do not recollect whether it was Penchaud or not.
You have stated, that you did not communicate the contents of that second letter to any person; did her royal highness afterwards say any thing to you about the contents of that second letter? It was after this second letter that I was dismissed.
Did her royal highness mention any part of the contents of the second letter to you? I do not recollect that she mentioned about the second.
Did you ever, on any occasion, state that her royal highness was in love with Sacchi? No.
Was the charge that was made against you true or false? It was not true.
Was her royal highness, to your knowledge in love with Sacchi?
Mr. Williamsobjected to the question.
The counsel were informed that they might ask what was meant by those words in the letter to which the witness had referred.
Mr. Solicitor General.—At the time when this letter was produced to you the following morning by her royal highness, was any person in the room with her royal highness? There were several other persons.
Where was Mr. Pergami? In the same room with her royal highness.
To what place was that letter addressed which you put into the post office? It was addressed to Milan.
How far is it from Pesaro to Milan? I think one may travel in two or three days by the post.
The question refers to the letter you yourself put into the post office? Yes.
A letter produced here is dated from Rimini? Yes.
Did you write that letter at Rimini? I wrote that letter at Rimini.
How long was that after you had left her royal highness's house? It was the same day.
Besides the letters which have been produced here to-day, have you written other letters to your sister? I have written other letters to my sister.
Few or many? Neither many nor few; I mean some letters.
Can you state about how many? Five, six, or seven; something like that.
Whilst your sister was in the service of her royal highness? Yes.
Did your sister correspond with you and your mother? We never had any news from my sister.
What do mean by saying you never had any news from your sister. That my sister did not answer my letters.
Did you or your mother receive any answer to the letters which you sent to your sister

1209
from any person? From some other person that wrote in the name of my sister.
Who was that other person? I cannot positively say.
Do you know the hand-writing of her royal highness the princess of Wales? Yes.
Can you say whether those letters were written by her royal highness?
Mr. Williamsobjected to the question.
Is this one of the letters [a letter being shown to the witness]? Yes.
Is that letter in the hand-writing of the princess of Wales? The hand-writing resembles very much that of her royal highness the princess of Wales.
Have you ever seen her royal highness write? Very often.
You are not asked positively to swear that this is the hand-writing of her royal highness, but do you believe it to be her hand-writing? I believe it is her hand-writing.
Did you or your mother ever receive any letters written in the hand-writing of your sister? My mother received a letter from my sister, while I was at Milan.
In the hand-writing of your sister? In the hand-writing of my sister.
You have stated that Mr. Pergami was present at the time that her royal highness produced the letter, which you had put into the post office? Yes.
Can you state what he said in the presence of her royal highness at that interview, when they were talking about your dismissal? Respecting the letter, he said, that it was true I had said the princess was in love with Mr. Sacchi. I made a proposal to the princess to write to Mr. Sacchi, in order to have the truth from him, and Mr. Pergami opposed it.
What else did he do? Mr. Pergami accused me of having passed a night in the corridor with Mr. Sacchi. I said that my sister was present, and might declare that I had slept with her.
Was your sister present? My sister was there.
Had you slept with your sister? I had slept with my sister.
Was that charge which was made by Pergami true? It was not true.
Was any thing more done upon it? No.
You have been asked whether two months ago, or at any former time, you took an oath to your deposition? Yes.
Who applied to you for that purpose? To make me swear to my deposition, Mr. Powell.
For what purpose was it to be used? I do not understand the purport of the question.
Did he tell you for what purpose you were to take the oath, what was to be done with it? I do not recollect what Mr. Powell said to me.
As nearly as you can recollect, and try to recollect with accuracy, how long was it ago? As far as I can recollect, two months, or something more than two months.
Do you know whether it was after the Queen had arrived in England? Yes.
1210
About how long after her arrival? I do not recollect nearly what time it was, I do not know what time it was that the Queen arrived.
Though you do not know what time it was that the Queen arrived, do you know how long it was after the Queen had arrived, that you took this oath to the deposition? I believe it was not long after the Queen's arrival.
Have you ever heard of a committee of the House of Lords? Yes.
Was it after you had heard of that? I rather think it was after.
Before you took that oath, was the deposition read over to you, or did you yourself read it over? I read it myself.
Now to go back for a moment to Naples, you have mentioned that you saw Pergami in the small corridor in his shirt, and that you went out of the door from the corridor? Yes.
Did you observe any thing done to that door after you went out of it? I saw that they shut the door.
Mr. Garston.— The words were, "Je vis que Pon fermait la porte."
When you say, that you saw that they shut the door, on what side was the door shut, on the side that you went out, or on the side of the corridor? It was shut on the inside.
When you say it was shut, do you know whether it was locked or not? I mean to say, that when they shut the door, I heard them give a turn to the key.
Mr. Garston.—The words are, "I heard that the key was turned."
You have stated, that you made the beds at Naples; how long after the arrival of her royal highness was it that you began to make the beds? Nearly two months alter our arrival.
Who was it that made the beds up to that time? Annette Priesing.
How long did you continue to make the beds? All the time that I remained at Naples.
Did you afterwards continue to make the beds at Genoa? For some time.
For how long? Until my sister arrived, nearly one month.
Did you make the beds after that? No.
Was it in the whole about three months that you continued to make the beds? Nearly so.
You have stated, that Hieronimus's room at Naples opened into the corridor; was the corridor, into which that room opened, the small interior corridor, or some other corridor? It was another corridor.
Was it a private or public corridor, or passage? It was a corridor through which you passed to go to her royal highness's room, and through which passed Mr. Hieronimus, Mr. William, and myself, to go to our rooms.
You have stated, that on your first arrival here, you went by the name of Collombier; why did you go by that name? In order to be more quiet or peaceable here.

1211
Since the arrival of the Queen, have you seen Hieronimus? I have seen Mr. Hieronimus on the staircase where we lived.
When was that? When we were in Dean-street.
Did he call upon you? He called twice in the same morning.
How long is that ago, as nearly as you can recollect? Seven weeks nearly.
Were those the only times he called upon you? No.
You have been asked about count Schiavini; when the servants left her royal high-ness's service, was it his business to give characters?
The Attorney General for the Queen objected to the question.
Mr. Solicitor General.—In what situation in her royal highness's household was monsieur Schiavini? A little time he was master of the ceremonies.
When the servants quitted her royal highness's household, did any body give them characters at any time?
Mr. Williams objected to this question, as not arising out of his cross-examination.
The following question was put by their lordships, at the request of the Solicitor General:
When the servants quitted the service of her royal highness, did any person in her household usually give them characters? Yes.
Who was that person? Several times I believe it was count Schiavini.
Examined by the Lords.
Earl of Limerick.—On your examination in chief you were asked whether you could describe the situation in which you found the large bed at Naples after the second night of your arrival there; you have said that you could not, but on the cross-examination of the learned counsel on the succeeding day, on being questioned as to the situation of that bed, you said you could describe it; what was the state of that large bed on the morning after the second night of your arrival at Naples? I said that I could not describe it, because I might have had to make use of terms which were not decent.
State distinctly what was the state of that bed? The bud cover was extremely pressed down 'in the middle, and there were things upon the bed which I had never seen before.
What were those things? Large stains.
Were those on the outside cover of the bed or the inside? Upon the cover.
Did you make any further observation? No.
Do you know for what purpose Hieronimus came to you in Dean-street? I do not know exactly for what object he came, because he spoke only to my sister.
1212
Was your sister in Dean-street? Yes.
You have said that at the theatre of saint Carlos the princess's dress was ugly, monstrous; what did you mean by those terms? Because the habiliment of her royal highness, had no shape at all; it was a great cloak of common red stuff.
Did the princess come down to the pit with that cloak on?
You have said that you yourself made many observations on what passed at the balls at La Barona? Yes.
What was the nature of those observations? I said, that during the evening the women who were at the ball went out with the servants all about the house, and I also saw them going into the upper rooms.
Did you make any particular observations on what passed at the balls themselves? Not in the ball-room itself.
Earl Grey.—On the night at Scharnitz, when you were ordered to take your bed and leave the room where the princess slept, where did you pass the remainder of the night? In a room where there were the countess Oldi and my sister.
Did you go to bed again? I laid my bed on the floor, and laid down again.
Dressed or undressed? I was half-dressed.
How long did you remain there, before you set out in the morning? Four or five hours nearly, as far as I can recollect; I cannot say precisely.
The following extract was read from the Letter, dated 8th February 1818:
"Tu vois, ma chore, avec qu'elle promptitude les enncrnis de notre genereuse bicn-faitrice agissent toujours; il faut qu'il y ait toujours des espions auprés d'elle, car pas plutôot j'ai été partie de l'esaro qu'on la sû, avec toutes les circonstanccs, dans la Capitate dc I'Europe."
What did you mean by that passage in the letter? I have already said that it is so long since the letter was written that I cannot recollect.
Was that true or not? Many persons had informed themselves about her royal highness in Switzerland, where I was, in private conversations.
You meant then to state, as of your own knowledge, that the princess had enemies who were acting bitterly against her, and that she was surrounded by spies? The princess herself had told me that she had spies and enemies.
But that letter was written at Collombier; were you not speaking then of what you knew yourself? I knew nothing myself; I spoke what she had said to me.
The following extract was read from the Letter:
"Mais voila-t-il pas que j'oubliois de te confier une chose qui te suprendra autant,

1213
que jc Paiété moi-même: le 24 du Mois passé etant á goutcr chez la tante Clare, on vint nic dire qu'un inconnu demandait á me remettre une lettre, ne la voulant absolument pas confier á personnc: je descendis et le fis monter dans ma chambre; juge de mon étonnement, aprés l'avoir decachetée, Pon m'y promettait une haute protection et une fortune fort brillante en peu de tems; elle étoit sans signature; pour me garantir de la verité I'on m'off'rait de tirer chez le banquier autant d'argent que j'en voudrais; concois-tu rien de si singulier; quelques traits echappés á la plume de l'ecrivenr, m'ont fait aisément decouvrir la fourbcrie, et je n'ai pas heisté de donner ma résponse dans des termes qui auront bien fait comprendre, que je n'étois pas tout á fait dupe; je n'ai pu malgré tous mes efforts tirer aucun eclaircissement du porteur, il agissait avec le plus grand mystére. Tu vois, ma chere, avec quelle promptitude les enncmis de notre genereuse bienfaitrice agissent toujours; il faut qu'il y ait toujours des espions auprès d'elle, car pas plutôt j'ai été partie de Pesaro, qu'on l'a sû, avec toutes les circonstances, dans la capitale de I'Europe."
Earl Grey.—You have now heard the letter read, is not the assertion that the princess's enemies acted with bitterness, and that she was surrounded by spies, founded upon the fact that you have just stated, and not upon what the princess had told you? It was upon what the princess had said to me, that she was surrounded by spies and enemies.
Is not the statement of the fact of the application to you at your aunt Clara's immediately followed by that in which you have said that the princess is surrounded by spies? I have already told you that this letter was in allusion that it had been written to me that I might come to England and get a governess's place, if I had letters of recommendation.
When you wrote that letter, did you think that the fact you have stated, furnished any proof of the princess's being surrounded by spies? No; because the fact which I have stated had not taken place.
Are you to be understood that the fact, as stated in your letter, was not true? I had received such a letter, the letter alluded to, and what I added was a double entendre for my sister.
Do you then mean by double entendre, that you added what was false to what was true? I added something.
Something which was false? I did not do that in order to say something which was false, but I did it expressly that my sister might understand me, because I could not write freely to her.
What did you expect your sister to understand by this addition to what was true? I wished my sister to understand, that if she had been discharged by the princess, I should have means of placing her here.
And it was necessary for that purpose to say that a person had offered you money upon
1214
the pretext of making you a governess, which would enable you to make a brilliant fortune in England? By my mentioning money I meant to say, that I would pay the expenses of my sister's journey to England, because I have always said, if my sister was dismissed by the princess, I would pay the expenses of her journey to England.
Was it necessary also, upon that statement, to add, "you see that the princess is surrounded by spies," for the purpose of making your sister understand it? I do not know whether it was necessary, but I did it expressly that my sister might understand me.
What your sister would understand from I the statement that the pretext for being sent for as a governess was false, and that the princess was surrounded by spies, was simply, that you would pay the expenses of her journey to England? And also to tell her that I should have the means of getting her a place in England, because, before I quitted the princess, my sister told me that she did not wish to quit, because, if she did, she should not know where to get a place.
You have stated that you wrote to your sister in this mysterious manner because you were afraid your letter would be intercepted? Yes.
Of course you avoided stating in that letter that which would expose any person? I would not positively say to my sister what I meant, because I was afraid she would be discharged after the letter would have been seen.
But in a letter which you were afraid of being intercepted, would you write any thing which you thought would expose any person? I did not think at that moment that it might do harm, or expose any person.
You were not afraid of the name of that gentleman being seen by the persons who might intercept that letter, which you wished not to be mentioned to-day? I had no objection, because I knew that the gentleman would not come to the knowledge of it; but I knew that what was read to-day would be in the public papers; and now that this gentleman is married, I should not wish him to know what has passed; I should not wish his wife to know it.
You are understood to state, that you were anxious your sister should still continue in the princess's service? I wished her to remain, but I was afraid she might be discharged, because I had been told so.
But you were anxious she should still remain in her service? Yes, at that time.
Notwithstanding what you had seen at the balls, at the Barona? It was for particular reasons, because my sister could not remain at her home.
Marquis of Buckingham.—Had you any reason to believe that the princess was in fact surrounded by spies? I never saw any spies in the house, that I knew as such.
Did any one in effect write to you to invite

1215
you to come to England, by which you might make a brilliant fortune in a short lime? Somebody wrote to me to Switzerland, that I might conic over to England, and that I should get a good place, that I should be comfortably placed with letters of recommendation.
Did any person write to tell you, that if you came over to England on this business, you might make a brilliant fortune in a short time? That is not what was written to me, hut it was an allusion I made, intended for my sister.
Then it is not true that any such offer was made to you? Such an offer was not made to me, but I did not think I did any harm in writing so, because it was an allusion for my sister, and that I did not think it would do harm to any body.
In point of fact was such an offer made; yes or no? I tell you no such offer was made to me, not exactly as I said an offer.
Was any offer to that effect made to you? As I said before, it was written to me that if I came to England I should be placed advantageously as a governess.
With reference to what passed at Scharnitz—when you were directed to leave the princess's room, and you left her in bed, was the princess then dressed in the riding habit you have described? I had seen the princess dressed in that habit during the day when she was in bed, but I do not recollect whether she bad it on in the night.
Had you assisted to take off any part of the clothes of the princess during that night? I do not at all recollect that I assisted her.
With reference to what passed on board the polacre, when you descended into the room where the princess was supposed to have taken her bath, did you perceive that in fact the princess had bathed, from wet linen lying about, or any other symptom? I saw a bath, and the princess told me that she had bathed, and advised me to bathe also, because it was hot, and that it would do me good.
Did you perceive wet linen lying about, as if the princess had been in the bath? I do not recollect seeing any linen.
Did you find the princess in the same cabin in which the bath was when you went down? The princess was in her own cabin where her bed was.
But not where the bath was? As far as I can recollect, but I cannot be sure positively, the bath was in the dining-cabin.
Earl of Derby.—You have stated, that the reason of writing in that mysterious manner, which has been alluded to, was for fear of these letters being intercepted? Yes.
Had you previously given any clue to your sister, or was there any understanding between you and your sister, in what manner she was to understand this mysterious manner of writing, without other persons being acquainted with it? I do not recollect whether I had said any thing to my sister con-
1216
cerning that; but the morning that I set out, we concerted together that we should put marks in our letters that nobody was to understand but ourselves; she told me that she would begin in the first letter that she would write to me, that she would use some mark at the foot of the letter, but I do not recollect exactly what it was.
Earl of Liverpool.—You said that you think the bath was in the dining-room, was there not more than one occasion on which the princess used the bath? The princess bathed on more than one occasion.
You recollect more than one occasion? I recollect only two.
On one of these occasions was the bath in the cabin? I know that I bathed in the cabin, but I do not know whether her royal highness bathed in the same cabin; I saw that the bath was in that cabin.
Lord Ellenborough.—By whom did you suppose that the letter you wrote to your sister would be first read? I believed that my letter might be read by Mr. Pergami or by the princess.
Did you suppose that either Pergami or the princess were acquainted with the names of the supposed persons mentioned in that letter? I believed that the princess had seen monsieur—,but I did not know whether she knew his name.
Had any other circumstance occurred, except that which you have stated relative to the letter at Pesaro, to induce you to believe that the letters you wrote to your sister would be intercepted? Because my sister had written to my mother a letter which had been put into the post at Pesaro; it had been taken up at the post office, and then put back again into the post, and something had been altered in the letter, and my sister said that she had no news from us.
Did that happen while you were at Pesaro? Whilst I was in Switzerland.
You state that at Catania you saw the princess come out of the room in which Pergami had slept with a pillow under her arm, was your sister present at the time? As far as I can recollect my sister was in the room.
How long had you been in that room without leaving it? I had not been out at all that morning.
How long had you been awake? About two hours.
You state that at general Pino's you saw Pergami go into the princess's bed-room, and that you do not know how long he remained there, for that you fell asleep; as nearly as you can state, what time elapsed between your seeing Pergami and your falling asleep? As far as I can recollect, it was nearly a quarter of an hour, or half an hour, before I fell asleep.
At Naples, when you saw Pergami come in his shirt towards the princess's room, how far were you then from the door by which you escaped? Nearly four or five paces.

1217
How far was Pergami at the time from that door when you first saw him? I cannot say precisely, but I believe it was about ten or eleven paces.
Could Pergami have entered the princess's room otherwise than by the door by which you escaped? He had not need to pass through that door, he might have gone directly to the room of the princess.
On board the Polacre, when on the voyage from Jaffa, when the princess was sleeping in the tent on the deck, did you ever see Pcrgami's bed made in the dining-room, as you passed through that room every other night in your way to the princess's room in which you slept? I have seen a bed in the cabin, but I cannot say it was Mr. Pergami's, because I have seen other persons sleep there.
Did you ever see Pergami sleep there? Not after Jaffa.
The following extract was read from the preceding part of the evidence.
"Had you previously given any clue to your sister, or was there any understanding between you and your sister In what manner she was to understand this mysterious manner of writing, without other persons being acquainted with it? I do not recollect whether I had said any thins; to my sister concerning that; but the morning I set out, we concerted together that we should put marks in such letters that nobody was to understand but our ourselves; she told me that she would begin in the first letter that she would write to me, that she would use some mark at the foot of the letter; I do not recollect exactly what it was."
Marquis of Lansdown.—Did you ever receive a letter from your sister containing the mark which you had agreed should be communicated through your future correspondence? I have only received a letter from my sister, but I do not recollect whether there was any such mark—the letter which I mentioned before, which had been taken up at the post.
If, then, you did not receive from your sister the mark that it was agreed upon between you should be annexed to her first letter, why did you conceive that your sister would be enabied to comprehend the double meaning contained in the letter which has been shown to you, without that mark which had been agreed upon between you being annexed to it? We had not agreed upon that mark, as far as I can recollect, on this account; but my sister told me, that when she would write to me, she would put a mark at the end of her letter.
If you then did not receive from your sister the mark that it was agreed upon between you should be annexed to her first letter, why did you conceive that your sister would be enabled to comprehend the double meaning contained in the letter which has been shown to you, without that mark which had been agreed upon
1218
between you being annexed to it? I believe my sister would understand me, but I do not recollect for what reason I believed so; it is so long since this occurred, that it is impossible I can exactly recollect.
You are understood to have stated, that you had received a letter, inviting you to go to England, where you might have an opportunity of being placed in some situation as a governess, that it would be advantageous; was that letter anonymous or signed? That letter was not signed.
In what language was it? As far as I recollect it was in French.
By whom was that letter delivered to you? I have already said that it was delivered to me at Collombier, but I do not recollect by whom.
Can you state whether it was delivered by the post, or by an individual? I do not recollect by whom it was delivered.
State yes or no, whether it was by the post or by an individual? I do not recollect it.
Do you recollect from whence it was dated? I do not recollct it.
In point of fact, did you know, or had you reason to think you knew, by whom that letter was addressed to you? At this moment I cannot say whether I had an idea at that moment from whom it came. It is two years since this occurred; I never thought of it afterwards; and I cannot recollect.
Did you return any answer to it? I do not recollect making any answer to it; I do not recollect that I made any answer to it.
Can you state whether there was any thing contained in that letter besides the fact you have stated, of the proposal to you to go to England as a governess? I do not recollect whether there was any thing else.
Have you the letter now in your possession? I have it not here, and I do not believe I have it at Collombicr, because when I quitted Collombier I burned my letters; not all my letters.
Earl of Lauderdale.—Was it the information contained in that anonymous letter which induced you to think of coming to England as a governess? I had already had thoughts of it before.
Have you made any endeavours to get a place as governess since you came to England? No.
Was the letter which your sister wrote, which was opened and then put into the post again, directed to you or to your mother? I cannot positively say, but as far as I recollect it was addressed to my mother.
Is that the letter which you said was the only one received from your sister, which your mother received at the lime you were at Milan? I heard that it was the only letter which had been received before I wrote this one [the letter of the 8th of February 1818.]
Was it received when you were at Milan? No, before; after this one was written my mother received two or three letters from my sister.

1219
Which letter did your mother receive at the time you were at Milan? That was another letter.
Can you say, in all, how many letters your mother received from your sister after you quitted Pesaro, before you left Switzerland? I cannot say exactly how many she received, but I know she did not receive many.
Did she receive five? I do not know.
Four? I cannot say positively how many she received, it is impossible.
Do you recollect that in part of the voyage up the Levant Pergami slept in the eating-room, and the princess in the room adjoining? Yes.
You have said that upon two occasions, when they were both in bed, Pergami in the dining-room and the princess in her cabin, you saw them speaking together have you not? Yes.
What did they say? I cannot recollect what they said, but they spoke together.
Do you remember saying, that at Utica you went to the threshold of the door of her royal highness when she was in bed, and Pergami in the room, and that she asked you for something? Yes.
What did she ask you for? It is impossible for me to recollect at present what she asked me for.
You perfectly well recollect that she did ask for something? She asked me for something, I recollect.
And you do not recollect what? I do not recollect what it was.
Do you remember saying, that at Jerusalem Pergami came into the room, and threw himself on the bed, in a jesting way? Yes.
Was the princess there? Yes.
What did Pergami say or do upon that occasion? I only saw that he laid himself down on the bed laughing.
Then you saw nothing but that Pergami was on the bed and was laughing? Yes.
Your attention is directed to the night when you saw Pergami with a candle in his hand; how many paces was the door of the princess's room from the door at which you made your escape? I cannot say positively, I do not recollect, but it may have been three, four, or five paces.
Lord Falmouth.—If there had been any wet linen in the bath-room on board the polacre, which the princess had used, would it have been your business to have taken it away? Either my business or my sister's,
When you went into the bath-room did you, in point of fact, observe any marks whatever of the princess having used the bath? I only recollect seeing the bath.
Were you sincere in the praises of the princess when you wrote that letter which has been read; do you mean that the whole letter was a double entendre, or that only certain passages of that letter were a double entendre? There were only some passages of the letter, because when I wrote that letter, I was extremely attached to her royal high-
1220
ness, and I was willing to speak of the extreme kindness with which she had treated me.
Earl of Lauderdale.—Were you sincere in those parts of your letter which speak the praises of the princess? In speaking of the personal qualities, how she was good and patient, I was sincere.
Is there any praise bestowed on the princess in this letter in which you were not sincere? I do not recollect whether all of them were sincere, but I recollect that the greater part were sincere.
Earl of Darnley.—You have said more than once, that at the time you wrote that letter you were much attached to herroyal highness, when did that attachment cease? This attachment ceased when I heard that herroyal highness had said several things of me in the house of her royal highness; that several things had been said of me in the house of her royal highness.
Was it in consequence of that attachment having ceased in the manner you have described, that you have been induced to come into this House to give your evidence? No.
What is your inducement to come? I was asked to come to declare the truth.
By whom? By Mr. Sacchi, on the part of the commission.
You have spoken to the state of the outer covering of the large bed at Naples, do you recollect the colour of that covering? Yes. What was the colour? White You are quite sure? White was the bedcover.
The outer cover, not the sheets? Yes, the outer cover.
Earl of Morton.—On board the polacre, on the return from Jaffa, there was a communication between the tent and the dining-room, was that communication open or closed during the night? The communication descended into the dining-cabin.
Was it open or closed during the night? It was open during the night, from the upper deck.
In speaking of the bath which was prepared for the princess on board the Polacre, you mentioned not having seen any linen; state whether that bath was fresh water, or saltwater? I do not know whether it was fresh or salt water: I do not recollect.
Do you happen to know whether, in that part of the world, it is usual for persons to use linen on coming out of salt water? I do not know whether it is usual to make use of linen in coming out of a salt water bath.
Was the communication you have spoken of, between the tent on deck and the cabin below, always open, or only occasionally open? I cannot recollect whether it was open every night.
Did you ever see it shut at night? I do not recollect seeing it closed at night.
Ordered, that the further consideration and second reading of the said bill be adjourned to Monday next.