Sitting of 10 October 1820

Preamble
As soon as the House had been called over,
Earl Grosvenorrose to pall the attention

457
of the House to a subject of considerable importance. Their lordships were perfectly aware, that her majesty's attorney-general had announced it to be his intention to prosecute one of the witnesses that had been examined at their lordships' bar, for perjury.—From what they had heard, it might strike them as it did him, it was probable that more than one witness would be liable to a prosecution for perjury. In an early stage of the present proceedings, that House had come to a resolution, that they would do nothing to prevent those prosecutions to which witnesses might expose themselves. That the House would not put themselves in the way of any prosecution was therefore clear; but it was not quite so clear that individuals would not, nor was it clear that indictments for perjury committed in the course of proceedings like that which the House was engaged in, could be maintained. He wished therefore, to know, from the learned lord on the woolsack, whether he believed there was any power of prosecuting witnesses in this cause for perjury? It might be practicable to throw difficulties in the way, which would enable the parties to escape; he therefore thought care should be taken that there was no interference from any quarter with that power in the country to which the power of punishing such offences was confided. The honour and dignity of that House appeared to him to be concerned in seeing that no difficulties were thrown in the way of prosecutions of the nature to which he had alluded; and he would, therefore, submit, that it might be expedient to pass a short act to remove all doubts on the subject.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, if he took upon himself to reply to the noble earl, their lordships would allow him to say, that he did so because the proposition just submitted to their lordships in the present stage of the proceedings now in progress, appeared to him one of the most extraordinary steps he had ever witnessed. He would take the liberty to say, that when the learned counsel at the bar announced his determination to prosecute one of the witnesses in support of the bill, for perjury, he had gone further than he ought to have done in that stage of the proceedings. And to him it appeared that the noble earl had at present no right to talk of the probability of prosecutions for perjury being instituted against more than one of the witnesses. On that probability
458
he felt, for his own part, that he had no right to form an opinion, till they arrived at the conclusion of the proceedings. He felt that till then he owed it to every witness to suspend his judgment on the testimony which he might offer at their lordships' bar. He would appeal to them, both in a judicial and a moral point of view, whether they were not bound to act on this principle; and whether, by taking the course which had been suggested, they would not, instead of giving the witnesses that protection to which they were entitled, proceed, in point of fact, to punish imputed perjuries, though every word which had been sworn might be proved true by witnesses subsequently to be called.
Earl Grosvenorwished it to be borne in mind, notwithstanding the impropriety which had been suggested to him by the noble and learned lord, that he had only stated an hypothetical case. He had stated, that there was an individual among the witnesses who had been threatened with prosecution, and that others might be prosecuted; and in this, as far as he might judge, from the evidence of his ears, he was fully borne out. He could not help thinking it a matter of considerable importance. It was said, that the step he had taken was extraordinary; that it was anticipating the conclusion; but their lordships would recollect, that in an earlier stage of the proceedings in this particular case, the learned lord on the woolsack had thought it right that the House should declare it would throw no impediment in the way of prosecution for perjury. This had taken place some weeks ago; yet they had been given to understand that this was the first time such a question had been agitated. Under the peculiar circumstances of the case, it might be desirable that a bill like that which he had suggested, should pass, in addition to the determination to which they had already come, not to interpose their powers to screen any individual from punishment.
The Lord Chancellorremarked, their lordships would surely see the mighty difference between laying down a rule for the purpose of obtaining true evidence, before any witness had been examined, and that of adopting a particular measure with respect to certain individuals pending the proceedings. The witnesses might have sworn falsely, for aught he knew; but on that he had no right to give

459
an opinion. There was a great difference between such a measure as had been proposed, and a rule adopted in the first instance, which was to extend to all the witnesses that were to be examined.
The Earl of Liverpoolcould not approve of the course which had been suggested by the noble earl, and thought, with the lord chancellor, that there was a vast difference between such a measure adopted at this stage of the proceedings, and a general rule laid down at their commencement, previous to the examination of a single witness.
Lord Melvillesaid, he was persuaded their lordships would concur with him in thinking, that when a witness had been cross-examined, he ought not, except on strong grounds, to be subjected to a further examination. He was sorry to interrupt the course of the proceedings, but circumstances had come to his knowledge with respect to William Carrington, one of the witnesses examined on Saturday, which, in his judgment, made it highly important that that witness should be again brought to their lordships' bar, either immediately or as soon as the witness then under examination had retired. He thought it desirable that the counsel on both sides should be put in possession of the questions intended to be asked with little delay, that they might be prepared to address themselves to that part of the case. He should move that William Carrington do attend at their lordships' bar.
Earl Greythought it might be the more convenient course to bring up the witness for further examination, when the remainder of the case had been gone through with.
The Earl of Liverpoolobserved, that before the Summing-up of the counsel for the Queen, the counsel for the bill would be asked if they had any evidence to rebut the evidence for the defence. Then they would have a right to offer such evidence as they might be able to produce. The question now was, whether the particular individual should be called in when they arrived at the conclusion of the case, or forthwith. He was inclined to adopt the latter course.
The Earl of Lauderdaledid not know the nature of the questions intended to be put to the witness, but the House would remember, that her majesty's counsel had been allowed more than once to call a witness back; and if this had been granted to
460
counsel, would their lordships refuse to extend the same confidence to one of their own body? He was of opinion that the licence allowed to the counsel on either side, could not be withheld from a member of the court. He thought the noble viscount ought to be allowed to decide whether it was most advisable that the witness should be called back now or at some future time.
The Earl of Donoughmoresaid, he could form no opinion on the subject, because he had no adequate idea of the questions intended to be asked; but he thought it rested with the noble lord to say when the witness should be recalled. The questions to be put were not to be put from one side or the other, in this cause; but were to be put by a noble lord for the information of the Court. He, for his own part, thought the sooner the Court was put in possession of this information the better.
Lord Melvilledid not say, that the necessity of the case required the instant examination of the witness; he would only say, that it was, in his opinion, highly expedient that the particular witness alluded to should be examined without much delay. He then moved, that William Carrington should be ordered to attend to be examined at their lordships' bar this day.
The motion was agreed to.
The Order of the day being read for the further consideration and second reading of the bill, intituled "An Act to deprive "Her Majesty, &c," and for hearing counsel for and against the same; Counsel were accordingly called in.
Then Lieutenant John Flinn,of the royal navy, was called in, and farther cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General, as follows:
At what time did you arrive at Athens?—[The witness referred to his paper.] On the 8th of May I believe.
Did you touch either at Athens or at Milo, on the homeward voyage? No.
You mentioned yesterday, memorandums, or a copy of memorandums, which you made on the coast of Sicily? Yes.
When was that made, how long ago? About three months ago, between three and four months ago.
How long previously to that time was it, that you had been in England? I had been in England in 1817.
You had not been in England from 1817 down to that period? No.
Was the memorandum made on shore, or on board the vessel? On board the vessel.

461
Had you been on shore a short time before that? In Sicily; I sailed from Messina to La Carta first, and from thence to Catania, and from Catania to Messina.
Were you on board an Italian vessel? I do not remember that I was on board an Italian vessel
At the time you are speaking of, when that memorandum was made? No, I was not.
Of what country? An English vessel.
What was the name of that vessel? The Lion.
Will you allow me to look at the memorandum you hold in your hand? Yes.
The Paper was handed to Mr. Solicitor-General.
You have stated that you had the command of this polacre, who was it that navigated the vessel? I did.
Who was it that gave orders to the sailors? Generally it was the captain, but those orders came from me.
Did you do more than merely direct the captain as to the place he was to go to? I did not particularly direct him to go to any place; I only gave him orders to execute those duties belonging to the ship.
Did he not execute those duties as the captain of a vessel ordinarily does, by giving directions to his crew? I conceive he did.
Then in navigating the vessel, had he not the whole care and management of the ship? He had not the whole management of the ship, because the management was given to my charge by her royal highness.
Do you mean to say you gave orders to the seamen about the navigation of the vessel? The management of the ship and the manœuvring of the ship were different.
Do you mean to say you gave any orders to the crew for the navigation of the vessel?
Mr. Denmaninterposed; and, after the witness had withdrawn, observed, that the solicitor-general had no right to assume that the witness had said he gave orders. When a witness was asked, whether he meant to say so and so, it was intended to be insinuated that he had said something like it; whereas the witness had said, that the captain generally gave the orders.
The last six Questions and Answers were read over.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that it struck him the witness put a different construction on the terms navigating, management, and manœuvring the ship; and he conceived that the questions the witness had been asked had been put for the purpose of ascertaining what he meant by the words, "navigating the ship."
The Witness was again called in.
Mr. Solicitor General.—What do you mean by saying that you navigated the ship? By navigating the ship, such as directing the
462
courses to steer by, and giving orders to the crew occasionally.
Then you did occasionally give orders to the crew as to navigating the vessel? The navigating of the vessel includes manœuvring the ship and sails, those things as well as the navigation also.
Did you give directions as to the manœuvring the ship? Sometimes I did, sometimes I did not.
Was not that generally done by Gargiulo the captain? Sometimes he was not on deck, and I had occasion to do it myself.
Then was it only when he was not upon deck, and you had occasion to do it on that account, that you gave those directions? Sometimes I have done it also when he has been upon deck.
Was it not generally done by Gargiulo? As to the working of the ship, I think he generally did it more than I did myself.
Do you usually write in Italian or in English? In Italian sometimes.
Do you usually write in Italian or in English? In both.
You must perceive that is not an answer to the questions; do you usually write in the one or the other language? I write in English generally.
Was the account which you kept of the proceedings of the vessel in Italian or in English? In Italian.
Was that account written by yourself? The account was written by the clerk.
The question refers to that account referred to by you yesterday, and from which you made your extracts? It was written by the clerk.
Was that clerk an Italian or an Englishman? I do not know what he was.
Was he your servant? No.
How long were you on board the vessel with him? In the voyage we were several months on board.
With that clerk? Yes, there was a clerk; the copy you allude to now, the journal, was kept by myself in Italian.
The question refers to the journal from which you took that memorandum, whether that was kept in English or in Italian? It was kept in Italian, the log-book.
Was it from the log-book you took those memorandums, those copies? Yes.
By whom was the log-book kept? By my-selt, it was a private memorandum of myself.
Do you mean that the log-book was a private memorandum of yourself? Yes, it was a private memorandum of myself; it was not exactly the log of the ship, it was a private memorandum of myself; I considered the log for my own private purpose.
Being for your own private purpose, was it kept by yourself or by a clerk? It was kept and directed by myself, some writing of my own, and some writing of a clerk in it.
Was that the clerk to whom you alluded just now? Yes.

463
Was he on board the polacre? Yes, he was.
The whole voyage? Yes, the whole voyage.
You were asked whether he was an Italian or an Englishman? An Italian.
Did yon not slate just now that you did not know what countryman he was? I believed him to be an Italian or a Sicilian; I did not know what he was; he was on board the ship.
Did you not, in answer to the question put to you, whether he was an Englishman or an Italian, tell me you did not know what countryman he was?
The following question and answer were read over to the witness:
"Was that clerk an Italian, or an Englishman? I do not know what he was."
Did you not tell me just now, when I asked you whether he was an Italian or an Englishman, that you did not know what he was? I do not know what he was, but I believe he was an Italian or a Sicilian.
You say he wrote only a part, was the part which you wrote written in Italian or in English? That part which I wrote was in English.
Did you not tell me just now that the log, or whatever it was, was written in Italian? In Italian.
Did you not tell me that the log was written in Italian? Yes.
Now you mean to say it was written partly in Italian and partly in English? Part of both, to my recollection.
Here the witness who seemed for some time previous, to be labouring under indisposition fainted, and was removed from the bar. On coming to himself, he requested leave to withdraw, and was led out of the house.
The Lord Chancellorimmediately ordered the windows to be thrown open, and said that he had heard with much surprise, yesterday, that some of the officers of the house had said it was by his wish the windows were kept shut. Now, he had never expressed any such wish, but was most anxious to have the ventilation of the house kept up as much as possible.
After a short time the Witness returned.
The previous evidence of the witness was read over to him, and he interposed, by saying, "the clerk I referred to was a sailor whose name was Pasquali; he was a servant of mine."
Mr. Solicitor General.—Having told us in a former part of your examination, that Pasquali was not a servant of yours, and having now told us he was a servant of yours, which of these two stories do you mean to adhere to? I mean to adhere that he acted as both.
Do you mean by saying that he acted as both, that he was your servant, and that he was not your servant? His being a servant
464
was only for the purpose of taking my cot up and down, and, making my bed, and those private affairs, such as writing for me, were done for me, such as the duty, of a servant; he was not kept as a clerk, but he was kept more as a sailor on board the ship.
Then he acted as your servant? He acted as a sailor and as a servant on board the ship; he was one of the crew.
You having kept a part of this log yourself, and Pasquali having kept the remainder, which of the two kept the larger proportion? It is impossible I can determine at this moment; I have not the thing before my eyes, nor can I say which kept the most, but I should think I kept the most of it myself; I may be mistaken as to such a circumstance; I have not the thing before me, and I cannot say.
Then the most of it, if kept by you, was kept in English? There was some" in English and some in Italian, written by myself.
Then if you stated just now, that the part which was kept by you was kept in English, you told us that which was untrue?
Mr. Denman objected to the question, and thereupon Mr. Solicitor General waved it.
Did you not tell us just now, that the part kept by you was kept in English? If I told you so, it was at a moment when I felt myself so situate that. I did not know what I said.
Then the part that was kept by you, do you mean now to say was kept sometimes in English, and sometimes in Italian? Yes.
Was the greater proportion, according to the best of your recollection in English, or in Italian? I should involve myself very much to say which it was, I cannot recollect.
Was there a considerable proportion of it in English? By saying that there was a considerable proportion, I shall conceive the greater part was written by me in English, but I do not recollect, I should think as much the one as the other.
Do you mean the greater proportion of it in English, or about the same? About the same.
Look at that paper [the paper produced by the witness], and tell me whether it does not commence with your departure from Messina? It does not commence with that, it is in December.
Where does it commence from? From the 6th of December, which was the day her royal highness arrived at Messina.
"When did she set out from Messina? On the 6lh of January.
Mr. Broughamdesired that the memorandum might be in the hands of the witness, to enable him to answer the questions, and not in the hands of the solicitor-general.
The Counsel were informed, that the memorandum, if it was properly the subject of reference at all, ought to be seen by the Wit-

465
ness in answering the questions by the counsel examining him, in order to enable him to answer the questions put from it.
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that the common use of a memorandum in a court of justice was, for a witness, by referring to it, to refresh his recollection from the contents. But his learned friend, instead of suffering the witness to do that which it was the proper and ordinary course to let him do, kept the document himself, and proceeded, seriatim, to put questions to the witness from the contents of that paper. Such a course was most assuredly irregular, and in direct contravention of the rule laid down by their lordships on a former occasion, where a paper was produced.
The Solicitor Generaldenied that this was in any degree a similar case to that in which their lordships had laid down the rule referred to by his learned friend. He also denied that he was questioning the witness, in the manner objected to, out of this document. He certainly looked into it, as he believed he was entitled to do, while the witness perused it in his hand. He had certainly a strict right to make use of it in this way.
Mr. Broughamsaid, certainly not, after their lordships had laid down a contrary rule on a former occasion, and decided that a different manner should be observed.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, that his learned friend was evidently blending together two different and distinct things. He was confounding the form of putting a paper as evidence, and merely using it to refresh a witness's memory.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that it was a very different thing to say that a paper should be put in as evidence, and that it should only be referred to for the purpose of refreshing a witness's memory. He thought it perfectly clear and incontrovertible that while a witness referred to a paper to refresh his memory, it was quite competent for the counsel who was conducting the examination also to look over the paper used by the witness.
Mr. Denmansaid, that his objection was not to his learned friend's glancing over the paper as the witness referred to it, hut taking it altogether out of his hand, and using it for quite a different purpose than refreshing the witness's memory, the only thing for which it was produced.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, the only reason he had for taking the paper out of the witness's hand was, because Mr. Gurney (the shorthand writer) was situated between him and the witness, and therefore he could not read it at such a distance. If the witness came next to him, then there would be no occasion to take the paper out of his hands.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, the House ought to consider, at first, whether they could receive this paper as evidence, if it were offered to them as such. He had some doubts
466
upon that point. According to the statement of the witness, this paper was partly written by himself, and partly by another, who was said to be a clerk. If the latter part were not read over at the time by the witness, and believed by him, then, to be the correct account of what it purported to be, how could they admit the contents of it in evidence?
Lord Colvilleexpressed a wish, that the witness, on being recalled, should say what log-book it was he had been referring to: or whether two log-books were kept—one for the ship, and the other for the witness's own use. The regular book always remained in the ship, for the use of the owners.
The Lord Chancellorbegged to restate the general rule of evidence which he had before read, and which was to be found in Phillips's Law of Evidence. It was a general rule that a memorandum, to be efficacious according to the rules of evidence, must he shown to have been taken, at the time of the occurrence of the fact to which it alludes, by the person who is speaking of it; or else by some other person, under his examination and inspection, so as to check any incorrectness.
The Witness was again called in.
Mr. Solicitor General.—Produce the paper again.
Mr. Denman advised the witness not to give it to Mr. Solicitor General.
The Counsel were informed, that the paper must be so produced as to be as much under the eyes of the counsel as of the witness.
Mr. Denman stated that to that he had no objection.
The Paper was laid before Mr. Solicitor General and the Witness.
What is the first entry? December.
What is the place? Messina.
In what language? Italian.
What is the next? The 16th.
Where? At St. Giovanni in Calabria.
In English or Italian? In Italian.
The third? The 17th.
Whereat? Scilla.
In English or Italian? Italian.
The fourth? The 6th of January.
Where? At Messina.
In English or Italian? In Italian.
The next entry? Going on board the Clorinde.
In English or Italian? Italian.
The next? At Syracuse.
In English or Italian? Italian.
The next? The 29th of January.
Where? At Syracuse, for Catania.
English or Italian? Italian.
The next? The 5th of March.
Where? Catania.
In English or Italian? Italian.
The next? The next after was, we shipped on board the polacre at Augusta, the 30th of March.
In English or Italian? In Italian.

467
The next? The 10th of April, at Utica.
In English or Italian? Italian.
The next? The 12th of April, Alla Manuba.
In English or Italian? Italian.
The next? The 17th at Zavoan, the 19th at Udina, the 22nd went on board the polacre.
Look at that paper, and state whether there is a single entry of all the places traced in that paper in the English language? No, there is not.
Does it come down to the return to Messina? It does.
And every entry from the beginning to the end is in Italian? Yes, in this it is.
Look at that paper, and tell me whether you will swear it is your hand-writing? No, I cannot swear it is my hand-writing.
Were you on board the Clorinde? Yes.
Whose hand-writing is that paper? It is the clerk's.
The clerk's? Yes.
Pasquali? Yes, I believe so.
Was not Pasquali a confectioner in the service of her royal highness? No, not the Pasquali I mean.
Was he not one of the crew of the polacre?
He was not one of the sailors of the snip, the Pasquali you allude to; there was a Pasquali in the service of her royal highness, but not the Pasquali who wrote this.
Was not the Pasquali, that acted as your servant, one of the crew of the polacre? Yes.
Do you mean to swear that that Pasquali was on board the British ship the hon. three months ago? Yes, he was; he went down with me from Messina to La Carta, as being the pilot of the coast, and from La Carta to Catania, where he was discharged.
What became of him in the interval, between the termination of the long voyage, and the time you are mentioning? I do not know.
What became of the polacre in the interval? The polacre, she went to Naples; I do not know exactly, I left her at Genoa.
With her crew on board? Not with the whole of the crew:
Pasquali was left behind? Pasquali went with me to Messina, he and another sailor who had been with me six years in the flotilla.
Pasquali it was who made this memorandum for you on board the vessel three months ago? By my directions.
Did you not tell us yesterday, that it was in your own hand-writing? I do not remember that I did, it was a thing that escaped my memory, I did not reflect at the moment.
When you were asked that question, was not the paper before you? It was not in my hand at the moment when I answered, and I did not reflect at the moment whether it was in my own hand-writing or not.
Now, however, you say it was not in your hand-writing, but in Pasquali's? Yes, by my direction.
468
Will you swear that it is not in the handwriting of Schiavini? This is Schiavini's handwriting.
Re-examined by Mr. Brougham.
How long have you lived in Sicily? Eight or nine years.
Are you in the habit of speaking there the Italian or the English language? The Italian.
At the time when you went the voyage with her royal highness the princess of Wales, were you then as familiar with the Italian as you are now? Yes, perfectly, and more so.
The clerk you mentioned, you say you do not know what he was, do you know of what country he was a native? I believe he was of some part of Italy, but I do not know.
Did he speak Italian? Yes.
Did Pasquali make a copy from your logbook? Yes.
Are you a lieutenant on half-pay in the English navy? I am.
Have you been examined at any time before you came to England; have any questions been put to you respecting the conduct of her royal highness on board of that polacre? No.
If you had received notice of its being necessary, could you have brought that" logbook here? I should suppose I could.
Who was it made the copy from the logbook? Pasquali.
You stated just now that the paper in your hand was written by Schiavini? Yes.
When did he write it? A few days back.
What did he write it from? By dictating from the paper I had in my hand, written by Pasquali.
Carry back your recollection to the outward voyage from Tunis to Jaffa, you have stated, that on that voyage her royal highness slept in the cabin; and that when you went to that cabin in the morning, when you were sent for to her royal highness, you passed Pergami in his bed; you state, that on the voyage from Jaffa to Syracuse her royal highness slept in the tent; when you were called to wait upon her royal highness in that tent, had you any occasion to pass through the room where Pergami had slept before? After her royal highness had got up, I went up the ladder.
What sort of a tent was it, a double or a single tent? A single tent.
Do you recollect the breadth of the beam of the vessel? I should suppose from nineteen to twenty feet.
The Solicitor Generalthen requested, that, before the witness was ordered to withdraw, he should be ordered to deposit the paper he had, with the clerk of the House.
Mr. Denmanobjected to this application, and said, that he was entitled to see the paper before any thing was done with it: he had no copy of it, nor did he ever see it until now.
The Attorney Generalsaid, the paper ought to be deposited, whether his learned friend had seen it or not.
Mr. Denmanhoped no insinuation was intended that he had seen this paper before this day at the bar. If such were intended, he must repel it in the manner it deserved [Cries of "Order" from the House.]
Mr. Broughamhoped, if their lordships suffered these insinuations to be flung out on one side, they would injustice allow them to be repelled on the other.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, that counsel must abide by the decision of the House, and not provoke unnecessary remarks.
Earl Greysaid, it was the duty of their lordships to abstain from replying to any extraneous remarks made by counsel on either side; but, when counsel appeared to them to exceed their line of duty, to interpose and stop the extraneous remarks, but not to do so by cries of "Order."
The Paper was delivered in.
Examined by the Lords.
Lord Kingston.—You say, that you fitted up the princess's cabin, what was the length and width of the door? The doors might have been from three feet to three feet and a half wide: there were two divided.
What height? I should suppose about six feet.
What was the depth of the princess's bathing-tub? I cannot state precisely the depth of it; but I should conceive from two and a half to three feet.
If that tub was laid on its side, could it be slewed in the cabin? No, I should hardly conceive that, unless both doors were open, it could; it might have gone one end of it, but the whole could not have gone in.
If both doors were open, could it have been slewed in? One part could have been got in, the half of it could have been got in, but it could not have gone the whole.
Describe the reason why, if one half of it could go in, the rest of it could not go in? Because there is not length.
Not length in the cabin? There was not length from the sofa where her royal highness slept to the door of the cabin?
What length was the cabin? The cabin on the floor, I should suppose, could not have been more than ten-feet or ten-feet and a half.
What length was the princess's bathing-tub? The princess's bathing-tub must have been at least six feet, or nearly that.
Do you mean to say a tub six feet could not have gone into a room of ten feet and a half? But there was the sofa there.
Was that sofa immoveable? It was moveable, but it never was removed.
Was it fastened to the floor? It was; there were two sofas.
And it could not be removed from thence?
470
It could have been removed, but it never was removed.
You are positive it never was removed? Positive, till her royal highness disembarked at Capo d'Anza.
What distance was the sofa from the door?
About a foot and a half, or two feet at the most.
When the doors were thrown open, the bathing-tub could not be slewed in on one side of the sofa? No, certainly not.
Did you not say that the lights on deck in the tent were put out for fear of pirates seeing you? Yes, after our departure from Jaffa.
Where did the binnacle stand? By the mizen-mast.
Just before the helmsman? Yes, close to the helmsman.
Was the binnacle where the light was put in glass all round? Glass the fore-part and glass on the after-part.
Did yon keep the after-part open; were you not afraid of the pirates? The fore-part was generally kept open; there was a hole on the after-side of it; also a very small hole, just sufficient to enable the helmsman to work at the compass.
On what side was the door into the princess's tent? There was no door.
Where was the entrance? It hauled up, it was not confined to the deck, by putting your hand on the lower part, you could lift it up.
When you went to her royal highness on being called, where did you lift up the tent? The after-part, close to the mizen-mast.
When lifted, could you see all through the tent, all over it? With the reflection of the light of the binnacle I could.
And you can take upon you to swear, there was nobody there but the princess of Wales? I can.
You slept on the tiller? I did.
And you also mention, that you could hear two people speaking? If there had been two people in the tent speaking, I could have heard them, if they had been speaking as you now speak.
How comes it you could not hear the princess speaking to you? Sometimes the wind I was blowing, and the materials of the ship worked so, that I could not hear distinctly; I heard, but not distinctly, what she had to say.
Was that never the case when yon were in your sleeping cabin? I never slept in my cabin from the time we left Jaffa till we got to Sicily, except one night alone.
Where did you sleep then? Over the helmsman, in my cot.
Could you always hear what was said in the tent from your cot? Not always what was said, I could hear there was a voice; but could not distinctly say what it was.
But you could distinguish whether two people were talking or not? I never did distinguish two people talking there.
If two people had been talking there, you

471
would have distinguished them? I should have heard their voice.
And known that two people were talking? And known that two people were talking.
You were frequently called down to the cabin by the princess, you mentioned, to receive directions? On our voyage out I was.
Was there a light in the dining-room? Sometimes there was, sometimes there was not.
Did you ever see any one sleeping in the dining-room? At night I never saw any one there, I only knew there was a bed placed for Mr. Pergami in the dining-room, and one morning I saw him.
But you never took notice of them there at night? I never went there to see whether he was in bed or not, it was not my duty to go there.
But when you went down, called by the princess, and passed through the cabin, did you ever see Mr. Pergami? Only that once.
That was in the morning? Yes, it was in the morning.
When you were called down by the princess in the night, did you never take notice whether Mr. Pergami was there or not? No, I never took notice; he must have been there I suppose, the bed being placed there for him; there was a screen, I could not see whether he was there without drawing back the screen.
Earl of Donoughmore.—On the subject of these memorandums, you say that these memorandums which you have had occasion to refer to in this House were taken by yourself out of a larger paper memorandum, which you say is not the log-book; have you been always in the habit of taking such memorandums? They were taken from my memorandums by my direction.
Have you on all occasions, on all voyages, been in the habit of either taking such memorandums yourself, or of causing them to be taken for your use by some other person? For my own use.
You have always been in that habit? Yes.
On all former voyages you have been in the habit of taking memorandums, or causing memorandums to be taken for your use? Not on all occasions, I never have.
Have you been usually in the habit of causing memorandums to be taken? For my own private use I have.
You were asked why you did not bring with you the original papers in which those memorandums were first entered, instead of those extracts; to that you answered, that there were some private memorandums in it, matters of your own private consideration, and therefore you left them behind, and only made these extracts; do you mean to say so? I mean to say, that the memorandums, I mean the private ones, were to a degree of speculation, as I had been a long time residing in Sicily, and had become more a mercantile person than any thing else.
472
You have said that you took these extracts from that larger paper of memorandums for the satisfaction of your friends; what did you mean by that, why for the satisfaction of your friends; explain what you meant by so saying? When in Sicily, I had frequent occasion to see the public papers, and having heard repeatedly that evidences were required in England, and that all the persons who had made the voyage with her royal highness the princess of Wales would be called, and as I was on my return to England, I thought a memorandum of that kind would serve to refresh my memory in case of being called for.
When did you first hear that account? In Sicily, in Messina.
At what period was it that that account came to your ears? To my recollection, I should conceive about three months ago.
Where were you at the time you so heard? At Messina, between three and four months ago.
Was it at Messina, immediately after hearing that account, that you made those extracts from the larger memorandum? Yes.
Was it at Messina you made those extracts, immediately on hearing what you have mentioned to have heard? On my departure from Messina I commenced making them.
Were you just about, at the time those reports reached you to leave Messina? I was.
And then in your voyage you referred to your larger paper to make these extracts? I did.
Having brought the larger paper with you for that express purpose? The small memorandum which I brought was for that purpose.
Do you of course on every voyage take all the papers which you have had with respect to all former voyages? No.
Why did you happen to take upon that new voyage those papers referring to a former voyage? From papers which I saw in Messina, the public papers, which governed me.
What is become of that larger paper; where is that larger paper from which you made the extract? In Messina.
You have come from Messina, and have left it at home? Yes.
Then the larger paper you made for the satisfaction of your friends, and the extract from that paper you have made on account of public reports, and conceiving you might be examined as a witness? Yes, I expected that; I thought it probable.
How long have you been a lieutenant in his majesty's navy? I have been eleven years a lieutenant.
What was the origin of the acquaintance you had the honour of having with the illustrious person who is the subject of this bill? After the siege at Gaeta, where I had served as a volunteer, I was sent to Rome with a general, who commanded Gaeta, from thence I returned to Naples, where I received pri-

473
vate instructions from the Neapolitan government to proceed to Corsica on a secret excursion, to make inquiry respecting the situation of Murat the ex-king of Naples; then after having sacrificed myself four nights and tour days in continuing in the woods among the Corsicans, to gain intelligence respecting Murat, I returned to Naples; having delivered those reports which I had gained to the prince of Hesse, I returned to Messina. The gun-boat which I then was serving in had orders to proceed to Corfu; but before the wind permitted for her to sail, captain Briggs came in in the Leviathan, and I was presented by captain Briggs to her royal highness; from that moment her royal highness enquired what I was going to do, and as I had nothing particular to do, she invited me to proceed on the voyage with her, which I did.
You mentioned, that her royal highness gave you the command of the Polacre? She did.
Do you mean by that to say, that her royal highness gave you the entire control of that vessel? When I say she gave me the command of the vessel, I conceived that every person on board rated to the crew were subordinate to the orders and instructions I might give from time to time.
Do you conceive, or not, that her royal highness, in giving you the command, gave you the entire control of that vessel? I conceived so.
Had you not settled, before the voyage, where each person was to sleep during the voyage? Does the question allude to the crew.
Not the crew but the passengers? Certainly I had, after the ship was hired.
Did you not consider the whole ship and the crew, so far as the voyage was concerned, as under the entire control of her royal highness? Yes, under the control of her royal highness.
Do you not therefore consider, that whilst her royal highness was embarked on board that polacre, she had a right to conceive that she was mistress of that polacre, as much as she was of any house or palace in which her royal highness might reside? Most assuredly I conceive so.
The ship was hired by yourself, and all the persons were paid by you, were they not? They were.
Must they not have conceived, that they were to look up to no person but her royal highness during that voyage? They had to look to her on all those occasions, but all the orders that her royal highness gave from time to time to me, were generally represented by me as much to the captain as any other persons on board.
Did not you therefore consider, that in any thing that her royal highness chose to do, any conduct that her royal highness chose to pursue while on board that polacre, she must have considered herself equally free from any
474
interruption, as if those transactions passed in any house or palace of her own? Yes.
Whilst the tent was upon the deck, do not you conceive, that the crew would take particular care not to incommode her royal highness during the night, by passing too near that tent? Not without the occupation of the ship required it, they would not have done it.
Therefore, speaking of yourself, who had the command, and speaking of your opinion of all the rest, you conceive that every possible pains would be taken by all the persons on board to prevent giving her royal highness the least possible interruption? Certainly.
Her royal highness it appears paid the captain for his vessel? Yes.
The question is not meant to reflect upon yourself, but did you receive any remuneration, and what, for the time you passed on board that vessel, the polacre? For my own trouble, do you mean?
Being as if in the family of her royal highness during that voyage, did you receive any and what remuneration from her royal highness? On my departure from Sicily no arrangement was made for me, nor did I expect it; on my arrival at Tunis, her royal highness sent me a sum of money; I do not know the sum, but I believe I was allowed 200 l. a year; that sum I rejected at first, stating, I did not join her royal highness for any interested motive.
You had rejected that sum at first? Yes.
Did you afterwards think you were justified in receiving compensation? I was informed that I should give offence to her royal highness by not receiving it.
What was the compensation that you received? I believe, to the best of my recollection, it was two hundred dollars; I cannot be certain.
Is that all you have received? I did receive some afterwards, until I left the polacre at Genoa.
The question is not what you received at any particular period, but state all you received, and the different times you received it, as far as you recollect? I believe myself to have, received three time only the sum of two hundred dollars each.
State the particular times, as far as you recollect, of having received each of those sums? The period I cannot recollect; but I believe my memory is so good as to enable me to remember the places where I received it; they were, Tunis, Constantinople, and St. Jean d'Acre.
All you received was during the voyage? Yes.
Have you received any thing since the termination of the voyage? No, I have not.
You talked of 200 l. a year salary, is there a salary of 200 l. going on besides? No, there is no salary; the sums I received at different times were all.
You have no salary? No.

475
Nor do you expect any? No.
You are not at present of her majesty's family? No; nor was I after the ship reached the pork of Genoa.
How long have you been come over here? I have been here about a month I believe.
were you summoned to appear before this House? No, I was not.
Did you come to offer yourself as a witness, thinking you had something material to communicate? I presented myself to her majesty, as having been upon the voyage with her, nothing more than that.
What was the whole sum you received from her royal highness? The three different sums I have spoken of, I believe to have been 600 dollars; 200 dollars each time.
You seem to have been more particular in your observations in the voyage outward, than in the voyage inward; that is, you have been able to speak more to the particulars with respect to where Pergami slept, and appear to have made stronger observations with respect to what passed in the voyage outward, than with respect to what passed in the voyage home, what is the reason of that? I can only speak from this, that going out, I had more occasion to see Pergami, as we generally dined in a place where I saw him every day.
Perhaps you were more in the habit of seeing him? I had frequent occasions of seeing him, daily and momentarily.
In the voyage outward, you have said very decisively where Pergami slept, you have sworn positively that he slept in the dining-room? Yes, I saw him there:
Why are not you able to speak as positively as to the sleeping-place of that person in the voyage homeward, as you were in the voyage out? Because her royal highness having slept on the deck, I had not so much occasion to go down to the bed cabins below.
You were able to swear, from your positive knowledge as to where he slept in the voyage out? Yes.
How does it happen that you are not able to make a belief as to where he slept in the voyage home; what was the length of the voyage; a month? I never went into those apartments, nor drew back the skreen, to see whether he was in bed or not; the skreen was there during the whole voyage out and home.
You were the person who distributed the births, and appointed the sleeping-places of the different individuals in the voyage out; why did not you take the same pains in the distribution of the births in the voyage home?
Mr. Denman submitted whether this question was not in an improper form, as assuming that which the witness had not said.
Did you make a distribution of the sleeping-places of all the passengers in the voyage outward? Yes.
Did you make the same distribution on the
476
homeward voyage? There was no occasion; the bed which I gave him on going out was the place he had in coming home to sleep in; whether he slept there or not I do not know.
You have stated, over and over again, that you do not know where he slept upon the voyage home? I do not.
How is it that as you are so competent to form the negative idea, that is, where he did not sleep, you are not able to state where he slept during that voyage of a month; how is it you feel yourself competent to give the decisive declaration you have given, that he did not sleep under the tent?
Mr. Brougham.—Really, my lords, I cannot admit this question to be put. The noble lord has assumed that the witness stated he knew where this individual slept; whereas, on the contrary, he has declared over and over again, that he could not say where this person slept.
Here there was a cry of "Let the Witness withdraw."
The Duke of Clarence.—I think the counsel ought also to withdraw.
The Counsel and the Witness having withdrawn,
The Duke of Clarencesaid, he rose to order. It had been said by a noble earl, that when any thing irregular or improper occurred at the bar, no noble lord should cry "Order," but state what passed, and offer his objection to it. He would pursue this course. He conceived that the conduct of the learned counsel, a few minutes before, was not what it ought to be. He thought that the learned counsel had commenced an objection in a manner not suitable to the dignity of the House. He had stated, that "he could not permit a question to be put in a particular way." This is all I have to say. I do not wish to interrupt my noble friend, but I did not think the objection stated in a way suitable to the dignity of your lordships.
Lord Foleywas of opinion, that a fair latitude ought to be given to the counsel in offering their objections.
The Duke of Clarence.—I do not mean to say, and God forbid that I should, that we, who are not professional or learned lords, should not be stopped by counsel, either by those who support the allegations of the bill, or by those who appear for her majesty, if improper questions are demanded. The counsel are, undoubtedly, bound to do their duty. But I think it is the duty of this House to see, that due respect is paid to it; and that counsel, when they address your lordships, should state, in a proper and respectful manner, whether a question, in their opinion, should, or should not, be put.
Lord Redesdaleconcurred in the opinion, that objections ought to be put in the most respectful manner.
The Earl of Albemarleobserved, that the counsel was stopped in the midst of his reasoning on the question, which he did not consider a just course of proceeding.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, it was nothing more than reasonable that they should allow counsel to interrupt any of their lordships, if he conceived that an improper question was asked of a witness. He apprehended that the learned counsel did mean to act on that principle. At the same time, he was sure, as other professional persons would be, that, in addressing their lordships (he said it without intending to give any body offence, and even if it did give offence, he still felt himself bound to state it), a different language should have been used. The language that had been resorted to in opposing a question was not exactly that which it ought to be. He was sure, however, at the same time, that the learned counsel meant nothing disrespectful.
The Earl of Donoughmorethought the House was much obliged to the illustrious person in the gallery for the interruption he had occasioned: at the same time he would do justice to the learned counsel, who, he was convinced, had no intention to give offence to their lordships. He was quite sure that the learned counsel entertained no such intention. His conduct during the whole of this proceeding had been most correct and becoming. He agreed that the objection of the learned counsel would have been a proper objection, if he had stated his (lord Donoughmore's) question as he really put it.
The Counsel were again called in; and the counsel for the Queen were informed, that the mode of objecting on the part of the counsel to any question which might be offered by a lord to the House was, by requesting leave, through the House, to make objection to the same.
The Witness was again called in.
Earl of Donoughmore.—Having sworn, on your direct examination, that you did not know where Pergami had slept on the voyage homeward, account how you are enabled to form at once a belief as to the negative, namely, where he did not sleep, that is, under the tent?
Mr. Broughamsaid, he could assure their lordships that he meant nothing offensive or disrespectful in the words that he had used, and which had recently been objected to. He believed their lordships would recollect that, of the 50 or 60 times during which it had been his painful duty to oppose particular questions, he had proceeded in the same way. He had adopted the shortest possible course, and stated, that he could not permit such and such questions to be put. He had, for the sake of brevity, dispensed with his ordinary phraseology, and adopted that language, which, he believed, had always been allowed to the managers of impeachments before that
478
House. Here, on the part of the bar, on be half of the legal profession, he claimed the same liberty of speech that was allowed to the manager of impeachments. At the same time, he would now wave the exercise of that privilege—he would, for the moment, lay aside that sort of phraseology that had been objected to, and use that language which was most congenial with his feelings, and with the respect that was due to their lordships. He had objected to the former question be cause it was wholly different from the question now before their lordships, which he considered unobjectionable.
The question was proposed to the Witness.
On the times that I have been sent for, or called for by her royal highness, I never did see him there.
You have said, on your direct examination, that in the day-time you have seen Pergami sitting on the iron bedstead in the tent? I have.
You have seen him sitting on the bedstead in the tent? I have; and I have seen other persons.
Then having seen Pergami sitting on that bedstead in the day-time cannot be a reason for conceiving he did not sleep in it at night? I have no other reason than having been frequently called for on our return from Jaffa by her royal highness, to know how the weather was; I have opened the tent frequently, I do not know the number of times, and have never seen him there; had he been there, I certainly should have seen him, from the light of the binnacle.
This question was put to you at different times by Mr. Solicitor-general; namely, can you have a doubt of Pergami's having slept in the tent; do not you recollect that question having been put to you by Mr. Solicitor-general? Yes, I do.
Did not you answer that question repeatedly, by saying, that you could form no opinion upon the subject; that you had other things to do; that you had the management of the vessel; were not those the sort of answers which you gave to that question, when put by Mr. Solicitor-general?
The following Extract was read from the Evidence of the Witness of yesterday:
"Have you any doubt that during that voyage, and the whole of it, Pergami slept upon that bed under the tent? I cannot say where he slept; I never went to look after Mr. Pergami; when he was wanted, or where he slept, it is impossible for me to say, I can only repeat that I never saw him in bed.
"Have you any doubt that he slept on that bed every night on the voyage from Jaffa to Syracuse? I cannot say.
"Have you any doubt upon the subject? I must certainly doubt whether he did sleep there every night, or whether he slept there

479
at all I cannot say, for I never saw him there, nor do not know where he slept.
"Do you mean to say you entertain doubts whether he did sleep there, and believe that he did not steep there? When I never saw him there, I have every reason to doubt that he did not sleep there.
"Do your mean by that to say that you believe he did not sleep there? I believe he did not sleep there.
"Where did he sleep? I do not know; I never went to look where he slept.
"Did you ever see him sleep in the cabin on the voyage from Jaffa to Syracuse? I never went into the cabin in the day-time to see whether he was there or not."
Refefrmg to those several questions, and to your replies to those questions, having so strong an impression, as it appears to have made on your mind, that Pergami did not sleep under that tent, why did not you prevent the necessity of being questioned so often upon the subject; why did you not at once say, I have not only no doubt as to his not sleeping there, but my belief is, that he did not?
Mr. Broughamobjected to the question, for it assumed, that the witness had said he bad a strong or decided impression as to where Pergami did not sleep, while he had said no such thing. The witness had stated his reasons for believing that Pergami did not sleep under the tent, but he had said nothing about a Strong impression.
The Lord Chancellorremarked, that the question was irregular, inasmuch as it spoke of "appearing to entertain a strong impression;" the usual and proper way being to repeat the words which the witness had used, and to ask him for an explanation of those words. The question in its present shape could not be consistently put.
The question was not pressed.
Earl of Morton.—You said something with respect to the fear of pirates, and of putting out the lights in consequence of that fear? I did.
Have the goodness to mention what it was you stated upon that subject?
The following extract was read from the evidence of yesterday:
"Do you recollect the light being sometimes put from under that tent, to be taken away at night? It was taken away for the preservation of the ship, and all on board her.
"How so? We had received information at Athens and at Milo of a great many pirates having been about the Archipelago, and it was then consistent that no lights should be seen upon deck, not to give such vessels an opportunity of seeing us by night.
"Do you know whether there were any pirate vessels: at any time had you seen any? Yes."
480
When was it that you received that information? We received that information at Milo.
When was it, inconsequence of that information, you began to take away the light? After we had left Jaffa.
You first heard the report at Athens? Yes.
And it was after you left Jaffa you began to take away the light? Yes, the information was confirmed.
You have mentioned that you have gone into the tent at night when you have been called at night? I have never gone into the tent.
Have you gone to the door? To the opening.
That you lifted up the tent so as to see her royal highness? I opened it, or lifted it up so as to look in.
How was her royal highness dressed? She was dressed.
Lying on the bed dressed? Yes.
You have stated, that on board of the polacre, the binnacle was glazed both on the side next the steersman, and on the opposite side? Yes, or that there was a drawer or slide, I am not positive which.
You have stated, that it was by the light of the binnacle that you saw the interior of the tent, when you lifted up the curtain, or opened it? Yes.
Was it by the light of the side nest the steersman, or the opposite side? It must have been from the light on the opposite side, or from both.
Did not the light from the opposite side of the binnacle strike full on the side of the tent when it was closed, so as to render it visible? It did.
You have stated, that you caused lights to be put out, from an apprehension of being seen by the pirates? I have.
Was that issue of light, on the opposite side of the binnacle, necessary for the steersman? It was not.
Then how came you not to conceal it, in order to prevent the reflection upon the tent being seen by the pirates? It is necessary to give vent to the light in the binnacle, or it will not keep in.
Is it not usual for a binnacle to have air from the top? It is; but when it had not sufficient, it was allowed in other parts.
Lord Colville.—State to the house whether you do not think there would have been very great danger of the light in that binnacle being blown out, if it was left open in the manner you describe in the fore-part of it?—If it had been left entirely open, there would.
If there was a shutter, as usual on the forepart of the binnacle, might it not have been left sufficiently open to admit of air, without any considerable light issuing from it? Yes, and sufficient light to allow me to look into the tent, as it was so near.
In the course of your experience as a seaman, have you not always observed great

481
pains taken to prevent any light issuing from binnacles at all at sea? I have, on board king's ships, but on board such a vessel as this there was not all those conveniences that are required.
What is meant by the word conveniences there? That it had not a regular funnel to lead the smoke from the light which there generally is on board a man of war; that there were holes penetrated in a piece of lead, which did not admit sufficient air.
Were you correctly understood then, in the early part of your examination yesterday, to have stated, that you were captain or master, or in charge of that polacre, during the voyage which her royal highness the princess of Wales made in her? Yes, by her royal high-ness's direction I took the command of the vessel.
Can you state whether or not you had the means on board that vessel, under your direction, of having a few holes perforated in the top of the binnacle, or a small funnel let into it, so as to enable the light in that binnacle to burn all night, without exposing the vessel to the risk she run, with so illustrious a personage on board, from the piratical vessels you describe to have been hovering about you? I had not the fitting up of the ship, excepting that part which was made up for the convenience of her royal highness, and did not particularly observe that there was such a thing wanted until it actually was wanted, or if I had I should have done it.
Was the navigation of the polacre in that voyage entrusted to you, the shaping the courses, and keeping the ship's way? Yes, I kept the ship's reckoning myself; it was kept also by the captain and the mate.
By whose reckoning was the ship steered or conducted? Generally speaking, I believe my own.
Be so good as to state more explicitly by whose reckoning the ship was navigated from land to land? We compared our works, and we divided them, and the course was then distributed among the three works, and the course was shaped from those works.
After comparing the respective reckonings with each other, who gave the directions for the course to be steered subsequently? Myself to the captain, and the captain gave it to the other subordinate quarter masters.
You being charged with the navigation of the ship, how do you explain your having said, that the fitting up of the binnacle was but a trifling matter, or something to that effect? I mean to say, that the charge of the ship was not given to me till I left Augusta by her royal highness; I had the order to fit the ship up, but I had not the command of the vessel until we sailed from Augusta.
Did the vessel not possess the means of rectifying any defect in the binnacle when at sea? If it had been distinguished, it certainly would have been, but I did not observe it until the reports of the pirates.
482
As it appears by your statement, that there were two captains or two masters on board the polacre during the voyage alluded to, state to the House who was the regularly constituted authority having charge of that vessel, her stores, provisions, &c. and responsible to the owners of the vessel for the same? The part owner, who was the captain, I believe; I had nothing to do with the stores, or the victualling of the crew; when I hired the vessel, the victualling of the crew was to be paid by the captain.
State the name of that captain, if he sailed in the ship? Gargiulo.
Whose duty was it to keep the log-book of that ship during the voyage alluded to, the log-book kept in all merchant ships? The mate or the pilot; he is termed pilot in that country.
Was the log-book actually kept by that person? I do not know.
In what book was the ship's reckoning inserted? By the chart.
In what book was it inserted? In the general log-book, I presume.
But you do not know who kept that logbook? I do not.
Was the tent which you have alluded to, on the deck of the polacre erected by your directions? First by those of her royal highness, and afterwards by my own.
Were the directions to the sailors to erect that tent given to them by you, or by any other person? They were given by myself.
In consequence of the princess's directions? Yes.
Can you inform the House the dimensions of the tent; its length, and its breadth, or nearly so? It is impossible I can state the length of the tent, but it was from the mizen-mast to the main-mast.
Did the after part of the tent, or that next the stern of the ship, touch the mizeu-mast r Close to it.
Was it fixed to it? Yes, the ridge rope was fixed to it.
Are you unable to form any idea of the length of the tent, as you must have some notions of the extent of the ship? I did not measure the precise distance, but I should conceive between the mizen mast and main mast there must have been a distance of twenty-two or twenty-three feet; perhaps more, but I cannot be precise.
Are you to be understood to state, that the tent must have been nearly twenty feet in length, or thereabouts? Yes, I should suppose it was.
You stated that the breadth of the ship in that part of it was somewhere about nineteen or twenty feet? Yes; but I cannot be precise, for I never measured it.
How much less than the breadth of the ship was the breadth of the tent, do you suppose? I should consider about a foot, for it hauled out to the rigging on each side. In reference to the mizeu mast of the polacre,

483
where did the binnacle stand? By the mizen mast.
Before it or behind it? Abaft it; it could not be before it on account of the tent.
Are you rightly understood, that the whole of the space inside the tent was sufficiently illuminated by the light of the binnacle to enable a person looking into the tent by lifting up a part of it, as you have described, to see every object in that tent? Yes.
Are you understood rightly, to say, that the communication by the companion ladder, which led from the interior of the tent into the dining-cabin, was always open by night? The passage was open, but the tent covered the hatchway.
What space of time do you conceive was necessary for a person to occupy in descending from the tent to the dining-cabin by that open communication? Speaking of myself as a sailor, I could do it in a second.
How many persons did the crew of the polacre consist of? Twenty-two.
As the navigation of the polacre was entrusted to you, perhaps you can inform the house, how many of those twenty-two sailors were in the habit of going to the helm in their turn? I believe three; I never knew of any more.
How often were they relieved? They performed the whole watch, four hours, exclusive of the two hour watches, which fell from four to six, and from six to eight.
Earl Grosvenor.—You have said that you did not know where Pergami slept on-the return voyage from Jaffa; do you know where Hieronimus, or any other of the princess's suite, slept during that time? I know where Hieronimus slept.
Where did he sleep? The foremast cabin, on the larboard side.
Do you know where Mr. Austen slept? He slept on the opposite side.
Any other of the suite? Mr. Hownam on the larboard side, where I slept myself; count Schiavini and the doctor on the opposite side. Can you account for your not knowing where Pergami slept, though you knew where all those members of the princess's suite whom you have mentioned slept? Those persons who slept without the dining-room, I had an opportunity of seeing before I went upon deck, and bade them good night frequently on such occasions.
Have you any other reason? I have no other reason.
Lord Falmouth.—When you said that your memorandum was written by your clerk, and afterwards copied by Schiavini, what did you mean; explain that? I explained that it was written by my dictating.
Do you mean one and the same memorandum you have produced in court now? It was copied from the one I have dictated by myself.
Is the document from which Schiavini took that which is in court now in existence? The
484
one I presented was written by Schiavini himself.
Is the document from which Schiavini took that which is in court now in existence? No, it is not.
Did you mean, that your clerk or servant took the first copy, which you brought to this country? Yes.
And that you gave it to Schiavini, who wrote from it the copy you now produce? No, I dictated what he wrote.
Then Schiavini did not write from your original copy of the log or memorandum? From what I dictated he did.
That paper now in court was dictated by you? From the original I brought from Sicily. Then you did bring the first copy with yea from Sicily? Yes.
Is that copy now in existence? It is not.
What have you done with it? I destroyed it.
What was your reason for destroying it? Because it was written in such bad Italian, I did not wish it to be presented.
It was written in Italian wholly, not partly in Italian and partly in English? All in Italian, and very bad Italian.
Are you sure that that was a true copy which-you brought to England, of what you extracted in Sicily from your original log or memorandum? Yes.
Did you not state, that when you took that copy first it was partly in Italian and partly in English? I do not recollect to have done so.
Do you mean to state, that the original log was written partly in English and partly in Italian, or that your original copy was written partly in English and partly in Italian? The original was written in English and Italian.
How was the original copy written? In Italian.
Earl of Lauderdale.—When was that memorandum which you brought from Sicily destroyed? I do not remember the day.
Can you say within a few days? No, I cannot; I should think five or six or more days.
Did you destroy it the same day that you dictated this new document to Schiavini? Yes, immediately after.
Did you ask Schiavini to write it for you, or did Schiavini begin the conversation which led to his writing it with you? No, I asked the question.
Where did you find Schiavini? At her majesty's house.
Do you live at her majesty's house? No, I do not.
Are you frequently there? I have not been there for five or six days.
Had you had conversation with Schiavini about this memorandum before? No, I never had.
Then you went to the house to get Schiavini to copy it, and then immediately destroy the original? Yes.
Marq. of Buckingham.—Can you swear that every time you looked into the tent you saw the princess"? Every time I looked into the tent at night, I did see her.
After the rumour had been reported to you respecting pirates hovering about you, did you take any means to diminish the light of the binnacle? Sometimes there was a flag thrown over it, sometimes there was not.
Sometimes the light of the binnacle was masked? Not entirely masked, you could see through the bunting.
Upon those occasions did it ever happen to you to look into the tent, when the light of the binnacle was masked in the way you describe? I do not recollect, but I rather think it did not, for the light of the binnacle was so low on the deck, that there could be no danger of their discovering it, for the binnacle was not above a foot and a half off the deck, and the bulwark of the ship was very high, so that they could not possibly see the light of the binnacle; the light from the binnacle could not be seen, when the light from the tent would have been.
How did you open the tent, by lifting it up above your hand, or by opening it? By lifting it up.
You did not lift it up high enough to get into the tent? No, I did not pretend to go in.
But only to look in? Only to look in.
You said that when the births were originally arranged below, Pergami slept on the outside of the cabin? Yes.
He afterwards removed into the inside of the cabin? Yes.
Was there a regular sleeping place made up for him by a screen? Yes.
A canvas screen? Yes.
Was it rolled up during the day, and let down during the night? I have always seen it drawn in its proper form, so as to cover the bed.
So as to form a sleeping place for Pergami? Yes.
By whose orders did you shift Pergami's birth? I did not receive any particular orders; there was an order given to prepare a cabin for the surgeon that came on board at Tunis, and a cabin was given to him; the cabin which was given to the doctor, was not Pergami's, but count Schiavini's was given to the doctor, and Schiavini took that of Mr. Pergami.
How came Pergami to be removed into the cabin? I do not know; he was removed there. I conceive there were no other orders but the desire of her royal highness to remove him there; I do not know by whose orders he was removed; I shifted the birth; by my orders the birth was made up there.
Did you receive orders to shift the birth from any body, and from whom? I believe to have received it from her royal highness, I cannot be positive; I remember that a birth was requested to be made up in the cabin, but I did not know at that moment who it
486
was for, and that a cabin was to be prepared for the doctor, which it was.
Was it on the larboard or the starboard side of the ship? On the starboard.
In the course of your evidence, you have mentioned a tub which her royal highness used for bathing; do you know whether she ever did use it for bathing? I know that water has been for that purpose; I do not know that her royal highness used it for that purpose, but I have every reason to believe she did, from having heard so.
Where did that tub usually stand? I have seen the tub in the dining-room.
On which side? On the starboard side.
Duke of Clarence.—How many years were you a midshipman? I do not know precisely, I believe from seven to eight years.
How many years were you in the king's service, before you were a lieutenant? I believe to have been eight, I do not know.
If you have been eight years a midshipman, and eleven years a lieutenant, you have been accustomed to the sea for nineteen years? Yes, certainly.
Describe the make of this binnacle? It was a small ease with two compasses, one on each side, and in the centre a light for the steersman to look to, and on the foreside I cannot be positive whether it was a glass or whether it was a door; it was something of that kind, but I cannot be positive which.
How was the light shown forward? There was an opening, the front of the binnacle.
Was that opening of glass or of wood? I cannot positively say, but I rather believe it was of wood.
If it was of wood, did it move up or down, or athwart-ships? Athwart-ships.
You having stated, that it was advantageous for the safety of the vessel that as little light should be shown upon deck as possible; from your knowledge and experience of nineteen years, could you not have so arranged that binnacle, though at sea, as to have kept the fore-part covered, so that the light should not have been produced forwards? By closing up the front part, the light would not have kept in.
Could you not, as a seaman, have found a means of having let the smoke out, and yet have confined the light from being seen forwards? By making larger holes in the top of the binnacle I could have done it.
If you conceived that the safety of the vessel depended upon the light being as much confined as possible on board, why did you not then make those holes to prevent light being seen on deck? It would then have admitted the water to have fallen on the light in the binnacle, as it was directly over. What water? The rain or sea What was the tipper part of the binnacle through which part of the smoke must have gone out? Lead.
Was that part flat or was it at all raised? It fell in rather.

487
Did you in the nineteen years yon have used the sea, ever see a binnacle where the lead fell in before? On board the ships in the Mediterranean they are obliged to have a part in the front of the binnacle open to trim the light, as it is always a lamp.
The question is, why is the lead, instead of being as in a British man of war, where the lead is elevated into a funnel, the reverse way in those vessels in the Mediterranean? I found it so when I went on board; and when it was necessary to be arranged, I had not the means of accommodating it.
Where did you go on board this vessel first? In Messina.
Do you pretend to say, in the port of Messina, you could not have altered so material a thing as the binnacle of a ship, previous to her sailing? No; had I observed such a thing to be wanting, I should certainly have done it, but I did not observe it.
Do you conceive that, having charge of that ship, under the princess of Wales, you did your duty in not having examined that binnacle? I had not charge of the ship at the first moment.
When had you charge of the ship? After I left Sicily.
How many days were you at sea before you touched in port, after sailing from Sicily? One night only.
Where did you hear of the pirates? We heard of pirates at Milo.
Was that in your voyage up? It was.
How many days were you from Milo to your next port? Only a few hours going from Milo to Athens; but we did not put much confidence in the report of pirates till we came down from Constantinople, until we came down to the island of Scio.
Were there no means in the island of Scio to have altered the binnacle? Had we stopped long enough we might have done it.
From the island of Scio, where did you go? To Scala Nuova.
How long did you lie at Scala Nuova? I do not exactly remember: I should think two days.
Could not the binnacle be altered in less than two or three days? At such a place as that I fear it would be very difficult; and I did not observe that the binnacle wanted any of my attention at that time, for I had always heard that the binnacle was in perfect and good condition, and I did not observe it.
The question refers not to the position of the binnacle, but to the positive effect of the binnacle; do you pretend to say, that in the different ports in which you were, you could not have altered the binnacle? If I had found it so materially to want it, I should have done it; but I had not observed it till the moment it was wanted.
Did the binnacle stand amidships? Yes.
It stood abaft the mizen mast? Yes, it did.
488
The ridge rope of the tent was fixed to the mizen-mast? Yes.
What was the tent made of? Malta cotton, I believe.
It was made of cotton? Yes, the ship's tent;
It was the ship's tent? Yes, the ship's tent was made of cotton.
How was it fastened to the deck? It was fastened to the combings of the hatch abreast, and the part abaft to the side of the mizen-mast.
It was fastened forwards to the combings of the hatchway? No, there were no combings of the hatchway, except that part which went down to the cabin and the skylight.
How was the tent fixed forward? It was fixed to the main mast and to the main rigging.
How was it fixed to the deck itself? There was another piece which joined on the front part of the tent, and that fell down on the deck.
How was that fixed to the deck? It was lashed down to ringbolts.
How was the after-part fixed? One end was lashed, and the other part was tied down with rope-yarn against the mizen mast.
You said you looked into the tent occasionally? Yes.
State the nature of the opening into the tent? Both the fore-part and the after-part of the tent, there are two pieces which fall down from the upper part of it, and the ridge-rope which falls down perpendicularly with the mizen mast; it is there lashed together with rope-yarn, inlaid with rope, not the same as if you bad sown canvas to the rope, but a foot short, more or less.
You said that the hatchway was within the tent? Yes, I say so still.
Why was the light at night handed out on deck, and not handed down below? I do not remember its having been handed out of the tent; I never saw it handed out of the tent.
You stated, that the princess's bedchamber had one or two doors? It was one door divided into two.
What was the length of the cabin; you say ten feet? Yes, I should conceive about ten feet.
How many sofas are there in it? Two.
How were the sofas placed? Lashed together.
To which side? To the centre of the ship.
In the centre of the cabin? Yes from the centre of the division off towards the starboard side of the ship.
What space was there between the sofas and the larboard side of the ship; what breadth do you suppose? There might have been as much as five feet or six feet, I cannot positively tell, because going from the starboard is going over to the countess's room.
Suppose the double doors open, could the bathing-tub have been carried into the bedroom? There was not room for it.

489
You are perfectly sure of that? I am perfectly sure of it.
When the tent was put on deck, was not there an iron bedstead and a sofa placed under it? There was.
Was the sofa taken out of the princess's room? It was taken from the countess Oldi's room.
Were the sofas cleated down in the princess's room? They were.
Did your private log book differ occasionally from the log-book of the ship? I cannot say.
Earl of Balcarras—Did you conceive your self entitled to alter, correct, or confirm the regular log-book of the ship? No.
Did the master regularly report to you? He never reported any thing respecting the log.
Did he report to you on common occasions respecting the ship? Such as when it was time to observe the sun he did.
Had you ever any punishment to inflict? No.
Did he report to you as a lieutenant in the navy, who was his superior officer? He always addressed me as the commandant of the ship on all occasions.
Did not you find that half kind of command very inconvenient, and contrary to the good order and discipline of the ship? I cannot say I ever experienced any negligence on the part of the captain or of the crew to my orders.
Did you assume the command because her royal highness was on board, or by virtue of any charter party? I assumed it by order of her royal highness, but the captain consented that I should have the entire direction as to the navigation and manœuvring the ship.
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Then William Carringtonwas again called in, by order of the House, and further examined by their lordships as follows:
Lord Melville.—You stated to their lordships, when you were examined by the counsel who first examined you on Saturday last, that previously to having been in the service of sir William Gell, you had served in the navy, and in the capacity of a midshipman? Yes, with sir John Beresford.
You also stated, in reply to a question which was put to you, "Were you in any other ship in his majesty's service than the Poictiers." "No." I understood that question to apply to my having been with sir John Beresford as midshipman; I had been in other ships before.
Another question was put to you, to which you gave this answer; you were asked what situation you had served in before you were on board the Poictiers as a midshipman to which you answered, you had been at sea in the merchant service when a boy, then you had been on land, and had got your livelihood in the best way you could? I did, I under-
490
stood the question to allude to my being with, sir John Beresford; I was in other ships before that.
Is that last answer correct? Yes.
Then the very next question is as follows; "You are to be understood, that you were never in his majesty's service before?" to which you answered "No?" I understood with sir John Beresford; I understood it entirely alluded to sir John Beresford, during the time I was a midshipman under him.
When you were asked those two questions as to having never been in any ship before the Poictiers, in his majesty's service and you answered "No;" that answer in point of fact was not correct? No, it is not correct; I was in other ships before I was under sir John Beresford.
State to their lordships in what situation you were immediately before you went to the Poictiers? I was as quarter-master in the Majestic.
You served on board the Majestic before the Poictiers? Yes, I did.
Had you ever served on board any other ships? I served in the Railleur before the Majestic, with the same captain, captain Collard.
Have you ever served in any ship besides the Raileur, the Majestic, and the Poictiers? I think I was a few months on board of a brig but whether I was on her books I do not know; the first pay I received was on board the Railleur.
Have you ever served in any other ship In his majesty's service besides those you have mentioned? Never.
Did you enter voluntarily or were you pressed? I was pressed.
Is the House to understand, you served as midshipman in any of those other ships? No; I served as quarter-master all the time I was on board the other ships, or gunner's mate.
You stated, that you had been at sea in the merchant service when you were a boy, then you had been on land and got your livelihood in the best way you could; for what period were you on land? I was bred and born on the sea coast, I was sometimes on land, sometimes in boats, and sometimes in a merchant vessel, or a coasting vessel.
You were in the merchant service when you were impressed? I was in a boat when I was impressed.
A boat belonging to a merchant ship? Belonging to a coasting vessel, or belonging to the ordnance service.
How long had you been in the merchant service? I do not really recollect; I always got my living in that kind of way from a boy.
You have stated that you had been at sea in the merchant service when you were a boy and then you had been on land? You may call it on land; I was at different parts on land, but always by the sea coast.
You were impressed from the merchant service, into his majesty's service? Yes.

491
How do you reconcile that with what you have stated here, that you were in the merchant service, and then on land, and got your livelihood in the best way you could? The land consisted of fishing and piloting; in the harvest time I sometimes worked on land, and sometimes on the sea.
You have stated in reply to a question in page 588, "Why did you leave the navy?" that you did not like the sea, and sir John Beresford got you your discharge? Yes.
You were asked, "You are perfectly clear in your own mind that you left his majesty's service for no other reason than at your own request?" to which you answered, "Nothing else?" Yes.
How long had that dislike to the sea been upon you? I had often been promised promotion, to get a gunner's warrant; but I never got it during the time I was in the Majestic: when I came into the Poictiers, I was also told, that I should have promotion; but I never got it till the latter part, when sir John told me, I was to be upon the quarterdeck; I told him I did not wish to be on the quarter-deck, for I had no friends or money to support me on the quarter-deck; that I would wish to leave the service, if it could be got.
As far as you know of your own knowledge, it was at your request only you were discharged, and not at the request of any other person? Not at the request of any other person; at my request, as far as I know.
You never heard that sir William Gell had asked your discharge? I saw sir William Gell when he first came passenger on board the Poictiers, going to Lisbon; he came home passenger in the same ship; he saw me on the poop; he asked me many different questions respecting the ship, and also for a spy-glass to look at a ship in the convoy; it was not a very good one; he sent me down to get his, which I did; and another circumstance happened—I was standing by the wheel at the gun, and he called me into his cabin, which was under the break of the poop, to put on the half port to prevent the water coming in: there were many other little things he asked me to do in the cabin, as he had no servant: when we drew near the land, he said, I am very much obliged to you for your attentions to me during the voyage; I cannot give you any money, but if there is any thing I can do to speak to sir John Beresford, I shall be very happy to do it; I said, there is nothing you can do for me with sir John Beresford but to ask him whether he can get my discharge, as I am not capable of appearing as a gentleman on the quarterdeck, which I understand I am to be, and I had rather leave it; he told me, you ought to consider it well—what will you do when you get on shore? I told him that I would prefer any thing rather than stopping in the navy in that sort of way; that I had no means of supporting myself as a gentleman. He said,
492
consider you are now rated as an officer; I said, I understand that, but I cannot support it, and therefore I had rather leave it: he said, are you sure that you had rather leave the navy, and that is the thing you would wish to be asked; I said yes, that is it: he said, I will ask you to-morrow morning, and you will consider about it more, if you are sure you had rather leave it than remain as a midshipman on board: the next morning he asked me again, and I told him the same—that I had rather leave the navy; he mentioned it to sir John, and sir John said yes, he certainly would do it, there was no difficulty. When we came to Portsmouth, we lay there some time; I heard no more of this for some time, till at last lieutenant Alcock, the commanding officer of the ship, called me upon the quarter-deck, and said, here is something concerning your wanting your discharge from the navy—what is it you mean? I told him what I had said to sir William Gell concerning sir John; he said, you must be mad to go to leave the navy now, now you have got what you have been looking for; I said, it is true I have got it; bull have not the means of supporting it, and I had rather be discharged than remain as a midshipman without any support to appear like a gentleman as the others do: he said, you must be mad, it cannot be so; I shall write to sir John to say you have altered your mind, or something to that purpose: I said pray do not do that for that is my mind and my wish, and I shall write to sir William Gell to ask sir John to remember his promise, which he did. After that sir William and sir John, met, and they thought it was something very mysterious; sir William said we will prevent it; we will send a man down: there was a man scut down to know whether it was my wish, as I had slated before, which it was: there was an acting captain sent, captain Jones I think it was, on board the Poictiers, who gave me a ticket of leave of absence, told me I was to go to London to sir John Beresford, and there to receive my orders, which I did. After I came to London, sir John told me, you are in the same mind, that you wish to leave the navy; I said yes, it is my wish; very well, he says: he ordered me to stay for a few days, and then, when I went to him again, he said, you are to go down to the Thisbe, and ask for your papers, and then come to me again: I went to him; I believe he sent a letter, whether he sent the letter by me or by the post I am not certain, to the commanding officer. I went to the Thisbe; they told me there were no papers there for me, and they knew nothing of my name at the present: I went back to sir John; he told me, it is of no consequence, you remain as you are, and go where you like; if you choose to go into service or any where, nobody will trouble you; if they do, you will apply to me, and I will give them an answer. After which he gave me a written certificate by his own hand. After I had been abroad

493
two years or better with sir William Gell, I saw sir John Beresford again; I told him I had not received the last pay I had due from the Poictiers; he says, that is very odd, I will give you a letter to a gentleman in Somerset house, and you will go and receive your pay, which I did; and I have never been asked any questions about the navy since, till I came before your lordships:
After having made the statement you have made to the House, do you still adhere to your former answer, that as far as you know, no other person had asked your discharge? No other person to my knowledge.
Are the House to understand that sir William Gell did or did not ask your discharge of sir John Beresford? He told me he would ask sir John any thing that I wished to have done for me; I told sir William Gell that that was the thing I wanted.
Are you acquainted with sir William Gell's hand-writing? Yes, I think I am.
Did you ever see him write? Yes.
Do you think you should know it? I think I should.
A letter was shown to the witness.
Is that sir William Gell's hand-writing? I think it is his hand-writing, I am not certain;
Do you believe it to be his hand-writing? I cannot say, sir William writes different hands; I think it is his hand-writing, but I am not certain.
You are understood to state, that you did not, in point of fact, get a regular discharge? I had nothing further than that given me by sir John Beresford.
Was that the paper? Yes, one written by his own hand, and a printed paper.
Duke of Clarence.—You have said you had never been in any other ship in his majesty's service than the Poictiers? I understood with sir John Beresford.
You stated you were in the Railleur and the Majestic, were you turned over from the Kailleur into the Majestic? I was.
Did you do duty as midshipman immediately on joining the Poictiers? No, as quarter-master.
Did you not state that you did duty from the beginning on the quarter-deck? No, that I was led to expect promotion.
Marquis of Lansdown.—When you stated that you were perfectly clear in your own mind, that you left his majesty's service for no other reason than your own request; did you mean that you considered the request which appears to have been made by sir William Gell, to have been made by your autliority? By my authority, or by my wish.
Lord Colville.—Upon your last examination you were asked, are you positively sure that from the time you joined the Poictiers you were rated midshipman? I said I did not know I was, I was midshipman when I left it, as I saw in my ticket.
It appears by the Minutes, that the answer
494
you gave to that question was, "I am not certain, whether I was rated at that time or not, I was rated at the time I left it, which I saw upon my ticket," stale what ticket you have alluded to? To the ticket of leave of absence, and to sir John Beresford's certificate, which he gave me under his own hand?
You do not allude to a pay ticket? No.
But a certificate? Yes.
You have stated you received your pay at the Pay-office, at a subsequent period? I did.
Were you paid by any voucher produced by yourself? Sir John gave me a letter to a gentleman in Somerset house, this gentleman sent a porter round to the different places where I was to go, and I received my pay.
Do you mean to say you do not know on what voucher you were paid? I had no papers, I never saw any papers after I left the Poictiers.
Did you ever act as midshipman on board? I never kept regularly watch, for I had no clothes nor no money to appear as a gentleman on the quarter-deck.
What duty did you do? As quarter-master, until I was told, I was to be on the quarter-deck, and I remained some time, and did no duty, as I had no clothes.
Did you stand in any immediate relation to sir John Beresford, the commander of the ship? I am no relation certainly.
Or personal attendance? None.
You were not his servant? Never.
You have said, that when you were in the merchant service you sometimes got your living on the water, and sometimes on the land, either by fishing in boats, or working, or piloting? Yes.
Lord Exmouth.—Where were you born?
I was born in St. Oswyth, near Colchester in Essex.
Is it from Colchester you mean, you got your living in a fishing boat, and went in a coasting vessel sometimes? Yes; from St. Oswyth, near Colchester.
Was that port your usual residence, until the time you were impressed into his majesty's service? It was.
Lord Ellenborough.—When you were last examined, you were asked what situation you had served in before you were on board the Poictiers as a midshipman, your answer was, "I have been at sea in the merchant service when I was a boy; then I lived on land, and got my livelihood in the best way I could." The next question is this, "You are to be understood that you were never in his majesty's service before?" to which the answer is, "no." Are you to be understood that you now swear that you considered that second question immediately following the first, which has just been read, to refer not to your service generally on board his majesty's ships, but to your service in a ship with sir John Beresford? I understood it to allude entirely to sir John Beresford, and to my service as a midshipman on board the Poictiers.

495
The following questions were put, at the request of Mr. Brougham.
Were you ever dismissed from any of his majesty's ships in which you were for misconduct? No, never.
Were you ever charged with any misconduct in any of those ships? Never.
You never were punished for any misconduct? Never.
Had you any quarrel with any of the officers, or any persons on board his ship, that you wished to conceal? Never.
Had you, in point of fact, any thing to conceal in any one of those ships in which you had the honour of serving? Not one.
Have you always given satisfaction to all the officers under, whom you have served? Yes, which sir John Beresford will state.
Have you always received certificates of your good conduct from the different officers on your leaving those different vessels? Yes; I have been always recommended in the best manner, on my leaving those vessels, from the one to the other.
Have you those certificates with you? I have not.
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Mr. Broughamrequested permission to put to the witness a question which had been accidentally omitted on his former examination; and he would state to their lordships the reason which led him to ask this indulgence. In consequence of the interruption occasioned by the discussion which had taken place on a preceding question, his learned friend, Dr. Lushington, who was examining the witness, had accidentally turned over that page of his brief at the bottom of which this question stood. The question would be found not only in his learned friend's brief, but in all the other five briefs; and he and his learned friends were ready to pledge their honour to the House that it was not a new point which had been suggested since the former examination of the witness. He therefore begged leave now to ask the witness, whether or not he did not know, of his own knowledge, that previous to her royal highness arriving at Naples, on the journey to Naples, William Austin slept in a room apart from her royal highness, at least more than once, he himself having made William Austin's bed on that occasion?
Dr. Lushingtonbegged to state to their lordships how this omission had occurred. At the conclusion of the questions, in his brief, stood this one; and preceding it was the business about Majoochi and Ompteda, which, their lordships would recollect, had given rise to a great deal of discussion. He had not forgot, in consequence of that discussion, that another question remained to be put; but, at the moment when he was about to refer to it, a different question was handed to him on a slip of paper, and that put the other out of his mind.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, it was customary to allow a counsel to put a question in such case, when he stated his readiness to pledge his word of honour that he had intended To put it on the examination in chief. [Hear, hear!]
Dr. Lushingtonadded, on his word of honour, that the question was accidentally omitted by him when the witness was formerly examined.
The Counsel were informed, that they might propose the question.
The Witness was again called in, and the following questions were proposed by their lordships, at the request of Dr. Lushington.
Upon the journey to Naples did you ever make any beds? I have assisted in making them.
Have you ever made the bed of William Austin? I have assisted in making the bed of William Austin.
Was that bed made in her royal highness's bed-room, or in another? Sometimes it was, sometimes it was not; where there was room enough, it was not; where there was not, it was.
The following question was put at the request of Mr. Attorney-general.
Can you undertake to say you made William Austin's bed out of the room of her royal highness the princess more than once, or only once, in the journey to Naples? I made it more than once or twice; I do not recollect how many times.
Do you recollect the places where you so made the bed? I think the first time I made it was at Domodosola, I think, but I am not certain.
Where besides? I do not recollect exactly the places' names, it was on our way through Italy.
Earl of Lauderdalé.—When you made William Austin's bed, was it a single bed in the room, or was there another beds that room? There were generally beds belonging to the house in that room; but this was one bud his travelling bed.
There was another bed belonging to the house in that room? Yes.
Was that made up at that time? No, I do not think it was.
In that room you only made up William Austin's travelling bed, and the bed in the room was left unmade that night? It was left there; I do not know whether it was made or not; I never saw it made any use of.
The Witness was directed to withdraw:
Then lieutenant Joseph Robert Hownam of the royal navy was called in, and having been sworn was examined by Mr. Tindal, as follows:
Are you a lieutenant in his majesty's royal navy? I am.

497
How long have you been a lieutenant? Since the early part of the year 1809.
Where do you live at present, where are you settled? At Rouen, in France.
Are you married and settled there with your family? I am.
Did you at any time join the party of her royal highness the princess of Wales? I did. When was it you so joined her? In the month of April 1815.
Where was her royal highness at that time? At Genoa.
How long did she remain at Genoa after you had joined her? About six weeks.
Do you remember at any time while you were at Genoa, any disturbance happening in the course of any night? I do.
What was the nature of that disturbance? It was supposed, that the house was broken into.
Was there any general alarm made in. the night time? There was.
Did you get up in consequence? I did. Where did you go to? I went into the great hall.
Who was the first person you saw upon that occasion? The first person I saw was Pergami, who came into my room. Did he give you the alarm? He did.
Had he any thing in his hand at the time? He had a candle, and, I think, a sword.
Did you, after the alarm so given, go down? I was on the ground floor, my door opened into the hall.
You went into the hall? Yes. Whom did you find assembled in the hall when you got there? I found the princess, and many of the servants.
During the time you were at Genoa, did you ever breakfast with her royal highness? Never.
Have you ever seen her at breakfast? I have.
At the time you saw her at breakfast, was Pergami breakfasting with her? he was not. Did you ever know him breakfast with her at Genoa? Never.
Were you in the habit of dining with her royal highness whilst at Genoa? Every day. Did Pergami dine at her royal highness's table any day whilst at Genoa? Never.
Do you recollect at this moment at what place it was that Pergami first began to dine at the table of her royal highness? I do not recollect the name of the town, but it was in a journey over the St. Gothard.
Do you recollect the date of that journey? It was in the month of August.
Do you mean the month of August of the same year? 1815.
You say, the first time of the dining was on the journey, did Pergami continue to dine regularly from that time, or did he begin to dine regularly at a subsequent time? He did not dine regularly after that; he began some time after that.
What was the place of residence of her
498
royal highness at the time he so began? The Villa d'Este.
Do you recollect to what place her royal highness went after she left Genoa? To Milan.
Do you remember when her royal highness resided in a house called the Casa Boromeo? I do.
Do you remember a staircase in that house, upon the landing-place of which her royal highness's door of her sleeping apartment opened? I do.
Was that staircase a secret staircase, or did it lead up to other apartments? It was not
a secret staircase, it led up to my apartment.
Do you mean the apartment in which you slept? I do.
Were there any other persons who went up that staircase to their sleeping apartments? There was a door that went to the chambers of the servants, of the lower servants.
Do you know whether that staircase was ever used by those servants in going to their sleeping apartments? I do not recollect having seen them go up it.
Was it a staircase you were in the habit of using when you went to yours? It was.
Where did you go to after you left Milan? To Venice.
Upon a little tour? Yes.
About what time was it when her royal highness took up her residence at the Villa d'Este? I think about the latter end of September.
Do you recollect the position of her, royal highness's room, and of Pergami's room, at the Villa d'Este? I recollect where her royal highness slept; I cannot say where Pergami slept at that time.
Were there any stairs near the door of her royal highness's sleeping apartment? There was a flight of stairs.
Was there a door at the top of those stairs? I cannot say.
Do you recollect, upon the long voyage, being at Tunis? I do.
Did you accompany her royal highness during the whole of the long voyage? I did.
Do you recollect where Pergami slept at Tunis? I recollect his pointing me out his room.
Did you see him in the room? He pointed out the room himself.
Did you see him in the room, using it as his own, at the time? Yes.
Was that room in which you so saw him near the room of her highness? No, it was not.
Describe, if you please, the different situations of the two rooms? Pergami's room was the only room up a flight of stairs that any person in the house occupied, I believe I never saw any body else's room there.
Where about was her royal highness's room?
There were several rooms between the flight of stairs and her royal highness's room, that is to say, there were three or four rooms to pass.

499
Was Pergami's room on the same story with that of her royal highness? No; it was not; it was up stairs.
Was her royal highness's room on the ground floor? We did not occupy the ground floor.
On which floor was her royal highness's room? On the same floor as all the household,
Do you remember, whilst at Tunis, taking a short journey to Utica? I do.
Did you sleep at Utica? We did not.
Where did the parties sleep on the night of the day when the visit was made to Utica? At the palace of the younger prince, the house is called Sabella.
Were you on board the polacre during the voyage? I was.
Be so good as to describe whether there was any separation between that part of the vessel which was occupied by the captain and the crew, and that part which belonged to her-royal highness and her suite? ft was quite distinct, it was separated by a bulkhead.
Had the captain of that vessel any duty to perform, which carried him into the part of the vessel occupied by her royal highness? None whatever.
Do you know in what part of the vessel the water-closet appropriated to the use of the women was1? I think there were two, one in the cabin of the princess, and the other in the cabin of the countess Oldi.
Had the captain any duty to perform that would take him into the part of the vessel where those were? None whatever, as I imagine.
Did you ever sec the captain, during the time you were on board, in that part of the vessel? Never.
Do you recollect landing at or near to Ephesus? I do.
What was the name of the place where her royal highness and her suite slept on the night of your landing? We slept on the plains of Ephesus.
In what manner, what erections were made, or what convenience was there to enable the party to sleep there? Under the shed of a Caffé Turque; a miserable house.
Did her royal highness sleep under this shed? She did.
How was the shed constructed? Whether it was by planks, or by boughs, I am not quite certain.
Was it inclosed on each side, or open in any way? Open.
Where did the suite of her royal highness sleep? All round her.
Did you sleep near her royal highness, amongst the rest of the suite? I did.
Do you remember where her royal highness dined on that day? On the day of her arrival.
Either that or the next day? It was in the churchyard next the coffee-house, where we had slept the night before.
500
What did she dine under, what was there above her? The portico of an old mosque.
Did she dine alone upon that occasion? I am convinced we all dined together.
Do you mean that you recollect you then dined together? I recollect most perfectly.
How did you contrive to sit upon that occasion? We sat on the ground, her royal highness sat on her traveling bed.
Did any body sit with her on that travelling bed? I do not remember.
Are you sure that the rest of the suite, or a part of the rest of the suite of her royal highness, were there during the time of dinner? I am confident as to having dined myself and every body else.
Do you recollect where the countess Oldi sat upon that occasion? I cannot recollect the spot where she sat; I am convinced we all dined together.
Where did you afterwards re-embark? At Scala Nuova.
To what place did you sail? To St. Jean d'Acre.
Were you either after that or before it at Constantinople? Before that.
How long did you remain at Constantinople? I should think about twelve or fourteen days, or more.
In whose house did her royal highness reside during that time? In the palace of the British minister; we were not all the time at Constantinople.
As long as her royal highness was there? In the palace of the British minister, we were only about five or six days.
What was the name of the British minister? Mr. Frere.
Do you know whether he is alive? I have never heard of his death.
Did you afterwards, in the course of the voyage, land at St. Jean d'Acre? We did.
In what manner did her royal highness travel from St. Jean d'Acre to Jerusalem? Upon an ass.
Is that the usual way of travelling in that part of the world? On asses or mules, or in a palanquin.
How did you travel yourself? On a horse.
Was the course of your travelling to proceed by night, and to lie by, by day? It was.
In what manner did her royal highness rest during the day? Under a tent.
Did you observe whether her royal highness, before she lay by by day, appeared fatigued or not? Excessively so.
Did that appear the case, during the whole of the journey from St. Jean d'Acre to Jerusalem? Yes.
Did yen make any particular observation, as to the nature of this fatigue? I have seen the princess fall from the ass more than once.
Do you mean about the latter part of the night? Towards the morning.
Do you remember whether on your voyage to St. Jean d'Acre there was any tent on deck? Yes, there was.

501
On the outward voyage was this tent constantly erected on deck, or was it only occasionally there? It was occasionally there from the sun or from the wind, while the princess sat upon deck; in fact it was the awning of the ship.
You re-embarked at Jaffa at your return? We did.
Was the weather at that time hot, or otherwise? Excessively hot, it was the month of July.
Had you any cattle on board the vessel of any kind? We had.
What did they consist of? Horses and asses.
Had you more on hoard on your return than you had on your voyage out? We had none in going out.
In what part of the vessel were those animals kept? In the hold.
Did they make any noise in the course of the night or the day? The general noise of horses and such animals.
Was there any smell occasioned by the animals being put in the hold? Yes there was, certainly.
Where did her royal highness sleep on the voyage from Jaffa homewards? Under the tent, on deck.
By whose direction was the tent put up? By direction of the princess.
Did it remain permanently on the deck from the time of your quitting Jaffa to the end of the voyage? It did.
Do you recollect, at any time, any complaint made by her royal highness as to the rate of the vessel's sailing? Yes, I do.
What was the complaint? It was on the return from the island of Rhodes to Syracuse; the voyage became excessively tedious, and the princess, naturally anxious to get on shore, attributed it to the want of sailing of the vessel; I stated, that she could not be supposed to sail so well with a tent on deck; her royal highness said, As to the tent, I do not care at all about it, I would as soon sleep without it.
What was the occasion of her royal highness sleeping under the tent during the return voyage? In consequence of the excessive heat, and the animals on board.
Do you remember any circumstance relating to a light being kept under the tent? I do.
What was it? The princess, in the previous part of her journey, used to sit on deck to a late hour, and with this light; on leaving Jaffa, from reports that were in circulation of some Tunisian vessels roving the Archipelagan seas, it was by a statement by me to the princess that that light should not be kept on deck all night, as it would serve as a mark to any vessel that might be cruising in those seas.
Had you, in point of fact, seen any Tunisian vessels yourself? Yes, we had seen one at Scio, and another at SU Jean d Acre.
502
Do you know of your own knowledge whether they had plundered any vessel? I could not know, but from report.
Did you, in the situation you held, think it a matter of duty to give that advice to her royal highness? I did.
In consequence of that advice, was the light put out earlier than before? Much earlier.
What was the general time of the evening at which the light was put out? It might be from nine till ten o'clock, or later.
How many sofas were there on board the polacre? Four.
Do you know in what part-of the ship those sofas were placed? There were two lashed together in the princess's cabin, and two in the countess's cabin.
Was there afterwards any alteration made in their situation? The countess sent one out of her cabin.
Where was it sent to? It was occasionally on deck of the first part of the voyage, and always after Jaffa.
Do you mean that the sofa was beneath the tent? The princess slept on it.
What was there, besides the sofa you have mentioned, underneath this tent? An English travelling bed.
Do you know whether there was any communication open between the tent and the part of the vessel below? There was a ladder that went down into the dining-room.
The Counsel were directed to withdraw, and the House adjourned.