Sitting of 23 October 1820

Preamble
The order of the day being read for the further consideration and second reading of the Bill, intituled "An Act "to deprive Her Majesty Caroline Amelia Elizabeth of the Title, Prerogatives, Rights, Privileges, and Exemptions of Queen-Consort of this Realm, and to dissolve the Marriage between His Majesty and the said Caroline Amelia Elizabeth; "and for hearing Counsel for and against the same:
The Earl of Harrowby brought up the following

REPORT OF THE SECRET COMMITTEE
Appointed to examine and verify Extracts from the Correspondence between Colonel Browne and J. A. Powell, esq. relative to the Mission of Giuseppe Restelli to Milan, and his detention there.
By the Lords Committees appointed a Secret Committee, with powers to examine John Allan Powell, esq. as to the extracts from such parts to his correspondence with Colonel Browne as relate to the causes of the Mission of Giuseppe Restelli to Milan, and of his detention there, and to verify them by a comparison with the original letters, and to report; and to whom were referred certain papers (sealed up), delivered in at the bar of the House by John Allan Powell, esq. pursuant to the order of the 20th of October, 1820.
That the committee have met, and, in the discharge of the duty imposed upon them by the House, have called before them John Allan Powell, esq. who being examined, stated, that the extracts which he presented at the bar of the House contained the whole of what has passed in the correspondence between him and colonel Browne, respecting the causes of the mission of Giuseppe Restelli to Milan, on the 14th of September last, and of his detention there.
The committee then proceeded to examine and to verify these extracts; and upon comparing them with the parts exhibited to them of the drafts of Mr. Powell's letters to colonel Browne, and of the original letters of colonel Browne to Mr. Powell, find, that they have been made faithfully and correctly.
These extracts may be classed under two heads:—First, those containing the communications made by colonel Browne to Mr. Powell, and received by the latter before the 14thof September last, when Restelli was despatched to Milan:—Secondly, the extracts, from the letters which have passed between colonel Browne and Mr. Powell at the time of: Restelli's departure from this country, and subsequently thereto.
From the first of these it appears to the committee, that as early as the 4th of July, I 1820, a letter was written by colonel Browne to Mr. Powell, and received, as the latter supposes, about the 12th of the same month, though lie cannot now ascertain the precise date of its arrival, in which colonel Browne states the excessive alarm prevailing in Italy, in consequence of the dissemination of false reports respecting the maltreatment and even the murder of some of the witnesses then in England, and strongly urges the necessity of procuring letters from them to counteract such reports, and of sending them by a courier.
Communications of a similar nature, stating the mischievous effects of the reports in circulation, and of the use made of them to deter other witnesses from coming to England, appear to have been made by colonel Browne to Mr. Powell, on the 10th, 18th, and 24th of the same month, and also on the 4th of August, on which day he represents the alarm of the families of the witnesses then in England to have been greatly increased by the non-arrival of any letters, and expresses his hope that letters from them will be speedily received.
It also appears that on the 9th, 15th, 17th, 22nd, 25th, 28th, and 29th of August, and on the 2nd of September, similar representations were repeated in the letters of colonel Browne, and received by Mr. Powell prior to the 14th of September, the date of Restelli's mission to Milan, in several of which the necessity of sending a courier with letters from the witnesses is again strongly insisted on.
In these communications the strongest
968
statements are made of the mischievous impression produced by the news of the attack upon Restelli's party at Dover, by the representation of the riot there as a massacre; by the report of the loss of an eye by Restelli himself, and of the murder of Sacchini; and by the return of Rossi and the Lugano witnesses, in consequence of these reports. The terror of the families of other witnesses, who were said to have lost their lives, is represented to have been extreme; and colonel Browne states all these circumstances as having deterred witnesses, by fears for their personal safety, from coming to England, "who were before ready and willing, and going off with all the expedition possible."
The committee have confined themselves to this general statement of the substance of the various representations thus made by colonel Browne to Mr. Powell of the reports circulated in Italy, and of their effect in deterring other witnesses from coming to this country, which Mr. Powell states as his inducements to select Restelli as the fittest courier to carry dispatches to Milan on the 14th of September, but have not thought it right to report the extracts themselves, as they contain statements which, in that form, could not be received as legal evidence of the circumstances to which they refer, but which, if produced, might affect the important inquiry in which the House is now engaged.
The same reason docs not apply to the second head of extracts from the letters of Mr. Powell to colonel Browne, which were sent by Restelli, or written subsequently to his departure from England, and from colonel Browne's answers thereto. The committee have therefore thought it their duty, without comment or opinion, which they do not understand themselves to have been required to offer, to subjoin these extracts in toto, as they have been delivered to them, for the information of the House.
Extracts from the drafts of Letters from Mr. Powell to Colonel Browne.
No. 1.
"Lincoln's Inn, 13th September, 1820.
"I now return you Restelli, as I conceive he may be of use to you; but you must take care to let us have him here again on or before the 3rd of October, with all the information, evidence, and witnesses you possibly can collect."
Extracts from another part of the same letter, at an interval of several pages.
"I am aware that it may be a difficult task, under the cirumstances which have taken place, to induce persons to trust themselves here; but we rely upon your utmost exertions to accomplish this important measure, and trust you may succeed."
No. 2.
"Lincoln's-inn, 14th September, 1820.
"I have little to add to my letter of yesterday, except to return you the papers to be proved, if possible, in the way that will be pointed out by——,and some of which I have marked in pencil; they must all be returned to me, done or not done, by the 1st of October. Restelli takes back with him letters from every body; be sure to forward them, and get as many answers as you can."
No. 3.
"Lincoln's-inn, 28th September, 1820.
"I hope we shall in two or three days see Restelli again, with the papers I returned to you by him, and other witnesses, who may be a counterpoise to those to be called by them."
Extracts of Letters front Colonel Browne to Mr. Powell
No. 4. (Received the 28th of September.)
"Milan, 21st September.
"Just as the courier was starting Restelli arrived. Every attention shall be paid to the letters brought by him."
No. 5. (Received 4th October.)
"Milan, 27th September, 1820. "Restelli will take back with him and two new witnesses, referred to in letter. I much fear Restelli is shuffling. He is in bed, and says he has a ever from crossing the water, and he is heartily sick of the manner in which the witnesses are confined in England. I wish he had not been sent back at such a moment, as it will, I am sure, be difficult to move him again. I shall press him the moment he leaves his bed."
No. 6. (Mr. Powell believes, received the 7th of October.)
"1st October, 1820.
"Restelli is still in bed with a violent fever."
No. 7. (Received the 7th October.)
"2d October, 1820.
——and Restelli continue ill in their beds."
No. 8. (Received the 7th of October, as Mr. Powell believes.)
"2d October, 1820.
"Restelli is also on his pillow, and has been bled twice yesterday. He has a serious fever; and, as I hear, he attributes it to having vomited blood on the passage over the water. I expect very great difficulty in getting him back to London."
Extracts of Letters from Mr. Powell to Col. Browne
No. 9.
"Lincoln's-inn, Oct. 8, 1820.
"We are exceedingly sorry to find that you
970
have any doubt of the willingness of Restelli to return. He would most certainly not have been sent to you, had there been the least reason to suppose he would not most readily have come back, and had we not conceived that he might be of great use to you at Milan, as he himself stated he thought he could, and that he should be very well able to return here by the 3d. As it is, we consider it of the greatest moment that he should come back; and I have it expressly in command from the attorney-general to say to you, that no means must be left untried to make him do so. His absence would prejudice the cause exceedingly, as it would be immediately construed into a fear of his re-appearing, and the most injurious, however untrue, inferences would be drawn from it. The return of this man is so much desired, that we send Kraus expressly to you to inform you of it, and to enforce it in the strongest manner."
No. 10. (Received since the examination of Mr. Powell at the Bar of the House.)
"Milan, 4th October, 1820.
"I have not seen Restelli, except the day of his arrival and the day after; he continues in his bed seriously ill. It would appear to be a severe attack of the jaundice; I shall urge him out of his bed, as soon as possible, and endeavour to persuade him to return, but he cannot for three weeks to come; and his horror of the sea is such, that it will be a tremendous task to induce him to cross it again.
"On——'s suggestion O——is to visit Restelli, see him in his bed, and in the presence of his doctor, who will sign a certificate in O——'s presence of the danger which would attend his removal."
Counsel were then called in.
Mr. Brougham requested that Louisa Demont might be called in.
Mr. Solicitor Generalstated, that in consequence of a communication of the wish of the counsel for her majesty, Louisa Demont, who was at her lodgings in London, had been sent for, but that he had been informed that Mr. Vizard had mentioned to Mr. Maule, that he should not want her before twelve o'clock, and that Mr. Maule had gone away with that impression.
Mr. Broughambegged to tender that which he could not in an ordinary trial do, being aware that it would be defective in that proceeding; but he hoped their lordships in regard of the particular nature of the inquiry in which they were now engaged, and more especially with relation to the charge contained in the preamble of the bill against her majesty, would be pleased to receive it in evidence: that it being alleged in the preamble of

971
the bill, "That her majesty conducted herself, not only with indecent and offensive familiarity and freedom, and carried on a licentious, disgraceful, and adulterous intercourse during her majesty's residence abroad, but that by that Conduct of her royal highness great scandal and dishonour had been brought, during the whole of the period to which the preceding statement referred, upon his majesty's family and this kingdom; and that it was to manifest a deep sense of such scandalous, disgraceful, and vicious conduct on the part of her majesty, by which she had rendered herself unworthy of the exalted rank and station of Queen Consort, and to evince a just regard for the dignity of the Crown and the honour of the nation," he tendered the evidence which he held in his hand, to rebut that allegation, and to show, that the general estimation in foreign nations of her royal highness was such, after they had witnessed her con* duct, as to be utterly inconsistent with the statement in the bill; that the paper he tendered was the Austrian Gazette, published at Trieste at the time her royal highness was there, which stated her to have arrived at mid-day, on a certain day, and to have left Trieste on the following day, with all demonstrations of respect befitting a person of her station; that he tendered this, not as conclusive evidence, but as primâ facie evidence of that which was inconsistent with the allegations of the bill.
Mr. Attorney Generalsaid, it was im-
The following are the Extracts from the Trieste Observer, of April, 1817:—
"Trieste 16th April.
The princess of Wales, the wife of his royal highness the prince regent of England, in passing the Higher Germany, arrived in this city yesterday about midday.
"In the evening, our new grand theatre, where the exalted princess went to the grand spectacle of a new opera, was, in honour of her royal highness, speedily illuminated."
In a subsequent number of the same paper, dated the 19th of the same month, is the following article:—
Her royal highness the princess of Wales left this city the 16th of this month, at five o'clock in the evening, for her delightful country residence on the lake of Como."
972
possible that the papers in question could be received in evidence; and he had to complain of his learned friend for making the statement he had done, because he knew very well that the evidence he proposed was inadmissible. In proof of this he had only to call to their lordships' recollection what his learned friend had himself acknowledged, he having begun by stating that the evidence he had to offer to their lordships was such as in ordinary cases could not be received. Would it have been competent to him in his case to have produced such evidence? Certainly not. Then, if he could not be permitted to bring forward proof of this kind, why should such an advantage be conceded to his learned friend? He therefore humbly contended, that these papers could not be received as evidence by their lordships.
Mr. Solicitor Generalcontended, that these papers had not been offered for the ostensible purpose of showing how the princess of Wales had been received at Trieste, but for the purpose of affording his learned friend an opportunity of making the statement he had done respecting the time of her royal highness's arrival and departure from Trieste. That, he was satisfied, was the only reason his learned friend had for offering those two newspapers to the consideration of their lordships. What effect this attempt might have on their lordships' minds it was not for him to decide; but it was, impossible not to see, that the sole object aimed at in producing these papers was to make, collaterally, an impression which his learned friend could not make directly. It was admitted, even by his learned friend, that the evidence could not be received in the courts below, and he was confident that their lordships would reject it.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he had stated that he did not think these papers evidence which could be received in a court of justice; but he thought they might go for something in a proceeding out of such a court. He was not here as in a court of justice. In a court of justice, he could have objected to the members of a grand jury afterwards becoming part of the jury to try the case—in a court of justice, he would have had his right of challenge against the jurors—in a court of justice, he would have been allowed to prove declarations made by jurors in hostility to his client—in a court of justice, he might

973
have objected to the prosecutors of his client sitting as judges and jury. But the privileges which he would have had, and all the objections which would have been open to him in a court of justice, were denied to him here. If, then, he was to be confined to strictly legal evidence, let his adversaries conduct their case according to the practice of courts of justice. He wished for nothing more than to be regulated by the practice of the courts below, if that regulation were fairly applied to both sides. But, to make this a completely legal proceeding, their lordships must give him a jury fairly chosen, and all the rights he would have had before a jury. This proceeding had been said to be anomalous; but the first anomaly was, that those who were the ac-
DIPLOMA creating Lieutenant JOSEPH Caroline of Jerusalem.
Gerusalemme, li 12 Lnglio 1816.
CON la presente sottoscritta di propria mano di S. R. A. la Principessa di Galles, portante il di lei Sigillo, S. R. A. instituisce e crea un nuovo ordine per ricompensare i fedeli *Cavaglieri che hanno avuto l'onore di accompagnarla nel di lei pellegrinaggio a Terra Santa.

1. Quest' ordine sara unicamente dato, e portato da quelli che hanno accompagnato S. R. A. a Gerusalemme, ad' eccezione del di Jei Medico Professore Mochetti che per un scmplice accidente non pole seguirla.

2. II Sig Colonello Bartolomeo Pergami, Barone della Franchina, *Cavaglieredi Malta, c del S. S. Sepolcro a Gerusalemme, Scudiere di S. A. R. sara il Gran Maestro di quest' Ordine: i di loi figli si Maschi che Femine po-tranno succedcrli, ed' auranno l'onore di por-tare questo medesimo Ordine di discendenza in discendenza fino all' infinito.

3. Viene conccsso questo medesimo van-taggio al Sig' *Cavaglieri del S. S. Sepolcro Guglielmo Austin ed' i di lui figli legitimi pur fino all' infinito godranno di quest' Onore.

4. Solamente personale sara quest' Onore per lei, Sig' Giuseppe Hownam, Capitano della Real Marina Inglese, e *Cavagliere al se-guito di S. R. A. creato uno dei Cavaglieri di quest' Ordine con la presente, ed alia di lei morte la Croce e la patente saranho rimesse al Gran Maestro.

5. La Croce sara portata dal Gran Maestro al Collo, e gli altri Sig *Cavaglieri saranno tenuti portarta alla bottoniera sinistra del loro abito.

6. Consiste sud Ordine in una Croce rossa portante il Motto, "Honni soit qui mal y pense," e si chiamera col nome di Santa Ca-

* Sic in Orig.
cusers sat as the judges of his client. That anomaly produced another, in the offer of those papers as evidence. When so much anomaly was admitted against, he might surely claim some in favour of, his illustrious client.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that it was the opinion of the House the paper tendered could not be given in evidence.
Then Lieutenant Joseph Robert Hownamwas again called in, and farther examined as follows, by the Attorney General.
Have you got the Diploma of the Order of St. Caroline? I have. Is that under the seal of the Order? It is.
The same was translated by the Marchese di Spineto, Mr. Cohen concurring in the same, and then the Diploma was delivered in.
Jerusalem, 12th July 1816.
BY this Present, subscribed by the own Hand of Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, and bearing her Seal, Her Royal Highness, institutes and creates a new Order, to recompense the faithful Knights who have had the Honor of accompanying her on her Pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
FIRST, This Order shall be given, and worn only by those who have accompanied Her Royal Highness to Jerusalem, except her Physician, Professor Mochetti, who by a simple accident could not follow her.
SECOND, The Colonel Bartholomew Pergami, Baron of Francina, Knight of Malta, and of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem, Equerry of Her Royal Highness, shall be the Grand Master of this Order, and his Children, Males as well as females, shall succeed him, and shall have the Honor to wear this same Order from Generation to Generation for ever.
THIRD, This same Advantage is granted to the Knight of the Holy Sepulchre, Mr. William Austin, and also his legitimate Children, shall enjoy this Honor for ever.
FOURTH, This Honor shall be personal for you Mr. Joseph Hownam, Captain of the British Navy, Knight in the Suite of Her Royal Highness, created one of the Knights of this Order by this Present, and at your Death the Cross and the Patent shall be returned to the Grand Master.
FIFTH, The Grand Master shall wear the Cross round his Neck, and the other Knights shall be obliged to wear it at the Button Hole of the Left Hand Side of their Coats.
SIXTH, The above-mentioned Order consists of a Red Cross, with the Motto "Honi soit qui mal y pense;" and shall be called by

975
rolina a Gerusalemme. II nastro sara Lilla ed' Argento.
CAROLINE, Principessa di Galles.
Colo PERGAMI,
Bano della Francina.Caro di Malta, e del S. S. Sepolcro, Gran Maestro.
Per il Sig' *Cavagliere Giuseppe Hownam, *Cavagliere al seguito di S. R. A. &c.
Mr. Denmanstated, in reference to a farther examination of Louisa Demont, that he had to request the indulgence of the House to agree to the application he was about to make in that respect; that he had no idea of calling the witness, to prove any substantive fact on the part of her majesty, but to ask her to certain facts, with a view, if she admitted them, to have the benefit of them, and if not, to call evidence to contradict her.
The Counsel were informed, that this should regularly have been staled some time ago; but that the House had permitted a witness to be recalled under such circumstances, and would allow of this Witness being now called with the view proposed.
Then Louisa Demontwas again called in. and farther examined by the Lords, through the interpretation of Mr. Pinario, the questions being suggested by Mr. Williams:
Are you acquainted with a woman of the name of Fanhette Martigner? I believe not.
Do you know a man of the name of Henry Martigner? I do not recollect any such name.
Do you know a place in Switzerland call ed Morje? Yes.
* Sic in Orig.
976
the Name of "st. Caroline of Jerusalem. The Ribbon shall be Lilac and Silver.
(Signed) CAROLINE Princess of Wales.
Colonel PERGAMI,
Baron of francian, knight of Malta and of the Holy sepulchre, Grand Master.
N. B.—The Seal affixed to the Diploma is stated in the Diploma itself to be the Seal of Her Majesty; but it appears to be so defaced, that it is difficult for an Engraving to be made of it.
(Addressed)
To the Knight Joseph Hownam, a Knight in the Suite of Her Royal Highness, &c.
The woman to whom the question refers is a milliner at that place? I know a person, a marchande-de-modes, of the name of Martigni, not Martigner.
Do you remember seeing that woman in April 1818? I have seen her several times, but I do not remember in what month.
In the year 1818? I do not recollect; but I may have seen her in the course of that year.
Do you remember sending for that woman to alter a bonnet for you? I cannot recollect my sending for her, because I did not reside at Morje.
Did you see her upon the subject of a bonnet in any part of the year 1818? I may have seen her, but I do not positively recollect whether I did or not.
Do you know the woman of whom you are, reminded? I know this woman, madame Martigni.
Had not you some conversation with her in the year 1818 about the princess of Wales? As I do not recollect seeing her in the course of that year, I do not recollect having any-conversation with her.
Did you not see this woman after you had left the princess's service? Yes, I saw her afterwards.
Had you not then some conversation respecting the princess of Wales? I do not

977
recollect whether I had any conversation with her; it may be, but I do not recollect.
Do you not remember this woman, Martigni, speaking on the subject of your Journal? I do not at all recollect her speaking to me on the subject of my Journal.
Do you mean to say, that you did not hold a conversation with this woman, Martigni on the subject of your Journal? I may have had a conversation with her, but I do not recollect; it may be.
Do you not remember this woman speaking with you as to the conduct of the princess of Wales? I do not recollect.
Do you not recollect saying any thing about the persons that surrounded the princess of Wales? I do not recollect; I have often spoken about the princess, but not about persons who surrounded her, who were of her suite.
Did not this woman, Martigni, ask a question of you respecting the character to the princess of Wales? I do not recollect having had a conversation with her on that subject; it may be, but I do not at all recollect.
Do you remember being at Morje? Yes, I have been at Morje several times.
Do you not remember this woman, Martigni, putting this question, "Whether the princess of Wales was not a woman of intrigue, a femme gallante?" I do not at ail recollect; I do not recollect having had any conversation with this woman upon the subject of the princess.
Do you mean to say, that you had not this conversation, and that the woman Martigni did not put the question now asked? I do not at all recollect.
Will you say, that it did not pass, that the question was not put to you? I do not at all recollect whether this question was put to me; I have not the least idea of it.
Do you remember at that time becoming angry on the subject of the princess's conduct being mentioned? I do not recollect; I do not remember this conversation; I have not the least idea of it.
Do you remember your saying at that time, to this woman Martigni, that it was all a calumny, and that it was her (the princess's) enemies that spread such rumours? I do not recollect any thing like that; I do not recollect it at all.
Will you swear that you did not say so? I will not swear it, but I have not the least idea of it; before I was put upon my oath I never said any thing of what passed in the house of her royal highness.
If that be so, do you mean now to represent that you did not use the language just put to you, or to that effect? I have not the least idea of such a conversation; I do not recollect it at all.
Will you swear you did not say so? I will not swear it, because I do not recollect it at all; I have not the least idea of it.
Did you not say to this madame Martigni,
978
that from the time the princess left England she was surrounded by spies? I never could have said so, because I myself never saw any spies.
Will you then swear, that you did not say that which was just put to you? I will not swear it, but I do not recollect having ever said it.
Did you not say just now you could not have said it, because you never saw or knew any thing of spies? I do not remember ever saying so at all; I do not recollect having this conversation, I have no idea of it.
You were understood to say this moment you could not have said it, because you knew nothing of spies? I do not believe I ever said so at all.
Will you swear you did not say so? I will not swear it, but I do not think I ever said it.
Did you not say in addition, to this same woman, that the princess was very unfortunate? I do not recollect this conversation at all.
That the most simple actions of her life were always misinterpreted? I do not recollect ever saying so; I do not remember this conversation at all.
Will you swear that this conversation, or any part of it, passed in the year 1818? I cannot swear, but I cannot recollect; I do not recollect any thing of it, I have no idea of it.
Do you remember being at madame Jaquereau, on a visit at Morje? Yes.
When was that? I have been there several times.
The question refers to the year 1818? I have been several times there after quitting the service of the princess, but I do not recollect at what periods.
Were not you there, upon a visit to the person just mentioned to you, in the year 1818? Yes, I was there in the year 1818.
And in that year 1818, when you were on a visit, had you not a bonnet altered or repaired by madame Martigni? It may be, but I do not positively recollect it.
Have you no memory about your bonnet being repaired or altered by this woman? I have had several bonnets altered by madame Martigni.
Did you not tell madame Martigni that you had always been about the person of the princess? I do not at all recollect this conversation.
Will you swear that madame Martigni did not remark to you, that as you had always been about the person of the princess, you must have observed all her actions? I do not recollect this conversation; it may be, but I have not the least idea of it.
The Lord Chancellor said, that as the evidence was entered in the Minutes as being put by their lordships, it would be for their consideration whether it would be for their

979
credit that the same question should be put fifty times [Hear!].
Did not madame Martigni inquire particularly of you, whether you have seen any thing unchaste in the conduct of the princess? I do not recollect at all having had this conversation; I have not the least idea of it.
Will you swear it did not take place in those very words, or to that effect? I cannot swear it, I do not recollect it at all.
Will you swear that you did not reply to this effect, "My God! never in my life; it is impossible for any body to be more virtuous than the princess of Wales I do not recollect; I cannot recollect having any conversation on the subject with madame Martigni.
Will you swear you had not any conversation to that effect with madame Martigni? I cannot swear it, but I have not the least recollection of it, I have not the least idea of it.
Do you believe you have used those expressions, or expressions to that effect, in answer to a question put by madame Martigni? I do not recollect such a question; but if the question took place, I do not believe I made such an answer.
Did you not say to madame Martigni, that in all her persecutions, she, the princess, had no friend but the old king? I have not the least idea, whatever, of this conversation, I do not recollect it.
Will you swear you did not say so? I will not swear it, but I do not believe that I ever said so.
Were not you at Morje in the month of November in the year 1818? I have been several times at Morje I may have been there in that month.
Have you any recollection one way or the other, whether you were or were not there in that month of November I may have been there in that month; but I do not exactly recollect; I was there either at the end of November, or perhaps the beginning of December.
Did not madame Martigni ask you whether the princess was not much afflicted at the loss of the princess Charlotte? I do not remember such a conversation; I have not the least idea of it, I assure you, not the least idea.
Will you swear that madame Martigni did not put that question to you? I cannot positively swear it, but I have not the least idea.
Did not yon say "Yes, it was very natural, as she had lost every thing in losing her child?" I have not the least idea of such a conversation, I do not recollect it in the least.
Do you believe that such a conversation took place with madame Martigni? I do not believe that such a conversation took place.
Did not you say to madame Martigni, that it was possible after the the death of the prin-
980
cess Charlotte, that the princess of Wales would make some diminution in the expense of her household? I have not the least idea of such a conversation; I assure you I do not recollect it at all; I have not the least idea of it.
Will you swear it did not take place? I would not positively swear it, but I have not the least idea of it.
When was it you first made any deposition upon your oath, on the subject of your evidence?
The Lord Chancellor.—Has she said any thing in the course of her examination about her being sworn?
Mr. Williams—Oh! yes, my lord, doubtless.
Mr. Brougham submitted this question might be put independently of the object of this examination.
The Lord Chancellor.—You said to-day that you were calling the witness to speak to her deposition; either, I suppose, with a view to her general evidence, so as to affect it in some way or other, or to disprove particular assertions. If it be for any other object, I must confess I do not see the necessity of going into fresh matter in this stage of the proceeding. If your object be, to open such a case, however (and I do not say that you may not do so), explain to their lordships the manner in which you propose to do it; and first of all, as the ground of this question, satisfy the House that the witness has spoken of her being before sworn.
Mr. Williams.—In her evidence, my lord she uses the very terms;, she says she has been sworn.
The Lord Chancellordirected that part of her former evidence to be read. It was as follows:
The following extract from the former Evidence was read over to the witness
"Do you remember your saying at that time to this woman Martigni, that it was all a calumny, and that it was her (the princess's) enemies that spread such rumours; I do not recollect any thing like it; I do not recollect I it at all.
"Will you swear that you did not say so? I will not swear it, but I have not the least idea of it; before I was put upon my oath, I never said any thing of what passed in the house of I her royal highness.
What did you mean by those words "before I was put upon my oath?" I mean before I was examined and put upon my oath, here.
The following questions were put at the request of Mr. Solicitor General:
Before you were examined here, had you been examined any where else? I was examined at Milan.
Had you ever said any thing about her royal highness before you were examined at this

981
place here? Was it after having been examined at Milan or before.
At any time before you were sworn here, had you ever said any thing about her royal highness? I had spoken often of her royal highness before I was examined at Milan.
What did you mean by saying that before you were put upon your oath you had never said any thing as to what passed in the house of her royal highness? The meaning is, that I never said any thing of her conduct with baron Pergami, with Monsieur Pergami.
Do you mean that before you were sworn in this place where you now are, you never, upon any occasion, said any thing elsewhere as to the conduct of her royal highness with baron Pergami? I made my depositions at Milan.
Mr. Solicitor-general requested leave to examine this witness as to the particulars of the journey from Home to Sinigaglia.
The Counsel were informed, that that could not be now done, whatever might be done when the witnesses for the defence had all been called.
Earl of Lauderdale.—Do you recollect the day of the month on which you left the service of her royal highness at Pesaro? It was in the beginning of November, but I do not recollect the day.
Can you state how many days it was antecedent to your writing the letter from Rimini? I wrote that letter the same day in the evening on my arrival at Rimini.
Antecedent to your leaving the princess of Wales at Pesaro, had accounts come, of the death of the princess Charlotte of Wales? No.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he had to offer a few words to their lordships previously to the introduction of another witness. Would their lordships allow another witness to be called, and order that Demont should remain at the bar during the examination of that individual?
The Lord Chancellor.said, this was so unusual, that Mr. Brougham must first inform the House for what purpose he asked the indulgence.
Mr. Brougham.—It may be very likely, my lords, that when Demont sees the next witness, she may give a different sort of answer to the questions which have been put to her.
Mr. Solicitor Generalapprehended that his learned friend was by no means entitled to ask this of the House. It was the counsel for the bill who were entitled to demand that a witness on the other side should be confronted by one of their's; but his learned friend was not authorized to expect this concession, unless he was
982
entitled to ask every thing which was unusual.
Mr. Broughamobserved, that it would be something extraordinary, if, in so unusual a case, he applied for usual concessions only. He was willing, however, to wave his request.
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Then Fanchette Martignerwas called in, and having been sworn, was examined by Mr. Williams as follows, through the interpretation of Mr. Pinario:
Are you the wife of Henry Martigner? Yes.
Of what place? Of Morje.
Do you keep a milliner's shop there? Yes.
Do you know Louisa Demont? Yes.
How long have you known her? From the time she was at Morje, when she was quite young, and was learning to work.
Was that before she went into the service of the princess of Wales? A long time before that.
According to the best of your judgment, how old was Demont at the time when you first became acquainted with her? When I knew her the first time, she might be about sixteen.
Have you frequently seen Demontat Morje? From the moment I became acquainted with her, I saw her very often.
Do you remember seeing Demont at Morje at any time in the year 1818? I saw her in the month of April.
On what occasion did you see Louisa Demont? At the country house of the demoiselles Jaquereau, whither I was called on account of some work.
Work to be done for whom? For mademoiselle Demont.
Before that time, had you seen any journal of Louisa Demont? I had read it.
When you saw Demont on the subject of some work, did you enter into any conversation with her, Demont, upon the subject of that journal, or of the princess? Yes.
Do you remember asking her any question respecting the princess of Wales and her conduct? The first time I spoke to her about her voyage, because I had seen her journal.
The question refers to the time when you had the work to do for Demont? I understand so.
Did you ask Demont any question respecting the conduct of the princess of Wales, or respecting the princess of Wales generally? Yes.
What was the question which you put to Demont?
Mr. Attorney Generalput it to their lordships, whether, if the object of calling this witness was to affect the credit of Demont,

983
these questions were likely at all to produce I that effect?
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
The Counsel were informed, that if they thought the evidence objectionable, they were at liberty to state their objections; that there were two questions, first, whether it presented a contradiction? and secondly, whether it went to the general credit of Demont? that it appeared to be evidence, as affecting the general credit of Demont.
Mr. Broughamstated, that he did not offer it as affecting the credit of Demont generally, hut in contradiction of her testimony, that she had not said any thing as to what passed in the house of her royal highness until she was put upon her oath.
The following extracts were read from the Evidence:
"Do you remember your saying at that time to this woman, Martigni, that it was all a calumny, and that it was her (the princess's) enemies that spread such rumours? I do not recollect any thing like it, I do not recollect it at all.
"Will you swear that you did not say so? I will not swear it, but I have not the least idea of it; before I was put upon my oath, I never said any thing of what passed in the house of her royal highness.
"What did you mean by those words, before I was put upon my oath I mean before I was examined and put upon my oath here."
The following questions were put at the request of Mr. Solicitor General:
"Before you were examined here, had you been examined any where else? I was examined at Milan.
"Had you ever said any thing about her royal highness before you were examined at this place here? Was it after having been examined at Milan, or before?
At any time before you were sworn here, had you ever said any thing about her royal highness? I had spoken often of her royal highness before I was examined at Milan.
"What did you mean by saying, that be-before you were put upon your oath, you had never said any thing as to what passed in the house of her royal highness? The meaning is, that I never said any thing of her conduct with baron Pergami, with monsieur Pergami.
"Do you mean that before you were sworn in this place, where you now are, you never upon any occasion said any thing any where as to the conduct of her royal highness with baron Pergami? I made my depositions at Milan."
The Solicitor Generalobserved, that this answer referred solely to the conduct of the princess towards Pergami.
Mr. Williamssaid, that from what the preamble of the bill stated, from what every witness stated, it appeared that the object was, to impute to the Queen an improper connexion with Pergami; and as that imputation rested so much upon the testimony of Demont, it was most material that the evidence which was now tendered in contradiction to that testimony, should be received by their lordships.
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
Lord Erskinecontended, that it was a proper question, for the purpose of leading to a contradiction of Demont. The objection of the counsel for the bill appeared to him to confound the distinction between the admissibility and the effect of the evidence now offered. He conceived that, at all events, it was clearly admissible, though its effect would be for the after-consideration of their lordships.
The Earl of Lauderdaleobjected to this line of examination being pursued. His noble friend had not, seemingly, attended to the arguments of the learned counsel at the bar.
Lord Erskineretorted, that he had attended both to the arguments of the learned counsel and those of the noble lord on the woolsack, in which latter he completely concurred. He was astonished at the assertion of his noble friend.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, their lordships were not at present called upon to decide upon the justice of his noble and learned friend, but to pronounce as to the admissibility of the evidence now proposed by the Queen's counsel. His lordship said—I may be mistaken, but I consider it evidence brought to affect the general credit of Demont, and therefore admissible. It is, indeed, the more necessary to receive such evidence, when the general character, and particularly the occasional forgetfulness and double entendres of the witness whom it is sought to discredit, is brought into question.
The question was proposed; and the witness said,
I observed to mademoiselle Demont that the princess of Wales was a femme libertine et galante: and I said so frankly, for such was my opinion.
What answer did Demont make to your observation? She put herself in a great passion, and said it was nothing but calumnies invented by her enemies in order to ruin her.
Did Demont say any more? She said

985
every thing that was good of the princess; that she had never observed any thing about the princess, or of the princess, but what was good.
Do you remember Demont saying any thing about spies? She told me that ever since the princess had quitted England, she had always been surrounded with spies; and she said something more, that every action that she did, even the simplest actions, and with the best intention, were misinterpreted; that the princess knew very well that she was surrounded by spies, but that she did no action but what she was willing that all the world should know.
Do you remember observing to Demont, that as she, Demont, had always been about the person of the princess, she must have observed all her actions.
Mr. Solicitor General objected to the form of the question. The learned counsel was actually putting the answer into the mouth of his witness,
The Counsel were informed, that the question was in too leading a form; that they might ask the witness whether she remembered having said any thing to her about her having been about the person of the princess.
Do you remember yourself saying any thing to Demont about Demont being about the person of the princess? I only recollect what I have said.
Do you remember inquiring of Demont any thing about the chastity of the princess? Yes, I asked her whether she had observed any thing of the princess.
What did she answer? She answered, No, that she had never observed any thing; and further observed, "it is impossible to be more virtuous than my princess."
Do you remember any thing being said by Demont about the late king, about the old king? She said, in the conversation, that the old king was the only support that the princess had.
You have stated that you had, on several occasions, seen Demont; did you know her well, and did Demont know you well? Yes.
Do you remember seeing Demont again in the course of the year 1818? Yes.
About what time in the year 1818? In the month of November.
Cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General.
What is it that leads you particularly to remember that this conversation took place in the year 1818? Because I saw her depositions in the public papers, and then I openly showed, or manifested, or expressed my indignation, that she could have said what she had said to me and afterwards have made such depositions.
Will you have the goodness to answer the question, which was, "What leads you to remember that this took place in the year 1818?" Because she employed me in altering
986
a hat or bonnet, and she took it back from me on the 22nd of April 1818, as it appears by entries in my day-book.
Was that the year in which your husband fell into embarrassed circumstances?
Mr. Williams objected to the question, as assuming a fact not proved.
Did your husband in that year, and if in that year, in what part of that year fall into embarrassed circumstances? My husband never was in embarrassed circumstances.
Do you mean to swear that your husband was never a bankrupt? My God! yes; neither he nor I.
How far is it from Morje to Colombier, where you live? About a short league.
How many times in the course of the year might you have seen Demont? I saw her several times, but only spoke to her twice.
How many times did you see her in the year 1817? I did not see her at all.
How long was it before the month of April 1818 that you had seen her? I did not see her before; I knew she was in the country, or in the neighbourhood, but that was the first time I saw her.
Did you ever see her upon any occasion before the month of April 1818? I had seen her before she entered into the service of the princess; but after her quitting the service for the first time I saw her in the month of April 1818, eight days before I did that work about her hat.
When was it that you saw her before she went into the service of her royal highness? I have seen her several times at Morje; she came to my shop, to my warehouse, to buy different things.
Did the acquaintance you had with her arise from the circumstance of her coining to your shop in the manner you have described to buy those different articles? Yes.
Can you remember when was the first time of her life, or about the first time, that she came to make some purchases? When she was at Morje, when she was learning to do needle-work at mademoiselle Redar.
How long is that ago? Miss Demont might then be about fifteen or sixteen, as I have already said.
As the age of mademoiselle Demont now is not known, answer the question; how long was it, to the best of your recollection? I do not know her age; she was then quite young, and was learning to work.
About how many years ago is it since that happened? I cannot recollect the precise time, it was when mademoiselle Demont was quite young, and she was learning to make hats, and to do other work.
Was it as much as five, or six, or ten years ago? I cannot positively tell, I only know that she was then quite young, that she was at Morje to learn to work; they might write to Morje to know.
Do you mean to swear you cannot tell

987
whether it was five or ten years ago? Yes, I cannot swear it, because I do not know.
Can you state whether it is three years or ten? I cannot say, I do not know, I swear I know nothing; about it; this mademoiselle Redar might be written to, and will give the information.
Do you mean upon the oath you have taken, to swear you do not know whether it is three or ten years ago? yes, I can swear it, because I cannot swear what I do not know, what I do not recollect.
Who was present, besides yourself and Demont, at the time this conversation you have spoken of took place? The demoiselles Jaquereau, the two sisters.
Where are the demoiselles Jaquereau now? One of them is at Nismes, and the other is at her country-house at Morje.
Did this conversation take place in the house of mademoiselle Jaquereau, or in your own shop? At the house of demoiselles Jaquereau.
Was mademoiselle Demont living there at that time? She was there upon a visit.
Having stated, that mademoiselle Jaquereau was there at the time, do you mean to state that the conversation took place under such circumstances, that mademoiselle Jaquereau must have heard it? They heard almost the whole of it, they were coming in and going out of she room alternately, yet they can recollect the greatest part of that conversation; but there are several particulars of that conversation which they will recollect, and even they found fault with my making that observation to mademoiselle Demont.
When were you examined first as to what passed in that conversation? Do you mean examined by those gentlemen who came to Switzerland; it is about two weeks ago, a fortnight ago.
Who were those gentlemen? They are English names; one of them is Mr. Garston, and the oilier, I believe, is Johnson; I cannot well recollect, because they are English names.
Was it taken down in writing? Yes.
Did they leave a copy of it with you? No.
Did you keep a copy yourself? No.
Had you put it down in writing before they came? No, I had not even an idea of it.
Who came over with you to this country? Mr. Barry.
Did any body else come with you, or did you come alone with Mr. Barry? I came accompanied by my husband; I would not travel along the public roads without him.
What agreement have you or your husband made for compensation or reward for coming here? My husband has had nothing to do with that; these gentlemen told me that we should be indemnified in a just and fair manner by the government of this country.
Has no sum been mentioned? As I did not know these gentlemen, I would not trust to their word, because two years ago an Eng-
988
lishmen, called Addison, occasioned me a loss of fifty louis; on this account they have deposited the sum of 100 l. at a banker's called Messrs. Moret, as a security for their promise, and they have a receipt for that sum.
Is that 100 l. which is deposited as a security for their promise, to be paid to you? This sum cannot be paid to me without an order from those gentlemen, because the sum has only been placed there as a security for their promise.
Is the promise they have made to you, a promise that you shall receive 100 l.? No, what government will grant as just and fair; it is a guarantee of that promise, because they said it was not their intention to buy witnesses.
Do you mean to swear, that since you came to this country, or since you were first spoke to, no promise has been made to you or to your husband by any body? By nobody, I swear it, I tell the exact truth.
Have you received any thing? I have received 70 l. sterling on account, for which I gave a receipt, because there is a suit depending there which will be decided against me, or may be decided against me, if I am not there on the 24th of the next month; not knowing how long I should have to remain in London, I would not leave my affairs without something to depend upon, and I have only received that as on account.
Besides that, have your expenses been paid, or did you pay your own expenses upon the journey? Those gentlemen paid the expenses of the journey.
Did you travel post? Yes, because it is this day eight days that we left Geneva, at four o'clock in the afternoon.
How much besides the 70 l. do you expect to receive as a compensation for coming here as a witness? As my whole dependance is on what this government will think just or proper to do, I cannot say that I expect any fixed sum myself; and my husband left our affairs there in the care of strangers, and the person whom I placed there in my room, and three young women in my shop to attend to it.
You have no expectation of any precise sum? No promise has been made tome; they have said nothing to me about it.
Where do you live here now? We arrived here late yesterday, at midnight; we have been placed somewhere, I do not know where; and here I am today in the morning.
Re-examined by Mr. Williams.
You have been asked about the time when you saw Demont at Morje, was it before she went into the service of the princess of Wales? Yes, I had seen her several times, as I have told you; she came to my shop.
How soon after that conversation you had at mademoiselle Jaquereau, upon the subject of the princess, did you hear of Demont

989
having made a deposition against her? You know it better, gentlemen, than myself; it was on the 22nd of April my conversation with her took place, eight days before I sent to her the work I had had to do for her.
Have you ever had any conversation with either of the mademoiselles Jaquereau upon the subject of this conversation with Demont?
Mr. Solicitor General objected to the question.
Mr. Williams was heard in support of the question, but stated, that he did not wish to persist in it, the opinion of the House appearing to be against it.
Examined by the Lords.
Earl of Darlington.—Do you know whether mademoiselle Demont is acquainted with your husband? No, not at all.
Earl of Harrowby.—In your conversation with mademoiselle Demont, did you ask her any questions respecting the manner in which the princess was affected by the death of her daughter the princess Charlotte? Yes.
What answer did mademoiselle Demont give to that question? She told me, that the princess was extremely afflicted, that she had lost all she had that was most dear to her.
A Peer.—From your knowledge of Demont, was she a person to whose word you would trust?
Mr Solicitor General requested leave to submit an objection to the question.
The Question was withdrawn.
Earl of Lauderdale.—Did yon recollect from Demont's conversation, that she was with the princess of Wales at the time she received the news of the princess Charlotte's death? I believed that; but I did not ask her about it; I asked her if she would return to the princess, and she answered yes; she told me, that she was on leave of absence, because the suite of the princess were in mourning.
Did she represent herself as being present at the time that the princess received the news of the princess Charlotte's death? No, she did not say so to me.
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Mr. Brougham,after referring to what he had stated on Saturday as to the difficulties imposed upon her majesty's counsel, which, however, he did not impute to the conduct of government, they having done as much as was in their power to remove them, though without effect, reminded their lordships, that such difficulties had been experienced with regard to the bringing over of witnesses in support of the defence. Their lordships' process did not run abroad, unfortunately for them, however effectual it might have
990
proved for their adversaries. A correspondence arising upon one of those difficulties had been laid upon the table of the House, and, with their lordships' permission, he wished to put a few questions to one of the witnesses, Mr. Leman, merely for the purpose of clearing up a slight discrepancy, which might possibly appear On the face of his evidence.
Then James Lemanwas again called in, and further examined by Mr. Tindal, as follows:
Were you dispatched at any time to Carlsruhe? I was.
Mr. Solicitor General observed, that the Witness had been in the House during the whole of the proceedings.
Mr. Brougham stated, that he was the clerk of Mr. Vizard, the solicitor for her majesty.
Mr. Tindal was directed to proceed in his examination.
When did you arrive in Carlsruhe? Between the 13th and 14th, in the middle of the night.
The 14th of what? Of September.
Did you inquire there for the baron d'Ende? I did, on the morning of the 14th of September.
Was the baron d'Ende then at Carlsruhe? I was informed at his house that he was then at Baden.
Were you informed when he was expected back at Carlsruhe? They told me he would return to Carlsruhe on Sunday the 17th.
Did you afterwards set out from Carlsruhe to Baden for the purpose of finding him there? I called at the baron's house at Carlsruhe on Saturday evening. They told me it was very uncertain whether he would be there on the Sunday. I took a carriage, and went on Sunday towards Baden to meet him.
As you were on your road to Baden did you meet any person? I met a gentleman in a carriage; I thought it probable he might be coming to Carlsruhe, and I asked the post-boy whether it was the baron d'Ende, and he told me it was.
What did you do in consequence of that information? I turned the carriage, overtook him, and gave him the Queen's letter, which was addressed to him, "The Baron d'Ende, Chamberlain to the Grand Duke."
Did you speak to the gentleman who was in the carriage? I did.
By what name? I asked him if I had the honour of addressing the baron d'Ende.
What answer did he give you? He told me that was his name, and I then presented to him the letter I had from her majesty.
Did he open that letter? He did, in my presence.

991
Did he read the letter? Yes, he did; he then invited me into his carriage, and drove me back to Carlsruhe with him.
To what house did you drive at Carlsruhe? To his own house, the house at which I had previously called for him.
You had some conversation with him on the road, and at his house, had not you? I had.
From the conversation that you had, have you any doubt whether it was the baron d'Ende with whom you were conversing? I have not the slightest doubt of it.
How long did the baron d'Ende remain at Carlsruhe? He informed me that he had business that would detain him till Tuesday, and that his minutes were at Baden; and that, without consulting those minutes, he could not answer accurately the questions I had asked him.
Did you yourself remain at Carlsruhe? I went to Darmstadt almost immediately that I had left the baron d'Ende, and did not return to Carlsruhe till the Tuesday following, in the evening.
When did you next see the baron? On the Wednesday morning.
What did he say to you upon the subject of his coming? He took me in his carriage to Baden; about mid day we started, and arrived there about five or six in the evening; this was on Wednesday the 20th.
When you arrived at Baden, what did you do there? I took down his deposition in writing; he consulted his diary or journal he keeps of every day's transactions, and I took down his deposition in writing.
Did he show you any letter he had received?
He showed me several letters he had received from her majesty, directed to him as the baron d'Ende.
How long did you remain at Baden with him? Only that evening; I left Baden at five o'clock the next morning, and did not see him that morning.
When yon left Baden, had the chamberlain stated any thins; to you about his coming over to England? Yes, he had; he said that as the information he was going to give would be in his official capacity, his friends thought he could not go without the consent of the grand duke.
Do you know whether the grand duke was at that time at Baden? I know he was absent from Carlsruhe and from Baden; he was on a tour.
Did you learn, through the baron d'Ende, when the grand duke returned?
Mr. Attorney General objected to the question: what the baron had said to the? witness, was not evidence.
The Counsel were informed, that the correspondence on this subject having been printed, they were permitted to proceed in the evidence.
992
Did you learn from the baron d'Ende when the grand duke returned from Baden? On the evening of the 20th the baron d'Ende said, that the grand duke was not at Carlsruhe, and that the instant he returned he would come to Carlsruhe to ask his permission to go.
Do you know whether he afterwards went to the grand duke to ask his permission? On the morning of the 23rd of September he called upon me, and he had in his hand the letter of her majesty; he told me he was then going to the palace to ask permission to go as I a witness; I went to the door with him, and I saw him go towards the palace; in about half an hour I saw him again in the street; I went out to him to speak to him, and he addressed me by saying, "I have bad news for you; I am not permitted to go."
Did he afterwards take you to his house? Yes, he did; he took me to his house; he appeared agitated, and extremely vexed that he was not permitted to go; and he caught hold of my hand, and put my hand to his heart, and said, "Feel how my heart beats."
Did you after that make any other application to him? On the same morning, about an hour or two afterwards, I wrote him a letter, of which I have a copy here; I was fearful he might be out; I intended to have spoken to him, but fearful he might be out, I wrote a letter, and left it for him, for he was out when I called.
Was that addressed to baron d'Ende? It was.
And left by yourself at his house? Yes. Did you receive any answer to that letter? By a friend of the baron d'Ende, a lieutenant in the life-guards of the grand duke.
Do you remember his name? Schweitzer, I am confident his name is.
Was that answer a written answer or a verbal one? A verbal one.
What was the answer that he sent to you? That he could not make the deposition without the consent of the grand duke, and that he declined sending a written answer to her majesty's letter.
Examined by the Lords.
Earl of Liverpool.—After you had prevailed on the baron d'Ende to ask permission of the grand duke to come to England, had you any reason to make you not think it very important that the baron d'Ende should come as a witness to this country.
A doubt being suggested, whether this question was objectionable, on the ground of calling on the witness to disclose that which he knew as a confidential agent, Mr. Brougham stated, that he had no objection to the question.
The Question was withdrawn.
Earl of Darnley.—Did baron d'Ende appear to you, when you saw him, to be in per-

993
feet health? He appeared to me to be so I perfectly; I remember one day his medical man came, but he was out, and travelling about a great deal.
What age do you conceive him to be? I should think about forty.
The Witness was directed to withdraw; and
Mr. Broughamaddressed their lordships as follows:—My lords; I have given your lordships an instance at least, and a very remarkable one, of the difficulties which oppress her majesty in further prosecuting her defence. I nave shown your ford ships in what way those difficulties have arisen in this case, without throwing blame upon any person in this country. It is a blame attachable to the proceeding itself. You cannot pursue an inquiry of this sort one step further, doing equal justice to both parties. One party has the means of obtaining witnesses, whether as the English government or as the Hanoverian government. Kress has sworn that she was compelled to come by baron Berstett, who, to say the least of it, does not compel baron d'Ende to come; who tells him, "if you choose to ask your congá"—an ominous sound in the ear of a courtier, for that conge, which may strike many who hear me to the very heart, if they will only put themselves into the situation of the baron d'Ende, means either leave to go, or no permission to come back; it is the leave which his majesty gives to a faithful servant when he never wishes to see his face again—it is accompanied by the same words—if you ask for your dismission (for ministers ask for their dismission, they are never turned out), if you ask to retire, your wish is complied with by the sovereign. In France, if you wish to go to your house in the country, you are told you may go. So the baron d'Ende is told by Berstett, "you may go to London or any where else you please;" but he does not say, "and back to Carlsruhe." This word "conge" is expressly used—this word of ill omen; and he takes the hint. I do not mean to impute any falsehood to the baron on this occasion, that he felt ill; for I verily believe that he felt ill—that he no sooner saw this word congá written in fair German characters, than that heart upon which he put Mr. Leman's hand was attacked with a second spasm, and that if Mr. Leman had been there, he would have found the second set the first at defiance. How different, my lords, was
994
the conduct of baron de Berstett towards the witness Kress. She was told, that if she would not go by fair means she should go by foul. She has distinctly sworn in her evidence, that baron de Berstett sent her over to this country. Such is the process; not owing to the agents of the bill in this country, but owing to those who are engaged in the second branch, the Redens, the Grimms, and all that crew, of whom we have heard so much. Those persons it was, who procured the compulsion of Kress, though they did not exercise the same compulsion to procure the attendance of baron d'Ende. Now, my lords, I throw no blame upon any person. They were labouring in their vocation; as his majesty's English ministers were labouring in theirs. No man blames them for not having done what it appears they have no power to effect: they honestly and candidly attempted to procure the leave of the baron: your lordships have seen in what manner that leave was given. There may be some jocose circumstances connected with this matter, which may for a moment have moved a smile; hut, my lords, I seriously and solemnly call upon your lordships to consider all these circumstances, as they are of no light or trivial import. You have manifest proof, that the process of this court, though aided by the bonâ fide exertions of his majesty's ministers at home, and their agents abroad, has not sufficient power to run into those places from whence witnesses might have been brought for her, with an effect that I can hardly contemplate. But I opened it shortly to your lordships on Saturday, and I ask your lordships, whether, under these circumstances, without throwing any blame upon any person, either as to the commencement of these proceedings or as to any obstructions thrown in their way as to continuing them from some causes beyond their control and beyond ours, it does not appear, that there is an impossibility of continuing this case, with justice to the Queen? And I am sure that the other party if his majesty be the other party—I am sure, that that august monarch will be the last man in his dominions, to desire that it should continue, if it cannot be continued with justice to his royal consort. The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
On the motion of lord Holland, the

995
following extract was read from the printed evidence, page 192.*
"Who paid for your expenses coming over? I do not know what the courier paid during that time.
"Who asked you to come over here? At Carlsruhe our minister M. Berstett.
"Did any other minister speak to you on the subject? When I was there, I had seen nobody else.
"When you were at Carlsruhe did any other person speak to you about coming over here? M. de Geilling.
"Who is M. de Geilling? He is at court, I do not know what office he holds there.
"Did any other person, besides, speak to you upon coming over? The ambassador of the court of Wirtemburg, whilst I was still at the post inn.
"Did any body else speak to you about coming over? M. de Reden.
"Who or what is M. de Reden? They told me he was the ambassador of Hanover.
"Does he live at Carlsruhe? Yes.
"Did he examine you upon this subject? A M. de Grimm asked me first.
Who is M. de Grimm? The ambassador of Wirtemburg.
"Did you ever leave Carlsruhe before, to go any where else on this business? Yes.
"Were you ever at Vienna upon this business? No.
"Did you ever see colonel Browne? No.
"Did you ever see colonel Deering? I know not what was the name of the gentleman where I was.
"Where were you, in what place? At Hanover.
"When did you go to Hanover? It was on leaving the post inn I was called to go there; the same quarter of the year.
"Who called you to go there? M. de Reden.
"How long did you remain at Hanover upon that occasion? Six or seven days, I cannot tell exactly.
"Were you examined there upon this subject? They asked me whether I had seen such and such things.
"Did you go back from Hanover to Carlsruhe? Yes.
"What did you get for going to
*see Vol. 2, p.976.
996
Hanover? I received a small payment, just for the time I had lost."
The following extract from p. 202,* was also read:
"Who was it that told you you should get compensation? The minister, our minister.
"Which minister? I said to him I must be compensated for the loss of my situation; that I should lose my place by it, and I must receive some compensation for it.
"What minister are you speaking of? M. de Berstett; that gentleman told me that if I would not go voluntarily, I should be forced.
"Whose minister is he? I cannot tell this.
"Is he not minister of the duke of Baden? I do not know whether he is minister of foreign affairs, or for the interior.
"Did he not come to the rooms in the inn where you lived? Not M. de Berstett.
"Did not M. Von Reden come to look at the rooms in the inn, while you were there? I did not see him.
"Do you know that he was there? I cannot tell, I have never seen him.
"Did you see, after the princess left the inn, any other gentleman come there to look at the room? I have seen nobody except Herr Von Grimm, who came in the rooms, and walked about there; he lodged in the inn.
"How long had Herr Von Grimm lodged in the inn, before the princess came there? I cannot say this, I have not paid any attention to this, I had other business.
"What part of the house did Herr Von Grimm lodge in? He lived in that house, in No. 13, and his brother in No. 14; before the princess arrived he lived in No. 12 and 13.
"Did he not give up No. 12 for the accommodation of the princess? Yes, as much as I have seen.
"Did he not return after the princess left, and go into No. 12, to look at what was there? Yes, he ran about just when the rooms were left open, and he took again the room afterwards.
"Was there any body with him when he came to look? When he ran about
*See Vol. 2, p. 1078.

997
in the rooms there came two other gentlemen, one of them was his brother.
"Was he a German or an Englishman? I do not know this, neither; I have never heard them speak, and I did not pay any attention to it.
"What is Herr Von Grimm? As much as I could hear, he is the ambassador of Wirtemburg."
Lord Holland,next moved, that the note from baron de Berstett to Mr. Lamb, dated Carlsruhe, Oct. 13, in page 5 of the correspondence upon their lordships' table (for which see p. 963.) be now read.
This part of the correspondence having been read,
Lord Hollandsaid, he had no specific motion to make, but he could not reconcile it to his duty at this particular stage of the proceedings, to allow their lordships to go on without calling their attention, in the most formal and solemn manner, to that part of the evidence which had just been read.
The Counsel were again called in, and were directed to proceed.
Mr. Brougham.—My lords, I have only to add, that we fling ourselves once more upon the House, that, under such circumstances as those of which the House is now cognisant, and with the recollection of what passed upon the former in stance in the matter of Restelli, we feel it utterly impossible to proceed farther in her majesty's defence.
Lord Chancellor.—Do you call any witnesses on the other side?
Mr. Attorney General.—Undoubtedly, my lords, it is my intention to call wit nesses to contradict some of the facts which have been adduced in evidence on the part of her majesty; but, my-lords, I think it right——
Lord Chancellor.—Such witnesses as you are intitled, upon principles of law, to call in reply, you will of course be at liberty to tender.
Mr. Attorney General.—My lords, undoubtedly it is to such witnesses alone that I allude.
Lord Chancellor.—The Counsel for her majesty cannot be called upon to sum up the evidence, until such witnesses have been adduced. Whether they are of that character, the court cannot decide until they are called.
Mr. Attorney General—
I trust your lordships will give me credit for not intending to call any witnesses, but such as I consider to be fit and essential witnesses in this stage of the proceeding. But I am about to call your lordships' attention to a part of the evidence which has been given on the part of her majesty—a part wholly unexpected from the opening of her counsel. I mean that part of it which was called for the purpose of establishing a supposed conspiracy and supposed misconduct on the part of those gentlemen who have been called the Milan Commissioners. I say, this was wholly unexpected; because, as your lordships will recollect, in the address of my learned friend, Mr. Brougham, he expressly stated, that he did not mean to assert, that there was any such conspiracy; and therefore, although he reasoned hypothetically on the manner in which the witnesses were called and their evidence given, I understood him, as your lordships must have understood, that it was no part of his Case, to establish such a conspiracy. However, your lordships will recollect, that, at a critical period of her majesty's defence, witnesses were called, with a view to establish that undue practices had taken place, on the part of colonel Browne and a gentleman connected with the Milan commission, to procure witnesses; and not only to procure witnesses, but for the purpose of procuring papers, which might be important for her majesty in her defence. When that case was attempted to be established before your lordships, I felt it my duty immediately to apprize colonel Browne of that state of the proceeding, and to require his attendance before your lordships. At the distance at which colonel Browne is from your lordships, it is impossible I can call him at this moment to your lordships' bar; and I am sure your lordships would not forgive me if I called other witnesses, and should then interpose in the midst of that case attempted to be established on our part, in opposition to that on the part of her majesty. Your lordships would not have forgiven me, if I had interposed some witnesses, and had then asked for delay for the purpose of calling others. Although, therefore, I am prepared with some witnesses of the character to which I have alluded, yet undoubtedly, colonel Browne is not at present here; and therefore, consistently

999
with the justice which your lordships are about to administer, consistently with that case which has been attempted, I will not say how futilely, to be established—colonel Browne's name having been introduced—I feel it essential, in the part devolved upon me of adducing evidence on the part of the bill, to tender this evidence. And I conceive it would be unjust in the highest degree to prevent outlaying before your lordships the whole of that evidence which we think we shall be able to lay before your lordships, in contradiction to that attempted to be established. Two of the gentlemen connected with him in that commission are now in town. Them I may call before your lordships; but, as colonel Browne is an important person your lordships will expect that he should explain his conduct; and therefore I trust your lordships will not call upon me at this moment to produce those witnesses now here, but will allow me an indulgence of some time for the production of colonel Browne to contradict the foul aspersions which have been cast upon him, and to explain the manner in which he, and the other Milan commissioners, have conducted themselves.—Under these circumstances, I throw myself on your lordships' indulgence, to grant to me that time which may be necessary to produce colonel Browne, in contradiction to the case attempted to be set up on the part of her majesty; and I shall then be able at once to close the case legally. Your lordships will give me credit for not wishing to produce any witnesses whom I am not strictly entitled to call. I trust your lordships will, under these circumstances, see that it will be the height of injustice to preclude this evidence. An impression will go forth, that improper means have been used to prepare this case on the part of the Milan commission; and therefore it is, that I feel it important to produce this evidence, which I am confident will be satisfactory both to your lordships and to the public.
Mr. Brougham.—And now I ask, whether your lordships are a Court of justice? [These words were delivered with a vehemence of tone and manner which seemed to produce an electrical effect throughout the House].
Mr. Solicitor General—
Before Mr. Brougham replies to the application made by my learned friend, I would address a few words to your lordships.
1000
All of us of counsel in support of the Bill, have considered the situation in which we stand in consequence of the charges preferred by one of the witnesses on the Other side against colonel Browne, and we feel it absolutely necessary, that colonel Browne should be called as a witness for the purpose of repelling those charges. My lords, if the evidence particularly the evidence of Omati, and some other evidence to which I might refer, had been opened by Mr. Brougham—if he had stated specifically the facts which he afterwards proved in evidence, undoubtedly it would have been our duty to have sent immediately to Milan for the purpose of procuring the instant attendance of colonel Browne. But we were not apprised that any evidence of that description Was to be given. We feel it, however, absolutely essential for the character of colonel Browne, and for the characters of the gentlemen concerned in the Milan commission—we feel it absolutely essential, with a view to the measure before your lordships, and for the purpose of contradicting the witnesses on the other side, that colonel Browne should attend here in person. We have concurred in the necessity of making this application to your lordships. Whether it be or be not a just application, will be for your lordships to decide. But when a witness called on the other side states a direct fact, affecting the character of colonel Browne, and when he states that for the purpose of influencing your lordships judgment in reference to this cause, it is too much to say, considering the nature of the charge preferred against colonel Browne, that we claim too much, When we ask an opportunity of producing colonel Browne as a witness at your lordships bar.—My lords, the charges that proceeded from the other side were made without specific notice. It is therefore impossible, that we should be prepared to meet them; but, the instant those charges were preferred, the instant those witnesses appeared at your lordships bar, my learned friend, the attorney general, desired, that a messenger should be sent off to Milan, for the purpose of procuring the personal attendance of colonel Browne, in order that those charges might be met and rebutted. My lords, It is upon these grounds that I humbly submit we are entitled, I will not say to the indulgence, but to the justice we claim at your lordships bands; and I am quite

1001
sure it is impossible, that any arguments or any reasoning can be urged on the other side sufficient to repel the justice and the propriety of the application which we now humbly submit to your lordships.
Mr. Brougham;—
Nothing, my lords, which has fallen from my honourable and learned friend, who has now addressed you, induces me to depart from the question which I put, "whether your lordships are now a court of justice"? Whenever it suits the purposes of my learned friends for the prosecution—when they feel, that they can exclude evidence by tying me down to the forms of the courts below, by binding me round with nine-fold technicalities, to prevent my stirring one step through the mazes of the conspiracies and the perjuries with which they have attempted to entangle my illustrious client—and when in order to break through those mazes, I appeal to your lordships as a house of legislature, they refer to the proceeding, not as a suit, but as a bill,—I am told, that this is a court of justice, and that we must be guided by the forms of judicial proceedings. Now, however, when it suits the purpose of my learned friends, when they think they can better their case by departing from all forms, by abandoning all regularity of proceeding, by flying in the face of every principle which guides all courts below, by adopting new forms, by creating new principles which, if they deserve the name of such, never entered into the head of a practitioner in a court before—now, I presume, I am at length to hear, that this is no longer a court of justice, but that your lordships have an ampler discretion to exercise as a court of parliament—have a wider field to enter upon as a place of legislation—and that I am not to appeal to the forms and technicalities and rules of courts below. My lords, I ask, whether in any court since justice was administered in this land, since proceedings were pretended to be regular, since any thing like fairness between parties was ever known to be dealt out, and regulated in its dealing out, by what are called forms and modes of justice—I ask your lordships, whether any thing so monstrous as this proposition was ever made—I will not say ever entertained, but ever attempted to be made before? Why, my lords, what is it that is now asked? The Queen is on her defence. She is a party here. Colonel Browne is
1002
not here as a party. Colonel Browne is not upon his trial. But because, forsooth, his name has been mentioned—because his conduct has come in question—because things have been sworn to, which appeared to affect him—the Queen is to be forgotten—no, not forgotten, but to be injured, to be trampled upon, in order to save the reputation of lieutenant-colonel Browne, of I know not what hussars, but I know full well of what Milanese commission. My lords, is this common justice to her majesty? When have we ever attempted such a deviation, I say not from all rule or form or technicality, but from the principle and substance of justice? When have we ever asked your lordships to contemplate such a deviation? And against whom, and for whom, is this monstrous novelty sought to be introduced? Against the defendant, who ought to have all presumption in doubtful matters in her favour, all leanings, all advantages, given to her, where the scales hung even; and for the prosecutor; because, forsooth, one of the favourite agents of the prosecutor has come into some jeopardy in the course of the Queen's defence! Again let me entreat your lordships to reflect, that colonel Browne is here no party; and that if his conduct comes in question, he must defend it how he may, after the Queen's case shall have been disposed of. First of all, to her you must do justice.
My lords; I am told by my learned friends, that they were taken by surprise upon this matter. Now, my lords, first of all, I protest against being called upon to argue the merits of this point. It is enough for me to say, that it is the most unheard of thing, upon any grounds of surprise or otherwise, to stop the defence of an accused party, in order to get time for the prosecutor to mend his case against the accused person, and in favour of one of his own agents. But if I am called upon—if your lordships will, that I should proceed to argue upon the merits of it, I say those merits are as decidedly against my learned friends, as entirely with us, as those on which I am willing to rest my objection. My lords, it is not true, that they were taken by surprise. If in the course of my opening, I said "I charge no man with conspiracy," could any man who did me the honour to attend to my observations entertain one moment's doubt, that part of my case was that which was tantamount to conspiracy?

1003
Did I not, the very instant that I, as it were, abandoned the word, cling closer to the thing? Did I not, in saying that I charged no man as a conspirator, wishing to avoid an odious word which, to this moment, I did not make use of, and which in the course of all these discussions I have abstained from—neither saying plot nor conspiracy—did I not, when I said that, instantly follow up that expression of abstinence by a substantial statement, which, I trust, lives in the recollection of those who have thought fit to remember a part of it—who have thought fit to remind your lordships of a part of it—did I not add, that if those persons—though I gave them no harsh names, though I brought against them no random charges, though I made against them no accusation of plot or conspiracy—had been conspirators, if they had been concerned in a plot against the Queen, they could not have carried on their plan more like plotters and conspirators than they had done? That was a general notice of what was to be the nature of a part of my defence. But, my lords, can any man believe, making all the allowance you please for the latitude of statement in which counsel are accustomed to indulge—can any of you believe for an instant, that the authors of this bill, that the planners of the destruction of the Queen, by means of the Milan commission, that the getters-up of this Evidence, thought that colonel Browne and the Milan commission were out of the case all the while? Did they really—I would put it upon that—did they really come to this court, either on the 17th day of August, when we met, or upon the 3rd of October, when the Queen's defence was begun—did they really think for one instant of time—did they flatter themselves—that they were to steer through the whole of this case without any attack being made on colonel Browne and his coadjutors in getting it up? My lords, on the answer which every man of common honesty, every man of ordinary sense, must give to this question, I am willing to rest my defence against this last of the unheard-of aggressions on justice and the Queen, to which we and justice have so long been exposed.
My lords; they were not taken by surprise, even as to the individual witness of whom they now make mention. They refer particularly to the evidence of Bonfiglio Omati. It is to rebut his evidence that they have sent for new witnesses to
1004
Milan. Did your lordships see the cross-examination of that witness? Did your lordships look at the brief my learned friend held in his hand, and which he produced from his repositories the moment Oman's name was pronounced? No sooner did I hose words Bonfiglio Omati escape my lips, than those innocent gentlemen on the other side, the agents of the still more artless commissioners at Milan, ignorant that their conduct was to come in question, taken by surprise when conspiracy was attempted to be proved, without any notice given by me in the opening, whether it was to include an attack upon their measures, totally ignorant of the very name of Omati—the very instant that his name was announced by me, they took out of those repositories which they have so amply filled for their use, a brief containing a formal statement that enabled them, and from which they felt themselves enabled, to cross-examine Bonfiglio Omati specifically. And how did they do this? Those persons who had no notice given them—those persons who had been kept in the dark—those persons to whom the existence of Omati was a secret until they saw him here, were enabled to produce that brief by which they cross-examined that witness with regard to a proceeding which had taken place months ago at Milan, in which Omati was a witness; in which Omati had deposed there, as he has here, in which Omati was the principal testimony on which an action was brought to recover damages for Vimercati's conduct—that very conduct which forms the subject of his testimony here, that very con duct which forms the proof of conspiracy against those simple, innocent individuals. They knew that that process had been instituted at Milan;—they knew by whom,—Codazzi; they knew against whom—Vimercati and his employers; they knew for what damage—the taking away the Queen's papers, by bribery; they knew by whose testimony—Bonfiglio Omati;—and they have that deposition, or the substance of it, in a brief, from which they examined that witness——
Mr. Attorney General.—Not a syllable of it.
Mr. Brougham—Whether they had or had not makes not the least difference. They were aware of his name; they knew he was to appear, and they put question after question—I am in the recollection of your lordships whether they did not—as to declarations he had made to colonel

1005
Browne, which colonel Browne, and no other, could have furnished them with prospectively, in case he should be called as a witness. And now they complain of a surprise—of being taken unawares! Nothing but respect for my learned friends prevents my saying—but I will say of their employers, though not of them—that they have the audacity now to complain of surprise, and to say, that colonel Browne had not due notice of the charge against him; and I suppose next we shall hear, that he was not furnished with a list of the witnesses to prepare him to meet those charges, and a specification of those charges which such witnesses were to support against him. My lords, we complained of those omissions; we felt them at the beginning; we foresaw their fatal effects; we have felt them through the course of these proceedings; but that which we never foresaw, and that which we do feel bitterly is, that there was a possibility of such an application being made to the House as the present. Will your lordships stop short in the defence of the Queen; will you suspend her once more in a state of anxiety and irritation, such as, without actual disease, I solemnly assure your lordships I never saw in the human frame—an irritation most natural, when your lordships recollect the unparalleled circumstances in which this illustrious victim has so long been kept by you and by her prosecutors? Will your lordships continue this state of torment to that illustrious lady? Will your lordships deviate from all rules of justice in the courts below, from all your own modes of proceeding, from what you have yourselves laid down in the case of the application as to the Lugano witnesses—from what you yourselves laid down when we made such application, when you refused it, when you held us to the rules operating in the courts below, and would permit no deviation from them. Will you make this deviation now? Will you thus plunge out of all regularity of procedure into something which, as it is involved in the dark, as it partakes of nothing but mystery, as it is lawless, as it is wild, as it is unknown—(I need say nothing here but the simplest word, unknown)—to lawyers, unknown in courts—will you do all this, in order that, after having kept that illustrious person in the state in which the conduct held towards her has detained her so long, and in such torture, you may enable the other side to obtain evidence to mend
1006
a case rotten in itself, and which the evidence we have produced has shattered still more entirely, in order that you may terminate the whole scene of oppression, wrong, irregularity, anomaly, by perpetrating an act compounded of cruelty, needless, gratuitous, shameless cruelty, as well as injustice.
Mr. Denman:—
My lords; I feel that I should be deserting my duty, if I were not to offer a few words upon an application which is not indeed unexampled, because a similar one proceeded from my learned friends before, but of which the concession would be without example, without principle, without foundation, in justice or in right, and would be fatal, not only to the interests of this royal person, but to the cause of justice on the trial of every individual. What is the ground upon which this unheard of application is made? The simple ground is this—that colonel Browne is not in England, but at Milan. My lords, we complain of that fact. Colonel Browne ought to be in England. He must explain his conduct. He must defend his practices. But, is the Queen's defence to be delayed on that account? Why was he not here before? And is it not, of all the anomalies from the beginning of this strange case to the present moment, the most anomalous and the most to be condemned, that the House and the country are at this moment in profound ignorance of that process by which her majesty is brought upon trial? The Milan commission it is which has set these proceedings in motion; unless I should refer to an anterior commission, emanating from the Hanoverian government, and of which we can find no instance but in the archives of Hanoverian justice. I ask, whether it is not to the last degree monstrous and cruel, that we should have been contending with these great powers, utterly in the dark, without the slightest knowledge of the powers under which they have acted and a commission sent to three English subjects to prosecute such an inquiry, without instructions by which they were to limit their proceeding, or bring it to a just conclusion? My lords, we talk of the courts below—we ought to blush and hide our heads when their names are mentioned. What person in the courts below is ignorant of the means taken for his prosecution? He knows that the grand jury is the body by

1007
whom the primâ facie case of his guilt has been recognized; but we are totally ignorant of the means by which we have been brought here; without a knowledge of which the accused cannot meet the charge with effect. Therefore, instead of the absence of colonel Browne being admitted as an excuse—so far from that being a reason for further indulgence—it is a reason for further condemnation; and colonel Browne ought to have been here, as a Milan commissioner, in the first instance, even if not wanted as a witness in the second. But, his character is to be cleared, and every body's character is to be cleared, except that of the Queen of England. I have said nothing of this Milan commission at present; but I know it may be essential to the defence of her majesty, to charge those three commissioners, one after another, with the most gross and infamous misconduct. I do not say I have the means of doing it; but I say it may be essential to my defence; and before I am permitted to enter upon that defence, I am met at the threshold with a cloud of panegyrics upon the character and conduct of every one of the persons who have been so concerned—upon the character of Mr. this, or the character of Mr. that, and upon the character of every person concerned in that commission—I am stopped on the threshold of that which I attempt, by these panegyrics; some applied to the character of those who have been named, and some drawn up in blank, to be applied to the characters of others who may be shown to have taken a part in it.—My lords, I say colonel Browne ought to have been here. I complain of the pretence on which this additional delay is now called for—and called for, I will say, with no more regard for her majesty's feelings, than if she were the inanimate subject of a chemical experiment. My lords, when it is said, that these persons who were employed upon the Milan commission did not expect their conduct to be investigated, it is false. Every page of the Evidence gives the lie to that assertion. There is not a witness, from Restelli forwards, who was not asked as to his practices with Vimercati and colonel Browne. Scarcely had Majoochi commenced his examination, when these questions were put to him. How can it be said, that they were not prepared to meet facts of that description? If colonel Browne was ready to send that state-
1008
ment from which the cross-examination of Omati took place, the same vessel which brought over his statement might have brought over himself, and we should then have had him here to answer as to that conduct which is so much impeached. My lords, I do not condemn colonel Browne unheard; but the Queen is intitled to the same consideration of her conduct, in a case in which female honour and female feeling are so deeply affected. If the delay asked for, be permitted, this proceeding roust be of an interminable length, It will be worse than any sentence you can pass upon her majesty. What is there in this proceeding which intitles the prosecutor to ask for this indulgence? This is a Divorce bill—it is also a bill of Degradation and Dethronement. Is it a Divorce bill, my lords? We came here and argued it upon the ground of a Divorce bill; but, the next day, we heard, from an authority which could not be disputed, that die Divorce part of it was no longer an object with those who supported the bill. But supposing that part of it to be abandoned, still it is a bill of Degradation and Dethronement—supposing your lordships are to do nothing but inflict an opinion upon this lady's conduct without daring to follow it up by any measure. We are ready to meet our accusers, and to enter upon our defence. What is it that intitles my learned friends to this indulgence? It is quite clear, that if that indulgence be granted, it must necessarily be reciprocal, and there can be no end to these proceedings. And when I listen to what is going on in the world, I am by no means sure, that those who have instructed my learned friend to make this application do not look to that as a probable event. If colonel Browne is intitled to this indulgence, every witness called against him will be intitled to it. We shall have to send off every three weeks for fresh witnesses to Milan, and it is impossible that this sort of enormous process, almost too much for the strength of man to bear, and the mind of man to comprehend, can be brought within any limits.
My lords; we were told, when this was talked of as a measure of substantial justice, that no list of witnesses were delivered, no charges of time and place specified but that in the conduct of her defence, her majesty, the Queen, should have almost her own time in asking for the

1009
means of bringing it forward. That time is now come. That defence, under the circumstances under which it now rests, we think it our duty to bring now to a close. Are we not to be permitted to do so? Are we in this to be deluded and deceived? Look, my lords, at the whole of the conduct that has been pursued from the commencement of this proceeding. It is three years ago since the Milan commission began to sit; and, so far from its being said, that my learned friend, Mr. Brougham, did not open the case of Omati, it would be a little more liberal to ask, whether Omati was at that time in this country, and in a situation to have his evidence opened. It was hardly so. He did not arrive in time for the statement to enter into the speech of my learned friend, Mr. Brougham, but, in every other part of the evidence, no man can doubt that the conduct of the Milan commissioners was that to which our evidence was meant to refer. If they had then intended to defend their conduct, they might then have done so; and, if they did not mean to defend their conduct, why is the Queen to suffer by the danger and the disadvantage of a longer delay?
My lords; the question is, what my learned friend set out with asking, "Are you or are you not a court of justice?" Will any man tell me of a court of English justice in which an attack made on the case of a prosecutor has been assigned as a reason why a defence should be delayed beyond the period at which the trial takes place? My lords, it is fit a little to look back to the mode in winch this case has been conducted. We had no notice when my learned friends and myself proceeded with the defence; we asked for no indulgence. We demanded, as a matter of right, to be enabled to prove certain facts. Surely we ought to have been then told, that we might make our election; or, if the election was not given us, we ought to have received notice, that if we intended to call those witnesses, a longer time would be asked, to enable them to contradict our evidence; and. if your lordships did not give us that notice, I think my learned friend had notice enough of our intention, to tell us, that such an application would be made, whenever we closed our case on the part of the Queen. No such notice was given. We are taken by surprise, as we were when the application was made in regard to those fictitious
1010
witnesses at Lugano; and my learned friend, without having stated one word upon oath as to those supposed witnesses, was to be supposed to have those witnesses behind. I think that was a subject of complaint; but it was utterly out of the question, that even that could have justified such an application as the present. It is impossible it can be granted. I rely upon your lordships, who are supposed to be sitting in a court of justice. From the moment of the commencement of this proceeding, we have had no such indulgence granted to us. Her majesty the Queen requested that the whole of the proceedings should be delayed until they could go on to their end at once. That would have been the conduct of a court of justice; but it was refused. It was said, "We will begin: go on with and prove your case, and then the time necessary for her majesty's defence, shall be liberally granted." Good God! my lords! was it believed that when my learned friend, the Attorney-general, had opened the case with all the zeal he did—that after the Solicitor-general, had summed it up with all the acuteness of his able mind, that our mouths were to be sealed for three weeks, and that statement to be making its way in the public mind without an answer or a comment? That is all we have to fear; and if we can get over the consequences of that most inconvenient circulation of slander, we have nothing to fear from your lordships. We will satisfy your lordships—we will satisfy the country—we will satisfy all posterity, that her majesty has been most foully and falsely accused, and that she is now intitled to your complete acquittal.
Mr. Attorney General.—
My lords; my experience, in the course of this proceeding, has taught me not to be surprised at any violence of expression or any mis-statements—for so I must call many of the statements on the other side of the bar. But, my lords, I am now accused of making an application unheard-of in a court of justice. Your lordships are told, that I am not applying to your lordships as a court of justice for justice to the cause of which I am the feeble advocate at your lordships bar of but that I am calling for an indulgence unheard-of, or unthought-of, in the course of any similar proceeding; and we are

1011
now assailed for the tenth, nay, I believe, the twentieth time, with declamation on the hardship of the Queen's situation. Give me leave to say, that, so far from hardship being imposed upon her majesty, no one ever had the advantages which she has had. She has had no previous list of witnesses, or specification of the accusation; but she has, through the medium of her counsel, heard every fact which could be alleged. She had then all the time she wished to ask for, to prepare for her defence. And yet we are told, that her majesty comes to her defence, under disadvantages such as no person ever had. My lords, I say no person ever before had such advantages. She heard the whole of the case against her; and after that, she had the whole time which her counsel thought fit to apply for granted to her, to prepare for her defence—a much greater advantage, than the being furnished with a list of the witnesses and a specification of the charges would have afforded her. And then I am told, that her majesty is labouring under a disadvantage! But what, my lords, is it that I have to complain of upon this occasion? That her majesty's counsel did not open the case which they afterwards attempted to prove. From my learned friend, Mr. Brougham, you have heard, that, the word conspiracy hardly ever dropped from his lips; from my learned friend, Mr. Denman, that he never stated any thing by way of inculpation of the Milan commission. But though they may originally have said nothing about a conspiracy, what, I ask, has been the conduct of my learned friend in the progress of this case? After they had offered those witnesses whose names are fresh in your lordships recollection, lieutenant Flinn and lieutenant Hownam, they took a different course. So far from proceeding in contradicting the facts of the case, they went into this collateral inquiry relative to a supposed conspiracy to suborn witnesses in support of the bill. Nay, they did much more. Having failed to establish that any one witness produced has been suborned, or attempted to be suborned, they set up another case unheard-of in a court of justice—that there were other witnesses whom there was a conspiracy to suborn to produce here. And then your lordships were asked to infer from this conspiracy, which existed only in the breasts of my learned friends, that a conspiracy was formed to suborn
1012
the witnesses who had been called. I took the objection that such an inquiry was perfectly collateral, and was confirmed in that objection by the opinion of the learned Judges, that it could not be received. But your lordships will recollect that that inquiry was permitted to be entered into, I not objecting to it—an inquiry which I could not have anticipated, either from the law or the facts before me. And your lordships will be good enough to recollect, that at the time that inquiry was permitted to be entered into, I did throw in my claim before your lordships, that, if a case was attempted to be made out by the other side, on any evidence laying the foundation of such a supposition, I should have time to answer that case if it should be made out. I say, my learned friends, in common candour, should have said as that time, "we will enter into that case; we have a right to enter into it, though we have not glanced at it or opened it in. the least: we think it right now to divert your lordships attention from the alleged facts to this collateral inquiry." It would have been but common candour in my learned friends to have said, "we admit this cannot be done legally, as your lordships have decided it could not be, but we will enter into it, and though we may be able to prove facts against colonel Browne which he might be able to answer you shall not have an opportunity of producing him."
My lords; I am accused of standing here to abandon the case of the Queen and to defend colonel Browne. My lords that is not the fact. I call the attention of your lordships to the evidence of Omati and Mioni. And is not colonel Browne to be called to your lordships bar to answer this case? and am I to be told I am not taken by surprise, because I had a right to expect that the Milan commission would be attacked, when my learned friend Mr. Brougham says he never used the word "conspiracy" as applied to the Milan commission, and when you hear Mr. Denman say, that he has not uttered one word about the Milan commission, although he says he shall prove, one by one, against them, the grossest and most infamous misconduct!
Mr. Denman.—I beg your pardon, I said no such thing. I said it might become necessary for my case, and that I might be furnished with such evidence.
Mr. Attorney General.—Then, have my

1013
learned friends done with their case, or are they now to enter into a new case upon this part of the subject? I ask of your lordships to have an opportunity of placing colonel Browne at your bar, to answer that part of the case which I say no man, after having heard the opening and the evidence up to the period of Omati and Mioni being called, would believe was intended to be produced. I say, it was their duty, not perhaps to open the particulars of the evidence, but to say, "we shall produce evidence to affect the Milan commission and the agents acting under it." My lords, neither in that opening speech of Mr. Brougham, nor in the more detailed speech of Mr. Williams, from the one end down to the other of them, was there the least notice given, that they intended to produce such evidence as they did produce, after that of Hownam and Flinn. I submit to your lordships, I am making no unheard-of application to your lordships' justice. My learned friend, Mr. Denman, insinuates, that I have been instructed by some person to make this application, whose object it is, to delay the proceeding. I know not whether my word will be taken by your lordships—I regret, that it is not by my learned friend—but I solemnly declare to your lordships, that it is an application made at my own suggestion, in concurrence with my learned friends who stand round me. I say I am sorry my word is not taken by my learned friend. He has stated that, which he ought to have had higher authority for stating, before he attempted to throw such an imputation upon my character, as that I applied to your lordships for time to produce fictitious witnesses from Lugano. My lords, upon what ground does my learned friend make that statement? I ought never to appear in this or in any other place again, if I could ask for delay in order to produce fictitious witnesses: but the existence of the witnesses is proved. Colonel Teuille, their own evidence has admitted, that he met a man of the name of Rosi from Lugano, who was one of those witnesses, at Paris, on his way to this country. Yet my learned friend states, that I had the infamy and wickedness to apply to your lordships upon the subject of witnesses never intended to arrive in this country. My lords, no such thing exists. The witnesses were upon the road—my learned friend knows it as well as I do—my
1014
learned friend knows that some, of them are at this instant in this country, those very witnesses stopped at Paris. And yet, by way of inflaming your lordships passions and those of others, these, assertions are made at your lordships bar, without the slightest foundation. In justification of my own character, I trust your lordships will excuse my stating so much, lest my character should suffer from my silence; for no man would deserve to hold up his head in any society, who would attempt to play a trick upon your lordships, by asserting that witnesses were expected who were not in existence.
Then, my lords, what is this unheard-of application as it is termed, by which I am converting your lordships from a court of justice to something else? It is this—that I may have an opportunity, in justice to the case, of producing colonel Browne at your lordships bar, for the purpose of contradicting the witness Omati, and the other witnesses who were called, whom I had no reason to expect, from any thing hinted at by my learned friend, Mr. Brougham, or my learned friend, Mr. Williams; but, on the contrary, although my learned friend, Mr. Brougham, commented with that acuteness which he possesses, on the witnesses called, and the manner in which he was brought to this country, he never hinted, that he should produce evidence to prove a conspiracy, or any improper conduct on the part of the gentlemen composing the Milan commission. My lords, under these circumstances, the course pursued was not only a surprise upon me, but a surprise upon your lordships; and now that my learned friends have produced this evidence, and your lordships have admitted that proof as being material to the Queen's case, I ask not your indulgence but your justice, when I ask your lordships to allow me an opportunity of producing witnesses at your lordships bar, to rebut that part of the case attempted to be established.
My lords; upon the present occasion I have no other motive but that of justice to the task imposed upon me by your lordships. I have every anxious wish, that this proceeding should terminate as soon as it can do, consistently with the ends of justice; but it is my duty, and I shall as long as it is my duty, without regard to the calumnies and insinuations on the other side of the bar, tender to your lordships that evidence which appears tome to be material. Nothing shall deter me from

1015
doing it upon the present occasion, or upon any other; I have done it from a sense of duty. It is with your lordships to deal with it; but in dealing with it, your lordships will not look to what may be said here or elsewhere, but will be regulated only by a regard to substantial justice, in the inquiry which is now pending before you.
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, they had now arrived at a most important stage of these proceedings; and if no particular circumstances had arisen, he took it for granted that they would now have gone on in the regular and ordinary course. The attorney-general, he conceived, had acted perfectly right in making the proposal which he had done, and her majesty's counsel were equally justified in opposing it. In his opinion, witnesses of the description alluded to, might be called, under the limitations and restrictions which must always apply to testimony so introduced at their bar. He owned, that the subject came somewhat hastily before him; but unless he very much forgot what had previously occurred, many of those among their lordships who thought fit to allow the evidence to be produced which had been given towards the close of this proceeding, argued for the admission of that testimony, on the express supposition that time would be given for the appearance of colonel Browne. He felt bound to state that, as one of the grounds for the motion he intended to submit. If the attorney-general had been justified in requiring delay the other side had been equally warranted in resisting it; but whether the application should or should not be granted, remained for the House to determine. The application had been made upon two grounds, and he begged to preface the statement of them by observing, that, in the course of the argument just concluded, many topics had been urged to which at this moment it would not be proper for him to refer, but which must be most gravely discussed and considered by their lordships hereafter. The two grounds were—first, the charge against the character of colonel Browne; and, secondly, with reference to the bearing of his evidence on this inquiry. The House was able to appreciate in what way and to what degree the character of colonel Browne was implicated; but, with regard to the second ground, and what
1016
was supposed to belong or not to belong to the proceedings of courts of justice, it must be remarked, that there was always this difference between the proceedings of parliament and of the ordinary courts of justice—that, in the latter, a trial must be continued from day to day. This practice had been introduced only of late, and nothing but the absolute necessity of the thing could justify it; but he could not call to mind a single instance of a postponement of the nature now proposed. On the other hand, from the nature and constitution of parliament, it was, he apprehended, a very usual tiling to adjourn, where a case to justify it was previously made out. No man who could suffer his reason to be addressed through his head to his heart would be satisfied, unless that necessity were fully established. Under these impressions, he took the liberty of assuring their lordships that lie was not, without an interval, able on this subject to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Only about thirty minutes yet remained before the arrival of the hour of adjournment; and as he was anxious and desirous to impose upon himself the task of looking accurately and attentively at every part of the evidence on the Minutes, for the purpose of forming an opinion, whether consistently, not with the technical forms of justice, but with its substantial rules, this delay ought to be conceded, he wished much to be allowed to devote this evening to that investigation, that he might be able to-morrow morning to submit to the House his deliberate judgment upon the point now before it. His lordship, therefore, humbly requested their lordships to permit him to defer his motion until to-morrow morning.
Earl Greyagreed, that the delay until the next meeting of the House was desirable for the satisfaction of all parties, that not only the noble and learned lord, but other peers, might, in the interval, weigh well the grounds on which the application was made. To one point he wished to address a few words, namely, the statement of the noble and learned lord, that a sort of admission had been made by the House generally that some delay might be necessary after the conclusion of the case for the Queen, in order to enable the other side to bring forward witnesses in contradiction. He recollected making no such admission, for neither then nor at any time since had a further postponement for such a purpose entered into his

1017
contemplation. He was only desirous of stating further, that when the House came to the consideration of the subject, it would be worthwhile to reflect whether, if delay were to be granted, it should be granted now, or after the attorney-general should have called the witnesses in contradiction, with which he was already furnished; because, if time were now given for the production of colonel Browne from Milan, it was easy to see that it might be used for the purpose of obtaining new evidence, and getting up, as it were, a new case against the Queen's witnesses, not at present in the view of the attorney-general.
Their lordships then adjourned.