507

The Earl of Balcaras.-At the time you withdrew the curtain, did her Royal Highness sit on the right or left of Bergami?-Her Royal Highness was sitting on the right hand of Bergami.

Was the opening of the small-clothes on the right or the left of Bergami's person?-Ön the right.

The Earl of Rosslyn.-When you opened the curtains did you ask for orders?-No, because they were asleep.

Did you wait -I did not.

Lord Calthorp.-Did you ask to see the Princess after Schiavini gave you your discharge ?-I asked to see the Princess after I had received my certificate, the evening before I went away.

Did you see the Princess after you had received that certificate ?— I do not remember.

Did you see her Royal Highness after you understood you were to quit her service?—I did.

What passed upon that occasion ?-Her Royal Highness told me, that she gave me my discharge, in order to give an example to other servants, to prevent quarrels taking place in the house.

Did her Royal Highness state what the cause of these quarrels was? -She told me, that as I had this quarrel with the confectioner, and that she did not like that such quarrels should happen in her house. Did she state any other cause of dissatisfaction with you ?-She did

not.

Did you make any reply to her Royal Highness?—I replied to her Royal Highness, that I did not believe it to be a fault sufficiently great ' for me to be discharged.

Did she make any allusion to your former conduct, previous to these quarrels ?—Her Royal Highness always showed her satisfaction towards my conduct.

Did she then make to you any promise of a certificate of good conduct?-We did not talk about certificate.

The following questions were put by the Lord-Chancellor, at the request of the Attorney-General :

Do you know this paper (a paper being shown to the witness) to be the handwriting of Schiavini ?As far as I know it is the handwriting of Schiavini.

Have you seep him write?-I have also received letters from Schiavini.

Have you seen him write ?-Several times.

Do you believe that to be his handwriting?—I think I am sure of it. Mr. Gurney, the shorthand-writer, wished to know whether he was to enter amongst the minutes the French explanation which the witness had given of what the. Princess had said in the court; and was, as we understood, answered affirmatively.

Mr. Brougham.-I wish to put a question, arising out of the addition which the witness made to his former answer, when interrogated relative to the use of a certain French word. The question is, did not the witness, in answer to the following question put to him by the interpreter, namely, "whether her Royal Highness had made use of the word eux or tel-" did he not answer

nearly in these terms-"Son Altesse Royale aura parlé, mieux que moi (mais c'etoit a tel effet)"?

The Earl of Lauderdale opposed the question.

The Lord Chancellor.-The way in which your question is propounded, supposes the interpreter to be himself examining the witness. I apprehend the regular way would be to put a question, through a peer, similar to this" Whether, when a particular circumstance was spoken of, he had answered in the way alluded to ?"

Mr. Brougham begged their lordships' pardon; but they did not seem to perceive the purpose of his examination that purpose was, to point out a contradiction.. He would ask, first, in point of fact, whether the interpreter did not say a certain thing to the witness, to which he conceived there could be no objection. At all events, he hoped their lordships would allow him to ask, whether some particular person, no matter whether the interpreter or any one else, had not put a certain question to him, to which he answered" Son Altesse Royale aura parlé mieux que moi (mais c'etoit a tel effet)"?

The Earl of Lauderdale said a few words against the admissibility of the question.

The Lord-Chancellor was of opinion that the witness might be examined as to any thing that had taken place in the presence of the court; and that to which objec-. tion was made was a circumstance of that description.

Mr. Brougham then put the question in this form :When you were asked, a little while ago, whether her Royal Highness made use of the word "eux," or of the word "tel," did you not say, in answer, alluding to what you had previously stated in French," Son Altesse Royale aura parlé mieux que moi (mais c'etoit a tel effet)"? The Earl of Lauderdale objected to this mode of asking the question, as the concluding words were not on the minutes. In his opinion the witness ought merely to be asked what did he say?

The Lord-Chancellor.-Ask whether the witness has not stated, in the course of this morning, that what the Princess said was " to this effect?"

Did you not say just now, "Son Altesse Royale aura parlé mieux que moi (mais c'etoit a tel effet) "?—No...

Do you mean to say that you used the first part of the words, but not the last part; that you did not say, "mais c'etoit a tel effet" (but this was the effect)?-No, I said, "mais ca est le fait." (But that is the fact.)

A peer submitted to their lordships whether it would

not be advisable, when a difficulty arose in making the witness understand a question, to permit the interpreter' to put it, so as to make its meaning intelligible, instead, of endeavouring to translate it literally?

Another peer objected to this mode, conceiving that the question should be put as literally as possible.

The peer who offered the suggestion conceived, when there was a doubt that the witness did not understand the literal version, that the latitude which he spoke of would be permitted by their lordships.

The question and answer were then, on the suggestion of the Duke of Clarence, read by the shorthand-writer. The witness withdrew immediately after.

The Lord-Chancellor took this opportunity of stating,, that he had received a communication from a noble Jord (Lord Montagu), one of the witnesses for the Queen, who was in such a state of health as would prevent him from attending the House. He wished to know whether the counsel on both sides would agree that he might be examined abroad, by something in the nature of a commission? Their lordships had caused witnesses to be examined in Ireland, by directing magistrates there to take depositions, and they had done the same in different parts of this country. He knew this could not be permitted without the consent of both' parties; but, if they would consent, he thought their lordships would agree to the proceeding, as far as the practice of the House was concerned. He did not wish, to receive any answer from the counsel this evening on the subject; but he would mention it to-morrow morning, and in the mean time they would have an opportunity of considering the matter. He thought it necessary, however, to state the circumstance, when he was apprized that a witness in favour of the Queen could not attend.

ROBERT HARE was then called in, and sworn, and. examined as follows by the Solicitor-General :

Are you cashier in the banking-house of Messrs. Coutts and Con pany?—I am.

How long have you held that situation ?-About thirteen years. Does her Majesty the Queen keep any cash at the house of Coutts and Company?-She does.

How long has she done so ?--I do not recollect the exact time, but previously to her going abroad.

Have you, as cashier, from time to time paid her drafts?—I have. State whether you believe that signature to be the handwriting of the

Queen (a paper being shown to the witness)?-I think it is the handwriting of the Queen when Princess of Wales.

Cross-examined by Mr. Brougham.-Do you know the handwriting of his Majesty the King?—I have seen it.

Do you know his handwriting when you see it?—I think I should know it.

The Solicitor-General.-Have you ever seen the King write?— Never.

How do you know the handwriting of the King?—I have only seen it in a commission.

What commission?—I do not exactly recollect what; but the King's signature has been shown to me in a commission.

Have you any other knowledge of the handwriting of the King, except that a paper, purporting to be a commission, was shown to you, and you were told that was the handwriting of the King?—Not any knowledge.

Mr. Brougham.-Did his Majesty, when Prince of Wales, keep money at your house?-He did.'

Were you cashier at the time?-I was.

Did you pay his drafts?-He did not draw himself.

The witness was directed to withdraw, and the paper spoken to by the witness was then read.

Pesaro, 5th November, 1817.

H. R. H. the Princess of Wales certifies to whomsoever, that Mr. Joseph Sacchi, native of Como, and during a year in the service of H. R. H. at first as courier and afterwards as equerry, is endowed of the best behaviour, and has served her with all assiduity, zeal, and fidelity it is also certified, that the above mentioned Mr. Sacchi has been dismissed merely from motives of economy, and for the prefer ence alone which older servants in her service ought to have.

CAROLINE,

Princess of Wales,

The Attorney-General proposed to give in evidence the certificate produced by Majochi, referring to the evidence (in page 413); and it appearing on the fur ther evidence that Schiavini (in whose handwriting it was proved to be) was marshal of the palace, and that he had in several instances given certificates to the servants.

Mr. Brougham, on the contrary, insisted that though it appeared by the testimony of Madame Demont that Schiavini" several times" had given certificates, yet those very words implied that somebody else gave them at other times.

The Lord-Chancellor referred to the evidence of Francesco di Rollo, who had received a certificate from the hands and in the writing of the Princess herself. He thought that no sufficient ground had been laid for reading the certificate of Majochi.

The House decided accordingly, and it was rejected. The Attorney-General stated to the House, that he

had an application to make of considerable importance; that certain persons resident at Lugano, who were intended to be produced as witnesses, had set out in order to give their evidence; that they had advanced as far as Beauvais, when reports and rumours had reached them that certain persons who had come here for the purpose of giving evidence, had been extremely ill treated at Dover; that they were alarmed, and in consequence of the apprehensions they entertained, they went before the magistrates at Beauvais on the 27th of July, and made a deposition to that effect, and not thinking it prudent to proceed, had returned to Lugano; that this deposition being received in this country, persons were immediately dispatched, in the hope of overtaking them before they had reached their home, but that they had reached their home before they could be overtaken; that on Monday last, letters had been received from Lucerne, near to the residence of the witnesses in question, in which it was stated, that those witnesses had altered their determination, and were about, on the following day, the 29th of August, to set out for England for the, purpose of giving evidence; that as their arrival might therefore be expected in a very few days, he begged to ask of their lordships an adjournment, to permit that evidence, which he conceived to be important, to be laid before the House. He had felt it his duty to mention these circumstances, and to ask their lordships whether, in an anxious desire that this great subject should be thoroughly and properly investigated, they did not think the application for a short delay fit and reasonable.

Mr. Brougham, in resisting the application, said, that the only analogy to guide the House was to be found in the proceedings of courts below: there, such a motion as that the remainder of a trial should be postponed when it had been half gone through, because a material witness was absent had never yet been heard of. Motions of the kind were invariably made before the trial commenced, and then the party must swear to the importance of the testimony, to his inability to procure the attendance of the witness, and his expectation that in a short time he might be procured, was generally added in the affidavit. As, however, by the forms of the House, affidavits could not be admitted, he presumed that it would be required those points should be established at the bar. He was ready to assume therefore that the